Wikipedia:Teahouse#Nesting infobox inside each other

Hello Teahouse! I'm not a new user but I am still getting the hang of a few things on WP. Most recently, I've been trying to add userboxes to my page and have them set out quite neatly in rows of 4. However, no matter what I do (in the visual or source editor) I can't seem to get things to line up. I'm somewhat at my wit's end! I'd greatly appreciate any pointers or information on why things aren't lining up, so I can rectify it.

Many thanks! Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Fwltur Gwydr, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Does WP:Userboxes#Grouping userboxes help? ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this is exactly what I was looking for! Thank you Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wow!so helpful to know!

i hvae just been using ancient coding knowledge of:

<br>

<br>

which also works I&I22 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dahawk04 has issued a "Level 2 warning" against my account and described my work as vandalism. Please explain why properly. This was not necessary and should be taken back.Yankinthebank (talk) Yankinthebank (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what the edit in question was meant to achieve. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was defined as: "Put 'em in the dark, feed 'em shit and watch 'em  grow."  

Was not only unsourced but did not appear to add value to the article. If another editor would like to support adding it back I have no opposition to this. Dahawk04 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Courtesy diff: Special:Diff/1299986345)
@Dahawk04: Well, the wikilink right there takes you to The Soul of a New Machine, which references the same line. Just a little bit of research would bring you to page 109 of The Soul of a New Machine, which reads: Alsing believed the team’s managers [...] were practicing what was called “the mushroom theory of management.” [...] The Eclipse Group’s managers defined it as follows: “Put ’em in the dark, feed ’em shit, and watch ’em grow.” It obviously wasn't vandalism, so you might want to retract that warning. — DVRTed (Talk) 17:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yankinthebank, your original edits were unreferenced and included a profanity. Also worth noting, the warning you received was worded very mildly. Accordingly, calling that message "invalid" is incorrect. It was left in good faith. You have added back the content with a proper reference, and no one now objects. I suggest that you drop the matter and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DVRTed, what seems obvious to you may not be obvious to someone who sees unreferenced addition of a quote including the word "shit". Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Cullen328 much appreciated and agree on your commentary Dahawk04 Talk 💬 04:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yankinthebank: I can see that your edit was described as "nonconstructive". Where was it called "vandalism"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed"? — DVRTed (Talk) 02:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can also see it on his @Yankinthebank talk page. Mandlerex (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I’m anonymous, so can you please explain on why is social media not a reliable source and why it should never be used as one to cite with? Are there any examples of social media not being a reliable source, and what if you see one? Thank you. 76.81.111.218 (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social Media is not a reliable in most cases, but sometimes it could be used as a primary source, depending on context. However, in most of the article, the reason we don't use social media is because they are filled with bias, misinformation and individual's creation. According to our core policies, WP: Guidelines, sources must be independent, published, and subject to editorial oversight. But that doesn't mean they are completely unreliable, you can use YouTube link to indicate the existence of a channel or a specific video, you can use reddit to indicate a thread dicussion that is important for the article, let's say you want to indicate that Brian Cox said X in his reddit discussion about Black Hole. It is when we talk about actual and proved facts, we need certain amount of secondary sources (non-social media) for the authenticity and only sources that are reliable. See WP: Reliable sources if you want to learn more. Cheers! Sys64 message this user 00:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Social media is not considered as a reliable source. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 03:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP. In short, resources posted on social media are only as reliable as the person who published it. A YouTube video released by the New York Times could be reliable, but a random tweet you stumble upon on Twitter is not reliable. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social media is full of fake news. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were some good answers offered in this recent response to a similar question. Are you the same person who asked that question?

Social media is not a reliable source because anyone can say anything on it, and there's no process that ensures that only true and verifiable information is published there.

If you see social media being used for "extraordinary claims", to establish notability, or for claims about a person/group/thing other than the one who authored the social media post, you can remove the citation and information from the article. -- Avocado (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if there is a need for a separate page for pediatric catatonia. While I believe there is significant coverage on it, I don't know if it's different enough to warrant it's own page. Ailurophobic (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't hurt to have an article on it, if you can work on it while remembering the guidelines. Cheers!

P.S. I did some researches and I think the phenomenon is indeed something that requires its own article. Sys64 message this user 00:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have three sources that are reliable for medical topics per WP:MEDRS and that pass the criteria at WP:42? If so, the subject is notable enough to have its own article. That doesn't, however, mean it must have its own article.

Creating a new article that passes all the criteria to be published is a major challenge, and you're likely to find it easier to do after you've made hundreds of edits to existing articles and been involved in discussions about them. For an easier path, you could start by incorporating some information into our article on catatonia, describing how it's different in pediatric cases. That may be easier to accomplish than publishing an entire separate article. Then, if sufficient information is added to make the original article unwieldy, it may become time to split off a new article.

You've also chosen a topic (medicine) where we have a higher bar for contributions than for the rest of the encyclopedia. I don't know if you're a medical professional, but it's especially difficult to contribute in that field for non-experts. You may want to visit WP:Wikiproject Medicine and WP:MEDHOW to get oriented. Introducing yourself and re-asking this question on the talk page at WT:MED may get you some better advice and support than we generalists at the Teahouse can offer.

If you do decide to start a new article, please read WP:YFA and WP:BACKWARDS -- following the advice there will help you succeed in getting the article accepted. -- Avocado (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new contributor. How would I create separate drafts about Hawaiian culture and language words? Is media in Hawaii a reliable source? Does same count with academic journals in Hawaii? BlueWater5245 (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueWater5245: You probably shouldn't. Hawaiian culture is already heavily covered at Hawaii#Culture, and the Hawaiian language already has its own article at Hawaiian language. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlueWater5245 Whatever your intended subject might be, you probably shouldn't. Not yet, anyway. Your list of contributions shows that you have so far made a total of zero edits to existing articles. There's no obligation to get experience in improving existing articles before embarking on drafts for entirely new ones; but starting out by essaying a draft is very likely to lead to unnecessary work both for you and for other editors (well-meant writing, then deletion of same because it's inappropriate, etc). ¶ I'm not sure what you mean by "about Hawaiian culture and language words". This is an encyclopedia and therefore generally describes concepts rather than words; still, Category:Hawaiian words and phrases may interest you. (Don't assume that everything there is good, or indeed that every article listed there should even exist.) There's no article on the morphology of Hawaiian, and morphology goes unmentioned in the article Hawaiian grammar. ¶ You ask if the media in Hawaii are reliable sources. I'd be surprised if they didn't, as elsewhere, range from utter garbage all the way up to reliably reliable. ¶ These days many journals with academic trappings are "predatory", publishing mere junk, to fool the gullible. But many are as good as they've ever been. One good idea to see what a journal's publisher is known for. (Having an impressive-sounding name -- "International Institute of [whatever]" or similar -- means nothing.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueWater5245: If at some point you do use media citations, I would recommend that you ensure that whatever link you use as a citation is also archived at the Internet Archive. I have found that Hawaiian news outlets seem to change owners fairly frequently, & new owners tend to reorganize the websites including dropping many pages.

For books & journals, I recommend using WorldCat (see WorldCat). If one peruses the WorldCat records for a particular book or journal, & sometimes an article, one can often find an online source. I also recommend using the citer tool to prepare citation, as it can format citations using the data from WorldCat items by using https://citer.toolforge.org/?input_type=oclc. Peaceray (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Is there a reason on why BFDI never have an article on its own? Why does this page got deleted way too many times? 76.81.111.210 (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can guess. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 02:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you will find a very full explanation at Wikipedia:BFDI.Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I want to add climate data to some articles based on https://prism.oregonstate.edu/explorer/, which has 800m climate data resolution.

However, occasionally, I will have to adjust for altitude by trying to use an assumed lapse rate (mainly on mountains, using the classic 6.5 C/km).

How do I go about this, and how can I cite the exact climate data location? Furthermore, if I do make adjustments based on a generally agreed-upon lapse rate, how do I add that to a citation? (Would it require me to make a website) Antarctican2606 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Antarctican2606. The Teahouse is for asking and answering general questions about editing Wikipedia. You should not assume that Teahouse hosts have deep knowledge of climate data. Some of your comments indicate that you do not yet understand how things are presented on Wikipedia. When you casually mention generally agreed-upon lapse rate, my immediate response is agreed upon by whom and where? When you mention the classic 6.5 C/km, who calls this "classic" and where is it explained? Those are rhetorical questions. As for making a website, you are just another anonymous Wikipedia editor and any website that you create would not be a reliable source on Wikipedia. Please read No original research, which is a core content policy. In summary, you can only use climate data analysis techniques described and verified by reliable published sources that you cite, not any techniques that you develop yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask for specialist advice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Climate task force. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wanted to explain about the Kayli Millis edit that is removed which is about the Kinich recasting drama? I wanted to explain that I think we should do the best of both worlds since we can't keep the info away about this drama forever but we need to had a accurate info of the situation. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @CrusaderToonamiUK. I haven't a clue what this is about (except looking at your editing history), but if you have a disagreement with other editors (which is perfectly normal in Wikipedia) the thing to do is to discuss it with those other editors on the article's talk page, and try to reach consensus. If you are collectively unable to reach consensus, then WP:DR tells you further next steps.

Appealing on a general-purpose noticeboard like this serves no useful purpose. ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, good day! I created an account on the English Wikipedia 22 days ago, mainly to fight against vandalism, I am an active participant! Can you give me the status of "Rollbackers"? Thanks! (I love yourwiki (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@I love yourwiki: To request the rollbacker permission, go to Wikipedia:RFRB and click on "add request" below the "Rollback" heading. Note that "a month of experience patrolling Special:RecentChanges" is required. Deor (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okey (I love yourwiki (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I’m trying to submit a revised draft for ‘Dharmnandan Live Puff House’ with reliable sources (News18, Zomato) and neutral tone. The filter keeps blocking me. Could someone review or help me bypass this? Parasvs (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Parasvs The edit filter is working properly: you made promotional edits. Carefully read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. qcne (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Would whether or not to put a comma after a short introductory (time) phrase be considered a Wikipedia 'style'—and therefore fall under the Wikipedia MoS? Sean the Moray (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean the Moray I would probably not use a comma there, but context is everything. Can you please quote the complete sentence? Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, for example:

”In the 1700s, the castle fell into disrepair.”

I was just wondering, as I had a few of my edits reverted for including a comma in an introductory time phrase. The article I was editing already had commas after introductory time phrases so I thought I’d add a comma for consistency within the article? Sean the Moray (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean the Moray IMO that comma isn't necessary, especially in such a brief sentence. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not even if every other introductory time phrase in the article used a comma? To maintain consistency? Sean the Moray (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean the Moray: If I remember correctly, you would use a comma. "In the 1700s" is an introductory phrase, so you use a comma for it, even though it's a simple sentence. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did they just change some of the fields in the file-upload wizard? I was just trying to upload a non-free file for a book cover and it appears different fields are present and it is confusing me. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the wizard on Wikimedia Commons, then for some value of "just": yes. It was changed a few months ago. You can ask for help at c:Com:Help desk. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a draft a while back about the Five Night's at Freddys child actor Piper Rubio. Assuming she continues to progress in her acting career, she will surely become notable enough for an article in a year or two. She's already appearing in the FNAF sequel movie later this year.

Anyways a user made it into a mainspace article a little while ago, even though it was not ready at all and had been a failed AFC submission multiple times. That user seems to have since been banned and the draft for Piper Rubio was also deleted.

Any way I could recover the draft? Either in the draft space or somewhere else, such as in a user sandbox page?

Thanks in advance for a response to anyone who responds! Greshthegreat (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Greshthegreat.

Articles called "Piper Rubio" have been deleted four times. The most recent one, in January 25, was deleted by @Jimfbleak as Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The previous occasion was in 2023, and the conclusion was WP:TOOSOON; so it's possible that there are now adequate sources.

But given the reason for the most recent deletion, I doubt whether Jimfbleak would undelete it for you - you would need to start again with reliable sources - but you can ask him.

I've pinged Jimfbleak here, so he should see this message. ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have often wondered why editors who are trying to rework a deleted draft want to have the deleted draft refunded, rather than starting from what you know about the person or company. (The drafts are usually biographies or occasionally about companies.) Starting with a version of the article that was deleted is not a good start because it is likely to result in carrying over the same defects as the original had. Versions of articles that were speedily deleted as promotion, G11, are almost never undeleted. You would be more likely to be able to get a copy of the version that was deleted as too soon, but I would suggest starting from what you know. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Greshthegreat - I see that you have created a draft, Draft:Piper Rubio. I have not reviewed it and am not ready to comment on it, but I encourage you to try to improve it. You don't need any of the deleted articles to work on your draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, that draft is, as far as I can tell, identical to the deleted one. According to the deleted history, a sockpuppet of a banned user created the draft and then moved it to article space, and then Greshthegreat moved it back to draft space, after which the draft was WP:G5 speedy-deleted due to who created it. ~Anachronist (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greshthegreat, you say "she will surely become notable enough for an article in a year or two". So, wait until then before you start work on an article. It will me much easier once the necessary sources exist. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Greshthegreat: the draft is worthless, nothing that establishes notability and the supposed refs were IMDB and Wikipedia, neither of which is remotely acceptable. Nor, for that matter, is her own Instagram, which you have used in your draft. How is that an independent, reputable third-party source? ColinFine, thanks for ping Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Greshthegreat, I suggest you read WP:BACKWARDS. ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at WP:BACKWARDS. Thanks for suggesting that to read. Greshthegreat (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Gibson (author) (article was deleted)

Hello everyone

I was wondering how the neutrality of an article ist determined. On a delete discussion I brought up a Delete-recommendation since I considerd the article not neutral, as some other editors also have pointed out on the talk page. I got an answer from a very experienced user stating that:

"And there has been no decision anywhere about NPOV in the article" and

"That is not the way Wikipedia works. Opinions of random editors aren't proof of anything"

Frankly I was a bit shocked about the comment, that opinions of "random editors" can aparently simply be dismissed. Is this true? Also I was left wondering, how the decision is taken that an article is not neutral? What is the process here? I'd be glad if someone could show me what I missed. Thanks!

Azrl26 (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Azrl26, and welcome to the Teahouse.

First, I'll say that articles are not generally deleted just for being non-neutral, except perhaps if the consensus is that the article is so fundamentally flawed that it would need to be started again from the beginning.

Secondly, in a sense, everything is "opinions of random editors". But decisions are made by

consensus, which is a way of making sure that opinions of different editors are balanced. If one editor thinks something is not appropriate (for whatever reason), they can either edit it, or start a discussion. If others agree, then perhaps it will be changed in line with their opinion; if nobody else agrees, it won't. ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @ColinFine

I see, "TNT" :D . So what if no consensus is reached? I had the impression when an editor with a certain level of experience disagrees with a change to his edit he reverts and says no consensus has been reached, but when I claim his edit to be based on wrong facts he can simply keep the edit as is without consensus? If a few editors (of unknown experience) claim lack of neutrality on the discussion page, their opinions "aren't proof of anything" and apparently no consensus has been reached either. Seems very unfair to me. Azrl26 (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally experienced editors are more aware of Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, and write things in articles that are backed up by sources. "Neutrality" in this case isn't governed by editor opinion, but by the consensus found in reliable sources. Newer editors are more likely to view an article as "biased" because it disagrees with their worldview and therefore cannot be "neutral". Articles about contentious topics are prone to this. The bias in articles reflects the bias in reliable sources, and this is intentional. We don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE here. Equal weight isn't given to minority viewpoints. ~Anachronist (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anachronist and thanks for the reply.

I understand that, some editors are more reliable than others and that the viewpoints of sources do not need to be neutral. In this concrete case the issue was, that one side was not explained at all, which some editors thought was (clearly?!) unfair, but for some experienced editors it was completely okay, since it was just an article about a particular fringe theory anyway. Allright I think I see how authority is distributed and has to be earned first. Thank you both for your time and explanations! Azrl26 (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last version before deletion said "He is the author of Early Islamic Qiblas: A survey of mosques built between 1AH/622 C.E. and 263 AH/876 C.E, which advances the claim that early mosques were oriented towards Petra, rather than towards Mecca or Jerusalem as traditionally accepted by archaeologists and historians of Islam. His books are self-published, some through CanBooks and others through Independent Scholars Press, an imprint of CanBooks.

The Petra Thesis

According to Gibson, the orientation of mosques built in the early Islamic period does not fit the contemporary direction of prayer in Islam, the Qibla. Historians like David A. King dispute this, saying that astronomical and other factors determined the Qibla in this period. According to Gibson, 17 early mosques point towards the site of Petra which he claims to be intentional. Gibson says that the origin of Islam must have been in Petra, rather than Mecca." Doug Weller talk 14:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the Azri26 has done little editing outside of Gibson, pretty much a single purpose account. See also User talk:Dangibson9#Making the article about you neutral and fair. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I didn't mean to start a new debate here. I just wanted to know how the system works. The article got deleted anyway, which seems to be best compromise. Apologies for not pinging you. Azrl26 (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said "opinions of 'random editors' can ... simply be dismissed". You even quote what you were—quite rightly—told (by User:Doug Weller, whom you have not notified of this discussion, despite quoting him here), which is that "Opinions of random editors aren't proof of anything". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I did not know one has to ping users when mentioning them. I'll keep that in mind. Azrl26 (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a rule that you must, @Azrl26; but it fosters communication and collaboration. Would you like it if people talked about you without notifying you? ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wanted to prevent starting a new debate since I have bothered him about this topic long enough. Also, I didn't intend to publicly complain about him. He has been very helpful. Azrl26 (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to publish updated information on my company's page but keep getting this error message:

Your edit has triggered an automated filter and has been disallowed. It looks like you're trying to add an email address to this page. Doing that, especially with a personal email address, is usually a bad idea as it can attract large amounts of spam. Though there are a few legitimate reasons to include an email address, in most cases Wikipedia will remove email addresses that are added to articles or discussion pages.

I have not included any email addresses or information about email within the article. There are two outside links--the company website and a news article that is cited.

What do I do???? LikewiseOfficial (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were trying to add, "Pix is accessible throughout the Likewise platform as well as directly via SMS text message (text <>) or email <email>". You should probably read and comprehend WP:COI before anything else. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As well as WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’ve written a draft article in English about the French drummer Raphael Pannier, and would appreciate a copy-edit or general review before moving it to mainspace.

Here is the draft: fr:Utilisateur:Jazzlover123/Brouillon

Thanks a lot in advance for any help or feedback! Jazzlover123 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! You seem to have posted this draft on the French version of Wikipedia; you will want to post it here through our Articles for Creation process which I have linked for you. If you have any issues with uploading it there, just let me know! Best, CoconutOctopus talk 21:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a draft article already at Draft:Raphael Pannier. Jazzlover123, I'd suggest you continue your work on that version instead, and submit it for review when it's ready. --rchard2scout (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Henry Attwell

I like to get Professor Henry Attwell BIO on Wikipedia - and my first draft was rejected. Who would help me and educate me on how to get this Professor on here?

He was private Tudor for Prince Willem Of Orange (1840 -1879), he is registered in the Vatican as a writer/translator and Teacher. He got knighted with the order of the Oak Crown by King Willem III ( I have his original document )

He has 14 Books on https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/1951006. Henry_Attwell

His daughter got married to the son of Prof. Lionel Smith Beale

I also find this: d:Q65644473

And also in the netherlands where he was a professor at the university of Leiden: https://hoogleraren.universiteitleiden.nl/s/hoogleraren/item/12

Here is my first attempt: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AHenry_Attwell&oldid=prev&diff=1299872939

in bookstore: https://www.waterstones.com/author/henry-attwell/2122624

Let me know...

Thanks in advance JoanShumei (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, and welcome to Wikipedia! Your draft has no sources. As stated in the decline notice, everything stated must be backed up by WP:Reliable sources. GoldRomean (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several cited reliable independent sources say about the subject, and little else. Writing one starts with finding the sources, and then proceeds to summarise what they say, citing them as appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JoanShumei, you give the reader no good reason not to suspect that the whole draft is a hoax. For a start towards dispelling that impression, where exactly did "Dutch Sport Historicist Jan Luitzen" publish his writing about Atwell? Add this information, in a proper reference. (Also, I suspect that the photograph is not really your own work.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi see for Jan Luitzen his publication here: https://www.noorthey.com/genootschap-noorthey/over-noorthey/ and also here: https://www.amazon.nl/-/en/Jan-Luitzen/dp/946021052X/ref=sr_1_4?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.UPGrrJMD7m7n1BCOfRtQk2I8ElXW2CFrnuIN__9kGdC_pYz-zigTVGVA1MzCLo0akbDdXdZEEIj_P4ZlO2yuwpnMWyB5naQwtHCqiYF3i3oZsXehrrrLSr46eu8zdV1ziMkgclu-kwGN4B6KYasgFbOg8e_ACPUk4I9uC7yJO4pSYxuXhG8zdlIkDvpGh3eO_4k4NDB99LnZo0y35xyXqeBxnzzLFueJykSVcOlYVjHtsa1Tq3YmlkAWw5N14y1iWcZAOu0QRWGB9jr0uBCIhyGUtjhPzQzZ7ClEqV3cEvs.4glzmPdMCytgxhMlBmUCDjjkIjtVchsHKfA0PMd0cOU&dib_tag=se&keywords=Jan+Luitzen&qid=1752428461&sr=8-4

About the photo I have updated the photo with a Colorized version - the photos are my personal property - I am the owner of the Attwell Archive. If yuou like more photos please let me know (give detail what you like to see) Kind regards, JoanShumei (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JoanShumei, the string "Attwell" doesn't appear in either of the web pages to which you link. If you mean that the information is from a book that's the subject of the Amazon page, then provide the information about the book (author(s), title, place, publisher, year, page(s), ISBN). And do so not here but in the draft (which is still completely unreferenced). -- Hoary (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the search function allows me to find all articles containing a word and sort them by creation date or last edited date. However, this isn't what I'm looking for, as it includes articles that already had that word before being edited. I only want to identify articles where a specific word has been newly added. Is there any way to do this? Frap (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Teahouse! I am interested in rewriting an article (Affine variety) on my userspace since I want to be able to take my time with my edits while not disrupting the current article as I make my edits. I'm not quite sure what the procedures are on doing rewrites of articles in userspace, so I'd like to know where I can go to look into that. I have seen information on drafts, but that's more so for new articles, whereas this article is pre-existing and I just want a separate place to work on my edits before merging into the article. I presume that making separate rewrites would be as simple as making a subpage under my userspace where I can make my rewrites, but I'm not sure if I need to make any templates or notes on that subpage to indicate its sole purpose is for rewriting. All help, advice, and tips on this would be appreciated! Gramix13 (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything you've said is totally fine, the most I would probably worried about is attribution for copyright reasons (WP:Copying within Wikipedia) but since it'll just be you copying your own work around it should be okay (someone correct me if I'm wrong). GoldRomean (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that that should be all right unless you and another editor are quarreling about the article. A few months ago, I saw a similar case where an editor was trying to rewrite an article in draft space, and they and another editor were quarreling, and the other editor nominated the draft for deletion at MFD as a content fork. I will check what the resolution of that was. I voted to Keep at MFD. That was an ugly situation, and I don't think it applies to your situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help reviewing draft biography

Hello, and thank you in advance for your time.

I’ve recently submitted a draft titled Draft:Yousseif Abdellatif4, which is a biographical article about an Egyptian political writer and former local council member. The draft has been written carefully to follow Wikipedia’s standards regarding neutral point of view, reliable sourcing, and notability (WP:GNG and WP:BIO).

All statements are backed by independent and verifiable sources, including multiple published articles in reliable news platforms.

I’m kindly asking if an experienced editor could review the draft or provide guidance. If any issues remain that prevent it from being accepted, I would highly appreciate feedback or suggestions to improve it.

Here is the link: Draft:Yousseif Abdellatif4

Thanks again for your support and time! 156.209.52.181 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP. An experienced editor, Tenshi Hinanawi, has reviewed your draft and provided guidance, stating an issue that prevents it from being accepted - AI (which I suspect has been used on this message as well). You shouldn't use AI on Wikipedia for any reason, and I suggest re-writing the draft in your own words. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse is intended to be a friendly forum for inexperienced editors to get advice from experienced editors. I have also found it to be a reasonable place for experienced editors to get advice about giving advice to inexperienced editors. So I am asking here a question that I didn't get an answer to at the Village Pump. I am not asking for opinions on whether the lab leak theory article is neutral, which is a contentious topic, but I would like advice on whether I gave the right advice to an editor who wants to put a neutrality tag on the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a neutral experienced editor to look at a case at DRN and comment on whether they agree with my handling, and whether they have any advice either for me or for the filing editor. The dispute is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19_Lab_Leak_Theory. I see two-and-one-half questions, one substantive question and two related procedural questions. The substantive question is whether the article's presentation of the lab leak theory is neutrally written to reflect what reliable sources have written. The procedural questions are how Just-a-can-of-beans should try to discuss their concern that they want changes made to the article, and what advice a neutral mediator should give to Just-a-can-of-beans. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the monsters list removed remember each monster from each episode? Why was it removed I don’t see it Lordofcallofduty (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lordofcallofduty, whichever article it is that you're asking about, it has a history and a talk page. If the history doesn't tell you, then ask on the talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Entertainment complex was once pointed to Family entertainment center before getting deleted because of XfD outcome. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 15#Entertainment complex.

While I don't like the outcome itself I think it's kinda weird to have red link on articles which once have this link as a blue link so I restored it as a disambiguation page. My intent was less of having the disambiguation page remain in place of the redirect but more so that someone would come to fix the now disambiguated links on to point them to the correct pages.

Is there any automation tools to simplify the procedure? 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 03:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the disambiguation page got deleted while I was typing the above message. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 03:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why {{font color|red|{{tag|ref|close}}}} displays as </ref> and not as expected (</ref>). Thanks for any insight. 176.108.139.1 (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary question: Is an update in the documentation for either of these templates needed to explain this behaviour? 176.108.139.1 (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{tag}} uses <code>...</code> to format its output. This adds its own color #101418 (basically black) which "wins". I don't think this needs to be added to the documentation. If we did add something then it should probably be general like "The color may be overridden by something else in some circumstances." PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 176.108.139.1 (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The system of moving things into draftspace works fairly well when the article has some obvious problem. It does not work well when the article is serious and requires subject matter knowledge. Draft:Caribbean timeline for the seventeenth century was moved into draftspace apparently because it looks odd. The problem is that each island has its own history and the only way I could find to index everything was with a timeline. Could someone who knows about the Caribbean check this and suggest what should be done with it? Benjamin Trovato (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Trovato, that draft certainly has problems. I started reading it, and saw "1608: Tuscany sends expedition to Guyana". I thought "that's interesting, I had never considered Tuscany as a colonial nation". So I wanted to read more about this expedition. But there's no link or reference. Then I realised that nothing in the timeline is referenced. I also saw "1620: Massachusetts by Puritans". Massachusetts is not in the Caribbean. Maproom (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Tuscany was linked. I made the link clearer. 2. Massachusetts, Jamestown, Brazil, the Guyanas and so on are there because the Caribbean was the center of non-Iberian expansion into the new world and events there cannot be understood by looking at the Caribbean alone. 3. The thing is a mess because the facts are a mess. A timeline was the only way I could find to fit everything together. Maybe there's a better way.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain to me why my article about Astrology is offensive. Williamerdmannsys327680 (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your article isn't offensive, but it doesn't fit with the purpose of what Wikipedia is. See these articles: Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was titled "ASTROLOGY A PERSONAL APPROACH" (yes, all capitals). This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of personal approaches. And it already has articles about astrology. -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, Wikipedia isn't your personal web host. If you aren't here to build an encyclopedia based on human knowledge that has been published in verifiable sources deemed reliable with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then you need to find some other venue. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to add a comment on the Talk page of WikiProject Rivers, referencing content found on an old archive page in that WikiProject. What's the format I should use to include a link to that content? The content I'd like to reference / link to is an entry on Archive 2 of that particular WikiProject. Thanks Exceat (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can just use a normal wikilink, like this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers/Archive 2. If you want to link a particular section, add that section's heading after a number sign #. For example: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers/Archive 2#Names for Lists of rivers. Does that answer your question? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Does anyone know which colour belongs to the Swedish ninth football tier in the "Season to season" table. I am trying to add divisional info about Smögens IF, which briefly played in the Swedish ninth tier. Finding the standardised eigth tier colour was hard enough, but ninth is almost impossible. If anyone knows which colour is used, please let me know!

(On a side note, perhaps this article isn't a stub anymore, thanks to the edits I've made...) Rockfighterz M (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'd do better to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Sweden task force. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello everyone - if you check the view history section of the Boots on the Ground song article, you will note a section that had been removed by an editor, with an explanation. I undid the edit and provided an explanation, supported by citations. I return some time later to see that possibly another editor removed the section again, this time with no explanation. I undid the edit and provided an explanation as before. There is no way to know if this is the same editor as before because their entry is marked 'page does not exist'. I hope this doesn't happen again, but in the meantime, I welcome feedback from other editors on handling this situation. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both IP numbers are in North Carolina, ProfessorKaiFlai; my guess is that this was the same person. As an edit summary, "Removed small vague opinionated paragraph" was mendacious. "Revision" was vapid. You were right to restore. -- Hoary (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day everyone

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

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

Cheers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Andy, yes I certainly did, thank you.

I would suggest:

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

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

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

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

Hi there, thanks for your reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the life of me I see no way to copy a link to an article that I'm viewing on my Android phone using the Wikipedia app, which seems a weird oversight. The hamburger menu on the top left shows no such option and there is no other menu. Do I need to delete the app and go back to using a mobile browser? PapagenoPDX (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Android app, I long-press my finger on a link, and after a second a menu pops up giving me an option to copy the link. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply but what you describe is what I'd do if I were simply using a browser.

Actually someone on another forum suggested I update the app. The weird part is that I have almost all apps set to auto-update, so why wouldn't this one have updated? Also when I went to the Google Play store to see what was up, I couldn't find it in the "Manage apps" list. So I ended up deleting the old app (uninstalling it) and reinstalling from the Google Play store, and this time there's a three dot menu on the upper right that has a Share option.

Very strange all around. Almost as if I didn't have a real "app" installed but rather some weird "appified" browser page, as I use with certain forums I frequent, like Ars Technica and QuarterToThree. Anyway all is well now with the new app, although I disabled all the cruft and told it to just show me the main page upon opening. PapagenoPDX (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you asked how to copy a link in the Android Wikipedia app, and I describe how I do it on the Wikipedia app on my Android phone. The fact that you might do it the same way on a browser is beside the point. Maybe it isn't clear exactly what you want to do. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't explain the issue properly in my OP. I didn't mean to ask about sharing a link from within a Wikipedia article, but rather sharing a link that takes one to the whole article one is viewing/reading. For some reason I either had an outdated or possibly impostor version of the Android Wikipedia app before, and the three vertical dot menu on the upper right was missing, that in the updated version has "share" as its top item. In that old outdated version of the app I would likely have been able to copy a link included within an article as you indicate, but now I'll never know. In any case the newest version of the app lets me do it all. PapagenoPDX (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an option to copy the link under the "share" menu. It's on the first line, and looks like a square with a shadow, but without a text caption.

BTW, make sure you are using the official Wikipedia app, and not some other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing the wikipedia company page Draft:Xpertnest it's in draft and it is declined but 100s of news articles are there and added 15 articles but could not accepted by saying "Sources are all either WP:ORGTRIV, press releases, or paid advertorial pieces." please support me Bibhutipattnayak (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if all your sources are trivial, paid, or press releases, then you need to find other sources. I haven't looked closely, but there is always a good chance that this company doesn't meet the notability criteria for a wikipedia article. At least 3 sources that meet the three criteria at WP:42 will establish notability, and only after that is done you may add some less-ideal sources to verify non-trivial information.

Also another note: the grammar will need some fixing, and there's no reason for every instance of the company's name to be a redlink to the future article namespace page. The first use of the name is bold, all other times it is just part of the regular text. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Also, why one one-sentence paragraph after another? It gets tiresome. And do you dislike pronouns for some reason? (No need for "Xpertnest" when "it" would work instead.) However, first you have to demonstrate that the company is notable -- according to Wikipedia's definition of notability, not yours or mine. -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Bibhutipattnayak, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The thing to remember is that 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 start by finding several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42. If you can find them, then you need to effectively forget anything you may know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say.

While what you are writing may informally be called a "company page", I suggest that you instead think if it as "an encyclopaedia article about the company", as that does not have the connotation of it belonging to the company. ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I go to see the most viewed pages on Wikipedia that are not articles? I looked on the pages that display the page views, but I couldn't find any that exclude articles. I found a page list of the most edits outside mainspace alright but couldn't find one with views. The reason why I am asking this question is because I am trying to make Wikipedia a more user-friendly place and I'd be curious to know how pages like this forum where I wrote my question fall when it comes to page views. Basically, it helps me prioritize which pages on Wikipedia I should promote when guiding new and experienced editors through Wikipedia. I know some pages get a lot of views, but not a lot of edits, so any answer you can provide me would help a lot. Interstellarity (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this Teahouse page isn't an article, and I can see page views just fine here: https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Wikipedia:Teahouse ~Anachronist (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to see a list or find the most viewed, but Help:Introduction and WP:ABOUT also gets a lot per the tool above; my guess is the pages most commonly seen in templates such as Template:Welcome (and WP:ABOUT is at the bottom of every page). GoldRomean (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Interstellarity, if you really need to do this for some reason, you can create a quarry query to get all pages not in mainspace, and then use the quarry result as the source on https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org. Just note that it's very resource-intensive (and might even fail due to rate limits?) Regards, — DVRTed (Talk) 07:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DVRTed This is my first time running quarry queries, so it would help if you could point me to help pages that I could read to figure this out. Interstellarity (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Interstellarity! When I said really need, I really meant it. That approach is almost only theoretically possible unless you significantly narrow down the pages you want to see pageviews of and put a lot of effort into it.
For instance, I created a query to get names of all the pages in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. It ended up running for more than 20 minutes and returned 1,347,357 pages! As you can probably guess, we can't just slap that many pages onto some tools and expect them to not break.
My suggestion is for you to make a list of possibly popular pages and manually check their stats.
If you want to learn about Quarry (hopefully not for this purpose), meta:Research:Quarry is a good place to start, along with browsing the schema (mw:Manual:Database layout). Looking at examples of other users' queries is probably also helpful if you're comfortable with SQL. Regards, — DVRTed (Talk) 14:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know the first thing to do in setting up my wiki. I was denied with what I've presented before. Please help. King Muja'Dib Jamel El'Sori-Oser (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi King Muja'Dib Jamel El'Sori-Oser, welcome to the Teahouse. As an administrator I can see the deleted User:King Muja'Dib Jamel El'Sori-Oser/sandbox. Wikipedia biographies should have independent reliable sources to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people), and they should not be made up. See also Wikipedia:Autobiography. Maybe Wikipedia:Alternative outlets has a suited place for your content like MicroWiki. We are not affiliated with them and I don't know their policies. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because it was blatantly and unambiguously promotional. It also appears to be a copyright violation of a Facebook page. Do not attempt to write about yourself on Wikipedia, please. And Wikipedia doesn't have permission to republish material that is already published elsewhere. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the puzzled: This is "the founder of Numi Kingdom Global Enterprise Corp. (NKGE Corp.), a global conglomerate valued at $500 million" and "a key figure in Africa’s financial and geopolitical resurgence". -- Hoary (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello, I'm a fan of an artist and was not aware that editing only a single subject might become an indication of coi and violation of npv. Now I have read all the COI guidelines and understood my mistake. And it says the tag can be removed once the problem is fixed. As the editor in question what can I do to fix the problem? Thank you Up85 (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now the artist page is tagged with coi and advert. After reading the guidelines I understand the problem that the template highlights but don't know how to solve it. Please help Up85 (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested: Wang Yibo, Wang Yibo discography, Exploring the Unknown with Wang Yibo. ("Artist", or taelleonteu?) -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by taelleonteu. But yes, this is the celebrity I like and made edits only on pages related to him. Up85 (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"editing only a single subject might become an indication of coi and violation of npv." - it might be an indication, but if you have no CoI and avoid PoV editing, it's perfectly acceptable to only edit in relation to one subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are maps in infoboxes on articles such as Lumen Field and Alaska Building connected to File:Seattle, WA - Downtown - OpenStreetMap.png? And what is the most efficient and safe way to update such OSM maps, for example to File:Downtown Seattle, Washington, OpenStreetMap, 14000 scale (2025).png (the Alaskan Way Viaduct is no longer present in the featured area). Additional guidelines and recommendations pertaining to using maps are welcome and appreciated. Thank you! OceanLoop (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MAPS is a good place to start reading; then Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read those resources prior to asking my question and did not reach an understanding. If you're familiar with this technology, please show me the relevation portion of the existing documentation. Of particular concern is updating these images at scale, and for this I am seeking mentorship, and frankly some hand-holding. I can request the same on those community pages, if you'd prefer. OceanLoop (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I suggest you ask on the talk page of the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello!

I have created a draft article about Vietnamese actress Nguyễn Thị Phương Thanh, who recently gained media coverage for her lead role in the 2025 horror film "Út Lan – Oán Linh Giữ Của".

The article includes reliable sources from Vietnamese mainstream media such as VnExpress, Kenh14, Dân Trí, and others.

I would like to kindly request assistance in moving the following draft to the article namespace:

Draft link: User:Tracy Kim Hieu/sandbox

Suggested title: Nguyễn Thị Phương Thanh (actress)

Thank you very much in advance! Tracy Kim Hieu (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Kim Hieu, I've moved it to Draft:Nguyễn Thị Phương Thanh. -- Hoary (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to think it's ready to be an article, I submitted it for you. -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently uploaded some images to Commons for use in articles, such as File:View from ISS Expedition 71, Ocosta, Washington, April 13, 2024 (ISS071-E-7792) (cropped).jpg

To my surprise, these images have been incorporated in other language Wikipedia pages, for example: cy:Ocosta, Washington, lld:Ocosta (Washington)

However, the history of these pages shows no recent changes. How did my Commons images get added to these articles (not that I am complaining); and is there anything I should do differently? Thank you! OceanLoop (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An image at Commons appears in any Wikipedia just as it appears in any other Wikipedia. (Has something given you the impression that [as examples] cy:Wikipedia and en:Wikipedia are related to Commons in different ways?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being more clear: what creates the association between some Commons uploads and some Wikipedia articles, if there are no recent edits to those respective pages? OceanLoop (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see what you mean, OceanLoop. You uploaded the file very recently (and not as a new version of a file with the same filename), yet it appears within cy:Ocosta, Washington, last edited in 2023. The latter doesn't have much content intended for human reading, but a fair amount of "source code". I'd guess that some programming jiggery-pokery somewhere says that it should import for its infobox certain data from the infobox of en:Ocosta, Washington. -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it queries Property:P18 from Wikidata, rather than enwiki, but your guess is probbably correct. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Victor Schmidt, that does seem likelier. -- Hoary (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many Wikipedias (including, in some cases, this one; for example using {{Infobox person/Wikidata}}) populate some or all of their infobox content from Wikidata. That is what you are seeing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OceanLoop: Yes, it happens because you added the image to the Wikidata item.[1] Others could also do this. All Wikipedias at wikidata:Q27989055#sitelinks-wikipedia can access the image. In this case all five also display it but that varies. The English Wikipedia only displays it because it was explicitly added to the infobox in Ocosta, Washington. Our infoboxes don't import as much from Wikidata as many other languages. If an infobox does automatically import from Wikidata then it usually also has an optional parameter to override the import but you said you were not complaining. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, so some Wikis simply automate infobox creation from Wikidata - smart. I have another related question, if I may -

I updated the Wikidata image for Thurston County (Q113773) but the change is only reflected on some Commons category pages, for example:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_of_Thurston_County,_Washington - updated image is shown

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Thurston_County,_Washington - previous image is shown

When I try to edit these Commons infoboxes, I am taken to the Wikidata entry, so what exactly gives? Thank you. OceanLoop (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OceanLoop: A purge of commons:Category:Maps of Thurston County, Washington updated the image. Pages are cached for performance reasons and don't automatically react to a Wikidata change. They do react to changes in local templates but that can be delayed. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would you please help me to improve my draft: Draft:Jang Kều (Phạm Thị Hương Giang)

Thanks [[User:TrangTH Nguyen|TrangTH Nguyen]] ([[User talk:TrangTH Nguyen|talk]]) (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TrangTH Nguyen, the most recent decline notice starts "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)." So I suppose that you hope that volunteers will look for "significant coverage" of this kind. That's unlikely to happen. -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hoary,

Thank for your reply. I wonder what is considered as significant coverage. For my article, I already cited more than 20 of the media about the subject. They are all reliable and independent of the subject, these are all news sites of major press agencies, some of which are state-run. There is also information from international websites. [[User:TrangTH Nguyen|TrangTH Nguyen]] ([[User talk:TrangTH Nguyen|talk]]) (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TrangTH Nguyen, take it to mean substantial coverage of non-peripheral aspects of the subject. (For an article about a cellist, one would expect coverage of her as a cellist, not just of her as the interior decorator of her house, as a home teacher, chess player, marathon runner, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangTH Nguyen I was struck by your over-use of boldface type. Please read the relevant manual of style at MOS:BOLD and amend your draft to conform to that. In some places where you have boldface, you may be able to WP:WIKILINK to other relevant articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ole Butt

I've expanded the page significantly today, but want to know the quality of the sources I used. Nighfidelity (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On Jesse Jackson, why doesn't this work?

{{About|the civil rights activist|his son, a former U.S. Representative from Illinois|Jesse Jackson Jr.}} {{For|the American baseball pitcher, see [[Jesse Jefferson]], and for the community organizer, see [[Jessie Jefferson]].}} {{Other uses|Jesse Jackson (disambiguation)}}

When I hit "preview", it shows this.

This article is about the civil rights activist. For his son, a former U.S. Representative from Illinois, see Jesse Jackson Jr.

For the American baseball pitcher, see Jesse Jefferson, and for the community organizer, see Jessie Jefferson., see Jesse Jackson (disambiguation).

For other uses, see Jesse Jackson (disambiguation).

What's up with this "see Jessie Jefferson., see Jesse Jackson (disambiguation)."? That last part comes out of nowhere. Is it not possible to consolidate this all into {{About}}? Thanks! — Smuckola(talk) 07:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Other uses|Jesse Jackson (disambiguation)}} creates For other uses, see Jesse Jackson (disambiguation). Lova Falk (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS In the article, it looks fine! Lova Falk (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smuckola: {{for}} normally has a second parameter with an article name to link. Otherwise it automatically links a "(disambiguation)" page. {{For-multi|the American baseball pitcher|Jesse Jefferson|the community organizer|Jessie Jefferson}} produces:

{{hatnote}} makes a formatted hatnote where you can write anything and nothing is generated automatically. But why do you want to link Jesse Jefferson and Jessie Jefferson? Their surnames aren't similar to Jackson and we don't wan't a lot of hatnotes to other people. That's what the link to Jesse Jackson (disambiguation) is for, but their names are also too different to be listed there. If you think any "Jess(i)e J" seems similar then see Special:PrefixIndex/Jesse J and Special:PrefixIndex/Jessie J. We don't make hatnotes or disambiguation pages for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Yeah thanks, I should have also asked if the question is moot in this case anyway regarding the content. So never mind about the content. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 17:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a question but who can upload non-free images? Extended confirmed? Nasi Goreng Ayam (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed/confirmed users. See Wikipedia:User_groups#Autoconfirmed_and_confirmed_users, quote:

Autoconfirmed/confirmed users can edit semi-protected pages and, except where prevented by protection, can create articles, move pages, and upload files (including new versions of existing files).

DinhHuy2010 (talk · contribs · logs · rights · email · sandbox · links to user page · global contribs) 08:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to change the name of a published page if I'm not an accredited user? Alternatively, how to delete the page? Infoaccount1234 (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infoaccount1234 Hello and welcome. As I said on your user talk page(which you may not have seen, that's okay), your account has no edits other than this one and one to another user. It would help us to know which page you are talking about. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Infoaccount1234: I see at fi:Special:Contributions/Infoaccount1234 that you have created two pages at the Finnish Wikipedia. If that's what you refer to then Wikipedia languages have different rules and processes. You will have to ask at the Finnish Wikipedia, maybe at fi:Wikipedia:Kahvihuone (Wikipedian käytön neuvonta). Or maybe you can find advice at fi:Ohje:Sivun siirtäminen and fi:Wikipedia:Poistokäytäntö. I don't know Finnish but found the pages in the interlanguage links of English pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hello Valebalavu679 (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valebalavu679 I assume you are referring to Draft:Jim Raiwalui, which seems to be your attempt at an autobiography and has been declined as an article, mainly because it had no citations to already-published sources that could verify what was written. Wikipedia is not social media and there are very strict rules about biographies of living people. We strongly discourage autobiography for the reasons mentioned in my earlier link. You will have a very frustrating time if you try to create one. On the other hand, editors are given their own user page, where you can briefly describe what you intend to contribute to the encyclopedia (see WP:UPYES). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Valebalavu679. Please don't try this.

If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (which mostly means that there has been material published about you by people completely unconnected with you) then eventually somebody will write an article about you. It will not be "your page", it will not be controlled by you, and it will not necessarily say what you want it to say.

As Mike says, trying to create an article about yourself is very unlikely to be successful, and you are likely to have frustration and disappointment. ColinFine (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

re: Draft:Henry Feinberg

I created a page about the creator of and details about the two-way communicator used in the movie E.T. I don’t understand why it was rejected Doglover.Coton (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We rely on articles demonstrating WP:NOTABILITY. You can read WP:42 for a lighter overview of this.

Basically, are other reliable sources talking about this topic, and can we demonstrate this?

I think your topic here is an interesting one. After all, E.T. is about as big as films get, and people do love iconic props from their favourites. But what's the topic here? Is it Henry Feinberg? or the ET communicator prop? Either one would need more sourcing. But also if it is Mr Feinberg, then it needs to tell us a lot more about him. What did he do before this? How did he become the person who Spielberg would approach to make the prop? What's he done since?

I think there's scope here for an article, but it will need more work, and more sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you reverse other people's edits, ignore the comments, and just resubmit the same article immediately, then it's going to get rejected again. Then it goes on the list of "stuff no-one is interested in reviewing again and again" and it'll just sit there until it's abandoned, times out and gets deleted. Have a nice day. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Doglover.Coton. Draft:Henry Feinberg was declined because it is not a summary of what people wholly unconnected with Feinberg have chosen to publish about Feinberg in reliable publications, which are cited - which is what a Wikipedia article should be.

The first source may very will be a copyright infringement, in which case it shouldn't be linked to (you can cite it to "73 Magazine", rather than to some random person's webspace) - but in any case, it appears to be by Feinberg, and so is not independent.

The other two sources do not even mention Feinberg, and so are irrelevant in an article about him.

What you need to do in order to create an article about Feinberg, is first find several sources that meet the criteria I stated in my first sentence above: make sure they each meet all the criteria in WP:42.

Then, if you can find several such sources, write a neutral summary of what those sources say.

If that gives you a reasonable encyclopaedia article about Feinberg, then you may add some uncontroversial factual information from non-independent sources such as his article. But whether the article is accepted or not will not depend on this extra information. ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The message on your talk page should be clear enough. You have exactly zero sources that meet all three criteria in WP:Golden Rule. One source is by Feinberg himself, so that doesn't count, and the other two don't even mention him.

The draft starts out as a biography, but that doesn't seem to be the subject focus. Decide what you want the article to be about, and write about that. Even if you recasted the article to be about the device rather than a biography, you'd still need better sourcing. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the details Will work on it Doglover.Coton (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You worsened the draft and resubmitted it, Doglover.Coton, so I declined it. It's time for you to take seriously the various comments you've received on your talk page, here, and elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

h how to add image to Wikipedia pages Graspbony (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graspbony :). Check out this introduction on how to upload and use images (if you just want to use a preexisting image go to the Using an image subsection). Feel free to ask any other questions. —Sophocrat (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Per my FLC nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Michelin-starred restaurants in South Korea/archive1, I need help archiving a PDF. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean, History6042, that you want a PDF file that's currently available on the web to be archived by the Wayback Machine? If so, I imagine that "Save Page Now" at web.archive.org/ works for PDF files as well as web pages, though I'm not sure. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did that but it archives a redirect. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need to know the URL you're trying to archive in order to help you further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

before, like a month or two ago, i could click on titles and subtitles of an article/pages but now I can't. I don't think I changed anything on my menu, is this an update? does anyone know what I can do to be able to click on subtitles and titles again, it was a really useful feature Easternsahara (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Easternsahara. I'm not sure what you refer to but if it's a table of contents where you can click on a section name to jump to that section then look for a list icon to the left of the page heading. If you see it then click it and select "move to sidebar". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add references to my draft "Hurricane Flossie, 2025" but it didn't work, and my draft got declined. I need sources, but there aren't many sources on the web... help please! JeremyJe29 (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Draft:Hurricane Flossie, 2025 JeremyJe29 (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem likely, JeremyJe29, that for such a recent hurricane -- less than a month ago -- there'd be sources published on paper and not on the web. If so, then "not many sources on the web" means "not many sources". Are there not at least a few good sources? (If good sources don't exist, no article can be written.) If you don't know about the mechanics of adding references, please start at Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1 and follow the pages. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks for pointing that out! Maybe I'll do an older one... JeremyJe29 (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering how to make a page and send it to the main people in charge! 73.11.241.72 (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:YFA. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "main people in charge". Wikipedia does not have that sort of organisation; we're all volunteers working on whatever we want to work on. (Barring extreme circumstances, paid WMF staff do not edit or make editorial decisions in that capacity.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You go to WP:YFA or WP:AFC, follow the directions to write a draft, don't write it WP:BACKWARD, and when you're done, click the button in the box at the top to submit it to "the people in charge", which in this case are reviewers who decide if a draft is worth publishing as an article. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user, and welcome to Wikipedia.

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) 08:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does contributor need to be highly educated person with a PhD degree ? 112.198.11.251 (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no minimum qualifications to edit on wikipedia; however, for the english wikipedia, a good command of english is extremely helpful. A beginning should start with the five "pillars" of wikipedia to become familiar with the most important concepts underlying the encyclopedia, then jump over to the introduction to learn the basics of editing. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, please do not mess around and damage the encyclopedia just to see what happens. You can do tests in the sandbox area. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

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

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

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

Hello, @Globalsoundeditor, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

Unfortunately, writing a new article is a very challenging task for a new editor. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]