Wikipedia:Teahouse#Nesting infobox inside each other

 Courtesy link: Daniele Ganser

Hi there

I hope you are doing well :)

I know Daniele personally. He is a peaceful and virtous human being. He loves humanity. So do I. Can you please add in the section "known as" the following true statement: "Being a pacifist". What exactly should be wrong in being a pacifist? Could you please explain that to me and the whole world? Thank you for being so kind. You don't believe in GOD? That is a problem. You want to get to know GOD? I am happy to support you. Have a wonderful day ahead in the name of Jesus Christ our LORD.

Heartfelt regards Antonio Forciniti Toni from the stars (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Daniele Ganser. I guess we could - can you provide reliable source stating that's one or the things he's known for? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 13:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ColinFine

I am very pleased to write you about the truth of Dr. Daniele Ganser. You want to know more about Daniele Ganser? There are plenty of videos on YouTube from him. For sure the one important video that demonstrates he is really doing the work for unifying humanity and therefore for peace, is this one: go to YouTube and type in "Daniele Ganser Menschheitsfamilie". As it is in German, you may not understand it. However, he is describing what he means with "Menschheitsfamilie". Menschheitsfamilie means in English something like "Family of Human beings" and this includes all of our species, regardless of religion, nation, sex, etc. He uses this word to make clear that all human beings are connected on a spiritual level to a higher power. You may call this power God, Holy Spirit, Universe, Allah, whatever. His Father was a Christian Pastor and his Mom was a nurse. Daniele visited the Rudolf Steiner Schools. I hope, you know who Rudolf Steiner was, if not, just ask Wikipedia :-) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner. As you see, Rudolf Steiner believed in Reincarnation and Karma. Here you have got the video in German, maybe you can ask one of your colleagues to have it translated in English: go on YouTube and type in "Dr. Daniele Ganser: Mein Gespräch mit Tahir Chaudhry".

Daniele was the first person in Switzerland that discovered that on 9/11 there were 3 Towers which collapsed, see WTC 7, even though no plane flew into it. He worked with structural engineers from the ETH Zurich to analyze why WTC 7 collapsed. They were to 99% sure that it was blown up. This is not a conspiracy theory, but a scientific study. I think you can do your studies yourself about WTC7. Here you have a link, which is stating the same by a US Fireman: https://internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com/did-world-trade-center-building-7-really-collapse-due-to-an-office-fuel-load-fire/.

Anyway, we have to finish with all that lies about Daniele. He is a very friendly person, who believes in the good of humanity and he has also online courses here, which help people to become peacemakers: https://www.danieleganser.online. Does all this information help? Do you need anything else to write the truth about Daniele? Tell me what you need and I will organize it for you. Thank you for being a supporter of Love, Justice and Peace. In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord please receive my heartfelt regards

Antonio Forciniti Toni from the stars (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need anything else... what's needed is reliable sources. If you don't have any then it is your own time you are wasting. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Toni from the stars, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Nobody has said that there is anything wrong in being a pacifist. What is not acceptable in Wikipedia is adding unsourced information to an article - and "unsourced" means "not backed up by an independent reliable published source". Unpublished information, whether from the subject, or anywhere else, does not belong in a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Toni from the stars is behind all the IP addresses that have been adding this. And he needs to quit proselytising. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jéské Couriano

Thank you for your message. Yes of course it was me. And I will never stop until the truth about Daniele is written in the article of Wikipedia. And what is wrong with proselytising? If you do not believe in Jesus Christ it does not mean that he does not exist my dear friend.

Have a lovely Sunday ahead

Antonio Forciniti Toni from the stars (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is really not the place for such a thing. I shall ask again, do you have a reliable source to support the claims you want to make on this article? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 13:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have just stated plainly that you intend to disrupt Wikipedia indefinitely until you get your way, regardless of the rules the community has agreed to abide by. The article is now locked from editing by anonymous IP addresses (congratulations on that accomplishment), and your statement of disruptive intent is going to result in your account being blocked indefinitely. Until you can familarize yourself with the community's rules regarding content and behavior, I recomment you step back and take some time to learn before editing further.

Your statements about proselytizing also make no sense and don't belong here. Likewise, if you don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn it does not mean that she doesn't exist. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toni from the stars: The problem with proselytising (and writing hagiographies) is that such editing is both inherently promotional and has a good chance of offending other users who do not hold your belief system for whatever reason. Your condescending reply also does not help. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I learned a new word today, so that's something. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't frequent WP:AFC/HD, where I use the adjective form of that word a lot. :3 —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do the different death symbols beside people's names and birth/day dates mean? I have noticed some names have a bold 'X' next to them, and others a kind of pointed christian cross or dagger. 2A01:4B00:87F1:4000:98C0:2AA:F8CE:8E52 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it means that Wikipedia doesn't have one single overarching manual of style. DS (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does enwiki do this at all? I've seen it as a standard on other languages, but not here. DMacks (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shorn of its markup (bolding, links, etc), the article de:Dieterich Buxtehude starts: Dieterich Buxtehude (* um 1637 in Bad Oldesloe oder in Helsingborg; † 9. Mai 1707 in Lübeck) war ein dänisch-deutscher Organist und Komponist des Barock. I suppose that you have this sort of thing in mind. I don't see this convention mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. I've seen it used in English-language Wikipedia and it doesn't seem odd to me; but it is unusual here and I think I remember seeing other editors converting from it. -- Hoary (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, MOS:OPENPARABIO does not indicate use of these sorts of markings and the symbol "†" does not appear anywhere in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style pages, and also no relevant hits for the word "dagger". Dagger (mark)#Modern usage notes that the "death year" use is a fairly German thing. So that's all consistent with seeing it often in dewiki, not seeing it often in enwiki, and removing it when seen in enwiki. DMacks (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DOB says that * and † should not be used to indicate "born" and "died"; where necessary we instead use the words born and died, or the abbreviations b. and d. if space is limited. On German wikipedia, * and † are commonly used; I don't know of any other language version which uses them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that explicit recommendation not to use them. Not sure why my search for that character didn't match. DMacks (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've been wanting to create a page for Silverborn: The Mystery of Morrigan Crow for a while now - it's a part of the Australian Nevermoor book series by Jessica Townsend and was released in late April - but I am unsure of how to actually create the page. I would say that the book meets the notability criteria of "appearing in two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself" as evidenced by this review from the ABC and this review from a Melbourne book retailer. If someone could direct me on how to create a page, that would be great. Thanks. Cornonthehunt (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Cornonthehunt, and welcome to the Teahouse

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

Your two sources might qualify, but I'm dubious: the first one, while it does talk about the book somewhat, has a great deal of Townsend talking, and so is not entirely independent; the other has little more than a plot summary.

The two would be useful in addition to some stronger sources, but I don't think that they on their own are enough to establish notability. It is quite likely WP:TOOSOON. ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Well, thank you for the advice regardless and I will look for higher quality sources at some point in the future. Thanks! Cornonthehunt (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got that, but would it be okay to go ahead and add the new characters from Silverborn to the pre-existing page on the series as a whole? The page is ranked as low importance anyway. CHEEZEBRINGER (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not many countries are featured in the article. Thanks to Germany, this wheel arrangement was used across many of Europe. My issue is with two Scandinavian countries, Denmark and Norway. The two said countries’ own nationalized rail networks, Danske Statsbaner and Norges Statsbaner, both owned 2-10-0’s, adapted from German design. Class 63 for Norway, and Class N for Denmark. I think you know what’s about to happen. Should they be in the article? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a question best placed at the article's talk page. Consensus with editors who work on train-related topics will probably see it and reply accordingly. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 03:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go look there 199.192.122.199 (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not add this to either of those articles.

The use of German 2-10-0 locos as war reparations is encyclopedic and certainly justifies mention. However the two articles you link are very high level articles about the recent modern era for those railways. They're not historical articles, they're not detailed articles. This deserves inclusion on articles about steam haulage on those railways, or about their immediate post-war history, but I can't see existing articles which cover that scope.

Including them on the 2-10-0 article has a similar issue. It's encyclopedic and worthy of mention, the German Kriegslok 2-10-0s and Class 50 and Class 52 should feature highly in an article on 2-10-0s. But the Danish and Norwegian uses are already mentioned there. Maybe the single class articles could expand the coverage a bit more; in particular, why did Denmark get Class 50 and Norway Class 52? What was the difference and was this deliberate, or merely convenient? As I know of few changes to these as operational locomotives (AFAIK, the main differences were in how they were constructed), why was this? Was it merely that the Class 52 were supposed to have warmer winter cabs and this was useful for Norway? That would be worth mentioning (Sourcing required!): it takes a statement in the 2-10-0 that's sat there unexplained, then explains it. That's a useful and encyclopedic improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Then why is Poland in there and yet they adapted the PKP class Ty2 from the Kriegsloks (specifically DRB Class 52)? Yeahhhhhh. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poland also built indigenous 2-10-0 of these local classes: Ty23 [de; pl], Ty37 [de; pl], Ty45 [de; pl] and Ty51 [de; pl] Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does changing my Wikipedia account password log me out of all other possible current sessions? Marksaeed2024 (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, technically, to log out from other sessions we have other command in the preference menu. You would not log out from other session merely from changing passwd. Sys64wiki (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marksaeed2024. Changing password does log you out from other sessions. @Sys64wiki: You are relatively new here. Please don't answer questions if you are just guessing. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding something: Simply clicking log out in your personal user menu logs you out of all sessions, though if you are concerned about someone having your password, change it then log out. See also: WP:UAS § What to do when your device has been compromised. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 20:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to access certain sources such as Bloomberg.com that pose a paywall in order to be able to access its information. I'm curious if there is an alternative to subscribing to every digital newspaper/magazine. While I am subscribed to a number of them, I do think it is wasteful to pay for those that I would need less often. Thanks. Kvinnen (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask at the resource exchange. If you meet the criteria, the Wikipedia Library may be an option. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this! Kvinnen (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can also try you local library (or school/ college library if you are a student, or they grant public access). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't this is an option for me currently. Thanks though. Kvinnen (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at information for Federico Kirbus and found that he was born in 1931 and married in 1940. Not sure which date is correct Buddy34 (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Buddy34 I think you are misreading the article, which says He married Marlu Kirbus (1940–2013).. Those are the dates of his wife's birth and death, not their marriage duration. Maybe you should edit the article to make this more clear, although at present there is no source for the information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done; also tagged as lacking sufficient citations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing I think you also misunderstood. Your change made this part say He was married to Marlu Kirbus from 1940 to 2013, which seems an extraordinary claim that definitely needs a source, as it implies he was aged nine on their marriage date! An IP editor has reverted that back to the version in my previous comment. We could do with a source... Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I updated a wikipedia page of an author and all of the edits have been reversed. How can I restore those edits?

thanks! 99harding (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @99harding, Welcome to Wikipedia. It looks like you changed section headings to title case, whereas MOS:SECTIONCAPS states we use sentences case. Happy editing, Knitsey (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m new to Wikipedia, please give me suggestions on how to edit Wikipedia. 172.85.211.42 (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Introduction for starters. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra2- I am assisting my client to resubmit for material contribution around the term: Virtual Model Homes. We were mistaken and attached the company name to the submission which has now been blocked. It should be attributed to his personal creation and not for solicitation. I would like to try again fresh with no such advertising. His name, Steve Ormonde was associated with the last submission so I do not want to get blacklisted again. Please help. @cooperevolution Cooperevolution (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cooperevolution - I’m not sure what you mean, so clarification would be appreciated, but here’s some info that might help: Deepfriedokra2 has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Why are you attempting to contact them? Do you know them outside of Wikipedia? Your Draft:Virtual Model Homes was deleted by the “real” Deepfriedokra, a Wikipedia admin, back in 2024. If you want to recreate that, I suggest following the instructions at WP:YFA and making sure to disclose any WP:Conflicts of interest that you might have. GoldRomean (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cooperevolution If you are the same person as User:Focus 360 Virtual Model Homes, you and your client should not be making any new accounts as that is sockpuppetry. Instead, you should log in to User:Focus 360 Virtual Model Homes and carefully read the instructions in the block notice to request an unblock from that account. To start, you can read WP:Conflict of interest and WP:PAID. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty navigating the platform. The user interface feels confusing, and it's not easy to locate helpful guides. Is there a way to simplify the experience or access clearer resources?

Is this conversation public or private? How can I confirm that?

Does every user have a personal "User talk:" page, and is it publicly visible? Scouting Stimulus (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scouting Stimulus yes, the user talk page is publicly visible and everyone has one. As for helpful guides, is there a particular guideline or policy you're looking for? The department directory or help menu might help. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Wikipedia is public; very rarely is anything “private”. I suppose you can verify that by going to the URL for this page logged out; you will be able to see this conversation and all the other ones too. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could check whether there's public access to a page within this website just as you'd check for a page on any other: while logged in, copy the address (URL) of the page to your clipboard; while you're logged out (perhaps because you're using a different browser), paste it and see what you get (the same page, a message about lack of public access, an error message?). No, not every user has a user talk page: The user has an address reserved for such a page, but until somebody writes something to it, it doesn't exist. Your own came into being when this was posted to it in January '23. Anything ever posted to your user talk page will remain publicly visible (whether on that page or in its "history") unless some or all (or one) of the versions are (is) "deleted", which is unlikely. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scouting Stimulus, and welcome! Yes, the site can be difficult to navigate, and guides can be hard to locate. This is largely due to the fact that this is a volunteer project. Not only are the encyclopedic articles written by volunteers, but so are the rules of Wikipedia, all the Help pages, all the Info pages, all the template documentation pages, and pretty much everything else. There is no "Department of Documentation", much less a "Director of Documentation" that is planning everything out in a logical way. It's more of a controlled chaos of everybody going around doing whatever they feel like doing (within the rules, which we also write). I like writing articles, documentation, and little programs called templates, so that's what I do. That means there is inevitably a lot of overlapping documentation, duplicate documentation, outdated documentation, and missing documentation. That said, there are lots of helpful folks who will help you find your way, and if the idea moves you, perhaps you will be the very person to reduce the chaos and devise a way to make it easier for new users to find helpful guides. Whatever you decide to do, I hope you enjoy the site, and stick around. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't talk pages have pending changes protection if an article can? can user pages have pending changes protection? 174.91.6.13 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be possible in theory but what would be the reason for it? We try to keep protection to a minimum across the board as our whole shtick is being a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 03:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because, sometimes Talk pages are protected especially if there is vandalism or disruptive editing. But I've never seen a Pending changed protection be used on a talk page 174.91.6.13 (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes still allows the edit partially through for an experienced editor to review. Most vandalism is not suitable for a talk page, even only temporarily. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a student who has been given an assignment to make a substantial edit to a Wikipedia article, adding at least one source. My edit was immediately deleted, which I assume means I made a mistake, either in formatting or in some other area. Is there any way to know what the issue was? Kelseyjay (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kelseyjay, yes, there is. I assume we are talking about this edit of yours to Hymns to Mary. If you go to the History tab of the article, you will see their reason listed in the edit summary. If that is insufficient, go to the Talk page of the article, start a new discussion, and ask the reverting editor for more details. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelseyjay Welcome to Wikipedia! In addition to the reason stated in the edit summary, the source you added [1] does not mention Marian antiphons, so it does not verify most of the content you added. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, "source" means a proof in regards to what is being added in Wikipedia article, such as news articles or books, as these are trustworthy and reputable source with relatively lesser bias. See Citation for more information on this subject. Kangarooblock 07:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The revert by User:UrielAcosta was not a good one, because instead of just undoing the part of your edit to which they (not unreasonably) objected, they undid your whole edit, including parts that did not relate to their objection, and which were not explained by their edit summary.

You should now follow our dispute resolution process, starting as suggested above, with a discussion on the talk page (but bear in mind what Helpful Raccoon says about you source).

You did right to ask here for guidance, but whoever told you to make that edit should be offering you more support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any definitive guidance for whether section headings should include spaces or not? For example, ==Plot== or == Plot ==? I constantly see edits being made to add or remove spaces in headings. MOS:HEAD gives no guidance. WP:SECTIONNUMBERING and MOS:GOODHEAD give contradictory examples of correctness. Masato.harada (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, Masato.harada, it makes no difference whatever. So feel free to do whichever you wish. If somebody believes that it matters, and that you're doing it the wrong way, let them explain to you why/how it's the wrong way. -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I prefer the inclusion of spaces, as they aid readability. I don't see any advantage in removing them, and don't understand why people do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am an independent contractor being paid by Endpoints News to support publishing an article about the company on Wikipedia (the company is now part of Financial Times), among other responsibilities. I have drafted a version of the article in my sandbox and, after a first round of edits with the support of my wonderful mentor, I would love if more experienced and impartial Wikipedians could also give me their feedback. I am determined to follow Wikipedia's rules for neutrality and welcome all and any advice. Could anyone have a look? My next step would be the Articles for Creation process. MD-EPN (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MD-EPN, I have moved it to Draft:Endpoints News. When you believe it's ready for submission, simply submit it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To show notability, several sources have to be independent, reliable and substantial. FOor the references I checked, the coverage is not substantial or missing altogether. When you are ready for an AFC review add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both so much, and I take note on the feedback re notability -- I will work on this. Much appreciated. Quick question, would the fact that the company is part of Financial Times, and an independent news organisation on its own, have any impact on notability? Asking so I can settle an internal debate about this. Again, I am ever so thankful. MD-EPN (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MD-EPN: if you're asking whether being a subsidiary (or whatever) of a notable corporate parent makes the subsidiary notable, then the answer is no, as notability is not inherited. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MD-EPN, to enlarge on previous replies: when Wikipedia talks about "notability", it has nothing to do with how "important" something is; instead it usually refers to the extent to which multiple sources that Wikipedia considers Reliable (meaning they are edited and fact-checked) have, independently of any input from (or connection to) the subject, published material of substantial length about the subject.

Being 'namechecked' or cited does not count towards notability. Awards received will only count if those rewards are themselves considered notable (which usually means that there is already a Wikipedia article about those awards). See Wikipedia:Notability for details. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly knwn as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.251.210 (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article's correct title is Sunjay Kapur, which is blocked. Can anyone, Please change the title of this article. Sooterout (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sooterout,  Done. That page move required an administrator and I am an administrator. I verified that "Sunjay" is the most common spelling of his name in English language sources, and moved the page accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect, according to Indian nomenclature, Sanjay not Sunjay is actually accurate and right naming word. You can search for the word on Google to see almost entire Indian names that match "Sanjay". Most importantly, why it's "Kapur" in title and in the lede it's "Kapoor"? If it the same things as "Kapoor" then both Sunjay and Kapur are wrong tiles. [[User:Sys64wiki|Sys64]] (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sys64wiki, the English Wikipedia uses the spelling most commonly used by English language reliable sources when writing about this particular person. We do not use "Indian nomenclature", whatever that is. Both "Sanjay" and "Sunjay" are accepted English spellings in general. Similarly, both "Kapoor" and "Kapur" are accepted English spellings. But the preponderance of reliable sources use the "Sunjay Kapur" spelling for this particular person, I believe. I have edited the article for consistency in the spelling. Cullen328 (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example, when the New York Times reported his death, they used the Sunjay Kapur spelling. Cullen328 (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’ve written a new, well-sourced draft article about BAF Shaheen College Kurmitola to replace the current redirect page that points to a section of another article. I’d like to know if I’m allowed to replace the redirect with my standalone version, or how I can request support to improve and publish it properly. Here's the draft: Draft:BAF Shaheen College Kurmitola I'd really appreciate guidance on moving it to the mainspace or improving it to meet Wikipedia standards. Thanks! 0ximjub43r (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@0ximjub43r Welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need to concern yourself with the redirect at this stage. If and when your draft is approved, the approving editor will do whatever is necessary. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @0ximjub43r, I see that you have declared a COI on the draft. In this case you must submit the draft for review. Nothing needs to be done on your end, if it is accepted the reviewer will take care of the redirect. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 18:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I speak a little Chinese and my parents are native Chinese speakers, so I've been wanting to translate a page only available in Chinese using, with a little help, of course. I was looking at Five-spice powder and saw that thirteen spice was an article only on Chinese Wikipedia (十三香.) I want to translate it, so I'm wondering about two things:

1. In general, is there anything different about translating vs. creating an article? Any different buttons to click or procedures to follow that aren't written down in Help:Your first article (since this is my first article)?
2. The article in Chinese Wikipedia does have an issue listed, that being that it doesn't have any citations. Is that an issue? Does it mean that I have to change it first and add citations?

a. This is sort of a sub-question of question 2, but do I have to "re-check" for notability? There aren't many sources in English, but there are some in Chinese. I am a little worried about if citation will be confusing so I would prefer not to cite, although if needed, I can. Since there are no citations, only external links, I'm a bit confused about if it would pass a possible re-check.

If for any reason, I can't make it an article, I would be happy to turn it into a sub-section, but for now, these are my questions, and I hope to be able to make my first article on Wikipedia.

Thanks, AtTheTownHouse (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AtTheTownHouse, there are many commonalities between translating and creating an article from scratch, but clearly many differences. For starters: you are allowed (even encouraged) to translate articles from other Wikimedia projects, such as Chinese Wikipedia. That said, English and Chinese Wikipedia are both self-published sources, i.e., anybody, including anonymous IP editors, can create or later the content, so ipso facto, the *content* cannot be assumed to be reliable. Also, the two Wikipedias have different requirements, and everything published here must meet the policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia, which, as you pointed out, require WP:Notability of the topic (and other things). The help page H:YFA is a great place to start, and offers almost everything you need to know, also for creating a translation, which is also a new article. If the original has no citations, or only general website links, other editors might object, and either WP:DRAFTIFY your effort, or nominate it for deletion.

If you believe the topic is notable, I would recommend starting the article in WP:DRAFT space, and using a combination of some translation, and some writing from scratch. You might even consider abandoning the Chinese article entirely, and starting fresh with a set of reliable sources, preferably in English if available, or in Chinese when not, and writing a brand new article based on those references, and then submitting your Draft to WP:Articles for creation reviewers, who will give you feedback and let you know if it is ready to be an article. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My profile on here seems to have begun a decade ago, but it's never been updated and is woefully out of date. How can we get the information brought up to date? Thanks! 2600:100C:A221:349E:B96:517B:A6A5:9D50 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The general guidance is at WP:AUTOPROB.

Unfortunately the article David W. Menefee (which is not a "profile" as most people would understand the term, in that it does not belong to you, is not controlled by you, and will not necessarily say what you would want it to say) was created in an era when we did not enforce policies such as biographies of living persons, and is seriously deficient.

In particular, it has almost no proper citations. From Wikipedia's point of view, this is far more important than whether it is up to date.

What it should consist of, almost exclusively, is a neutral, cited, summary of what people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to publish about you in reliable publications, and very little else (see WP:42).

While you should not attempt to edit the article yourself, you are welcome to make edit requests on the article's talk page. You should make sure that any information you want added can be cited to a reliable published source - and in most cases, to a source wholly independent of you. But given its state, I'm not sure how ready editors will be to consider making changes you suggest.

What you might do is make that task easier by offering suitable sources yourself: are you aware of sources wholly unconnected with you that talk about you in some depth? If you were to list such sources here, somebody might be willing to work on the article. ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article David Menefee does appear to have sources, which are listed in a separate section. The problem is that they have not been converted to inline citations, which is how Wikipedia's current policy on biographies of living people insists they should be done. One approach to improving the article would be for its subject to indicate on the talk page which source he believes supports which piece of text so that editors could begin to tidy everything up. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find WP:About you useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Perry 66.186.109.202 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP. You can edit any page by clicking the Edit button at the top-right of the page, or the Edit button right next to any section title. Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the problem with that is I don't understand what shows up when I do click edit. care to better explain it to me, please? 66.186.109.202 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What shows up should be a box with the article's text in wiki markup (assuming you're using the source editor, otherwise it looks like regular text in the visual editor). There, you can type in and remove text to edit the article. Help:wikitext will be useful, and I would recommend help:editing aswell. Those pages will link to other policies and guidelines that will also help. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When clicking Edit the wikitext editor shows up by default, which uses a special syntax to format the page (such as ''two apostrophes'' for italics). You might prefer the VisualEditor instead, which you can learn to use with this introduction. Sophocrat (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i would recommend help:Cheatsheet. drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ 04:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've left you some helpful links to guidance on editing at User talk:66.186.109.202. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When putting punctuation after something that uses markup (bold, italics, etc.) (is that the right word?), should I also apply the markup to the following punctuation?

i.e. "...Minecraft, ..." with the comma italicized or "...Minecraft, ..." without the comma italicized? Somerandomguy55 (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Somerandomguy55 :). You shouldn't apply the markup/formatting (that is indeed the right word) to the punctuation. So in your example the comma shouldn't be italicized. Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I have a concern, what is the general policy about creating an article about the entertainment industry award shows? Recently, I started Draft:23rd Lux Style Awards, but I think it is not enough notable to be published yet. A discussion at Talk:Lux Style Awards suggested to merge the related articles into one mainspace to avoid forking and bloatation.

Hope for valuable responses, thank you! M. Billoo 05:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M.Billoo2000, I haven't looked at your draft, but the content of Lux Style Awards is very thin. What have reliable sources, independent of the organization(s) running or financing, advertising via, or televising the 23rd award(s), said about them? Add that to the article Lux Style Awards. -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Hi dear admin. The only independent and reliable journalist I could find was Amna Haider Isani at Something Haute; but that too on their Facebook (which the other editor removed) and YouTube [2] [3] only. The other two sources are [4] [5] which seem independent but I doubt their RS status. The award show has no SIGCOV, and the unbylined references are just copy paste with nomination list and then winners announcement. At a glance, someone can say it is obvious for an award's reports to have only list of categories and people. That is why, I wanted to ask specifically about Wiki's policy on writing such article(s). Thank you! M. Billoo 06:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M.Billoo2000, when you write The award show has no SIGCOV, that is another way of saying that the award show is not notable and should not be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi good day.

I just revised my article. Can someone give me advices what to improve or fix? Here's my sandbox: Draft:Sneaker authentication platforms in the resale market. Really appreciate your help, Thanks in advance! Textbypeeps (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Textbypeeps, I asked you a few weeks ago about paid editing, and instead of replying to the message or disclosing a connection, you removed the content from your other sandbox. Please disclose, in general terms, any connection you may have with Novelship or any other company mentioned in your draft. If you are employed by the company, you count as a paid editor regardless of whether you are specifically paid to edit Wikipedia. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’m not involved with any company mentioned. I followed sneaker resale trends and wanted to contribute an informative article. I appreciate your feedback and will make sure the content stays neutral and well-sourced. Textbypeeps (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Textbypeeps You'll get much more complete references by running your the URL through citer at toolforge. That won't change the text but will really help readers, as will sticking to Wikipedia's manual of style regarding use of boldface type (see MOS:BOLD, which suggests only very limited use). The main issue, IMO, is that your draft reads like an essay, straying into original research, since you seem to have combined information about individual parts of the topic rather than paraphrasing what other reliable sources have said on the subject. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’m working on a draft about Nebojsa “Nash” Subotic, a business executive.

The article was declined due to notability and tone. I’ve added independent sources from USA Today, Inc., Fortune, etc., and revised the tone. Could someone please review whether it now meets notability and neutrality standards before I resubmit? Thanks!

Page: Nebojsa “Nash” Subotic. KostaAtWP (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KostaAtWP The most obvious problem is that the awards you have used to indicate his notability were given to organisations he is associated with, not to him personally. No doubt many other people contributed to the work. You also need to fix the dead link, perhaps from an archive. You will get more feedback by re-submitting to draft. We don't really do pre-feedback feedback. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

حدا يساعدني رجاء وشكرا Fata Morgana 7777 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Fata Morgana 7777

You should probably start by going to the Arabic Wikipedia. ar:ويكيبيديا:بوابة المشاركة

ربما ينبغي عليك أن تبدأ بالذهاب إلى ويكيبيديا العربية ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Atlanta Institute of Music and Media

The Atlanta Institute of Music and Media was founded in 1985 and has had a handful of famous graduates. The college has also been cited on a few Wikipedia articles. I don't know how to go about getting a page for them, my initial attempt wasn't approved. Jenn vf (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenn vf The problem is the lack of sources talking about the Institute, rather than brief mentions in relation to its graduates. I took a look at newspapers.com, on the assumption that there might be some general sources there but all I found was brief mentions. If you can't find sources meeting these criteria, then I'm afraid you will have to give up. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenn vf If you do decide to continue, please also read our policy on WP:ALUMNI. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jenn vf, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Not everything that exists can have a Wikipedia page about it. I am mentioned on a Wikipedia article, but there has not been significant independent material published about me, so there cannot be a Wikipedia article about me.

The question for you is, have several people, wholly unconnected with the the Institute, and not prompted or fed information on behalf of the Institute, chosen to publish in-depth material about the Institute in realiable publications? If the answer is No, then no article is possible, and you are wasting your time and effort in trying.

If the answer is yes, then you can try to write an article about it. You would do this by leaving aside anything you know about the Institute, and writing a neutral summary of what those independent sources say.

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) 18:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenn vf:

Your draft was declined because its "references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are..." and there is guidance following that explanation, at the top of the draft.

Put succinctly, you need to find three sources that meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE. You may post them on reply to this if you need further advice.

Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and it is very unlikely that anyone will do this for you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I’m a new editor and I’ve written a sandbox draft for an article about my botany professor, Dr. P. Hariprasad. He has a PhD in chemical mutagenesis, has co-authored a state science textbook, taught for over 40 years, and mentored over 350 doctors and many researchers.

Could someone kindly review the draft and let me know if it meets the standards for notability and format?

Here’s the link to my sandbox draft: User:XxRebornGOATxX/sandbox

Thanks so much for your help! XxRebornGOATxX (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing, but you shouldn't write something you are connected to. If you still want to, see WP:coi. Happy editing! Rafael Hello! 17:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XxRebornGOATxX The immediate problem with your draft is that it has no cited sources to already-published information. This is part of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. It is not surprising that you made this error, which is common when new users try immediately to create articles. Please read Help:Your first article or, as I would advise, edit some existing articles to learn how Wikipedia works. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... contrary to what @Rafaelthegreat has said, you are allowed to write with a COI, provided you submit the draft via WP:AfC. As I've said it would currently be rapidly declined in that process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i have added other external links now, do u mean i shud add the links for the tobacco plant and other words for which articles already exist? XxRebornGOATxX (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XxRebornGOATxX You need to add reliable sources that discuss the professor to verify that the information you are adding about the professor is correct, as well as to show that he meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability for people or for academics. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Help:Referencing for beginners. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XxRebornGOATxX It also looks like your draft is written by AI; please do not use AI to write anything on Wikipedia. See WP:LLM. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i havent used ai, although i have written the script i uploaded the script to chatgpt and asked it to code for the subtopics since i have no connection with html nor css, i also asked it not to alter any phrases, plus i used gramarly also XxRebornGOATxX (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XxRebornGOATxX, I hope it's OK, I have gone ahead and added citation needed to the early life section as an example of what needs referencing. This will give you an idea as to what Wikipedia is looking for per WP:BLP. Knitsey (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, feel free to remove the templates. Knitsey (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hey thank u sm man, rly appreciate the efforts, can u tell me how i can make my page more legit and can get it to be published? XxRebornGOATxX (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"If wikipedia has a mobile app and the main page has links to the sister projects it has on the mobile app? "

I answered this question yesterday and if this is real i will freak out for a fortnight. 38.248.159.116 (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I do not understand what you are saying, especially the "If wikipedia has a mobile app and the main page has links to the sister projects it has on the mobile app?" and the "if this is real i will freak out for a fortnight." Can you write it so it is easy to understand? Thanks. Rafael Hello! 18:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I too am not clear what you're asking. But if I go to "Main page" on the Wikipedia Android app, it does indeed have links to the sister projects. Those open in a browser, not in the app. Is that the answer to your question? ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try in iOS (if you don't have iOS, use emulator/go away!) 38.248.159.116 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Telling people who are trying to help you to "Go away" might not be the most effective way of getting help. ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy one and all. I am an architect, designer, writer. I am registered as an editor (MMcD Investigator).My immediate goal is to post a Wikipedia article about a highly accomplished public figure (archeologist) who more than deserves it. OK, so I keep hitting a wall. I have a mentor but she cannot figure this out so she referred me to the Teahouse.

First, everytime I try to get beyond simply seeing my "Hello, ‪MMcD Investigator‬!" page nothing works. Wikipedia says that I do not exist.

For example, when I try to get into my sandbox (my mentor recommended this step) I get this:

<<Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. Before creating this page, please see Help:Subpages.

To start a page called User:MMcD Investigator/sandbox, type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then publish it.>>

Second, because I know the person I want to post I have tried repeatedly to complete the Wikipedia:Articles for creation requirements. I am now (after several days) able to get to my User Page and I have disclosed that there is an AFC issue

<<Here are the steps to disclose:

• Edit your user page by clicking here
• Paste the following in the edit box, replacing Title of your draft with the article name you wish to create.

{{UserboxCOI|1=Title of your draft}}

• Click the "Publish changes" button>>

OK, so I can get that far, but then there I get no additional instruction. I should note that the article is written (after many hours of work) and in a Wikipedia format. I can add in-line references but I need to get the body of the text started.

Can anyone assist with any of this? MMcD Investigator (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MMcD Investigator. I am a bit confused, as you seem to have written a draft at Draft:David_W._Johnson_(archaeologist)? Is this not the draft you are talking about? You have created that draft successfully via the articles for creation process. It has not yet been submitted for review.

It's normal to get a Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title warning when you go to create a page for the first time: your personal Sandbox does not exist until you have created it. Click Create source to bring up the editor for the page, then write some text in the editor and then click Publish page... to create the page and save what you wrote.

Wikipedia editing works quite different to editing in a standard word processor like Microsoft Word, which is maybe why you are having trouble.

Let us know if you have any questions. qcne (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MMcD Investigator, and welcome to the Teahouse. As qcne says, you appear to have successfully created both your user page, and the draft article (though you don't appear to have managed to add the COI user box to your user page, which you said you were trying to do).

Unfortunately, your draft as it currently stands has no chance of being accepted, as it has no citations at all. I suspect that, like many new editors who plunge straight into the extremely challenging task of creating a new article, you have written it BACKWARDS.

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) 21:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, I am quite humbled by the all of the kind and patient responses. They bring real clarity.

I should mention that I added the draft article on David out of desperation -- I was trying to force the system into a response by doing the wrong thing intentionally. It worked. It eventually brought me to Teahouse. Fortunately it recognized that it was AFC so that made me happy (in that it went no further, staying "stuck," but remaining visible so that I could get comments and direction). What I really appreciate is the admonition that I need to start over, recognizing that things are "backwards" in Wikipedia World. I get it, and THANK YOU. So, I will do my due diligence, humbly go through the steps, train properly, and then reboot the whole thing. I will get there.

Again, with humility and gratitude to this community and in recognition of its fine and brilliant work, THX! MMcD Investigator (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMcD Investigator, you have encountered a common problem for new users. You write "Wikipedia says that I do not exist." But you exist, your account exists, your user page exists. When Wikipedia said "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title", it was wrong. It did have such a user page, but that page had no content (or, to be pedantic, its content was the empty string ""). I see that you have now solved the problem, and edited your user page. This response is not really directed at MMcD Investigator, but at those who have the power to change that misleading "error message". Maproom (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This response is not really directed at MMcD Investigator, but at those who have the power to change that misleading 'error message'"

@Maproom: This page is not the place to make such requests; please raise a ticket at Phabricator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’m a new editor and I’ve created a draft update for The Chennai Silks article using reliable third-party sources. The draft is here: User:HireshM/sandbox

I posted on the article’s Talk page, but haven’t had any helpful feedback. Could someone help review and guide how I can get this content moved into the main article?

Thanks! HireshM (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you should've edited the original The Chennai Silks instead of making a new one.

Thanks. Rafael Hello! 20:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Others have tried to engage you on the talk page but you have not responded. As you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid directly editing the article(contrary to what Rafaelthegreat claims) but you may use the edit request process on the talk page. Please engage with those there. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that proposing a wholesale rewrite is unlikely to succeed- as most of us are volunteers who have limited time to invest. Please propose incremental changes, one at a time. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Rafaelthegreat: and @331dot:, for your feedback and guidance.

I understand now that, as someone with a conflict of interest, I should not directly edit the article but instead suggest edits on the talk page using the proper request process. I apologize for not responding earlier — that was not my intention, and I truly appreciate the time and effort the community has already given.

Going forward, I will follow the recommended approach of proposing incremental updates, one section at a time, to make it easier for reviewers to evaluate and discuss. I will also ensure all suggestions are backed by reliable, third-party sources and written in a neutral tone in line with Wikipedia policies.

Thanks again for your support, and I look forward to working with the community to improve the article collaboratively.

Best regards,

HireshM HireshM (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, think about it. There is a consensus about a specific change to a page. When an editor performs the edit, it get's reverted by someone else. So the first editor reverts the revert. But the other guy continues against the consensus, also reverts. While reverting the edits made by the user who went against the consensus, the first editor breaks the 3RR rule. Would the guy that just applied consensus edit get blocked? Cuz I was that first guy, and I was blocked for 72 hours. Jako96 (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per the very policy you cited WP:3RR, which is very strictly enforced. There are a very narrow set of exceptions for vandalism and legal issues WP:3RRNO, such as copyright and child pornography, but reverting to maintain consensus doesn't qualify. My Wikipedia mentor knew several well-intentioned editors who have violated 3RR, gotten blocked, and quit the project in frustration. Next time you find yourself in a similar situation, consider following the steps in WP:Dispute Resolution instead. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 21:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jako96 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per this diff. The article is now temporarily protected because a new IP user was having a minor edit-war over it, so I was just going to add the tag back, but saw the instructions say not to do that. Should I just put a new tag on it?

The original author, Suraya222, is currently blocked for disruptive editing but has filed a couple of appeals. I'd like to suggest moving the article to draftspace or the their user space so that they or the new IP can keep trying to edit it into a useable condition. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should not add a new tag. WP:PROD says that an article can only ever be tagged once for proposed deletion; any objection, even without a rationale, means that article can never be PRODded again. If you think the article should be deleted, send it to Articles for Deletion. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, is under a community-imposed extended-confirmed restriction (see WP:GS/KURD). Technically the creator wasn't allowed to create it, the PRODder wasn't allowed to PROD it, and the objector wasn't allowed to object. At this point, the situation is complicated enough that AfD is the best next step. Only accounts that meet 500/30 should participate in the AfD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What to do if I disagree with an edit and they do it again? Other than edit war? 174.231.136.14 (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution is a giant page, but it should have everything you need.

But short version, start at the article's talk page and try to discuss the article and try to focus the discussion only on the article, not each other. If that doesn't work, take a step back and look through Dispute Resolution, if there other editors around you could discuss whether a request for comment is needed, or maybe ask for a Third Opinion. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to add someone’s contact details to their user page? 174.231.136.14 (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People are free to add their own details to their own user pages, though they should consider whether this is wise. You may not add contact information to someone else's user page. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly not, unless you mean your own. That would be a fast way to get banned, otherwise. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors (myself included) allow others to contact them by email and this is completely standard. Email addresses are not visible on the user page and only other editors who have registered an account and their own email address can use the contact facility. When user B contacts user A, the system sends B's email address to user A. However, it is only if user A replies to B that B will find out A's actual address and such a reply is entirely optional on A's part.. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does creating an account actually hide my IP address? I heard that administrators can still see it. 174.231.136.14 (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They can, but the rest of us can't. It's considered more secure. The admins would not normally (ever?) look at it without some kind of reason, though. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only checkusers can see the IP addresses of registered accounts, and they are subject to strict policies on when they may do so and how they may use that information. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, regular admins cannot see IP addresses. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to run for adminship in about maybe a year or so, what can I do to give me the best chance of my rfa passing? Poland44444444 (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poland44444444, this suggests good intentions but insufficient understanding of elementary facts about Wikipedia. I think that "a year or so" is optimistic. But I wish you well. -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Get some experience in all areas of Wikipedia: content creation, vandal fighting, AFD, dispute resolution, and show good judgment. You also need a few thousand edits under your belt, not edits made with automated tools. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I really get involved with these areas. Poland44444444 (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content creation? Write articles, improve articles, add reliable source citations to articles. Vandal fighting? Report at WP:AIV, for username violations, report at WP:UAA. AFD? Go to WP:AFD. Dispute resolution? Try Wikipedia:Third opinion but you had better become well-versed in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines first. You have way more than a year to go before you establish a record that convinces the community that you can be trusted with administrator tools. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Poland44444444 You haven't said why you want to run for adminship, which is something you will be asked if you do so. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should get at least 2 years of experience and 10000 edits. Choose 3–4 areas to focus on. Start with editing articles, and read our five pillars and three core policies. Super Salty (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting. The act of merging something onto another article. I don’t really enjoy it, because redirect a lot of times is basically robbing certain subjects of their own articles and caging them on other articles. But in my request, redirect is for once not a piece of crap. Igracek is a Czech copy of Playmobil, first released in 1976. The brand still continues to be manufactured by company Efko. It doesn’t have it’s own article, but we should probably make a “Other Variants” section on the article and redirect Igracek there. 184.60.230.19 (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might be looking for WP:AFC/R. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source that describes Igráček as a copy of Playmobil, this can be added to the Playmobil article. Playmobil currently has a section about "Bootlegs and unauthorized figures" but this section cites zero reliable sources, only a forum post which is unreliable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How often do administrators get blocked or banned? Super Salty (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typically not often, because administrators got to be administrators by earning the trust of the community to make good decisions. That said, administrators do get blocked, which doesn't prevent an administrator from editing. An administrator who is blocked is expected to refrain from editing as if blocked. It happened to me once during a content dispute. In that case, I was being a regular editor, not an administrator, so I couldn't use my 'status' as an administrator to continue editing, but instead I had to respect the block. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist Huh? As far as I am aware, blocks prevent editing in exactly the same way from blocked admin accounts as from regular users (You may have confused this with page protections, which administrators can trivially edit through anyway, even when the page is fully protected due to edit warring). (This does not apply to users who also hold a group with the unblockself user right (currently assigned to Stewards, staff, and sysadmins)) Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I became an admin, I experimentally blocked myself to test this, and the block didn't prevent me from anything, I recall. Maybe that has changed. Or my memory is faulty (this was over a decade ago). Page protection certainly doesn't, you're right about that. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: In 2010 you accidentally blocked yourself and quickly unblocked.[6] Maybe it's that which made you think it's ineffective to block admins. Wikipedia:Blocking policy#cite note-9 says: "Historically, administrators were able to unblock themselves (the unblockself user right), but this ability was removed in November 2018. Stewards can still unblock themselves, and self-imposed blocks can still be removed." PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. WTF happened to my block log? I am certain it was longer than that. I've been blocked before, and not by me. Yes... here it is: User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2014#3RR. I wonder why that disappeared from my block log?

I do remember a time when I protected an article due to a content dispute, and a handful of admins just kept on editing it as if nothing had happened. This seemed like an abuse of admin privileges to act as normal editors while a page was full-protected. The dispute somehow spread to ANI, where those admins got a scolding. It didn't occur to me to block any of them because I felt it would be pointless. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think administrators are trustworthy in certain manner or they won't be admin at all. And they are the one supposed to show maturity before than any other general editors, so the situation of block rarely comes forward but that doesn't mean they are invincible. [[User:Sys64wiki|Sys64]] (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If administrators are rude to other users they may lose their admin capability. But they also have been blocked for having alternative accounts undisclosed, or previously being banned. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does “poorly sourced” content mean? Does it mean unreliable sources Super Salty (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the sources are low-quality, or there are statements made that don't have citations, or both of those things at once. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Super Salty, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I agree with Anachronist, but I want to expand "low-quality". That might indeed mean not a reliable source, but it might also mean a source without significant coverage of the subject.

A source which is not an independent source might also be "low quality" if it is apparently being used to justify notability, or to verify contentious claims; but if it is being used according to WP:SPS, then it is of adequate quality. ColinFine (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly participate in AfDs, but much less often create them. When I DO create them, I use Twinkle and then add my nominating comment and thats that, but I don't know how to check "Draftify" or "Delete" or "Redirect" or "Redirect and merge" or whatever so that in my AfD status history it shows up properly that I created an AfD with the specific nominating status among those mentioned above or more. It only ever just shows "Delete (nom)". Anyone know how to do this? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I think The Rose Field should probably be Draftified per WP:TOOSOON, but the only way that I know how to nominate it it will show up as if I am nominated it for pure deletion, which is not what I want to do. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: I wouldn't worry too much about trying to game your WP:AFDSTATS and there is a good essay about it here. It is more about backing up your !votes and nominations with good reasoning and a thorough WP:BEFORE. Some editors may be more particular about it, but I think just making a sound argument and judgement is good enough. Anyways, if you bold the alternative you want done, such as "I propose to redirect to ...", the AfD stat script will see the bolded vote and change what it says on the stat page. For example, on my AfD stat page, I nominated the Josh Levy page for deletion, but since I included the bolded word redirect in my nomination, it counts on the stat page as a vote for redirect, and not deletion. cyberdog958^Talk 04:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is all I needed to know. Not "gaming" by the way, just learning how the process works. Thank you for sharing the essay though and for answering my question. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming may of been the wrong word because I didn’t mean any negative connotation. Something like “min-maxing” would be more apt. And no problem. cyberdog958^Talk 13:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn, in addition to what you were told above, if you're specifically looking for a merge, don't send it to AfD - use WP:MERGEPROP. If you think it should be draftified or redirected you can also do that yourself (boldly) unless there are objections. -- asilvering (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

want to ask about IP address 202.145.5.43 (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you want to ask? 331dot (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might start by reading an encyclopedia article about IP addresses. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I help maintain a food-related site, which publishes detailed, regularly updated breakdowns of restaurant menu items — including nutrition data, customization options, and visual guides (like for Chipotle, Taco Bell, etc.). We pull data from official restaurant sources, add expert commentary, and provide transparent formatting for readers. I’m wondering if a site like ours would qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines for food-related articles or brand pages — or if there’s a specific bar we should meet (e.g., citations, transparency, editorial standards). I’m not asking for the link to be added — just hoping to understand whether our content aligns with what editors look for in citations. Thanks in advance for the guidance! Sasha2121 (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let others determine the RS question because as you know I reverted your edit. If you are connected with the site then you have a conflict of interest by trying to add it here - see WP:COI. If you are an employee of that site then you have a bigger problems which is paid editing - WP:PAY. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A better place to ask would be Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ronald A. Ochoa

Hi! My first article was reviewed, and the editor requested that I remove external links in the body of the text. I assume they refer to all the words that are marked in blue and have a little sign after them, then, when clicked, take you to another website. I used these to take people to sites where they can understand what place or person the word relates to, for instance, in my article on the USDA ESL unit. Just a reference so people understand what that is, like I would do with a country, or a university, another person, etc. I have seen this repeatedly done in Wikipedia. Why am I being asked to remove them? Anything else about the subject matter itself has footnotes at the end of the page.

Monathoen (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are the links referred to. You are asked to remove them because our house style is to not include such links. Either add them at the foot of the page in an external links section (albeit only one or two; see WP:ELNO), or cite them as sources. In most cases, though, the best way to give context is to link to another Wikipedia article - or to where one should be in future, per WP:REDLINK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Monathoen, as the reviewer said, if the site in question specifically confirms the facts you're putting into the article and so you're using it as a reference, cite it as such (as in, a footnote-style reference at the end of the page; templates like {{cite web}} can help you in citing a Web-based source). Article text should generally not contain any inline external links, and if you're seeing that done, whoever else did that shouldn't have been doing it either, but footnotes can of course contain a URL to the cited source. Internal links to other Wikipedia articles, like this, on the other hand, should be used liberally (though even then, not to the point of ridiculousness). If the site is just a general "further information" type thing, but doesn't specifically confirm article facts, the link should simply be removed. If there is not an appropriate Wikipedia article to link to on that subject, leave the text plain (that is, unlinked to anything). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Monathoen To give you some specifics. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people requires that facts are backed up by inline citations. Hence, in your "Early life" section you need to convert this link into a citation, since it is where you have taken the information from about his early interest in mites. That particular cite won't contribute to showing notability, since it is based on an interview but it is OK for inclusion as part of WP:ABOUTSELF. On the other hand, the next link from the Museo de Insectos should be removed entirely since it does not verify any statement about the article's subject. I can tell from List of museums in Costa Rica that this museum doesn't have an article in the English Wikipedia. If it had one in another-language version you could use the template {{ill}} to provide that link but otherwise it should be in plain text. There are many other improvements that need to be made to help readers. For example, your current first cite should use the template {{cite thesis}} instead of a bare URL. You also have a set of bare URL at the beginning of the reference section. Were these intended as further sources or as external links. Whatever they are, they should have some explanatory text or use the {{cite web}} template. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "If there is not an appropriate Wikipedia article to link to on that subject, leave the text plain"
• "otherwise it should be in plain text"

No; if it is likely to pass our notability requirements, it should be a red link, as I said above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The museum I mentioned is not even a redlink on the current List of museums in Costa Rica, while some others are, so I guess previous editors have some doubts about its likely notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello i have been working on an article for some time and i want to see if there is anyway to improve on it. Nikinikipikipiki (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good on the surface. The feedback you are requesting can be obtained in detail by submitting your draft for review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good right now. But I have some suggestions. I think separating the list to its own section, making the list sortable, and adding index numbers to all entries would make the article much more readable as a whole. Hope this helps! EarthDude (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bulleted items in the right-hand column need copyediting ("controll", "liquadation", etc.). Note also that some of those items are worded in past tense and some in historical present; they should be consistent, using one or the other. Deor (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article “Golden Retriever,” which had incorrectly used capitalization of both words throughout the article. Neither word in “golden retriever” should be capitalized. Lower-case “golden retriever” is consistent with MLA and AP styleguides as well as the AKC and my understanding of Wikipedia’s own styleguide. My edits were reverted with a note saying that I need to “request an RM.” I don’t know what an RM is or why it needs to be requested. I would expect that a patent grammatical error could be fixed without controversy. Can anyone help? LikeTheTree (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RM likely refers to requested moves; to retitle a highly visible article like that about a prominent dog breed, you should first establish a consensus on the article talk page before requesting a move. There may be good reasons the article is titled that way that you are not aware of. Or, if you feel that Wikipedia policies are on your side, you should explain how. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I’m still not sure how this all works and I’m learning! LikeTheTree (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LikeTheTree: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Common names says:

Names of standardized animal breeds should generally retain the capitalization used in the breed standards (German Shepherd). Species names like "cat" or "hound" added to the end of a breed name for disambiguation should not be capitalized (Greyhound dog), unless it is a part of the breed name itself and is consistently capitalized in the breed standards (Norwegian Forest Cat, American Quarter Horse).

PrimeHunter (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you're asking, which is always good. I still learn things after many years. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently created an article that is undergoing peer review which includes several images donated by the Washington Post as a part of the Washington Star Collection at the DC Public Library (DCPL) People's Library archives. I have been in direct contact with an archivist at the People's Library regarding my use of the images, who granted me permission to upload them to Wikipedia after signing a permissions form that outlines appropriate use. Per the form, the DCPL is permitted to grant use of the images, but the Washington Post retains copyright. I have accordingly uploaded all of the images to Wikipedia under fair use terms.

A user (@Pbritti) raised concerns about the current details provided as a part of the fair use rationale for the images (see links to images below). I'm seeking guidance regarding this, as I eventually plan to have the article nominated for GA assessment and want to get this right. Specifically, I'd like to know if there are any rationale templates/best practices I can refer to from other fair use images uploaded under similar circumstances. Ultimately, I'd like to do this in a way that would enable the images, which are invaluable to the article's subject matter, to remain on Wikipedia.

Here are all of the images:

• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

Thanks - (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Four nonfree images is way too many for that article. You could probably justify one if no freely licensed photos of the event exist, but keep in mind that even with permission, they're still nonfree. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade thanks for your reply. I've checked the Library of Congress and other public resources but haven't found any free images of the sit-ins. Since it took place in 1960 and was photographically documented by local newspapers like the Star and the Post, any images of the sit-in will likely be under copyright for the foreseeable future. If I can only use one for the article, I'd probably include this one. Regarding the rationale, is there any material/template I can refer to? (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know of any boilerplate specifically for a historical event (I see you used one for artwork, which isn't really a close fit there; that's meant more for photos of works than of events). I did have to write one for File:The Terror of War.jpg under similar circumstances years ago (though it's since fallen into the public domain since it was originally published without a copyright notice), but I can certainly put the old rationale from the deleted nonfree version I used there in case it helps. This was before templates were commonly used for nonfree image rationales, so you'd have to work that into the specific template categories as needed:

While this image is copyrighted and not released under a free license, I, Seraphimblade assert that its use in this article is acceptable because:

• The copyright holder, while not willing to release the image under a free license, has given explicit permission for use of the image on Wikipedia with appropriate attribution. This alleviates any legal concerns, and the photo's caption as used in this article provides the required attribution.
• However, even if this were not the case, the image would be legal under a claim of fair use as it is of low resolution and unsuitable for high-quality copies, would not decrease commercial demand for the origin]al, is not used or sold for profit, and is used in the context of an educational discussion regarding the image.
• The photograph is of a tremendously significant event within the town's history. As the photo is discussed in the article, using it with such a discussion adds greatly to the article's educational value.
• As an iconic photograph of a historic event, the image is irreplaceable.

So I hope that might be helpful. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Seraphimblade appreciate the advice. I'll start with this statement and remove the rest of the images. Thanks! - (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Hi folks --

Someone made some edits [11] to my colleague's wikipedia page (Nick M. Haddad), which were rolled back because an editor suspected an undeclared COI. Fair enough, but thing is I think those edits were actually decent (adding some new, relevant info while citing external sources). Is there a way to have them reconsidered?

I've read various help pages with info on COIs. As I myself have an unpaid COI with the subject, should I follow the instructions at WP:COIREQ and request the edits be reinstated on the Talk page?

Thanks! Cklausme (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cklausme, yes, if you have a COI, that is the best way forward. Even with the best of intentions, it's very hard to remain neutral with someone or something you're close to, so having someone without a COI review what you're proposing is always the best practice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm giving Cup of Joe (band) a GA review and trying to help its nominator improve the article. However, I'm running into a huge obstacle. One of the tables mentions that VJ Catacutan is the director for the music video of "Alas Dose," a song by this band. They use a Facebook post as a source: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=709897339512302
The footnote for this goes: "The music video for "Alas Dose", there is no description provided regarding the director. However, a Facebook post by Cup of Joe on October 30, 2019, indicates that the video was directed by VJ Catacutan (also appeared as an actor in the video), as noted in the post's caption." Social media posts published by the subject are an acceptable source when there's literally nothing else, right? The problem is that the post itself says: "Video by VJ Catacutan."
This is on a teaser for the song that features the cover art and a brief snippet of the song. So this is not clearly indicating that the music video was directed by the VJ guy. "Video by VJ Catacutan" could mean: 1) he edited the teaser. Or, 2) he edited the music video. (Or both.) But it's not precisely stating that he directed the music video.
What would you suggest in this instance? Thanks so much. Bloomagiliw (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bloomagiliw, this question has some subtleties which you are aware of an have described well. I would consider this question a bit advanced for the Teahouse, and would recommend posting it either at WT:Verifiability or WT:Reliable sources. It is also possible that editors familiar with band and music video issues have run into this before and will have comments backed by experience; you could try linking this post (or a new one, if you start one) from WT:WikiProject Music. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried asking there now. Thanks so much! Bloomagiliw (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]