Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1250

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 1245

←

Archive 1248

Review of Equality (mathematics)

I've been working on the article for some time now, and it seems like it's getting to a point were GA may be possible. I'm looking for some scrutiny from other editors to help prepare it, and to make sure I didn't miss any major details. I've never gone through the GA process, and I don't really know what I'm doing, so any feedback on the article, good or bad, would be very helpful. Thank you! – Farkle Griffen (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe using numbers without their consent is morally wrong, but maybe @Eigenbra: can help you? Polygnotus (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Farkle Griffen, here's a reference that I chose at random:

{{Cite book |last1=Heath |first1=Thomas Little |url=https://archive.org/details/diophantusofalex00heatiala/ |title=Diophantus of Alexandria; a study in the history of Greek algebra |last2=Euler |first2=Leonhard |date=1910 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |others=University of California Libraries}}

As I view this, it's a book by Heath, not by Heath and Euler. It's the second edition, a fact that you don't mention. You've missed the "location". What species of "other" is "University of California Libraries"? (I suspect that, like many editors, you don't understand the "others" field.) The book of course predates ISBNs, but you could helpfully add an accurate OCLC number. Main title and subtitle are, in English, conventionally separated by a colon, not a semicolon. Use of the "via" field would be helpful. And you don't specify the page(s) or page range(s) that you're citing within this book. -- Hoary (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

See Template:Cite_book Polygnotus (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm.. I mostly use the automatic citation feature, which should hopefully explain most of the errors. I'll work on fixing those.

Can you possibly do one more so I can get an idea of the general errors that might be in most of the citations? I expect theres a lot more. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Farkle Griffen, take automatic citation as a guess. If you undertake to go through Template:Cite book/doc and nominate one other reference, I'll look at and comment on that one other reference. -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

You have been THE major editor since July 2024, during which time the article has quadrupled in length and gone from 8 to 80+ refs. Bravo. (And it's likely that it is at least B-class quality rather than the current, unrevised, C-class.) Nominate it now. There may be a weeks to months delay before a reviewer selects it, so you probably have time to continue to fix stuff. David notMD (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

References consistency: some ISBN are hyphenated, some not; in most articles I am familiar with, publishers (Dover, Stanford Univ) and authors' names (Marcus, Solomon) are not Wiki-linked. David notMD (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Um, hello? How about this pair:

{{Cite book |last=Suppes |first=Patrick |url=https://web.mit.edu/gleitz/www/Introduction%20to%20Logic%20-%20P.%20Suppes%20(1957)%20WW.pdf#page=120 |title=Introduction to Logic |date=1957 |publisher=[[Van Nostrand Reinhold]] |location=New York |pages=101–102 |lccn=57-8153}}
{{Cite book |last=Suppes |first=Patrick |url=https://web.mit.edu/gleitz/www/Introduction%20to%20Logic%20-%20P.%20Suppes%20(1957)%20WW.pdf#page=120 |title=Introduction to Logic |date=1957 |publisher=[[Van Nostrand Reinhold]] |location=New York |pages=103 |lccn=57-8153}}

They are of course virtually identical. This way of formatting references is acceptable, but to me it does seem a little wasteful; I'd use the combination of (i) a single reference with no mention of page number (and no pointer such as "#page=120" to a particular page) and (ii) Template:Rp. But mine is a minority taste; more editors seem to prefer "Harvard" style referencing. The link to a PDF of the book is of course most helpful, but I wonder about its copyright status: it does rather look as if some professor named Gleitz uploaded it regardless of its age or the number of years (currently just 11) that have elapsed since the death of its author. But perhaps he got permission, and anyway the same worries are raised by this PDF of the book at the Internet Archive (a PDF whose text is searchable). -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Those links are very likely to be copyright violations and need to be removed per WP policy. We have no control over what other people do but project policy is to not provide such links. Note: by this I mean only the |url= part not the whole citation. If the Internet Archive (which is a library legally) or some other source has a "legit" way of accessing the book it can be linked; Internet Archive has many digital book editions provided by permission, available for "borrowing" by users. --Slowking Man (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the caption of the first image in the Equality_(mathematics)#In_set_theory section. There is no "arrangement" – the definition of "set" uses no such concept. Maproom (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Maproom, It's a pretty common misconception for those just learning about sets that, for example, {1,2,3} and {3,2,1} are somehow "not the same." Formally, you're correct, but "arrangement" here refers to the arrangement in the diagram, not in the sets themselves. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

programmer-brain switched on Right of course, they're arrays, or lists or whatever terminology the particular programming language uses, which contain identical element values, but the arrays are sorted in different orders. Huh let's see do we have quicksort in this standard library, or a map function to map the corresponding array values, or do ya get to do it by hand here... 😁 --Slowking Man (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Just below that image is a quotation from "Richard Dedekind, 1888 (Translated by José Ferreirós)". No source is provided. Make sure that every quotation is referenced. ¶ I believe that the field "website" in Template:Cite web is for the title of the relevant website, and that it's only for the domain name when the title is the domain name (as it is for a minority of websites these these days). But you provide the domain name surprisingly often. (However, I don't find the matter discussed in Template:Cite web/doc.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary, There's only two quotations in the page, so I honesty can't believe I've looked at that so many times without noticing I hadn't cited it. Thank you! About the Cite Web template, is that something they care about durring a GA review? I'm making my goal today to start going through these citations to get them up to par, but I'm not sure what's "bad" and what's "personal preference". Based on your first comment, there's clearly quite a few bad things, but it's getting hard to see whats actually necessary for a GA review. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I think page numbers missing is the worst aspect. No alt tags in the images. Lede is a bit too long. You could submit for WP:PR but would likely be either a too long a list of problems or possibly rejected as not ready for PR. The references are the worst. They need wholesale revision. Notes are not referenced. scope_creep^Talk 00:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

How do I have templates?

how do I have templates? this user is () or this user is part of wikiproject () ThatRandomGuy147 (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like you're asking about userboxes. For more info about related stuff: WP:User page · Help:Contents Enjoy! --Slowking Man (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

thanks. ThatRandomGuy147 (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they're thinking that I have a financial stake in this article?

Courtesy link: Draft:Mark Kevin Wykoff, Sr.

I recently written about an attorney in my area who is representing a man who shot and killed Sonya Massey... and they declined it saying that it appears that I am getting paid for the submission even though I am not... I responded to the individual, but I'm just curious why they would ask that and how do I fix it? InTheField217 (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Most drafts on attorneys and doctors appear to be put in by someone connected to them, and they are usually not notable. I don't know about your writings, but another clue is a promotional tone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

You should declare on your Talk page and the Talk page of the draft that you have no financial or personal connection to Wykoff, or if you do, the nature of the connection. David notMD (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

So should I do it on my talk page or the Mark Wykoff talk page? And once I do, should I resubmit it or will it automatically be viewed because the page I believe was declined because of that? InTheField217 (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@InTheField217: Looking at the rejection notice, it was not rejected because of a concern about conflict of interest. Instead, it was because there was a lack of suitable references to show that the subject was notable (in Wikipedia's special meaning of that word). That might seem strange in light of the 23 sources there - but the ones I looked at don't talk about Wykoff in detail. It needs to have a few (preferably at least three) reliable, independent sources that discuss Wykoff himself in detail. Not about the cases, but about Wykoff. I have not reviewed them all, so if you think there are such sources then please list the very best three here... --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello guys! Today I tried to create a page about CARS1 gene (in VisualEditor) and when I tried to insert infobox gene into the article, it showed me an error. This error said that “ An Error has occurred retrieving Wikidata item for infobox” although this infobox was on Ukrainian wiki article about that gene.

What can I do? NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@NotCarlJohnson1992: Not use VisualEditor. It's been known to foul up when it comes to templates (and this includes infoboxen). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

So how can I insert infobox gene template in Source Editor?

Thank you for your time! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@NotCarlJohnson1992: See template:Infobox gene for usage notes. If there's a template, its page will include documentation on it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I tried to insert that infobox in Source editor but it still showed me an error. NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It might help if you link to the draft you're working on so people can see what you're doing. Specifically, the error you're getting probably means that the template automatically requests info over the web from WikiData -- probably there is no WikiData item for your gene, so you probably want to create one. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

See d:Special:NewItem, I think -- although make sure WikiData doesn't already have an item for it. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately I deleted the draft and wikidata has data about that gene.

Here’s the link: d:Q17855882 NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I've converted the links to Wikidata from external links into Wikilinks. --ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @NotCarlJohnson1992. Looking at uk:Цистеїл-тРНК-синтаза, it calls uk:Шаблон:Картка гена, which is the Ukrainian version of Template:Infobox gene without any arguments. This picks up its data from the Wikidata page it is linked to, which I'm pretty sure has to be done from the Wikidata end. If the page is not linked, the template will not populate.

I don't know where your draft was, or how you deleted it, but you can ask for it to be restored (see WP:undelete). I advise not worrying about the infobox until the article is in mainspace, and can be linked from the Wikidata item. ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Well sorry for the confusion, By “deletion” I meant that I didn’t upload it at all, i just closed the browser’s page. @ColinFine NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Also thank you for the advice! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, it certainly won't have been linked from Wikidata then!

I repeat that you don't need an infobox in the first version of an article - in fact, you don't need an infobox in any version of an article - it's at best a "nice to have", and some editors don't like them at all. The important bit of an article is the citations to solid sources, and the textual summary of those sources. All else - infoboxes, images, additional information from less solid sources - is secondary. ColinFine (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a CARS1 stub and linked it to d:Q17855882 as ColinFine suggested above. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the advices! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

To editor NotCarlJohnson1992: Another bit of editing advice: for a new article, start it in your very own personal fancy-dancy userspace: to get there just follow this link. Help:My sandbox will also show you how to ger there quickly. There you can edit and experiment at your leisure. You can even request help from other editors who can edit it as well! When you feel it's ready, you can just move it to "mainspace". --Slowking Man (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll take your advice. NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

AFD discussion

I don't know if I should link to other users in AFD discussions, because I know it would notify the users I link. Would it be a good idea to link to the users? Justjourney (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney: You do not have to provide a link while mentioning a user. Or you can link to a user without pinging with {{no ping}} if it is useful for others to click through. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Justjourney, if you are replying to a specific point made by a specific editor, it is a good practice to ping that editor. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Clarification regarding GNG

If the subject of an article was quoted in multiple reliable sources as an expert in their field, but isn't the main focus of the reliable source and it's often a single quote, would that qualify as WP:SIGCOV in general? Can't get into specifics as that might be WP:Canvassing— 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 17:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Usually not. Significant coverage is defined as "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." So if it is just a single quote in the source regarding the topic, then that is usually not considered "significant". If you provide the sources and topic I could take a look into it and check. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 19:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Sophisticatedevening, thank you your response. Just to clarify, the articles quote the person in question as an expert in their field, as in "Person X, an expert in the financial field, has stated 'There is nothing to worry about regarding the recent NASDAQ downturn". However, there are dozens of such articles present, and I'm just curious if the aggregate might be sufficient to establish notability. This question only came to mind because of a recent AfD, which is why I'll avoid disclosing the individual in general. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 21:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

"As an expert in their field" can sometimes be very subjective! If the subject represents a popular or leading organization in their field and is quoted because of the organization they represent, then they are just a talking head. The aggregate of their opinions probably cannot be included in their article, as the article should be about them and their work, not their opinions or thoughts on something that generally lacks encyclopedic value, except in a few very rare instances. Moreover it definitely does not help in establishing GNG rather, NPROF has specific criteria for that. There have also been articles deleted about subjects who have been quoted 30-50+ times in reliable sources yet had no significant coverage about them, so ultimately it all depends on the particular subject, credibility of sources and their field of work. If you need more clarity, you should ask your query at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very helpful! I'll definitely be taking a look at the Notability talk page to learn more. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 07:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Doubt regarding Article

Hey, I have a doubt, I created a mainspace article on the Bulgarian Bride Market which is quite famous on the reports, there are many reliable reports available online on the web so I created an article on it, It's been quite controversial for the selling of the brides, so I am posting this question to take guidance! here the article -- Kalaidzhi Bride Market, And pls also guide can such articles be created on the Wiki so that I might be careful for the next time, Thanks JesusisGreat7 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JesusisGreat7 I'm not exactly sure what your doubt is. The article looks like it has some good sources that clearly establish notability, so there's no problem with it being created. Ultraodan (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

JesusisGreat7, if the topic is notable, it certainly deserves more than three sentences. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

New user - help understanding moderators - Thank you :-)

Hey all!

As an LGBT contributor new to editing on Wikipedia, I wanted to ask about moderators. You all give up your time, which is, of course, valuable, and I want to acknowledge that your work is noticed by new members of the contribution community. I recently added an article under Alexander Paul Burton but received strict feedback, even though I don't feel that the page breaks any rules.

I completely understand the need for guidelines, but at times, the process can feel a little overwhelming—especially for someone who is LGBT and mindful of how online spaces can impact mental health. I’ve created a few articles now, and while I appreciate the need for high standards, at times, the moderation can feel quite intense. I don’t mean this in a negative way—I’d just love to understand the reasoning behind these approaches so I can improve as a contributor and avoid unnecessary stress.

Could anyone share insights into what it's like to be a moderator, how decisions are made, and any advice on how to navigate feedback constructively? I genuinely want to contribute positively while also ensuring that Wikipedia remains a welcoming space for everyone.

Live long and prosper!

Peter PeterLawriwBahan (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @PeterLawriwBahan. Nobody's answered this yet, so I'll give it a go.

It's hard to answer, because Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. It has administrators who are trusted with certain tools, for example to delete pages, and to block users - but these are normally only used in response to a consensus, not off their own bat. When not "in role" as an admin, an admin is no different - and has no more authority - than any other editor.

What I expect you are referring to is reviewers - editors who have been given access to one or other of the sets of tools associated with review - there are several kinds of review. AFC reviewers may decline or reject a draft; new page patrollers can decide whether to approve an article, or whether to return it to draft or to nominate if for deletion. In these roles, reviewers do usually work on their own, and if somebody disagrees with their action, they should take it up with the reviewer directly.

One point which may or may not be associated with your word "moderator": new editors, especially those who have had a disagreement with another editor, sometimes go looking for a place where they can appeal to some sort of authority for a ruling. But that is not how Wikipedia works. We work on consensus, not authority.

I haven't answered your question about what it is like to be something we haven't got, but I hope I have at least partly answered you. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

"what it's like to be a moderator": As ColinFine said above, we don't have moderators. We do have admins, but I'm not one (nor is Theroadislong, who nominated the article for deletion), so I can't help you there.

"how decisions are made": by consensus.

"and any advice on how to navigate feedback constructively?": Read it, understand it, and follow it. If you want an article on Burton to be accepted, you'll need to establish that he's notable, in Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sense. You may be able to do this by finding several reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of him, and citing them in the article. But accusing Theroadislong of having a personal vendetta aganst Burton won't help at all. Much more liklely, Theroadislong, like me, had never heard of Burton until today, and is aimimg to maintain Wikipedia's policies. Maproom (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

That's correct and I am still hoping that PeterLawriwBahan will properly disclose their conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

There's actually quite a bit on what it's like to be an administrator @PeterLawriwBahan, but not in a separate compilation. I've read so many very insightful, often touching, personal stories by admins during some of the past election periods for new admins when current admins ask the candidate questions about how he or she might handle different situations that could arise if the candidate is promoted to admin, often sharing stories about issues and even struggles that arose for them.

As a still newish editor at the time, I found these stories far more than merely curiosity-satisfying. To me, it really helped me see much more clearly how all of us, editors and admins alike, fit together into the larger team picture, each making our individual contributions. With a more personal connection with admins, even if not in person, I felt a very real bond with that larger team (my little corroboration of much research showing how that sort of thing makes a real difference in workplace productivity and staff retention).

I wish I could remember how I ran across these discussions, @PeterLawriwBahan, but I'm sure that more seasoned editors can explain how to get to these election archives. Augnablik (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit filter false positive

I've noticed a edit filter get triggered in my filter log. I was still able to edit that page (TimedText). Should I still report this as a false positive, even though the edit still went through? Justjourney (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Justjourney. Some filters prevent the edit and some only tag it. The filter was triggered because you only wrote two digits after the comma and not three like commons:Commons:Timed Text#General tips. The filter is working as intended. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Help with Arun Chockalingam article references

Hello,

I recently submitted a draft article on Arun Chockalingam, but it was declined due to unreliable sources. The reviewer did not specify which references were unreliable.

Could someone help me review my references and suggest how I can find better sources to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Here is the draft: Draft:Arun Chockalingam

As a new member in Wikipedia your help means a lot to me. Thanks in advance for your help!

Best regards,

Bio Editss. BioEditss (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, BioEditss. What is required to meet the General notability guideline are several references to published reliable sources that are entirely independent of Chockalingam and that devote significant coverage to Chockalingam. None of your current references meet that standard. Try to find better references. Another approach is the special notability guideline for academics. This may be more promising. Google Scholar shows that he is listed as an author of some widely cited medical journal articles. I suggest creating a brief bibliography of his most widely cited articles, especially those where he is listed as the lead author. Cullen328 (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

How do I submit a draft for review?

Hi, I created an article in my sandbox about a company and I foolishly moved it to the mainspace without submitting it for review. My question is can I still submit it after it became a draft? how do I do that? Hiba Aslan (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hiba Aslan It has already been moved to Draft:DataQueue, and I've added the information required for you to submit the draft for review. You will need to make the Terms of Use-required paid editing disclosure as an employee of the company.

Note that the draft is not likely to be accepted at this time, as it just summarizes the routine business activities of the company- and not independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the company, showing how it is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to just tell about themselves or their offerings. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

silly question

what if i put a citation that is cited from Wikipedia itself? Will it be a bad idea? Gnu779 ( talk) 12:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gnu779 Yes, a bad idea since WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Much better to look at the sourcing in the article here on Wikipedia and copy its sources into your target article, assuming the source is good. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

yep, true. There are many problems with some articles, too. Vandalism also makes it bad.

Gnu779 ( talk) 13:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Just by way of clarification, @Gnu779:

Although CITING a Wikipedia article is a no-no, LINKING TO one is not — in fact, it’s actually encouraged. Linking simply makes it possible for readers to go to an article that has some relationship to a similar topic they might find of interest. An invitation to expand their understanding of something, you could say. Augnablik (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah right

Gnu779 ( talk) 12:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

CVU and AFC

Im trying to become a member, but none of the tutors who have open spots are responding to my requests. Vestrix (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Give them a couple days to respond, my request was even archived before my trainer managed to get back to me. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 02:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok thank you Vestrix (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Vestrix, I am sorry but you do not have nearly enough experience to be an AFC reviewer. You just barely meet the minimum requirement for CVU, but just a few days ago, you were making and defending some very poor edits to Jewish deli and arguing with far more experienced editors. You are not ready for any advanced permissions. Learn how to actually improve articles and learn from other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Will do! Vestrix (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Le Chat (chatbot)

I can not understand why the article le chat (chatbot) was moved to drafts (Draft:Le Chat (chatbot)). It is the translation of the french wikipedia article (fr:Le Chat (chatbot)) . Two references are missing, but not more. The translation is not an machine translation. This seems all very strange ! Christophe Neff (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The concern was likely not that it is a machine translation, but rather the article has only a single reference and therefore does not have significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Articles like that can be moved to draftspace as they do not meet the general notability guideline so as to give them more time to show notability. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 15:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The link now is Draft:Le Chat (chatbot). There are a few possible sources as this Google custom search shows. However, User:Christophe Neff, you will need to incorporate sufficient of them into the draft for it to be worth of an article in en:Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Christophe Neff, and welcome to the Teahouse. English Wikipedia has stricter standards for new articles about sourcing than most other versions. Therefore most articles in other Wikipedias are not adequately sourced for English Wikipedia, and simply translating them is not a useful way to create English articles. (You can follow Mike Turnbull's suggestion of adding further sources, but that is a much harder way to create a successful article than starting with the sources: see Backwards) ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

PR publications as citations

I want to update the page on Astrofogre to be more detailed on how the Odin spacecraft is doing. In the past, I've noticed most Wikipedia articles use news sites, books, and similar as sources. Would it be appropriate to use press releases and other primary sources (e.g. this video) to expand the article? Given there's a notice about undisclosed payments and non-neutral point of view at the top, I figured I'd check in before doing anything. Light Curve (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, I have no association with Astroforge. Light Curve (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably not... press releases are not reliable independent sources and a primary source video isn't of any interest either. Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll improve the article based on news articles when I have time. Light Curve (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

As a minor point, there is a case to be made for using primary sources to support uncontroversial information that can't be found elsewhere (e.g a train schedule for a notable train station), but it's always better to utilize reliable new sites and books when possible. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 21:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. Light Curve (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Article rejection

Dear Team, I have published an article three times but I got rejected, I have address all the issues that were mentioned and submitted article again. Now its under review for the last month. why is it taking so long. Mishal Mehmood (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. As noted on your draft(Draft:David P. Baker), "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,475 pending submissions waiting for review." Reviews are conducted by volunteers. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Also note that your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mishal Mehmood It would help the reviewers if you added a comment at the top (not in the actual draft) describing which of the criteria at WP:NPROF he meets, in your opinion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for explaining. Mishal Mehmood (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Some promotional and unreferenced content removed. David notMD (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Stubs

Is there a wikiproject dedicated to improving stubs? I just feel that Wikipedia should strive to improve all of their articles, even stubs. Vestrix (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Kind of. There's Wikiproject stub sorting that works directly with stubs and that can help you find a category of stubs that you might want to work with. There are tons of Wikiprojects like Wikiproject military history, Wikiproject Biology and Wikiproject Religion to name a few, and they all work with stubs in their subject areas. I would check out Wikipedia:WikiProject#Finding a project to help you find one you're interested in, good luck! Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 19:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!! Vestrix (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

An incorrect edit from another review made to my draft

An edit by someone with Wikipedia was made to a draft I am working on. The edit was incorrect so I removed it. I wanted to discuss the edit with the person who made it and went to his talk page. However, I could not find it on his talk page. Any advice? I am relatively new at this. HarvResearch (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @HarvResearch, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's always helpful to specify (and preferably link) the article or draft you're talking about, and identify the other editor if there is one involved; otherwise somebody who wants to answer you has to go and do some detective work. I take it you're talking about Draft:Jim Simon (writer)? But I'm not sure which other editor you're talking about, as I can't see anywhere where you have obviously reverted somebody else's edit. Are you talking about the IP editor (i.e. without a username, just a long string of digits)? You can't ping IP editors; you can leave a message on their talk pages (that IP user's talk page hasn't been created yet, but you're welcome to create it and leave a message). But leaving messages for IP users is a bit hit-and-miss, because many IP's are dynamic, so if the same person edits tomorrow or next week, their IP will have changed, and they'll never see the message on the old IP's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Hyju HarvResearch (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I reverted it for you, anyone can remove incorrect edits unsupported by the source. Theroadislong (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Saveafox Pages

hey Can i make the following Pages?

Saveafox

Finnegan fox

Dixiedo Fox

List of Saveafox's Pets

Mikayla Raines Douglas15amor (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

https://www.saveafox.org/ is a non-profit organization, so you can try by creating and submitting a draft (see WP:YFA). I really, really doubt that individual foxes Finnegan and Dixiedo could rate articles, and ditto for a list of named foxes. David notMD (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Correction! the frase "Finnegan and Dixiedo could rate articles is supposed to be "Finnegan and Dixiedo could have thier own articles" also these foxes are really famous but i understand your point. i dont think famous foxes will have thier own articles. Douglas15amor (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Douglas15amor: Help:Your first article has advice, but in short you will need to demonstrate that the subjects meet our notability criteria. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Be aware that you would not 'own' the article. A quick search identified quite a bit of bad press about Saveafox that people could add to said article in a Controversies section. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Remove a mentor

my mentor has been USELESS.Im a new editor and my assigned mentor has been ignoring me and i only asked 2 questions.Both of which he has ignored. its been more than 2 months and it always says hes been active but he doesn't reply. My mentor is rusalkii Starmaglclove (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Starmaglclove, your questions appear on User talk:Rusalkii/Archives/2024/December. They are (i) "How can i create an article?" (ii) "How do i protect an Article?" My responses: (i) Please see H:YFA. (ii) What's called "protection" is exceedingly rare. You're probably referring to some level of "semi-protection". See WP:Protection policy. Even semi-protection isn't appropriate so frequently. Which article seems to need it? -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Please your assistance

Hi, This link does not work for me, due to my place restrictions. May you tell me if this link is exist? What is the author full name, and when was it published? Thank you, _Dgw|Talk 23:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm in the UK and it isn't working for me. But that doesn't mean much, I get that frequently. Not much help, sorry. Knitsey (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. If the USA editors say that it does not work, I will remove the source. _Dgw|Talk 23:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dorian Gray Wild I'm in France and it does seem to work correctly.

I get "‘Arabs voting in droves’: Elephant in room now part of Israeli election" dated "03/17/2015". Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It works in the United States. Or my part of it, anyway. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 23:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! What is the author full name? _Dgw|Talk 23:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It's wrote "Tony Karon" but I don't know if this is his full name. Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It is fine! Thank you. _Dgw|Talk 23:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It works. adding as archive-url. Thank you everybody for the prompt assistance. _Dgw|Talk 00:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft article

I want to create a draft article (Monkeytype), but it says it has previously been deleted, because of the draft being abandoned. Even though I didn't create the original draft, can I just start a completely new draft? Justjourney (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You can make it under your user page. User:Justjourney/The name of the article. _Dgw|Talk 00:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney it's fine to create a new draft which you intend not to abandon, however if you want you can request the undeletion of the original draft at WP:REFUND/G13 so you can continue to improve that one. Yeshivish613 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney, there wasn't much there, but I've undeleted the draft from before, so you now have something to work from. -- asilvering (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Even though I didn't originally start the article, I can still work and improve on what the previous editor did? Justjourney (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you can. _Dgw|Talk 00:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Feedback about the draft

I have added some information, and some citations, although I am not sure if the sources I've cited are reliable. Can someone please help? Justjourney (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney, those sources are fine, but what you need to get through AFC is sources that show the topic is notable. Have a look at WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS for general tips on article writing, and WP:GNG for the actual guideline you need to follow to be accepted. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox synthesizer, parameter 'inventor'

The article Hammond organ / Infobox / source code contains a parameter "inventors", but it does not show up in the box in the article.

As far as I understand it, this is, because the Template:Infobox synthesizer does not have such a parameter -- yet.

Could someone, please, add the parameters "inventor" and "inventors" to Template:Infobox synthesizer?

Steue (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Steue, you can propose that edit with an edit request on the talk page of that template. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, asilvering, I will do that.

Steue (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Making edits to cut an oversized section

This concerns this article: That All Shall Be Saved

The Reception section has already been noted in the talk page to be overly long and detailed, and the final summary contains a criticism of the book's critics by the author. Overall, I feel that this section is both over-sized while simultaneously being somewhat too favorable to the author.

As a result, I'd like to replace it with a much shorter paragraph remarking that there were both hostile and positive reviews.

This is a pretty big change though, so I was wondering if anyone could lend me some advice on how to approach removing and replacing a section like this? Or indeed, if this removal might not be justified in the first place.

Also, if someone could tell me if the very first paragraph is already sufficient, thus meaning I only need to deal with the excess of responses, that would be great. LucasG2001 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, surgery so readical should first be proposed on the Talk page of the article. One problem is that the creating editor has not been active for six months, and so even an invitation may not yield a response. Personally, I agree that a large table of Hart's responses to critics does not belong in the article, nor his summary paragraph at the end. David notMD (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. That's... quite a thing. The removal would be very justified. Go ahead and make the changes, explaining what they were in your edit summaries, and enter the WP:BRD cycle if someone reverts you. If you end up in an argument with another editor about it, feel free to come back here for advice on how to deal with that. By the way, you might be interested in joining WP:BOOKS. -- asilvering (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for your guidance, it really helps clarify the best course of action. Do you know how I can ping the main creator, Brftphoto, so he gets a notification about my comment on my latest edit on the talk page? LucasG2001 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

There are many ways to do that, but the easiest is to type {{u|usernamegoeshere}} (everything from the { to the }, including those symbols, and of course swapping in the username you intend to ping). -- asilvering (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that.

If you're not too busy, would you mind taking a look at the article's talk page? I'm not sure if my comment covers all the necessary bases. LucasG2001 (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk page comment is fine. I notice that the article still says "see table below", not sure if you're still working on it or if you forgot to remove that bit? -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I've just gotten rid of it. Thank you for your attention. LucasG2001 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

EZ2b

Have you ever looked on ITunes and spotted this person I mean I wonder why we don’t make an article about them I mean they only made one song and the instrumental for it I know that Lordofcallofduty (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

One reason, Lordofcallofduty, could well be that this person isn't "notable". -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:NMUSIC explains what makes a musician Wikipedia-notable (and not). David notMD (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Previous draft

Hi All, I would like to find out whether my previous draft could be edited by someone else. It shows that it has been deleted. Can it be restored? Ro55e5 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, anybody can edit any draft. Sometimes people will ask the creator of the draft first, but that is a matter of politeness, not a rule.

Which draft? You may be able to ask for it to be restored (see wP:REFUND) but it depends why it was deleted. ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Deleted as it had not been edited for 6 months. My question is whether if anyone could do it and get it published as it was brought to attention that the filmmaker has been getting numerous emails from companies offering their Wikipedia services. Draft : Vikram Dasgupta Ro55e5 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ro55e5, Draft:Vikram Dasgupta has not been deleted. The fact that you have been trying hard to get the draft accepted without success suggests that Dasgupta does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - it doesn't prove it, but it suggests it. If that is the case then nobody can get the draft accepted, and anybody who tries is wasting their own time and that of anybody else who gets involved, such as reviewers.

If it is true that the filmmaker has been getting numerous mails (as Hoary asks, how do you know that? ) they are scammers, and the filmmaker should be shown WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok noted. I later got to know through an acquaintance.Thank you. Ro55e5 (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Ro55e5, another editor could edit Draft:Vikram Dasgupta. How do you know that "the filmmaker has been getting numerous emails from companies offering their Wikipedia services"? -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok noted. I later got to know through an acquaintance.Thank you. Ro55e5 (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

What is box-header

I was just experimenting on editing portel template in my sandbox, to understand the format working in source editing format, someone suggest me to use user:____/sandbox/header Within templet.

I am a new editor I did not know much about this thing can you explain me this, which may help me to contribute in Wikipedia in a better way.

Thank you 獅眠洞 (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello 獅眠洞, could you link to the place where they suggested this? Experimenting in you sandbox sounds like a good place to experiment. I am not sure what the editor was suggesting based just on your post. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Rijjiii, it's here I am new, that's why little afraid to provide link,

Because in original template, most of things are not present in source editing format, which make me curious, so I start experimenting in sandbox. Find how it is possible. 獅眠洞 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@獅眠洞, yeah, that is understandable; Wikipedia can have pretty tense vibe. Before giving a long explanation, I want to make clear that the kind of experimenting that you are doing is fine, and I don't believe that anyone was trying to stop your experiments.

Are you asking about the move from "Draft:(My 獅眠洞-sandbox)" to "User:獅眠洞/sandbox-3"? A page in the draft namespace is supposed to be a rough a version or work-in-progress towards an article. Since (My 獅眠洞-sandbox) will never be an encyclopedia article, an editor moved it to the user namespace. You can draft and create new content in either the draft (Draft:) or user (User:) namespaces. Both will hide the material from the searches and make clear that it is not (right now) a part of the encyclopedia. There are two potential benefits to using the draft namespace. First, it encourages other editors to join in and help out. Second, it allows other editors who might be thinking of creating the page to see that someone is already working on it. Since neither apply to this experiment, it should be in the user (User:) namespace.

Also, I don't know if you are aware, but any page in the draft namespace has to be actively worked on or moved into the actual main namespace of the encyclopedia. If you leave a test page up in the draft namespace for more than a few months without working on it, there is a bot that will delete it. I'm going to also explain transclusions for portals in a bit, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@獅眠洞, here is a technical explanation for the "user:____/sandbox/header" links that appear in your sandbox:

Anything placed inside of double curly brackets {{like this}} will be transcluded from that page. You can include the namespace when transcluding. For example, {{Wikipedia:Ignore all rules}} will give output, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". If the transcluded page is in the template namespace (Template:), you do not have to include the namespace. So {{Template:Example}}, {{Example}}, and {{example}} all output:

This is an example of a template. For help with templates, see Help:Template.

If the transcluded page is on subpage of where is it is being transcluded, you don't have to use the namespace or the main page's title, just a slash. So {{/box-header}} used on Portal:Islam will transclude Portal:Islam/box-header. When used on Portal:Free and open-source software it will transclude Portal:Free and open-source software/box-header. In your sandbox, {{/box-header}} is creating a red link because the subpage does not yet exist. Portals typically rely very heavily on transclusion in a way that articles do not.

Everything after a pipe character (|) inside double curly brackets is a parameter that is passed to the transcluded page (usually a template). Anything inside of triple curly brackets {{{like this}}} can be replaced by the equivalent parameter for the rendered output. Parameters can be named parameters like {{ cite comic | title=[[Bone (comics)|Bone]] | date=July 1991 | publisher=[[Cartoon Books]] }}. In this case, the values behind the equal sign will replace the parameter names in the template. So for example, July 1991 will replace {{{date}}} on the rendered page. Parameters can also be unnamed or numbered like {{abbr|1st parameter|2nd parameter}} or {{abbr|1=1st parameter|2=2nd parameter}}. When there is no name give after the pipe, it is treated as "1=", "2=", and so on. In the case of {{/box-header|Introduction}}, "Introduction" will replace {{{1}}} or {{{1|}}} in the transcluded subpage. Because the subpage does not yet exist for your sandbox, there is no {{{1}}} for "Introduction" to replace, and it is just discarded for the rendered page.

I realize that's kind of complicated, but as you continue to experiment, it makes more sense. In addition to asking at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, you can post technical questions about Portals or transclusion to WP:VPT. And feel free to {{ping}} me or leave a message on my talk page if you have more questions, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I mistakenly say recommended, it was added in my experiment section, so I was confused at that time. by someone. 獅眠洞 (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@獅眠洞: {{/box-header}} transcludes a subpage of whatever page it is on. When the page was moved to a different location, it pointed {{/box-header}} at a different subpage location. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

best practices using press releases as sources

As noted at WP:PRSOURCE press releases from organizations are often non-independent and self-published. Press releases are often WP:SYNDICATED at other news sites or used as the basis of other news stories at outlets with minimal editorial practices ("churnalism").

My question is the range of types of facts for which press releases may be viewed as reliable sources when independent published alternative sources are not available. Obviously, a press release from an organization saying "our organization is the best" is useless, but there other cases where I'm thinking a press release could be a reliable source for encylopedically-relevant information. For example,

- basic facts about the organization, like their name, relationship to subsidiaries, number of employees, location of an office or other operating site, etc., that the company itself almost certainly knows more about than an independent source would and doesn't really have an interest in somehow mis-stating or exaggerating

- sometimes information from press releases or other self-published documents shows up in a setting where an organization has an interest in ensuring information is accurate, for example, an IRS government form 990 for a nonprofit operating in the US. That seems to increase the reliability of self-published non-independent information even if in the example, the government probably shouldn't be considered to be an independent publisher of the information

- objective facts, like "our organization" "did X" or "participates in X" (as opposed to "is the best at X", or "will do X in the future", or "thinks X is really important" or ...) ProfessorBioTech (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @ProfessorBioTech, and welcome to the Teahouse. Does the list of criteria in WP:SPS answer your questions, or are you looking for more? ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:SPS is helpful, thanks @ColinFine

I suppose what I'm trying to calibrate on is the exercise of caution in press releases specifically as a type of self-published source. WP:SPS says:

"...Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources...."

For releases from organizations that have been around a while and have a significant set of interests in providing accurate information about themselves, there is some basis for reliability, and of course the organization is a subject matter expert about itself. So understanding the main issue in the types of examples I'm focusing on being lack of independence, if it's hard to find the same information independently published elsewhere, probably OK to cite the press release until the info becomes available from an independent source. ProfessorBioTech (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

</ref> or <ref/>

Hello why does <ref/> work normally in sandbox but gives error in article mainspace? Thanks Moribundum (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Moribundum, and welcome to the Teahouse. You'll have to be more specific about the problem you see.

The following may help: </ref> is a closing tag, and has no meaning unless it is paired with a previous opening <ref>. On the other hand <ref/> is a shorthand for <ref></ref>, i.e. an empty reference. As far as I know that last has no meaningful use, but with a name (<ref/ name=fred> <ref name=fred />) it is very common, to reuse a named reference. Does this resolve your problem? ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine: To invoke a named reference, the forward slash goes at the end: <ref name="example" /> —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You're right, Tenryuu. Thank you. Corrected above. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

valid verification sources

Can material from the website of an environmental 501c3 nonprofit be used as a verification source? Thanks Judsonnewbern (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. It would help to know what exactly you're trying to do. Please also understand that on this global website many may not know what "501c3 nonprofit" means. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to use material contained in slides from a presentation that has been presented at several city and statewide Environmental conferences. The presentaion does not contain any copyrighted material and the slides and materials can be freely used elesewhere once on Wikipedia, but it has not been pubically released in a publication. The presentation is posted on an environmental nonprofit website in the public domain. Judsonnewbern (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Judsonnewbern, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the materials have appeared on a publicly accessible website, then they have been published. But they are copyright unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary. Whether the website belongs to a charity, a non-profit, or a commercial organisation, has absolutely no bearing on these questions.

When talking about copyright "public domain" is a technical term that means a great deal more than "available to the public". ColinFine (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Judsonnewbern: the answer to this also depends on what you're wanting to verify with the said slide deck. If it's some purely factual, non-contentious factoid like year the organisation was founded, then yes, you can probably support it with a primary source like that (if you really cannot find a better one). Whereas if it's a statement like "we are the best-governed environmental organisation for ten years running", then clearly we couldn't take their own word for it, whether it's their website or corporate brochure or presentation slide deck supporting that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

makes sense - thanks very much - Judson Judsonnewbern (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Help improving my article

Hi! I recently created the article Groton Hill Music Center as a part of a class I'm taking, and am looking for assistance with improving the article. I will be visiting the Center to take photos of the halls this week. I am specifically looking for help with duplicate citations. Oliviaoestreicher (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I gave you an example with the source: "Groton music center unites students, educators, and music lovers". _Dgw|Talk 01:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Oliviaoestreicher (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The tag at the top refers to how to use named references. I cleared about 30 duplications, but a lot more need to be addressed. When done right there is one use of a ref by full name, preceded by superscripted letters that go to the other uses of that ref. David notMD (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Oliviaoestreicher the article looks great, I fixed up the rest of them and added an infobox. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all! -Oliviaoestreicher — Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you please add more women who died of AIDS on the list of HIV Positive peopele?

If you could please add in the following to the list of HIV Positive people, I would greatly appreciate it.

1. Nisha Noor Nisha Noor AIDS - YouTube

2. Lisa Melendez Lisa Melendez: A Legacy of Talent and Tragedy in the Film Industry - YouTube

3. Sandra Brea Sandra Brea AIDS - YouTube

4. Satiny Miranda andre holstein homenagen a satiny miranda - YouTube

5. Keizy Maria Keizy Maria fotos - YouTube

6. Lesego Motsepe Lesego Motsepe - YouTube Trevor Lafoe (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Trevor Lafoe: We generally can't use YouTube as a source. (To cite a YouTube video, it has to be produced by an outlet we'd consider to have editorial oversight and uploaded to that outlet's verified channel; this is to limit the chance the content has been taken from elsewhere.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

How about this, Then?

Lisa Melendez (1964-1995) - Find a Grave Memorial

Lisa Melendez: A Legacy of Talent and Tragedy in the Film Industry

Lisa Melendez - Biography - IMDb

dead pornstar list Trevor Lafoe (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Those are not valid sources. IMDB is user generated. That leaves aside that you need more than a source, you need articles about them. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that you propose this on the talk page of the article, as you already have for one of them. I haven't checked but they will need to have Wikipedia articles, or at least the prospect of such, in order to be added to a list. Such lists only have members of the topic that have Wikipedia articles, it's not for documenting every possible member of the list that might exist. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

If you could actually link to the YouTube videos, rather than alluding to them, then another editor could assess the quality of them as sources. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

We don't need to do that. Per consensus at WP:YOUTUBE, YouTube videos simply aren't considered reliable, as they're typically self-published sources. They're really only usable when they're already a reliable publication. guninvalid (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Are there instructions for creating and adding narration to articles?

I'm interested in creating audio recordings of a few Wikipedia articles. Is there a protocol or best-practices I should follow, and how would I add it to an article? guninvalid (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @User:Guninvalid. WP:SPOKEN might be of interest to you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that's it. Thank you! guninvalid (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi! Can anyone please fix archiving in my talk page? I have tried to do it and Lowercase sigmabot had archived about 3 of my messages. But now, the messages older than 30 days are not being archived by the Bot. I'm not really good in Wiki markup so if somebody can explain the procedure, I'd be grateful. Thank you! Warriorglance(talk to me) 05:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Warriorglance. A name has been fixed in the archiving code.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Thank you! And just asking, what is the difference between Lowercase sigmabot and Miszabot? Warriorglance(talk to me) 17:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Warriorglance: User:MiszaBot is deactivated and hasn't edited since 2011. Another bot operator took over the task with Lowercase sigmabot III. It uses the original MiszaBot archiving instructions so it's consistent and doesn't have to be changed on pages which were archived by MiszaBot. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Alabama Barker

Courtesy link: Alabama Barker

I honestly don’t think this page should exist. I’m genuinely confused about the Wp:Notability and concerned for the privacy. Not everyone needs a Wikipedia page WereWolf (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@WereWolf: Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PRESERVE. WereWolf (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see the notability of the article subject as notability is not inherited; WP:AFD should be the way to go here as I do not see a speedy deletion or WP:PROD would pass unopposed. Lectonar (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Would same apply to her brother Landon Barker, or does he have a legitimate music career? David notMD (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps a tad more notable (music and some acting). Imho both would be more than ok as redirects to Meet the Barkers, though. Lectonar (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand that she is or was signed to Republic Records but I honestly do not know if that warrants an article WereWolf (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Anthony Fantano just released a video about the “feud” just now on YouTube WereWolf (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Moving from user to template namespace

Several other people and I finished up User:EF5/Tornado navbox a little while ago, but we were wondering if there's extra things that need added before it's moved to the "Template:" namespace or if that's even allowed from the "User:" namespace at all. — E_F⁵ 19:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's nothing special you need to do - just move it. If I'm wrong, it's not like it can't be reversed or fixed, so go for it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Went ahead and did this.... saw it just sitting there and remove the images as per WP:NAVIMAGES.

Template:Tornado navbox

Moxy🍁 20:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Moxy and Asilvering! — E_F⁵ 22:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Lost old man and I need help

I'm a lost old man and I need help. I recently made an edit that was moved, and I saw a banner saying it was awaiting approval for up to two months. Now I can't find it in my contributions or the page history. How can I locate it? I am finding it impossible to navigate wiki. Some of you young guns help me across wiki street. please and thanks, was i supposed to put a link here. Wasn't sure which link. ButtonWarren (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring to Draft:Raphael Warren? It looks like in this edit you deleted the Articles for Creation template, which I'm guessing was an accident. As for the link at the end - are you referring to a signature? It looks like that was added for you, but if you want to do it yourself just put ~~~~ at the end of your message. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@ButtonWarren, it looks like you've had your question answered, but I've also dropped by your talk page with some helpful links. If you haven't already read WP:PRIMER, you might find it helpful. As far as navigation goes, though, there's no real substitute for experience. Feel free to come back here if you get lost at any point. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Finding articles to improve

Is there a better way to find articles to improve on? I mainly just click random article from the menu and that's that. Justjourney (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I do know wp:tasks Justjourney (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Also it depends on the type of improvement you're trying to do, which can range from simple tasks like copyediting/categorization/fixing citations to more advanced stuff like expanding articles or curating new pages. Depending on what you're interested in I can definitely offer advice/suggestions. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 02:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I guess for right now I would want to fix small things, but bigger things I'd leave off for later. Justjourney (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

For me, the home page was helpful in finding articles to copyedit. Categorization I haven't done much, but WP:Tasks is helpful in that regard. If you're interested in fixing duplicate citations, there's a script I can link you to. Let me know if any of those sound interesting, or if you'd prefer something else like anti-vandal work. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 05:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm fine now, thanks for the advice. Justjourney (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Community portal is a great place to learn about productive tasks that need to be done. Cullen328 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

One way that works for me is browsing wikipedia until I find something in need of fixing Mgjertson (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

What is Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts? When is it acceptable? Mast303 (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Pls see WP:MULTIACCOUNT Moxy🍁 03:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

XfD closing

Sorry, having read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TurboSuperA+ closes, I've been a bit spooked considering I've switched from participating in discussions to try and facilitate closes (in XfDs in general), since I believe the latter to be more efficient in clearing up a backlog. Just in case, would anyone (preferably those with experience in XfD) be so kind as to look over my closes (and possibly other work) as well? Cheers, it's lio! | talk | work 02:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@HKLionel, happy to, but as someone who closes XfDs myself, I'd say that the biggest problem for RfD and AfD is a low number of participants, not closers. -- asilvering (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, apart from closing, I try to facilitate discussion as well by pinging previous participants when an alternative proposal has been suggested that could reach consensus. Also, I'm almost never involved in XfDs that are still in the 7-day discussion period (I only vote/close overdue ones). it's lio! | talk | work 04:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I only vote/close overdue ones - I certainly hope so!

Looking at your contribs, I see a recent FfD that I think you probably shouldn't have touched (just leave it, though, unless someone challenges it). I don't see a lot of evidence of experience with copyright and files in your contribs, so along with that one in particular not being a great close, I don't think you have enough experience there to step into NACs yet. For CfD, I'll tag in @HouseBlaster for an opinion.

Otherwise, I don't really see many closes, so if you've got any you're curious about, can you link them? Mostly what I'm seeing is relistings. And I would advise that NACs avoid relisting in general, which is not to say that any of your relists were bad. -- asilvering (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! There tends to be a lot of unanimous CFDs, so it is an excellent training ground for NACs. On the other hand, we definitely need thoughtful participation as much as we need closers there. If you have specific closes you'd like me to give feedback on, I would be happy to do so :) Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster: many thanks! Here are all the closes I've done:

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 19#Bisexual actors by nationality

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 19#Decade establishments by country

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Category:Artworks in the collection of Howard University

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Category:Murdered American gangsters by criminal organization

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Category:Sinhalese queens regnant

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 21#Conflicts in early years

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 21#House categories

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Snehasish Sarkar

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 10#Law of fives

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 February 19#Template:Hurry Up Tomorrow track listing

I know that I've still got much to learn, so your feedback is much appreciated! G'day, it's lio! | talk | work 03:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright! I've only looked at the CfDs because that is my specialty and you are better asking an admin more familiar with the norms at the other venues for those. I agree with them all in result (or at least, I agree that the choices you made were within closer's discretion). Some notes: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 21#House categories definitely could've used an explanation; I think !vote-weighing definitely came into it and a recommendation for further discussion at appropriate venues (e.g. RM or renominating Category:Beni Alfons, as was done independently at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 2#Category:Beni Alfons). I also commend you for avoiding WP:RELISTBIAS; it is a common pitfall that you have avoided. And as a very minor nitpick, I normally place my pings to participants asking for their thoughts on novel suggestions or information after the latest relist to make it easy to follow the "timeline" when scanning the discussion. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your advice! Unfortunately, I am not as familiar with discussion venues as I'd like to be, so that didn't come into mind. Many thanks to Marcocapelle as well for the renomination; I will keep future consequences in mind in future closes. I'll also take your last suggestion to heart. Have a great day, it's lio! | talk | work 04:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: For the FfD close, I know I have no experience in copyright or file-related stuff, but I believe I was following procedure for a general XfD discussion - 7 days had (long) passed with no relistings, one strong vote for keep by someone who hadn't edited for a week, so I don't think that consensus could be established. I believe I am following the instructions at WP:FFDAI, so please let me know if you have any further concerns regarding this particular close. Many thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 02:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll say this as gently as I can: if you're nervous that you've been making inappropriate NACs, and someone tells you that you should probably avoid doing them in an area you're not familiar with, the winning move here is to avoid doing them, not to explain that you thought you did the right thing. I know that stings and that it doesn't feel like helpful feedback. But, well, look at how unpleasant that ANI thread is for the editor involved. Even if your closes are completely appropriate, you can get dragged pretty hard at DRV or ANI by people who are opposed to the idea of NACs in general. Tread lightly, at least until you think you'd come out of an ANI punch-up looking better than the other guy. -- asilvering (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course I know that, but I was hoping you'd provide an objective response to my explanation. Please don't mistake this for stubbornness - I mean, if I didn't ask here, you wouldn't even know about my FfD close, ha. Still many thanks for your help and advice. G'day, it's lio! | talk | work 02:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

User warning level

I've been working on anti-vandalism for a couple days now. I probably should've asked this earlier, but what is an appropriate user warning level for the first warning on a talk page? So far I've been using the following:

1 for something that looks like vandalism.
2 for something I'm certain is vandalism.
4im for something that I'm certain is vandalism and contains offensive/explicit content or is extremely disruptive.

Anerdw (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Anerdw, that's a pretty decent view for someone new to anti-vandalism, and isn't too far from the templates' intent. Level 1 is intended to signify good faith, level 2 makes no assumption of faith (good or bad) and levels 3+ are reserved for bad faith edits. You can find more information here: [[2]]. If you'd like some additional guidance with anti-vandal work, consider signing up for WP:CVUA once you've made some more edits. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 08:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Should I create a new article?

I just enjoyed a video (PBS Eons: Why Wasn't There A Second Age of Reptiles?) about the "fungal infection-mammalian selection hypothesis": the hypothesis that the rise of mammalian megafauna after the K-Pg mass extinction instead of re-emergence of reptilian megafauna may be due to the competitive advantage that warm-blooded mammals had with respect to defence against fungal infection.

I came searching wikipedia to find out more abou tit and was surprised I couldn't find any mention here (based on searches for "fungal infection-mammalian selection hypothesis", "fims hypothesis", etc.). I think that this hypothesis is notable as it has been covered in popular science media (ex: PBS Eons video above and also Radiolab's Fungus Amungus episode) as well as being of general public interest.

I would be glad to start working on creating a new article for it, but before I do I'd like to make sure others think this is a good idea. I have had issues in the past with creating new articles and having them proposed for deletion and I'd rather not invest that effort if it's considered to be not notable or not worthy of an article. What do y'all think? — sligocki (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @sligocki. If you would like, you're welcome to try making an article! But if you want your article to stay on Wikipedia, I would recommend you put your article through the articles for creation (WP:AfC) process, along with the guidelines for creating your first article. In short, please ensure that your article is based on reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks, and best of luck on your draft! guninvalid (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sligocki, and welcome to the Teahouse. I endorse what guninvalid says. I doubt if anybody here can tell you whether it is a good idea or not, unless they do what is the first part of your job: looking for and evaluating sources. Was the video you refer to made by, or with, the people who advanced the hypothesis? If so, then it is not independent, and cannot contribute towards notability. Similarly for the Radiolab episode.

You really need to find several secondary sources (which those might be, but popular science accounts of new hypotheses are usually not, in my experience), before attempting this. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I'm working on a draft now and we'll see how it goes. These sources are independent (nobody working on the hypothesis works for PBS Eons or Radiolab). Could you clarify what you mean by "popular science accounts of new hypotheses are usually not [secondary sources]"? Do you mean that they are primary sources? Or that they are often not "reliable" sources? I assume that PBS and Radiolab would both be considered reliable sources given that they are serious fact-checked journalists and not just arbitrary internet creators. Does that sound right to you? — sligocki (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sligocki. I mean that they are often made with the originators and proponents of the theory. The question is not whether the people working on the hypothesis works fror the publisher, but were they involved in making the programmes? If so, then those are primary sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Question about edits

Hello everyone! I am a new to editing on Wikipedia. I recently created a page that was approved. Two editors made edits that don't seem correct to me, so I'd like to hear the thoughts of folks here. One editor removed a section on "Presidents" and left this comment: "There is no value added in the inclusion of the recent Past-President's section. No one anyone other than a SAP member would want to know who these folks were and they can be found on our existing website." Another editor removed the Mission Statement. Because I am new, I am unsure if these are valid deletions or not? I would greatly appreciate hearing the comments on more experienced editors. Thank you! Greendhalia19 (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Greendhalia19, your edits were returned. _Dgw|Talk 03:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Greendhalia19 (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Greendhalia19 The American Psychological Association has 54 active divisions, 11 of which are existing Wikipedia articles, some of which list past presidents, some not, so arbitrary. Separate from that, I recommend you Move the current title to the proper title of Division 29. David notMD (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense I'll try to figure out how to do that. Thanks Greendhalia19 (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Greendhalia19, and welcome to the Teahouse. From your description above (I haven't looked at the edits themselves) I agree with the other editors. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources say about a subject: what the subject itself, or its associates, say or want to say is almost irrelevant. Mission statements and the like are never appropriate, unless they have been written about by independent commentators. And while uncontroversial factual data like names of officers may be sourced from non-independent sources, I would always ask, "If no independent sources have written about this, does it belong in an encyclopaedia article?" Current officers probably do, and any past officers who are notable in Wikipedia's sense; but otherwise, past officers usually don't.

Please don't be discouraged by this: Wikipedia works on consensus, not rulings by some authority, and we learn by trial and error. Please see WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ColinFine thanks for the thorough explanation. What you say makes sense. I'm still figuring this out, it's a lot to learn! Greendhalia19 (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Looking for articles to improve

Hello all,

I've been a wikipedia enthusiast long before I decided to create an account, but now seems the time to do so.

Is there a way to find out which pages are in need of improving/editing?

Many thanks :) Tomclayton13 (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tomclayton13, absolutely! Wikipedia has many thousands of articles that have been tagged with a maintenance tag, showing they require improvement. Have a look at Wikipedia:Task Center#Maintenance which outlines all the different categories of tags and links to the relevant articles that need improvement. qcne (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Tomclayton13, what Qcne says is true, but most of the articles that haven't had a maintenance tag attached to them could or even should be improved. Please see the diverse responses above to a similar question to yours. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Template

Hi, is this template suitable for this article? (I have not finished the article yet). _Dgw|Talk 03:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

No @Dorian Gray Wild, the article is just about a statement, which are usually better off without an infobox. Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dorian Gray Wild: You might use Template:Infobox phrase. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Sumita Misra image size

Hi, could someone have a look at Sumita Misra? Recent edits have enlarged the size of the image and I'm not sure how to resolve it. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. The image name was put in the Name field and was linked. This has now been corrected. Yeshivish613 (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Yeshivish613. Tacyarg (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I am a new editor: any recommendations for pages I should edit

I completed the tutorial and now I know the basics of editing Wikipedia. Are there any pages that are in need of editing? Thanks in advance GeorgiaAllTheWay (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Fewer than 2% of the approx seven million articles in English Wikipedia are rated Featured Article or Good Article. (Ratings are shown at top of article Talk pages). The remainder can probably be improved. David notMD (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

On a more practical note, use Search Wikipedia (upper right) to find articles on topics that you have knowledge about. Read for errors and omissions. Fix stuff. If you are adding new content add a reference at the same time. David notMD (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, GeorgiaAllTheWay, a huge number of them. If you find this hard to believe, then here (in this thread) point us to three that are neither "featured" or "good", and then somebody here will point out problems in one or more of the three. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but the 3 articles that I found that are neither featured nor good are: Wi-Fi, Dragon, and Microsoft Windows GeorgiaAllTheWay (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll take Microsoft Windows, GeorgiaAllTheWay. This obligingly has a template at its head saying that material needs to be cited. So: cite the material! In a little more detail: the lead alone has ^{[citation needed]} twice, and just as oddly it has 14 references. It may seem perverse to complain about both the lack and the provision of references, so I'd better explain that the lead of an article normally summarizes the body of the article: it's the assertions in the body that need referencing in the body; a summary in the lead of those assertions needs no referencing in the lead. So what you can do is check whether the lead represents the body, and whether the body is properly referenced -- if (or so far as) the answers are yes and yes, then both the references in the lead and the complaints in the lead about lack of references can be removed. The best way to fix this is to check the referencing throughout the body; and when that's done, properly check the quality of the lead and remove most, perhaps all, of the referencing from this. ¶ Beyond this, jumping here and there in the article shows me oddities aplenty. For instance: Sticky keys and filter keys are a huge vulnerability of windows. It can allow someone to run any command on the lock screen, including making themselves administrator, just by changing the name of cmd to one of those two programs. I'd guess that "windows" means "Windows" (the subject of this article), but perhaps it actually means the windows that are used by Windows. What are "sticky keys", "filter keys", the "lock screen", the "two programs", and "cmd"? (And which version(s) of Windows is this about?) ¶ And I've hardly scratched the surface of this article. -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

GeorgiaAllTheWay With Wi-Fi, Dragon, and Microsoft Windows you have in my opinion set your sights too high. Very popular articles - those viewed hundreds of thousands of times a year - tend to have editors who have chosen to "watch" them, meaning every time they log in, they are notified that the articles they watch have been edited. Work by new editors tends to get reverted if not up to highest standards. Same applies to controversial articles, for example your two edits to Second Trump tariffs, soon gone. Again, I recommend articles about less 'hot' topics that are a deep interest of yours. Could be plant species, airplane models, the place you live, etc. And P.S., Improving existing articles is a far better path for a new editor than trying to create a new article. David notMD (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@GeorgiaAllTheWay: Take a look at Wikipedia:Cleanup and Category:All pages needing cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep all of this in mind GeorgiaAllTheWay (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

How to add link to Wikipedia article in a different language

On the Kramatorsk article in notable people section Valeriy Herovkin is on list of people but it does not link any article to him. Herovkin has Ukrainian article but I do not know how to link these... I only know how to make these external sites. How do I properly link these? Красный Октябрь (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Like this: Valeriy Herovkin [uk] (achieved via {{Ill|Valeriy Herovkin|uk|Геровкін Валерій Євгенович}}). (However, lists of notable people are normally limited to those people who already have articles in en:Wikipedia.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! (I did not put him on list, I just saw he was on list and article was not linked) Красный Октябрь (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Citations in first paragraph

Hello everyone,

I have noticed that some pages start with a very short summary paragraph that has very few or no citations. The information in that paragraph is expanded upon and well-cited later in the page. Is that preferred for Wikipedia pages? I'm trying to find the style guides regarding this and I can't seem to find them.

Thanks! Greendhalia19 (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Greendhalia19. Welcome to the Teahouse. That opening paragraph is called the lede or lead. For more information please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Greendhalia19 Yes, the first part of an article is called the lead, or sometimes "lede", although Wikipedia uses the term slightly differently than newspapers do, as we are not trying to be sensational there but merely give a short neutral summary of the article. The link gives more details, which includes saying that citations are not always necessary, although allowed, especially for biographies. You can tell if a lead is badly written if it has citations not also present in the main body of the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Greendhalia19: The style guide you were looking for is MOS:LEADCITE. It states as long as the information is properly cited in the body, one should attempt redundant citations of the same information in the lead and the body. Usually, it is better to cite the information in the body and allow the lead to just summarize the information. cyberdog958^Talk 12:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! This is very helpful Greendhalia19 (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Shantavira @Michael D. Turnbull @Cyberdog958

(I just figured out how to @ folks) Greendhalia19 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

From my experience, lengthy articles, especially in the medical/health arena, often have lengthy Leads with references. I think that the expectation is that casual visitors may not get past the Lead, but also may want to find a handy redirect to a referenced authoritative source. An observation I've made before - if one opens a oft-visited health topic such as Vitamin C and clicks on View history, and within that, Pageviews, and selects Last year as the span to see viewing data, the result has a sawtooth pattern with fewer views on weekends. I assume the higher weekday views represent student homework assignments. David notMD (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Interesting! Different lengths are better for different readers and use cases. Greendhalia19 (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello i wanna change my sandbox name.

Hello i've created my own article about my video game, i really wanna change the name tho, I don't like the User:/Your_User/sandbox

And i really wanna make it live.

Thank you.

-Armend Armend XD (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

As you are autoconfirmed, you are able to change pages names by moving a page with the button on the right side of your screen. There are more instructions at HELP:MOVE which can give a step by step tutorial. If you are having trouble, please feel free to leave a reply and I can take a look at it, cheers! Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 11:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

thanks tho, it sucks u have to wait ur acc has to be 4 days older >_< Armend XD (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Please know that your draft is far from being an acceptable Wikipedia article, as it does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. You also have a conflict of interest, please review that policy. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd also recommend reading Help:Your first article as well. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 12:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks! Armend XD (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much my article is now moved! Armend XD (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I've moved it to draft space, Draft:Shine Private Basic School. It is not yet suitable as an article, for the reasons I stated above. You also need to formally declare your conflict of interest, see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

y'know what I'm gonna delete it. Armend XD (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I've worked so hard making this :/ Armend XD (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform here; I would suggest learning more about Wikipedia via the tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

alr Armend XD (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

should I submit the draft?

I'm just a young editor and created about a article about my video game ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Armend XD (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Unless independent reliable sources have given your game significant coverage (typically in the form of a review written by a professional reviewer) it would not merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Consider taking a look at the task center to find other ways to begin editing. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand any of this and it's just a visual novel

and ofc horror >o< Armend XD (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Armend XD Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something, especially something that we ourselves have created. Wikipedia articles tell what others that have nothing to do with a topic say about it, not what those associated with the topic say about it(such as the creator of a game). I might suggest that you read this page with a parent/guardian/custodian, and that may help you understand what exactly it is that we do here. If you just want to tell the world about your game, you should use social media to do that. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks!

(No harassment but(redacted)) Armend XD (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Do not post personal information about yourself in this very public place. Bad people could see it and use that information to harm you. I again strongly urge you to read this page with your parent/guardian/custodian. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't really do that kind of thing cause it's weird Armend XD (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm done reading it!

By the way, can you read the article I made, if there is something offenses, (sorry my english is bad) tell me! Armend XD (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything in it that is offensive.

Your English seems okay to me, but if English is not the main language you use to communicate, I would suggest editing the version of Wikipedia that is in your primary language. You might be more comfortable there. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

wanna meet at the talk later :D Armend XD (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

By the way can...I move it now? Armend XD (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

No. It still doesn't have enough reliable sources to be suitable for mainspace. Please spend some time working to improve it, and then submit it for review by AfC. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 16:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Wait I have to languages?

(Sorry i'm just a young kid editor and don't understand these literally I'm tf dumb) Armend XD (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Wait i have to add langauages?*

(im a fast typer sorry) Armend XD (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm just gonna make a video game character article until I can move my main article,

I shouldn't make a post about this,

didn't know some of you bitch's made it draft, shitmedia Armend XD (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about the frustrating experience, Armend XD. This is a common enough problem for new editors that there is an essay explaining how and why these articles get stuck, Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. To have an article on Wikipedia, the subject of the article (not the article itself) must meet Wikipedia:Notability. On reason for this, is that is not possible to meet our standards for content, like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, without independent reliable secondary sources. Say for example, the only serious coverage about your game said something to the effect of, "It's dangerous, it promotes gambling, it's addictive, it takes no skill, and it even causes seizures, so it's like physically harming our children." That would be a very extreme viewpoint to take on a videogame, but there are legit news articles that cover Pokémon in this way. For Pokémon, it's no big deal because the content can be balanced with other viewpoints. That's not possible if there is just one source either promoting or condemning a subject. Also, if you have any connection to the subject of an article you are creating, it will receive much more scrutiny. There is an ongoing issue, where people try to use Wikipedia as PR.

For your article, there are several things you can try:

If WP:RS do exists (maybe in Kurdish?), cite those.
If the sources do not exist, nothing done to the article will make the game notable. You'd have get copies into the hands of WP:RS and hope that they offer coverage in the future.
You could also post your draft to smaller wikis that focus on video games and visual novels. (like https://vndb.org/)

Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Then what should I do? wait 5000 years so I can publish it?

PLEASE HOW THE FUCKING SHOULD I DO THAT?

I AIN'T BEEN ON WIKIPEDIA FOR 10318230918 YEARS Armend XD (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

sorry :< Armend XD (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Armend XD, for inclusion into Wikipedia, your videogame basically needs to be known in the wider world. Unfortunately, if your article is published as it stands, it would quickly be removed from Wikipedia for concerns listed above. So yes, you'll need to wait for others to decide whether your game is important (notable). — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 19:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

so I need to wait if my game is important (you said)

that would of course take a year cause it's new .-. Armend XD (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the last place to write about a topic, not the first. Your game will need to get reviewed by professional reviewers, before it can merit an article. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

ok! Armend XD (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

i got a warning comment in my article, "scoot_creep"

what the heck? Armend XD (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Per WB:SCHOOLS, should school articles that aren't notable be deleted?

As editing school articles, I realized that a large number of them aren't notable, or mostly rely on sources from the school website for information. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, should articles (specificially high schools) that aren't notable/have enough reliable sources be subject for deletion? Examples include Kailua High School (which I subjected for deletion) and Mission Valley High School. Theadventurer64 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Theadventurer64: The usual course of action for a nonnotable school is to redirect it, either to the school district of which it's part (if there's an article about the district) or to the town in which it's located (it helps if the town's article mentions the school). Deor (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good; If a majority of school articles don't meet the criteria for notability/reliability, then could a mass deletion/redirection be done?Theadventurer64 (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Theadventurer64: see Wikipedia:MULTIAFD for how to nominate a group of articles for deletion. Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Theadventurer64: I recommend following the steps of WP:BEFORE before either nominating an article for deletion or redirecting it. Deor (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Publishing a draft

I have prepared a draft article - biography of a living person - but when I try to Publish the article, the system responds that no article with the title I have assigned (the name of the person) exists. How do I get a draft out of my sandbox into review? Veridia (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

You click the "submit your draft for review!" button in the box at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

As you took a picture of her, do you have a connection with her? Is there any particular reason you hadn't edited in 19 years before today? 331dot (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Veridia: as far as I can tell, you don't have a sandbox. But your user page, which ought to be about your own actvities on Wikipedia, has a template saying "This is the user sandbox of Veridia." Maproom (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I've moved it to Draft:Elena Macevičiūtė. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

You were there just ahead of me, @331dot ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for Springback Binder?

Springback Binder has no sources, so obviously needs help. But what kind of sources would I even be looking at here that would establish a binder's notability?

I'm not really expecting there to be news articles about forks, but I don't think that's a good reason there shouldn't be an article about forks.

So...are there notability guidelines for objects? I can't find any. How do I determine an object's notability?

I see a failed proposal for products, and astronomical objects, which depending on one's location in the universe this could maybe count as, but that's for a different message board.

Thanks! Delectopierre (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Delectopierre, it's notable if it has been written about in some depth. The write-up doesn't have to purport to be "news". Also, see WP:GNG. The article's creator was editing here as recently as January, so you could ask on their talk page. And there do exist books devoted to stationery; you could search for "springback binder" via your preferred search engine but also in the books and magazines at the Internet Archive. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I did search it online and found a lot of product listings, but nothing written about it. I've read GNG, but honestly, I don't think I could get 'Fork' to pass GNG from scratch. Delectopierre (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Delectopierre, forks have an important place among cutlery. A desultory look for books on cutlery design quickly told me of Bauer, European Cutlery Design; Brown, British Cutlery; and Moore, Cutlery for the Table. (And I'm sure there's more.) I haven't attempted to look into any of the three, but it's unlikely that all three are junk and that there aren't usable alternatives. -- Hoary (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Delectopierre, if you do not want to read entire books, there are plenty of reliable shorter sources discussing forks in depth, such as this article from a food museum and this article from another museum and this article from Slate and this article by an author of a book about household objects and this article from the California Academy of Sciences and this article from the appropriately named Museum of the Home. Forks are notable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary@Cullen328 Thank you both. This is helpful. I need to remember to go past internet sources only more often. Delectopierre (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

... which is why we have an article Fork. However, finding good sources for springback binder, the original question, I agree is a bit more challenging. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to go through all the results, but a Google Books search for "springback binder" has results that at least aren't people selling the things. Deor (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this US Government publication, although old, has a decent section on these binders, which could easily be used as a source for our article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks. Yeah, I wasn't trying to argue that the forks article shouldn't exist. It self evidently should. I was only trying to get at the difficulty I'm experiencing with GNG WRT springback binders. But I see your point that the notability of the objects are vastly different. Delectopierre (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Equations in refn

Evidently, using an equal sign in the text of a footnote triggered by {{refn|group="note"|text}} doesn't work if "text" contains an equal sign. How can I get around this? Johsebb (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Via Template:=. -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Johsebb. You can either use {{=}} as suggested above or a numbered parameter |1= as suggested at Template:Refn#Errors. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"Disappearance of Madeleine McCann" page

Greetings fellow Wikipideans,

I have been an avid Wikipedia user for many years. I contributed sparingly in its' early stages and then just became an avid consumer. Recently I found myself looking into the case of the disappearance of Maddie McCann, after many years. I looked up information online and thought I'd see if Wikipedia had a page regarding the issue, and of course, it did. As I started reading, I couldn't help but feel, given the information that I have, that the issue was being presented in a carefully biased way. I took the time to read through the talk page, and realised I wasn't alone: many users have been pointing out some of the same frustrations I had for years and years, and the receptiont hey got was not a welcome one. It seems that the article is mainly under the care of 1 or 2 editors who don't seem interested in addressing the situation from an equidistant position. I was wondering if and how this situation could be addressed, namely by having other editor's input.

It just seems to me that Wikipedia should be careful about how it presents itself. Neutrality is supposed be its' mainstay, and I feel in this case, it very much not the case. I will ask you to take a special look at the lead and how the case is being presented to the average, unsuspecting Wiki user.

Thank you for any replies.

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Pedro161982 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Pedro161982 You are free to offer your input on Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It's difficult to respond to a "this is biased, fix it" grievance. All sources of information have biases; Wikipedia presents the sources to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves when determining what they think or believe.

If you believe that a passage of the article is biased, please detail the specific issue on the talk page. If you feel the sources presented are not being accurately summarized, again, please detail how on the talk page and how you would correct it. If the sources are accurately summarized, but are in error, you will need to take that up with the sources first, or offer more current sources with more current information here that can be worked in somehow.

Neutrality is often mistaken for "all sides must be presented equally", which is not what WP:NPOV means. (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). Information should be presented in proportion to how independent reliable sources present it. Wikipedia does not present all sides equally if sources do not. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you've been to the talk page already; that's where this should be handled. If you believe other editors are violating policy, you should first attempt to work that out with the other editors on that page; failing that, you can go to a forum like WP:AN and detail which behavioral policies have been violated(but your own behavior will be examined as well). 331dot (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm new to the inner workings of Wikipedia, so I am trying to figure out exactly how to address this and any other situations that might arise in the future. Thank you for the reply. Pedro161982 (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Worth reviewing Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Disputes on Talk pages of contentious articles can be civil yet prolonged to the point of annoying the participants and driving away any editors less committed to the disputed content. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass also applies. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I have read your suggestions and I am not quite sure how it aplies to this case, but for general purpose and guidelines I appreciate your input. Thank you. Pedro161982 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Since creating your account on March 3rd, 21 of your edits have been to Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. So, yes, I meant my comment for you now, specifically, not the general future. David notMD (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and...? I commented on an article that I felt needed some polishing. Is there something wrong with that? Like I said, I read and appreciate your input. That is all. Pedro161982 (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

A feature suggestion

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § A feature suggestion

I don't know if this is the right place to make it, but I have a feature suggestion for Wikipedia (and hence MediaWiki). Feel free to share/repost this if this is not the right place, because if you just tell me the right place, maybe I won't get (or even be?) around to... yadda, yadda, yadda. Anyway:

It would be interesting to have a "suggested edit" feature, whereby users —any users, experienced or new ones— could draft and suggest individual edits they're not too sure about and that they thus maybe don't want to immediately go live. Currently this staging can be done on the Talk page, but a "suggested edit" feature would provide another, possibly more direct mechanism. Once the suggestion is made, any other users could accept the edit – or just let it linger. Obviously, the longer any suggested edit lingers, the more likely the attempt to accept it would generate an edit conflict, at which point the suggestion would need to be manually worked in. This would be somewhat similar to —but also different from— the Wikipedia:Pending changes feature. "Suggested edits" could be submitted for any article, even by users who do have the right to just full-on edit the page. Perhaps the submitter of the suggested edit could even set a threshold i.e. this suggestion needs to be voted for by at least n other editors to go live. This feature would basically be an instrument of self-restraint and confidence and consensus-building, which could avoid some potential for controversy and friction and eventually overbearing "policing" altogether. It would set apart edits that really clearly should go in, and go in right away, from those it's quite reasonable to disagree on. Because once those are conflated, that can tempt overbearing policemen to treat constructive contributions very non-constructively. So I don't know, maybe a technical fix like this could avoid any such friction, and reduce opportunities for would-be self-appointed policemen to reach for the foot-guns. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

a better place for this would be WP:VP Mgjertson (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Need Help With bettering my article

Draft:BHUNNA ; The sources I have for the individual primarily highlight their production credits and mentions in major articles as a producer. The individual is signed to Sony, with two Platinum plaques and two Gold plaques certified by the RIAA. However, I am uncertain about how to establish their credibility on Wikipedia effectively. I believe I need assistance from experienced users to guide me through properly formatting and strengthening my citations. RhythmWordsmith (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk bots

I figured this is probably the most fitting place to ask. As seen sometimes on Special:AbuseLog, there are a lot of burner accounts or IPs who go to random talk pages and start new sections with brief snippets of text. I know this is a known problem, but has anyone figured out what the deal is with these bots? I haven't seen one that posted anything obviously promotional. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 23:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

A first guess is, trying to "game the system" to rack up edits to get the account autoconfirmed. Since any admin can just revoke it if someone in fact does that, basically just wasting theirs and everyone else's time. Slowking Man (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

IPs cannot become autoconfirmed, so that can't explain all of those edits. -- asilvering (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

In the past I have blocked a lot of those IP's with bots behind them. A lot of them made no sense, but were probably making a first edit to see if what they entered stayed around. Some were blatant promotion, but others were search engine optimisation. Others were probably trying to enter into conversations with users. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Snare Drum (character)

Can I make a page about her? TackyWiki (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Do reliable sources describe or comment on her in depth? -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Change Name

Hello I wanted to know how we can change our account name. I want to change my account name. Sikh History78 (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You may do so via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Sikh History78 (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Map

How would I get a map into an article. The map is not in the commons so I was curious of Wikipedia's policy for taking maps from online. Vestrix (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is of strict observation of copyright. If it is very clear that a map is in the public domain (as this term is used legally, not conversationally), or the copyright holder expressly copylefts it according to a license acceptable to Wikimedia Commons, then you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons; otherwise, you cannot. Which map do you have in mind? -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This is the map I was hoping of adding. If there is any way to zoom in on Assel, which is a small town in the southeast, then that would be the part I need Vestrix (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You link to an image file. (You made a markup error, which I've corrected.) Unsurprisingly, this is uninformative about its copyright status. Where did you find the image file? If within a web page, then what's the URL of the web page? -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that you're approaching this the wrong way: one that, however well intended, is likely to end in frustration. I recommend a reading of Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Source materials (and perhaps other WikiProject Maps materials as well). -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok thank you Vestrix (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Please note you can use Wikipedia's in-built open street map if it is good enough, either in the map parameter of an infobox or using Template:Maplink. Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

PD .gif?

Hi. I'm trying to be more careful about the licenses of images I upload, so I thought I'd ask whether this satellite loop is in the public domain. — E_F⁵ 00:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

If it's produced by NOAA, it's public domain. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Until NOAA is defunded and all its buildings sold off (sigh). David notMD (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Notability and Independent Sources for Academic Journal Article

Hello,

I'm working on an article about Veterinary World, a peer-reviewed journal indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Central, EMBASE, CAS, and CABI. While the journal meets indexing criteria, I'm facing issues with establishing notability.

A bibliometric analysis of Veterinary World was removed due to concerns about a "close connection," but the authors of that study are not affiliated with the journal. Would a bibliometric study published in a university journal qualify as an independent source?

Additionally, Veterinary World is listed in the libraries of major universities such as the UAB, University of Washington and Cornell. Could this help establish notability?

I’d appreciate any guidance on whether these sources meet Wikipedia’s notability standards for academic journals.

Thanks in advance! Riyazsher (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You have already asked about this here [3] and received replies. Did you not like the answers? Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the previous responses, but I’m still trying to understand how Wikipedia applies the independent sources requirement for academic journals. I understand that WP:NJOURNALS is only an informal essay and not binding policy. However, I am focusing on WP:GNG for establishing notability. Veterinary World is indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed Central, and a bibliometric analysis has been published about it by independent researchers (unaffiliated with the journal). Additionally, it is listed in major university libraries like Cornell and the University of Washington. Given this, would it qualify under WP:GNG, as it has received significant independent coverage?

I’m trying to ensure I follow Wikipedia's guidelines correctly and would appreciate further clarification. Riyazsher (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on Notability Standards for Academic Journals

I am seeking clarification on how WP:GNG is applied to academic journals, specifically why Veterinary World was declined while many BMC journals remain despite having similar sourcing.

Currently, these BMC journals have articles on Wikipedia despite primarily citing internal sources, publisher pages, and indexing databases:

BMC Bioinformatics
BMC Biology
BMC Biomedical Engineering
BMC Cancer
BMC Endocrine Disorders
BMC Ecology and Evolution
BMC Genomics
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Medicine
BMC Microbiology
BMC Plant Biology
BMC Public Health
BMC Systems Biology
BMC Veterinary Research

Most of these articles do not have independent secondary sources (e.g., news coverage, critical reviews) and rely almost exclusively on Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and publisher websites.

If Veterinary World is being rejected under WP:GNG, then why are these BMC journals accepted under the same circumstances? Either:

All these articles fail WP:GNG and should be reevaluated for deletion, or
Veterinary World should be reconsidered as it meets the same standard of notability.

Additionally, an admin flagged Veterinary World for COI, but there is no connection between the article’s contributors and the journal’s editorial board. The content is neutral, factual, and based on publicly verifiable data. Can someone clarify why this tag was added?

If Veterinary World needs additional sources, could you specify what kind of coverage is required? Since academic journals are typically covered in indexing databases and bibliometric studies rather than general media, what standard is being applied here?

I appreciate guidance on resolving this inconsistency. Riyazsher (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Veterinary world. David notMD (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest you discuss this at the AFC Help Desk, instead of using multiple forums. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Several examples that you listed are poorly referenced Stubs, so the fact that those exist as articles doesn't help your position. And really, each article has to stand on its own merits. References 4-8 confirm VM is indexed, but are not ABOUT the journal in any length. David notMD (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@David notMD: Veterinary World is not just indexed; Are you suggesting that indexing in Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and presence in over 1,100 libraries—including Cornell and Universitat de Barcelona—is insufficient for notability? Many reputable journals, including those from Springer and BMC, don’t necessarily have news articles written about them, yet they are considered notable. If a bibliometric analysis conducted in a peer-reviewed journal (Reference 3) is not sufficient, what exact level of coverage is required? Please clarify the standard being applied here. Riyazsher (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The notability requirement is WP:GNG, as you know. If you read that advice, you'll see that the sources have to be all three of reliable, independent and with significant coverage. Listing in databases is not significant coverage. Further, we usually expect to see three sources all meeting these key requirements to ensure an article won't just be deleted when properly scrutinised. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Working with drafts

Need help in publishing a draft as 'final' Km4water (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Km4water: Normally, you can click the "submit your draft for review" button and the people at WP:AfC will review it. Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 19:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks! Km4water (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

Hey, I was wondering if I could start a new wikiproject dedicated to improving stubs and not sorting them. How would I do it and how I would get interest in it? Vestrix (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You mean like with WP:AFI? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah but like just for stubs, no C or start classes Vestrix (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub improvement, Wikipedia:The 50,000 Destubbing Challenge, and their talk pages may interest you. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Npov

In 2015, Benjamin Netanyahu met Ayman Odeh. After the meeting, Odeh said: "I came with a great responsibility, as someone who represented the large minority in the country, a minority which, as a part of a despicable election tactic, the Prime Minister chose to incite against it and against its very citizenship."
Is it possible to remove the "despicable" word from the Odeh's quote? _Dgw|Talk 20:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Removing the word from the quote would be changing the quote, which I don't think should be done. Per WP:IMPARTIAL on WP:NPOV you could remove the quote entirely and and instead choose to summarize the remarks instead, although without context of the meeting I am unsure if it was a "heated dispute." Could you maybe link the article this quote appears in so I could take a look? -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Emily, it was my editing. _Dgw|Talk 21:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I am going to be bold and add the full quote. Respectfully, your revision was pretty much pasting the quote and removing both the first-person pronoun and the word "despicable." I think the word is valuable here in presenting Odeh's opinion of Netanyahu. I understand you have bias being a native Israeli, but it's important not to hide certain things and present people's opinions, when appropriate, in the article. In this case, Odeh's comment adds onto the information presented about the meeting. Thank you for posting here. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Userboxes

Is there one list of all Userboxes anywhere? SophiesSketchbook89 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Moxy🍁 22:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Larry_Sanger?

Can someone tell me how this is possible?, I mean how is he able to remain anonymous and have no ip address or edit history? Codonified (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Codonified. The edit is from 15 September 2001. Our current software MediaWiki was released 25 January 2002. Earlier edits from other software were imported, sometimes incompletely, or were lost, sometimes rediscovered later. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you sir for solving this mystery for me, I am grateful for this Codonified (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here. Larry Sanger's edit history is visible just like any other registered editor. [4] Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

No not that one, I am talking about this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berry_Berenson&diff=prev&oldid=239250

The person here is anonymous yet you won't be able to access his user contribution or talk page or anything for that matter Codonified (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia originally used UseModWiki until 2002. UseMod is extremely bare-bones, designed for small websites. It doesn't have "real" user accounts or use a true database system; it just stores everything in flat files. The software has no "real" concept of "users" or "user X made this edit": the only thing it records for an edit is the time and an optional "username" which is just whatever string the client sent along with the edit. (If none is provided, UseMod asks the Web server for a hostname from reverse DNS lookup on the client's IP address and stores that instead. Hence edits from names like office.bomis.com.) It does have accounts of a sort, but all those do is store some user preferences, including that username value to use in edits.

Consequently there is no way to block individual editors via the UseMod software; the only "editing restriction" it supports is flipping a switch to require inputting an "edit password" to edit. (How did you obtain that password? You e-mailed someone and asked to be sent it. This is also how you obtained the administrator password to give you access to administrator abilities.)

As stated by others, those 2001-era edits are all imported from UseMod, and hence there isn't any "user account" data from UseMod to associate with the edits (more specifically a user id value corresponding to an entry in the user table in the SQL database backend that MediaWiki stores its data in, which is how MediaWiki identifies you). Someone could if they really wanted to spend the time, go through each of these imported edits attempting to associate it with a MediaWiki user account, and directly modify the database by hand to do so, but there doesn't appear to be a huge demand for this.

To take a look at what Wikipedia looked like circa 2001, check out Nostalgia Wikipedia. --Slowking Man (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up to Feedback on my draft from experience editors.

== Response to Feedback == Thank you for your feedback, ColinFine. I appreciate your concerns regarding the independence and significance of the sources in the article. To address these issues, I have gathered additional independent sources that I believe clearly establish Erik Sigerud’s notability: Institutional and critical coverage: Statens Konstråd lists Sigerud’s work in its public collection, demonstrating institutional recognition. Falukuriren, a regional newspaper, has covered his exhibitions and artistic approach. Independent art reviews and profiles: Omkonst provides an independent review that discusses his perspective and technique in depth. On Art and Aesthetics offers an interview that provides insights into his thematic concerns. Additional independent coverage: Coverage on platforms such as Articulaction, Galleribox, Galleri Gotland, and Fria.nu further underlines his standing in the contemporary art scene. Together, these sources provide significant independent coverage of Sigerud’s career—well beyond self-published material or statements from associates—and support his inclusion according to Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for artists. I am happy to work on integrating these references into the article and welcome any further suggestions. Thank you for your consideration. Artkritik (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not in a good position to help, as I can't read Swedish. But what's needed is reliable indepenedent published sources with extensive discussion of the subject. A listing doesn't count, as it lacks discussion. An interview doesn't count, as it's not independent. Maproom (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This is about User:Artkritik/sandbox. None of its "Selected exhibitions" is referenced. None of its "Awards and recognition" is referenced. Inclusion in "public collections such as Uppsala Art Museum and the Swedish Public Art Agency (Statens Konstråd)" is referenced to the extent of one work at Statens Konstråd or so it appears (but I confess to an ignorance of Swedish, so I may misunderstand). I see no reference for Uppsala Art Museum or other museums. WP:NARTIST, which is what ColinFine asked you about, has various criteria for notability. Which criterion (or criteria) does Sigerud clearly satisfy? -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Article for resubmission

How to resubmit an article if it was rejected earlier.

I have made article about list of former chief justices of high courts but the draft earlier submitted was rejected as it was partially completed but after days of hardwork i have almost completed the list but doesnt know how to resubmit it can any one help about this Aruunn (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Aruunn with source editor, add the following code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page to resubmit. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou Aruunn (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

How to Notify

If I nominate someone's article for deletion, how do I notify them? Which template I should use? SouthAsia78 (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@SouthAsia78 you would use Template:Afd notice. Consider using Wikipedia:Twinkle, which allows you to request a speedy deletion and notify the page creator all in one! Yeshivish613 (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @SouthAsia78. You may also notify users with a simple custom message. As far as I'm aware, using templates aren't required. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Refining a search for links to a page

I'm wanting to search through what links to Gloria Hemingway in order to make sure links to her comply with MOS:GENDERID, however it seems that she's included in Template:Ernest Hemingway, and any instance of that template gets listed in Special:WhatLinksHere/Gloria_Hemingway. Is there a way for me to do a search for links to Hemingway outside of the Ernest Hemingway template, or do I need to sift through all 200+ links manually? Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 19:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer Is this [5] what you want? I have have a gadget installed for that, User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you so much! <3 Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 19:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation

is it okay to have a link to a disambig page in a navbox? asking bc currently Marriage in Bangladesh redirects to a disambig page which is. completely messing up the Template:asia topic when its used just with the parameter 'Marriage in' and while im aware of WP:INTDAB, the only way i can think of to fix it would be to make one of the links on the disambig page the main topic, the links on that page are. uh. Bengali Hindu wedding and Bengali Muslim wedding and uh. i don't. want to touch that. Froglegseternal (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Froglegseternal Usually linking to a disambig page in a navbox is frowned upon but given there are two possible topics it could refer to I think it's acceptable in this case. Ultraodan (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

How do I use Sfn?

Hi!

I've noticed that some Wikipedia articles have "Sfn" citations. Can anyone tell me how to use them in the visual editor (by the way, I skimmed Help:Shortened footnotes, but sadly I got a little lost there)? Moonshane1933 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I would never use that reference formatting, and would recommend sticking to the cite templates as used in the visual editor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Moonshane1933 "sfn" citations have some inherent complexity because they create a short citation (usually with a page number) that is linked to a full citation (with all the info you would need to locate the cited source) somewhere on the same page. Because of the way the software works neither the full citation nor the short citation can interact with the other one. Thus if there is any kind of typo in either one, the link breaks. The main benefit of using short citations is citing many parts of the same source. If you are citing shorter sources (journals, web pages, magazines, newspapers, etc.) or only citing a page or a few pages from longer sources, there isn't really a benefit to using shortened footnotes. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

song sample durations

is there a limit to how long a sample of a non free (copyright) song can be? I want to upload one around 33 seconds long because thats what fits well YisroelB501 (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no hard numerical limit, rather the controlling policy for length of non-free sound samples is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy point 3b which states:

Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low-resolution, rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples#Guidelines states :

Copyrighted, unlicensed music samples must be short in comparison to the original song. As a rule of thumb, samples should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter.

If you want to use one that is longer than 30 seconds you can, but you need to explain why a shorter clip cannot fulfil the same encyclopaedic purpose as there is a very strong presumption that longer than 30 seconds is not required. "It fits well" is not a sufficient reason. A sample that is longer than 10% of the song's length will be appropriate only extremely rarely.

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is the best place to get advice about non-free content, but if you want specific answers it is best to include specific details about the media you want to use (which specific song, which specific 33 seconds) and where you want to use it (which section of which article). Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

would you say "a good reason" is because it is the length of the entire chorus which is the main part of the song and what its mostly known for? YisroelB501 (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Possibly, but without the context of the article or song I can't say for certain. Do you need the whole chorus rather than a part of it? Is there something text cannot adequately convey? Thryduulf (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

the song is It's My Life by Bon Jovi and the chorus is 33-35 seconds (depending on where you end it). and I consider this the only part of the song people know and remember, its the only part of the song you would hear in a youtube or ticktok video. so I am wondering if this is a valid reason or not. if not ill trim it shorter so not the entire chorus is in the sample. but it would be better in my opinion if its longer YisroelB501 (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The chorus is not mentioned at all in the article prose, so it is very unlikely that a sample of it will meet the non-free content criteria (NFCC) (specifically point 8), and certainly not the whole thing. Reading the prose that is there, the only non-free audio sample that might be appropriate would be of the use of the talk box, but even that would be a stretch. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

so your saying if I put it in a talk box and possibly add sources from a reliable website then I can do it? if possible can you (or any other users) confirm this? is a talk box that box of text under the audio file?

also thank u so much User:Thryduulf u have been very helpful!YisroelB501 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The talk box I was referring to is the talk box effects unit mentioned in the first paragraph at It's My Life#Background (I can't think of a Wikipedia feature referred to as a "talk box"). I was saying that an audio sample of that is the only non-free audio sample that might meet the non-free content criteria for the article as it currently stands. The barrier to including non-free content is intentionally very high. If you want to include a sample of the chorus you would need to add a substantial (ideally at least a paragraph) of in-depth reliably sourced content discussing the chorus specifically. It would need to be substantially about some aspect of the chorus that the audio sample would significantly aid the understanding of in a way that text alone cannot (e.g. the lyrics alone are unlikely to meet this requirement).

I'll leave a note about this discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions (which is where the folks who are most familiar with this sort of question generally hang out). Hopefully one or more people with more experience in these matters than me will be along shortly to explain things better than I've managed. Thryduulf (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Worst edit summaries

Hello. So last December, I got into a conflict with another Wikipedian, especially with my extreme eagerness in the edit summaries for my December 12 edits on Apple Intelligence. I really don't want to see these edit summaries anymore because they're getting stuck in my head. Can administrators please use RevisionDelete hide these two edits on that article? That was one of the most unfair moments in my Wikipedia career, and when I realize my edit gets reverted, I change back my mind. Sparkbean (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Sparkbean, there is nothing in those edit summaries that justifies revision deletion. Per Wikipedia:Revision deletion, that tool is limited to grossly improper content. Cullen328 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

These two edit summaries were my most eager but most unfair ones I’ve ever written, making the editor pissed off. I also should remember to be safe when writing my edit summaries. Sparkbean (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Sparkbean, that was nearly three months ago. Time to move on. Cullen328 (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Parsoid error

I've been trying to edit my sandbox page in the visual editor, but when I click 'submit' it returns 'parsoid error'. Please could someone tell me what to do with this. I looked it up and none of the questions posted about this address my issue Krimzonmania7078 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,m @Krimzonmania7078. I'm not entirely sure what that is, but what I do know is that it is a technical problem deep down in the inner workings of the Mediawiki software, and nothing to do with the content of your page, oor the edits you've made. Having said that, one of the things that sometimes gives that sort of technical error is if an edit window has been open for a long time: might that be the case? So what I would suggest is to take a copy of the current version of your edit (I think you'll need to switch to source editing first, if you use the visual editor), cancel your edit, and then start it again, and paste your saved version in.

If that doesn't help, you'll need to ask at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ColinFine, thanks for replying. Unfortunately, it doesn't let me switch to the source editor (it comes up with the same parsoid error again). I've tried this on multiple devices so I'm sure it's not due to the window being open for a long time. I'll ask at the page you've mentioned. Thanks again for your help Krimzonmania7078 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Krimzonmania7078, I just performed a test edit on your sandbox and it worked fine for me. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 22:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Which tends to confirm the suggestion that its to do with @Krimzonmania7078's edit session, and not the content. ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ColinFine @JuxtaposedJacob. If it helps, I'll explain what I'm trying to do in my edit session. I'm working on a new article and decided to copy and paste another article into my sandbox to use as a 'template' of sorts (which ended up being a pointless exercise because I've basically written this article from scratch anyway). I think the issue might stem from that decision somehow. The reason why I'd like to get this fixed is that now I've been editing the article in my sandbox for a while and basically have no way to save my progress. I've also sent something on the village pump, so hopefully that might help, but this may shed some light on the issue Krimzonmania7078 (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I've actually found a workaround which is good enough (copy-pasted the article into another session of the sandbox with the first sentence missing) - that seems to have fixed it. Probably something right at the top of the article I was trying to use as a 'template' which I mindlessly copied was causing it. I'll be more careful in future. Thanks for your help, it's genuinely very appreciated. Krimzonmania7078 (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how article content/templates/etc. would do that, but I had never heard of a parsoid error before this. And yes, the copy-paste trick is a great workaround that I've used myself a couple of times. Be aware that you can also make additional subpages of your userpage and are not limited to single sandbox. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 02:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad you found a solution. Visual Editor says "A necessary component is a parser server called Parsoid which was created to convert in both directions between wikitext and a format suitable for VisualEditor", so it is conceivable (though I still think unlikely) that it was something in your text that elicited whatever bug it was. ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Krimzonmania7078, if this happens again, please report it at WP:VPT. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

How would you delete a userscript file?

While trying to put a speedy deletion request on my userscript file, I found out that only the text for the {db-u1} would appear, not the actual template. If anyone knows how to fix this, please let me know, thanks! ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken: While it might not expand the template, including {{db-u1}} on a user JS page will still add it to the appropriate categories, so that is all you need to do. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware of that, thanks for answering! ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Citation question

I've edited Moldovans with the convert citation feature in VisualEditor here. However, the title part of the new citation says, "Wayback Machine", because the link is a deadlink and points to the Wayback Machine. Should the title not be "Wayback Machine"? It seems wrong. Justjourney (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

No, the title should be the actual title of the source. Wayback machine is just an archive, a repository of sources, so just like you wouldn't use the name of your local library as the source title if you cited a book you'd borrowed from there, you shouldn't use put the name of the archive in the title! --bonadea contributions talk 06:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Did I fix it (here)? Justjourney (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney: Yes. You did. Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 17:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Notability of Politicians in India

As per guidelines we need significant coverage of a subject in reliable independent sources to claim notability. Does this significant coverage is also necessary in case of Politicians of India (mostly MLAs) because there are many MLAs which do not have significant coverage in Independent reliable sources but they still have pages on Wikipedia only because they are MLA. does being elected to the any state Legislative Assembly make them inherently notable without any significant coverage in media or only their electoral result article are enough to make them notable. Thanks TheSlumPanda (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@TheSlumPanda. Welcome to the Teahouse. No. As with all people, there must be significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article. See WP:POLITICIAN. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@TheSlumPanda: To help clarify what Shantavira says, aside from there still needing to be sources to actually base an article off of, articles on living politicians generally require at least one source for every single claim the article makes, with each source explicitly corroborating the claim it's being used to cite. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano I understand that for every claim in article we require source but my question is if there are no significant coverage about an elected politician (except the election results mention in news), will the politician be notable or not ? Thanks TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

TheSlumPanda, it is always useful to take a look at the exact language in a guideline, which is WP:NPOLITICIAN in this case. It says The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Emphasis added. In order to rebut that presumption of notability in my view, an editor would need to be fluent in the local language and thoroughly familiar with the local newspapers and magazines, offline as well as online, and prepared to explain in detail why this particular politician has managed to escape coverage by reliable sources. That's a big hill to climb, and I think that maintaining a brief stub is almost always the best outcome in such cases. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Election Articles

I was wondering what I would include in an article about a French Senate Election. Could someone tell me what I should include? Vestrix (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I suppose you could list the existing senators that are not recontesting. Any notable new candidates should be included. Any changes to the election process, incl number of electors should be documented. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Vestrix, you should summarize the significant coverage that the range of reliable, independent sources have devoted to the topic. If they repeatedly focus on some aspect of the election, then include that. If they do not bother to mention another aspect of the election, then neither should you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you to both of you! Vestrix (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

How to propose a new Wikipedia policy?

I want to propose a new policy. Where is the right place. Mast303 (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Mast303. WP:VPPR sounds like the place you're looking for, though I really recommend going to WP:VPI first to see how people think of your ideas first before you propose them. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you also take a look at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals since many ideas have been discussed before. Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Mast303. Could I ask what the new policy is meant to do? Making a new policy page is pretty uncommon, but there may be a better way to achieve whatever the end goal is, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Mast303, before you propose a new policy, have you noticed that the page where new policies are proposed has 217 archive pages? It's not unlikely that whatever new proposal you have in mind, may have already been thought about and proposed before. You would be well-advised to search the archives, to see what the rea○tions were, to previous proposals similar to yours. You can search for them in the search box at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Where to find a reviewer for good article nomination?

Hello! Recently, I have nominated classical theism article for good article review. The article itself is extremely polished. I am confident that it would pass the review without many hurdles.

However, I am unable to find anyone willing to make a review. What can I do in this situation? Brent Silby (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Usually you just wait for someone to pick it up, which can take some time (1+ months). You can also ask around at the Theology WikiProoject. :) — E_F⁵ 19:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@EF5 thanks for the advise! Unfortunately, the WikiProject that you've linked appears to be defunct. Brent Silby (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Brent Silby Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion or philosophy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Brent Silby, I read on the article's talk page: "Classical theism is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee. Nominated by Brent Silby (talk) at 18:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)". That's barely over a week ago. Why the rush? Meanwhile, you have work to do. For example, there are two references to one book by Anthony Kenny of over a hundred pages, yet you don't refer the reader to any pages within it. Yet none of the Good article criteria seems to mandate the provision of page numbers; and these criteria "are the only aspects that should be considered when assessing whether to pass or fail a GAN", so the article might get away with non-provision. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

May it not happen to your nomination. but there are >600 nominations waiting for reviewers, some as old as six months (sad). David notMD (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Amendments to Max Verstappen page

I have made several amendments to the Max Verstappen page. Every single one was reverted. Some changes only added clarity as the existing source was misquoted, others breaking up confusing sentences that were badly constructed (covering too many topics at one time), one tidying up a confusing timeline (the events interjecting the sentence did not happen 'after' the main point as projected in the poorly worded sentence). One change only added a year into a sentence to aid the clarity of determining which season the sentence was referring to as the section covered multiple years. All good editing practice. Who is protecting the Max Verstappen entry with such vigour? We owe it to the readers to make the content as clear as possible and to accurately reflect the source reference material. Also every entry I made that quoted 'controversial' elements was removed. It feels like the Max Verstappen page is not projecting a balanced perspective of his reported biography. The sources I'm using are reputable, including BBC and Formula 1 websites. Wikipedia is not here to present a one-sided perspective of history. F1WDC2021 (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@F1WDC2021: Did you maybe try bringing this up at Talk:Max Verstappen? This is a content dispute, and the first port-of-call should be the talk page of the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @F1WDC2021, and welcome to the Teahouse. It can be frustrating to have your edits undone; but remember that Wikipedia works on consensus, not on appeal to some authority. If another editor disagrees with you, the first step is to discuss it with that editor, usually on the talk page of the relevant article. If you are unable to reach agreement, then DR tells you how to proceed. Please see WP:BRD as well. ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The editor who has reverted your changes has started a discussion on the article's Talk page. Seek consensus there. Your edits and the reverts are shown on the article's page by using View history. David notMD (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

entering original date

In Robert Todd Lincoln, under "Print sources," I added the original date of Lord Charnwood's book, but I don't know how to do it correctly in the template. Would someone please fix it, and I'll see how it's done. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Maurice Magnus. I've corrected it. The point is that Template:cite book has a parameter called orig-date separate from date. I didn't know this for sure until I went and looked at the template documentation, though I strongly suspected it. ColinFine (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

My unassessed article and a distruptive IP

So, India-Bangladesh film awards is a new article created by me. It's been up for over a day now and while it has been reviewed, no content assessment and grouping into wikiprojects yet for some reason. Also, the page has a Bengali equivalent but it says it's not available in other languages yet. Can someone do these? If so, thanks a lot!

Now can someone just... block this IP address? (@66.59.52.106). Take one look at it's contributions and it becomes clear it's just here to vandalize. They have been given many warnings by many people including me but never listens. I found a total of 4 actually good edits by this IP, even then, 2 of those are unverifiable. So I see no reason to not block this IP sometime in the future. Thanks. Yelps (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Yelps: I've done the rating / WikiProjects. This is something you can also do yourself.

If you let me know the bn.wiki article, I'll link it for you (again, you can do this yourself also, from the 'Tools' menu).

I don't see, based on a cursory glance at least, sufficient level of vandalism from that IP which would justify blocking it. In the future, you can report suspected vandals to WP:AIV. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

okay, the bn. Wiki article is ভারত বাংলাদেশ চলচ্চিত্র পুরস্কার. And since you mentioned I can do the rating and linking to other languages for myself, how exactly do I do them for Future articles I create? And I guess you're right the IP doesn't have enough vandalism to warrant a block, but it might be time in the near future. Again, thanks for the help. I really appreciate it. Yelps (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This may depend on how you access Wikipedia, which skin you're using, what extra tools you have installed, etc., but the way I do the linking to other language versions and rating is from the 'Tools' menu, 'Edit interlanguage links' and 'Rater', respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The easiest way to rate articles and add WikiProjects is to install the WP:RATER tool. Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Just making sure

If I make a minor formatting fix for the RFD (after leaving my comment), like adding a bullet point here, are these kinds of edits allowed? I've read at WP:TALK#REVISE, that this is allowed. Does it still apply to RFD? Justjourney (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Editing your own comment is normally fine. But if some one response to your comment, and then you want to change your mind, it would be best to strike out your comment and add your new one. Minor formatting of other entries to tidy it up, should be OK. But fixing spelling or punctuation errors in others comment would be going too far. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Help

Any way to override this?

Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 04:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

If there is, then I hope that it's not advertised, as I'm sure it would greatly appeal to trolls and other attention-seekers (as well, of course, as to level-headed people). -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

As a technical answer, the way to bypass it would only be to either be an account creator/event coordinator, a bot, or an admin. Most trolls aren't getting anywhere near those rights (ACC is behind an NDA, adminship is behind RFA, and event coordinator is a strongly real-world permission, which is a length I imagine the vast majority of trolls aren't willing to go to. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I see Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

untaged my article

i am a new user at Wikipedia please help me to release my article which is BacanaPlay online i want to maintain and again and take care of Wikipedia's guidelines accordingly Minhas05 (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Your draft was in Portugese, you need to post it to the Portugese Wikipedia. It was also improperly placed; if you want to write your draft in English, you should use the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

it was mistakenly published i really appologies about that so give chance to me rewrite and posted in correct language and also i will be take care about the guide lines and source Minhas05 (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand, you may go to the Portugese Wikipedia and work with the editors there to help you write it. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

two questions, one about Talk page WikiProject banner ratings and one about WP:RM

Question 1: I wanted to solicit input re: a question I'd asked on this talk page several days ago, and I checked to see if there were any WikiProject banners at the top. There weren't, so I went in search of a Project that seemed appropriate and left a message. But now I figure that I should also add a couple of relevant WikiProjects to that talk page. The Teahouse archive indicates that I can make my best guess about which projects to tag. My question: on some talk pages with WikiProject banners, there's also an importance rating. Do I just leave that to a participant in that WikiProject to assess if they want?

Question 2: A few days ago, I moved a page that had an open WP:RM on it, not realizing that that's contrary to policy. (It seemed to me that there was consensus and a couple of weeks had passed since it was opened, and I didn't know that I needed to wait for an uninvolved editor to close it.) Now that I realize that I shouldn't have moved the article, what should I do? Revert the move? Or leave it be, since the new title seems OK with everyone? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

For 1, I would just add importance=low, and let others boost the importance if they think the article is actually more significant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

For 2, if you noticed straight away then you should revert your move. But since it has been done and you noted it on that talk page, and there are no objections, you may as well let it stay moved. Moving two more times would be slightly disruptive to those that edit or watch the page. So it's best to minimise moves. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, given that most (but not all) WikiProjects are moribund, I would have no hesitation assigning an importance rating in such a case. I have been working on Joe's Stone Crab lately, which happens to be the most lucrative single location restaurant in the United States, with annual sales in 2024 of almost $50 million. I had no reluctance to rate it as "High-importance". Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, Cullen328, thank you for your responses. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Supplementing citations for notability

Hi Wikipedians!

I saw that a notable brook in my province (Catamaran Brook) was missing a Wikipedia page, so I created a stub. Unfortunately it was deemed to have too few sources for its notability to be established. The brook is notable because it has been, disproportionate to its size and significance, the subject of hundreds of studies, which in turn have been cited in thousands of ecology research articles.. but how does one go about citing that? Is it as simple as citing Google Scholar's search engine? Or do I need to comb through articles in the hopes that one mentions it? Or is the fact that this brook is heavily researched a minor thing in the end, and the article should be given up on?

Thanks!

–Elms StatelyElms (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @StatelyElms, and welcome to the Teahouse. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have said about a subject, and very little else. If it has been the subject of hundreds of studies, then I would have thought that some of them would meet WP:42, and establish that it is notable in Wikipedia's sense. But the study you currently cite does not contain significant coverage of the brook, merely mentions it as the site of the study - in our sense, it is not at all the subject of the study. If all the hundreds of studies you mention are passing mentions like that, rather than about the brook, then I fear it may not be notable in Wikipedia's sense. Are there perhaps some which are about the ecology of the stream as a whole? ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I am also a newbie, but after a quick google there seems to a lot of research into it specifically, like this paper looking into its biological, physical and chemical conditions [6] including a multi-disciplinary study with over 100 papers beginning in 1989 and still continuing: [7] Surely these would make it count as notable if referenced properly? Suppposedly (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Redirect page

hi,

What dose it means this page is Redirect? I'm Drafting this article Draft:Ashfika Rahman for a long time. I've submitted for review on 26th Feb 2025. its showing 'Review waiting' since then.

this is my first article so don't understand, how long it usually take to review draft? and is there any problem with the noticed Redirect page? or it is ok for the article category.

thanks in advance.

Soumitra Photographersoumitra (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Your draft was declined today. Please see the advice left by reviewers. That was by chance, there is no specific time frame for this all volunteer process. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Photographersoumitra You will have seen a message at the top of the draft while it was in the review pile "This may take three months or more." qcne (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Adding a Public Instagram Facebook Picture to Wikipedia

I hope you're all doing well.

I would like to understand the process of adding a picture to Wikipedia when that picture is publicly available on Instagram or Facebook.

The copyright situation in this case is not entirely clear to me, and I want to ensure that I follow Wikipedia’s guidelines correctly.

Could you clarify whether such images can be uploaded and used on Wikipedia? If so, what steps should I take to ensure compliance with copyright policies?

I appreciate your time and guidance on this matter. Kadri marzouki (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kadri marzouki: The first thing you need to do is verify the image's copyright status. Unless it is explicitly in the public domain (i.e., not under copyright) or under certain Creative Commons licences (CC-0, -By, -By-SA) we can't use it freely (or at all, if it is a picture of a still-living person). See WP:NFCC for some more details. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

To reinforce what Jeske correctly says: "in the public domain" has a very specific meaning when it comes to copyright: it does not just mean "publicly available." Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Kadri marzouki, any photograph posted to Instagram or Facebook (or anywhere else on the internet) is copyright protected unless there is rock solid written proof to the contrary. No exceptions. Cullen328 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks guys! (@Jéské Couriano @Writ Keeper)

@Cullen328

Now that the situation is clear, thank you.

In this case, the person in question has passed away.

Are there any steps I can take to use the picture on his Wikipedia page? Kadri marzouki (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Helo, @Kadri marzouki. In certain circumstances it is possible to use non-free images in articles. I presume that you are talking about Tim Kruger (I wish editors asking questions would not try to conceal what they are working on and what they have already tried: it doesn't work, and it just gets repliers irritated that they have had to play detective).

In order to use non-free materials, you need to be sure - and explain - that the use meets every one of the criteria in the non-free content criteria. No 1, "no free equivalent" is the reason that non-free images of living people are almost never acceptable. As Kruger has died, it is possible that you can justify that point - you would need to make a reasonable attempt to find a free image first.

To use Kruger's picture, you would need to justify the claim that "no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose", as well as the other 9 conditions. If you believe you can do so, then you may upload the picture as "non-free" - to Wikipedia, not to Commons, providing the full justification. ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, and I hope I’m not being too persistent on this particular subject.

I am referring to Tim Kruger’s profile picture that he posted before his death, and nothing else at this moment.

I understand that there is an option to add the photo by providing the necessary information.

As a final question, could we check if the uploaded picture meets the required criteria?

I have attached the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TimKrugers_selfie_on_Instagram_February_13_2025.jpg#filelinks

Thank you a lot for your hard work! Kadri marzouki (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Kadri marzouki, the use rationale looks fine. A minor problem is the presence of the same image on Commons, but it should be deleted there soon. If you are sure that no freely licensed image exists, it should be OK. On another minor note, I recommend cropping the image to minimize the distracting "selfie shoulder". Cullen328 (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328, this is much better. Many thanks!

There is no freely licensed image of Tim Kruger available.

The same image I uploaded to Commons will be taken down soon, as you mentioned, but if there's anything I can do to speed up the removal, please refer me to the relevant article or instructions.

Now, a notice has been attached to that selfie indicating that it must be resized, which is a simple task, and I want to do it.

But my question is: should I reupload the resized version of the same selfie as a "non-free file", as I did with the previous one? Or is there a way to edit it directly?

Kadri marzouki (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Kadri marzouki, you can comment in the Commons deletion discussion as the uploader, explaining that you made a newcomer mistake, and that you support deletion from Commons. The current file page here on Wikipedia has three resolutions. You can download the lowest 201X240 resolution version to an image editor, crop it, and upload it as a new version. There is an option to do that in the "File history" section where it says "Upload a new version of this file". Cullen328 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328

Done!

Again, thank you for being extremely helpful, direct, and focused.

Your clear guidance and support are truly appreciated.

Kadri marzouki (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Kadri marzouki, well done. Keep up the good work. Cullen328 (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

New Articles

How do you feel about a article concerning Mary Lou Donuts? Dragon Klaw (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dragon Klaw I think it's probably too soon to have an article on that business; looking solely for "Mary Lou Donuts" on the news section of Google shows a page of results, most of which seems to be local news. Don't get me wrong, the news that is there is promising, I just have doubts that it'd pass review. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Dragon Klaw (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Merging

The discussion about this had already started on JeffFisher102's talk page and it has already moved to WP:AN and closed there. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I have some questions about merging. Is it a requirement to open a discussion before you merge two pages?

And if there was a discussion a while ago where people concluded to not do anything, would you still have to open a new discussion?

Thanks for any help. JeffFisher102 (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You did not perform a merge. You did a cut and paste move. This has been explained to you multiple times. A merge is when you take two articles and merge them into one. Not when you move the contents of an article to what was once a redirect. DrKay (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves: "The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if ... there has been any past debate about the best title for the page". As can be seen at the article talk page there was past debate about the article title; it therefore should only be moved after a new discussion. Per Wikipedia:Moving a page#Before moving a page, "Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content." DrKay (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to nominate an article/event for "in the news"

I've wanted to nominate the March 2025 Western Syria clashes and/or the 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites for the "in the news" infobox at the front page, but I don't know how and I can't seem to figure it out. Could someone please help me out? Thanks! LordOfWalruses (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

You need to go to the Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates page and follow the instructions in the section titled Nomination steps. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello LordOfWalruses, HiLo48 is right. Also, if you still have confusion about the process, you can ask at Wikipedia talk:In the news. The editors most active on that aspect of the project are most likely to see your question on that page. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Image licence help

i uploaded rendered images of a mobile phone device- but the bot flags it as copyright protected material. what do I do? AdiDusi (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

AdiDusi, I imagine that you're asking about this file. BlueTurtles believes that it violates the copyright of the copyright owner. You have declared that you are the copyright owner. Are you really the copyright owner? (Is this a composite of photographs that you took of the phone?) -- Hoary (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

its a 3d render representation that looks exactly like the image they used for their promotional material. AdiDusi (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

First Page Creation Declined

Hello All! the first page i have created and i am struggling as i tried to cite the articles avaliable about a artist/composer. I will shorten it and add it here, would love feedback before resubmitting.

Best Regards looking forward to this learning experience.

Jas JBG551 (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

JBG551, in just the first two lines of Draft:Ustad Lachhman Singh, I read "renowned", "eminent", "honoured", "excellence". Please don't try to impress. Instead, try to inform. -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

ok thank you let me change wording asap JBG551 (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @JBG551, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Referencing Wikipedia as a source

I am working on edits that have some of the information about them in another wikipedia page, which itself is comprised of multiple sources. Is it OK to reference another wikipedia page instead of rewriting all the source links I need from the referenced page? Sablc4747 (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Sablc4747, in brief: no, never; per WP:WINARS. You must always use a reliable source, and as Wikipedia is self-published, it is by definition not a reliable source. Mathglot (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Although Wikipedia pages do include credible links. So I was thinking that if an entry has several reliable links detailing something, it would be easier to reference the page than to copy paste the several relevant references from the other pages.

But I hear you. Point taken, Thanks :-). Sablc4747 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

it would be easier to reference the page than to copy paste the several relevant references from the other pages
There's no guarantee that those links will stay on the page forever. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

what i've always done is look for a sentence/section relevant to what im covering, and look at the cited article/paper/etc. for it, and go from there ogusokumushi^{( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ )} 17:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

A question about translation & notability

Hello! I am new here, and found two articles via Women in Red about linguists who are members of Academia Europea in German which I thought I could translate. However, I'm not sure as to if there is a correct procedure: I have done one of them and the translation on its own got declined because of notoriety. I added a lot more citations and everything is fine (I think) with that one, but I'm wondering how to approach the second, which will also (I think) get hit with NPROF/lack of citations. The translation badge says version x is a translation from the German, so presumably it's not okay to add my edits, citations etc on that version? Should I do a strict translation, publish that with the translation badge, and then add the citations & edits after it gets declined/while it gets reviewed? The Translation: help page just says the additional citations need to be added, if I'm understanding it correctly. Or is it okay to mark something as a translation when I've edited it heavily? Or is there a third option I'm missing entirely? Suppposedly (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Suppposedly and thanks for your contributions. The talk page banner is there to provide attribution to the original article, however it should not limit you to including only what is written in the original German article! Feel free to expand and add more citations as you wish.

When you translate an article from another language, it does not guarantee that the article will also be notable under the English Wikipedia's policies. Therefore it is always a good idea to look up more references in English and add them. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thank you very much! Suppposedly (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Suppposedly, the English language version of Wikipedia tends to be stricter about notability and verifiability than other language versions. Adding more high quality references to a translation is almost always a good thing. English language references are preferred if available, but references to German or other language sources are fine as long as they are reliable and relevant. Cullen328 (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense! Thank you - this professor is a German philologist and so I don't expect her to have much in English Suppposedly (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Suppposedly, if you use the translation tool (WP:CXT), it will automatically add the attribution in the first edit summary, so you don't have to worry about it. What I tend to do is translate the base version (maybe omitting a chunk or two if it's unsourced) using the translation tool, and publish that to my userspace. Then I fix it up, rewrite things as I please, add more info from other sources, etc. Then move to mainspace.

When you're translating from German, make sure you can actually verify the text with the references that exist. A lot of German Wikipedia articles have a list of general references at the end but no footnotes. This drives people on English Wikipedia crazy. -- asilvering (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you - that's a great idea! Unfortunately it looks like I can't use the tool yet, but I'll definitely copy the rest of your method. And I definitely will, good to know! Interesting that the standards are so different between DE and EN! Suppposedly (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

You can. That's a white lie that exists for political reasons that are before my time. So long as you set the tool to publish to your userspace, not to mainspace directly, you can use it as normal. -- asilvering (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Ahhh that's very helpful, I wish I'd known about that before that tool before! Thank you very much! Suppposedly (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Suppposedly, I remember that I enjoyed reading Ewa Dąbrowska's Language, Mind and Brain, though it was several years ago and I've now quite forgotten the nature of the enjoyment. Not that my opinion is of any importance. What do matter are the opinions of other linguists on her work. These linguists should be unrelated to her (e.g. not in her department in the U of Birmingham, not her coauthors), and the opinions should be published in reputable journals or books (not mere blurbs or blogs). I don't mean to slight Dąbrowska in any way when I say that, in its current state, the article on her seems short of material about her and her work that's clearly reliable and independent of her. You seem now to be working on at least one draft; I suggest putting the draft aside for a short period while you add content to the article Ewa Dąbrowska. -- Hoary (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC) Sorry: for "that's clearly reliable and independent of her", please read "from sources that are clearly reliable and independent of her". -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I've started working on another translation because I'm a bit stuck as what else I can add! I'm sure it's my error rather than her (and good to hear you've enjoyed Dąbrowska's book: I don't know much about cognitive linguistics but tempted to read them now I've spent so much time reading about her and her research!)

I'm not sure what else would count as opinions of other linguists - I've already added book reviews as someone suggested (and I think the Linguist List counts as a legit source, if that's what you're referring to, as it's used as a legit source by linguists in general and as a reference by the National Science Foundation among others). I've looked at other cognitive linguists and they seem to either have a similar amount of referencing or like Vyvyan Evans be a bit more controversial and have more news sources and blog posts talking (largely complaining) about him.

Any tips or suggestions greatly appreciated. Suppposedly (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Suppposedly, I too know little about cognitive linguistics. One review of the book Language, Mind and Brain appears in Language, vol 84 (2008), pp. 186–189; JSTOR 40071020. (Which reminds me: please read Template:ISBN/doc.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah thank you, I had no idea there was an ISBN template! Added. I've added a section about her books so I can cite some of the reviews (currently in progress as the auto-cite feature seems to have stopped working and manually citing is giving me flashbacks haha - don't worry, I will manually cite if I have to). Thank you for your help! Suppposedly (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Page created directly.

Hello, I am rather new to Wikipedia, and I have created a new page (Ford West). When I clicked "publish," it was directly published instead of being submitted for review as usual. I guess I did something wrong! What happens now? Best regards Edmond Furax (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Edmond Furax You are WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, so allowed to create articles directly if you wish. They will be considered by the new pages patrol in due course and may be draftified. or even nominated for deletion as a result. You can either leave your article as-is, improve it in-situ or move it back to a draft yourself for improvement there, with the option to submit it for formal review. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Edmond Furax: If you want to submit for review another time then you can start at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Requesting Conflict of Interest assessment

Hello, I'm new to regularly editing Wikipedia and am hoping someone can help rule on whether I have a WP:COI before I work directly on an article.

I've detailed the situation in the article's talk page. Essentially, I wish to improve the article of a statistical data release that I contribute to as part of my job. No one at work has asked me to do this and I would edit strictly during my personal time.

I am hoping someone can help guide me here. Thank you! Polunbus (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Polunbus, it seems you do have a conflict of interest. You say you edit outside of your working hours, which just means you aren't a paid editor. Keep in mind the second and third sentences of WP:COI:

Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.

Yes, editing with a COI is discouraged, but it is not prohibited, and you seem to be here in good faith. No one will stop you, but you should follow WP:DISCLOSE and all other relevant policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. It is also recommended that you use {{edit COI}} (edit requests) to make the edits, but you don't have to. win8x (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Innoasis article

Hello! Although I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time now (and got the hang of Wikitext), I was thinking about writing a article on the electronics company Innoasis. I am typing this on one of their devices. I was wondering if it was appropriate to start and publish the article. K.O.518 (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

K.O.518, the fact that I'm now typing this response on a Lenovo computer shouldn't disqualify me from writing about Lenovo. But I paid for this computer myself. If you paid for your Innoasis "device", the fact that you're using it shouldn't disqualify you. Are you employed by Innoasis or otherwise related to the company? Also, if this would be your first article, please digest H:YFA. -- Hoary (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @K.O.518, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's great that you've got the hang of Wikitext; but I would argue that for somebody who wants to create a new article, that is less important than understanding notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable sources, and referencing for beginners. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello.

@ColinFineColinFine Yes i understand those, i reworked several articles for anti advertisement.

@HoaryHoary No. I wanted to because Innoasis is a modestly large tech company, and i was surprised that it did not have a article. The question i am asking is if Innoasis deserves a wikipedia article or if it is too small to be noteworthy. K.O.518 (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@K.O.518 No topic "deserves" an article but any topic can have one if there are a sufficient number of reliable, independent sources which cover it in some detail. A custom Google search for Innoasis doesn't look promising but if you are aware of other sources then please list three of the best ones here in this thread and we can advise further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

draft pages

how do I locate another members sandbox Judsonnewbern (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Judsonnewbern, you can find a link to a list of subpages in the page information of any page. So your own subpages are at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Judsonnewbern/, which would show your sandbox if you had made it. If you want you can replace your name with another editor's in that link or go to "Page Information" (right side of a page for me) then click on "Number of subpages of this page". Ultraodan (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much - Judsonnewbern (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Reliable source

Hello, I'm working on WikiProject Football. I've added citations to some pages, but many get removed because "unreliable sources". So, can you suggest reliable sources for player goals, assists, and appearances? Thank you! KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

KhoaNguyen1 I would suggest asking at the WikiProject itself, (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football) where editors who follow football specifically are more likely to see your question. Please also see WP:RS for more information on what a reliable source is. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football itself seems to have some guidance as well. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Reporting Vandalism

How do I report a user for vandalism? For the Clara Mann article (I fixed it back) Bruebach (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bruebach That was the first and only edit from a new account, so it might just have been a newbie error. I suggest you make a polite comment on that editor's talk page pointing out the mistake. Persistent vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV but I don't think that is needed in this case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Considering the type and content of the edit, it doesn't look like a mistake. But I suppose I can give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

But it's always good to know the protocol for dealing with vandalism, so - thank you. Bruebach (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Page for Walking With Dinosaurs (2025)

Hi. I've been thinking for the last week or so of creating an article for the upcoming sequel series/reboot to Walking With Dinosaurs, although I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notability criteria. There is a lot of information about it in the form of news articles, etc, although I'm not quite sure what constitutes independent sources and what constitutes non-independent sources, as I've never tried to write an article about a piece of media before. Would a new page be warranted, or would an expansion of the relevant section on the existing Walking With Dinosaurs page be preferable for the time being? Thanks in advance. Borophagus (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Borophagus: the latter [expand section of existing article]. Then, if the sequel gains more coverage later on, it can eventually be split or spun-off into its own article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Will probably work on it tomorrow. Thanks! Borophagus (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Unusual articles issue

I am trying to add Porters Lake, Nova Scotia#This Street, That Street, and The Other Street to the Wikipdia:Unusual articleds list, but does not let me edit the tables FlagNerd1010101 (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@FlagNerd1010101. Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Unusual articles is semi-protected to prevent vandalism. You can make an edit request on its talk page, but I don't think Porters Lake is an unusual article at all. Some unusual street names are mentioned but that does not make it an unusual article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what to title this

Hello. I don't know if this is the best plase to ask, but whatever. I have been contributing to Wikimedia projects, on and off, on IPs and accounts, for about 3 years. I have switched accounts many times for various personal reasons. What I am worried about is Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, which says I cannot use multiple accounts maliciously. I have occasionally vandalized Wikipedia in the past. My question is, will I get blocked for this, if I get checkusered and the accounts link up? I no longer want to vandalize here. Another important thing to note is that my IP is shared by everyone at my school. I edit at school. I have made every single account I ever had from that IP. Some people vandalize from that IP, so would that incriminate me aswell? I just don't want to be blocked for something I did in the long past, or something other people did. Thanks for the help, loserhead (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

P.S. This is my final account, I do not ever intend to leave it. loserhead (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Loserhead4512! If you have abandoned all previous accounts and only edit with this one, you are no longer using multiple accounts. And people aren’t typically randomly checkusered for no reason; there typically needs to be some sort of malicious activity or suspicion of such for checkuser to be used. So if you are not using multiple accounts anymore and you’re not editing maliciously, you should be fine on that count. More than one editor has begun their Wikipedia career with vandalism and u-turned into a positive contributor in the end. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you so much! This makes me feel much better. loserhead (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Page Title includes (Hacker)

on this page Critical density the first link says Critical Density (Hacker) - what does this mean? I assume this means that someone has vandalised the page - is this correct? If so, is there any way to check what is happening with this page? Is there some way to find e.g. a talk page for it?

BennBluee (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@BennBluee, I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. -- asilvering (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

no worries, thanks! BennBluee (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Colored Names

I noticed that some people have colored names, (even gradients) and I would like to know how to get a colored name myself.

Thanks, Moon. -MoonOwO- (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, -MoonOwO-. Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia:Signature tutorial provides information on how to color the username in a user's signature. —⁠andrybak (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Create a Main Page for Dice Properties?

A while back, I needed to gather some basic and statistical info related to the results you get when rolling s n-sided dice, and then adjusting it by an integer (0) amount; for instance, the resulting minimum value, maximum value and most likely value(s) you get for particular n and s and adjustment. I found most of the info scattered across textbooks, papers and (a few) Web pages (in particular, the Dice page from MathWorld), but never did find a single Web page that presented it. This info is useful to those who are into certain branches of computer science, probability and simulation, and to players of "d20" games.

Some months ago, I added some of the basic info the Dice page, but it was reversed by a knowledgeable editor who essentially said it was too detailed for that page. The editor suggested that Dice Notation page was a better location for it, but that page is about (several different) dice notations, and doesn't really get into the properties related to them (sensible; the page is about notation, not properties). So is a Dice Properties page in order? (These sort of "properties" pages do exists in Wikipedia, e.g., Absolute value and Floor and ceiling functions.) If so, I'm happy to get one going.

So, what do you all think? Is there an appropriate page for this info? Or should it be a new page? Or it is just too esoteric to be in Wikipedia?

Many thanks! Eclectucator (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Replied at old discussion at Talk:Dice#Where, if at all, to put basic stat info for nDs dice to centralize discussion Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I've read the Dice Pool page, and its focus is on the (apparently more recent) definition of Dice Pool -- rolling a number of dice and counting how many reach a certain threshold (e.g., how many times a 5 or a 6 appears out of rolling 7 six-sided dice). The info I'm interested in presenting is when the values that appear on the dice are added together and then perhaps adjusted by an integer quantity...so it seems it's not a great fit for that page. Perhaps there's another page is more appropriate? Eclectucator (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

How to format a reference to a source if the source is a dissertation (Master's degree)?

Here is the source (in Korean): https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/handle/10371/178421 This document is freely available for download in pdf format. I want to add a table (page 70) to the article Web novels in South Korea. Активная Мечтательница (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

You probably do not refer to this source at all, Активная Мечтательница; simply, because appearance in a master's dissertation is no guarantee of quality. Please see WP:RS on "scholarship". -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

But there is a {{Cite thesis}} template for this kind of reference. You could also check if the author has published anything in a journal or book. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Signpost

Does the WP:SIGNPOST post real stories (just subscribed), or just fake, for fun ones? Justjourney (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Justjourney, the Signpost posts real stories written by Wikipedia editors about topics to do with Wikipedia. Ultraodan (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you link a Sign Post story you've seen that you consider "fake"? It's not written The Onion style, if that's what your asking. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Some issues of The Signpost contain a "humorous" article, which is fictitious and intended to be funny. These sometimes aren't funny, which can mislead readers. Maproom (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Maproom How would I know about these? Justjourney (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The way I find out about them is: I'm reading a Signpost article, and wondering why it doesn't make much sense to me. Then I notice the word "Humour" as an inconspicuous subtitle. Maproom (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Request for help with Infobox change

I have a COI and have placed a request for an impartial editor to replace the infobox on the Tencent Cloud page. (The page used the "Software" infobox instead of a "Company" infobox). Although two editors have responded, no one has offered to make the edit. I would greatly appreciate it if an experienced editor could review my request on the Talk Page.

Link: Talk:Tencent Cloud#Infobox Change Request

TencentCommsYeran (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Your request is open and pending. Requests are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am working on a page about a recent plane crash that happened yesterday (March 9th)

I have already added a few news sources, (including a flight radar of the plane) and I havent submitted it for review yet as im still working on it. I would like to have some help on what can I do to improve the article.

The link: Draft:Beechcraft Bonanza Flight N347M

Thank you, Shaneapickle (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

(also i think i made a post here about something but i dont remember) Shaneapickle (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Crashes of this type are unlikely to be notable with so few sources reporting on it, especially so since there were no fatalities. Particular thing to look out for is that all your references are listed at the end, but there should be footnotes at the end of sentences/paragraphs that make it clear where the information is coming from. Recon rabbit 13:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

could I have some help with that since I am a relatively new editor Shaneapickle (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

This page should provide some guidance: Help:Referencing for beginners. Recon rabbit 14:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Shaneapickle. Please read the advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, there is a bunch of sources reporting on it, search up lancaster pa crash. Shaneapickle (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Request for help with the article on the luthier Valenzano

Hello, I need experienced users to save this article which I think is worth. Here is the link: Draft:Joannes Maria Valenzano Thank you in advance. WikiBolo (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

WikiBolo The url is not needed when linking. You don't specify what help you are seeking. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, excuse me, I need complete help to take this article from draft to published state but the banner request has become too technical for me so I am looking for someone experienced to take over the operation in the most relevant way possible. WikiBolo (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The request isn't technical at all, WikiBolo. It says that there's insufficient evidence here of materials that go into depth about Valenzano (meaning that he's not "notable", as notability is defined by and for Wikipedia). You do have a "bibliography", but each item within it is only partly described and it's not clear which item backs up which assertions. As for the two sources you do cite, one, which you describe merely as "Tarisio - Archive", clearly had or has a commercial interest in talking up Valenzano. If disinterested sources (journal articles, etc) that go into depth about Valenzano do exist, please cite them to back up more material that you write about Valenzano, and please describe the sources informatively and helpfully. -- Hoary (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this article exists in the same form and with the same sources on Wikipedia-France and Wikipedia-Italy, therefore I do not understand why this version is not accepted by Wikipedia-England. It should also be noted that this 19th century luthier is found in specialized books and international collections alongside great luthiers of the 17th and 18th centuries such as Guarnerius, Amati or even Stradivarius. Please, let us not deprive ourselves of interesting articles linked to interesting sources (which could help English experts in their possible research) because a robot could not do complete checks as humans can. It would be really great if someone more experienced than me could introduce this article. I'm counting on you. Thank you in advance. WikiBolo (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

WikiBolo Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. It is up to the translator to make sure they are meeting the requirements of the Wikipedia they are translating for. If this draft is acceptable on another Wikipedia, I would suggest focusing your efforts there. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand that policies differ, but knowledge should be universal. If this topic is deemed notable on another Wikipedia, shouldn’t it at least warrant discussion here rather than dismissal? WikiBolo (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Wiki page not showing up on Google

Hi, This is a popular music producer from Nepal. Its been 90 days since we created his page but its still not yet showing up on google search results. The page is cited using links from newspaper and sources. Can you please check? link to the page - Aasis Beats Azdemi (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It's highly likely Google's cache is delaying its appearance in search results. Once the cache is updated, it'll show up. There's nothing we can do on our end; this is a Google issue. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Azdemi Although articles unreviewed by the new pages patrol become available to indexing by search engines after 90 days, the actual indexing is often not done until there is another, later, edit. Someone removed puffery from the article today and, sure enough, it is now indexed by Google, at least here in the UK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mike, Great news! The issue is all sorted out now. The page is indexed. Thanks a bunch to everyone who helped out! Azdemi (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Possible article

I would like to write an article about Justice William Holloway CSI, 1828-1893. A former Madras High Court judge, briefy acting Chief Justice, and Vice Chancellor of Madras University. He is important for promoting Indian systems of justice, against strong opposition of fellow judges. He consistently tried to get an Indian lawyer appointed to the High Court for the first time. This finally happened after his retirement with the appointment of his candidate (Sir) Muthuswami Aiyar who later acted as Chief Justice of Madras. One author states that Holloway made a unique mark on the law of Madras and indirectly the law and standards of the profession in India as a whole. HE WAS MY GREAT GREAT GRANDFATHER. I APPRECIATE THERE IS A FAMILY CONNECTION BUT I ONLY KNOW OF HIM FROM RESEARCH. DOES THIS RULE ME OUT AS A POTENTIAL AUTHOR ? Philip Venning WykeKinnear (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably, since you are related to the topic. Shaneapickle (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@WykeKinnear. Welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, please do not type in all capitals. It is considered shouting. Having a family connection does not rule you out, but it will make it difficult for you as you will need to forget everything you know about him and base your article entirely on what reliable sources have said about him. His being "important" is not relevant. Everyone is important. Please read Wikipedia:Your first article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact everything I know about him comes from reliable published sources, such as the Dictionary of Indian Biography and similar references. However in view of your stern reprimand I won't be submitting an article. WykeKinnear (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@WykeKinnear Please don't be put off. Any COI for a relative who died over 100 years ago is going to be minor and you are clearly aware of Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Even those editors with much more obvious COI, or who are paid to edit, can create draft articles via the WP:AfC process and that is what I suggest you do. You should find this essay helpful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

WykeKinnear, it sounds like you've got the sources, so please do go ahead and write! English Wikipedia spans a very wide range of cultures and individuals. Some value direct, straightforward communication, and "say it how it is". Others have a strong code of politeness, and prefer to "talk through flowers" (as the Germans put it, picturesquely). Unfortunately a lot of people try to produce very gushing, laudatory articles about ancestors of whom they're proud, and when they post questions here, to save them wasting their time, they tend to get rather firm answers about Wikipedia's very strict attitude to notability. If your great great grandfather passes muster, by all means go ahead. For subjects like this, a descendent is the most likely person to have collected all the appropriate information, and if it's there in secondary sources, it's fine. What doesn't work is an article compiled from primary sources (an article like that should be written and published elsewhere). You should write in the dry and factual style of Wikipedia; don't let it get emotional or overstate his importance (you can only say he was influential/important to the extent that secondary sources have evaluated him as such). A real benefit of you being a family member is that you may own the rights over images of Holloway, which you can then submit to Commons if you wish, and include in your article. Elemimele (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

... any picture of him is going to be public domain by now owing to its age. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey now, it is his great grandfather. What other person could have such easy access to his corpse? Mgjertson (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Use of "Nazi Germany" instead of "Germany" from 1933 to 1945

Courtesy link: Talk:Max Schreck § Nazi Germany

This issue arose from a series of repeated edits at Max Schreck, but its resolution should have broader implications. I don't see anything about this particular issue at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Germany), but maybe it's been addressed before, and I just don't know how to find the discussion. If there is a guideline or discussion that provides a clear answer for me, could someone please link me to it?

The issue is this: should "Nazi Germany" replace "Germany" for all events occurring in the country between 1933 and 1945, irrespective of whether they involved the Nazi party or the German government in any way? In this instance, Max Schreck, the actor, died in Germany in 1936. He was not, as far as I know, a member of the Nazi party, and the article about him suggests no connection with the Nazis or the German government at the time of his death. His place of death is normally given simply as "Germany", but various editors—or perhaps one determined anonymous editor—keeps changing this to "Nazi Germany". I, and occasionally other editors, have been reverting this change as improper or even vandalism, but I'd like to be able to point to a policy—or at least a consensus—against it, since logic alone doesn't seem to be satisfactory.

I'm not a mind reader and can only speculate as to whether the other editors' motivation is to tie Schreck to the Nazis, or to say that everything in Germany after 1933 was tainted by the Nazis, or just some kind of adamant insistence that "Nazi Germany" should be regarded as the proper name of the country from 1933 to 1945. I understand that when discussing political and military history, the Nazi regime, its systematic repression of minorities, and various topics related to World War II and the Holocaust, it frequently makes sense to refer to "Nazi Germany". But that wasn't the name of the country at any period of time, either in German or English; it's more of an alternative name that carries certain implications that simply aren't relevant to all subjects touching on Germany. And using that name when there seems to be no clear connection to the Nazis or their government seems misleading.

The most recent editor to make this change and be reverted then changed it to "German Reich", which at least has some claim to officialness, though it still seems wrong to me, as it wasn't the common name of the country in English, but would only have appeared in very formal contexts—and the reason for preferring that name still seems suspect to me: an attempt to call attention to the Nazis and their government in an article that isn't concerned with either.

I could understand using "German Empire" between 1871 and 1918. I don't think that term is as frought or weighed down with baggage, and it has some advantages in defining a historical period. But saying "Nazi Germany" as though it were the name of the country strikes me as like insisting that articles—or their infoboxes—refer to "Red China" or "Communist" China, rather than "China", or "Apartheid South Africa", or the "Jim Crow South" in articles that don't concern communism, segregation, or racial discrimination. I think it's commentary, and unencyclopedic. And if there's a consensus about this, then it would probably apply to hundreds of articles about people, places, or events occurring in various places during particular spans of time. P Aculeius (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I share your point of view that we had to write "Nazi Germany" only if this is necessary for the context.

I think it's irrelevant to write "Nazi Germany" for example because someone died in "Germany" during this period in the biographical article about the person who died there.

I think to "Max Schreck" mentionned in your message.

When "Charles de Gaulle" is born in 1890 in "Lille". At the time it wasn't the "French Fifth Republic" but the "third".

Do we write in the infobox he died in 1970 during the "fifth" ? No

Do we write in the infobox he is born in 1890 during the "third" ? No Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The Third Republic is very far from an analogous example. The point is, that Nazi Germany is seen as an extremist aberration in the history of Germany, which may merit, in some situations, use of the words "Nazi Germany". Rather than mentioning the French Third Republic, which is not the kind of aberration that Nazi Germany was, a much better analogy would be with someone like Pierre Laval or Pierre-Etienne Flandin, leaders of the Nazi-collaborationist regime in France in World War II. It's interesting to note that the fr-wiki articles call Flandin the deputy head of the régime de Vichy (under Marshall Pétain), and calls Pierre Laval "a central figure of collaboration during the French occupation by Nazi Germany", whereas English Wikipedia calls Laval "Prime Minister of France" and Flandin "Deputy Prime Minister of France" during the war years. A better example would help. Mathglot (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot concerning the message of "MARCH/08/2025" at "11:18 UTC".

You bring a good point between differences on "Wikipedia in English" and "Wikipedia in French even if this is not the subject.

Also , each Wikipedia have its own policy because they are independent of each others.

"Max Schrek" and "Charles de Gaulle" have something they share.

They had the particularity to be born in the same country in which they died but it wasn't the same political regime when they are born and when they died.

Yes , "Nazi Germany" is seen as an extremist aberration in the history of Germany but in my point of view it doesn't matter because "Schrek" is born and died in the same country.

On the article about him , it's indicated in the infobox he's born in "Berlin" , "Kingdom of Prussia" in the "German Empire".

Therefore , I don't oppose we add the fact he died in "Nazi Germany" even if it's only a historiographic name and not the official name.

Who name this country by its official name when we're talking about Germany of that time ?

As he's born and died in the same country. I think it's unuseful but why not ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a logic to it, if Nazi Germany is considered it's own (version of a) country, and it can be. There is a guideline somewhere recommending "use name of country at the time of birth [of subject/whatever]". Making a WP:OTHERCONTENT comparison, Gandhi and Deepak Chopra was born in British India. And there is of course the WP-tedious example of Nikola Tesla. OTOH, I remember writing somewhere "He was born in Vienna 1944 in..." Huh. Baggage, indeed. I went with "present day Austria." MOS:GEO may be worth a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't claim that it's completely devoid of reason; just that it's not an appropriate distinction. "British India" existed for well over a century, and can't really be said to tell readers anything about the people who lived and died there, although in general we would probably still say "India" unless for some reason we needed to call attention to British rule or the country's pre-1948 borders. "Nazi Germany" was never the name of the country; neither the official name, nor the local name, nor the common name in English. While referring to it as such in the context of articles referring to the Nazis, their rule and policies was and remains common, then as now the "common name" was still "Germany". And there is nothing about the subject of this article that connects him to the Nazis or, as far as I can tell, makes the fact that they had taken power in 1933 relevant. I don't see anything in MOS:GEO that addresses this issue. P Aculeius (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

A prime example of the sort of small details people argue about regularly on wikipedia :). Technically either would be fine, but I tend to agree that in the infobox it is not necessary in this case. Polyamorph (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Prime example, yeah. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

My understanding was that you objected to [[Nazi Germany|German Reich]] being in the infobox, so the article didn't say "Nazi Germany" either, though commonly we use the article title when we link places and stuff. WP appears to judge "Nazi German" to be the WP:COMMONNAME of the article, if that is wrong, you can try to get it changed. IMO the link makes sense since per infobox he was born in German Empire, but local consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, now it's been put back that way, and this discussion is the justification. It now says that he died in the "German Reich" rather than "Germany", and if anyone clicks on that, they go to "Nazi Germany" and see a nice big swastika flag. So encyclopedic. P Aculeius (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Not anymore. Undone, not for any pro- or con reasoning here, but strictly due to the misleading piped link. Mathglot (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that, to the extent Schreck had anything at all to say about the Nazis, it was critical. EX: he performed in the anti-Nazi satire The Pepperbox. However the use of the phrase "Nazi Germany" is not implying he was a Nazi and instead helps to contextualize his engagement with the Bohemian art scene and the concomitant minor engagement with the German left as an act of dissidence. Simonm223 (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how a direct link to "Nazi Germany" is any improvement, if the argument is that "German Reich" means the exact same thing but without the word "Nazi". The infobox should point to "Germany", which was the common name for the country in English from 1918 to 1945, and since 1990. It's not enough that the infobox doesn't say "Nazi", it shouldn't direct people to "Nazi Germany". "Nazi Germany" is an article focused on the Nazi regime, not the country in general; if someone died in the United States in 1954, we wouldn't put "Eisenhower Administration" in the infobox, any more than we'd put "Jim Crow South" for someone who died in Alabama. P Aculeius (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

We are going around in circles. You are correct, we would not put "Jim Crow South" for someone who died in Alabama but your reasoning is faulty and that example is invalid for the same reason given previously why saying we wouldn't put that "someone died during the 'Third French Republic'" was an invalid example. See this diff for the explanation of both cases. Mathglot (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@P Aculeius Concerning your message from "MARCH/11/2025" at "02:16 UTC".

"Eisenhower administration" is a defunct administration of a "political regime" still existing in my eyes.

USA have the same constitution since the end of his administration even if there was some amendments like the last in effect since 1992. The 27th amendment. The constitution was amended not changed for another one.

Some people consider that "United States of America" have the same political regime since 1789 because the constitution is in force since this year. I'm among these but I don't know what is consensus on "Wikipedia in English" on this matter if there are one.

I consider this is the same political regime since 1789 even if there was changes in this country (Political , Economical , Social , Cultural etc...) over time like the 19th amendment that grants women the right to vote.

This is why we would'nt write "Eisenhower administration" for someone who died in the "United States" in the course of the year 1954. This administration wasn't a country or a political regime.

In the case of "Max Schreck". He is born in "German Empire" and died in "Nazi Germany".

These two things are facts. If we say he died in "Nazi Germany". It doesn't means we say he was a sympathiser or a member of "NSDAP".

This is a precision about the political regime in force when he was born and when he died. Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

How would I go about attempting to gather consensus on renaming the article Iran to Persia

Post 1978 Iranian politics is considered a contentious topic and requires having EC status in order to edit the article of Iran or anything controversial in Iran. However this does not apply to talking or referencing Iran. I do not have 500 edits (only 300, through 1 IP and this account). Would it still be possible for me to suggest a move anyway? I have a rationale on this and searching through the archives does not bring any substantial previous discussion that it should be called Iran not Persia. My rationale is simple, Iran's neighbor Turkey is called Turkiye internally and by the rest of the world. It is even recognized by the UN and all of the maps (google, apple, etc), yet Wikipedia still calls it Turkey. So what is the difference here? The English name of Iran is Persia and the English name of Turkiye is Turkey. Yet there is this double standard, we call Iran, Iran and we call Turkiye, Turkey. DotesConks (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

At least one of your premises -- that "The English name of Iran is Persia" -- is mistaken. I suggest that you wait until User:DotesConks has 500 edits, whereupon you can rethink the matter. During your wait, please read and digest Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

"Iran" is the most common name in English. "Turkey" is the most common name in English. Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Help needed for an article that relies excessively on references to primary sources.

Hi everyone,

I love Wikipedia and I would like to be part of it. That way, I'm writing an article about an Australian choreographer called Adam Linder (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adam_Linder). Currently, I have mainly two issues that are:

- This article contains promotional content.

- This article relies excessively on references to primary sources.

I would like to improve the article.

Firstly, I already erased every promotional content and read the page that talked about "What Wikipedia is not" but maybe there is still some sentences that are not complying wikipedia's policies. I would need your opinion to know if I can try to publish it yet.

Secondly, I tried to edit all references by adding as many relevant, independent and reliable sources. Compared to the first version, there is way less references to primary sources. I tried to add secondary sources as much as I could. But given that it's my first article, I would like an external point of view that could guide me about secondary sources and the reference topic.

I'm connected quite often and would answer within 24h.

Thanks a lot for your help and your time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adam_Linder

Simononwiki1 (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Simononwiki1 Our policy on biographies of living people says that every fact should be backed up by an inline citation. So I took a look at Draft:Adam Linder#Biography (which should really be the "early life" section) and noted that At the age of 15, Linder was spotted by the Royal Ballet School. However, the only citation, to this magazine, says nothing about his age when he was "spotted". Such lack of verification is one of the things you must get right to have your draft accepted. You can submit it for formal review when that type of detail has been addressed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok I see. I had previously another citation that acknowledged the fact that he was spotted at 15 but I erased it because the reference was mainly an interview, meaning a primary source. BUT it was mentioned previously, out of the interview, just as a intro of the artist. Here's the reference: https://032c.com/magazine/choreographer-adam-linder-dances-for-hire-and-disrupts-contemporary-creative-economies. Should I still put it or the source is not relevant ?

Thanks for your help, I will try to reference every facts well.

Simononwiki1 (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello again @Simononwiki1. You can cite certain information from non-independent sources such as interviews provided it meets the conditions laid out in WP:ABOUTSELF, including that "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Now, if the claim were that he had danced with the Royal Ballet at 15, that would be an exceptional claim, and require a stronger source; but that he was spotted, probably not. As often, this is an editorial judgment, and editors may disagree on it. ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Okok I see. I think I will replace the age 15, with a more general formulation like: "At a young age", which is more acceptable. When I will find a relevant and reliable source that attests the fact that he was spotted at 15, then I will explicit it.

Thanks a lot for your time.

Simononwiki1 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Simononwiki1. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, and very little else. For every piece of information, say where you saw it; and if that was not a reliable source, don't put the information in. ColinFine (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

My article not published

Hello

1 Year back i published new film article, and after that i didn't publish any articles. and after one and half years i published the new article in my account directly without sand box. But my article was not getting publish, its been 10 days ago, i published. Still my article was in draft. PLease help me to publish immediately. There is an emergency.

Thank you Jenil JJ (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Which article are you asking about, Jenil cs ("Jenil JJ"), and what emergency is this? -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This is the article page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kaliyugam_2064.

Any suggetions or changes do i need to do get earlier approval. I am a newbie, i don't know it takes 2 or 3 months to get the approval.

This is a film page article. I submitted before 5 or 6 days. This film will gonna release by next month. If it publish ASAP. It would be helpful. Thank you Jenil JJ (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jenil cs Did you read the message on the draft which states "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order."? qcne (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jenil cs, looking at your draft, I see that many sentences and whole sections of the articles are lacking inline citations. Providing those after every sentence and ensuring that the citations support the text you've written will help the article pass review. -Darouet (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Darouet ok... Understood... I will try to update the details. Thank you for your suggetion Jenil JJ (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

got it Jenil JJ (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Animal pronouns

Isn't the right pronoun for animals is it? The article Motty uses he. Hörgő (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hörgő: The second sentence of the article states the animal was a male calf. "He" is not incorrect. Bazza 7 (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

We generally seem to use he and she when referring to individual named animals: see e.g. Tusko (Oregon Zoo) and Lansing elephant incident for other elephant examples. The Manual of Style's guidance on pronoun usage does not mention animals, though given that it still permits "she" for ships I can't see any reason why we shouldn't use it for animals... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the word "it" to refer to a specific, named animal. -- asilvering (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Brian Sanderson's novels have massive over-long plot summaries

The plot summaries for the novels The Way of Kings, Words of Radiance, Oathbringer, Rhythm of War, Wind and Truth, and probably others have plot summaries that contain far too much fan detail, spoilers, and verbiage. MOS:NOVELPLOT suggests they should be 400-700 words, and these are in the several thousand each. They are mostly being added by one or perhaps two anonymous IP editors. As part of the Guild of Copy Editors I have tagged them as too long in response to requests for {{copy-edit}}, but nothing is changing. I have mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Fantasy task force too. Would it be too drastic to just wholesale delete the plot section, protect the page from anonymous editing for a month or two, and try writing a much smaller summary? — Jon (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The plot summary for e.g. The Way of Kings is over 3000 words – more than two thirds of the length of the entire article. If I were you I would simply replace it with a much shorter summary. Unless there's active disruption on the article, I don't see any point in asking for it to be protected. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree. The protection is too drastic, but by all means cut down the plot summary. -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Does WP:NEWSORG guidance regarding academic topics apply to politics

I've been having a minor disagreement with another editor regarding the applicability of this policy and was looking for a sanity check.

The context is an RfC concerning the framing of statements made by Donald Trump regarding the Unite the Right Rally. The other editor has been arguing that we should balance academic sources with news sources for a greater diversity of perspectives. I have expressed a preferential weighting for academic source from peer reviewed journals, which are abundant. I've argued that the guidance in WP:NEWSORG should apply to this topic as it is specifically about the parsing of rhetoric - which is an academic discipline. There are also elements of political science and sociology at play with an exploration of political speech. The opposing editor appears to be arguing for a narrower definition of "academic" arguing that the topic isn't "a complicated physics topic" or something similar.

My assumption is that political science, sociology and the study of rhetoric apply (as such sources exist on this topic) and that the definition of "academic" within the policy refers to those domains that exist within the academy and not merely hard sciences. Am I off base? Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223, first of all, WP:NEWSORG is part of a guideline, and is not a policy. That being said, the main guideline, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, enjoys almost universal support among active editors. The Unite the Right Rally took place nearly eight years ago, and is now in the realm of history as opposed to current events. I am in complete agreement that academic, peer-reviewed sources or books by widely respected authors are superior to news reporting articles in a case like this, although news sources are fine in the early stages of development of an article about an obviously notable current event. They are OK for articles about less controversial, more obscure topics. But when an abundance of academic sources are available years later, then the full range of academic sources should be preferred as references to news reporting articles. Cullen328 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. That's basically what I thought. Simonm223 (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Lewis Nitikman

Hello, everyone. May be delete this draft, thanks. СтасС (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

why? ogusokumushi^{( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ )} 18:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@СтасС you have requested deletion at least three times already without providing a valid reason for deletion. If the article is left unedited for six months it will automatically be deleted without you needing to request it. Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

OK.--СтасС (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism

Hello! I'm not very smort so I don't have much info to add to individual pages. However, i would like to do some anti-vandalism work, so if someone could point me in the right direction, it'd be greatly appreciated. Also, is there a portal somewhere that automatically takes you to the editing side of wikipedia (not editing mode in pages, editing as in all the groups, pages, and talks that people only looking for info on wikipedia won't find.) Cdominic8 (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry about being "smart enough" to add to articles - the idea is to use WP:RS to write everything, not just your memory, so as long as your reading comprehension is good, that's most of what you need. For anti-vandalism patrolling, you're looking for WP:CVA - but honestly, vandalism tends to get cleaned up pretty quickly, so I'm not sure how much mileage you'll get out of that. You might want to try clearing out some of the easier-to-fix maintenance backlogs instead of or in addition to that. For the "editing side", I think most of us end up watchlisting a handful of "backroom" pages about the thing we're specifically interested in doing rather than using this main portal, but here you are: WP:COM. Hopefully you can find something that catches your eye from there. -- asilvering (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not "most of us" in saying that I personally frequent WP:DASHBOARD (WP:-). LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes, which reminds me of Template:Backlog status, which is a bit buried on that page but is a good one to point out individually. -- asilvering (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft declination inquiry

Hello, my draft at Draft:Cultural impact of The Shining was recently declined for the reason that its information could be moved to The Shining (film). Is there any way to improve the draft as it is? I'm asking mainly because it was declined and not out-right rejected, which makes me think it still has the potential to be an article. LeGoldenBoots (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. "Declined" allows for the possibility of resubmission, whereas "rejected" would not. Instead of using the draft process I would also suggest expanding the article about the film first, then argue it should be spun off in a talk page discussion. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the advice. The first prose in your response was the point I was trying to make. Cheers. LeGoldenBoots (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The 50,000 destubbing project

In order for an article to be counted as destubbed, does it have to be reevaluated and labeled as start class or higher? Vestrix (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

No need to ask twice, for specifics for the destubathon you're looking into- ask at the contest page.

Otherwise check out WP:DESTUB. aquarium substrate^talk 17:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Destubbing

When I destub an article, how do I get it reevaluated. Vestrix (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Vestrix, you can do that yourself for any ratings lower than Good article and Featured article. GA and FA have formal processes. If a stub has been expanded and improved, a "Start" rating is always approriate. Cullen328 (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit filter for subscribing to signpost

In my edit filter log, it says I tripped an edit filter by subscribing to the signpost. Did I subscribe incorrectly? Justjourney (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney Don't worry - that filter is a test filter, where an admin is trying some things out. No action was taken as a result of your edit, and your filter log isn't held against you. Lots of harmless edits trip many log-only edit filters all the time. Sam Walton (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Citation Needed vs Better Source Needed?

Typically, I replace unreliable sources with ^{[citation needed]}, however I realized today that there's likely many scenarios where I should keep the ref and add ^{[better source needed]} instead. When should I remove an unreliable source vs requesting a better one? Is bsn meant for sources with simply questionable reliability as opposed to sources that are outright unreliable? Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 21:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer, a citation needed tag is a request for someone else to find a citation. If the unreliable source might be at all helpful for the search, use a more specific tag like "better source needed", or "fails verification". See Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Great to know! Thank you so much 💗 Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Revert

I am recently reading pages related to demographics in Tripura where I found that some pages related to ethnicity were vandalised by IP address users, I tried to revert but not know how to revert, please seniors editors help me. 獅眠洞 (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Like this page Halam tribe, I request u please tell me how to revert, to fight this type of vandalism, and disruptive edits 獅眠洞 (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@獅眠洞 I've reverted that article. This can be done by clicking the "undo" link in the page history or using a tool like WP:Twinkle or WP:Ultraviolet. Ultraodan (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

why do people keep vandalizing Wikipedia articles

i have the answer

The people who do are insecure and dumb and hate me for saying this the people who do deserve to rot in hell Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lordofcallofduty i can agree, but please try to remain civil! :( ogusokumushi^{( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ )} 17:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

thank you sensei 獅眠洞 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

i am mobile user undo option is not showing. 獅眠洞 (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I am a mobile editor, undo does not shown on my phone while I am visit the page 獅眠洞 (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@獅眠洞 You need to click on page history, where you can see all the edits and undo them. Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

That option doesn't show 😭 獅眠洞 (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Your on phone don’t you have another device to do so?? If not I don’t think we can help Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I have mi note 10s with miui 14version 獅眠洞 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Notes

Philosophical Investigations has three notes (as opposed to footnotes), which, as is customary, are labeled [a], [b], [c] in the text. At the bottom, however, above "References," they are numbered 1, 2, 3. I can't identify the problem. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. I suspect {{Notelist}} used a strange value for one of its parameters; I moved it to the appropriate place, used the template without any parameters at all, and see that the labels seem to behave as expected now. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

How should we integrate articles about ML models with articles about specific models?

Situation 1: currently, Wikipedia has an article about Large Language Models and a separate list of large language models. But what about reflective models? Should we create a general article about reflection in models along with a separate article listing reflective models, including details about individual implementations, benchmarks, etc? This solution feels somewhat cumbersome.

Situation 2: there's an article about Intelligent Agents, but does it need a companion list of specific intelligent agents? So far, I've found only the article on the OpenAI Operator, but there seem to be no articles covering agents such as Claude Computer Use, Runner H, or Manus. TheTeslak (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@TheTeslak These are good questions but responders here at the Teahouse are not specialists on LLM. I suggest you ask again at one of the main talk pages for computing. For example, WT:COMP has over 500 page watchers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Why is there an error message on an article I have improved ?

Specifically, the article on musical composer Thomas Newman...there is an error message to do with his birth date, which blocks the rest of the info on him. I have compared it with a similar entry, and it seems OK. Anne8Ko (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

There was a bracket missing. I think I got it. --Onorem (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

List/catalogue of parameters for {{ }}-text

Example:

I write "convert|12|nm" in such brackets {{ }}

12 nanometres (4.7×10⁻⁷ in)

I understand that the last characters here (in this case "nm") are the unit to be converted (in this case "nanometers").

Where can I find a full list of all possible values (says, miles, km, meters) that can be used here? Mariusm98 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

You can find a list at Help:Convert units. TypoEater (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Help with uploading short film poster

Hi, I was wondering if someone could help me with uploading a short film poster for the Brighter Days Ahead article. The poster has been posted by both Ariana Grande and her official team’s X account Olivergrandeee (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Olivergrandeee. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content very carefully. Specific language about cover art and posters can be found at WP:NFCI #1 and #4. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Help with Expanded footnote (efn)

Hi! I've been trying to create an expanded footnote in my sandbox, but the only problem I face is that it does not display when I hover my cursor over the inline footnote. I've seen several articles like India which have inline footnotes and when you hover over them, They get displayed. Can someone please explain how to get the footnote displayed when you hover on them? Thank you, Warriorglance(talk to me) 12:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Warriorglance It does work, it's not showing up when you hover over it because it's too close to the notes list. If you can't see the notes list on your screen it will show when you hover over it. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Warriorglance(talk to me) 13:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Warriorglance Your sandbox is working fine. The issue is that, when the explanatory footnote (not "expanded footnote") is within the viewing window of your browser, the hover-over just highlights it in grey where it is located in the notes section. You only see the note as a tooltip if the notes section is off the visible page, which is the case for India. If you add a bunch of white space to your sandbox and move the notes off the bottom of the visible area, you'll see the tooltip. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Warriorglance(talk to me) 13:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you also please tell me how to add citations inside these footnotes? Can it be done in the Visual editor or only in the Source editor? Warriorglance(talk to me) 13:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Warriorglance See Template:Efn/testcases for examples. I don't try complicated things like that in the visual editor but it may be possible. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Tacking onto this, I just make the citation in the visual editor, go into the source editor and then copy the new citation into the footnote using the visual editor. It's the quickest way I know personally, but I don't doubt there are easier ways. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

CrowdTangle draft input

Hello editors,

Per the reviewing editor's suggestion, I am looking for additional advice on this CrowdTangle draft.

From the rules the replying editor linked, for corporate notability, the sources in the draft need to:

Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
Be completely independent of the article subject.
Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

I think that the articles from Business Insider, The Verge and Poynter show clear interest from when CrowdTangle was first created and in use. Further articles from Bloomberg, Axios and Reuters covered CrowdTangle up until it was disbanded, showing a continuous, sustained interest in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

All of these articles listed are in-depth, independent, secondary, and reliable.

Could someone please offer additional guidance on how to improve this draft? I think the language in it is supported by these sources in a neutral, unbiased way while also trying to not violate copyright. Thank you very much! Brandonsilverman (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I would advise against writing this article yourself for COI reasons mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Died in The Hague cremated in London ?

Hello, following a discussion on WP Fr [8], does it seem possible that Anna Pavlova died in The Hague and was cremated in Golder Green Thank you for any answer, best regards, Pierrette13 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities might be a better place to ask. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Pierrette13: As advised, ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. I can tell you from a very quick search that there are multiple newspaper sources of the time about her death in the Hotel des Indes in the Hague, the transport of her body to London, its lying in state at the Russian Church in Buckingham Palace Road, and cremation at Golders Green Crematorium. DuncanHill (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Article creation.

Howdy! I would like to make an article on the Japanese rapper Lotus Juice but am unsure if he would meet WP:NOTE and would like to ask the larger editor community on their opinion on if he meets WP:NOTE. or not.

Thanks, Polaris (She/Her/Hers) (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I looked and I'd like to state I think he does as he does have a page on Japanese Wikipedia. Polaris (She/Her/Hers) (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Polaris548 Unfortuately, having an article on another Wikipedia does not mean that someone meets the requirements at WP:SINGER. A quick web search finds only social media and wiki coverage, which is not sufficient. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Shantavira He wrote the lyrics for a considerable amount of Persona 3, and then came back to re-write lyrics to better fit the remake Persona 3 Reload. Which wouldn't just be good for WP:SINGER because he also preformed them but also WP:COMPOSER because both games are notable, in addition his collaborations with people like Mori Calliope for the songs he has written and preformed. Polaris (She/Her/Hers) (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I feel like his role in the Persona would have enough coverage to warrant a page. If you need help, let me know I can help with translating some of the sources on Japanese Wikipedia mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Question about infoboxes for art colonies or art residencies

Hello Teahouse,

May I please ask if there is guidance around infobox preference for pages on Art colonies or artist residency program locations?

For example, some of the pages listed on the Art colony page have settlement infoboxes, but this is not always applicable.

Thank you for your help! SunnyBoi (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@SunnyBoi Perhaps an organisation infobox might be a beter fit, if it's not actually a place in the geographic sense. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Formatting help

Hey! I messed up the citations somehow when I was adding my source, any idea how to get the other one back? Thanks! Rufous-sided honeyeater Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Wait I may have figured it out... Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I did not figure it out Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sock-the-guy: I've edited it - does it look like what you intended? ObserveOwl (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Fantastic. Can I ask what exactly you did? Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

oh just realized I can look through the history. Thanks! Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Feedback on a new page

Hi Everyone! I recently created an article on the National Braille Press and I'm looking for any feedback on how to improve the page. Let me know if there's anything that could be updated or changed. I specifically want to make sure that the formatting of my headings and subheadings is correct. Thanks for anything anyone can recommend! Serenat03 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Serenat03, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks to me as if you have made the classic beginner's error of supposing that Wikipedia has any interest in what the subject says about itself, or what its associates say about it. 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.

It's possible the Boston Globe pieces meet that description - I haven't read them because they're behind a paywall (it's permitted to use such sources, but I didn't look at them) - but I don't think any of the others is independent of the Press.

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) 22:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Fixing a filing issue on my User page

I understand this is not even close to a priority, but I'm finding it difficult to code a "collapsible collapsed" for years in the following code:

No.	Article	Date
2013
1	Bring Back British Rail.	31 July 2013
2025
207	Line A4 (Athens Suburban Railway)	30 January 2025‎

I'm doing something wrong, but for the life of me can not figure out what? Any help would be appreciated, and thank you in advance... ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi The Emperor of Byzantium. There is no "collapsible collapsed" in your code for that table. I have added it.[9] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you =) ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Logged out

Sometimes my computer seems to log me out without me asking to be logged out of Wikipedia. I often leave my account logged in, but then I come back another day to edit, and overnight it appears to have logged me out since I have to log in again. Is the only way to prevent this to click to "Keep me logged in for up to 365 days" feature? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you ever also log on on a different device? If you don't also choose "Keep me logged in for up to 365 days" there, it will log you off in both places when you leave one of them. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Making an article with a draft article failing an article submission

There's currently a draft article - Draft:Slay (TV series) which was recently turned down for article submission. Today, the person who edits the draft article - User:Zanbarg, created a duplicate article in the mainspace.[10], stating "they are clean now." I find the editing habit of the user disruptive. Is there something that can be done with this? Hotwiki (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hotwiki, have you tried talking to the user about the matter? — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 02:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion in the talkpage of the draft article. I don't think the editor I mentioned, understands the importance of using first-party reference. They just created another issue when they made a duplicate article into the mainspace. Its definitely not the first time, they've done this (creating a mainspace article before the draft article gets approval). Hotwiki (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hotwiki, from what I see, this seems to be a behavioral issue. I suggest going to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents over this. Remember to inform the user on their talk page with {{subst:ANI-notice}}. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 12:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response @LunaEclipse:. Hotwiki (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I urgently need help, my page keeps getting rejected

Why was the page rejected again? I revised all the points exactly as instructed. What else do I need to change for the Wikipedia entry to be accepted?

I based my entry on the Wikipedia pages of two actor friends, both of whom were approved. Their content is almost identical to mine, yet my entry was rejected.

I would greatly appreciate any helpful tips or support!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Imad_Mardnli J0ker76 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@J0ker76, on a first glance over, I would tell you to be mindful of two policies: WP:OVERCITE and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Essentially, just because something else exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean an equivalent thing also needs to be on it.

As reviewers are denying on the basis of WP:General Notability Guidelines (GNG), I will analyze your sources. I am inclined to ignore citations 1 through 6 as they seem to only back up the name. Honestly, one citation is too many for backing up a name. I am also not sure what seven through nine are backing up. Eight and twelve seem to be primary sources, and therefore, do not contribute to GNG. Nine might work but it is in German, making it hard for me to check it. Ten I would deny as it seems it may be autogenerated or something of that fashion. Eleven is a database and I don't believe those contribute to GNG. Overall, that leaves two sources that I question and six that may not be relevant. If you have any questions, you can reply here, or if this gets archived, message me on my talk page. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

After eight Declined your draft Draft:Imad Mardnli has now been Rejected. David notMD (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@David notMD, For future reference, is there anyway that a user can undo the rejection and what are the thresholds? ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

You could query the person Rejected the draft. David notMD (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It is been submitted 7 times which is three more than the usual 4 when it gets rejected. At 4, on the 5th attempt, its seen as time wasting and at 7 it is complete waste of time and more so, is a WP:CIR issue. I would suggest stop trying to move forward on it. Its not going to go anywhere. scope_creep^Talk 13:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

What is the proper tone for articles

Kind of a starter at the writing process, what do i do for the language i use?

Notonmyname (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Notonmyname: See Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Tone - it should be formal and easily understood, in a straightforward "just the facts" style. The simplified manual of style has some further general considerations, like not using "you" or "note that" in the article's own voice. Hope this helps! ObserveOwl (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Instructional and presumptuous language has some examples of less-than-ideal language. ObserveOwl (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I do not know how to title this

In a nutshell, there was a user I was helping via Discord DMs to improve an article. The (now deleted) article in question was Mercury Ai, and the user in question has since been blocked. Now, both the blocked user and a person claiming to be the CEO of the company that runs Mercury Ai have DMed me asking me to remake the article and make another article about the company, join their Discord, etc. I don't know what to do so the first thing that came to mind was to come here and consult the Teahouse. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I would advise against taking either of them up on the offer. One is similar enough to meatpuppetry to be (at least in my opinion) not a good idea. The other also would violate WP:COI mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I told them what Wikipedia guidelines and such they should follow (NPOV, sources, etc), and then left and blocked them (on Discord) after they asked me to write the article for them in return for a payment. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @RedactedHumanoid, WP:SCAM comes to mind. It says to email paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. That might help. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for bringing WP:SCAM to my attention. However, I've looked over WP:SCAM and related pages...I kind of don't have any images, etc, of the conversation that occurred in the Discord server (I left and blocked the people). RedactedHumanoid (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

If you felt motivated to write the article and believed there were enough sources to meet WP:NORG, you would not be breaking any rules by accepting payment, provided you followed all the policy advice at WP:PAID. You would point out to your client that there was no guarantee your draft article would be accepted and that you and they would not own it once it was. How you would ensure you got paid, I don't know! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It was just the first thing that came to mind. If you know the company name, it may still be useful to email it. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull @CF-501 Falcon @Mgjertson Thanks for the advice and help, I've decided not to go through with this whole thing and just forget it ever happened since I don't want to get involved in a whole thing. Again, thanks for the help. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Image

How do I reduce the image size for File:Del. Rozia Henson Official Photo.PNG ? When updating the image on Rozia Henson it takes over the page Bippityboppityboo1913 (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Bippityboppityboo1913, I've used the filename you give above in the article's infobox, and it seems to me to work as it should. Maproom (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bippityboppityboo1913 This seems to be your first and only contribution to WP. Just a little heads up: currently this image has been placed for deletion (Saturday, 22 March 2025) due to "no source information" and "no copyright status" provided. You will have to supply this information in order for it to remain. WP:UPIMAGE Maineartists (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I own the rights to the photo since its mine. Not sure what else to say Bippityboppityboo1913 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bippityboppityboo1913: You still need to provide evidence that you took the photo or that it is under a free license. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online for guidance. ObserveOwl (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bippityboppityboo1913 A quick image search renders that this photo has been uploaded to the BLP's Facebook account [11], X (Twitter) [12]. Are you saying you "own the rights to the photo since its mine" because you are the photographer? or because you are the subject (BLP) of the article? Maineartists (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I’m the BLP Bippityboppityboo1913 (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bippityboppityboo1913: Is the image a self-portrait? If not, you do not own the copyright to the image, the photographer does. You will need their permission for the image. If you want, you could alternatively take a self-portrait/selfie - not taken by any other person - and upload it here. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, it might behoove you to read WP:CONFLICT before making future edits to the page. At the very least, disclosing that you are the BLP on the article TALK PAGE page would be helpful. Maineartists (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

What is the "Add local description source" option?

Will my user page on Meta still be transcluded here if I add this local description? Least Action (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Least Action, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you refer to an option you see at User:Least Action (it can also be seen on file pages). You can click it without saving anything. Then it should say: "This page currently displays a user page from another wiki. If you create a new page here, it will no longer display the other wiki's page." Your user page on Meta will not be transcluded if you save something. It will create a user page for the English Wikipedia which replaces the Meta page. If you create it then you can request deletion later with {{db-u1}} and the Meta page will be displayed again. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Dislodge a stuck draft? It’s been 9 months

Is it normal for a draft to be dependent on an initial reviewer re-engaging with it, even after other reviewers have looked it over ?

Draft:Mary Beth Goodman was rejected last June by a reviewer. On their talk page, I asked the reviewer for feedback, to clarify what they found objectionable, and they agreed to provide it. They never did. In November, I resubmitted after making some changes. The next reviewer didn’t find the issues the first reviewer had identified, yet wanted to consult with the first reviewer before advancing the draft. It’s now been another five months: the first reviewer has never returned to the draft. Is it normal for a later reviewer to insist an earlier reviewer take another look?

The article has been in limbo waiting for the first reviewer to reengage. How do I unstick it? If it needs more work, I’ll gladly do it. I just want to get eyes on this page I drafted a year ago. Lfdigests (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Lfdigests It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,480 pending submissions waiting for review." 9 months is on the longer side, but not an impossibility. This is a volunteer process, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It's only been four months since you last submitted it; you resubmitted just today. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Lfdigests: the first concern of any reviewer will be "does this article establish that the subject is notable?". To do this, they'll go through the sources cited, looking for independent sources with extensive discussion of her. When they've found that there's nothing useful in the first few, and there's another hundred to check, they're likely to give up in despair, throw your draft back in the ~~queue~~ heap, and find a better use for their time. It's no wonder that it's taking a long time to get reviewed. Maproom (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lfdigests, what we're looking for initially is the best three and only three sources that support a claim to notability. 104 sources to sift through is daunting. If you can tell us which three sources meet all three of the following criteria:

significant coverage
in reliable sources
that are independent of the subject,

that will make the job look like a TON less work for a reviewer. Other objections can be dealt with after we decide she's actually notable, but no one will put that work in until we confirm notability. Valereee (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Some significant editing down of this article would certainly help. Many of the sources are primary and a large percentage of those primary sources don't even mention the subject, and it seems like every passing mention of Goodman's name is cited, even simply a listing of an advertised panel with her name on it, and no additional information.

There are many facts quoted here that cite something that makes no support whatsoever to the claimed fact. For example, you can't support the assertion of someone's contribution to an agreement between two countries by simply citing the agreement itself. If someone wrote "CoffeeCrumbs wrote Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address," a reader should see a citation support that fact, not simply a link to a PDF of the Gettysburg Address.

I suspect that there's a reasonable chance there's a notable person someone here, but it's hard to say with so much résumé cruft on top of it all. I'd strongly recommend saving your work on your own end, and as Valereee suggests, pick out the sources that support notability, that are reliable, independent of Goodman, and provide significant coverage about Goodman, not merely a mention of her existence or a quote from her. Then write an article based on those sources and only those sources. If/when Goodman's notability is clearly established, that would be the time to start introducing additional career highlights, if supported by reliable sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Consolidating Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Pages

Need urgent help consolidating Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati pages. Multiple duplicates, one speedy deletion, and declined drafts. Focusing on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avimukteshwaranand_Saraswati.

Confirm deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadguru_Shankaracharya_Avimukteshwaranandah_Saraswatee,

or create redirect if needed. Ignore drafts. Please advise MH-wiki2025 (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @MH-wiki2025! The duplicate page will get eventually deleted by an admin if he finds that it meets the criteria. You do not need to worry about it TNM101 (chat) 10:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Description titles of pages

I have noticed that most articles on Wikipedia have a small text below the heading that describes the article when searching for it. For example, Bandel has the text 'City in West Bengal, India' when searching for it. But I created a new article called Bandel - Howrah Local and it does not appear. How do I make it appear? Or is it time-related ? Babin Mew (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Babin Mew, please see WP:Short description for how to insert such text - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Links in quotes, and transliteration

Resolved

– QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm writing an article and need some advice on how to format the following :

They are also often described as being part of the "left-behind generation" (simplified Chinese: 留守儿童; traditional Chinese: 留守兒童; pinyin: Liúshǒu értóng)

I have two questions:

Should the hyperlink be placed inside the quotation marks, outside of them, or should I remove the quotes entirely?
Should I include the transliteration if it is not the main focus of the article?

Thanks, QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 07:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

1. Inside the quotation marks: "left-behind generation". 2. I think it's helpful in this case, but it could be omitted, since it's present in the linked article Left-behind children in China. Deor (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Deor: Thanks!

QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Question regarding references

"How Chinese factory-workers express their views on life". The Economist. 2021-08-14. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2025-03-16.

What parameter should I use to indicate that this article is from the 2021-08-14 edition "China's attack on tech"? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @QuickQuokka, You can use an additional |edition= parameter like below:

{{cite news |date=2021-08-14 |title=How Chinese factory-workers express their views on life |work=[[The Economist]] |url=https://www.economist.com/china/2021/08/12/how-chinese-factory-workers-express-their-views-on-life |access-date=2025-03-16 |url-access=subscription |issn=0013-0613 |edition=China's attack on tech}}

It would produce:
"How Chinese factory-workers express their views on life". The Economist (China's attack on tech ed.). 2021-08-14. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2025-03-16.
Hope that helps. However, if any issue appears saying that it's not an acceptable input for |edition=, you can put your input between two brackets like this |edition=((value)). With regards––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Politely addressing poor English skills?

Hi all,

I've recently come across an editor that, while well-intentioned, has a seemingly rather poor grasp of English, which often necessitates substantial cleanup and copyediting of their contributions. On one hand, their contribs clearly show a genuine desire to help the project - they're very much not WP:NOTHERE. On the other, though, the frequent and substantial grammatical errors throughout said contribs suggest that a better handle of English is needed to contribute effectively - I don't enjoy referencing WP:CIR, but as it states, A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up.

I've wanted to address them on this, but I know CIR:

1. is not to be used lightly, and

2. can often come off as insulting to editors it's used towards.

How should I politely address this editor about their problematic grasp of the language, without coming off as insulting/demeaning? The Kip ^(contribs) 19:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, The Kip. You are right that this is a sensitive subject. I think there is a continuum here. Consider an editor "A" whose English prose is clumsy and awkward with some grammatical errors, but is easily comprehensible. The editor accurately if ineptly summarizes reliable sources. Then consider editor "B" whose prose is so mangled that many readers genuinely cannot understand what they are trying to say. The editor either uses unreliable sources or fails to accurately summarize reliable sources, or both. Editor "A" types should be encouraged and gently supported with copyediting help and grammar tips. I have seen several editor "A" types improve gradually over a period of months. Editor "B" types need to be monitored, given escalating warnings and blocked if necessary. Finding the "sweet spot" is difficult and requires careful consideration. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thanks for the response. I definitely think they fall more into A than B - their prose is somewhat mangled, but I can usually mostly tell what they're trying to say, and it's almost always genuinely rooted in the source provided. I'll try to come at it from a more genial approach - hopefully it works. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The Kip, articles can be a mess for a lot of reasons: non-neutral, and unsourced or poorly sourced, questionable content in a biography of a living person, written primarily by a COI editor, being some of the main ones. I rate 'poor English' way down the scale, as long as it is clear what they are saying, no matter how poorly they say it. If that is the situation, then try to steer them towards articles that have a decent number of watchers that can fix up the quality of the English. A couple of other things occur to me:

If we know what their native language is, you could ping some translators or bilinguals or notify a related country- or language-WikiProject on their Talk page to help out.
If there is a maintenance template for poor English, tag the articles, and maybe we can get the Growth team to add a newcomer task to copyedit an article for better English. That would be a big, win-win in my book, and give newcomers a great starting point, without having to have any special knowledge about Wikipedia. Adding Trizek (WMF). The templates listed at Wikipedia:Template index/Translation are kind of close, but don't seem to quite capture your situation. If we need a new template for this, I can write one for you; just figure out what you would like it to say, and write me on my Talk page, or some central location.

Bottom line: encourage them to keep editing, but in areas where there are sufficient editors around to deal with the inevitable cleanup. Cleanup is a big part of what we do, there's no reason that their efforts need be perfect, when we don't apply that standard to others with POV, Verifiability, and other problems. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot I'll try to think of a message for a possible template - thanks for the suggestion! The user's already editing some articles that're high-vis, so a good amount of their issues do get cleaned up somewhat quickly, but the issue's moreso just the tediousness of having to clean them up in the first place (ex. the "good faith mess" principle invoked above). The Kip ^(contribs) 08:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The Kip, how about this: Draft:Cleanup English? I think the newcomer task idea will relieve the veteran editors of the tedium, while simultaneously giving eager newcomers something they can excel at while starting out. Hope Trizek agrees. Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That works for me! My only suggestions would be:

Change "reworked" to rewritten, and/or add copyedited (ex. This article may need to be rewritten and/or copyedited...)
Might want to have it be a yellow tag rather than orange, considering many of the current copyediting-related tags.

The Kip ^(contribs) 08:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The Kip, how's this? Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Although, that makes it pretty close to {{Cleanup rewrite}}, so maybe they should be merged. On the other hand, if we add it as a newcomer task, a complete rewrite seems like a stretch, so, maybe we shouldn't mention 'rewrite'. I dunno which way to go with it. Mathglot (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot As for the difference between the two/merging, I think it can be delineated that Cleanup English is solely for fixing English grammar/style issues, while Cleanup rewrite is for fixing broader violations of the MoS as a whole. Perhaps "copyediting" is the better term? It's also somewhat close to Template:Cleanup-copyedit, but that one doesn't specify English issues. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The Kip, I agree about the goal as you stated it, I just want to make sure that the goal is clear in the wording the template produces, as well as in the /doc page, and is sufficiently different from the other templates, otherwise there will be pressure to merge it, and then we would lose the possible benefit of having a newcomer task assigned to it. The template and the /doc page are not restricted; feel free to try your hand at editing them. Don't worry about breaking something: 1) it's only a Draft, and 2) the 'undo' link is always available. (P.S., I am subscribed, meaning you never have to {{ping}} me here. What about you?) Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe get some ideas from the wording at {{Rough translation}}, or others listed at WP:Template index/Translation. Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Mathglot for the ping.

You can add any template that fits under the Homepage's copyedit task through community configuration. Then, articles that use this templates will be highlighted to newcomers. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The Kip, this discussion is likely to get archived soon. If there is still a need and/or you want to keep discussing it, pick a venue, probably Wikipedia talk:Template index/Cleanup or maybe Wikipedia talk:Cleanup or some other central location, or it will just fade away. (See {{discussion moved to}} and {{discussion moved from}} if so.) Mathglot (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot I'm good either way, if you want to bring the template to mainspace I'd support it. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Can I cite non-English materials in articles?

Like in Jiedushi, there are plenty of Chinese historical material to use. Am I required to provide a translation? or cite them directly? -- Least Action (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Least Action Foreign-language sources are acceptable, although English ones are preferred if available here on en:Wikipedia: see WP:NONENG. Most citation templates such as {{cite book}} have parameters for translations of the titles and quotes, which it is good to do for the convenience of readers. That particular article has very few sources at present, so if you can add others with some translations, that would be very worthwhile. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

You can! English language sources are preferred though, so if there's a translation it might be better to cite that instead. Additionally, there is Chinese wikipedia if you want to edit there mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

"External links modified"

Can talk page entries by bot accounts titled "External links modified" be deleted after a certain amount of time? Or should they be archived? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It depends on users choice, there is no force regulation about that.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 22:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, just making sure there is nothing wrong with deleting them if they are old. I think it's preferrable to archiving them as I had been doing, as they aren't very useful.

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Templates

Was using not done for now {(subst:ESp|nfn}} correct here? I think Android 16 will release eventually. Should I have just used "not done"? This was the first edit reqeust I answered. Justjourney (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I even welcomed the user. Justjourney (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Go on, that's something nice, and your answer to the request too.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 23:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Help to improve this draft

Can anyone help to improve this draft: Draft:Pranic Healing. User:Velella suggested to add more in-depth citations. I am unable to find any good reference on Google. Can anyone help? I also want to invite the users who have knowledge about this topic can contribute here. Interdel (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Interdel, if I had knowledge of the topic [I do not], then I'd have to put this aside and depend on published, reliable sources, independent of "Pranic Healing". I imagine that if these sources exist, Google would find them; and I suppose that you can use Google as well as I could. What kind of material, irretrievable by Google, do you think exists? -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, Thank you for your suggestions. I have added few journals and other citations related to 'Pranic healing', Please check. Interdel (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Interdel There are over 1000 hits on Google scholar for the phrase "pranic healing". Your task is to summarize the main points into a decent draft, much more extensive than the one you have created so far, citing some of these sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mike Turnbull, Thank you for your suggestions. I have added few journals and other citations related to 'Pranic healing', Please check. Interdel (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Interdel I forgot to say that this is a medical topic, so you need to read and understand the guidance for sourcing explained at WP:MEDRS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mike Turnbull, Thank you for your response. I read WP:MEDRS and found the way what should be the best citations. Interdel (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Velella, please check now. Interdel (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Interdel - I will respond and continue this thread on the Draft Talk page. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Quick question

What happens if a user keeps on not using edit summaries when editing an article? Let's take user Axl7Rose as an example (I'm not here to report anything though). If you check most of his recent contributions, a good majority of his edits don't have edit summaries. If that happens to a user, will he/she be permanently banned from Wikipedia? If not, what will happen? Underdwarf58 (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The user has received a temporary block for ignoring final warnings and requests for edit summaries. While not using edit summaries in edits would probably not receive a permanent ban by itself, failure to WP:COMMUNICATE as shown by that user could result in a permanent ban. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

So that means if the user still doesn't use edit summaries after the 2-day block expires, he/she will get a permanent ban as he/she would probably not read warnings in the talk page? Underdwarf58 (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably not permanent, it depends on if their editing is useful or just causing trouble. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, it depends if their edits are constructive or not. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Would this be an example of one of his more recent edits that caused trouble? Underdwarf58 (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Just as an illustrative example, that edit removes an entry from a table. I would expect an edit summary, explaining why. If the edit fixed some spelling issue, for example, no edit summary would be needed to understand the edit. (It's fairly common to type "sp" in such a case, though.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC).

Noted. Thanks a lot Underdwarf58 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Request for Help with Draft Review

Hello everyone,

I have been working on a Wikipedia draft article about Arun Chockalingam, and I want to make sure it meets Wikipedia's guidelines before submitting it for review. Could someone please review my draft and help me:

If the article is ready for submission.
Whether the citations I added are correct and reliable.
Any improvements I need to make to ensure it meets wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards.

Here is the link to my draft: Draft:Arun Chockalingam

I would really appreciate any guidance from experienced editors.

Thank you in advance! BioEditss (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

BioEditss, I have left you a message on your Talk page entitled, § Do you know Arun Chockalingam?. Please respond there, on your Talk page, first. Your question here can be answered afterward. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, I have responded on my talk page as requested. Please let me know if anything else is needed. Thanks for your time! BioEditss (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I've skipped your three requests above, BioEditss; perhaps some other editor will comment. But I've posted three questions for you. -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @BioEditss. Your questions above amount to "how can I get my draft reviewed without submitting it for review?" The answer is that if you want it reviewed, you should submit it for review. ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine, Actually, before submitting for the review I want to make sure the article is read or I have to make any changes. Thank you for your guidance! BioEditss (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are not necessarily draft reviewers. David notMD (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Anyone got any tips on how easily convert long bullet point lists into a table?

Normally when its better to do so, I just put the contents of lists into tables by hand, but this is impractical if the list is really long. Bloopityboop (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bloopityboop: If you are doing source mode editing, you can copy and paste your code into text editor. Then do a find and replace with regular expressions. Syntax may vary a bit, but on Geany I can covert list items to rows by searching for "\*\s" and replacing with "\|-\n\|" or for row headers "\|-\n\!". You can try out regex find and replace online at http://regex101.com/r/kUW4Ug/ . Then just add "{| class="wikitable" to the start and "|} to the end.

If you want to add columns and rows once your list, you can flip into the VisualEditor, add them, and then flip back to source editing. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

And there is a tool on Wikipedia called "Regex editor", so you don't actually have to copy to another editor.

Also it is possible to write a javascript add-on that would do that too. I have one that adds the bullets to the beginning of each line: function(editor) { editor.replaceSelection(function(selected) { return selected.replace(/^\n/gm,"").replace(/^/gm,"*").replace(/^\*/gm,"* ").replace(/^\* */gm,"* "); }); }

So if you replaced the "* " with "\|-\n\|" it would do what Bloopityboop said. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett, can you replace a character with a new line using the "Regex editor" in the tools menu? And if so, how? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you use the \n in the replacement field which means new line. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett I wonder if there are multiple regex editors like there are multiple dark modes. I can search for and replace newlines with "\n", but trying to replace literally replaces with that characters "\n" rather than a newline. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Graeme Bartlett/monobook.js where it uses mw.loader.load('//tools-static.wmflabs.org/meta/scripts/pathoschild.templatescript.js'); Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

There's a useful trick here. If you capture a new line, you can re-use it. So instead of replacing "* " with "\|-\n\|" replace "(\n)\* " with "$1\|-$1\|". One other quick point, many bulleted (or numbered) lists either don't have spaces after the * (or #) consistently, or at all. So a better replacement is "(\n)\* *" with "$1\|-$1\|". The means the number of spaces after the * can be zero or more. You can even improve on that with "(\n)\*[ \t]*" which catches any tab characters or "(\n)\*s*" which catches any "white space" characters. (There is of course yet more layers of what can be whitespace characters in wiki-markup or Unicode, but you are unlikely to need it in these cases.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC).

Oh, gotcha. And a ping for the original commneter: Bloopityboop Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks guys, I'll give your suggestions a try the next time I'm doing this Bloopityboop (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Topic bans

How can you tell if a user is topic banned on something? Where would it show that? How would it be enforced etc? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

You can find a list of editors who has editing restrictions such as topic bans at this page: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. If an editor breaks this restriction, an admin can place a wp:block at their discretion, or for non-admins, post at one of the conduct noticeboards like WP:ANI. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

So other editors would need to keep track of it essentially? If someone were to break it even just once, is that sufficient to then be blocked indefinitely beyond the topic? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Other editors can warn or report topic ban violations if they come across one. The decision to apply indefinite blocks depends on the egregiousness and quantity of the violation. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

How to address a situation where an editor cites multiple books with invalid ISBNs (books non-existent)

I first noticed an issue in the WP:BLP article on Zhao Liying, where a 2019 edit by Huangdan2060 cited a source claiming to be a book published in 2019 titled 那些草根出身的明星 (Stars who came up from Nothing). However, no such book exists. The ISBN provided (978-7-229-09693-9) corresponds to a different book published in 2015 titled English Street entrance 6th edition, Series June 2015 TEENS SPACE. Since the cited book does not exist and this concerns a BLP article, I removed the content.

This raised concerns about Huangdan2060’s citations, so I further investigated the edits. In the recently created article Longxing Temple (Yanling County) by this editor, there’s a cited book with ISBN 9787535728746. Despite thorough searches, I found no record of this book online—except for Huangdan2060’s own citations on the Chinese and Japanese Wikipedias. I then checked the China PDC Database (where all officially published Chinese books are listed), but neither the ISBN nor the cited book title appeared. This makes me think that this cited book is either unpublished or does not exist..

As this is my first encounter with such a situation, I would like to seek guidance (I have no idea on how to deal with this). Thank you. EleniXDD※Talk 16:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I have further investigated and there are two more questionable edits (I'm not sure whether these four total examples suffice to initiate a talk page discussion). For this edit by Huangdan2060, I cannot find the cited book titled 中国共产党历届湖南省委书记 in both Worldcat and the database I mentioned. Other online search doesn't provide me with this book, which makes me question of its existence. The other one is in the article Gu Jinchi created by Huangdan2060. The cited book is said to be titled 中华人民共和国年鉴 1998 [Yearbook of the People's Republic of China 1998], published in year 1999 with ISBN 7-80056-903-9. Yet with this isbn, both database I mentioned and Worldcat give a book (also published in 1999) titled 《中华人民共和国会计法全书》(I try to translate this Chinese title, The Complete Book of Accounting Law of the People's Republic of China). While this time, the cited book title seems to be this, but I am not sure. For the first three sources, I question their existence entirely. As for this one, while the book might exist, the title does not match the provided ISBN. EleniXDD※Talk 04:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Huangdan2060: It would be great if you could explain the above 4 edits. Thank you. EleniXDD※Talk 15:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Assuming most, if not all, of his cites are to these nonexistent books, it sounds to me like we may need to block Huangdan2060 here for rampant source fraud. Once is an innocent mistake; anything beyond that is a wilful attempt to deceive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The first step should be to ask Huangdan2060 if they can explain their edits and/or resolve the issue on the article talk page (or on their user talk page if it affects multiple pages). If they can't provide a satisfactory answer in due time, then you should file a case at WP:ANI, providing the WP:DIFFs of the exact edits where they appear to have gone wrong. I do agree with Jeske that the outline of the problem you're highlighting here does appear to be quite serious and will likely result in a block. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Should I take a look on more articles created/edited by Huangdan2060 first, or ask about the above two edits? There're actually quite a number of articles created by this editor, and I am not sure if this goes like the most cases, as its 2-4 edits among 25329 edits. EleniXDD※Talk 16:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd look at a few more edits, at least. If those are likewise poorly-sourced (read: citing non-existent sources) then AN/I would be the next stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I will look at more isbn edits. EleniXDD※Talk 16:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I’ve identified two additional questionable edits (I can continue investigating further if needed). Is this sufficient, or should I proceed with more checks? Additionally, I noticed that Maineartists invited Huangdan2060 to this discussion on Huangdan2060's talk page. Should I re-address the issue on Huangdan2060’s talk page, or document the two new edits directly here? EleniXDD※Talk 03:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm far to be a well experienced user even if I made more than 500 edits on "Wikipedia in English".

If only some edits are problematic among more than "25 000". This is certainly a mistake in good faith of the user.

I think the others editors gave you right advices. Happy editing ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

No, this is absolutely the wrong take. Source fraud is a direct attack on the accuracy and reliability of our articles, and people have been blocked for citing non-existent sources or citing a source that says the complete opposite of the claim it's cited for. We have to treat it with very minimal tolerance. Again, one bad cite can be chalked up to a mistake. Multiple bad cites grievously strains any sort of good faith. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Wow. Easy there. Source fraud? I would be very careful before slinging accusations of this kind around without proper evidence. First of all, I take issue when any editor at WP uses the term: "our" articles. This is a community. There is no "us" against "them". No one owns anything. This is the Teahouse. For the first example, I would assume WP:GF in this instant. While one editor is looking for a definitive book based only on an ISBN; it may just be a simple error in template choice. Rather, the contributing editor should have used a template for the magazine TEEN SPACE. I have seen in other instances where inexperienced editors (assuming good faith) have entered an erroneous ISBN to complete templates for books when a magazine is being cited. I cannot imagine that the contributing editor made up an entire quote in this instant; when it seems there actually is a magazine issue: English Street entrance 6th edition, Series June 2015 TEENS SPACE, in their language. In defense of the contributing editor, if they are editing from a non-English speaking country (which I believe they are), this may also be a factor. I would strongly advise approaching the editor first. Blocking seems a bit in haste. They honestly may not know what they are doing is wrong. That's what "good faith" is about. Maineartists (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

As well, the second example: Bai Li (柏立); Gong Shaoshi (龚绍石) (2000-01-01). 丰富的文化遗存 [Rich Cultural Relics]. 《怀化市初中乡土教材：历史》 [Junior High School Local Textbook of Huaihua: History] (in Chinese). Changsha, Hunan: Hunan People's Publishing House - A Chinese textbook from a local Junior High School? It may not have an ISBN. I would also assume good faith for this one. The editor may just need to understand that they do not need to fill in the ISBN, or may use a different template, or does not need one at all to cite. I honestly do not believe with 25,000+ edits, that this editor is going around fabricating content with such detailed references. Maineartists (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

They also couldn't find it via its title, Maine. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Find what? This isn't the magazine? [13] Maineartists (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

From above, in re Longxing Temple: In the recently created article Longxing Temple (Yanling County) by this editor, there’s a cited book... I... checked the China PDC Database (where all officially published Chinese books are listed), but neither the ISBN nor the cited book title appeared. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

What is your point? The first one is a magazine (which the above editor keeps calling a "book"). The second is a "Chinese textbook from a local Junior High School". Do you really believe either one of these have ISBNs? Once again, assuming good faith would err on the side that these do not fall within the norm for English WP templates and that the editor most probably entered erroneous ISBNs to satisfy the criteria citation. I'm not saying it was right; but probable. These are only two examples that need an explanation from the contributing editor; and more likely a warning for correction moving forward. Not an immediate block without outreach. BTW, EleniXDD, just what exactly is the: China PDC Database? I have been searching and have come up with nothing except several resources related to China's global activities. Can you provide a link? Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

For the China PDC database (i hope i provide a good translation name?) Its 国家版本数据中心, a database provided by 中国国家版本馆 china national archives of publications and culture. EleniXDD※Talk 01:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

For the first one, (my fault for calling it generally as a book, I will be more specific next time) at first I do thought it maybe a translation error. Yet, the part concerns me is that both the cited publication year and the Chinese and English titles do not match with the exact magazine. Its cited to be a 2019 magazine 那些草根出身的明星 (Stars who came up from Nothing), which do not match with the exact 2015 magazine English Street entrance 6th edition, Series June 2015 TEENS SPACE - 英语街高考版第6辑 2015年6月 TEENS SPACE. Btw, in the database, it also showed the same result to be a 2015 magazine (with the latter title), content is focus on gaokao, suggested by the title. For the quote (in Chinese), I can only find it on mubi, not sure whether its reliable enough for blp. Also, China has strict laws on isbn. I have checked, restricting one isbn per book (see item 28) （so it definitely refers to the 2015 one)EleniXDD※Talk 00:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

As for the second one, before searching it on database, I also searched about its textbook name titled 怀化市初中乡土教材：历史 on online (textbook) selling platforms, such as taobao and pinduoduo, no relevant book result appears, which is a very weird case. Regarding isbn, China has laws on the published book, requiring a shuhao（isbn）for all legally published books(shuhao in china after 1986 is isbn. Before 1986, its another one called 統一書號 So if the book is (legally) published in China, it must have a identified number (which can be traced). But I can't trace it both in the database I mentioned, and WorldCat.EleniXDD※Talk 01:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

If it's as you say, "entered erroneous ISBNs to satisfy the criteria citation", that's substantially worse than an honest mistake (transcription error from a website or bibliographic database). How is that not as bad as wholely making up any other piece of the bibliographic information? Even assuming good faith does not make the behavior acceptable. DMacks (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Who said it was "acceptable behavior"? I surely didn't. That would imply that once it was brought to the attention of the editor, they were allowed to keep doing it. I was simply offering probable suggestions as to the "why". Not condoning the behavior. That's all. This discussion hasn't even heard from the editor. As I wrote below, I cannot find evidence of initial questioning regarding the edits; let alone any warnings or direction toward WP policy. Their TALK PAGE looks quite commendable with BARNSTARS and recognitions. 2 edits out of 25,000 is a bit assuming at this point to threaten blocking, ANI, etc ("It is serious enough that you could be blocked from editing as a result. I recommend you respond to explain yourself") before even having heard from the editor in question. That's all. Maineartists (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I can think of several possible explanations they might give for their edits and/or lack of talkpage response, but I'm not going to put words in their mouth or make this a multiple-choice for them to just say what I say they should say. Given they have clearly made many edits timestamped well after you alerted them, we are easily into WP:ANI territory. Has even one of the edits they made after you alerted them had a problematic ISBN or other detail? DMacks (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

So yeah, I forgot it's now March. Their most recent edit was a month ago (February 14). Their most recent edits anywhere on WMF appears to be March 11 (on commons). So I would give some time for them to respond. ANI is still a possibility, but only because it's chronic and it needs more eyes to help be sure of what is happening, not because it's urgent. DMacks (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, let's wait for the response. EleniXDD※Talk 05:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The current most recent edit anywhere on WMF appears to be March 15 (yesterday on commons), not sure whether common notifies wikipedia. Any idea to stop this discussion being archived by bot before the reply? I am worried the discussion get archived before their reply. EleniXDD※Talk 05:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I have left an invitation on the editor's TALK PAGE: [14]. I am having difficulty in finding evidence where another editor has "warned" them or "brought to their attention" these problematic issues; or where they have made continuous edits after the outreach. The editor in question Huangdan2060 has not even been pinged at this discussion. I cannot find discussions on the articles' TALK PAGES either: [15], [16]. But I have been known to miss things before; so if someone could bring them here, that would be helpful. Many are lighting torches for the trek over to ANI and I see no trail of outreach, warning or continued violations after the fact as have been alluded to above. Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I saw your invitation and thought the discussion would be better held here after the notification, as it concerns quite a few articles. Originally I planned to write a whole paragraph in talk page. Thanks for your reminder, I have pinged. EleniXDD※Talk 15:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

What "notification" did you give them? Could you please provide a link to that? Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I mean they shall be notified by your talk page invitation. EleniXDD※Talk 16:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I had already pinged them. BTW, you mentioned a book by a title: 怀化市初中乡土教材：历史 in your second set of claims. Could you please translate so we at this WP know exactly what book you are referring to. In Google translate, the book renders: Huaihua City Junior Middle School Local Textbooks. Haven't you already addressed this in your first claim? It seems much is being "lost in translation" here. Do you have other examples where Junior Middle School Local Textbooks can be found online via their ISBN? Also, have any questions been raised on the Chinese WP regarding this editor? I could not find other listings at ABEBOOKS for the exact issue of TEEN SPACE (2019). I suspect the editor was linking this listing to prove the magazine exists. If they had simply entered the information without a template with the correct information: magazine, issue, date, page; we may not be having this discussion. Last, the translation for the title of the magazine that you provided renders: Those Grassroots Stars. How exactly do we know the precise title? Maineartists (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I am going to bed soon, so I shall respond briefly first. For the title those grassroots stars, I think you might misunderstand, it's the translated title provided by Huangdan2060 in the 2019 edit I mentioned earlier (which a book with such title doesn't exist). That's the problem that initiates my investigations, the magazine with that isbn is a 2015 magazine, yet the cited book by Huangdan2060 is a 2019 non-existent one. I think I have mentioned clearly that by China law, one isbn per book, so the 2015 one has taken that isbn. The cited 2019 one doesn't exist. For the textbook example you'd like, I will provide you tomorrow. But I think I had make it clear that all legally published book in China should have a isbn/shuhao, making it traceable. The problem now is the isbn cannot be traced/mismatched EleniXDD※Talk 16:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

For example, this 2015 published junior middle school math textbook, can be traced in the database by isbn 978-7223046855. EleniXDD※Talk 00:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the information entered, I see a magazine issue trying to be fitted into a "book" cite template: cite book |language=en, zh|author= |trans-title=Stars who came up from Nothing |script-title=zh:那些草根出身的明星们 |journal=TEENS'SPACE |volume=6 |year=2019 |publisher=Chongqing Publishing House |location=Chongqing |pages=12-15. The "Journal" is titled TEENS SPACE. I assumed the "script-title" that the editor put in: 那些草根出身的明星们 (tr: Those grassroot stars) was merely a poor translation entered into "trans-title": Stars who came up from Nothing. Have you actually tried to search for the MAGAZINE with the criteria: TEENS SPACE, Volume 6, 2019, Chongqing Publishing House, pg 12-15? Rather than solely focusing on the ISBN and trying to match it? I translated the entered quote provided by the editor in the template: 我出生在农村，但就是这样的农村生活经历，磨炼了我坚强的生活意志，也造就了我坚忍顽强的个性。正是这些经历，成就了今天的我。所以我认为：英雄的出处是来自内心的强大，来自对梦想的执著追求和对你所从事职业的坚持与踏实，以及面对浮躁浮华的淡定和定力. I also placed the Chinese quote into Google and it brought up several hits for: Zhao Liying saying these very same words (sometimes verbatim) in other interviews: [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. This particular article: [21] is titled: "Is Zhao Liying a grassroots star?" (Zhao Liying was born in the countryside ... etc) I find nothing out of the ordinary within the entry except the ISBN. If that had been left out, and Template:Cite magazine was used, it would be a perfectly acceptable citation entry. I would suggest, since you have more resources at your disposable, to search for the magazine with the information provided. Having the quote continually validated and attached to the BLP in other interviews seems to validate the entry (just not the ISBN). As for the textbook, the editor has (as well) given this information: Bai Li, Gong Shaoshi, (2000-01-01), Rich Cultural Relics, Junior High School Local Textbook of Huaihua: History, Changsha, Hunan: Hunan People's Publishing House. Have you tried to search for this book based on this given information within your resources instead of focusing only on the ISBN? Just a thought. Maineartists (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem of this quote from other sources you provided is that they are blogs or unreliable sources (user-generated content on platforms like sohu) and do not meet the blp source standard. (I have listed the mubi one above too, I hope you saw my yesterday reply. Its the only one among these that may fit, yet it has the possibility of user-generated too, so making it not adequate enough for a blp entry) As for the 2019 book, at first I searched the titles (both in English and Chinese), which gave no result as well. Thats why afterwards, I searched its isbn, and it resulted another magazine. I hope you understand that I actually first entered and searched all entries, including publishers and titles. After all these gave me no result, I took isbn as my last resort. EleniXDD※Talk 02:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not saying that those other sources are RS. I am only saying that when I entered the given editor's quote, several hits came up with the same quote for the BLP, giving merit to the quote. Meaning, the editor didn't simply make this quote up out of thin air. You keep saying that the ISBN for the "magazine" doesn't exist and that it: "resulted another magazine". No, it actually didn't. It only resulted a different "issue". The ISBN provided links to this [22], which is the same magazine, just a different date. Meaning, the editor could have been in the same situation as you: couldn't find the exact publication online, so they wanted to at least prove that the magazine "itself" existed. If you can't find the exact issue that the editor is citing, how do you expect them to? As well, for the second entry, the only reason you found the textbook is because someone listed it as a used copy on Amazon. There is no history of its title or ISBN online anywhere else; even though you wrote: "I think I had make it clear that all legally published book in China should have a isbn/shuhao, making it traceable." If that is true, where is the proof other than an Amazon listing? Having an ISBN and finding it online are two separate things all together. Unless a magazine is listed online (in any manner), the ISBN is useless. So, once again, if you are having trouble finding these titles physically on line, then perhaps (just perhaps) the editor - in good faith - did as well, and was trying to provide as much information as possible in a template that required everything. When in reality, they could have simply line cited it without a template and it would have been fine without challenge. BTW, here is an issue of TEENS SPACE 2019: [23]. I can't read Chinese so I do not know what issue it is. It is the only one I can find online from that entire year; only because someone listed it on eBay. Maineartists (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I really hope you understand that, as I mentioned, by Chinese law, it requires legally published book to have an isbn (and I have cited that exact law for you earlier). So it’s not ‘if that is true’, but rather a fact. And Wikipedia requires a published book as reliable source, while a published book in China must have isbn by law. Having isbn means the cited source is traceable. I have provided you the textbook example you want, and it can be searched in the database I mentioned (not Amazon alone).

I think both of us shall not continue to guess and give Huangdan2060 the chance to explain the four edits, cause we will never know their explanation or reasons behind etc. Right now I still have doubts about those edits. EleniXDD※Talk 11:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Back to the point, I think wiki has a high standard on the source cited, for accuracy and reliability. My belief is that if an editor wish to add in content supported by source that can’t be accurately cited or found, then they shall not add in such content, especially in Wp:blp. One who add in a source should have the responsibility, making sure it can be checked later on. EleniXDD※Talk 11:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

ISBNs are a very simple idea, but in the real world they are complicated.

Magazines should not have an ISBN, they should have an ISSN. However it may be applicable to apply an ISBN to a bound volume.
People sometimes abuse the system by re-using ISBNs, making them up, or just copying them form other publishers.
People make mistakes.
1. When we audited the WP ISBNS a decade ago, we found some that were printed wrongly on the books.
2. We also found many that were entered incorrectly.
3. We found special cases where multiple ISBNs were used, for example dual publishers used the same block for both hard and soft back, giving four ISBNS.
4. Sometimes two books share an ISBN, a book and its answer book (for example).
5. Sometimes a multivolume work has one for the whole work and one for each volume.

Having said this I think the editor in question should explain to the best of their ability what is going on here. We may need to check all their edits, and if there is a simple explanation we can perhaps avoid having to do a lot of unnecessary work.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC).

Thanks for the detailed explanation, I have invited the editor in question to explain. Right now, I am worried that this discussion will be archived by bot before they can explain. Is there any method available to stop the discussion being archived before their explanation? EleniXDD※Talk 16:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
16:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Bring it to the article TALK PAGE in question (which is perhaps what should have happened in the first place). If the editor explains what happened there, then most likely it can be applied to the others; as well as moving forward. I would start with Talk:Zhao Liying and address the magazine citation. A trail can just as easily be started and followed via TALK PAGES as a thread here at the Teahouse. Maineartists (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Since this situation/pattern affects quite a few articles, maybe I shall rewrite and ask that in the editor in question's talk page tomorrow. This should be easier for an explanation (explain at once). EleniXDD※Talk 17:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Originally I did not know how to handle the situation, so I didn't leave talk page messages (at the first page). Now, I have left them a talk page message. EleniXDD※Talk 12:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

How do I warn someone for violating NOTHERE?

I have been looking through Twinkle and I can't find any template to warn a user for violating WP:NOTHERE. How should I do this? Is there a warning? Thanks, loserhead (contribs) 15:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like gaming the system? Knitsey (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

There isn't really a warning for it per se because WP:NOTHERE sort of encompasses the motivation behind a wide range of conduct rather than the conduct itself. The thing to do is instead to identify the more specific conduct they're doing wrong (which makes you suspect they're not here to build an encyclopedia) and warn them about that. If they're intransigent, then you might conclude that they're NOTHERE and take them to ANI or the like over it; but it's more something that you conclude based on more specific individual problems, like gaming the rules or stonewalling or bludgeoning, and those problems are the ones you'd warn for. Like, what would a NOTHERE warning even look like? "It looks like you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Have you tried, instead, being here to build an encyclopedia?" --Aquillion (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the explaination. I will warn them and see where it goes from there. loserhead (contribs) 17:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I think Special:Diff/1280448040 at User talk:TWC YMCA3TWC#Hello is a bit overkill. Newbie was not even disruptive in WP:mainspace; this was the first warning (or welcome, for that matter). Blocks for only editing userpages—absent other disruptive actions like ignoring warnings against repeatedly creating speedily deleted promotional content on said userpage—are rare, and does not seem to be happening here besides. I would've just used {{subst:welcome-no-edits}} (intended for new users who have created their user page, but have not yet contributed elsewhere) or {{subst:welcometest}}. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
@Rotideypoc41352 Oh, I didn't mean to bite them, I was just trying to tell them what could happen. Should I remove my message? loserhead (contribs) 18:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
What's done is done. Just make a note for next time. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Loserhead4512, I disagree; it's bitey, and they haven't replied, and may not have seen it, so yes, definitely, I would just remove it. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Far far too early. You have to let folk develop confidence. I've removed it as unsuitable. Its not impacting the corpus. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for a late reply, but thank you everyone for your replies and advice. I didn't mean to be rude at the time I wrote the message, but after re-reading it it's definitely biting. I will learn from this mistake, and do better next time loserhead (contribs) 13:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It's kind of odd that a three-week old account feels it has the experience to apply such a warning, or indeed to know that NOTHERE is even a thing. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1250#Not sure what to title this Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Ah, so they've already confessed. Thanks, Rotideypoc41352. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

using alltrails exports to add trail maps to wikipedia?

There's a wikipedia article on the West Fork Trail and alltrails lets you export info on that trail to the GeoJSON format if you're logged in and visit https://www.alltrails.com/trail/us/arizona/west-fork-trail . My question is... is alltrails trail data copyrighted or is it public domain? Like could I add it to commons.wikimedia.org?

The wikipedia article on Bright Angel Trail had a map added to it with this change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bright_Angel_Trail&diff=prev&oldid=982330866

But it is unclear where that editor got the trail map from. TerraFrost (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

https://www.alltrails.com/terms says it is under copyright. You should assume everything is under copyright if you don't see a prominent notice to the contrary. MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Lyttle v. United States

Would anybody be interested in reviewing an article draft I've created for Lyttle v. United States? I would greatly appreciate it if somebody could take a peek.

Here's the Introduction if anybody wants to see what it's about:

Lyttle v. United States is a legal case that emerged from a series of administrative errors and racial profiling that led to wrongful deportation proceedings against a U.S. natural-born citizen in 2008. Mark Daniel Lyttle, born in North Carolina, is a man with bipolar disorder and cognitive disabilities who became the focus of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) proceedings while serving a 100-day sentence for misdemeanor assault at Neuse Correctional Institution.

During Lyttle's intake at Neuse, a clerk recorded his birthplace as Mexico and his citizenship status as "alien", despite his U.S. citizenship. These errors triggered ICE involvement. Lyttle was forced to cross the US-Mexico border with only $3 in his possession, wearing a prison jumpsuit, and without identification or passport Lyttle then wandered through multiple Central American countries including Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala for a total of 125 days. During this time, he experienced homelessness, abuse, and was imprisoned in Honduras.

The case exposed broader issues within the immigration enforcement system, including racial profiling, the treatment of mentally disabled detainees, the lack of due process in immigration proceedings, and the conditions in private immigration detention facilities.

Thanks a milion! Theedecemberblues (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It might sound good, but I'm afraid, that it's just a description of a case, and nothing else. As such, your draft can be considered WP:NOTNEWS, and rejected. You might want to rework it a little. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello CreatorTheWikipedian2009! Thanks for responding, below are the reasons why I think this article demonstrates Wikipedia's notability guidelines:

1 This case has significant coverage in reliable sources. It has been extensively covered by major publications including The New Yorker, NPR, The Atlantic, and multiple newspapers. These sources provide in-depth, independent coverage rather than just brief mentions.
2 Its legal significance. The case resulted in a federal court ruling and a $175,000 settlement, setting precedents for handling immigration cases involving U.S. citizens and mentally disabled individuals. The outcome influenced subsequent Justice Department policies regarding legal representation in deportation cases.
3 The policy impact. The case directly influenced immigration policy reforms, including being referenced in the Gang of Eight's immigration reform bill and contributing to the 2013 Justice Department policy change regarding legal representation for mentally disabled defendants in deportation cases.
4 Academic study. The case has been the subject of scholarly analysis, particularly in Professor Jacqueline Stevens' research at Northwestern University examining wrongful deportations of U.S. citizens.
5 Lasting impact. The case continues to be cited in legal and policy discussions about immigration enforcement, as evidenced by ongoing coverage and references from 2008 through 2024.

Additionally, as per WP:SIGCOV guidelines, the coverage is sustained over time (not just immediate news reports), comes from multiple independent sources, and focuses on the case itself rather than just mentioning it in passing.

The sources used are reliable and independent, including major national publications, academic research, and legal documentation. This meets the core requirement of Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG) requiring "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Hope this helps explain why this article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria! Let me know if have any opinions, but this is why I think it is notable.

Thanks for the reply/input! Theedecemberblues (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

CreatorTheWikipedian2009, applying WP:NOTNEWS to a legal case that goes back to 2008 is not appropriate, especially when the case has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources over the years. Please read the actual text of NOTNEWS carefully. It does not mean what you think it means. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

View deleted edits

I've noticed I have a few deleted edits on my xtools page, and I was wondering how I can view those just to see which edits were deleted? When I click the link there, it says I need to be an admin to view those. I just want to know what is and isn't deleted so I can learn from those :) Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Alexthegod5: Deleted edits can only be viewed by administrators. It's usually just edits to a page which was later deleted. This turns all page edits into deleted edits. It doesn't imply your own edits were bad. You mainly have deleted edits to Battle of Ujala, Apostolos (Kourounis) and Benjamin Peterson (entrepreneur). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunterohh that makes sense, yeah I remember those pages and why they were deleted. Thank you! Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Review of Equality (mathematics)

How do I have templates?

I'm not sure why they're thinking that I have a financial stake in this article?

Hello!

AFD discussion

Clarification regarding GNG

Doubt regarding Article

New user - help understanding moderators - Thank you :-)

Edit filter false positive

Help with Arun Chockalingam article references

How do I submit a draft for review?

silly question

CVU and AFC

Le Chat (chatbot)

PR publications as citations

Article rejection

Stubs

An incorrect edit from another review made to my draft

Saveafox Pages

Remove a mentor

Please your assistance

Draft article

Template:Infobox synthesizer, parameter 'inventor'

Making edits to cut an oversized section

EZ2b

Previous draft

What is box-header

best practices using press releases as sources

</ref> or <ref/>

valid verification sources

Help improving my article

Can you please add more women who died of AIDS on the list of HIV Positive peopele?

Are there instructions for creating and adding narration to articles?

Request for help

Alabama Barker

Moving from user to template namespace

Lost old man and I need help

Finding articles to improve

Multiple accounts

XfD closing

User warning level

Should I create a new article?

Question about edits

Looking for articles to improve

Template

Sumita Misra image size

I am a new editor: any recommendations for pages I should edit

How to add link to Wikipedia article in a different language

Citations in first paragraph

Hello i wanna change my sandbox name.

Per WB:SCHOOLS, should school articles that aren't notable be deleted?

Publishing a draft

Notability guidelines for Springback Binder?

Equations in refn

"Disappearance of Madeleine McCann" page

A feature suggestion

Need Help With bettering my article

Talk bots

Snare Drum (character)

Change Name

Map

PD .gif?

Notability and Independent Sources for Academic Journal Article

Clarification on Notability Standards for Academic Journals

Working with drafts

New Wikiproject

Npov

Userboxes

Larry_Sanger?

Follow-up to Feedback​ on my draft from experience editors.

Article for resubmission

How to Notify

Refining a search for links to a page

Disambiguation

How do I use Sfn?

song sample durations

Worst edit summaries

Parsoid error

Other sources for article

How would you delete a userscript file?

Follow-up to Feedback on my draft from experience editors.