Wikipedia:Teahouse#area of a circle

Shortcuts

• WP:TEAWP:TEA
• WP:THWP:TH

Stormy clouds, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

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

Most recent archives
1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

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

Wikipedians being helped (2 P)

 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]

You wrote the article WP:BACKWARD. In my view, you need to start over and write it forward instead. That is, don't write a single word until you have gathered multiple reliable sources that are independent of Hariprasad and contain significant coverage of him. Only then should you start writing words based on what the sources say, not based on what you know.

Continuing to proceed down the road you are already on, will lead only to frustration; your draft is likely never to be accepted as an article. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:48, 11 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]

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]

Agreed, fix up the Playmobil article, cite reliable sources, and removed the red link to Igracek in the "See also" section. If you don't want to make an account, post back here when Igracek is covered and another editor can do the redirect. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:25, 11 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.[1] 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]

@Anachronist: I only wanted to show your selfblock/unblock so my block log link also had you as performer. The 2014 block appears in the full block log.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

? StopLookingAtMe1 (talk) 08:50, 11 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]

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]

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]

A BLP draft of mine, was declined. I understand and accept that it needs more citations. But out of curiosity, just wanted to check if an AfC draft can be declined by someone who is only Pending Changes Reviewer. I have good faith in the said editor, who is doing a very good job on en wiki. But just wanted to know. Not sure if such technical questions can be asked here... Thanks and regards! Davidindia (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Users who are not admins or New Page Reviewers need to meet the criteria listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I submitted a draft article about myself, Sondra Sampson, a Lumbee and Deaf author, and it was declined (or still pending). I’ve added reliable sources including The Robesonian, BookLife, and others. I also uploaded my own image under the correct CC license. Could someone please take a look and let me know what improvements I need to make to meet notability and formatting guidelines? Thank you! Momlumbee (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Momlumbee Your draft is awaiting review, please be patient. qcne (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will be notified when it is reviewed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Momlumbee Your draft needs to comply with the policy on biographies of living people, especially the need for inline citations to published sources that verify the content. So, for example, the first paragraph of "Early life and education" has no citation. This is a typical problem for autobiographies: you have added information you know to be true but may not be able to back it up with sourcing. You must do so or remove that part. This essay describes the situation and how to remedy it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friends.

I do wonder whether you want me to translate Polish Wikipedia article about serek homogenizowany / homogenized cheese into English? This is a milk-based product you do not (I think?) have in Western world and it seems to me to be specific for Poland?

I mean, I can translate it, but I am also not sure if there is a need, so I wanted to ask here :-)

Best wihes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. It seems like it would be eligible for an article here, but to be published it must include two (preferably three) sources that meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE.

Please see WP:Translate for further guidance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... I am not an expert on judging which references are OK and which are not :-( Do you think it would be okay, or need additional sources? I'm pretty sure I could find something if need be, per instance, on Polish sites about dietetics?

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read sources in Polish, so cannot comment on those used in the article there. If you need help from a Polish speaking editor who is familiar with the English-language Wikipedia, you can find one listed on Wikipedia:Local Embassy Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friends.

i translated the article from POL Wikipedia about homogenized cheese. However, it seems to me I have a little problem with my references. Could somebody look and fix them for me? I am kind of lost, to be honest.

LINK: User:Kaworu1992/Homogenized cheese

Thank you in advance

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Okay, I seems to have figured it out by now, sorry for the commotion :-) Kaworu1992 (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friends.

I have published on EN Wikipedia an article about Homogenized cheese. Please, feel free to correct my grammar and do other stuff, okay? ;-)

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thank you. I've given it a very light copy-edit, added projects on the talk page, and set up some redirects to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaworu1992, I am too late to give advice, but the article looks good! Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I recently got blocked for a while and then got unblocked. My mentor before my block was @Tol but now that I could not talk with him for a while my new mentor is @Frosty. Why is this? BobbleObill (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BobbleObill The Special:Homepage software seems to make it possible that the offered mentor can change from time to time. Mentors can (re)claim mentees using a feature described at WP:GT/ML, so when they see this thread you can decide which mentor you want to continue with. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Turnbull is a good mentor too. I believe you were mine when I started Mike, some years ago now... Iljhgtn (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flattery Will Get You Everywhere. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with your mentor evaluation, @Iljhgtn (but might take issue with said mentor’s flattery payoff promise). 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be able to just hit "tools" then "View user groups" to be able to see which permissions or "groups" someone had or belonged to. I was recently granted event coordinator, and now I can only view "change groups" and not "view groups". Is that right? Should I not be able to just view someone's groups without needing to change them any longer? Iljhgtn (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: at least for me, the 'user groups' item is in the 'user' menu, not in 'tools'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is right. It's the basically the same page, but has a different link title and extra buttons and instructions if you can change a user's groups. As event coordinator, you can now change groups. You can probably fashion some hack to remove the instructions and buttons, if it's really a thing for you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: I have the same "Member of:" list at Special:UserRights/Iljhgtn when I'm logged in and out but logged in as an admin who can change groups, I see a lot of stuff before it and have to scroll down a line to see the list. Your screen size and zoom level may be different. I also see extra stuff after the list. I don't see an anchor in a good position for a direct link but does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserRights/Iljhgtn#:~:text=Member%20of jump to the right place for you? It depends on the browser. If it works and you don't want to have to scroll then a script could jump there on the link. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to just check myself. I was asking to be able to check on others from time to time as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: I know. I wondered whether you would prefer the link under tools to have that pattern for the given user. I still don't know whether you actually see a list of user rights and if so, whether your browser scrolls to it on that link. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: At the bottom of a user's contributions page, there is a box containing a number of links, one of which is "User groups". Deor (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it goes to the same page Special:UserRights/Iljhgtn as the link under tools. Until 2 months ago [3] it went to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Iljhgtn but on that page most users also have to scroll down to see the groups. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:2025-26 Svenska Cupen

Hello! I am trying to make a Wikipedia article about the 2025-26 Svenska Cupen. Manually entering all the results with the template "footballbox collapsible" will take forever, so I'm wondering if anyone knows an automatic way of formating these results. I have no coding experience. Rockfighterz M (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Rockfighterz M, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is absolutely no point in spending time putting this table - or anything else - into your draft, until you have found some sources that will establish that the tournament meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - that is, several sources that are wholly independent of the tournament and its sponsors and organisers, that are reliable publications, and that have significant coverage of the tournament (which would be a lot more than simply a list of games, teams, or results). See WP:42 for the criteria that the sources need to meet.

Reviewers will not even look at your table, if satisfactory sources aren't there. ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rockfighterz, those entries are formatted in HTML, the web's programming language, and have an internal structure of their own that could be parsed by a fairly simple bit of code, possibly even by a regex. Each of those matches is represented by one HTML list element with class match-list__match, and if you establish notability as Colin has mentioned, that would be your starting point. Mathglot (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is *apparently* notable. It is the currently ongoing second biggest football tournament in Sweden and is significantly covered by reputable, secondary sources. I, however, can't code at all. Perhaps I can try to learn it, so thank you Mathglot for the search terms. Rockfighterz M (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the HTML, everything seems quite neatly annotated with CSS, so parsing this should be relatively easy. I might even give it a try if it hasn't been done by tomorrow evening, though I also suspect xkcd 1319 may apply. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Maddy from Celeste. If you'd like to help, please just put the table in the draft. Rockfighterz M (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following PCRE pulls the essential data from the first score, and transforms it:

<li class="match-list__match ">
        <a class="match-list__link" href="/go-to/?fmid=6408310" >
            <div class="match-list__result">
                <div class="match-list__home">
                    <span class="match-list__team">
            <span class="team-logo">
                <img class="team-logo__img" loading="lazy" src="https://staticcdn.svenskfotboll.se/img/teamssm/9774.png" alt="Öckerö IF emblem">
            </span>
                        <span class="match-list__team-name">Öckerö IF</span>
                    </span>
                        <span class="match-list__score">2</span>
                </div>
                <div class="match-list__away">
                    <span class="match-list__team">
            <span class="team-logo">
                <img class="team-logo__img" loading="lazy" src="https://staticcdn.svenskfotboll.se/img/teamssm/6983.png" alt="FC Trollhättan emblem">
            </span>
                        <span class="match-list__team-name">FC Trollhättan</span>
                    </span>
                        <span class="match-list__score">0</span>
                </div>
            </div>
            <div class="match-list__info">
                <div class="match-list__place">
                    <time class="match-list__date" datetime="2025-05-07T19:30+02:00">19:30, 7 maj 2025</time>

                        <span class="match-list__location">Prästängen 1 Konstgräs</span>
                        <span class="match-list__audience"></span>
                </div>
            </div>
        </a>
    </li>

team1=Öckerö IF; score1=2; team2=FC Trollhättan; score2=0; date=19:30, 7 maj 2025

This should be considered a proof of concept, and has only been tested on the first game shown on the page; other games may have slightly different formats or data, and the regex would have to be adjusted accordingly. Once updated, you could run the regex once on the entire file to generate wikicode to display the games however you want (including translating the month names). HTH, Mathglot (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

How do I add the Welcome template that a lot of users use to welcome others, for example on my talk page? WikiHelper3906 (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some templates here Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates. Is this what you're looking for? Knitsey (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the one that was used on my talk page. WikiHelper3906 (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific template that was used on your own talk page is {{Welcoming}} (the code is {{subst:welcoming}} ~~~~). If you use Twinkle, you can also apply templates such as that one on user talk pages. (You can test these at User talk:Sandbox for user warnings). Justjourney (talk | contribs) 19:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a draft about myself, but to avoid conflict of interest, I’m looking for a neutral editor to review and submit the article if it meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Can someone help? Sshirangi (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my evaluation, writing about yourself is discouraged in Wikipedia, and it passes basic WP:COI, check WP:Autobiography. However, from what I see in your article, you have demonstrated an inability to write an article even about yourself, which is, as guessed, filled with promotion, bias and unnecessary flattery proses. How about you take a time learning here and here. Please read this and this too. Sys64 message this user 00:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there is a large backlog of drafts. usually if you have submitted a draft for review you have to be patient; it’s unfair for everybody if people are able to ‘skip the line’ by asking for a review. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRomean, if we would look at [his draft], it seems it has not been updated for than 5 months as well as............ it does not seems quite an article to me. Sys64 message this user 02:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and @Sshirangi highly suggest you not submit the draft for review unless you’ve significantly changed it with some of the info others have/might give you; Help:Your first article is a good place to start. GoldRomean (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sys64wiki, your comment is barely comprehensible and in one part mistaken. -- Hoary (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into that. Thank you for bringing it up. Sys64 message this user 02:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sshirangi, you have created Draft:Soheil Shirangi and Draft:Soheil Shirangi 2. They're about the same subject. That's already one too many, regardless of the notability of the subject or the quality of the draft. Each resembles a CV. An article here does not resemble a CV. For this reason and others, submission of your draft in anything like its current state would be declined. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your drafts have been deleted as copyright violations of material already published elsewhere. While you may own the copyright to that material, you may not use Wikipedia to publish copyrighted material because Wikipedia has not been given permission to publish it, and we do not accept the word of some random Wikipedia account that permission to republish has been granted. See WP:CONSENT for more details.

Just copying and pasting that material also doesn't constitute a Wikipedia article. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a bunch of big scary errors at Almost all

Thanks 125.237.67.137 (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any page errors. Do you mean there are errors in the content? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the CS1 errors? Red warnings when you preview the page. Just ignore them, they're unimportant. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume they meant these: https://imgur.com/a/8LJdbm3. — DVRTed (Talk) 10:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess most browsers (even mobile) have MathML or an equivalent enabled. Apparently there is a Firefox add-on that seems to provide MathML support specifically on MediaWiki. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Equations usually render just fine for me in Firefox without any special extensions needed. (And the page in question currently looks fine, admittedly hours later.) -- Avocado (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's weird - I thought WP rendered this stuff server-side? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought WP rendered this stuff server-side?

In this economy? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a known issue – see e.g. this discussion. The suggested fix is to purge the affected page. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello community. I have write a draft article about a major incident of Building collapse Draft:2025 Karachi building collapse in Karachi, Pakistan. I have try my best to add reliable and secondary sources and a Infobox. You are all invited to fix any errors or any suggestions for the draft to meet it with Wikipedia Standards for move into main space. Thank you Vaspuraqan (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now at 2025 Karachi building collapse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 11 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]

Hi, I have a new neutral draft about Soheil Shirangi written by someone else to avoid COI. Can anyone help review and submit? 130.212.95.219 (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having someone else write it does not avoid COI, it just transfers it to that person. That person must declare the COI. You don't link to the draft, so it's hard to help you(I couldn't find it searching the title in draft space), but if the Article Wizard was used to create it, information to submit it is provided, and the editor may submit it for review themselves. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Soheil Shirangi 2 and Draft:Soheil Shirangi both deleted as copyright violations. Theroadislong (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends!

Yesterday, I spent a few hours doing some updates to Igor & The Red Elvises and their many related pages. One of the biggest updates was renaming their band name on various pages from the former name, which was simply "Red Elvises".

As part of the update, I created Category:Red_Elvises_albums and updated all pages linking from Category:Red_Elvises_albums to this updated page. So now, I have two problems:

• Category:Red_Elvises_albums still has a page under its category (Grooving to the Moscow Beat- but that page is a redirect to Igor & The Red Elvises. I can't figure out how to make that page disappear from Category:Red_Elvises_albums.
• I don't know how to redirect the page Category:Red_Elvises_albums over to Category:Igor_&_The_Red_Elvises_albums
• How can I update the redirect of Grooving to the Moscow Beat from Red Elvises to Igor & The Red Elvises? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaesaMajestas (talk • contribs) 18:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry if I tackled this whole thing wrong at some point. What is the best way to handle it from here?

Bonus question - How do I link to category pages without just showing the raw link? lol, sorry to have to ask.

Thanks for reading, and for any help/guidance you might be able to provide. <3

LaesaMajestas (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm so sorry to waste people's time. I've figured out the following so far:

• Updated the redirect on Grooving to the Moscow Beat.
• I might have done the redirect properly for the second bullet above, but the page does a soft redirect, not a full one. Is that how it should be done?
• Updated the category in Grooving to the Moscow Beat so it no longer appears on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Red_Elvises_albums
• Figured out the bonus question.

LaesaMajestas (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I fix this issue on Category:Red Elvises albums? I edited the Wikidata content, but this message seems to stick.

• From a cross-project redirect: This is a soft redirect that is used as a connection to other Wikimedia projects. A Wikidata element is linked to this page: Category:Igor & The Red Elvises albums (Q8641528).

LaesaMajestas (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Former IP editor for 2 months. You would think I got the hang of adding pictures here, but I never learned :P . DLJohnson56 (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you took the image yourself, you can upload it to Commons; see WP:UPIMAGE for more information. If you didn't, it's a bit harder(which we can go into if needed). 331dot (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the blank column at the right of the table of films in William Holden (character actor). I don't understand table syntax. (I would also remove the empty "Notes" column, but perhaps there's some rule stating that such a column is required.) Thank you. 176.108.139.1 (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Fixed by removing an extra cell in the Framed row.[4] It may depend on the browser but before this removal I could spot the cell because it had horizontal borders in [5]. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn’t you use multiple accounts to contribute to the same article or page in a way that suggests that they are multiple people? What happens if you did it? 76.81.87.234 (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would be blocked as a sock puppet, see WP:SOCK. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am interested in improving the article Gregor and the Marks of Secret, a fairly neglected article about a children's book from 2006. In the plot section, there's a not-insignificant amount of text (~70 words) copied from the book (the italicized parts), and uncited. It has been there in some form since 2008.

The section is quite poor, in my opinion, and should be significantly rewritten, and I am not asking for advice with regards to the actual content. Are the 70 words from the book itself enough to qualify as a copyright violation? Earwig doesn't think so, but as the source is print I think this would be outside its scope regardless.

I know copyvio is serious, but I don't want to waste anyone's time with a frivolous report if a WP:PLOTREF citation would suffice (at least short term), and I perused the copyright guidelines and didn't find guidance on a "cut off point" of where attribution would suffice vs. where it becomes a problem. NovaHyperion (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The words are used as quotations, and as such they wouldn't be copyright violations. The bigger problem I see is WP:OR, where some editor's own interpretation of various prophecies is presented in Wikipedia's narrative voice without citing any sources. That entire section could be removed, or the first paragraph of it retained with a source. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist:Thank you for the response!

I think the OR concern is not quite as bad as it appears without context, since that is a faithful (to my eyes) summary of information from the book itself (the characters themselves performed that analysis and an editor then summarized it). I do not think that is a good format for that information, and far too in depth, but it is just a continuation of the plot summary.

I agree the section is unnecessary and could be removed or greatly reworked, and I definitely plan to look at it, but my immediate concern was if something needed to be promptly deleted on copyright grounds, which you have kindly addressed! NovaHyperion (talk) 23:15, 11 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]

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]

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]

Hello all, I wrote the plot summary for The Day the Voices Stopped, but the plot summary of his life is very seedy and I'm concerned because there is a revised paperback edition, even though it's a memoir. Do I need to buy the revised edition of the book and summarize the plot based off of the revised edition for it to be a GA or FA? BLP doesn't apply because he died 25 years ago? Therapyisgood (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Therapyisgood, whether reference to the revised edition is desirable might depend on the nature of the revision. (Correcting mere typos? Rewording more smoothly? Reinstating material previously cut in accordance with legal advice?) I have no comment on how the matter might impact chances at GA or FA. I see no suggestion in WP:BLP that WP:BLP applies to people who died 25 years previously. -- Hoary (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as it's a memoir, it should have a synopsis rather than a plot summary (which is for fiction). 115.189.135.128 (talk) 02:10, 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]

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]

Hi, can you explain what is the purpose of talking welcome surveys if you are a newcomer? NetRoots097 (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]