Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1257

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1250

←

Archive 1255

Archive 1256

Archive 1257

Archive 1258

Hello are there people here who can help edit and finish a wiki page that has already been started? 73.60.75.31 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Generally, no.

But you can ask on a relevant WikiProject and you might get lucky. If you tell us which article you have in mind, we can advise more specifically. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't generally ever considered finished. New information may always come to light on any given topic, and there's always scope for improvement. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering how I can create better articles and improve on the current draft that I submitted? NathanielTheGreatEditor (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NathanielTheGreatEditor Looking at the current state of Draft:Fatality (gamer), my suggestions to you would be to familiarise yourself with how to use inline citations, to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and to gain an understanding of Wikipedia:Notability, as summarised usefully at WP:GOLDENRULE (this latter point may or may not not help you with improve that draft, but it will help when it comes to selecting topics to write about in future). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

NathanielTheGreatEditor, I second what Cordless Larry says above. You've been editing for just three or four days. With so little experience, attempting to create a draft that will be accepted as an article is going to be very tough. You should first get more experience of improving existing, defective articles. One that you've already (and beneficially) tinkered with is SuperX (Operating System). Here's a sample of the article in its current state: The operating system embraces beginners, casual users and makes them feel at home. Simplicity doesn't mean feature-less. SuperX is as powerful and very handy for professionals and experts alike. The GNU utilities plus the software packages available are enough to be used for any task. SuperX is perfectly capable of being a desktop publishing setup, multimedia hub or even server. An exercise for you on your path towards GreatEditorNess: (i) Does this look OK? (ii) If it doesn't look OK, how might it be improved? Improve it. (iii) Also, if it doesn't look OK, what else in the article shares one or more of its problems? Fix it. (iv) But if the sample above does look OK, then take a break from editing Wikipedia for one or two days, and then reread and rethink. -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I am writing an article on Carl Marsh, the composer, arranger and conductor. Sometimes when I go to publish/save my work I get the error message "Content is not properly deflated" with no explanation and I can't find this matter explained anywhere. I am sourcing all of my claims. What does this error message mean? How can I fix the error?

Confused, Chris King Chriskingstl (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Chriskingstl, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess the message is MediaWiki:Deflate-invaliddeflate: "Content provided is not properly deflated". It's not your fault. The documentation says "Error message if the content passed to Deflate was not deflated (compressed) properly". It indicates a problem in your browser, our software, or the communication between them. What is your browser? Does it happen every time for the same edit? Can you try the same edit in another browser? It appears to mostly or only happen in VisualEditor and not the source editor. There is a little discussion but no fix at phab:T381673. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I've made a draft article in my sandbox but don't know where to find it. I also labelled it an abbreviation instead of its full name because I thought it would just be for me

Thank you for your time ForFawkesSake (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Your edit history shows this Draft:RSU 13 ME. Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The abbreviated name is not a problem, because when you eventually, via Wikipedia:Articles for creation, submit the Draft for review, the reviewer will (probably even if they Decline it for further improvement, and certainly if they Accept it) amend (by moving) the title to what they think most appropriate.

However, at the moment, if submitted the Draft will certainly be Declined, for the reason that the previous commenter has placed at the top.

To qualify for an article, a subject has to be WP:Notable, as demonstrated by citing most of its contents to published Reliable sources completely independent of the subject; only minor uncontroversial facts can be corroborated by sources connected to the subject (such as its own website) and these do not count towards notability.

So far your draft cites no sources at all, and appears to be based entirely on the subject's website. Most of what you have included should have inline citations to its sources (presumably the website) but the Educational Initiatives section should be removed (Wikipedia is not interested in subjects' own 'mission statements' and the like).

You need to find several sources completely independent of the subject (which excludes material based on its press releases, or on interviews with its staff) and build the article with summaries of those. To use a culinary analogy, the material you have so far is mostly allowable garnishing, but none of it is the main ingredients. And of course if you cannot identify and use these ingredients, Wikipedia will not accept the recipe. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.81.243 (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! My article submission was declined on 6 June 2025 for not having adequate reliable sources. I want to improve it but I’m not sure which sources are considered reliable or how to fix the referencing. Could someone please review my draft and guide me? Here is the draft link: Draft:Ajami Records. Samikanawati (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Samikanawati, it looks like the reviewers are telling you that you need more reliable and independent source material to demonstrate that the subject is notable (and some special guidelines apply regarding the notability of organizations and companies). You can see how sources are evaluated for reliability here, and for independence here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Samikanawati, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of whatseveral people who have no connection whatever with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. See WP:Golden rule for the criteria that your sources must meet. Neither of your sources comes anywhere near this: WP:DISCOGS is not regarded as a reliable source because it is user-generated, and Elaph (as far as I can tell from Google Translate) has only a passing mentin of Ajami Records.

You need to begin by finding several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:Golden Rule - if you cannot, then you will know that the label does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability and there is no point in spending more time on this. (Sources do not have to be in English, but they must meet those criteria).

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Upon assessing page notability it has come up a lot where people dispute whether or not a certain notability criterion applies, therefore it remains unclear, is it up to us or policies to determine notability? In other words which comes first criterion or consensus? 

If policy comes first, then is consensus on notability about whether such-and-such criterion applies on a given subject?

If consensus comes first, then we can dispute til Sunday, everything from the reliability of reliable sources, to the credibility of notability guidelines. Xpander (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Policy should be put before a guideline, so consensus is most important. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Xpander1, if policies and guidelines were always crystal clear and indisputable, then we could simply have bots or "Artificial Intelligence" make the decisions for us. But they aren't that cut and dried. There are always edge cases requiring nuanced decisions. So that is why Wikipedia is a consensus based project. Keep in mind that policies and formal guidelines are the product of community wide consensus. Local consensus in a debate about a specific topic can make specific decisions about that topic but can never override established policies. Guidelines usually contain language such as Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Cullen328 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

So we can easily reach biased consensus if the participants share a similar point-of-view. What makes it possible to avoid that?

Unless we are presupposing that the community is diverse enough, participating in every decision-making process, we can't guarantee consensus is not biased or arbitrary. Therefore aren't we betting too much on consensus? Xpander (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in the World is perfect. Here we do the best we can, and we have over 20 years' of continually refined communal experience doing it. If you have concrete suggestions for how to do it better, with no counterbalancing drawbacks (such as making a process too unwieldy), suggest them, preferably at the WP:Village pump. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.81.243 (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

How can one reuse sources so that you don't have to type out the ref tag every time? (The abcdefg ref tag thing) Thanks! Hi I'm Sailing427, but you can call me Sailing. Look at my profile. (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sailing427alt Welcome to the Teahouse. We do this re-use via something called named references. See that link for details. The practicalities are a little different depending on whether you edit via the Visual or Source editor. There is a subsection at Help:Introduction covering referencing with the alternative editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I have created an article @ User:Born A Geek/Scanty, but the article is not available publicly, is there something I didn’t do or any suggestion on how to make it public Born A Geek (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you created your article in the wp:userspace, where it is not visible to the public. The userspace is a place for you to quietly develop your draft or introduce yourself as an editor. To make the article available to public, it has to be in the mainspace, where all articles reside. Technically, you can move your article to mainspace by yourself, but I don't think it is ready to be moved yet. Per Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (see WP:42). The currently cited sources are lackluster. Two of them even has the exact same text. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

When you have done as User:Ca suggests, please submit the article for review, via the process described at WP:AFC. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it to "mainspace". If not thy will give you further advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hiya, do we have any policies/guidelines for archiving article talk pages? Or can I just cut-and-paste stuff when it gets too long? Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@GoldRomean, I don't think there are any specific guidelines on when to archive, it is just needed on long talk pages. WP:ARCHIVE has all the technical information on archiving, I would suggest setting up one of the archive bots as it will do it without human intervention. If you need more help feel free to ask or take a look at how other article talk pages are archived. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@GoldRomean, just to add to that, since most talk pages aren't archived, because they don't get enough action, people are very likely to assume that there is no archive if you let an archive bot run at the default settings. I'd suggest raising both the minimum number of allowed threads and the maximum thread age, so that more conversations stay on the talk page. It's very annoying for the same conversation to come up again and again every year or couple of months. -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Further to this, keeping a minimum of four threads (|minthreadsleft=4) ensures that a table of contents is shown. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

How can I request an Administrator to delete a Talk redirect? Talk:Lost Highway Records shouldn't be redirecting to a different page. Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Didn't need an admin; fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Article in question is Old Holborn ref 3 and 4 lead to fishing page with pornografic content. 91.184.215.252 (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I've replaced the URL with an archive. Looks like a case of domain hijacking. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, my draft article has been submitted and created Tsitsi Masiyiwa however I noticed a comment on my talk page Colette2204 that a reviewer left "undeclared WP:COI. The image in the article, which was verified via email, indicates some level of COI that is not declared. Please declare that first" I don't understand as I have declared a COI and don't understand what to do further about the image in the article. Please can someone help me with this? Colette2204 (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

That is an old message. You can safely ignore it as developments have developed, and your article moved to mainspace as noted in the message further down your talkpage. - Roxy the dog 07:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Great thank you for your help, I appreciate it very much. Colette2204 (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I’m a new contributor. A draft article I created on myself was deleted (Draft:Surya Devan) for promotional tone. I now understand that was inappropriate and want to revise the draft neutrally.

How can I get help from a neutral editor or move forward in my user space to learn properly?

Thanks! SuryaDevanE (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Your draft is here Draft:Surya Devan. Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It’s not there.. SuryaDevanE (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Correct it was deleted after I posted the link. Theroadislong (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

User:CactusWriter deleted it; if you explain how you meet the inclusion criteria described at WP:N, they might undelete it for you to work on. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@SuryaDevanE Your edits so far appear promotional. You have been asked a formal question about WP:PAID and have been warned twice for advertising.

All editors are neutral until proven otherwise. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Can I write about The Caravan of Steadfastness? 41.109.0.88 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In principle, you can write about any subject as long as it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - that is, there is enough independent reliable material published about it to base an article on: see golden rule.

However, there are two things I should caution you about:

First, successfully writing an article on Wikipedia is much more difficult than most people expect. 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.

Secondly, anything related (even quite loosely) to the Arab-Israeli conflict is under special sanctions, and you need to be extremely careful before editing in that area: see WP:CT/ARBPIA. I know that that forbids unconfirmed editors (including anonymous ones) from editing existing articles in this area: I'm not certain whether it forbids you from making a draft and submitting it to Articles for creation or not.

Given this uncertainty, I would advise you not to attempt this, at least until you have made enough real edits to real articles to understand the policies. ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

IP editor: There are an increasing number of Google hits for that phrase but as it is a rapidly-evolving topic it will be more difficult than many to write about. See also WP:NOTNEWS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

While you may not be able to write an article on the topic, the restrictions mentioned here do not prevent you from drafting a (neutral, well-sourced) paragraph about it and asking on the talk page of a relevant article for it to be included there. If the section grows, it may later be spun off into a new article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:BER says:

In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.

Which AIUI only applies to editors explicitly placed under a BER restriction.

WP:ECR is ambiguous; it says:

1. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
   1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below.
   2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

I have suggested at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Ambiguity in ECR, around Drafts that it be clarified. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, everyone. 41.109.0.88 (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Alaya The Goddess Mc

Hi I received help generating an article about the artist from chat got how can I receive assistance with editing in order to edit my draft and have it published Anuhiphopnation (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

You have already asked this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#18:37, 7 June 2025 review of submission by Anuhiphopnation and received replies there. We advise against starting duplicate discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Can advanced editors go to the Teahouse for editing? Why do advanced users use the Help Desk, while the new editors use here, (referring to the Teahouse)?I want to use the Teahouse. TweetyBirdIsCoolBoi (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Anyone can use either; The Teahouse is focussed on newbies and thus more tolerant of newbie errors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I want to edit the caption to an image, but the main edit page for the article doesn't include images or any sort of placeholder for them, nor any caption text or way to edit it.

How do I find the place to make such edits?

The article in question is Vercingetorix. The image is one of plaque in a museum in Rome which contains erroneous information that is about 2/3 of the way down on the right.

Thanks! Chris Lowe (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Cclowe the edit page for the article does include the image as well as the caption; for instructions on how to add and edit them, you can refer to Help:Pictures. You can try using Ctrl+F for the image caption in the wikitext. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I am writing a page on the artist Natalie White. It has been declined and I've made edits/added sources in line with feedback. Here is the draft. Any suggestions to get it approved would be amazing. Draft:Natalie White. Atelier2002 (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Atelier2002. I first noticed that your draft says After a modeling career as a muse for artists including . . .. First of all, that is name-dropping which is not appropriate in encyclopedia articles. (Wow, John Lennon's son!) Secondly, I wanted to see which reference verifies this extraordinary muse claim. It turns out to be a commercial art gallery that sells her work that actually says Her creative drive and unapologetic spirit quickly led her towards more collaborative ventures with artists such as . . .. A muse is not defined as someone engaged in something vague like "collaborative ventures" and a commercial gallery that sells her artwork is not a reliable independent source for assessing her career. For that type of content, you need reliable sources entirely independent of the artist and her marketing efforts. And then at the end of the Career section, we've got more industrial strength name-dropping, a list of other artists who have used the same unusually large camera that she sometimes uses. That might be appropriate in the article about the camera, but not in an article about White. Notability is not inherited from using a rare camera also used by famous photographers. We learn of her activism through inappropriate external links to a group that she's involved with, and a website for a protest she organized. We learn that she sold a photo from a reference to the auction house that sold the photo. Not from independent sources in either case. What is lacking is a summary of critical assessment of her work by completely independent art experts, and the appropriate references to back that summary up. The content is over-reliant on non-independent sources and the overall tone is promotional. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. What is your relationship with White? Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I have created a draft article here: User:Suarez94/sandbox. Could someone please review it and, if appropriate, move it to the mainspace? Thank you! Suarez94 (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is not submitted for review yet. Please submit it for review after moving it in draft space with suitable draft title. Fade258 (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Suarez94, this is the English-language Wikipedia. Your Draft is written in what I assume is a Slavic language (Croatian?), so it belongs (if it meets their requirements) in the Wikipedia of whatever language it is in.

Please be aware that every different language's Wikipedia is run as separate project, with different rules, and no Wikipedia (including this one, although it is the oldest and largest) has any authority or influence over any other. I hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.81.243 (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

That would be the Croatian language Wikipedia: hr:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I’ve created a draft article titled "Adelaide Wyrzynski" at Draft:Adelaide Wyrzynski.

I don’t have the Move tab available to publish it to the main Wikipedia space.

Could someone please assist me by moving the draft to the main article space?

Thank you very much!

Draft:Adelaide Wyrzynski. Coolcook74 (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Cookcook74 Hello and welcome. New accounts cannot directly create articles, you need to submit the draft for a review. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to do that, but if you were to do so now, it would be declined, as many parts are unsourced. All substantive facts about a living person must be sourced per the Biographies of Living Persons policy.

I would also note that awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). I'm actually skeptical that this person meets the definition of a notable person, though I don't have access to all the information. 331dot (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The relevant notability criteria would be those at WP:FOOTYN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking into it, appreciate it. We have tried many years ago and tried again today but probably there isn't much info /source /reference enough to get her info published. Appreciate your help looking into it. Coolcook74 (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

If and when you are sure the notability criteria have been met, and once you have addressed the sourcing issues mentioned above, you can submit your article for review using the process described at WP:AFC. A volunteer will then review it and either publish it or advise what other work is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

so I need some help with what i believe is formatting, so on a wikipedia page for a company were would you put bad things the company does? HCPM (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, HCPM. You can find some good advice in the essay Wikipedia:Criticism. Adhering to the Neutral point of view is mandatory. It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to call things "bad". Just summarize the full range of coverage in reliable sources, and avoid Cherry picking of sources to advance a preferred narrative. Cullen328 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

okay so.. my apologies as this is an issue with my grasp of english, i dont mean bad in well the sense you think, i mean bad as in this is a negative thing, im so sorry im dumb, but i meant it in the case of "where would i put the negative things a company did" like.. idk if it would help if i give you the wikipedia page but like if a zoo does things that are harmful to animals how would i.. idk man im really sorry, thanks for the help either way! HCPM (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

That is the sense used in the advice above.

If you are still not sure, start a discussion on the talk page of the article concerned. Remember that citing sources is vital. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I wasn't sure of the best place to ask this, so I thought I would ask here to be safe! I've uploaded an image to Wikipedia for a draft I am currently working on File:La Roncière translation.png, it is a screenshot of a page of a book written by Charles de La Roncière called 'Le Flibustier Mystérieux: Histoire d’un trésor caché'. La Roncière himself died in 1941. The book is written in French and was published in France in 1934. The screenshot I took is of a digital copy of the book hosted on Flipbuilder [[1]]. I assume that as 70 years have passed since the author's death in 1941, the book would be in the public domain, at least in France. I am unsure about the USA or if it would be acceptable on Wikipedia currently. Basically I am just double checking this can be used on Wikipedia without violating copyright! Thanks! (Also would greatly appreciate being directed to a more appropriate place to ask these types of questions in future as I am still pretty new to Wikipedia!) 11WB (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

You'd do better to ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for the direction. I was able to get some reassurance from that page! 11WB (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi. When I browse Article for deletion only, I see a white space on left and right side. Please help me on this. Fade258 (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The "mobile" view of "Articles for deletion" looks bad for me (running Firefox under a Debian derivative) too, Fade258. But the "desktop" view of the same page looks good. -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I also noticed that but Is there any method to solve this? I only face this problem while browsing AfD as while browsing AfC, PROD, NPP etc. it looks good on desktop view. Hoary Fade258 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

You could ask on WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to change the Category:Israeli Navy generals to be renamed to Category:Israeli Navy admirals. Navies do not have generals, they have admirals as their top of the chain of command. How do I submit this change since it is a category? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, you are describing a linguistic convention in the English language, and some other languages, that does not correspond to formal usage in modern Hebrew. The Israel Defense Forces, unlike the militaries of most other countries that have a term equivalent to "admiral", uses the same Hebrew word Aluf for the rank of all of its senior military leaders, whether they lead land, sea or air forces. Accordingly, the change you propose is not a straightforward one, and requires discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am trying to submit a logo to a page I just made. I tried to use the Image Upload Wizard, the problem with that in this instance is that the website seems to be on a global spam blacklist because it has .xyz as the URL ending.

I also want to use the URL in the infobox and it does not allow this either. Is there a way to get specific URL's exempted from the global blacklist in legitimate instances like this? (This is related to the OCEAN (Bitcoin mining pool) page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gjb0zWxOb, you can make a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist for an exemption.

Tangentially, I am concerned that the article's current sources do not establish notability, as they are mostly press releases or written by Forbes contributors. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

If i get any stuff sorted out then do i sort out Kim? 41.193.223.238 (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a venue for questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have such a question? Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

uploading an article Gweskada Tapshak Inuwa (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gweskada Tapshak Inuwa: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You can find information about writing your first article here, but I want you to understand that writing an article from scratch is a difficult endeavor and requires in-depth knowledge about several relevant policies and guidelines. Articles have to be about a subject that is notable, based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and be written from a neutral point-of-view. There are also additional and more stringent requirements for biographies about living people. The best way to learn about these relevant policies and guidelines is not by merely reading them, but by editing articles that have already been written. So I would recommend against starting your editing here by writing an article until you gain experience with working with articles that are already on Wikipedia. You can get more information on how to help here. cyberdog958^Talk 01:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Gweskada Tapshak Inuwa, please reconsider this pair of your edits. I presume that they were well intended, but (i) they're only very tenuously related to the subject of the article (Ngas language) and (ii) they're unreferenced. Above, Cyberdog958 has excellent advice for you. -- Hoary (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@User:Cyberdog958 thank you your advice. I hope to get More advices from you. Gweskada Tapshak Inuwa (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Please I need someone who can guide me and teach me how I can create something approvable on Wikipedia please Marie20123 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see the links in the welcome message on your talk page (one is a tutorial). Feel free to come back here if you have a more specific question once you have read them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Marie20123, please read Your first article where you will find some very good advice. Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The download link "Telechqrger" doesn't work.

"wikisource:fr:Le Misanthrope/Édition Louandre, 1910" Cordialement, a (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Cordialement, a. The Teahouse is for questions about the English language Wikipedia. Maybe someone is familiar enough with French Wikisource to help you. Maybe not. Cullen328 (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Bonjour, when you click/follow a Download/Télécharger link on Wikisource, you have to select the file format you want (epub/mobi/pdf) and you might have to wait a few seconds for the file to be compiled. But Cullen is right, for general questions about Wikisource, it's best to ask at s:WS:Scriptorium. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I recently asked about this topic but more focused on , making an article for Edie Saccone Joly, the 11-year old trans daughter member of the Saccone-Joly family. Everyone agreed that there is only one article on a reliable source and that its an interview so not really reliable.This would be a case of WP:Too soon. However, thinking about an article on the whole family, I found that there are four or five articles on reliable sources that cover the family in deep. And this is not even counting the articles on non reliable sources. Anyways I have been thinking about making an article, a stub perhaps, covering the entire family with some basic information. What do you guys think? Also, no Im not related to them. But Im running out of nicknames so im using their last names as my nickname on this comment!Jeanette Saconne-Joly Martin (dynamite me!) 03:46, 7 June, 2025 (UTC)

JeanetteMartin, if you have found four or five articles in reliable sources that cover a subject in depth, and if these sources are independent of the subject, then it sounds as if the subject is eligible for an article. (There are exceptions, but I shan't go into these.) But I have to say that I'm wary of articles on families: these tend to be concoctions of snippets about minor matters (or mere trivia) related to individual members of the family, few (if any) of whom are actually notable. I've never heard of the family or of Edie Saccone Joly: when I ask Google for material about ESJ, it serves me a pile of sources that would be utterly unsatisfactory for a Wikipedia article. ¶ Your name here is JeanetteMartin: adding a nickname to it doesn't help communication with other editors, using as a nickname the surname of a family you hope to write about strikes me as a poor idea. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

JeanetteMartin Please deal with the issue of your signature, as advised on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Something's happening that I cannot log on to my account of JeanetteMartin. I emailed Wikipedia but they have not answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanettemartinfortrump (talk • contribs) 12:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not think that JeanetteMartin has set an email for the account. Without that, password recovery is unlikely. One should always set the email to recover an account. Peaceray (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

That is probably it. But something strange also happened because the new account the site wants to give me is "JeanetteMartinfortrump" which Im fine with except for the fact its kind of...political...and this happened right after I signed a message in which I mentioned making an article about a family whose members include a transgender daughter and identified on my signature with them....and its also well known that I myself am transgender and work at a porn chat line, so without suspecting anyone in particular, it's kinda....iffy...... (Added by Jeanettemartinfortrump)

Jeanettemartinfortrump, however it was that you acquired the user ID "Jeanettemartinfortrump", if you don't like it, then don't use it. Instead, create a new user ID, log in with that ID, follow Peaceray's excellent advice above about email, and, optionally, mention on your new user page that you were previously "JeanetteMartin". -- Hoary (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I wish i could go back to using JeanetteMartin with the 4,000 plus articles I created...I have plans for many other articles....but if not, Im seriously thinking these days that maybe it's time after 22 years, to take a step away.

I mean, I actually saw my work at Wikipedia as my legacy in this world. None of the articles were mine of course but I started them and in that way, that is something I made. I would love to be able to go back to collaborate as JeanetteMartin, with my contribution history.... Jeanettemartinfortrump (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I get the message "You need to verify your login. A verification code has been sent to your email address, please enter that code here." when I try to log in as User:Shshshsh, my regular account. I don't have access to my old email. Shshshsh3 (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you have another device on which you are already logged in? If so, use that to update your email address. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: No, I don't. Shshshsh3 (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Shshshsh3

Hi, I had to use this "enter the verification code" some days ago, too. If I remember correctly: beneath the Input Box for the code it was stated: "If you No longer have access to this Email adress, please contact...(WMF?)

HTH Maresa63 ^Talk 22:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Maresa63: Did you send them an email? Shshshsh3 (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

no, I didn't have to. Luckily I have still access to my registered email. But first I had a hard time to get the code in, so I noticed the statement. Did you try to mail them? Maresa63 ^Talk 09:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Maresa63: Yes, no answer yet. Shshshsh3 (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

be happy

103.59.134.173 (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I've left some useful links on your talk page. Please ask here if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, after reading them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Stark Gallery

Hi Teahouse,

I recently submitted a draft article for Stark Gallery (Draft:Stark Gallery), a small but historically significant art gallery on Nantucket. The submission was declined because it didn’t have enough in-depth, independent sources, and I totally understand the standards around notability.

That said, I’m just a big fan of the gallery and wanted to preserve a bit of local history. I’ve included all the coverage I could find, but it’s mostly from smaller publications or local press, there aren’t many in-depth national sources out there.

My question is: Is this article kind of a lost cause if I can’t find more sources? Or are there any strategies you’d suggest for improving the draft, or places I might look for more coverage? I’d really appreciate any advice or feedback.

Thanks so much! Lilstark (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Lilstark: Welcome to the Teahouse. Writing an article is often a difficult task for new editors. You can read Help:Your first article for a simple guide, and WP:Notability (organizations and companies) to get more details about what we're looking for.

A Wikipedia article should summarize what reliable sources that are independent of the gallery have to say about the gallery beyond simple mentions or announcements. Local sources and small publications are sometimes acceptable sources if they contain in-depth coverage of the subject, but most of your draft's sources do not even mention the gallery, and the ones that do (Artists Association of Nantucket and Nantucket Cultural District) are not independent of Stark Gallery. So yes, if you are unable to find better sources, there cannot be a Wikipedia article about Stark Gallery.

Also, please do not use ChatGPT or other LLMs to write anything on Wikipedia: I see that at least one of your sources was generated with the help of ChatGPT. (See WP:LLM for more information) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used.

Your user name suggests you may have a connection to the gallery; if that is the case you must follow WP:COI and WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Monty Hobbs

I recently published a page it was decline, based on the article not showing significant coverage

what do you suggest, can i still re-edit and submit? Lasetunde (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

If significant coverage exists (from reliable sources that are independent of the article subject), then you can cite this coverage and improve the draft. If it doesn't exist, then you're just wasting your time (and, if I understand your status correctly, your client's money). -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, there few reliable sources, but then still not approved. Do you suggest I start from scratch again? Lasetunde (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

No; Wikipedia works by a process of incremental improvements. Work on your existing draft and submit it again when it meets the requirements at WP:N.

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Emmnauel Tusiime/sandbox

Could someone please help me understand how I can improve this article enough to have it approved?

Francis Xavier Ruhesi, a pioneer native engineer, lived and served at a time (pre and post independent Uganda) when media coverage in Uganda was very limited. Archiving of print media has been poor and the few articles present (accessed through Makerere University archives) were printed in local media and in Runyankore, a language native to Western Uganda.

In addition, many notable Ugandans killed by the Idi Amin regime "disappeared" (bodies were never discovered) and have not been well documented (It is said that the regime deliberately destroyed documents). Although there is high interest (in the country) in knowing about these personalities, there has been limited investment in research about them. To date, the mentions are in books (without much detail) and in a study - Violations of Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Uganda - by the International Commission of Jurists, Open Letter to General Idi Amin from Wanume Kibedi, former Uganda Foreign Minister (1971-1973), where the interviewee could only give details for a few. Emmnauel Tusiime (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Friends: I recently suggested simplifying the first sentence of Wikipedia's page on "Evil" and it looks like it was accepted. Is there a way for me to know for sure? Thanks, Writing is easy. Writing is easy (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Visit the article Evil, and read its first sentence. -- Hoary (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for answering me, Hoary: Is the standard procedure that no one tells a person who suggested an edit that it was accepted? Writing is easy (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

If I make a suggestion and somebody implements it, I'm not surprised if they tell me they've done so; neither am I surprised if they don't tell me they've done so. -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that there is no standard as far as being notified if one's suggestion was accepted.

I don't know if you are the correct person to ask about the following: Wikipedia's page on MINDSET is excellent. I wonder if the editors would welcome adding sections on topics such as AMERICAN KNOW-HOW, or the AMERICAN MINDSET, THE BRITISH MINDSET, THE GERMAN MINDSET, THE CHINESE MINDSET, THE FEMALE MINDSET, THE LATINO MINDSET, THE JEWISH MINDSET, etc.

I say that because since the 1970s I noticed that people have what I back then called MENTALITIES, but see it is best to call MINDSETS. And that describing them helps everyone understand people who are from a specific group.

The characteristics of each group's MINDSET are not set in stone, they're the ways people who are part of a group "typically" think and act.

I think everyone would agree that, for example, Americans, have a specific mindset. And that it is the product of many factors, such as our history, our society, our schools, our inventions, etc.

Thank you, Hoary. Writing is easy (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Writing is easy, I happen to think that a comparison of two Americans as conspicuous as the two contenders in the most recent US presidential election is enough to demonstrate that there is no single "American mindset". (And I could make similar comments on "the German mindset", etc.) But what I happen to think is of no import. If you have access to reliable sources on this or that mindset, then you are free to augment the "Mindset" article with scrupulously edited material that cites those sources. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks! Writing is easy (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Can I change my username, or am I stuck with it for the rest of my life? ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@ইমরান ভূইয়া absolutely. You can request a change of username by filling out Special:GlobalRenameRequest. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2025 June 8

Hello, everyone! It's correct? [2] СтасС (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @СтасС! I'm not too familiar with the current events portal, so they might have special house formatting. But from a quick glance, what you added looks fine. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 14:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I added news because of this edit here: [3] --СтасС (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I submitted a properly sourced draft on Elijah Anatole, a Saint Lucian filmmaker. It’s currently awaiting AfC review. Is there a way to expedite or get a second opinion? Thanks! ArtlasStudios (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ArtlasStudios. Start by removing everything cited to Facebook, Instagram and interviews with the filmmaker. I am sorry but your draft is not properly sourced. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I have made the changes and included many more independent news articles, including from the Government of St. Lucia. I would be grateful if you could take another look. Thank you for your kind consideration. Filmboy758 (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Note that the username has now been changed to User:Filmboy758, and the draft is Draft:Elijah Anatole. --ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am wondering why some pages (drafts) like Draft:K. Annamalai are not getting approved despite having many sources, whereas others are getting approved with few references. And why is it saying he is not notable enough for an article when he is a well-known politician who appears frequently in the news?

I would like to improve it with all of the inline references they are asking for, but there is a problem: they say it can not be submitted again. So what is the point of making it correct? Can I make another draft? ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits. Not every article that exists has been approved by anyone.

He is a regional party official, not a politician who has won election to or holds public office. As such he is not a notable politician so you would need to show he is more broadly a notable person. Has election victories been attributed to his particular leadership? Has he had influence on party or government policies? What do sources say is notable about him? That's what we're looking for. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, please don't misunderstand, i am just asking. ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. An article that was accepted yesterday was moved to draft today. The link is Draft:Tal Avitzur. I believe the reason given was conflict of interest. Any suggestions as to what changes I could make to get it approved? Thanks. PZAllen (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps MCE89 (who promoted the draft to an article) and Onel5969 (who relegated it to draft about thirty hours later) would care to comment. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure Hoary. There seems to be a definite connection between PZAllen and the subject of the article. I have no comment on the notability of the piece, it was just that the editor's connection was never addressed. MCE89 does excellent work at AfC. If PZAllen follows the instructions at either WP:UPE or WP:COI, depending on the circumstances, I have no problem with it being moved back to mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary and Onel5969 for responding. This is my first submission and I apologize for not being more thorough with all that needs to be done. I have since added a User page with a declaration of connection to subject of first submitted article and also added a paragraph to the Talk section of the article. (I am not sure how to remove the "(Optional)" that appears before the statement on the Talk page. Before I choose the "Submit for review" or "Publish now" buttons I thought I would check in to see if you have any comments or suggestions on the changes. Thank you. PZAllen (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @PZAllen. Think of "Publish now" as meaning "Save changes". (It used to say that, but WMF legal people wanted it to be clearer to editors that everything on every page in Wikipedia is published in the sense of being visible to anybody. While it is in draft, it will not be indexed by external engines, so people are unlikely to find it unless they go looking for it.

So you should "Publish now".

Then, separately, if you believe it is ready for a review, you should pick "Submit for review".

Because of your COI (thank you for clarifying) you should not move it direct to article space, though your account now has the technical ability to do so. ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine! PZAllen (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@PZAllen, my apologies - I have just seen the "Publish now" button on a Draft header, and realised I gave you wrong information (I will strike part of it out above).

I have not seen that "Publish now" button before, and it does appear to mean "move to article space". I still advise against using it, because of your COI: use "Submit for review". ColinFine (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for new message ColinFine. I was under the impression that what you initially wrote was indeed correct, i.e., "Publish now" was a way of saving a draft, as I did not have the authority to "move to article space." I am still learning all the ins and outs but I am having a good time figuring it all out. I look forward to adding more articles. PZAllen (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a big fan of SPN & was reading thru the main page about the show & Characters. I noticed that in the list of Characters some important ones are missing. Ones that are also fan favs. Even though they are only in a handful of episodes, they are pretty important & 1 spanned several seasons. So, just wanted to know how to go about getting them added. The characters I'm talking about are Sheriff Jodi Mills & Claire Novak specifically. But I'd even suggest adding Missouri Mosely & her niece tho the name escapes me at the moment. & Then Alex too. But my main concern was Sheriff Jodi & Claire. Anyway, sorry this is long & rambling. Just wanted to see about adding them. Thanks in advance for any help! BookJunkie4 (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi BookJunkie4, welcome to the Teahouse. Minor characters are often relegated to a separate list article. Jody Mills has an empty section requesting expansion at List of Supernatural and The Winchesters characters#Jody Mills. Claire Novak has a large section at List of Supernatural and The Winchesters characters#Claire Novak. Missouri Moseley (ending in "ey") has List of Supernatural and The Winchesters characters#Missouri Moseley. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

What's up with Category:Lists of people by given name? I don't see the encyclopaedic value of lists such as List of people with given name Alan and I'm thinking they fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but I could be wrong since those lists have existed for a while. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts 15 years ago. By the way, the same issue is for all pages in category:Given names, such as Adelbert. However after some thoughts I decided not to fight against them, for several reasons. First, they are of no harm. Second, they are a good exercise for teenagers (and teenager jokers :-). Third and fourth, in some cases it is indeed interesting to know who the heck are these people with the name Reindert or Reinder. Of course I dont think the list in the page Vera (given name) is of any use, but it is difficult do draw a line between rare and common given names. --Altenmann >talk 17:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

There was also an idea to list by given name only for people known mononymously by the given name. But again, there is a hair to split as well. --Altenmann >talk 17:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, can you use YouTube channels as sources if the channel is verified? For example, Channel 4 or a TV program's YouTube channel that is verified ? Thanks x Applesandpears20 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Applesandpears20. There are dozens of media outlets worldwide called "Channel 4". If a media outlet is generally considered reliable, then its official YouTube channel is also reliable to the same extent. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, perfect thanks for confirming this. Applesandpears20 (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

My draft article about a Canadian artist includes details about his life that he provided while being interviewed. There are not necessarily written sources for citations about the details he provided, but I can quote directly from the artist. According to the explanation for "reliable sources information" for citations, this seems to be acceptable, but I'd like an opinion, please. GYHASHAKE (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@GYHASHAKE Welcome to the Teahouse. The general guidance about this is at WP:ABOUTSELF, which basically says this sort of cite is OK for non-controversial statements about the person themself but not for what they may say about others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

But they still have to be published right? He says he doesn't have anything written. I think it is not allowed. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we can not usually accept unpublished sources as they are not really verificable. GoldRomean (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@GYHASHAKE Please clarify, was the interview published? If not, then it is just your words, and this is not accepted in wikipedia. --Altenmann >talk 18:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

After an article has moved, more than one of its sections are no longer applicable to the moved title and should be replaced by new sections. How should I request a major revision on its Talk page? Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You could do it yourself instead of waiting for others to do it, though I'm not quite sure of your schedule. I'd advise placing the template for articles under construction on the top of the article. You can also just leave a note on the talk page with the list of stuff you wish to add - editors may come along and add on. Hope this helps! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no template or formula. If you don't want to dive right in, just start a section on the article's talk page and briefly set out your ideas. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new editor. I recently published an article on Abraham Osinubi, but it has been tagged as “This biographical article is written like a résumé.” I’ve since revised the wording and made several edits to improve the tone and neutrality. However, the tag is still showing at the top of the page. How can I request its removal?

Thank you! Redstarwiki (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

If you feel the issues have been adequately addressed, then you can remove the tag yourself. However, if another user feels that article still reads like a résumé, then it may be added back. Just warning you. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 13:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Redstarwiki The biography currently includes a list of 120 (!) of his publications, each only cited to the primary published paper. That is precisely how I would define a résumé. A Wikipedia article needs to be based mainly on secondary sources, showing how other scholars have found his work useful and cited it: for example you could list just the top few most-cited articles. The main source you have used for his biographical details has no byline, which leads me to suspect it was written by or on behalf of Osinubi and hence is not independent of him. While a limited amount of such material is acceptable (see WP:ABOUTSELF) this adds to the résumé-like nature of the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

... and the tag, as the article is much better without that list. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all. Redstarwiki (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

On the page https://oeis.org/wiki/Centered_polygonal_numbers, there is a table near the bottom of the page with a blank column, and the title above the column reads "Order of basis". I believe that this column can now be filled in with numerals. The paper that can be found at http://doi.org/10.1515/ms-2025-0037 demonstrates that the order of basis is N+2. That is, for the centered triangular numbers, the order is 5; for the centered square numbers, the order is 6; for the centered pentagonal numbers, the order is 7; etc.... 2600:1700:22F0:9720:CB9:C041:561B:3009 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

That page is on oeis.org, not Wikipedia. Our article is Centered polygonal number, and has no such table. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

OeisWiki uses the same software as us and looks similar but we are not affiliated with them. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear All,

My account is more than 4 days old and I’ve made over 10 edits, but I still don’t see the "Contribute" section.

I believe Growth features might not be enabled for my account (possibly because it was created before they were rolled out). Could someone please help enable them or advise what I should do?

Thank you in advance! Lookingforward4future (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "growth features" or a "contribute" section, but your account is indeed autoconfirmed. Certain articles and pages require higher levels of access, what article or page are you trying to edit? 331dot (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Lookingforward4future, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you mean Wikipedia:Growth Team features? If Special:Homepage isn't enabled then see "Newcomer editor features" at the bottom of Special:Preferences. If you refer to the word "Contribute" in a menu then it's a heading for the links below it like "Help". It's not supposed to be a link itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @PrimeHunter, thank you very much for your prompt and detailed explanation. I've read the shared articles and it's all clear! Appreciate your support and wishing you a wonderful day / evening, depending on your timezone! Lookingforward4future (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I have posted this issue at Talk:Age of consent in the United States#Delaware 2024 update for age of consent. My experience with doing such postings is (too often) that they just get ignored, but in light of the recent changes to the Delaware law, that could have some serious negative results, both to Wikipedia reputation and to certain unfortunate persons who might detrimentally rely on WP.

So in hopes of finding people who may have an interest in addressing this issue, I am posting it here in the Teahouse. Thanks for your attention. Fabrickator (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fabrickator it's true that a question on a single article talk page may not get enough attention, but the Teahouse audience is very broad and threads here get archived quickly, so it's also not the best place for highly specific content discussion. I'd suggest the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects for this sort of issue – the banner at the top of Talk:Age of consent in the United States lists a few of these. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Can Joshua Project be used as an reliable source in Wikipedia? Densmartasvensken (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I infer from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_361#RfC:_Joshua_Project that the simple answer is no; for more information read up on what's written about this website in the archives of WP:RSN, and if something is still unclear then open a new discussion thread at WP:RSN. -- Hoary (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, how do I get my page rewritten? It's Herb Greenberg. I've been hit up by several people cold-calling to rewrite for a $$. Not sure if they're legit. It has been flagged for need of repair. Thanks, Herb Greenberg Bizinsider (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:SCAM. Scammers monitor places like WP:NPP and WP:AFC to look for people to get money from. Do not give money to anyone. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Bizinsider, thank you for not having "simply" (in reality, complicatingly) waded in and rewritten the article. On Talk:Herb Greenberg, you've asked "How do I get the page rewritten if I'm not permitted to do it myself?" Answer: By making "edit requests" (yes, very likely plural). Please see Wikipedia:Edit requests. If anything in that page is unclear, feel free to ask about it here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Having now read the article, I'm not sure how this subject qualifies for Notability. He's a career investigative journalist who seems to have done his job competently for 30-odd years, but seems not to have been particularly prominent and, for example, has no awards mentioned. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.81.243 (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bizinsider: Please see the advice at WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Adjiemada/sandbox

I would like to submit this page as a draft article to be reviewed by Wikipedia editors. The article discusses a professional pharmacist organization called Farmasis Indonesia Bersatu (FIB) and has been carefully written with reliable references. I kindly request assistance for the review process so that the article can be considered for publication in the main article space. Adjiemada (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Adjiemada: That sandbox does not exist on here, the English-language Wikipedia. You have asked elsewhere about "Pengguna:Adjiemada/Bak pasir", which exists as id:Pengguna:Adjiemada/Bak pasir on the Indonesian-language Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia is managed independently of each other. You will need to ask on id:Wikipedia:Warung Kopi (Lain-lain). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

One of my clients needs their articles published on Wikipedia. How can I go about it? The article is ready. Its a personal page about on a doctor. SimFerns (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@SimFerns: Which page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @SimFerns, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that your client's needs are of no interest to Wikipedia.

If your client meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there could be an article about them: the article would not belong to them, would not be controlled by them, would not necessarily say what they wanted it to say, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, would not be in any way for their benefit. Please read, and show them, WP:BOSS

If they meet those criteria, then you are permitted to create a draft, and submit it for review. You must first make a formal declaration of your status as paid editor - this is mandatory.

Then you would need to understand the very singular approach to writing articles that Wikipedia takes. 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.

Unless the article you have was written by somebody who already has that understanding of how Wikipedia works, it is unlikely to be of much use to you, as it is probably to a considerable extent based on what your client or their associates say, or want to say: a Wikipedia article should be mostly based on what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications: see golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, @SimFerns: I've just realised that I may have made a wrong assumption: you don't say that the articles are to be about your client. If they are not, then not all I have said applied; but most of it still does. ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

In the guidelines on fiction there are instructions on summarising books, movies etc. but what about when said work was originally made in a foreign language? What then? How do we translate the terminology? If there are translations, do we pick one at random, or must we additionally verify that said translation is somewhat canonical or enshrined in the "scientific consensus" that the Wikipedia must envision? What are the guidelines on that? Dankowski (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Dankowski, I possess a copy of The White Guard and a copy of White Guard, both being translations of Белая гвардия, written in a language I unfortunately cannot read. The choice between the translations isn't obvious to me; if I wondered which to depend on and refer to in an effort to augment the somewhat sparse article, I'd ask on Talk:The White Guard. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

There is some guidance at MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE, including its footnote "p". Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty understanding the guidelines and article format despite going through the laid down rules.

I'll like someone to walk me through my article so I can see practically where I went wrong and improve Eunice Ameh (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you asking about Draft:Repatriation of the Benin Bronze to Nigeria, Eunice Ameh? -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes please 197.211.63.67 (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Please remember to sign in before editing or commenting.

I have removed emboldening from your subheadings; as well as some extraneous blank lines (also from your first comment here!). Your article needs a lede. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for pointing that out. I did a summary though, doesn't that serve as a lede? I'll appreciate if you can send me a link to an article perfectly written, so I could study.

I also learn practically side by side seeing what is being done rather than reading it. I'll appreciate if anyone can spare time to take up the writing of that article with me from scratch so I can learn better. Thank you. Eunice Ameh (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I made a few improvements to the article. However, more reliable sources are needed to support statements and establish notability. Also, a lead section is important; See this article about the Kingdom of Benin as a guide. King ChristLike (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll check the article out now.

Thank you so much. Eunice Ameh (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@King ChristLike: When you move articles to draft space "for further improvement", please don't do so without giving some indication of what kind of improvements you think are needed. WP:BITE applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Sure. I had previously communicated with the user off wiki and suggested areas of improvement. King ChristLike (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

He actually viewed the article and helped me in the guidelines and rules and regulations out of this teahouse. Eunice Ameh (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Eunice Ameh You need to be careful that your draft follows Wikipedia's policy on taking a neutral point of view. For example you say (in Wikipedia's voice) The looting of Nigerian artifacts, particularly the Benin Bronzes, is not merely a story of stolen objects: it is a story of cultural obliteration, imperial domination, and black injustice and cite this to a Britannica article. However, I can find no mention of "black injustice" in that article. In order to make that kind of evaluative judgement, you need to cite it to a specific quote, preferably from some scholarly source. Otherwise this will be seen as WP:Righting great wrongs, which is not Wikipedia's purpose. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright.

Noted. Eunice Ameh (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for showing that. But I try to paraphrase as much as possible hence the word black injustice. I tied the happenings to a term, which I now discover is wrong.

However, what if I can't find a quote for this? Eunice Ameh (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

If you truly search deep but can’t find a reliable source that supports the statement, it’s best to remove it totally. King ChristLike (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright.

Thank you so much Eunice Ameh (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Can i be a petroleum geology by studying geology Jonathan excel ikenna (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. This page is to ask questions about using Wikipedia. Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

You might want to clarify your question and go to the reference desk instead. GoldRomean (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

This is for species, genuses, families and other things. I'm currently creating a page for the genus Cauricara, which two beetles (Stenocara eburnea, stenocara desertica, which were moved to Cauricara ( now Cauricara eburnea, cauricara desertica [ and i will also create pages for these species ] ) PLBF61371 (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Either use {{Italictitle}}, or an infobox that performs the same function, such as {{Taxobox}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

How do I add this template? It is a very complicated one on surface level PLBF61371 (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

If by "this template" you mean the taxobox one, then the automatic version is probably the easiest. There's a flowchart (of sorts) which helps you figure out which template to use, at Automated taxobox system/which. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I mean Italictext template. It specifies what to do but how do you like apply the effects of this template? When I put the text without parentheses, "Cauricara" it just stayed blank. When I did it in parentheses it just did (Cauricara) so basically I am asking how do you apply the effects of this template? {{Italictext}} PLBF61371 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not {{Italictext}}, it's {{Italictitle}}. Just put that with no parameters, at the top of the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I have figured it out now! PLBF61371 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to present a (translated) text from the German Wikipedia here? It concerns an article about myself [4]. If possible can I do this by myself? And where exactly can I find the page to upload it? Thanks for your help. Thyr&Thor (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thyr&Thor Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We would advise you against writing about yourself here. It is not absolutely forbidden, but it is highly discouraged. Please read the autobiography policy.

Also please know that the German Wikipedia has different policies than the English Wikipedia, so what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. You would need to show that you meet our notability criteria to merit an article, even if you do meet the criteria of the German Wikipedia. If you do, you may create and submit a translation via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the DE-article; if the same sources are used, many of which aren't sources independent of the subject, it would at least be difficult. Imo it would mostly hinge on the value of a 3rd place in the Pfälzischer Mundartdichterwettstreit (the only competition mentioned which has an article on DE-Wikipedia) towards establishing notability. It might be too high a hurdle for an autobiography. Lectonar (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Thyr&Thor (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

While you should not create or edit an article about yourself directly, you may place an English translation in Draft:Thomas Maria Mayr and work on it there. You should make clear the source, in an edit summary or on its talk page, per WP:Translate. When it is ready, you can submit it for review via the process described at WP:AFC, and an independent editor will either publish it or advise what further work is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Thyr&Thor (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am SpiritEdit, and I am here to ask for some help. In my sandbox, I want to add some explanatory footnotes to better help explain the infoboxes, but I have to insert a specific template for explanatory footnotes, and I am confused on how to do it. Please help me by putting a template that lets me put explanatory footnotes already or giving me directions/instructions on how to insert the template accordingly. Thanks! SpiritEdit (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@SpiritEdit The template is {{efn}} and if you click that link you'll see some help on how to use it, along with links to articles where it is used. It is normally used alongside the {{notes}} template, placed where you want the footnotes to be collected together by the wiki software. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I appreciate your help. :) SpiritEdit (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I had noticed that the user Lotsfixer was making a lot of wiki edits yesterday that were leaving a page in a semi-broken or hard-to-review state yesterday so I left them a comment to that effect. I otherwise haven't engaged them at all or acted on pages they were editing. They responded today with a whole lot of non-constructive, racist comments directed at me. User talk:Lotsfixer.

I'm not sure how to handle this. I'm half inclined to let it lie, and it seems inappropriate for me to edit someone else's comments, but it also seems pretty egregiously something that shouldn't stay on wikipedia, even in a talk page.

As a side-bar, the particular *flavor* of the comments make me feel like someone with more experience should look at the edits from this editor over the last couple days. The impacted pages/sections all pertain to genetics and in particular around the out-of-Africa genetic origin. Given the direct subject matter overlap to the personal attacks (which are clearly not in good faith), and the sensitivity of the subject, I'm not sure how to get this in front of an editor who can better assess. Driftingdrifting (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, let's not tolerate that for one moment. They are now blocked. I am not a content expert on this subject. I suggest a full revert is probably appropriate for the reasons you indicate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. For my education (I'm a new-ish editor), how should I have handled this in your opinion (other than posting in tea house?)? I got a sort of unclear idea from wiki guidelines, and I was worried that jumping in myself (revert or template) was just going to trigger them to creating *more* not fit for wiki content in more places, but I also wasn't sure it was ok to report to admins on the basis of a single comment. Driftingdrifting (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The general advice is per the policy described at WP:No personal attacks. As that page explains, the appropriate action varies, from ignoring the attack to raising it at WP:ANI. In this case, an immediate block of the other editor was warranted and I'm glad that this was done rapidly without you having to go through the hoops that ANI involves. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the subject, but based on Lotsfixer's response I reverted most of their edits, and commented at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_Biology#Anyone_know_anything_about_haplogroups?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

and immediately reverted by a brand new user...thanks for trying! Driftingdrifting (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz or another admin, want to do what we don't pay you for? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, @Ohnoitsjamie did that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

hi how can i edit Wikiguy1002 (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Wikiguy1002: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You can learn about editing here through the tutorial. This will take you through the steps of editing pages, adding references, and maintaining the standard layout of pages. You can then look at the tasks page to find pages to edit. cyberdog958^Talk 22:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

thanks! Wikiguy1002 (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse habituées. I'm trying to view a 2024 deletion discussion for Abraham Solomonick which is listed on the article's Talk page. That says there were two AfDs, one in 2014 and one in 2024, but the link to both goes to the 2014 one. Can anyone hunt up the link to the 2024 one? Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Please, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abraham_Solomonick_(2nd_nomination). Ruslik_Zero 19:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Tacyarg: I fixed the link on the article talk page – the newer discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Solomonick (2nd nomination). (The way I found the link was by clicking "What links here" in the left-hand menu at Abraham Solomonick). --bonadea contributions talk 19:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks to both of you. Tacyarg (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Who is Albert Einstein 108.202.99.110 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Take a look at his page --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 21:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I created a draft at User:Uj9/Chaudhary Chandrapa Singh (Pappu Chaudhary) and I had previously submitted it for review, but I left it for a while. I’ve now made improvements including neutral tone and references. Since I am not autoconfirmed, could someone kindly move it to: Draft:Chaudhary Chandrapal Singh (Pappu Chaudhary) so I can resubmit it for review? Thanks! Uj9 (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This was done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the draft! I’ve updated the content and resubmitted it for review. I really appreciate your help. Uj9 (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Apaarently it "reads like an essay and not an encylopedic article". How can I fix that? I don't see the problem. Kuzeyakkaya (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, please don't ask the same question in multiple forums, as this duplicates effort. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kuzeyakkaya To take one example, Draft:Socialism in Turkey#PKK,1980 Coup and Democratic Confederalism has several paragraphs completely uncited, so I assume they are your original research, which as that link explains is not allowed in Wikipedia. The topic may well be a worthy one but you must not write it backwards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay thanks! Kuzeyakkaya (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am a new editor and recently published an article on Abraham Osinubi. I noticed, however, that a tag indicates the article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Could you kindly guide me on how to resolve this?

Thank you! Redstarwiki (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Redstarwiki and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Orphan has an explanation and advice. An article needs only a single link from another article to no longer be considered an orphan. Finding appropriate articles to link to this one requires some background knowledge on the subject (which I do not have). If you can make a relevant link from another article to this one, you can then remove the orphan tag. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh alright.

Thank you Redstarwiki (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Redstarwiki The sort of thng you could do is add him to University of Lagos#Notable faculty, with a citation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Michael D. Turnbull,

Thank you for your response. Your suggestion was very insightful and I’ve now removed the tags. Redstarwiki (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a new editor and would like to create a Wikipedia article about Wontumi Radio, a privately owned radio station in Ghana. I've written a draft and would appreciate help reviewing it and understanding whether it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Can someone assist or give feedback before I submit it as a draft?Gyekyewa (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Where is the draft? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

[Moved to User:Gyekyewa/sandbox.] Gyekyewa (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gyekyewa The Teahouse is not the correct place to start a draft. Please click on the link (currently red) Draft:Wontumi Radio and work from there. Note that you must include citations to the sources of information and hence show how this radio station is notable in the quirky way Wikipedia defines that word. Help:Your first article gives more advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Michael D. Turnbull for the guidance. I understand now that I should be working in the Draft namespace rather than my user sandbox. I’ll move the content to Draft:Wontumi Radio and make sure to include proper citations from reliable sources to support notability.

I appreciate the link to Help:Your first article—I’ll review that carefully as I improve the draft.

Thanks again for your help! Gyekyewa (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I've moved that to User:Gyekyewa/sandbox. It cannot be published, nor even judged for the subject's suitability, because it cites no sources. Please see WP:FIRST. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Pigsonthewing for moving the draft and pointing this out. I now understand that I need to add reliable sources to demonstrate the subject's notability before it can be considered for publication.

I’ll work on adding citations from independent, verifiable sources to the draft in my sandbox. I’ve also reviewed WP:FIRST as advised, and I’ll use it as a guide while improving the article.

I appreciate your help and patience as I learn.Gyekyewa (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Gyekyewa, note that by first writing the article and then trying to add sources, you're doing this the hard way, and may not succeed after a lot of effort – we call this writing WP:Backwards (please read!).

In brief, you should start by finding Reliable sources, and then write only summaries of what they say to construct most of the article. (Sources that are not independent of the subject can be cited for trivial and uncontroversial facts only.) Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.40.15 (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful advice. I now understand the importance of starting with reliable, independent sources and building the article from what they say rather than writing first and sourcing later. I’ll go through WP:Backwards as suggested and adjust my approach.

I really appreciate everyone’s patience and support as I learn to contribute the right way.Gyekyewa (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I found a confusing passage in a book that touches on US President Martin Van Buren's hard-fought re-election campaign:

"The Democrats, struggling to re-elect Martin Van Buren in spite of the slogans and parades and carnival spirit of the Whig campaign... were grieved to see more and more farmers cutting their Democratic ties to climb into wagons, hoist a coon high on a pole, and chant, “Van, Van, is a used-up man!” Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Shushimnotrealstooge Welcome to the Teahouse. We use this area of Wikipedia to help new editors who are having problems using the site. General questions like yours are better asked at one of the specialist Help Desks, for example the one for humanities. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Shushimnotrealstooge, please read this and use the reference desks next time. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull @Cullen328 OK, thanks guys. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Unless I’m mistaken, Category:Wikipedia fully protected pages purports to be a list of pages that have been granted WP:FULL. Many of the articles this category links to are nowhere near that designation. In fact, the first entry (a redirect, admittedly) doesn’t appear to be protected at all. I’m not very experienced, so it’s likely that I just fell for it/am stupid, but on the off chance that it’s something that should actually be maintained, I thought it best to bring it to the attention of more knowledgeable people. TJS808 (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

For the first entry in that list [5], it actually is fully protected. The target article isn't, but the redirect that automatically sends you to that target article is protected. Even redirects are articles, and they can be vandalized like any other.

In fact, most articles on that list are actually just redirects! The article they point to is just a regular article that probably isn't fully protected, but the hidden redirect itself is, usually to prevent subtle vandalism. Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

... although, I have no idea why they aren't in Category:Wikipedia fully protected redirects. LR.127 (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@TJS808: Redirects are in italics on category pages. After clicking a redirect like *NSYNC, click "(Redirected from *NSYNC)" at top of the page to get to the redirect page. @LR.127: Some of the pages are sorted differently in different categories. If you see a redirect which is really missing from the redirect category then post it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

There are numerous pages with notes saying, "citation needed." When I do a web search, I find sources that contradict what is said on the page, but nothing that could supply a footnote to support it. Should I delete and rewrite the entire section based on the sources I am able to find?Julian in LA (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Julian in LA, if you find reliable sources that contradict what's written (without a reference) in an article, do please rewrite the article accordingly, of course citing the reliable source(s) as you do so. -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

That reliable sources part is a good distinction, because some sources may contradict what is said on the page but if the source is a blog or something, there's no authority to what's being said. You'll get better at it the more you do these. If you're not hung up on one specific article and just wanna practice the citation hunt tool has been a good way to start looking at how to find and replace sources for random articles. Lmtdarius87 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

How do you get a university degree education with Wikipedia? 2600:1700:5880:C360:E5ED:9983:949:6853 (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a university and can not award degrees. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

We have a sibling project for that, Wikiversity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Which does not award degrees either, it's more like an online textbook. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 09:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The question was "How do you get a university degree education...", not "How do you get a university degree". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

That was indeed the question, Andy, but I for one do not understand what the question means.

IP user, please clarify what you are asking. ColinFine (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I assume IP user means "how to get a university-level education by reading wikipedia" and if so, I would adivse that there's much more to education than just reading information. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

What does it mean if an edit is double crossed out? 2601:600:9001:7DD0:BD94:C746:6B9E:A375 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It means that no one can view the edit, this is common case of discrimination and many other factors, another editor can possibly go more in-depth about this topic if wanted. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 00:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Specifically, doubly crossed out edits have been suppressed by via Wikipedia:Oversight (which also discusses the singly crossed out revision deletion). Skynxnex (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Wiki Team! I am trying to move CurationsLA to a Draft Page per Wikipedia guidelines. I have disclosed that this is a source close to me, but I received an error when trying to move the Draft Page. I am led to believe that I have incorporated the most appropriate Wikipedia code to submit the article for approval. However, I believe that this approval is only triggered when moving to a Draft Page. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, and thank you all for keeping Wikipedia a trusted source. For Good Vibes - Wyatt Curations (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Curations, I moved it from your "sandbox" to Draft:CurationsLA. I sleepily/stupidly assumed that this would not be problematic; but as soon as I'd made the move I realized (actually, I was told) that CurationsLA already existed. I've done no more than glance at either Draft:CurationsLA or CurationsLA. Please (i) decide which of the pair is better (let's call this "A"), (ii) pillage the other one ("B") for anything that A lacks and paste this material into A, (iii) blank B (by which I mean: Set out to edit B, remove all its content, and save the result), and (iv) announce here that you've done this. -- Hoary (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I am making the appropriate edits now - I hope! Sorry for the nuanced approach, I want to ensure that the CurationsLA page meets Wikipedia standards. Curations (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Curations. Please note that a Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]. I will hold off until we have further, independent sourcing when such applies. I appreciate your swiftness on this issue. Have a wonderful day! Wyatt Curations (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

You didn't blank the article, Curations, but you did say that it could be deleted; I therefore deleted it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Why can the Talk Pages not have pending changes protection on them? 76.68.113.121 (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Because talk pages are user related and used by other editors to communicate with the user regarding varities of things and subjects. If you will put protection on it, not just it will cause hinderance but will not make any sense. Page protections are used in main pages such as article pages and guidelines to suppress vandalism, talk pages do not need such protection. If this is about you getting any kind of messages you don't want, maybe you can contact helpdesk. Wh67890 (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

In cases of severe, ongoing disruption, administrators may protect article talk pages but this is infrequent. Wh67890 is correct that article talk pages are intended for anyone to make good faith suggestions for improving the article, and protection interferes with that process. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Due to technical limitations, talk-pages can't actually be pending-changes protected...it's either semi-protection and upwards, or nothing. Lectonar (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

In this article, we are talking about how to use more polite words in all articles, especially ones relating to sexuality, race, ethnicity and disabilities (etc).

Sexuality

1. The word gay should not be used as a singular, like a black (in the sense of African American). It is often seen as offensive or disrespectful if used. Gay is better to use as a plural, in the phrase of gays and lesbians.
2. The word queer (in the sense gay) is originally used as a strongly disrespectful and inflammatory word. From now this meaning is often used as a positive way, especially when used as a self-reference, but the use by others may be considered as offensive due to its older meanings ‘strange, quirky’ has negative connotations. Reclaimed words are generally considered offensive when used by outsiders. It is better to avoid using this meaning of the word by outsiders, especially in the UK.
3. The word transvestite dates from the early 20th century. Although it is neutral in the past, it is now often considered offensive, especially when used in transsexual contexts. It is better to use cross-dresser instead.

Race & Ethnicity

1. Often avoid words that are strongly associated with colonialism, such as oriental (in the sense of Asian) and Asiatic (only used in biological names, do not use it to describe people).
2. It is better to avoid using the word black as a noun because it may be considered as offensive if used. Use black person or black people to replace a black and the blacks.
3. White should be usually used as a plural. See usage at gay when used in the singular form.
4. Do not use ethnic slurs.

Disabilities

1. Do not use these words to describe mental illness, here’s the list: mad, crazy, insane (only in law, not used in medicine), loony, maniac, schizo, nuts, psycho)
2. Do not use suffer from and victim of do describe chronic illnesses and disabilities. Only use it in reference to natural disasters.
3. Do not use words that are now generally considered offensive to describe learning disability, avoid using mental retardation, mental handicap, mental deficiency (although this term is not always offensive, it may cause offence if used).

If you see these terms in any Wikipedia articles, we will change it soon. MarcoToa1 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Also sometimes avoid using adjectives following with the: such as the deaf, the blind, and the disabled etc. MarcoToa1 (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

From my point of view, the wording is clear-cut and not open to interpretation. I don’t see any reason for an explanatory thread about what might need changing based on the terms or phrasing used across different articles... Zryk (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @MarcoToa1, and welcome to the Teahouse. While you are very welcome to suggest policies of this sort, it is not your place (or mine, or anybody else's) to impose them without discussion. Please start a discussion - I suggest at WP:VPP - and get consensus before you start applying your rules. ColinFine (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Are we free to use the gadgets as we please? I’ve come across a few things — still doing some digging — that seem to allow actions within articles, though I’m not sure if that’s part of the standard editing features. My question’s a bit muddled, I know, but I reckon you get the gist. I’ve already switched my screen to dark mode, and now I’m exploring a few settings to see if there’s anything interesting to play around with. Zryk (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if we see these terms in any articles, we will change it soon. MarcoToa1 (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm barely confused of what you saying. Which terms? Zryk (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

MarcoToa1, you start: "In this article, we...." In which article? Who are "we"? And here, in the Teahouse, do you have some question? -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Note that since opening this, the editor has begun altering the wording of articles to fit their own sense of what's "appropriate". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh no. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 03:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

While I don't deny guidelines like this could be important, I'm certainly curious what article or people the opening line refers to. And doesn't something like this belong either on an actual namespace guideline page (with consensus, of course) or as a user essay? TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I noticed the article List of religious slurs and I’m unsure if it fits Wikipedia’s standards. Many of the terms listed are unsourced or lack evidence of notability, and the page seems like an indiscriminate collection.

I think only widely known or globally recognized terms with strong reliable sources should remain, but as it stands now, the list looks questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk • contribs) 01:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

ইমরান ভূইয়া, there is no requirement that list entries be widely known or globally recognized to be included on a list. The list article has 150 references. The best course of action is to evaluate each unreferenced entry one by one, and try to find a reliable source verifying that particular slur, and add it. If you cannot find a source after a good faith search, then remove that entry, explaining why in your edit summary. Cullen328 (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It is quite common, but not required (one exception, for example, is lists of public art), that entries on list pages be things that have a Wikipedia article on their own. If in doubt, ask on the talk page of the list article concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello kind editors,

I recently submitted a draft article for Luca Volpe, an internationally recognized Italian mentalist, author, and performer. I disclosed a personal connection (he is my mentor) and tried to follow Wikipedia's policies as carefully as I could.

The article was twice declined by the same reviewer, and now marked “not sufficiently notable.” I understand this is the judgment of one editor, but I’d like to respectfully request a second opinion from a more diverse panel of editors or guidance on how to proceed—perhaps even by stepping back as the drafter if necessary.

Volpe has:

• Multiple national television appearances on Italian networks (RAI1, RAI2)
• International performances on cruise ships, corporate stages, and at global magic conventions
• Several respected industry awards, including the Merlin Award and most recently, Member of the Inner Magic Circle with Gold Star (the highest honor, shared by fewer than 300 magicians worldwide)
• Feature coverage in publications like Vanish Magazine and MagicSeen Magazine

I understand Wikipedia prioritizes significant independent coverage—I’ve included articles from La Gazzetta dello Spettacolo, The Way Magazine, and Roma Daily News alongside references to official awards.

I genuinely believe this subject meets notability guidelines for performers, but if my involvement creates a barrier, I would deeply appreciate it if another experienced editor could review the materials objectively or consider taking over the draft. I’d be happy to fade into the background if that’s what’s best for neutrality.

Thank you all for your time and the care you give to this community.

With gratitude,

Mnemonicbloom (talk) Mnemonicbloom (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it will be reconsidered as it lacks reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Untamed1910 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I now understand more clearly how narrowly notability is interpreted in some cases, particularly for artists and performers. While I respect Wikipedia's guidelines and neutrality policies, I also see the limitations they can create — especially for internationally known performers with recognition across industry-specific platforms.

I’ll leave it here and step away from the process now. I appreciate those who took a look, even if we see the subject’s significance differently.

Wishing you all well,

—Mnemonicbloom Mnemonicbloom (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It says he’s alive on his page but on deaths of 2025 it says he’s dead why is that? Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Lordofcallofduty. It seems the Axel Skalstad article has simply not been updated by anyone. You can do it yourself if you wish :). Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Recently uploaded File:Shanghai Municipal seal.png, though there is a really obvious typo. May I ask if it is possible to rename it, since I can't find the move button Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac files can only be moved by file movers or admins. You can request a rename using {{rename media}}. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I received articles from a paid service claiming they are usable for Wikipedia page creation. Can you please confirm whether these articles meet the reliable sources policy?

Article publish paltform links such as: 1. https://medium.com/... 2. https://vocal.media/... 3. https://livepositively.com/... 1.165.202.253 (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, pieces published on these platforms are generally unreliable because they are WP:USERGENERATED: anyone can write anything on these platforms. In addition, paid-for articles are not independent sources, so they cannot be used to establish notability. Do not send money to these people or anyone else who contacts you; see WP:SCAM. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

claiming they are usable for Wikipedia page creation, this is strange. Furthermore Medium, vocal, livepositively and other PAID services are not reliable in Wikipedia standard, this is because Wikipedia is FOSS (free and open source) platform, and we generally allow informations that are not just reliable but also free for most of the community members. However, note that there is no absolute rule that paid articles are completely restricted, because in many cases we allow paid sources (such as JSTOR etc.), but we strongly discourage sources that are undisclosed and provide biased promotion such as in your case. Morever, Vocal platform is not available in other many countries (such as India etc.). This creates more bias and misinformation for those who does not have access to cross verification.

What you can try are:

1. News

2. journals

3. reputable websites

4. goverment sources etc. Wh67890 (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, my submission got declined again for not enough reliable sources. I put every source I could find on Roselilah in the citations, but it still got declined. Can somebody please help me? AmberHeij (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

AmberHeij, a sample from Draft:Roselilah: Roselilah is known for her dark, melodic trap beats and her ability to work remotely with artists across the globe from her studio in the Netherlands. She has expressed a strong commitment to continual growth, often emphasizing the importance of matching sound to artist identity. With, at the end, a link to a web page of the Netherlands (and of course Dutch-language) edition of Cosmopolitan. Saying that person X "is known for" Y is common here (I must confess that on occasion I've perpetrated it myself); does the Cosmo article not provide specifics? Meanwhile, "a strong commitment to continual growth" means nothing to me. There's other vapid phrasing, too. As a second example, "major placement in the U.S. hip hop scene": if this means something (and actually I suspect that it does), then please express this something in a way designed not to impress but to inform. (NB there are more examples besides.) And please, no "bare URLs". -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback, Hoary. I've gone through the article again and replaced all bare URLs with properly formatted citations. I've also done my best to make the language more neutral and factual throughout the draft, avoiding promotional phrasing. I truly appreciate your help and would be very grateful if you could point out any remaining issues I might have missed. Thank you again for taking the time to review the draft! Best regards,Amber AmberHeij (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @AmberHeij. The "Career" section begins: "Roselilah's international production career began in 2018, when she produced ...". Translating that out of marketing-speak, it reads "In 2018, Roselilah produced ...". The words I have removed are editorializing.

Remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Colin. I’ve incorporated all your suggestions and gone through the text once more to remove or rephrase any promotional wording. I also made some small adjustments here and there to keep the tone as neutral as possible. I've included every reliable source I could find about Roselilah in the article. I really hope it will be accepted this time, otherwise I might have to give up on it. Thank you again for your time and help! AmberHeij (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Woni Spotts

How do I report vandalism and attacks on a wikipedia page since 2019? It started when a traveler had a wikipedia page and a rival explorer added a controversy section, vandalized the page September 2019) and somehow it was scheduled for deletion. The subject of the vandalized page lost faith in the process. Later, someone restored her page and set the record straight with articles and a world record. Now, the same vandalism is being penetrated again (this time with personal attacks). Also, since the other woman has no world record, admitted to not going to Syria, and is not notable as "first." Why does she have a page? She just selling a book, which somehow is allowed. What can the be done?

Thank you 2600:8802:3A09:6400:86C:E076:FB1:CD8 (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

IP editor, it would help if you could identify the article in question. What you are describing does not sound like vandalism, and world records are not needed for an article to exist. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The subject of the ... page lost faith in the process. It sounds as though WP:COI may be relevant. You may report the issue you describe at WP:BLPN, if following the process described at WP:DR is unsuccessful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of the Congo–Rwanda conflict (2022–present)

Hello, what's latest news from this war (conflict)? Update, please like Russo-Ukrainian war? СтасС (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @CTacc, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia is not a news organ, and there is no compulsion to be up to the minute. Asking random editors to update a particular article is probably not going to be very fruitful.

You might get a better response if you ask at one of the WikiProjects listed on that article's Talk page. ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for answer--СтасС (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

You may also ask at WP:REFD/H. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I’ve been given a task to help my grandfather, and would appreciate your guidance.

My grandfather, Juwana, served as Indonesia’s ambassador to:

• China (1994–1997) – listed here: id:Daftar Duta Besar Indonesia untuk Tiongkok
• Vietnam – listed here: id:Daftar Duta Besar Indonesia untuk Vietnam

His name appears on both lists, but there’s no dedicated article about him yet. He recently asked how every ambassadro had their own Wiki... and it didn't help that his son also has a Wikipedia article (not sure who wrote it, but my dad's wiki is here: Hikmahanto’s page is here: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikmahanto_Juwana. Definitely aint me :D

So here’s my question: Would my grandfather qualify for a Wikipedia article, given his ambassadorial roles?

I found an article referring him, but most of the information is given by my grandfather. Are primary sources acceptable if there aren’t many third-party media references? Considering he was mostly active in 60s - 90s... in which there wasn't a lot of digitally available documents then.

Is it possible to set up a page for him? Appreciate any advice so I can approach this respectfully and properly. Thank you in advance! Opj5000 (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

HI @Opj5000, welcome to wikipedia! Ambassadors aren't "inherently notable", which means that in order to have an article on them, we need to see that they pass the guidelines at WP:NBIO. Primary sources aren't acceptable, unfortunately. You might be surprised about digitized sources - the 1990s can be rough, but earlier than that is often digitized in national archives. -- asilvering (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Opj5000, it looks like you are referring to the Indonesian-language Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia project has its own rules and its own set of articles; we at the English Wikipedia cannot help with matters on the Indonesian Wikipedia. You can try asking at id:Wikipedia:Warung Kopi (Lain-lain), Indonesian Wikipedia's version of the Teahouse. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for direction, will try to consult there! Opj5000 (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Please also be aware of id:Wikipedia:Konflik kepentingan (equivalent of our WP:COI) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not able to edit and correct my Wikipedia. P_lease help me. Rasagiline (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring to Moussa B. H. Youdim? Is that about you? If so, please see WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Such as: "What video games revisit past video games' levels other than Sonic Generations, Shadow Generations, the Lego Dimensions Sonic Level Pack, and Sonic Mania? Counting sequels, not remakes or remasters."

My reason for asking this question is that, as I said in Special:Diff/1294902864 (and, before that, in Special:Diff/1285603051),

According to MOS:VG#Exceptions, "It is usually inappropriate to list all the levels in a game, but Sonic Generations is an exception because its reliance on aspects from prior Sonic games is the basis of the game." Sonic Generations#Levels and Shadow Generations#Levels are instances of this exception, and Sonic Mania#Levels probably is, too.

Ss0jse (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

On the talk page of the articles concerned, or on the talk pages of the policies.

More generally, follow the guidance at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, some month back i was partially blocked to edit articles, so i was tasked to make edit request on article talk pages, I have made some edits, but i have not been able to get them reviewed by an editor

1. Talk:Elli Papakonstantinou
2. Talk:Julie Brigham-Grette
3. Talk:Samuel Kamau Macharia
4. Talk:Roberto Capucci
5. Talk:Princess Lalla Hasna of Morocco
6. Talk:NaakMusiQ
7. Talk:Ahmed Shafik (surgeon)

i have attached the articles i made edit requests for, please is there something i am missing Funtiberry (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Funtiberry: Five of the seven requests are from yesterday, and the other two are only a couple of days older. Edit requests are handled by volunteers (like everything else at Wikipedia), and there is no way of knowing when someone will have the time and inclination to look at a particular edit request – but a few days is not a long wait, so you may simply need to change your expectations a little. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, for your time... well understood Funtiberry (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I was just checking wither an edit request I made on 7 May had been dealt with.

It hasn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Should I report this person? I’m not sure how or where to, or whether I can.

See here and here. Keeper of Albion (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Please follow the guidance at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Keeper of Albion I haven't looked in detail at the diffs but the general approach is part of our usual process aimed to reach a consensus for what should be in articles. You are certainly entitled to revert other editor's contributions if you don't think they improve an article. Try, however, to keep any parts you think are OK and only revert the parts you disagree with. Then use the article's talk page (and your edit summary) to explain what you have done. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I've often seen boilerplate notices or banners added to a user's talk page to appraise them of wikipedia policies or editing guidelines they may need to review; indeed, I have such a notice on my talk page right now. I watch recent changes a fair bit and have sometimes felt the need to share this kind of guidance, but don't know where to find and how to apply these template banners. Is there a central location for this kind of content? Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Elliptical Reasoning If you install WP:Twinkle you can select from and automatically apply a variety of boilerplate notices. Twinkle has a lot of other useful tools. You can see a list of templates at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for! Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Elliptical Reasoning, if you are talking specifically about the welcome messages that you find on many new user talk pages, you can find them at Wikipedia:Welcome templates. They do not require Twinkle and you may use them directly, same as any other template. Some people prefer to use Twinkle, others do not; your choice. Mathglot (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The article is at: User:Jagretee/sandbox

how do I publish it? or if it has to be reviewed how do I submit it for review? Please help Jagriti (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Please follow the process described at WP:AFC.

But first you need more independent, reliable sources, per WP:V.

See also WP:FIRST. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.

Now it is in Draft:Uma Subedi. Could someone please help move it to the article namespace?" Jagriti (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jagretee There is a large blue "submit" button at the top of the draft, so you can submit it for review when you are ready. If you do that now, the draft will be rapidly declined because it doesn't show how this author is notable in the quirky way Wikipedia defines that word. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

She is a published author of many books in Nepali language. How can I help get it published if it can be declined? Do I need to edit her contribution in Nepali literature? Any help will be appreciated. Jagriti (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

You can get it published by adding more independent, reliable sources, to show that the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR, as already advised. If she does not, then she is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Why isn't a Wikipedia page about the nations which aligned with Maoist China during tte Cold War, adding a third side to the Cold War, alongside to the USA and the USSR? BuddyHeigh (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't know if it helps, but Sino-Soviet split and Cold War in Asia exists. If you want to start a new article, make sure to start with finding good academic sources about the "China-bloc". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång for your suggestions and help, I will try my best to find good academic sources to create such a article. Or I can add another section to the Third World article. If I can't find suitable sources I'll not create any article/section. Thanks again. BuddyHeigh (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a notable TikTok creator with verified social accounts and media coverage in six major Nigerian newspapers (Punch, Guardian, Vanguard, etc.). I also have an IMDb page and a Google Knowledge Panel.

I’d like help creating or improving a Wikipedia article about me (Realjjfrosh) that follows Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality guidelines. Can anyone assist ?

Thank you! Realjjfrosh (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Realjjfrosh. Article subjects require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Therefore social media accounts, IMDb pages, and the Google Knowledge Panel don't contribute to notability for Wikipedia. The newspapers could work but we would have to see (things like pure interviews or promotional pieces don't usually help much). If you provide these sources an editor could check them out. You did well in asking here instead of creating the article yourself (in my experience such articles are typically deleted due to lack of notability). Finally, don't feel dispirited if you don't end up getting an article right now; maybe after some years that could change. Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the honest feedback, Sophocrat. I completely understand the need for reliable, independent coverage to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards.

In response, I’ve gathered six major media sources from respected Nigerian newspapers — including The Guardian, Punch, Vanguard, ThisDayLive, The Nation, and Daily Trust. These are not just interviews or promotional pieces — most of them are independent reports discussing my digital influence, work as a TikTok creator, and my contributions to content creation in Africa.

Here are the links:

• https://punchng.com/tiktok-star-realjjfrosh-plans-social-platform-for-creators/?amp
• https://guardian.ng/features/realjjfrosh-viral-tiktok-creator-pioneering-africas-social-media-growth/
• https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/03/realjjfrosh-the-rising-force-behind-viral-tiktok-trends-in-africa/amp/
• https://thenationonlineng.net/how-realjjfrosh-nigerian-internet-sensation-redefines-content-creation-across-africa/amp/
• https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2025/04/01/realjjfrosh-the-digital-strategist-redefining-social-media-influence-in-africa/
• https://dailytrust.com/realjjfrosh-a-rising-tiktok-creator-known-for-engaging-social-media-trends-2/

I’d truly appreciate it if you or any experienced editor could take a second look and advise if this level of coverage supports notability. I’m happy to wait or work on improving anything further.

Thanks again 🙏

—Realjjfrosh Realjjfrosh (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry Realjjfrosh, but there is problem in your context. I have already included a guideline that says WP:What Wikipedia is not, please read it carefully. Creating your own BLP is stongly discouraged and may not pass AfC review as usual. Think it like this- adding a bunch of news article does not means that article is able to be written in mainspace (Wikipedia article space) because we follow varieties of guidelines when we decide to write an article, such as BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WP:Notability (are you notable enough in public, outside TikTok, to pass your own article criteria), WP:RS (every source is reliable and not a biased promotion), WP:Primary sources and WP:COI etc. Primary sources carry very less weight if you will not pass other guidelines. More importantly, what does these sources tells about you matters more than just mentioning you. Even well-known newspapers can publish soft journalism (interviews, paid features, or PR fluff). Many African newspapers — like Vanguard, ThisDayLive, and even Punch — have a high number of advertorials, which do not count under WP:RS (Reliable Sources) or WP:SIGCOV (Significant Coverage). Also being popular on social media platforms like TikTok, even with millions of followers, does not mean notability per Wikipedia standards unless their influence has been the subject of analysis in third-party media, academia, or other non-trivial contexts. Again, please understand that Wikipedia is not a promotional blog site, i can understand that you just want to publish your BLP but we must adhere with Wikipedia guidelines. I would advise you to wait few years until you gain more coverage, thank you for making Wikipedia better place. Wh67890 (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for not including WP:NPOV. Wh67890 (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Realjjfrosh There are already a number of articles in Wikipedia covering TikTokers. They are listed at Category:TikTokers. We currently have 10 Category:Nigerian TikTokers and if you look at some of these articles you will get an idea of the sort of sources which work to show Wikinotability. Writing a draft using the articles for creation process is the accepted way for people like you who have a conflict of interest to proceed. Please also read Help:Your first article and our policy on biographies of living people. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand why there is so much misunderstanding that Wikipedia is a blogging platform. WP:What Wikipedia is not. Wh67890 (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

OP is not asking about blogging. Their query is reasonable and this is a good place to ask it. This is the tea house where inexperienced users including potential article subjects are expected to be treated with kindness and understanding. The tone of your reply is inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, but especially on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

No I merely gave all the information one need without spoonfeeding, it depends on how you take it, have a good day. Wh67890 (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Also I don't expect anything else from a TikToker other than blogging, since Wikipedia hardly need them here when they are already quite well known on other websites. Regarding my tone, I don't spoonfeed, if you are child or get offended by reality on my telling in how Wikipedia works you need to work on Youtube Kids. Wh67890 (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

You are required to Assume good faith.

And cut the snark. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Wh67890: I agree with Mabbett, OP did well. Most people in their position I encounter instead directly create promotional articles which end up being deleted, which is a sink of time for everyone involved. I think we should be kind to newcomers, especially cooperative ones. Thanks for your consideration. Sophocrat (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes I can understand, direct AC without prior experience is classic thing. Please forgive me if I was seen disrespectful but my main motivation was to provide him with relevant information. Also it would be better if Mabett kindly look it just beyond snark and sending me blocking threats. Good night. Wh67890 (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I haven't sent you any "bocking threats". I simply observed that "You will either moderate [your tone], or end up with blocks." I stand by that assessment.

Two "b"s. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback and guidance — I appreciate the honesty and the opportunity to learn more about how Wikipedia works.

I understand now that the focus is not just on having press coverage, but on whether the sources provide significant, independent, and in-depth coverage of my work. I’ll review all six articles again to make sure they meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS.

I also want to thank @Andy Mabbett and @Sophocrat for reminding us about the importance of treating new users with kindness. I came here because I want to do things the right way, not to promote myself, but to contribute something valuable and verifiable if it meets the guidelines.

I’ll hold off on drafting anything further until I better understand how strong the sources really are. If anyone is willing to help evaluate them more closely, I’d be grateful.

Thanks again to everyone for your time and for helping me navigate this the proper way. 🙏 Realjjfrosh (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I found this passage regarding putting down a rent strike in early New York state:

"Here was a sight to behold. The Dutch had taken the Hallebarreck. War, pestilence and famine inevitable. Good God! What was to be done! Some took salts, some turned pale, got the diarrhoea and sent for the doctor, and some went to lawyers to know if there was no get off. Some went to the ministers to ask for prayers, and some went to bed. Throughout, the day was one of excitement. The Irish invoked St. Patrick, and the Dutch cried “to de blixen and duyvel mid your possy commeatus,” while the Yankee reckoned it “a bad spec and that he shouldn’t engage in’t.”

I don't know exactly what the Dutch cried, even if "hallebarreck" almost certainly means "warpath". Also, what did "a bad spec" probably mean? Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

A bad speculation, a bad business or bad direction that's not worth pursuing. Hope that helps. Just Al (talk) Just Al (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Try asking on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands; or WP:REFDESK/L. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Even without speaking 'Dutch', I have enough general Germanic and Latin to tell that "to de blixen and duyvel mid your possy commeatus" means "to the lightning and [the] devil with your posse comitatus", which is probably an English writer's parodic imitation of what they thought 'Dutch' people might say.

Note that in the context, 'Dutch' might refer to actual Dutch people (New York having previously been New Amsterdam), or might actually refer to German (Deutch) people, as in Pennsylvania Dutch. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.40.15 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Drmies is a native Dutch speaker who has expertise in Middle English and Old English literature. It is likely that he can analyze archaic Dutch writing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Fake Dutch, as IP 94 said. Mathglot (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, while I was looking for some media to add to a wiki page I found a website. I wanted to add the media from it but I noticed that it was blacklisted on En Wikipedia. Is it wrong to add media from such websites? What if the media is helpful? Do we need any permissions from fellow wikipedians to add such media? Frodo Maximus (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Frodo Maximus: Links to websites on the blacklist can't be added to any Wikipedia pages (articles, talk pages, etc). If you try, you will get an error message telling you that the text you are trying to add contains a blacklisted link. If there is a particular link that you believe should be allowed in Wikipedia, you can request whitelisting of that url here. Make sure you read all the information at the top of the page carefully before you make the request. --bonadea contributions talk 12:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend! Frodo Maximus (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to raise a concern about some technical details on the Suicide methods article, but I cannot post on the Talk page because it is currently semi-protected. Here is the message I would like to submit on the article's Talk page:

Concerns regarding technical detail and NOTHOWTO policy Hello, While reading this article, I noticed that some sections may contain a level of technical detail that could unintentionally approach Wikipedia’s NOTHOWTO policy, particularly for a topic as sensitive as suicide. Specifically, I am concerned about: The section on carbon monoxide poisoning, which describes using car exhaust in enclosed spaces, the use of hoses, the impact of catalytic converters, and technical data on CO concentrations. The section on charcoal burning, which mentions the specific equipment (e.g., hibachi, shichirin) and the setup in closed rooms.

Although these sections are sourced and intended to be encyclopedic, the amount of practical detail might inadvertently provide guidance to vulnerable individuals, even if that is not the intention. As this is a highly sensitive subject, I also want to acknowledge that I haven't fully reviewed all other parts of the article, so there may be additional sections that merit similar scrutiny.

Would it be appropriate to review these sections to ensure that we maintain the encyclopedic and neutral tone, while reducing potentially harmful technical details where feasible, and consider adding stronger content warnings to protect vulnerable readers? Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Thank you very much for your help! Cl51RLM2013 (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. To post on that talk page, you only need to be autoconfirmed- 4 days old with 10 edits. I suspect you aren't the first and won't be the last to raise your concerns, but the article as it is now is the result of much discussion and consensus building. I would suggest that you first review the talk page archives to see what discussion has taken place before starting a new one. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@331dotOkay thank you Cl51RLM2013 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This is probably elaborated more in the discussions at Talk:Suicide methods, but remember that a) wikipedia is not censored, so objectionable content such as this will typically remain without prominent disclaimers or censorship, and b) WP:NOTHOWTO explicitly allows descriptions of actions and procedures, as long as they are not phrased as direct instructions to the reader. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@TheDowningStreetCatOkay thank you Cl51RLM2013 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

i want to ask a question that Joshua project is reliable source or not. Once it was removed stating Joshua Project is Not Reliable Source.

May Experienced editor clarify it 獅眠洞 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading about it more here WP:JOSHUAPROJECT, it informs why they said its not reliable. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

thank u , next time I will double check sources. 獅眠洞 (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I have added an accurate comment about Neo-Nazis. I am a history professor who studies Nazism. Why removed? 2603:7080:AA40:69:84E1:221A:CF28:A08F (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This edit was reverted by User:Pro-anti-air; you could ask them on their talk page, but now that I have mentioned them, hopefully they will comment here. I'll hazard a guess that it's because you described someone as a neo-nazi, without citing a source, contrary to our policy on biographies of living people.

As a history professor, I'm sure you understand the importance of citing sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

There's a link to Gavin McInnes where you made your edit. If you're going to apply negative epithets to McInnes, you should either cite a reference, or use something from Wikipedia's article about him, preferably from its lead. There's plenty critical material there. Maproom (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse,

I recently submitted an article draft about my company/organization [BNW Developments] on Wikipedia, but it was not accepted. I tried to follow the guidelines, wrote in a neutral tone, and included references. However, it keeps getting declined or deleted, and I’m not sure what I’m doing wrong.

Can someone kindly help me understand what specific issues might be causing the rejection? Is it about notability, tone, sourcing, or something else?

I’d really appreciate any guidance or suggestions for improving it so that it meets Wikipedia’s standards.

Thanks in advance! SamCollierz (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

If you see it getting rejected, you will also find somewhere in the rejection field the reason for the AfC declined. Usually AfC reviewer must leave a reason as to why they have rejected the Article. Thankyou. Wh67890 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Also the place where you wrote your WP:First article is called sandbox and it is different than draftspace and as I see it was deleted because it contains promotional tone. Please write new article in WP:About the sandbox but without any promotional tone. Wh67890 (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

No, do not create article content in the public sandbox, it is for edit testing, and gets blanked frequently. (@Wh67890, please do not give incorrect or misleading advice.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

My mistake, I gave link on public sandbox instead of about the sandbox. Wh67890 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Each time Wikipedia mention the reason that Promotional Content.

Could you please help me to write the article? SamCollierz (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SamCollierz: I assume you're referring to your sandbox draft User:SamCollierz/sandbox? This was deleted (a couple of months ago) as purely promotional, with no evidence of notability. I don't believe it was ever submitted for review, so wouldn't have been declined or rejected (which are two different outcomes) at AfC.

I've posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and action it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

If you intend to work to improve it and make it suitable for publication, you can request undeletion of your sandbox: WP:REFUND. However, you should first be sure that you can demonstarte that the company meets the requirements at WP:NCORP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

My business has been featured on several reputable websites and platforms. Given this visibility, I am unclear why it is still considered to lack notability. SamCollierz (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

"featured on several reputable websites and platforms" is irrevelvant, if the coverage is not significant (i.e. in-depth), independent and in a reliable source.

Which three sources do you think meet those requirements? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

How do I appeal a block? 2600:382:3831:94C:2DD5:9D4C:7DE2:126A (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Evading it to ask how to appeal is not a good start- if instructions were not provided on your user talk page, please see instructions and the unblock appeals guide. If you don't have access to your user talk page, use WP:UTRS. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

If their intent was to evade, they would have edited a page, not immediately noted that they were blocked. This is clearly in good faith and does not violate the purpose of a block (“prevent you from making disruptive edits”).

Indeed, this actually makes it more difficult for them to violate the actual purpose of the block, because they just made it clear that they are blocked. So I would say a good start. LordDiscord (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ling Bouvier

Hi! I submitted a draft for the article Ling Bouvier (The Simpsons) — would anyone be willing to take a look and provide feedback or possibly review it faster? Mirror5ioa (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mirror5ioa: Looks like someone has already done so. But why the hurry? You posted this request only a few minutes after creating the draft! --bonadea contributions talk 16:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mirror5ioa The problem with your current draft (which has already been declined by a reviewer) is that it cites no sources. Hence readers can't verify what you write, no matter how true you think that is. You need to find published reliable sources that show that this character is notable in the specific way Wikipedia defines that word. Fan sites will not be sufficient: we need editorial oversight in the sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

... See Lisa Simpson for the type of sources required for an article rated "good". Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I made a major revision to the wiki page for Jerome McGann but @ 75.75.120.254 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

There are no edits made under your IP address. Were you signed in? Did you select the "Publish" button?

I have left some useful links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

If you are User:InternalExile, this is explained at WP:Help desk#Completely befuddled. Please don't ask the same question in two places. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

How can I write articles that get selected? Tripmish (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tripmish, and welcome to the teahouse.

On your talk page, the reason given for the decline of your most recent draft is that the sources do not demonstrate notability to Wikipedia's standards. Unfortunately the draft is blanked, so I can't see what sources you have used. In general though, a subjects notability should be established through use of reliable, secondary, and independant sources that describe the subject in detail. Make sure that all sources cited are independent of the subject, non-promotional, and secondary. WP:GNG may help. If you have any more questions let me know. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tripmish It looks like you are trying to insert links to an exam prep service. This is considered spamming and these links have no place anywhere on Wikipedia; please go elsewhere if you want to promote this website. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I recently submitted a draft article for review through AfC about Luca Volpe, a well-known Italian mentalist and performer. I have a professional connection, so I disclosed the COI transparently on the sandbox’s Talk page.

The page is at: User:Mnemonicbloom/sandbox

I believe he meets notability guidelines through national TV appearances (RAI1, RAI2), international performances, multiple industry awards (Merlin Award, Robert Houdin d’Or), and magazine features (e.g., Vanish Magazine).

Could someone take a quick peek and let me know if everything looks correct or if I need to move anything into Draft namespace? I’m still learning and happy to improve based on feedback!

Thank you so much for all the guidance! ~~~~ Mnemonicbloom (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mnemonicbloom. I see your draft has been declined.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Several of your sources are not reliable (eg Facebook), and others are not independent (eg suppliers). ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine. I understand. I’ve now stepped away from editing this topic and respect the standards and policies in place. Wishing the editorial team all the best.

Mnemonicbloom (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

If you can find reliable independent sources, feel free to add them to the draft and eventually try to submit again :) CVDX (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

What is the most recent species to have gone extinct? Donald is Jurassic (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Donald is Jurassic, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to get help with using and editing Wikipedia. Your question would be better at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Anyway, nobody knows. It takes a while before a species is declared extinct, and it's hard to be sure. Many small species like insects probably go extinct without ever having been discovered. Maybe the reference desk can find a list of recently declared extinct species by some authoritative source. You may also be interested in Special:PrefixIndex/List of recently extinct. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am currently writing my PhD thesis on the subject of “greenwashing”.

In the course of my research, I noticed that a change was recently made to the Wikipedia entry on the term “greenwashing” and then restored by another editor with reference to certain sources.

For my scientific work, I am in urgent need of primary and absolutely reliable sources to verify the original coining of the term “greenwashing” by Jay Westerveld. The sources currently mentioned in the entry, which were added afterwards, are unfortunately not sufficient for my requirements as primary evidence. I have not been able to clearly identify the essay in which Jay Westerveld is said to have coined the term.

Could you please help me to find the exact reference or the exact location of this essay? A verified primary source for this is of utmost importance to my research and I urgently need your assistance in this search.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Sofia Verstappen Sofia Verstappen (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me, Sofia Verstappen, that rather than asking about a concept, you're asking about a word. If this is so, then rather than asking here in Wikipedia, you'd be better off asking at Wiktionary. But that said: Even desultory googling brings plenty of (disappointingly imprecise) claims that Westerveld coined this -- somewhere, and meaning something -- in 1986. However, this brings earlier uses. (Change the values for cd_min and cd_max to taste.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Greenwashing.

It may be that Westerveld was the first prominent writer to use and popularise the word, but had encountered it in previous more obscure writing. Hopefully, Sophia, others can help you, but in passing, note that as a Tertiary source, Wikipedia by policy prefers to base itself on Secondary sources, and only uses Primary sources sparingly: see further Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.40.15 (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sofia Verstappen, welcome to Wikipedia. You may be looking in the wrong place, as Wikipedia – like all encyclopaedias – is a tertiary source which aims to summarise reliable secondary sources where possible. I did have a cursory look at the Greenwashing and Jay Westerveld articles as well as the wikt:greenwashing entry in our sister project Wiktionary, but didn't see references to Westerveld's essay in any of those places. To be honest, this sounds like a question you should take to your university library reference desk or your doctoral supervisor before a random assortment of strangers on the internet. (We do have our own reference desk here, but I really want to encourage you to use the resources provided by your institution before a bunch of volunteers who come and go as we please.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

True, ClaudineChionh, but (i) Sofia may have queried those resources already; (ii) Wikipedia has a reputation, not entirely undeserved, of having a few editors who, if interested, can sometimes unearth hidden evidence rather as a well-trained pig unearths truffles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sofia,

About all we can do is point to the references already in place at the article. So you could try following back a statement made at Greenwashing to the sources we used to determine it but that's really all we can do. Some Wikipedia editors have access to a large library of academic journals and other such materials but I'm sure you, as a PhD candidate, also have such access through your school. Beyond that all I can do is reinforce what others have told you: Wiktionary may be a better destination for a specific etymological question. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sofia Verstappen

The Oxford English Dictionary attempts to find the earliest usage of words. For greenwashing, the earliest usage is from September 1987, and the source listed is "Commerc. Appeal (Memphis, Tennessee) 4 September (Final edition) a9/4" (whatever that might be). Blackballnz (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse Member's

I'm a Journalist and I have to create a Wikipedia page for myself. I infact tried to create a page, but it was rejected from the reviewer. Can Someone please support me? Journorahull (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

You do not "have to". See also WP:Autobiography. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Plural nouns do not need apostrophes. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know who told you that you "have to" but I would suggest that you ask them to read WP:BOSS. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I am new here and can't figure out how to link published pictures (giving appropriate credit/copyright consdierations) to articles. I've noticed those with pictures have much better engagement. Any obvious tips I'm missing? RockyGrrl (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

RockyGrrl, NB those "credit/copyright considerations" can be complex and they certainly don't resemble what goes on in Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, and the like. ("Yes it's copyright, but I'll credit the copyright holder, say it's for Wikipedia only; I'm sure they won't mind" will not fly.) Unless you're planning to claim the "fair use" of a conventionally copyrighted picture for a particular purpose, you're better off uploading the public domain [in the legal sense of the term] or copyleft picture to Wikimedia Commons than to upload it here. c:Help:Contents has a list of links to pages that explain the process. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@RockyGrrl: uploading images such as File:Sylviaarenas2025.jpg is completely unacceptable. You have not done even the "giving appropriate credit/copyright consdierations" you said, but have instead provided "Source Public figure social media account" and "Author Unknown author". You cannot just grab a picture from the web and upload it to Commons; it is a copyright violation, plain and simple (see c:COM:WEBCOPYVIO). To upload images you must either have taken them yourself, or they must have an existing free license (see c:COM:L) or they must be in public domain (which does not mean that the image is widely available). And you must be able to prove the free license or public domain status. To upload pictures taken by others without such a license you must convince the copyright holder to send explicit permission via c:VRT (and "permission to use in Wikipedia" is not sufficient either). MKFI (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

In music articles, ive seen many mark the octave numbers with the HTML subscripts or use Template:Sub like this F3 and I started doing it myself and I think it looks nice. But somehow I didnt see it in MOS:SUBSCRIPT or MOS:MUSIC. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 17:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

It would be best if you raised the matter on the talk page of those MOS pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

And I will note that Unicode subscript digits (₀ ₁ ₂ ₃ ₄ ₅ ₆ ₇ ₈ ₉) should not be used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Can someone direct me to the list of reliable sources. I remember Guinness Book was not acceptable. I ca't find the list. 2600:8802:3A09:6400:7589:F93C:4F07:A49A (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Is WP:RSP what you're looking for? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Please be aware that Reliable sources/Perennial sources is not a general or comprehensive list of all generally reliable or unreliable sources in the world. It is instead a list of sources whose reliability has been discussed frequently over the years. Editors need to develop the important skill of assessing the reliability of lesser known sources on their own. Cullen328 (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I have an article I've created, and I've been trying to get published for over two years now. It is an article about my local public high school and contains facts about academics, extracurriculars, the history of the school, quick facts, and even the plans regarding the new football field.

Currently, the article has been rejected for appearing "to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." I do agree with this, and I’m open to fixing it. But even after multiple revisions, the submission is still dismissed for the same reason. I would greatly appreciate any help rewording parts of the article to meet Wikipedia’s standards. I truly just want this page to be published now, because I think it’s quite unfair that every single high school near me has a page (I checked), and mine doesn’t.

I kindly request any extra guidance regarding my article, and I’m flexible about changing any parts of it. And I would rather help than be told my article isn’t important like before.

Here's a link to my article: Draft:Springdale Jr-Sr High School (Pennsylvania)

Thank you, Cv822 (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the article is more neutral than previous. I don't think it's ready yet though. The minutiae of what rooms are in each wing does not seem worthwhile content, nor do the naming of various areas. Those are both types of things that might be on an "about us" page of the school's own website and are likely interesting to those in the community, but aren't really "worldwide encyclopedia" material and could come across as self-promotional. The extensive level detail about the stadium is likewise only of interest to those in the community. However, and I know this is what you asked not to be told, but it's the real question: is this school actually notable, per WP:GNG? Individual high schools do not automatically merit their own articles (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). It's quite possible that only some of several in an area do (each must stand on its own merits, not by association) and it's also possible that existing nearby-school articles also do not meet current article standards either. Proving that it is means finding multiple high-quality in-depth refs, and those would be the basis for writing neutral content about it beyond the play-by-play of its construction and generic laundry-lists of its student activities. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice. DMacks (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists

Adding on to what DMacks said, just the creation of an article can be seen as promotion (even if that wasn't your intention, and I doubt it was), as not all information is notable enough for its inclusion in Wikipedia to be WP:NPOV. If the school is notable, then that will be demonstrated by in-depth coverage in reliable and independent sources. If that is the case, then only including the information discussed there, in the proportion discussed there, will help the article stay neutral. Unfortunately, as said above, your school might not be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Please don't use multiple forums to seek assistance. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that was a rule Cv822 (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not a "rule" per se, but it duplicates effort. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

On the article William Marshall, 1st Earl of Pembroke, The Issue (children) is missing from infobox for some unknown reason, but its not missing from his wife Isabel de Clare, 4th Countess of Pembroke infobox. So for the sake of consistency, and for not confusing those who read the article, i've tried to add it in , but for some reason something weird happens and the infobox becomes messy. You try it yourself. What is going on? why is this happening? if it has something to do with not yet having an account, then can someone please add the issue in the infobox? 76.68.113.121 (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

You can add "| issue = {{plainlist|", followed by the right list. Look at how it is there for the Countess, and follow the details exactly. Bduke (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I did that before too, it didnt work 76.68.113.121 (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

IP editor. I don't know what went wrong in your case but I had no trouble copying the list over from the wife, in this diff. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I've had an argument over whether gender inequality in Korea was related to the finger pinching conspiracy theory on Talk:Finger pinching conspiracy theory. The argument was that while some news articles have mentioned South Korea's gender inequality in their article, it can't be assumed that it is related to the topic, since none of them gave any links or relations to it. You can see the full discussion on the topic. During the debate, I was pointed to this Teahouse to seek advices for my doing. I have made some mistakes when I was new to wikipedia, but during the time of discussion, I didn't realize any violation of Wikipedia's policies to the point where it could be seen as disruptive. Could you help me with what I might have done wrong and what I could improve on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone123454321 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

If you were directed here for that purpose, then whosever did so was mistaken. This forum is for advice on how to edit, not for dispute resolution.

If talk page discussion is not helping, please follow the process outlined at WP:DR. One thing you might consider is asking for a third opinion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

According to Oxford dictionary, the verb forms of this word can be either single or double s. However, the preferred iOS spelling correction is focuses. Which is more appropriate?

Like the word gas, the plural can be either gases or gasses. MarcoToa1 (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

My American spellchecker is happy with both. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Although the two spelling are both acceptable in British or American English, I usually prefer the single s version. MarcoToa1 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The double s version is not rare, but it is less common. MarcoToa1 (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

While spelling should be consistent within a specific article, there may not be a WP-"appropriate" spelling, so leaving it alone on a WP-wide basis is probably fine. I don't know if this falls within WP:ENGVAR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Your preference is immaterial; do not go around changing others' uses of the version you dislike, as you have recently been doing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

People sometimes use plural adjectival nouns (for example the blind, the disabled, the elderly). However, sometimes it may be considered inappropriate because it suggests that all people (for example people who are deaf/blind/elderly/homeless etc. are all the same. From now, if I find these uses in any articles, I’ll change it. (For example use people with disabilities or disabled people for the disabled and blind people for the blind) MarcoToa1 (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The expressions without relation to disabilities is fine . MarcoToa1 (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Avoid using these terms

The disabled

The deaf

The blind

The handicapped

The subnormal

The dumb

The deaf and dumb

The colo[u]r blind

etc. MarcoToa1 (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be (mostly) a very personal preference. Be aware of WP:COMMUNICATE and WP:BRD, WP:EW can get you blocked. If this is something you want to suggest implementing WP-wide, the WP:MOS talkpage may be the place to start. The Teahouse is not the place for this kind of "declaration." You can also ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Aside from personal preference, though, what would the real difference between the blind and blind people be? Augnablik (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

It feels natural to say the French voted for Macron, whereas French people are known for liking smelly cheese - so I'd say the difference is that the former is a statement about the group as a whole, rather than about it's members. Although a lot of organisations are called something like "Such And Such School For The Blind" and in those instances it is right to call things what they are called so personal preference doesn't really factor into it. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 08:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I sort of see where you’re coming from, D’n’B, but it seems to me that to say “the French are known for liking smelly cheese” sounds just as natural as “French people …”

That said, I think that if we made either declaration in Paris, we’d have to duck and run for describing cheese liked by French people/ the French as smelly! Sacré bleu! 🤭 Augnablik (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where did you see en-WP use "subnormal" about people, outside quotes etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Both "the handicapped" and "handicapped people" are poor style. They are too vague (too diverse a concept, both type and extent) to be useful in almost any context and are examples of typically needless identity-first language. That latter applies even to the more homogeneous groups listed. DMacks (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Several of the changes you have recently made to such terms were in quotations from published sources or speech. Do not edit quotations like that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, MarcoToa1. This is the second time that you have posted here to announce your personal rules for the use of English, and state that you intended to impose them unilaterally on Wikipedia. As I told you there, this is not the way to do this. However laudable your intention may be, Wikipedia is created by consensus, and one editor imposing their own views (particularly after others have objected) is disruptive editing, and may get you blocked.

Discuss your proposals, and achieve consensus before you try implementing them; either at WP:VPP as I suggested or at the WP:MOS talk page as GGS suggested. --ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am writing this to show you that the Glitch Productions articles I created are being taken down for no apparent reason. Even the people who are taking it down are users, not administrators, who just won’t leave me alone.

Thank you. RockandHipHop (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Grievances with user behavior should be brought to WP:ANI, but that should be a last resort after all other resolution efforts have failed. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Not for "no apparent reason", but for the reasons - good reasons - explained on your talk page, and in the deletion discussions linked from there. Please read those; and WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I know doing so is for good reasons, but they just do speedy deletions, and when I check on there, the deleter is just a user. RockandHipHop (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

No, the person proposing deletion is"just" a user; that's allowed. Only an admin can actually delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I write to suggest that an article be devoted to Gloria Sengha, arguably the DRCongo’s most prominent democracy and human rights activist. I see there is a long article in the French Wikipedia but only a couple of scattered mentions in English. I would be happy to write up a first draft for review, if you like. She has been arrested on multiple occasions and is currently being sought by the secret police. There is therefore some urgency. thank you, Daronson64 (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Daronson64 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. While we have no deadlines here, you may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft article, though writing a new article can be challenging. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you able to make a translation from the article available on "Wikipedia in French" ?

Link to the article in French : "fr:Gloria Sengha Panda Shala".

It would be certainly easier than write an article from scratch. Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Daronson64, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are welcome to do this, but please start by reading WP:translation. Note that, whether you translate the French article, or try writing it in a different way, it is your responsibility to ensure that you have the sources necessary to establish that she meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The sources cited in the French article may or may not be adequate for the English Wikipedia. (Being in French is not a problem, but they need to meet the triple criterion in WP:42 - I haven't checked whether or not they appear to do so) ColinFine (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

In the list of vampire television series there are errors and omissions in Castlevania.

The original Anime Castlevania had 4 seasons, not 3, and 32 episodes.

Castlevania: Nocturne is not even listed and began in 2023 and the second season began in 2025 with a total of 16 episodes.

I can't edit because I'm not a coder.

Could someone please correct.

Thank you.

Debra Normand Dnormand (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Dnormand. You can edit it yourself - there certainly shouldn't be any coding involved. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

If what you're worried about is wikitext markup, then you can also switch to the visual editor, which looks more like a regular word processor. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

my client Gameloft wants their wikipedia article locked from edits anyone know how to get it locked 2601:19E:4381:A500:2415:82BF:97A7:ECA9 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:BOSS. An article shouldn't - and likely wont - be edited or changed because of the wishes of the subject or an editor paid by the subject, and such a paid relationship must be disclosed. If there is a legitimate reason that the article should be locked from edits, such as frequent vandalism, then the articles talk page is probably the best place to request that. Others could probably help you more with making that request. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Gameloft. IP user, in addition to WP:BOSS that TheDowningStreetCat links to above, you should ask your client to read this policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Articles are protected ("locked") to protect the encyclopedia from disruption, and one common type of disruption is that somebody wants to make sure that the article about them contains no criticism, or that it is written in a very positive tone. That is not Wikipedia's purpose, and if this article were to be "locked" it would be to protect it from inappropriate edits such as this one. --bonadea contributions talk 10:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I note that you recently edited the article. As they are your client, you are required to abide by our WP:PAID policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

If your client wants "their" article (it's Wikipedia's article about them) locked, they've misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia.. Thank you for the warning. Maproom (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am trying to understand what about the content on this page (Jayanthi Kumaresh) appears promotional. It earlier was indeed so (unintentionally) and has hence been edited to present a more neurtral tone and amply supported by citations. The tagger has indicated that there is still lots of puffery. Will anyone kindly help me review and edit the article to adhere to the wiki standards. Thank you.

Shyamala. Shyamalswiki (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Phrases such as represent India’s Musical Heritage and promote Indian classical music; rigorous Veena training; renowned violinist; excelled in sparkling glee; gave a sold-out concert at Sydney Opera House all come across as promotional. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

“excelled in sparkling glee" is a quote from a review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but a cherry-picked quote. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There are about 150 or so links where I do a google search and I am trying to figure out how to make an article about the subject using content from those sources. So, should I just be quoting lines from each of the articles - I thought, we could make factual statements and then give citations supporting it. Can you kindly pick one line out of the article and show me a rewritten version as a sample so I can understand what is wrong ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I have removed some of the content you pointed out as appearing promotional. Kindly review. If it appears ok, what would be the next step to get the promotional tag removed ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Also can you explain what in the name of the wikipedia is this? Darbar.org says she was one of the youngest veena artist to receive A-Top grading from All India Rad. Wh67890 (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It is basically quoting a line from the website darbar.org .. Is there a better way of saying this ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Ask yourself if this is how we write informations in Wikipedia or is this way any Encyclopedia is written, the way you replied it without acknowledging the error, I think you need a course on how to write articles. Wh67890 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Kindly do not be offended. I am here in the teahouse to learn and seek the advice of experts like you. I am asking, I am unable to understand what the error is, what is a better way of saying this ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Since you are commited to do it, why dont you try WP:RS, WP:Notability, WP:Article and WP:Verifiability. These are like constitution here in Wikipedia, reading them will help you getting familiarised with the idea of editing Wikipedia. Wh67890 (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I went through notability already and made a few edits based on that. I will go through the other links you have provided. Thank you for your time and effort. Shyamalswiki (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Just for asking: Are you connected to the subject somehow? Wh67890 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I am a fan of her music and while looking for something found that her page was really old. So, I am trying to put my best foot forward and get it up to date. Shyamalswiki (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Veena Artist I think not notable Santalipedia (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Also She is one of the youngest veena player with A-Top grading[cite the source for your claim] is only best version I can advise to you. Also Read some other article that share similarities with you but are in A-class or B-class phase, it will also help you to understand how to write a better encyclopedia.Wh67890 (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I have made a similar edit and a citation was already there. Thank you for the pointer and suggestion. If you find any other sections with scope for improvement, kindly let me know. Shyamalswiki (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

What is A-class / B-class, how can I find such articles ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

this might be confusing: A class and B class articles that are neatly written, but not the best standard articles like featured or GAs. These articles follow almost all the rules and criteria that in Wikipedia needs; such as but not limited to, citing, reliability, notability, expansion et cetra. You cannot find them but it is shown, what class that article is of, in the top of the artile just below the title but only if you have enabled this in you gadgets menu.

these are some of the articles related to musics and BLP in your country (india) with A and B class criteria:

1. [Ravi Shankar] actually a good article.

2. [Raga] Wh67890 (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I saw some of your pointers in the article and I have gone back and added more citations that I could find. I have more content to add but would like to wait until the current content is in the clear and we can remove the promo tag. In the mean time, I saw some of the citations got added with an auto tag and now some are being repeated. How can I fix this and prevent it from re occurring ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Do not wait to make an article better. Promo tag will automatically be removed by one of us if you refine your article.

I will not be here since i am busy. So here are some advice. Expand it, improve lede section so that reader understand the spot just liWikof success. ipedia is not just awards collection. Read WP:What Wikipedia is not.You don't need to verify everything but you need to verify sentences that makes claims. Wh67890 (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Understand the subject not just list of awards. Sorry my keyboard got jammed.

Wh67890 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much again for the invaluable advice. what did u mean "lede section" ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Lede section is the first section you see in article, such as in your case, it is the whole section just above early life and education. Wh67890 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Lede section summa rise most important things that you see in the article . And sometime, with care, you can add extra information but make sure lede section is just summarise it. Wh67890 (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:Lede section Wh67890 (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

If the lead section looks ok now, can we remove that warning from the article ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you kindly elaborate what you mean by "not notable" Shyamalswiki (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Some of the sections are marked as citation needed - “A Thousand Stars”.^{[citation needed]} Jayanthi Kumaresh has also released several albums with multiple themes and presentations. - Is it ok to include the you tube link as citation ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

No youtube links are not used in Wikipedia, don't use them. Wh67890 (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The other links that show up are also similar - apple music, shazam, spotify etc. What is a way to add a citation here then ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

uhm. Since we don't allow these sites because they are not "WP: Primary source. Only options are:

1. Published articles from music magazines (e.g. Rolling Stone), reputable websites (Billboard), or industry databases (Discogs).

2. Record label or artist official press releases, album booklets, or liner notes.

3. Interviews, reliable news coverage, or historical archives.

Make sure they are not biased and promotional everything else is good. Wh67890 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Wh67890 is not quite correct here – a YouTube video can be perfectly fine as a source, for instance a news report published by a reliable news organisation, a lecture by an acknowledged expert published by a major university, or a documentary produced and published by a reputable publisher. It is all about who has published the video – and to be clear, the absolute majority of everything published through YouTube is not going to be useable as a source, but it's not true that YT is never used. Now, if you were thinking about using YouTube videos of Jayanthi Kumaresh's performances to support statements in the article, that is not ideal since such a video is a primary source, and Wikipedia really prefers secondary sources in most situations. Note also that a link to a YT video can never be used to support a claim about how many views or follows or likes the video has. As for Apple Music, Spotify, Shazam, and similar, those are primary sources, and not useful for Wikipedia's purposes since they only show that a song or an album exists; in addition, links to streaming services or websites that sell products should always be avoided because Wikipedia doesn't want to send its readers off to commercial websites. Hope this makes sense. --bonadea contributions talk 18:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

thanks for noting the mistake. Actually yes you can use Youtube in certain cases but its very rare and only if no other sources (secondary sources) are available. For example Shyamalswiki can use this link [[6]] to cite directly one about her (subject's) channel OR her (subject's) piece of music, only for proving the existence through official sources, such as in this case the link leaves to her official Youtube account. Link however can be used like this “X, Interview with Artist Y,” YouTube, timestamp 3:45, Official Channel, Published Jan 2023." is appropriate. Also you can not use any unofficial Youtube channel even if it includes her (e.g. fan, promotional et cetra). But this is done carefully, thanks again. Wh67890 (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for offering more clarity Bonadea and Wh67890. I will then proceed to use her channel link when mentioning her albums. I have also expanded on the lead section and hopefully am getting better at writing it. Any feedback for improvement is highly appreciated. Shyamalswiki (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a remainder, please if you can find, use some secondary sources too , just for sake of reliability. It will take more pain but it will worth it. Wh67890 (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I see your comment regarding this line "unique blend of music, animation " .. that was directly taken from this article's subtitle https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/music/veena-exponent-jayanthi-kumaresh-wins-over-young-listeners-with-her-new-live-show/article69601036.ece

Why do you say that it has to be removed ? What other places do you see in the article that seem promotional? Shyamalswiki (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I have added more expanded content to the sections mentioned and also added more details and citations. Appreciate any feedback for improvement. thanks Shyamalswiki (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see this for more context

The articles on chinese firefighting are an absolute mess and have made the entire situation very confusing. In fact, the national fire and rescue administration article was originally meant to be for the China Fire and Rescue(the firefighting force, bit like how the US navy is under the department of the navy), but somehow ended up being about the post-2023 agency instead, ironically making the article older than the agency.

For whatever reason, whoever decided to change the topic of the original article moved it instead of splitting it, causing the horrible situation now where the NFRA article is somehow about both the NRFA and China Fire and Rescue.

Those are very very different things, and should be split; could somebody please do it for me as it likely could be very messy.(If you know Chinese, read the chinese articles, they have managed it pretty well)

Additionally, articles on the ministry of emergency management fire and rescue bureau and ministry of emergency management forest fire bureau should also be made. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"National Fire and Rescue Administration" is certainly a misleading title. Maproom (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

NFRA is the agency, not the firefighting force. A split would certainly be needed. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I have edited pages, and my edits have been accepted. I have now created a new page, following all of Wiki's guidelines. It is in my SANDBOX, and has been, for over a week. Wiki has accepted the formatting.

I'm not sure if there is something further I should do to get it uploaded. Overlawed (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Overlawed Hello and welcome. I have moved your draft to Draft space; it's okay to use your sandbox, but it's better to have drafts in draft space. In the future you can use the Article Wizard to create a draft. The draft is now at Draft:Prabha Sridevan.

I added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft for review, but before you do, I would format the references so that they are not bare urls- please see referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Overlawed, three points. (i) I quote: "We have dealt with this in detail only because we are of the opinion that...." Who are here referring to themselves as "we"? (ii) Is "husband's income � wife's income" perhaps supposed to read "husband's income ÷ wife's income"? (iii) Put references immediately after periods, commas, etc (and not immediately before them). -- Hoary (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a policy about quoting two speakers as if they were one?

The Shooting Brake entry has this quote:

A body style with "a very interesting profile. It makes use of the road space it covers a little better than a normal coupé, and also helps the rear person with headroom. ... The occasional use of the rear seat means you can do one of these cars, even if such a wagon lacks the everyday practicality of four doors."

This makes it sound like it's quoting one person.

But the original looks like this. I've boldfaced the parts that were quoted in the Wikipedia article:

It is not your basic two-door hatchback, a body style with different proportions: the hatchback tends to be squatty, while a shooting brake is sleek and has “a very interesting profile,” in the words of Peter Horbury, executive director of design for North America for the Ford Motor Company.

“It makes use of the road space it covers a little better than a normal coupe, and also helps the rear person with headroom,” Mr. Horbury added. “Especially in America, every member of the family has their own car. The occasional use of the rear seat means you can do one of these cars,” even if such a wagon lacks the everyday practicality of four doors.

Most of the Wikepedia quote is from Peter Horbury, but the last part, "even if such a wagon lacks the everyday practicality of four doors." appears to be an addition by the original article's author, Willian Diem of the New York Times.

Should a Wikipedia quote make that distinction, or does it not matter on the prinicle that it is all a quote from that NYT article? Greg Lovern (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Greg Lovern: Wikipedia should not attribute to the NYT (a reliable source) statements made by Mr. Horbury (who he?). Maproom (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Greg Lovern, you're right to be wary of any simplification that obscures the distinction between what person A writes (by themselves) and what person A writes (quoting person B). And it's understandable that you're a little rattled by Mr.choppers' reversion (polite though it was) of your informatively summarized edit (see the history). I haven't looked at the NYT article, and I'll assume that your quotation of it above is correct. It's not obvious to me that

"[...] The occasional use of the rear seat means you can do one of these cars," even if such a wagon lacks the everyday practicality of four doors.

distinguishes between what Horbury says and what Diem says. Mightn't it instead distinguish between what Horbury says (quoted directly) and what Horbury says (quoted indirectly)? However, before puzzling over this, let's pause for a moment. Whether or not it's mangled, the item "It is not your basic two-door hatchback [...] executive director of design for North America for the Ford Motor Company" is presented in the WP article as an ingredient of the/a definition of shooting brake. However, it doesn't look to me like a definition, or even an ingredient of a definition. I'd cut it (and very likely also cut more besides, though I haven't checked). -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I just now read the article, and I would argue that this sounds like Diem paraphrasing Horbury. But that's not 100% certain and I agree with Greg above that the quote is a touch problematic.

Moreover, what is certain is that the quote is included in a list of descriptions of a shooting brake - but to me it sounds more like Horbury expanding on the agreed on definition, its purpose and design and so on. After having read the article I think including it as a "different definition" is somewhat specious and only serves to muddy the waters. The same article also contains the words The shooting brake, however, is a luxury coupe with a squared-off back which is a much more relevant quote.

I would also like to add that Diem makes a misleading statement when he says that the German word for station wagon is "touring or variant"; those are merely BMW's and VW's marketing terms for their wagons, which are called Kombi in German.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

i found a article going by the name "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around does it make any sound" and i found the name to be too long and complicated and that it would likely reduce the performance of the article and wouldnt help if people are searching the topic under a different name or a likely suitable title. Are titles like these ok and are encyclopedic or a title change is in order for this article Narventer (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Narventer Per Talk:If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest_and_no_one_is_around_to_hear_it,_does_it_make_a_sound?#Requested_move_7_April_2024 it seems to be the current consensus. Consensus can change. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

There are several redirects from shorter titles.[7] It's a famous thought experiment I may have heard dozens of times and it doesn't have a short name so the title seems appropriate to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

What does "reduce the performance of the article" mean? Longer loading time for the article? I really doubt that is a problem. --bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

i meant to say that people wouldnt be able to find the article beacuse of its twisted name and hence reduces the performance or the efficiency of the article to be on search results Narventer (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

That is why we use redirects, such as If a tree falls in a forest.

Also, a Google search for "If a tree falls in a forest" (with or without quotes) finds the article as the first result. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

alright makes sense

quick question tho does this nominate for the longest article name or something Narventer (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere near; try Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

i havnt been on this website enough Narventer (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I've seen talkpage headings in much the same style. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to publish about Siva Kandula, but why getting rejection always?

Draft:Siva Teja Reddy Kandula

Could you please help me? Sivateja16 (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Sivateja16 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you took a picture of Mr. Kandula, what is your connection with him? Is he your boss?

You have almost no sources in the draft; a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person, showing how they are a notable person. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I see on your user talk page that you say you have known Mr. Kandula for many years; I would suggest that you disclose this as a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User apparently requested deletion of their draft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Poitín

I appreciate the welcoming comment, and apologise for not ensuring 'that alll sources cited are independent of the subject, non-promotional and secondary.

I should be grateful to receive your interpretation, on a suggested replacement narrative below, twhich is endeavouring to fully take into account the above requirements.

Suggested replacement narrative.

'On the 27th of March 2024 poteen history was made following the 27 countries approval in the EU, of Decision 1/2023 of the Joint Committee established by the Withdrawal Agreement, when HMRC then authorised a UK poitin maker to export production to the EU using exclusively Irish distillate over 80% vol. with the Commodity Code commencing No. 2207, subject to guidance in the agreement.

N.B. EU domestic produced poteen product was not authorised.

https://knockeenhillsspirits.com/information/

'On the 27th of March 2024 poteen history was made following the 27 countries approval in the EU, of Decision 1/2023 of the Joint Committee established by the Withdrawal Agreement, HMRC then authorised UK poitin maker Knockeen Hills Spirits Ltd to export poteen to the EU using exclusively Irish distillate over 80% vol. with the Commodity Code commencing No. 2207, subject to guidance in the agreement.

N.B. EU domestic produced poteen product was not authorised.

For authorisation see:-

https://knockeenhillsspirits.com/information/ 

Thank you. --AlanStibbe (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@AlanStibbe all edits on Wikipedia must comply with being non WP:PROMO which this product placement does not comply with unfortunately. I included some helpful links on your talk page ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Specifically, "Museum Mile" in Fifth Avenue. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Maurice Magnus. You can create a section link with [[Page name#Section name|displayed text]], see more at WP:ANCHOR. So in your case, you would write in wikitext: [[Fifth avenue#Museum mile|display text here]], and change 'display text here' to be whatever you want the hyperlinked text in the article to say. You can also use the section link template: {{Section link|Page name|Section name}} which formats the link with the § symbol, which is also explained at WP:ANCHOR. Hope this helps. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I used it twice in Manhattan. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

My article regarding muffler nuisance laws in the Philippines was declined due to unreliable sources. I am referring to actual laws and pending legislation in my article. Can someone help me point out why this article was declined, thanks! Dhogberg1 (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Draft:Muffler_noise_regulations_in_the_Philippines Dhogberg1 (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dhogberg1 I see you've chosen to perform one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, writing a successful article, as your first goal. This generally isn't advisable, as you really need to have some level of experience with Wikipedia's policies to be successful. It's advisable to perform some tasks first, as these will provide you with some easier things to do so you can get more experience before making your first article.

As for the article itself, the issue is more that there aren't any references. Wikipedia articles require sources that are WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY and which primarily focus on the topic at hand for an article to be published. These are core principles of article creation. The article you drafted has no citations, it uses external links presumably to the regulations themselves. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This is noted. So if a reference to a senate bill posted on a government website is not sufficient? Are the government websites in themselves sufficient? How do I prove that these are the applicable laws? 143.44.145.171 (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You're missing the point- (and remember to log in) you need to summarize what independent reliable sources say about these laws, not what the government says about them. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so I will need to find reliable sources confirming that the laws issued by the Philippine government are actuel laws issued by the Philippine government and not made up on governmental (.gov) websites? I understand that verification is crucial but the reason I am doing this is because of the lack of information presented to the public regarding actual laws regulating the use of loud mufflers. As a result, 99% of the delivery riders believe they are allowed to modify their motorbikes and make them noisier, when this is in fact illegal. As a result many residential communities are suffering from constant nuisance day and night with very limited tools to fight back, despite the fact that this behaviour is regulated by law. Dhogberg1 (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Dhogberg1. Independent sources that confirm that these are actual laws, are probably not going to cut it. Notability must generally be based on sources that meet all three of the criteria in golden rule: that they are reliable, that they are independent/secondary, and that they contain significant coverage of the subject.

You would need several reliable independent sources that talk about' the laws and bills. That discuss the arguments for or against, or the process by which they have been arrived at, or how they are being taken through the legislature.

If you have a reliable source saying that there are many drivers breaking the laws, it might be appropriate to discuss this in the article.

There are two things that you need to beware of, however:

1. You must summarise what individual sources say. You many not add any sort of argumentation or conclusion, even comparing two different sources (you could say that source 1 says X and source 2 says Y, but should not discuss that difference or recommend one of the views over the other). Putting any argument, discussion, or conclusion that is not found in one reliable source would be original research, which is forbidden in a Wikipedia article.
2. Make sure that you are not trying to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed when linking to another page or article on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia articles primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic, and you are just summarizing what primary sources(the Filipino government) say about this topic. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all of your input @Rambley, @CommissarDoggo‬‬, @331dot and @ColinFine‬. I am starting to realize the very basics of how this site works and completely agree with it. The articles are meant to provide verified facts, unbiased but true, as opposed to someone's opinion backed up by selected facts from a particular angle. With that said I will continue my research in order to improve my work before attempting to publish this article again. Dhogberg1 (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dhogberg1 And even if you succeed in getting a Wikipedia article, it won't stop the 99% of delivery riders who illegally modify their motorbikes and make them noisier. That will take a different approach. Blackballnz (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

So far, I’ve been doing the groundwork myself, handing out leaflets, talking directly to riders, and attending meetings with LGUs (local government units), law enforcement, and the police, but progress is slow. Even among "educated" individuals, including some police officers, there’s a surprising lack of awareness about the relevant legislation. As for the riders (mostly young males), they simply don't care. Laws, rules, and regulations don’t interest them. Their behavior seems to be shaped more by habit and culture than by any respect for public order. The noise they create, regardless of the time of day or night, doesn’t seem to matter to them, and not to those tasked with enforcing the law. What does seem to matter is that their 100cc mopeds sound like spitfires, roaring through residential streets as if that’s somehow a point of pride, never mind the families they disturb in the process! Having said that, many of the residents here in my village, local and foreign, appreciate my efforts and would like to see a change just like me. I mean, the laws are already there, we have the enforcers as well (guarded checkpoints at every entry/exit) so we simply need to get them to enforce these laws consistently. Every rider we educate and/or prevent from entering our village is a win. Do you have any other good ideas on how to tackle this problem? Dhogberg1 (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Trust me, it’s incredibly frustrating to have motorbikes roaring past your home, generating 75-95 decibels in a purely residential area where the legal limit is 55 dB. What makes it worse is that most of these bikes are clearly fitted with visible aftermarket exhausts (easy for anyone to identify) yet they’re still allowed to pass through guarded checkpoints 40-50 times a day, even during the night! The more accurate information I can share to support and highlight both local and national laws, the better. This issue ultimately comes down to one thing, enforcing the laws that already exist! Dhogberg1 (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

How to remove a citation which refers to a primary source of information Aita04 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Aita04, I wonder why you would want to? A secondary source which specifies its own primary sources seems an excellent thing to cite. Can you give details? Maproom (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

How can we help you if we don't know about which article are you talking ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If it were to be translated into English, would the Cantonese Wikipedia article for Jack Massey Welsh be a good Wikipedia article based on the text and sources? I'm asking this question because I know about the "beef" that the Wikipedia community has with any mention of Jack Massey Welsh on Wikipedia, considering that even the draft pages for Jack Massey Welsh and JackSucksAtLife (though not Draft:JackSucksatLife) (Welsh's main YouTube channel) are salted. Seeing then that the Cantonese Wikipedia has an article for Welsh made me curious whether there is a chance for Jack to finally have his own article on the English Wikipedia. Could someone please read through that article and check the sources? I really want to know. Crocusfleur (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Crocusfleur: We don't have a "beef" with him as such; the issue is his fans pretty much spammed us with badly-written and fatally-undersourced biographies, which left us little choice but to salt/protect any page they were editing. Given that most of us here on the Help Desk can't read Chinese, I would suggest editing the JackSucksatLife draft to try and bring it up to par; a good draft that can pass the AfC process is in itself a reason to lift the salting. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I should then perhaps try to contact some of the users in Category:User yue, to get the required competence for the answer to my question. Although, I would just like to remind anyone who may want to take on my task but doesn't speak Cantonese: You can of course put the article through Google Translate, and reading the sources won't be an issue, since all sources except a single Russian one are in English. I should probably contact someone in Category:User ru to read that source. Crocusfleur (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The problem with that is that most East Asian languages, Chinese included, tend to be heavily context-dependent, and running it thru automated tools (such as Google Translate) results in a "blind idiot" translation that either makes little sense or says the complete opposite of what is actually being implied in the text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If he isn't notable enough to get onto the notable people list at Bishop Auckland then he's pretty non-notable. The bar isn't very high at BA. - Roxy the dog 17:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, he has no connection to southern China/Hong Kong/Macau, but it seems he is notable enough to have his own article in Cantonese. Also, maybe the reason for him being not notable enough to get on the notable people list at Bishop Auckland is that he doesn't have his own Wikipedia article, and the reason for that is that every attempted article written about him thus far has been very poorly sourced. This is why I brought this up, since I was curious whether the Cantonese Wikipedia article about him is good enough to be translated into English. I wrote this here in hopes that anyone who speaks Cantonese, English or Russian would check the article and its sources to see whether said article can warrant being translated into English Crocusfleur (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If somebody has an article in en:Wikipedia, Crocusfleur, then this doesn't mean that the article demonstrates sufficient notability for it to exist. Perhaps the article fails to do so but is only read by employees/relatives/fans; perhaps its failure has only been noticed by people lacking the time and/or effort to do anything about this. The existence of the en:Wikipedia article certainly doesn't mean that if expertly translated into language xyz it would satisfy the requirements for xyz:Wikipedia. I can't think why articles in yue:Wikipedia would be free of analogous problems. To be fair, it's been seven years since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Massey Welsh and seven years is enough for many people to acquire (Wikipedia-defined) notability; also, the most recently deleted version of the article reads as if written by a very young editor, innocent of the requirements for Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Once you've digested it, here, in this thread, please provide links to three of the best sources about Welsh. Probably someone will then comment on their adequacy. (Not me, because I know very little about criteria for notability of Youtube "personalities".) -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Of course @Hoary. I understand. Notability on Wikipedia and notability outside of Wikipedia are two very different things. If someone has 4.62 million subscribers on their YouTube channel, then they can easily be seen as notable outside of Wikipedia. But per WP:YN, that won't fly on Wikipedia. No matter how many subscribers/views someone has, they won't count as notable on Wikipedia unless they have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (as you said). My argument was simply "enough people from around the world care about him to attempt to write an article about him in their Wikipedia (in this case, Cantonese)." This means that he is a topic that could warrant revisiting (even if all previous attempts to write an article about him have failed), since many people would love to read a Wikipedia article about him. Also, if there was a good, well-sourced Wikipedia article about Jack Massey Welsh, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be included in the notable people segment of the Bishop Auckland article. Crocusfleur (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The commons file for the signature of Swae Lee is sourced from an eBay listing for a signed copy of a record - I'm not familiar with the source guidelines for Wikimedia Commons but this feels rather unsubstantial. Have checked WP:RSPS but it isn't listed, so just seeking some advice here. Thanks! Epsilon.Prota ^talk 13:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Epsilon:Prota.

(I have replaced your URL by a Wikilink to commons).

I agree that that does not seem a reliable source to me. We don't normally accept sales sites as reliable anyway, but there's nothing to prove that it was Lee that signed that album. ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 09:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Friends.

I would like to give Shannon Appelcline a infobox person. I gained biographical information directly from them. However, how do I do so in order to avoid accusations of my own research? Should I just write "Personal correspondence with Shannon Appelcline" inside of ref tags? Or maybe we are doing such things in some other fashion? Is it really allowed?

I would appreciate some advice ;-)

Best wishes

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. To be in an article, information must be found in a reliable source that can be verified, typically an independent source. Primary source information is only acceptable in certain circumstances.

We cannot independently verify your personal correspondence with Shannon Appelcline, nor is it publicly available(i.e. in a library or public database) so it cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Friend.

That kinda sucks, to be honest x_x And yes, I would Google the information myself- with the problem it is not available anywhere online :/

Can I at least upload their photo on Wikimedia Commons (I have an allowance to publish it using Creative Commons license)? Working with just their photo and some basic information would be minimum I could do - not as "fun" and detailed as what I had in mind, but at least I could do something, right?

Best wishes

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If they publish some basic biographical information online (on their own website or social media account), such as when and where they were born, that would be an acceptable source for that information on Wikipedia (WP:ABOUTSELF). jlwoodwa (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If you took the image, or can otherwise show its license is compatible with Wikipedia's, you may indeed upload it, see WP:UPIMAGE. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kaworu1992 Assuming that pic you uploaded is a selfie, the way you did it is not good enough. If you are in contact with him, you can point him to Wikipedia:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If you are acting on behalf of the article subject, or are their friend or colleague, please see WP:COI.

If you did not take the picture, see c:COM:THIRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and I recently submitted an article titled "Iran–Israel 2025 conflict". It was declined because the topic is already covered. Can you please help me understand which parts are already available? Also, can you suggest a unique or missing topic I can write about? And lastly, what’s the best way to properly add reliable sources? Thank you! 🙏 Shahmeerhayyat (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Please see Referencing for beginners to learn about referencing.

There is already an article about June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Also know that editing about Israel can have special rules, I will notify you of these on your talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I wish to create a new article about a person who influenced the movie theater industry. I have extensive references. Are there people who would want to to do this for me? If not, how should I get started? I am a good writer and understand HTML. Thanks for your suggestions. Bouncy99 / Peter Bouncy99 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Bouncy99, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

The first thing I will say is that it is unlikely that somebody will come forward to create an article for you - not impossible, but unlikely. You may request an article at WP:RA, but the take-up there is very small: really your only hope would be to get the intention of somebody who is already interested in that area, so perhaps posting at the talk page of WikiProject Film. But even there I doubt if you are likely to find somebody.

So if you want this article, your best bet is to create it yourself. Unfortunately, a knowledge of HTML is not relevant, and being a "good writer" is only somewhat relevant, as Wikipedia requires different skills from most writing.

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.

One final comment: since you have posted this request here, it is quite likely that somebody will approach you offering to write an article for money. I very strongly advise you not to take them up. Such people are not in any way endorsed by Wikipedia - they are tolerated as long as they comply with our regulations for paid editors - and many of them are scam merchants: see WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative reply and suggestions based on your experience. I am 81-years of age and feel I don't have the patience or "time" to go through this learning experience. The article is about this man [8] my grandfather, whose work needs to be documented -- it had an enormous impact on the movie business in the 'teens and 1920's. I guess that realistically, I need to find someone to help or "partner" with me - either paid or volunteer. I do have extensive references. Thanks again. Bouncy99 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

To add to the response above, while it is heavily discouraged for inexperienced editors to go straight to article creation, it is not entirely impossible, so you can still try. It is best for you to make a draft and submit it to WP:AFC for review. Good luck with your future work. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think your best chance is, as Colinfine suggests, to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, providing several (at least three, but few enough that people there may actually look at them) good references. These should be reliable (not the Daily Mail) independent (not written by him, or his busness associates, or his employer) published sources. This^[1] is an excellent example, no doubt you're already aware of it. Maproom (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I put a response at User_talk:Bouncy99#A_WP-article_about_Sydney_S._Cohen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse editors,

I’m requesting feedback on a recently declined draft for a biography on Zack Zook, an arts administrator, curator, and nonprofit leader based in the U.S. Virgin Islands and formerly Brooklyn, NY. The draft was declined with the note that it lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, but I believe it includes multiple qualifying sources that establish notability.

Most notably, The New York Times published a dedicated article on the closing of BookCourt, the independent bookstore founded by Zook’s family, which includes multiple direct quotes from him and detailed context about his management of the store and its cultural legacy (NYT article link).

Additional independent coverage includes:

• A Publishers Weekly profile focused specifically on Zack Zook and his work at BookCourt, describing him as a “passionate bookseller” with notable industry influence
• A feature in Brooklyn Magazine naming him one of the “100 Most Influential People in Brooklyn Culture”
• Coverage of his nonprofit 81C Arts and its programs in Virgin Islands Daily News, St. Thomas Source, and WTJX (PBS affiliate in the Virgin Islands)
• A live CNN interview with Anderson Cooper following Hurricane Irma, offering broad public visibility and context about Zook’s leadership role in post-storm recovery

I’ve disclosed my conflict of interest as the subject of the article and welcome neutral input or recommendations on improving the draft to meet Wikipedia’s standards.

Draft link: User:Baranauma/sandbox

Thank you sincerely for your time and consideration. Baranauma (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Of all the sources in the article, which three meet all of the criteria listed at WP:42? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Baranauma, the sources you list above are not well chosen. The first is based on what Zook said, and so is not independent. The second uses the word "passionate", which will trigger many editors' bullshit detectors. Maproom (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

There are a problem with at least three sources. I think that my message would be sufficient to explain the problems.

If necessary , I can continue if you ask.

"* A feature in Brooklyn Magazine naming him one of the “100 Most Influential People in Brooklyn Culture”"

Do you understand that this magazine is a local magazine ? It's maybe a "reliable source" but I don't think that this is an evidence of a "significant coverage".

"* Coverage of his nonprofit 81C Arts and its programs in Virgin Islands Daily News, St. Thomas Source, and WTJX (PBS affiliate in the Virgin Islands)"

This is not centred on him. What I read is about "81C Arts" and not him.

"* A live CNN interview with Anderson Cooper following Hurricane Irma, offering broad public visibility and context about Zook’s leadership role in post-storm recovery"

This is an interview. Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks to me as if BookCourt is more likely to be notable than ZZ is, though I haven't spent more than a minute looking into the matter. But meanwhile, Anatole-berthe: "Do you understand that [Brooklyn Magazine] is a local magazine?" Actually Brooklyn Magazine is now merely a website. Yes, it's local -- but do you understand that Brooklyn has a population of circa 2.6 million? Brooklyn is a long way from Podunk. More to the point, "[two/three-digit number] most influential people in [place]" is a reliable if tired space filler in a slow news month. What has the influence been? -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

These information about "Brooklyn Magazine" are interessant. Thanks !

I understand that "Brooklyn" has a population of circa 2,6 millions. The area is approximately 250 km² (96,5255 sq mi).

Also , I understand that this place is one of the "Boroughs of New York City".

The capital of my country is "Paris" and there are circa 2 millions of people living there (The only place of France with at least 1 million of inhabitants).

The area is approximately 100 km² (38,6102 sq mi).

Brooklyn has more inhabitants than Paris and the area is bigger.

I don't think that there are a publication similar to "Brooklyn Magazine" concerning one of the "Arrondissements of Paris" (Similar to Boroughs of NYC).

If this magazine is merely a website. It can be accessed in the whole world. Thanks again for infos about this publication that I didn't knew. Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Working through Category:Pages with duplicate reference names, I came across 2011 Waikato Bay of Plenty Magic season, which uses LST to transclude sections from 2011 ANZ Championship season which details the semi-finals and finals. However, these sections include named references that are not defined within those sections, so when transcluded to the 2011 Waikato Bay page, it throws errors saying that these references are not defined. What would be the optimal way to fix this? In my mind, being able to somehow define the references in the 2011 Waikato Bay page without displaying them so that when the sections are transcluded they can access said references would be the easiest fix. Weirdguyz (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I came to this page because I was unable to cite a reference in the Wikipedia article on Thermodynamics, and I found a link leading me here. In 2020nI wrote an article on the history of thermodynamics, which analyzes many of the original articles from the point of view of a practicing (but now retired) physicist. It contains useful information and would like to cite it in Wikipedia but the references to the Wikipedia article on Thermodynamics have been autoprotected. The article is given below, and is Open Source, and should be easily downloaded as a pdf. Saslow, W.M. (2020).  A History of Thermodynamics: The Missing Manual, Entropy 2020, 22, 77; doi:10.3390/e22010077 www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy WMSwiki (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello WMSwiki, what difficulty are you having exactly? I can see that you made some edits to the article Thermodynamics shortly before asking this question - so I'm struggling to understand what the problem is. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, if you are the WMS in question, then perhaps read WP:SELFCITE before you decide to make the edit. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

First, thank you for responding. Indeed I am trying to self-cite.

The article in question, which cost me a great deal of effort, currently has well over a hundred citations, according to Google Scholar, so I think it should be considered legitimate.

However, the Wikipedia referencing is protected. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermodynamics&action=edit&section=25. I was unable to contact the autoprotect enabler MadScientist, perhaps because I did not root around enough for how to do so, but I am also aware of how easy it is to give unclear instructions. WMSwiki (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

WMSwiki, I took up your invitation to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermodynamics&action=edit&section=25 . What I read there was ==References== {{Reflist|2}}. This didn't surprise me at all. It means: "Add the heading 'References'; and under it (and in two columns), dump all the references that editors have provided above." It's rare for this section to need editing. You need to add each reference immediately after whatever the reference is for. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@WMSwiki: See more at Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Teahouse hosts. I recently declined Draft:Philip Anthony Silva on the basis of the subject already having his own article at Phil Silva. However, the article itself on Phil Silva was created on 14 June, whereas the draft itself was created much earlier on 4 June. Comparing the article and the draft at Special:Diff/1295817777/1295821182 yields some content similar, but I'm not too familiar with the policy on HISTMERGEs. Could someone please point out the next step in how to resolve this? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 02:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Such actions require the use of admin tools, so ask at WP:AN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing – Thanks for letting me know. I'm also aware of WP:RFHM. I guess the question here really was: is it suitable to request histmerge (as this probably seems like a case of WP:PHIST)? — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 11:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:AN is the place to ask. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

About the Population Europe Page.

The page of Population Europe (which is a network of leading Universities and research institutions throughout Europe, hosted by the Max Planck Society as a public institution and funded mainly from the Max Planck Society, the German government and the European Commission) has been heavily outdated (the last entry was in 2013) and therefore needs an update. That is why the whole text was removed and a new one added. I see that the usage of the link to the homepage is truly disproportionate, that can be easily adjusted. Since as a public research organization we have no commercial interest whatsoever in mind, this editing is meant purely for the factual correctness and not advertisement.

I am a student assistant at this organization, so I need to disclose my connection, which I will do in the edit summary or via the {connected contributor}. I apologize for unintentionally missing this before!

As for the inline citations, I will do my best to work more cohesively! Also, there was no intention of adding inappropriate external links, could you point out which one causes a problem?

Is there a possibility to let an edit be checked before uploading it, in order to see errors or insufficiencies before and have the opportunity for adjustment? Since my first attempts at editing have been removed (without further explanation), I would like to be on the safe side in order to not be banned in the future. Thank you for your time,

RikaBieligg (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi RikaBieligg, thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest. In theory, because of your COI, you should submit edit requests to the article's talk-page rather than editing it directly. The only exception would be things that are totally non-contentious. If you do choose to edit the article, I would suggest making lots of small edits so that if anyone disagrees, they can revert (and discuss!) the individual changes, rather than reverting the whole lot. You will need to make sure that everything you write is neutral in tone (don't try to advertise the network), and backed up by sources independent of the network. If you find that the vast majority of what you're writing is sourced to the network's own press-releases, then the information is probably not suitable for Wikipedia. If you make edit requests on the talk page, it is best to say exactly what you want to be included/deleted, with clear sourcing. But having given all these caveats, thank you for updating; it's good to make sure our articles aren't stuck in a time-warp. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Reasons were given in the Edit Summary of the removal, which can be seen on the page's 'View history' tab here: they were in the form of 'rv' for "reverted' followed by links to two Project pages which covered the infractions involved.

See for much more detailed explanations the posts now made on your own Talk page, and note that Wikipedia does not allow Promotion of any subject, regardless of whether it is non-commercial and/or a 'good cause': 'promotion' does not only imply a commercial motivation. Sections of the Project page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause are applicable to your situation.

Hopefully you will first study in detail the various links you have been given about editing on Wikipedia before trying again, which you are welcome to do within our policies and guidelines. I suggest you start again by finding Reliable sources that are independent of your organisation, and adding material summarising only those (difficult for someone with a CoI), one step at a time so disinterested editors can assess each change separately – a wholesale replacement allows only a blanket acceptance or (more likely) reversion, as you have already experienced. I hope this helps! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.137.14 (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

to be fair, RikaBieligg's first big edit was reverted with no explanatory edit-summary; the second big edit was reverted with "unexplained removal of text", so they then did the edit again with a long edit-summary, only to be reverted with some acronym-spaghetti. Ah well, it happens. Communication is hard. Elemimele (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Communication is easy. Persuading people to communicate is hard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

So recently, I had to take my high school's logo down from Wikimedia Commons because I wasn't sure about the copyright status. From there, I uploaded it to Wikipedia instead under a low quality, non-free fair use license for now until I get further permission. I filled out all the rationale parameters and was just wondering if I did so correctly. But the only source I have is the logo on a wall at my school, so I hope that suffices. In the meantime, I will ask permission from a school official because I still want the high quality version uploaded and readily available.

Here's the file: File:Springdale Jr-Sr High School PA Logo Transparent.PNG

Thanks, Cv822 (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cv822: You're largely wasting your time unless you point the school at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. Wikipedia is the one who would need the permission, and we emphatically will not seek it as it flies in the face of our goal of a free-content encyclopaedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The school may not want to make its logo available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution; this could mean theoretically that someone could, for example, print it on clothing and sell the clothing, and the school would not be entitled to money from the sale of its own logo. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a very good point but recently I went to a community street fair and there were people selling clothes like shirts, pants, and hats with the school logo (a different variant of it that can be found on Maxpreps) and I don't think they were a part of the school. One woman was my friend's mom. Cv822 (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

These other people you speak of either had permission to use it, or they didn't and are open to legal action from the school.(I don't know which) Certainly the use of its logo is up to the school, though. The person who gives permission needs to have the authority to do so(it might not even be the principal, maybe the school board). 331dot (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cv822: Doesn't stop the school from allowing them to do that. The difference between selling school merchandise and putting the school logo on Wikipedia is that the people selling school merchandise are not hosting the school logo on their servers for anyone to see and potentially use; Wikipedia is and we're not going to seek permission for it beyond our more restrictive interpretation of fair use/fair dealing laws. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm writing a sandbox draft titled: RiceUP! and I’d appreciate any feedback before I submit it.

Link to sandbox: User:Izapetkova/sandbox Izapetkova (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Izapetkova! In general, it's fine to just submit an article once you feel like it's in a good place. The feedback your reviewer will give you is basically the same as the kind of feedback you'd receive here. There's no penalty for having a draft declined, so even it's not up to scratch quite yet, you can always continue improving it.

That being said, it looks like the draft has been nominated for speedy deletion. Looking at it myself, I'm noticing that it doesn't cite any sources, has a lot of external links, and is written in a tone similar to a company website. All that put together makes it read like a promotion, which is not what Wikipedia's for. Before being approved, it needs to demonstrate notability by citing high-quality sources, and it needs to be written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

Additionally, it looks like you drafted the article in your sandbox instead of in draftspace or as a userspace draft. If you think you're going to be working on an article for a while, it's usually a good idea to create it as a dedicated draft rather than to write in your sandbox. Draftspace is usually the preferred location, particularly when you're ready to submit; you can use the "Create a new draft" box in WP:Drafts to start working there.

Happy editing! Anerdw (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

"a company with over 30 years of experience" — if you know when it was founded, say so. If you don't know, find out, or say nothing.

"Now available in more than 78 countries" — how many countries? if you know, say. If you don't, find out, or say nothing. And when was "now"? "RiceUP! transforms simple snacking into a joyful experience, turning each bite into a moment of lightness, pleasure, and positivity" — meaningless (and unreferenced) promotional bullshit. The whole thing comes across as an advertisement, and so has been proposed for speedy deletion. Maproom (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have some issues with a template in my draft, specifically the "CBB yearly record subhead". When I edit it, it looks normal, but when I switch to "read" it messes up. Could I get help on this?

Draft:Jai Steadman Notaoffensivename (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Notaoffensivename – Could you please elaborate on how it's messed up? I don't see anything particularly out of the ordinary when I read it. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

In the "head coaching record" section, while editing (with visual editor), you can see that the section that says "texas-rio grande valley vaqueros" in the darker grey, it looks normal. But when reading, the darker grey section goes into the column that should say "postseason". Notaoffensivename (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Notaoffensivename – I see. I added a newline; that appeared to have fixed it. Hope this helps. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 04:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Notaoffensivename (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The search bar changed and now every time I search something up it just feels weird. Try it yourself and fix it! 199.192.122.199 (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing's changed for me. In exactly what way is it different? Also, if the search bar has permanently changed, it wouldn't be the responsibility of any Wikipedia editor. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any sort of change, can you describe what's different in more detail? PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It like fades in quickly when you click it instead of just popping up quicker than Regan MacNeil giving you a heart attack when you play the scary maze game, and the search results are in bold. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It's popping up just the same for me. Odd. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Just the same as normally - wanted to clarify. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems like its only you having this problem, so its more likely related to your browser or computer. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Restart your device. If the problem persists, ask at WP:VPT, stating what device you are using, what browser, and what page you are looking at. If you can upload a screenshot, so much the better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

UPDATE: It’s back to normal now and I didn’t even do the stuff Pigsonthewing told me to do. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I am a new editor and while I have read/learnt a lot about edits. Can I get someone to edit any errors for my page Draft:Eyre Llew

Thank you most kindly. Basig2142 (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

You have several unreferenced sentences or paragraphs. These all need references.

You need to be sure that the band meet the notability requirements at WP:BAND.

Some of your links (e.g. The Great Escape, The Darkness) are to disambiguation pages; they need to be fixed.

One of your images lacks licensing/ permission details and will be deleted if they are not provided.

If you have a connection to the band (the fact that you photographed them in the UK and Singapore suggests you might) you must declare this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much Andy, now I know what to focus on. Yes I am connected to the band and have added the conflict of interested for the submission. Basig2142 (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Basig2142: some comments (I've only looked at the lead section):

• Should it be "are a band" or "is a band"? I know some people have strong views on this. I can't remember which view prevails.
• Names of genres, like "Post-rock", are generally not capitalised.
• The lead and body of an article should not contain direct external links, like yours to https://open.spotify.com/album/0z4BFpH7SVCD4VkTdF5TvP.   Maproom (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Maproom for your expertise.

I just looked at other artist articles in the same genre like 'Caspian' and 'Alt-J', one says 'are', one says 'is' so I see what you mean.

How would I add evidence for a specific music release? I assumed this was that right way to do it as Caspian also added an external link to Amazon.com/shop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Trees#cite_note-amazon.com-3)

Do I need to move direct external links to the reference list at the end instead of in the body of the article? Basig2142 (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, "are" is the typical British usage, and "is" is the consistent American one, fwiw. So either can be correct, and the choice depends on the WP:ENGVAR the article uses overall. See also MOS:PLURALS. -- Avocado (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I think "is/are" comes down to a difference in varieties of English — "are" is the standard for British English; "is" is the standard for American English if the band name is singular (Green Day is... versus The Turtles are...). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I have created a draft article about Egyptian music producer Nasr Mahrous in my sandbox at User:Androulaki/sandbox. I would like to move it to Draft:Nasr Mahrous so that I can submit it for review.

As a newer editor, I don’t yet have permission to move pages to the Draft namespace. Could someone kindly help with this move?

Thank you so much! Androulaki (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Love You

Hi Team,

My username is heyitsmepavan45 and i am new to wikipedia as a contributor. I am trying to upload an article about a Film, Love you (World's first AI Kannada movie) however i m trying to follow all the parameters to best of my knowledge but drafts are getting rejected.

Please do the need . Heyitsmepavan45 (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Heyitsmepavan45: Which three of your sources meet all of the requirements oulined at WP:42?

@Vanilla Wizard: You declined the draft; please can you comment further? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Heyitsmepavan45, welcome to the teahouse!

First and foremost, your drafts have only been declined, not rejected. The two words have different meanings in our AfC process: declined means that the article can be resubmitted providing you address the feedback left by the reviewer, and rejected means that the draft of the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Your draft's only been declined three times, so there's still hope for you.

Your reviewers have repeatedly said that the article needs multiple in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent sources. Unless you can come up with three sources that meet all four of these criteria (see WP:42), then your draft has little chance of getting through.

Lastly, your format needs a bit of work. All in-text citations should follow some sort of punctuation (periods, commas, etc.), and any quotes need to be in quotation marks (like when you're reading a book, what the author puts to show a character is speaking).

We have a lot of Indian film articles, and looking at some of those might give you a good idea of where to go. Best of luck with your draft! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I will re work. Thank you for your time Heyitsmepavan45 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Do administrators on Wikipedia have to be 18 years old? What do they typically have? Super Salty (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Super Salty there isn't a minimum age requirement to become an administrator. It is far more important to have extensive experience in many areas of Wikipedia editing and maintenance. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Because of the amount of experience required, I think it follows that admins would have to be at least four or five. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 03:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Four or five years on wikipedia, I assume. I don't recommend infantile administrators. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

"Infantile" would be a pleasant upgrade from the things some admins routinely get called. DMacks (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

While we have had admins in the past who were under 18, in many cases we do not know, have no way of knowing, and no need to know, an individual's age. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, admins don't have to give any personal information like name, age or nationality. If they had to give enough information for somebody to examine an age claim then many good candidates might refrain because identifying information could be leaked. See e.g. List of people imprisoned for editing Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Anything is possible Cwater1 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Btw I’m on an alt account so I don’t give away my age on my main one. Super Salty (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I recently made an article David Lamb, possibly a British philosopher, and strangely enough there was not a single source for completing their BLP, such as the birth date, almost no CV information, except mention of University of Manchester, in publications. [9] (not to be confused with [10], their namesake). Given the number of reviews, possibly passing C#1 per NACADEMIC, the article's worth expanding, but there was no other sources online. So any suggestions for finding more sources (If any) is most appreciated. Xpander (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

So my Draft that being Draft:Nathan Sage 1 was Rejected, The reasoning is that I I didn't have enough routine in my article, So How many Articles do I need in order for it to be routine enough for it to be accepted? Fad8229 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fad8229: You completely misread the comments by the reviewers. The issue is that all you have is coverage related to his campaign. You need to prove his notability with sources that cover anything EXCEPT his political campaign. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what they're saying, Just add more to the page other than his political Campaign, I see that though and now I will add to it. Fad8229 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

But make sure that all, or nearly all, that you add, is cited to sources completely unconnected with Sage, @Fad8229.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I already have sources that have no connection with Sage. But maybe I'm missing something. Fad8229 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Fad8229. Those sources I have looked at (I haven't looked at all of thenm) all seem to be largely quoting what Sage says - they contain very little independent material. Please read the third sentence of my reply above. ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Welp Guess I'm going to have to delete the draft. Fad8229 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to deal with it anymore. Fad8229 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Other issues notwithstanding, it's not good to start the biography of a living person with "Nathan Sage was..."; It sounds like he's dead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yep, fixing that. Also what other issue so that I can fix. Fad8229 (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

What is in-depth coverage? Priotyleft123 (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Priotyleft123 Welcome to the Teahouse. There's no firm definition but WP:SIGCOV, which is part of an important guideline says addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Usually, this would be several full paragraphs. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, you mean big coverage? Priotyleft123 (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

No, not really, a list of episodes of a long running TV show might be "big" in terms of size but wouldn't be considered in-debth. Think looking at something closely, in detail, at multiple angles, a sign that someone has thought hard about it rather than just acknowledged its existence. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I read that Wikipedia says be bold and move pages if needed. But when I try to move, someone reverts it back. And when I open a move request (RM), no one is replying. Then what is the point of be bold if moves are not allowed or always undone? Should I move pages or not? I'm a bit confused.ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@ইমরান ভূইয়া: the guidance is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You boldly moved the page, another reverted. Discussion is the correct response; can you show where you have tried to discuss things? I was not immediately able to find it.

Additionally, you have moved a lot of pages. Please slow down a bit. Also remember that an official name is not necessarily what a Wikipedia article should be named; the WP:common name should be used instead. MKFI (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@ইমরান ভূইয়া, remember to be bold, but not reckless. It is definitely recommended that you contribute where possible, try to do so at a reasonable pace. Moving a page is also a more significant page than many edits, and should be done with special care. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

When I edit articles about films, one editor keeps asking me, "What is your connection to those films?" Why is that? Is it not possible for one editor who is passionate about movies to also be passionate about sports?ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You asked "Why?" at User talk:ইমরান_ভূইয়া#The_RajaSaab and had a reply. In general, people will sometimes ask this because because WP:COI-editing is a problem on this website. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Check this out as well. User talk:ইমরান_ভূইয়া#Conflict of interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk • contribs) 11:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I was quite shocked by this article this morning and tried to find a WP article in which this sort of thing is discussed, but failed to. I know it goes on, but the extent to which it happens, and the connection to gambling, was something that surprised me. Other than the victim's article, where more generally is this on WP? Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham There's a general article at cyberbullying, with a sidebar on various forms of discrimination which links to many other related articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Michael D. Turnbull. I did look there first, but none seems to be helpful on sport, specifically. I will try from the sport end. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The article on sports betting is not very good. It might benefit from a section on this sort of abuse. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking that. I notice a huge amount of abuse is directed at sportspeople, but this seems more serious, somehow. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Asking Travisscotterfan (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about the rejected Draft:Julian Tran? That is an unsourced piece of text while according to WP:BLP all biographies of living persons must be sourced with reliable, independent sources. The Banner talk 12:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

To add to this, your draft did not actually get deleted. It is still there, as linked above. GoldRomean (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Should the "draft" be moved into a sandbox since it's completely made up? --Onorem (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yikes. If it's a hoax, it can probably be nominated for deletion (G3). GoldRomean (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Its not a hoax, just don't have any sources right now. Julian Tran isn't really listed anywhere, I don't even know why. Travisscotterfan (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

If there's no sources anywhere, then it can't be on here. If you don't have sources, don't try writing the article.

"Notable" means "enough sources exist". DS (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Please help. I started an article in my sandbox, and also published it here. User:EPXa/sandbox

It should correctly be published under the following URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_microphone

I do not find the right way to change that. Please help me in this matter! Thank you! EPXa (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@EPXa I have added a template to your sandbox so that you can submit your draft for review. If accepted it will become an article at Optical microphone (currently a red link as it does not exist yet). Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I received a comment that "Comment: See WP:Markup for how to mark section headings, and see WP:Layout for general information on the layout of articles. Section headings are delimited by equal signs (=), which are used to construct the table of contents of a page. Please edit this draft as specified before resubmitting."

Are you able to provide further clarification about what that means?

Thank you, Michelle MHDE 2025 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@MHDE 2025 These comments all relate to Wikipedia's manual of style. This is our way of ensuring consistency between articles, which start with a summary of content called the lead and continue with sections that split the content to make reading easy. Finally, the references are gathered together by the software in a section called "References". Currently, Draft:Verne (company) has little of this structure, which you will see, for example in a well-developed article like IBM. Incidentally, if you are in any way connected with this company, please read this guide to editing with a conflict-of-interest. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! My recent AfC submission (Draft: Kevin Donahue) was declined for lack of notability. I made some updates, including the addition of two citations that I believe help meet the notability standards - one of which is a profile piece by Washington Post. Before I resubmit, I was wondering if someone could provide input on if you think this works/meet the expectations? I don't want to resubmit and risk deletion if it still does not work! Thank you! Presleyconnor (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Deletion is highly unlikely. The purpose of submitting for review is to get the kind of feedback you are requesting. Please do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!! Presleyconnor (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

I’m reaching out for some advice on creating a Wikipedia page for Asda Money, a financial services brand under the Asda group in the UK. While Asda Mobile has its own dedicated Wikipedia page, I believe Asda Money also has notability in the financial sector, and I’d like to propose a new article for it.

I’ve seen that the page for Asda Mobile has been well-received and editors are actively updating it, and I’m wondering if the same approach could be taken for Asda Money. Before I proceed amy further, I wanted to get feedback from the Wikipedia community here.

Does Asda Money meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for a standalone article? If so, could you kindly point me in the right direction regarding the creation process and any key considerations I should be aware of?

Thank you in advance for your time and any guidance you can offer!

Best regards,

David. David.afonso26pmx (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@David.afonso26pmx There is a section on Asda Money at Asda#Asda Money which currently has only one referenced source. You could start by expanding that with extra detail backed up by reliable sources. As a new editor, that would be a good way to develop your skills and you could suggest a spin-out article later via the talk page, if your additions got too large. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Nickname in infoboxes

Why are there so many media-related nicknames in cricketers' infoboxes, and why is King Prince Boom Boom Afridi included? Famous footballers do not have nicknames in their page infoboxes. I am not against the stokesy things in Ben Stokes' article, but it should not have been either. (IMO)ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think Cricketer's infoboxes should not include nicknames?

Nicknames have long been entrenched in cricketing culture, certainly in English-speaking countries, and are regularly mentioned in, for example, cricketing commentaries on TV and Radio, so they are of interest to readers.

They are perhaps less often heard/used by the public in the case of footballers (though I could be mistaken), but that is in any case a different sport, and there is no reason that cricketers' infoboxes and footballers' infoboxes as overall classes should be consistent with each other. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.100.112 (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone here know where I can discuss or ask for changes regarding articles about cricket? There are no responses on the Wikiproject Cricket Discussion page.ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The best place is the Talk page of the article concerned.

If you want to suggest a specific change, make a new section, describe the exact wordings involved, and provide (as bibliographic details and/or a link if there is one) a published Reliable source to verify the new information (there must be one), then wait a week or so to see if anyone replies.

If no-one does, or if you just want to make the change straight away, "be Bold" and make it (adding a citation of the source to create a Reference), and see if anyone then replies. They may Revert your change, in which case you can then engage in a Discussion on the Talk page (or their or your Talk page if you prefer) and come to a consensus.

Remember to make Edit summaries for edits you make, and read the edit summaries of other people's edits (including revertions), which should explain their reasons.

This is a normal and acceptable way of editing on Wikipedia: we call it the Bold/Revert/Discuss cycle (more details at that link).

Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.100.112 (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I’m wondering if the musical artist Cain Culto is notable enough, per Wikipedia’s standards, to have an article written about them? It seems to me that they are notable enough, based on this short article, but I’m not sure if that’s enough to justify a Wikipedia page. YaMighta (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

He might be notable in the future, but I suggest that one link is not enough at this time. Bduke (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Too soon for discussion of the possible issue. Generally we look for a minimum of three separate sources that are all of Reliable, Independent (of the subject) and of Substantial length to demonstrate Notability (though these have some wiggle room). There are special criteria for musicians – see Wikipedia:Notability (music) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.100.112 (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, I’ve been working to improve the David and Stephen Flynn article, which is quite sparse and currently lacks balanced coverage of their early business story. I recently rewrote a neutral, well-sourced “Career Beginnings” section in my sandbox and would love some feedback before proposing it again for inclusion.

I’ve tried to stick closely to Wikipedia’s policies on tone, neutrality, and reliable sourcing (Irish Times, Irish Examiner, etc.). Previous efforts were reverted with concerns about promotional tone and perceived overuse of AI assistance, so I’m approaching this revision with extra care and openness to feedback.

I’d really appreciate any thoughts on how to improve the draft or better approach consensus.

Thanks so much! — Calmsea123456 (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: David and Stephen Flynn   Maproom (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Another  Courtesy link: User:Calmsea123456/sandbox. Deor (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it true per Wikipedia:ARBECR that non-extended-confirmed users are even not allowed to request a category related to the topic? See for instance here. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

That is correct. All a non-XC user can do is request edits to existing articles on the relevant article talk page or WP:RFPP/E. (I take no position what-so-ever on the appropriateness of that category.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: but this both not possible for requesting a category; because the talk page doesn’t exist. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Requesting a new category be created isn't a request to edit an existing article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Requesting that the category be added to an existing article (and created in the process) would be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Links to topics that do not exist seem to be coloured green when surely they should be coloured red.

See Draft:Great Toilet Battle ----MountVic127 (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @MountVic127. That link looks red for me, as expected (WP:REDLINK). Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

That link is also red for me, MountVic127. Most likely, the problem is with your settings or your browser, as opposed to Wikipedia itself. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Funny, gotchaইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@MountVic127: User:MountVic127/common.css sets all links to green. Different things can affect whether this or another color declaration takes precedence. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello - I’m requesting a second opinion on the decline of the draft article for Cyan Ta'eed (Draft:Cyan Ta'eed). The draft was declined with the rationale that the subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria due to insufficient coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

However, I have provided multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, including profiles in major Australian business publications and interviews that explore her work and impact as a co-founder of Envato, as well as her role in other ventures. She meets all the criteria of a noteworthy person since she is an Australian business woman on a variety of "rich lists" around the world.

I fully respect the review process and understand the need for neutrality and reliable sourcing, but I believe the decline may have been made in error or possibly via an automated or overly strict process. I’m asking if other experienced editors could please take a look and offer an additional perspective. Thank you. JazzyOxygen (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Cyan Ta'eed. Was this, or any of your other edits, made using an LLM such as ChatGPT? GoldRomean (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

No JazzyOxygen (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Which three of your sources meet the criteria at WP:42? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the question. There were several reliable sources listed, but I just updated and resubmitted it with 4 more new sources that meet all the criteria listed at WP:42 and are all listed as generally reliable sources: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources including sources from The Age, The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, and Forbes. JazzyOxygen (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I frequently run across references that I would like to check, but that are paywalled. What is the policy on this? A paywalled source isn't a source at all, since it can't be verified. The reason I've begun looking into this is that in a few cases related to topics in which I'm an expert, the sources do NOT support the assertion in the article. Rskurat (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You might be looking for WP:PAYWALL. GoldRomean (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

If you don't have access to a paywalled source, try asking about it at your public library. It's amazing what they can help you get hold of. Also once you meet the qualifications, you can try The Wikipedia Library, which is great for many sources which would otherwise be paywalled. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rskurat A paywalled source is a source, since a reader can always pay to see its content. Whether they are willing to do so is another matter. If you notice any source that doesn't support what the article says, that's a separate issue that should be pursued, at its simplest by marking it with the template {{Failed verification}} or by removing that assertion if you can't find an alternative source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

a reader cannot always pay to see the content of a source, lower-income editors are excluded. Some subscriptions can be evaded by attempting to access the source at a public library (e.g. NYT) but in science articles I've seen citations of journals owned by Taylor & Francis or Elsevier where access is $30-40 per article. That is effectively unverifiable. Rskurat (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rskurat The Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request is good at tracking down sources. They may be able to help. Blackballnz (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of academic research is off-limits to many people. Think about primary research done in labs - no one has that sort of equipment at home. Its the same with citations. Paywalled sources are more difficult to find and verify, but it's not impossible, and whether or not it's easy or accessible is largely irrelevant. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

i added a better image see here on page Religion in Myanmar, now someone revert it. Because he believes previous image is good and his preference is only there. 獅眠洞 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

If we have good images why we use not good images on Wikipedia pages. 獅眠洞 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I left a message on the Talk discussion you started in on the page in question. My revert isn't a "monopoly" you're welcome to challenge it and ask other wiki editors for their opinion as well there. Thanks for talking about the change rather than reverting reverts. Hopefully we will have a meaningful discussion. I've given my reason there and hope that convinces you! Your edit was done in good faith so I don't believe you've done anything wrong. Cheers! EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

OK so talk to them about it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Please follow the process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I was going through a few articles I may want to improve upon, and I believe I've found something that might be a hoax. I already posted to the article's talk page, but it's a niche subject, so I'm not sure how soon I'll get a reply there. Is there anywhere I could go to ask about this? Thank you. 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 00:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The article is also at GA status. 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 00:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Talk:Bohemond III of Antioch. Just googling it, I can see a few sources describing him (and others) as 'the stammerer'. I haven't checked their reliability but it shouldn't be too difficult to find a source. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

That's true. I was worried about no contemporary sources mentioning it, but that doesn't matter. Sorry! 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 00:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

But I also couldn't figure out of any of these sources were older than the wikipedia entry 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 00:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The article was created in 2004; I see numerous references being used that date from the 20th century and should be easy to consult; those post-dating 2004 presumably reflect further recent scholarship to improve the article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.11.213.205 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 01:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

How do I request close on a page move discussion? I looked around but I can't find a forum to find a noninvolved editor to close my move discussion. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The Requested-moves queue keeps track of what is >7 days old (the usual timeframe for RM), and several editors tend to patrol that list. However, there is often a backlog at any given time, so I'm not surprised if things that are ripe for close sometimes do not get handled promptly (especially if they are complex, or there are other complex ones that suck up those editors' time). Which one are you discussing? If it's a straightforward request and clear consensus with reasonable participation in the first week, I can take a look. DMacks (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@DMacks: I'm talking about Erotica (Madonna album). It's a pretty simple close and there's more support than opposing. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I want do a biographie about someone or me ho, it can be possible 105.97.246.12 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Simply, if you are notable, then others will want to create an article about you; if you are not, then no article will be possible. Consider an alternative website, such as LinkedIn. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Be careful of COI editing...it's technically possible to write a good article about something with which you are affiliated, but it's usually best to avoid it. At the very least, make sure to disclose any COIs and follow the guidelines at WP:COIEDIT. Anerdw (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

What is pseudo-rollback and normal rollback, and how are they different from one another? --pro-anti-air (talk) --pro-anti-air (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pro-anti-air – The term "pseudo-rollback" may refer to Twinkle/RW/UV's "rollback" or "rollback-like" revert. Essentially, "pseudo-rollback" is a form a rapid reversion that technically uses MediaWiki's undo tool. Any autoconfirmed user can install Twinkle/RW/UV and use "pseudo-rollback". Normal rollback requires the rollback permission to use; it can be requested at WP:PERM/R (but likely requires a substantial anti-vandalism record, perhaps using pseudo-rollback). — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 01:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

But what's the difference? --pro-anti-air (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pro-anti-air – In a nutshell: any autoconfirmed user can use "pseudo-rollback" (with Twinkle/RW/UV), whereas you need the rollback permission in order to use "rollback" or "true rollback". In your case, you can use "pseudo-rollback" as you are autoconfirmed (and extended confirmed at that), whereas you can't use "true rollback" yet as you lack the permission as of the moment. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 01:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to add that in terms of functionality, rollback tends to be slightly faster than the alternatives, which is (mainly) why you need special permissions to use it. There are also some things you can do with rollback but not pseudo-rollbacks. The AntiVandal and Huggle tools, which are used mostly for fighting vandalism, spring to mind; you can only use them properly if you have rollback rights. Anerdw (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

does new joinees receive warning out of blue for their unintentional or intentional mistakes? or periodically receive soft warnings aka pointing out mistakes? Kiji-Jiki (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kiji-Jiki Usually, yes. We try to be polite and helpful to newcomers, unless they are being deliberately disruptive. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

You can read more about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings and WP:BITE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Was wondering why this tree is not a historical tree I am sure it is a friendship oak or an angel oak and probably about 800 years old if I would guess I would like to put a pic on here and exact location of where it is located . I just wish if it is something very special someone would notice it . 2605:59C8:10EF:E810:B979:95F1:B085:1038 (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The Teahouse (this page) is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia.

You can ask about your tree at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, with a picture (if you took it yourself) and/or the location (a link to a Google Streetmap view would do). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I want there to be Régional 2 because of Régional 1. 94.196.253.242 (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

You are free to make Draft:Régional 2. If it adheres to en:Wikipedia's policies it will be promoted to a regular article. However you'd be wise to get plenty of practice improving existing articles before attempting to create a new one. -- Hoary (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

You might want to discuss your plans and ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/France task force. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe I have been the victim of a targeting edit-stalking harassment campaign by a user for several years now and would like to file the proper report necessary to do something about it. What information do I need specifically and where should I post this report? Thank you. Hostagecat (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see the advice at Wikipedia:How to deal with harassment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I also note that you have replies at User talk:Popcornfud#You are edit-stalking me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to publish an article about a Canadian company that has been influential in AI and ML development and changed much of about how retailers use analytics today. I submitted the article, but was rejected by @Sophisticatedeveningbecause my sources were not good enough. I removed PR sources and added more trusted sources. But I was then rejected again by @Pythoncoder because the article sounds more like an advertisement. I noticed that the reviewer spent only 1 minute looking at my article. Is that enough time to evaluate the article, or is this done with an automated tool?

What can I do to improve the article? This is the article in question: Draft:Retalon (software). ImalinkaIam (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

GPTZero says 54% of the content is AI generated, which is not acceptable. The ‘Recognition and Awards” section has no notable content and the rest is VERY promotional. Do you have a conflict of interest by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Theroadislong No, conflict of interest, I was doing research on Canadian companies that have had an impact on the modern world for a University project, and I got super interested in Retalon, because it's not well know but has had a huge impact on AI tech, and no-one knows about them. I'm hoping to get an interview with their CEO in a couple of weeks.

I did use GPT to help me with phrasing, but I did all the research myself. Will rewriting it help? ImalinkaIam (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

GPT is NOT your friend here, it has made it sound very promotional, we need dry neutral prose with no adjectives. And just so you know interviews are NOT reliable independent sources even when published. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I will rewrite it. Would it be possible for you to review my rewrite when it is ready? ImalinkaIam (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm extracting all Proto-Indo–European roots from Wiktionary and accurately analyzing their syllable structure. PIE's phonotactics on Wikipedia aren't accurately documented, so I was wondering if I can add my results there and source Wiktionary. Unlimiter (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe that would classify as circular citing and/or original research, and thus is a no-go. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Do I then link all unique sources of all roots? Unlimiter (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

No, because—as your suggestion implies—Wiktionary is user generated. We don't use UG sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Boris Vishnevskiy from September 22, 2016, to September 19, 2021. does MOS:YEARCOMMA is applicable? aka can i remove comma after 2016? jiki (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kiji-Jiki! Yes, YEARCOMMA applies to ranges like that. There should be a comma after 2016 in your example. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The article of the 2-6-4 wheel arrangement features one of the most popular Austrian steam locomotives and the only tender engine to have that wheel arrangement. This being the class 210 2-6-4’s. They were designed by Karl Gölsdorf and were built in 1908. Given their huge as heck driving wheels, they probably clocked up a lot of speed. According to SteamLocomotive.com, they weighed 269,404 pounds in total, had a 4422 gallon water capacity for their tender, and 21,727 pounds of tractive effort. But, are they notable enough to have their own article? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable sources. That can be websites, books, newspapers or magazines. It seems highly improbable that such coverage does not exists - you just have to find it.

See WP:FIRST and WP:REGISTER - the latter will open up more tools for you over time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You might find List of rail transport–related periodicals helpful. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.41.216 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

What the flip? I’ve got too many names. Everyone I’m in a different place I have a new weird username! I’m 199.192.122.199 at home but whatever! 76.72.195.223 (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Those are the IP addresses assigned by your service provider. Again; see: WP:REGISTER. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

So, 94.6.41.216, I checked that link and Austria wasn’t included. Just Australia and Africa. 76.72.195.223 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The Capitalism article used to have a section on Stakeholder Capitalism which lights up a web search. I can't see it for many years. Is there a tool to find the last entry before an edit removed a heading? Or is there some way to generate the revisions for an article such that one could use a script to find text in the history of an article? Or maybe there is such a tool already? Bodysurfinyon (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Bodysurfinyon. It sounds like you're looking for WikiBlame. You can find a link to it on the history page of each article (or other type of page). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bodysurfinyon: When you look at a Wikipedia article history (or talk page history or any non-automatically-generated page history) you will find a list of External tools somewhere above the revisions listing. There is a link 'Find addition/removal' there, which brings you to the WikiBlame page with some fields pre-filled. --CiaPan (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

While wikiblame is designed to do just what you are asking for (and I use it quite frequently), it often times out, which can be quite frustrating (and it has some other failure modes as well). In any case, I am finding it to be ineffective, so I want to suggest some other possible approaches.

But before I get into that, I want to note that Stakeholder Capitalism is currently a redirect to Stakeholder theory. Also, you might want to go to the Wayback archive to look through the archived versions. Poking around through the archive copies may be a more practical way to search for what you're looking for, given the difficulties that at least I am encountering with wikiblame. Whether this is going to prove helpful or not, I don't know, but it looks like wikiblame is not being very cooperative in this instance. Fabrickator (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Dj Vancy

"Hi, I’ve resubmitted a draft article about myself (DJ Vancy), and I would appreciate any advice on whether the improvements meet the notability requirements. Thanks in advance!" Vancythedj (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Vancythedj your resubmission was refused shortly before you posted here. The reason given was "Facebook and Mixcloud do not indicate notability and the Siaya Today seems to be a paid advertisement or written by the submitter themselves (author is just labelled as "Contributor")". This means that your draft has no WP:Reliable sources whatsoever.
Meeting Wikipedia's WP:Notability requirements can be hard. To show "notability" you need to find at least three references that meet WP:42 ? - i.e. that

1. Give significant coverage and discuss you directly and in detail, not just passing mentions, lists or event schedules.
   and
2. Are reliable, issued by a publisher with a reputation for fact checking, not tabloid papers or magazines, fansites, social media, or blogs.
   and
3. Are independent from you. Not interviews, press releases, or other material written, or paid for, by you, your friends, or agents.

Each of your three references must meet all 3 criteria, not one meeting one criterion and another meeting a different one. If you do not have such references, your article is very unlikely to be approved. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. - Arjayay (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

So i made an article, and i think it's should be rated a C-class. But reading the Wikipedia:Content assessment table i'm not sure if i should change it or not. so my question is do you think the article fits the C-class criteria? 1timeuse75 (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:RATER (though not infallible), says C-class. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@1timeuse75 I did some copyediting and upgraded the article to C. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI, in the future a 2nd opinion for assessments can be requested at WP:WPWP/ASSESS. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for helping! 1timeuse75 (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Articles on Chinese firefighting are awfully inadequate and confusing for full context

So, I plan to split the National Fire and Rescue Administration(post-2023 agency in currently in charge of the force) article into a seperate one about the China Fire and Rescue(the post-2018 firefighting force; bit of a Ministry of public security - People's Police or Department of the Navy- US Navy situation). However, China Fire and Rescue is already a redirect to the NFRA for some reason, so may I ask if there are any extra steps in regards to splits where the destination is already a redirect?(better yet, could somebody do the split for me?) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Thehistorianisaac. WP:PROPERSPLIT seems to cover this case. ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

nvm I did it already. Thanks though Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I have just created a page for Martyn. This is the first time I have created a page on Wiki so I may well have made some elementary errors in the presentation and required information and referencing. The immediate feedback I got was it was not notable. Martyn is a well-known broadcaster in Wales as a rugby commentator and is also the author of several books. I have listed the books together with their ISBN numbers. Any advice as I how I should proceed from this point would be much appreciated. CofiCaerdydd47 (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@CofiCaerdydd47 A brief look shows me that your draft has muddled sourcing. You will need to re-do it after reading this guide to how to do references correctly. Wikipedia has very strict requirements for biographies of living people and drafts which don't conform will rapidly be declined. As you realise, the main aim of your draft will be to show how Williams is notable. There is some more advice in this essay. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks Mike. This was my first effort at my first article so lots to learnt I guess! I will follow your suggested links CofiCaerdydd47 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @CofiCaerdydd47, a chroeso i Wikipedia.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey Teahouse, for a while I've had a random drawing of a witch that I found on Commons as the infobox image in my user page, and I'd like to replace it with something that's a bit more personal to me. I've got a couple of questions about that which I wasn't able to dig up for myself:

1. Is it acceptable for me to upload some piece of art I've made, or is it preferable for me to use a photo of myself? I'm an extremely private person, so I'd prefer the former, the latter would force me to obscure my face enough to not be useful.
2. Should I upload it here to en, or do I need to wade through the arcane rules of Commons?
3. Aside from the necessary info marking the image as my own work, is there anything I should keep in mind for an image that's exclusively meant for my user page rather than an article?

Thank you in advance 🥰 Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 20:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The only rules you have to follow when uploading a photo to Commons is that it is within the project scope and falls under an appropriate free-use license for its reuse by others. The Commons project scope states: A file does not acquire educational value solely because it is in use on a user page. However, the uploading of small numbers of images for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project. As an example, there are several images of Cullen328 that are hosted on Commons, an English Wikipedia administrator who does not have an article written about him. -- Reconrabbit 20:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

As "an extremely private person", you may wish to consider forgoing any photograph. -- Hoary (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am technically not new to Wikipedia but I barely edit so consider myself "new" so forgive me if I'm asking a question that's already been asked before; I tried searching to see if it was but am not coming up with quite the same question. I'm also in the process of orienting myself more on page editing protocol.

I am the President of the Historical Society of West Windsor, New Jersey. There is a blurb about a locally significant historical site (the Schenck-Covenhoven Cemetery) that is included as two short (and unfortunately historically-inaccurate) paragraphs under another historically distinct site (Washington Road Elm Allee). The cemetery is significant for multiple reasons - it's possibly among the oldest extant burial grounds in the state (not the oldest of course; I know there are older ones) and contains some of West Windsor Township's founders and some of its earliest colonial settlers. We believe it may warrant it being a separate Wikipedia article rather than just a blurb under the Washington Road Elm Allee article, which has very little historical relationship with the cemetery besides geographical proximity. Currently, searching for the "Schenck-Covenhoven Cemetery" on Wikipedia redirects to the Elm Allee's page.

My question: What is the "litmus test" for whether this "splitting off" is warranted? I'm considering writing a separate article, but if the current primary editor of the Washington Road Elm Allee does not accept editing the redirect, that may make those efforts redundant. I could theoretically write the article anyway, but would it risk redundancy - and thus deletion? Thank you in advance. Paulligeti (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Paulligeti: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you have resources that would allow you to create a substantial article about the cemetery, such as historical texts, newspaper articles, or similar, then you should go ahead and write the article. The primary author or creator of an article has no more ownership of it than anyone else. Even if the article were subject to a discussion about deletion, if consensus came to any conclusion, it would probably be to add what was written back to Washington Road Elm Allée. If you are really concerned about it you could contact the user at their talk page (User talk:Djkeddie) or create a new topic on the Washington Road Elm Allee page and notify them using @Djkeddie. -- Reconrabbit 20:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the detailed and rapid reply. Paulligeti (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

But NB sticking "@" in front of a username doesn't ping that user. (That's something that can be achieved via any of User:Paulligeti, Paulligeti, Paulligeti, @Paulligeti:, @Paulligeti:, To editor Paulligeti:....) -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

How would I create a new page? Wiki Operator Bob (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

By reading and observing the copious instructions for doing so. (Links to these are conspicuously linked from this very page. Look on this page for "Help".) But if you are related to this business, please don't create a page for it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Their latest draft needs speedy deletion for G11, but an experienced editor should probably place the tags and talk page warning instead of me. It would be my first edit on Wikipedia and even though I'm confident it meets G11 criteria I don't know how to leave an appropriate talk page warning. 58.105.137.254 (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

-- and not by perpetrating (in Draft:Microgreens Anti Cancerous Super Stars) such material as It has long been said that microgreens have many beneficial properties but what if something so easy to grow and cost effective came at some healthy advantages? Well buckle your seatbelts because we're diving into the anti-cancerous properties of the widely popular Microgreens. I've done research from articles and studies from many hospitals, universities and clinics to find the best information. First things first, Wiki Operator Bob: Read, digest and act on Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. -- Hoary (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

by the way I was not doing it for any money it was simply a article to help Wiki Operator Bob (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Microgreen already exists. Note the tone and style used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

[Thread restored after deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)]

Hello again, Teahouse.

Recently, I've been going through articles of mainly the Killers' related stuff and just doing general clean up as well as enforcing the "use mdy dates" or "use dmy dates", and when I do, I update the templates to say the last time that the article has been looked over, because I saw certain templates said you can do that. But then I also noticed on completely separate articles that there are notes explicitly saying to not edit the date in the template when it says both options, so I am confused as to whether I should update them or leave them be.

Example edits:

• Shadowplay
• Mark Stoermer
• Rebel Diamonds
• Imploding the Mirage Tour

Thanks,

SassafrassAlabass (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SassafrassAlabass: could you give an example of notes explicitly saying to not edit the date in the template when it says both options? I can't actually spot that in the diffs you link to. --bonadea contributions talk 09:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:RedWarn

How do I set up RedWarm because I installed it but the buttons aren't there. Does it not like confirmed users or something? Anti-pro-air (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pro-anti-air – Last time I checked, you did not have RedWarn installed on your common.js page, as that is required to install RedWarn. You can go to Special:MyPage/common.js, edit it, and type importScript('User:RedWarn/.js'); // Backlink: [[User:RedWarn/.js]] into your common.js and then hit "save". — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Wrong person, AV is fine. I just wanna see how RedWarn works. --Anti-pro-air (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pro-anti-air – In that case, you can simply install RedWarn and try it yourself or look at examples at WP:RW. Hope this helps. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Anti-pro-air – Apologies; I did not realize that the username was literally an alternate account. Your alternate account was created on 17 June 2025, and that is less than 4 days old. You need to wait until 21 June 2025 (Saturday) in order for RedWarn to work, as it requires users to have the autoconfirmed permission (4 days and 10+ edits) before using it. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Never mind that either; your account has already been confirmed. I'm bad at context here; sorry. In that case I'm stumped as to how to proceed. It might be that your user configuration (Special:MyPage/redwarnConfig.js) or your rules page (Special:MyPage/redwarnRules.json) hasn't been set up yet. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Uhhhhh do you expect me to type the config code? How do I config the pages? --Anti-pro-air (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Anti-pro-air – Heavens, no! I believe that as soon as you installed RedWarn you should have received a dialog that asked you to configure your settings. If you dismissed the dialog or it never appeared, that might have been a problem.
Try looking at the troubleshooting page for RedWarn first. If that page doesn't answer the issue, then you can try the below:
You can try to uninstall the script and reinstall it again, and see if that works. Alternatively (not recommended) you can use my redwarnConfig settings (as my RedWarn works fine) by copy-pasting it into your redwarnConfig settings. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 04:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

At this point I think my browser hates RedWarn. Tried all these, the buttons and the dialog never appear. --Anti-pro-air (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

At this point you'd probably do better to ask at Wikipedia talk:Ultraviolet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I’ve rewritten and resubmitted Draft:Superbet several times, each time making sure to follow notability and neutrality guidelines strictly. The article now uses only strong, independent secondary sources like Bloomberg, The Guardian, The Recursive, Economedia, iGaming Business, and Business Review. I’ve removed promotional content and focused only on verifiable milestones (investments, acquisitions, tech development, etc.).

However, the draft was declined again with a comment that the coverage is “mostly trivial and passing,” despite sources where Superbet is clearly the primary subject. I’d be very grateful for a second opinion: does this draft seem to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for companies? Or would it make more sense to integrate it into a broader article like Gambling in Romania? Thank you! Contributor Marius (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Which three of your sources meet the criteria at WP:42? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Andy! Here are three sources I believe meet the WP:42 criteria:

1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-26/blackstone-backed-e-bookie-eyes-global-expansion-from-romania – article about Blackstone’s €175M investment in Superbet and its international expansion. Superbet is the main subject.
2. https://economedia.ro/romanian-company-superbet-has-acquired-napoleon-sports-and-casino-the-third-largest-sports-betting-company-in-belgium-and-becomes-market-leader.html – detailed coverage of Superbet acquiring Napoleon Sports & Casino, making it market leader in Belgium.
3. https://therecursive.com/with-close-to-300-startups-248m-in-investments-sportstech-is-shaping-up-as-a-promising-industry-on-the-balkans/ – analysis of sportstech in the Balkans, with Superbet highlighted as a key player due to its tech hubs and innovation strategy.

There are also mentions in The Guardian (regarding the Grand Chess Tour sponsorship) and several SBC News articles, but these are not in-depth enough under WP:42. Additionally, there’s a ranked profile in Business Review, listing Superbet as one of the top 15 most influential betting operators globally, if the source of that ranking is considered strong enough, I’d be happy to include it as well. Let me know if these seem appropriate or if I should reconsider. Thanks again! Contributor Marius (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Your third source includes "The biggest deal comes from Romania in the shape of online gaming company Superbet, which managed to secure an investment of $196M in 2019.", and nothing else about Superbet. That is not significant coverage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, I appreciate the clarification. You're right, that source only includes a passing mention, so it wouldn’t qualify under WP:42. As a quick follow-up, I just came across this recent article from Tech.eu that’s entirely focused on Superbet Group and its tech company, Happening, covering strategy, expansion, and hiring plans. It seems to meet WP:42 as a secondary, reliable, and in-depth source: https://tech.eu/2024/06/11/superbet-happening-european-expansion/

If this changes the notability evaluation, I’d be happy to revise the draft accordingly.

Thanks again for your guidance! Contributor Marius (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Link is 404. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again, Andy. I just noticed that the Tech.eu article I referenced was recently updated and now appears as sponsored content, so clearly, it no longer qualifies as an independent source under WP:42. I appreciate you flagging that. At this point, could you advise what options I might have to still publish a page on Superbet (or Superbet Group)? I’ve already stripped promotional tone and focused only on independently verifiable facts and sources. Would you suggest waiting for stronger coverage, or is there a potential middle-ground approach to keep the article live? Perhaps as a redirect to a section in a broader article, while preserving the “Superbet” or “Superbet Group” title? Thanks again for your time and guidance, it's been genuinely helpful. Contributor Marius (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

You need better sources; whether you can find them now or have to wait until more are published. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm representing a reputable musician to translate his wiki (other existing languages) into English and Japanese. Seems that I'm not allowed or not qualified. Could someone kindly explain how to earn the right to edit please? 182.239.87.206 (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

You should read "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest". Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

You may also find WP:BOSS to be a useful read. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Concerning "Wikipedia in Japanese".

We aren't able to help because this is not "Wikipedia in English". Each Wikipedia is independent.

The equivalent page of "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest" for the "Wikipedia in Japanese" is "jp:Wikipedia:利益相反行為".

The page is partially wrote in Japanese and partially in English.

It does seem that they aren't an equivalent of "WP:BOSS" concerning "Wikipedia in Japanese".

Anyone know where is the equivalent of the "teahouse" or a similar page concerning "Wikipedia in Japanese ?" ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

This is "Wikipedia in English". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

You can find some guidance on translating articles from other Wikipedias into English at Wikipedia:Translation.

Given your CoI, you should make an article in the draft namespace, then submit it for review using the process described at WP:AFC.

It would be best for you to register an account before you start. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)