Archive 1245

←

Archive 1249

Archive 1250

Archive 1251

i know not everybody has access to it but its very difficult to complete an article without any assistance. How do you get people to work on your draft with you. Booksandarticles (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

What assistance are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Depending on what the article is, it most likely has a WikiProject associated which it. You could post a message on the project's talk page asking for assistance. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Booksandarticles I would advise reading Help:Your first article and trying to find reliable sources discussing Edgemead High School to ensure it is notable. And if you would like to follow up on History6042's suggestion the best place for that would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, two related pages (2025 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship qualification and 2025 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship were moved to new article titles before the discussions on the moves, on the associated talk pages Talk:2025 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship qualification and Talk:2025 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship, were necessarily complete. And while I'm pleased that to some degree my proposed alternative move titles were incorporated into the eventual move, it doesn't seem as though the final moves are based on a clear resolution of the discussion. The moves were done by the original proposer of the changes, @Rey1996ss, and I think they are being made in good faith, but they use terminology (such as "first round") that is different from what the sources provide ("Round One"). I'm not entirely sure how to proceed, but I would appreciate someone heretofore uninvolved taking a look. Thank you. Coining (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Coining, see Wikipedia:Move review to contest the move. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. If anything, I will try to resolve the issue with the mover to start. Coining (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Reading WP:THREATEN, no threats. But {{uw-vandalism4}}, it says "you may be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize wikipedia." That sounds like something from WP:THREATEN. I need some clarification. Justjourney (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Justjourney, it looks like WP:THREATEN is specific to edit wars, and it's only an advice essay as opposed to one of Wikipedia's policies. That warning is for when people are engaging in a pattern of obviously inappropriate editing for an extended period of time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I was reading an article and saw one in particular seemed very loaded. Although the sources all are verifiable, I can't help but feel that the content is somewhat loaded. It is a rather touchy subject, so I was wondering how I could get a neutral party review of an article? The article's talk page doesn't have much to it, but it seems there have been a number of edits back and forth on some minute details. Alexthegod5 (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Alexthegod5! If you have specific concerns, you can make a new post on the article's talk page describing them. Or you could be WP:BOLD and fix them yourself, as long as you're willing to participate in the bold, revert, discuss process. If there's a disagreement about the article's neutrality, you can make a post at the neutral point of view noticeboard for further opinions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Thebiguglyalien; I'll give it a shot myself and then once I'm done with my edits I'll post it over there to get a second perspective Alexthegod5 (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello - I found this page randomly. While the heading is Mother - 2011 film, the article refers to a film of a slightly different name and different year. The short description and categories also refer to 2002. I'm not sure what to do about this, so I've come here to ask the helpful Teahouse folk. Thanks. Blackballnz (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The article was created by Haldir Marchwarden -- who, thanks to issues discussed here, can't contribute to this discussion. It doesn't specify the Chinese title of this Chinese film, and there's no link via Wikidata to an article (in Chinese or any other language) about the film. Possibly it had one title for one English-language market and another title for another. Or possibly one English-language title is how the film was marketed in English and the other is not but is a more faithful translation of the Chinese title. And there could be other explanations besides. The best thing to do is to find out which title is the more appropriate one for en:WP purposes, and only then to adjust the article (whether its title or its content) accordingly. (But I wonder if the film is even notable -- whether it merits an article here, however titled.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I proposed deleting an article that was similar in content to another article. (Poorhouse to Almshouse) I was advised that "the article can be redirected by deletion first." I don't understand. Can I remove the entire content of the first article (Poorhouse) and create a redirect on the page to Almshouse, a better sourced and written article?. Is that how a redirect of an existing article works? MauraWen (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@MauraWen. No. A poorhouse is completely different from an almshouse, at least in the UK. Please continue to discuss this at Talk:Poorhouse, which is the proper place for further discussion. Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

My question here pertains to how a redirect works with any article. I should not have used the Poorhouse as an example. Can you delete the content of a redirected article when you create a redirect? MauraWen (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

MauraWen, some of the issue here may be semantic. Wikipedians tend to understand the word delete as being related to deletion policy, meaning to remove an article from the encyclopedia, including all its content, the Talk page, and all history of the page; poof, gone. The word unfortunately does double duty, with some talking about 'deleting' content (i.e, shortening the article by removing some words, without deleting the page). To avoid problems, you can talk about 'removing' content, 'blanking' a section (or blanking the entire article, which does not delete the article, just leaves it completely empty). So now, back to your question. Yes, you can delete blank all the content of an article, and add a redirection link in its place when creating a redirect. Does this help? Sometimes, the Wikipedia:Glossary can be helpful for issues of terminology or jargon. Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thank you! That completely answers my question. MauraWen (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

How can I edit the title of a page that contains lowercase letters where there should be uppercase? The body of the paage is fine but the title has errors Steverhard (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Steverhard I have moved your draft to Draft:Edwin Olson to make it concise. Usually you can rename ('move') pages using the Move link in the toolbar at the side of the screen. Yeshivish613 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi I've submitted a page "Chezile" and it was rejected for reliable sources (despite pointing to a Rolling Stones article) but shortly thereafter I received email requests to pay wiki editors to get the page approved. Can someone help provide clarity on whats needed here or is the model shifting to a more pay to play editing? It's been a while since I've edited. Mrfloyd12 (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This is an attempt to scam you, see WP:SCAM. People monitor Wikipedia for declined drafts in order to take the editor's money. Do not give anyone money. If you still have the email, please forward it as instructed at WP:SCAM. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

thank you! Mrfloyd12 (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I see that you've started the page Draft:Chezile (musician). I would recommend that you instead keep working on Draft:Chezile, since it can still be re-submitted and will lead to less confusion from reviewers who see two drafts with similar information. The trouble is that one of the references used there is from a blacklisted website (NewsBreak), another is a dead link (Hits Daily Double), and another is an interview (UPROXX). The rest are profiles on management websites. We will need to see better sources that discuss the artist independent of his input. Reconrabbit 16:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

cool I pulled news break and the dead link was previously working.

UPROXX was referred as a reliable source by an another editor so I need some clarity and consistency on that front. added Rolling Stones Mrfloyd12 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

UPROXX is a reliable source, and very useful for the facts of the article. The trouble is that as an interview, it holds less weight for determining Chezile's notability as it has his direct involvement. Reconrabbit 16:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

hello teahouse, so, Sunny bunnies is an article I've been diligently improving and I think the article is almost ripe enough for a GA. However I have a question. Criteria 4 for quick failure says the article must not be unstable via edit warring. My problem is not about edit warring, but since the article is about a perfectly healthy cartoon show, episodes get released every so often. So is the article unstable in this context? Like someone decided to review it, then a new episode dropped, what am I supposed to do?

And no, I do not yet think the article is 'ready' for GA, the tone for some of the plot summaries is not encyclopedic and doing a lil research, found out the release dates of season 5 is a bit messed up. But with some weeks or so, it should be ready for GA. Though if someone wants, they can give a cursory glance at the page and suggest some improvements, it will greatly help. I'm still really new to this whole good article nomination process. Thanks! Yelps :) talk 15:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yelps adding a new episode is not considered edit warring, as there is no dispute over what the content should be, so this shouldn't be a problem. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

no, like, if someone were reviewing it and a new episode dropped, what would happen? That's basically my entire question in the tiniest nutshell. Yelps :) talk 16:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Yelps meaning that you can just add the new episode during the review and the article would still be stable. Yeshivish613 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

oh, that was... weirdly simple... Why didn't it just click onto my head before?... Yelps :) talk 16:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I want to create a template, that counts every edit of an article of each protection level. For example, 392 edits, which is 247 edits on unprotected articles, 118 edits on semi-protected articles, and 27 edits on pending changes protected articles. Each of the protection level is taken up by an userbox, in other words, one protection level is the userbox. I want to create 9 variants of this template (1 default, 8 protections (pending changes, semi, extended confirmed, full, template, interface, cascade, and office)). Anyone can give me help?

Note: This idea appeared after I made my first edit on a semi-protected page.

spoiler

My template will attract a lot of transclusions, because it will be a popular userbox.

CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Nice to heard that, If you could provide link to that specific edit area or sandbox where you are working with your templates, that would be helpful.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

My user page. I want to be sure that my contributions were sorted by protection level. To do that, my template is going to have variants. That's how it's intended according to my idea. Anyway, this is my sandbox where I'll start working on my template. It doesn't exist, but there will be content. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@CreatorTheWikipedian2009 Your project seem interesting.

I hope it will be a success. Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

We'll, here it is. There's just one problem, the "edit" and "page" need to be singular. How I can do that? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm really not good at this sort of thing, but Template:Pluralize from text looks promising. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 23:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@CreatorTheWikipedian2009, Go on to Conditional expressions, use the #if or similar expressions to get your result.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 23:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Great! I have done the template. There's still one issue, though. A/an article might be needed for userbox to be written correctly.

For every protection level, a correct article needs to be. This applies only when an user has mady only one edit. Two or more are considered plural, so there's no need.

Here's a table of them. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Unprotected = an

Pending changes = a

Semi = a

Extended confirmed = an

Template = a

Full(protected) = a

Interface = an

Cascade = a

Office = an

Couldn't make an actual table CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Unprotected || #FFFFFF (text:#000000)

Pending changes || #EEEEEE (text:#000000)

Semi || #777777

Extended confirmed || #02aaf7

Full || #e8e805 (text:#000000)

Template || #ff2eee

Cascade || #16c45e

Interface || #A00000

Office || #000000

These are colors for a template. I'm going to test now. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I am, like, done with the templates. They're ready to be published. We just need someone to review them. Also, we need to get a name for these userboxes. Any ideas? My idea is "Template:Protected article edit counter" CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@CreatorTheWikipedian2009 I read your message from "MARCH/18/2025" at "14:18 UTC".

You want someone to review them. Which kind of review ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

A new template reviewer. Do you know any? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@CreatorTheWikipedian2009 I'm not certain that I understood your request.

What do you want to say with the term "Template reviewer" ? You want someone to review your template but which kind of review do you want ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe, I assume that CreatorTheWikipedian2009 is not aware of certain things on wikipedia yet, they might assume that there is someone as template reviewer just like someone have user right as New page reviewer (patroller).––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'll create the template tomorrow, then we'll see CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@KEmel49 I think @CreatorTheWikipedian2009 will explain to us his request. Anatole-berthe (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@CreatorTheWikipedian2009, Happy for your progress, would be great if you go on to your talk page for briefing project info time to time rather than having yourself engaged in answered teahouse discussion.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 15:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of problems, trying to log in into the Wikipedia app. Everytime I try to set up the account there, I keep getting kicked out of the app. What should I do? Roko03634 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Roko03634, Welcome to Teahouse. For any issue regarding wikipedia mobile app, you should report that to mobile app related portal, See more at WP:MOBILE.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I am a Linux user (not expert)living in Spain: I have have been looking for a basic OS to play with. I found these two are covered ates:Vanilla OS (an Italian distro) and es:Big Linux (a Portuguese distro). Both support English language versions. Is there a reason - (notability, perhaps?) they are absent from :en:? Is it worth proposing a draft? Doing some work in progress on BigLinux at User:Timpo/sandbox I would like some brickbats on this please! Timpo (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

If these OS are "notable" and if there are "reliables sources" on these.

Why not create articles about these ? Why not create articles from the spanish version ?

I can't say you why there are absent from :en:. This is certainly because no one did created articles on these topics on "Wikipedia in English". Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I might work on a Vanilla OS article, it seems notable enough. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mgjertson Good editing ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I need to create a Wikipedia page for a non-profit , Kritagyata Trust. for reference please visit www.kritagyata.org www.vidyaranya.org (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

How is it that you need to create it, Naveensrikantaiah? And how are you related to the Kritagyata Trust? -- Hoary (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Its being non-profit is irrelevant. Instead it must be WP:Notable to qualify for an article. See WP:Your first article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I would also note that it would not be a "Wikipedia page for" the organization, but an article about it. Wikipedia articles are not for the benefit of the subject in any way, and are not exclusively controlled by the subject. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Naveensrikantaiah:

• Do you have a conflict of interest (i.e. related to and/or paid by the organization) in any way, shape or form? If so, please read this guide on managing your conflict of interest.
• Has the organization been covered in depth by reputable sources with no involvement from the organization (i.e no sponsored/paid articles)? If not, it might not be eligible for a Wikipedia article.

— 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 09:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Naveensrikantaiah. I may be jumping to conclusions, but I suspect that you would find it valuable to read WP:BOSS. ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

You have made drafts for this page a few times over the years, with them being denied do to excessive promotional material and lack of reliable sourcing. It also seems you have had several problems understanding what Wikipedia is and what it's not. Maybe your time would best be spent editing other areas of the encyclopedia, as I find it highly unlikely attempting to write this article would end any differently mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Naveensrikantaiah: Please get rid of the web address from your signature. What is your connexion to Kritagyata Trust? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Government of India, Government of Rajasthan has published their history but still wiki doesn't allow it. I have attached other sources such as Books and other articles which have their information.but still awaiting for page to be accepted. Draft:Vaidhya Magharam Yuvraj2045 (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Vaidhya Magharam hasn't been rejected even once, Yuvraj2045. It has been declined. There's a difference. Well, you can improve it. There's no rush. What you should rush to do is sort out the copyright status, and the description of that status, of File:Photo of Shri Vaidhya Magharam.jpg, a photograph of the man that you claim is your work, done this year -- over half a century after his death. Are you really the person who took this photograph, in 1969 or earlier? -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

sir, he was my great grand parent and photo I took is hanging on wall at my home. Yuvraj2045 (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It's advised that you don't write articles on people related to you, he might have been a very important man but that doesn't mean that your edits are without bias and that bias can occasionally lead to people believing a person is more notable than they might actually be. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That is so dope man, he's your grad grandad. Yeah, unfortunately, we don't write articles about people we know.

However, since you're the only one with a quality photograph of him, I think that should be allowed on Commons.

And yes - technically, if you take a picture of another picture, according to the legal battles that we've had to fight with the enemy of all Wikipedians... GETTY IMAGES... apparently that counts as "your" photograph.

If you are around long enough, undoubtedly you will run into the "Bettmann Archive" problem. The original photographs - which are all copyright free - are stored underground so deep no one can get to them, and they are protected by armed guards. However, the only digital copies on the internet are photographs that Getty took OF the original photographs, and they sue people all the time because apparently those photographs are theirs, and they can keep taking out copyright claims on them in perpetuity.

But we should try and find the original date of the photograph that you took a photograph of, so that we can get proper context, kind of like an archaeological dig. Guylaen (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This one time, I had to stop writing about someone when I found out he saved my second cousin from drowning. Didn't know that before I started doing the research, but I think ethically I just had to stop. Guylaen (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The version awaiting review now appears much longer than the version previously declined. I'm not an expert in the topic, so I can't say whether it is now acceptable but one of your edits is marked as using a deprecated source. You'll need to be patient as there are over 2500 articles awaiting review and your draft was last looked at only yesterday. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Yuvraj2045 (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Yuvraj2045, you cannot claim a photo as your "own work" unless you actually took the photo yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, a photo that you took of an existing old photo is not your own work. It is a derivative work. The original copyright still applies. Cullen328 (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Yuvraj2045, you should also hurry on the matter of c:File:Shri Vaidhya Magharam.jpg. I'll guess: You own the copyright neither of the photograph that constitutes most of c:File:Photo of Shri Vaidhya Magharam.jpg nor of the portrait that constitutes most of c:File:Shri Vaidhya Magharam.jpg. If this is so, then your description of both as your own work is factually wrong. Can you provide evidence that both are in the public domain? (That is, the "public domain" in the legal sense of the term.) If you can, then please amend each file description at Commons accordingly. If you cannot, then please request their deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello ! I need to know where I can report a potential mistake with an interwiki link regarding a category.

Is it better to discuss it on "Wikidata" or one of the relevant Wikipedias ?

This concerns the English speaking Wikipedia "Category:French Foreign Legion in popular culture" and the French speaking Wikipedia "Catégorie:Tradition de la Légion étrangère." Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Anatole-berthe. Interlanguage links are rarely discussed. People usually just make the wanted edits. If fr:Catégorie:Légion étrangère dans les arts looks like a better match to Category:French Foreign Legion in popular culture then just click "Wikidata item" at the latter (may be in a "Tools" menu depending on your skin) and change the French entry (somebody already did [1]). PrimeHunter (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Thanks ! The problem is now resolved. Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Dr. Rasha Alawieh I created an article for Dr. Rasha Alawieh, who has just been unlawfully detained and deported this past weekend. A page for "The Detention of Mahmoud Khalil" went up very quickly and I think a page for Alawieh should be up as well as these are absolutely historic cases.Can anyone help me to get my article reviewed and approved faster since it records recently occurring events? How do articles on timely matters get approved quickly? Thank you Jdftba (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Jdftba Hello and welcome. There is no means of getting a speedy review. Reviews are conducted by volunteers doing what they can, when they have time to do it. Wikipedia has no deadlines and cannot accommodate the deadlines of editors.

You are capable of moving the draft into the encyclopedia yourself, if you desire, but without a review you run the risk it could be nominated for deletion. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Jdftba, the policy language found at Subjects notable only for one event is likely to be an obstacle to your effort. It may be better to reframe your draft as "Deportation of Rasha Alawieh". We do not use professional titles like "Dr." in article titles. Cullen328 (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft has been moved to mainspace without AfC approval (!). I've opened a RM. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

_{Worth noting, the AfC process is optional for autoconfirmed users - I advised @Jdftba in #wikipedia-en-help that they could move it to mainspace themselves as an autoconfirmed user, if they felt it met all our policies.} qcne (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne: I'm aware of autoconfirmed users not having to rely on the AfC process. I was unaware that Jdftba was autoconfirmed, though. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 23:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to search all of Wikipedia, or all of a certain category or segment of the encyclopedia by a source? For example, could you search all article that cite The New York Times, Time magazine, or Fox News? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Iljhgtn: and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question, type insource:"INSERT WEBSITE URL HERE". For example, to search for all uses of The New York Times, enter insource:"nytimes.com" (see here for a completed example). Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Should we make a page on the game Iron Meat I mean it has gained a lot of attention and many know it’s lore and bosses Lordofcallofduty (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you think the game is notable ?

Do you think there are reliable sources about this game ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The company Retroware made the game and it’s on steam and others sites as I know of I haven’t checked if it does or not Lordofcallofduty (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

By reliable sources we mean are their published news reports or other stories about the development of the game, or professional reviews of the game? 331dot (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I doubt there's much for the latter; Metacritic doesn't have a rating for the game as there's a lack of professional reviews. (It requires at least 4 professional reviews; there's only three.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The game updated recently adding some new achievements like Why??? When you break the engines on the sky level and another the game is still fairly recent so I can’t blame metacritic for not doing it yet Lordofcallofduty (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I have checked metacritic currently it has 9 reviews and is set at 9.0 Lordofcallofduty (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lordofcallofduty: User reviews do not count as far as we're concerned (as that's user-generated); we'd be looking at the aggregated average for professional reviews (such as from Kotaku and the like). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Lordofcallofduty. 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.

If there are few or no such sources, then there is nothing which can be put in an article, and it is not permitted to create it. That is (mostly) what our requirement of notability comes down to. ColinFine (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

the game appears to be going well for a game rated 9.0 because I checked metacritic on the game and don’t correct me on this it currently has 9 reviews and I just reviewed it a 10 because I have played and finished it and correct me on this Lordofcallofduty (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lordofcallofduty, the fact that you yourself were able to submit a review is an indication that such reviews are not a reliable source. Content that anybody can submit is user-generated content and such content is not suitable for use as a source. There is a section at WP:RSP about Metacritic, which says that, although its review aggregation is generally reliable, "There is consensus that user reviews on Metacritic are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources.". So the user ratings are irrelevant; we will need to wait until metacritic aggregates critic reviews and publishes a metascore before that particular source can be used. Furthermore, the actual rating is also irrelevant; a game with a 1.0 rating could have an article here if there are sufficient reliable sources that have written about it. CodeTalker (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

And how long do you think it would take I know it took retroware months and maybe years to make Iron Meat and it didn’t go to waste at least making a Wikipedia article about it would at least be a gift to them that their game got recognized and not left in the dark by other popular games Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

This is going nowhere clearly my efforts to get the game popular and do a good deed by supporting a game isn’t working guess it won’t happen and I will stop trying Iron Meat really shouldn’t be known even if people want to know the lore Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually I’m not backing down and here’s some info on it if you want Iron Meat is a contra styled game with a thing of meat from another world takes on humans on earth and player plays as Vadim the man the myth the soon to be legend Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lordofcallofduty: Lots of things exist in the world. Wikipedia only has articles on subjects that are wikinotable, which is demonstrated through the use of sources that meet the golden rule. Many people with long political careers exist, but they don't always get an article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The basic issue is that all of this is against the very purpose of Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia, not a publicity platform for deserving individuals or companies. The Wikipedia project doesn't intend to confer notability, but to recognize it; if Iron Meat were to become notable, Wikipedia ought to be the last place to recognize this, not the first. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I get that but the game released fully in 2024 last year technically I felt like we missed it there was a demo and all I never found a trailer though Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It isn't notable, stop. For future reference read WP:NOT Mgjertson (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You really want me to forget a game that took a company months to do and leave to rot like any other game this site forgot they also deserve a mention instead of popular games you all keep mentioning those I really don’t care what call of duty does Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm a gamedev, I know how hard it is to make a game. Just because something took a lot of effort doesn't mean it has enough material to make a Wikipedia article. If it did, I'd gladly help make it but it simply isn't notable enough yet mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 13:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

What is the game because I may have time to play it the worst game I have played was and hate me for saying this but the worst one was Universe Sandbox Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I haven't released anything yet but that's not the point, I was trying to make it clear to you that putting effort into something doesn't make it notable. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 13:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Yknow I was working on something but I can’t do code but I had the idea but anyway Iron Meat definetly took the devs months to do Lordofcallofduty (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Cool. Do you understand the point though? mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Here’s one thing MANY OTHER SITES HAVE DONE IT FIRST!!

Wikipedia ain’t the first this game surely isn’t big like Iron Lung for a prime example but iron lung only became popular when several idiots used an unstable submarine and iron meat is a game with no related tragities it’s perfect in my opinion so shut up Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Iron Meat isn’t like Iron Lung it has a storyline unlike iron lung Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lordofcallofduty: Cool it with the personal attacks.

Have you considered starting a wiki for this game on Fandom? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Fandom is for people who know nothing about games Lordofcallofduty (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

In any case, the subject does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, so it will not survive any scrutiny on this site. Find an alternative outlet that is okay with documenting this game. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Avoid Ad hominem. Guylaen (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lordofcallofduty: Hello! Usually, video games get articles on Wikipedia when they have been reviewed in professional publications, like IGN or PC Gamer, so that the game meets the notability guideline. The critic reviews of the game on Metacritic include articles on TheXboxHub, Video Chums and ZTGD. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources has a list of generally reliable and unreliable sources, along with situational ones. TheXboxHub and ZTGD are described as generally unreliable on that list, so to prove notability, you'd have to dig in for more reviews on reliable game outlets - even if Video Chums is reliable, more reliable coverage is needed so that the article can cite it. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Then how haven’t they known iron meat existed yet huh? Can you answer that? Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for everything that exists - reliable sources provide information on whatever topic the authors want. Without reliable sources, a Wikipedia article would fail verifiability. ObserveOwl (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Because it's one of the hundreds of indie games that release on steam weekly. There is nothing particularly notable about it and their advertising budget seems to have gone to recruiting someone to bitch about it on wikipedia, they have no reason to know it exists. Please go contribute something meaningful to the encyclopedia before you run the risk of being WP:NOTHEREd mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I checked for hours no single vote on the game I will keep checking Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi in december i have published a wikipedia page which got declined first beacuse of less refrences. After adding more information and relavent refrences i resubmitted again in Jan but it still under review. So, i wanted to know how much more time will it take to get published.

here is the link:- Draft:Mielle Organics

Thanks, Chirag232 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chirag232 your answer is at the top of the draft page: Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,386 pending submissions waiting for review. Yeshivish613 (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to be asking this question. So, maybe someone can tell me where if not (and sorry for the length of this). Over two weeks ago, I tried to add an edit to the Kieran Culkin page after his Oscar speech about the speech and public response (which was extraordinarily well-covered in the media).

I'll admit that I wasn't quite sure the best way to phrase it, and best parts to keep. So, I even put in my edit summary "Not sure the best way to talk about/phrase everything everyone is saying about his speech, but I feel like it should be mentioned as it has been extremely well-covered" And someone just reverted it completely, saying it was trivia. So, I re-put it in, saying in my summary "It's fine if you want to shorten the paragraph/not include the speech, but I don't think the entire thing should be deleted as this is not WP:TRIVIA. It's not a "disorganized and unselective collection of facts or examples." It is also "supported by reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact."

Then it got reverted again, by DiaMali, with absolutely no explanation as to why. So, I took it to the talk page, so as not to engage in edit warring. I let my message on the talk page sit there for two weeks with no one arguing on the talk page against it being included. So, then I added it back to the page, saying "Added more about his Oscar speech. Before this, there was only *one* line about his award show speeches. There's no reason not to add more detail. Just b/c we don't want overly detailed e.g. what someone ate for breakfast doesn't mean skip relevant extraordinarily well-covered details. WP: FACTCHECK says consider each fact as potentially precious. Initially, this was reverted, so I took to the talk pg (avoid edit war) 2 weeks ago & not one opposing comment. So pls don't revert w/o convo. Thanks!"

DiaMali then reverted it again saying, "Adding an entire speech, word-for-word, is very unnecessary."

First off, there's more than just the quoted part of the speech. I also say some reactions from various well-known publications. But secondly, I put in my summary, "It's actually not his whole speech. His *entire* speech was longer. This was the part directed at his wife - the part that was reproduced in the *secondary* source cited. As when I originally added it, I said if anyone wants to shorten it, or put it in a quote box, etc., obv this is a collaborative environment where we can make it better. But there's *no* need to *completely revert* my edit. There *do* deserve to be at least *some* more details of something so overly-well covered"

And someone else now has reverted and said I'm being disruptive, but I feel I'm following all protocols correctly? I brought it up on the talk page and let it sit for two weeks? I cited wikipedia policies for my reasoning? I'm not married to my *exact* words being used. (I don't think I'm like the arbiter of good writing or the owner of a page (when no one owns a wikipedia page), so I'm not trying to like get my exact way or whatever. I'm just trying to add some info in however people best want to present it.)

I think it would be reasonable to either put part of the speech in a quote box, or say something shorter, like, "When accepting the Best Supporting Actor Academy Award in 2025, Culkin went viral for using his speech to ask his wife for more children, saying he'd really like to have four and ending with, "I just have to say to you, Jazz, love of my life, ye of little faith -- no pressure. I love you. I'm really sorry I did this again. And let's get cracking on those kids. What do you say? I love you. I love. I love you." When talking about the speech, Slate Magazine to called him "the best part of this Oscar season." Esquire said Culkin "saved his best victory speech for last [of awards season]."" (obv with inline references that I did already add when trying to edit the article.)

But I feel like I can't even add something like that now when now I'm being called "disruptive." I'm not trying to add something completely trivial like what he ate for breakfast this morning). I'm not trying to add anything with a slanted POV. I'm not trying to add something from gossip sites. (His speech was talked about in depth on CNN, Today Show, ABC, NBC, Town & Country, Slate, Huffington Post, Esquire, Entertainment Weekly, People, British GQ, The Economic Times, and numerous more.)

Currently the *only* line I can find in his article about his speeches is "His acceptance speeches during various awards ceremonies have been praised for its humorous and self-deprecating nature." That's it. His *Oscar* speech (not just any speech from "various ceremonies" but very specifically his Oscar (arguably the biggest American acting award) speech was extraordinarily well covered in several reputable publications and I'm being disruptive because I don't want my edit *wholly reverted*? (Again, I don't mind if people want to change it around, or make it shorter, but I'm being shut down from saying *anything* about it?)

This article is currently just labeled a C-class article, which makes sense. It really doesn't have a ton of detail, especially for an Oscar winner who's so exceedingly well-covered in the media. But I don't know how we're ever going to make it a better article if we can't add well-sourced details?

Anyway, do I have any more options here and/or is anyone willing/able to give this a second look and see if they can offer any solutions to this dispute or add an edit that these couple of reverters would find palatable? Thanks very much Wikipedian339 (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Wikipedian339: Hello! Have you tried to notify the users disputing the content to take part on the discussion, like by mentioning/pinging them on the talk page? ObserveOwl (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and I have been discovering templates, such as the "ongoing" one. On pages about ongoing events, like the M23 Campaign or the Sudanese civil war, it is not used. Is there a specific reason why ? Should I add this template to similar articles or not ? HalikhSovar78 (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

HalikhSovar78 according to Template:Current#Guidelines, it is only used for events that have just occurred with many editors on the article, and only left on the article for about a day. Events like M23 campaign (2022–present) are longer-term and only edited a few times per day (as opposed to the expected dozens or hundreds warranted by the template). Hopefully this clears things up. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Dang, you beat me while I was writing my comment. I applaud you. MallardTV (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Same! Xd ObserveOwl (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I added this template on two pages, I'll revert those edits. HalikhSovar78 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I've really only seen the Template:Current used. These are its guidelines.

Guidelines

• Every article on Wikipedia has a general disclaimer that the article contents may not be accurate.
• As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used on those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day (for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news).
• It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence.
• This and closely related templates are generally expected to appear on an article for less than a day, sometimes longer.
• If you would like an article on a significant current event to be noticed, please see Wikipedia:How the Current events page works and

MallardTV (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have just used the "revert" function to revert vandalism by an IP address editor on 2 articles. On a third article, the IP had made two consecutive edits - I had to manually undo those edits. I have noticed other edit summaries where it seemed editors had the ability to revert multiple edits at the same time. How can I accomplish this easily? Oliver Phile (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you mention which edits seem to be a part of a multiple revert ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The user was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.101.255.126. The place where I reverted two edits was Julián Alvarez. Oliver Phile (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Oliver Phile I was talking of the edits that seem to be a multiple revert at the same time.

I saw only yours reverts. Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I did not explain clearly what I am trying to accomplish. One example of edits that revert multiple edits would be here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joy_Behar&diff=1050412251&oldid=1050411378

It appears that 3 edits were reverted simultaneously. I think "rollback rights" is how that was accomplished. Oliver Phile (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Rollback rights aren't the only way to do that. Twinkle provides a similar functionality, and doesn't require any special user rights. JJP_Master (she/they) 12:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I have just installed the Twinkle gadget now. Oliver Phile (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I have also researched the topic - I believe "Requesting rollback rights" is the place I should go. Is that correct? Oliver Phile (talk)

Oliver Phile, using the "history" of the article, find the most recent non-vandalized version. Opt to edit it. You'll get a message warning you that you've opted to edit an old version. "Publish" (save) it (without actually making any changes to it), with an informative edit summary. It's as simple as this. (No, you do not need "rollback" rights.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Oliver Phile (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am trying to move First Horizon Coliseum (Greensboro Coliseum) to First Horizon Coliseum (I want to remove the unneccessary disambiguation in the title) but I am getting this error: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. It looks like this is because there is a redirect from First Horizon Coliseum to First Horizon Coliseum (Greensboro Coliseum)? How would I go about doing this move?

Thank you, Esb5415 (talk) (C) 13:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Esb5415: Hello! You can request the move at WP:RM/TM and a page mover will do it for you. ObserveOwl (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Esb5415. I have made the move. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Esb5415 (talk) (C) 14:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Good day Teahouse Members, I have recently received feedback on a resubmitted draft and would appreciate some further insight on 2 of the feedback points received.

1. "The Draft does have many sources, however, they are primary or interview based sources" - please can you confirm whether Vanity Fair is considered a secondary source? They have been renowned for investigative journalism. I have also included a source from Sunday Mail, please confirm why this is not considered a credible source?
2. "Missing citation for Education" - The University of Zimbabwe does not have a publicly available resource for Alumi, what other sources could be considered credible for an MBA?
3. "Draft is written in a flowery way" - I have gone through the article again to ensure any promotional content does not exist in the draft. I am battling to pin point any further Peacock terms and would appreciate any guidance in this regard. Thank you in advance

Substantiator (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome Substantiator. The whole url is not needed when linking; I've fixed this for you.

Vanity Fair is probably a reliable source, but it is not an independent source because it is an interview with Ms. Masiyiwa, her speaking about herself.

She must have a source somewhere where she states where she was educated; this would probably be a valid use of a primary source as someone could ask the university to confirm that she received a degree from them. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Sunday Mail is also an interview with her, and reports a routine activity- that her organization received a grant.

I would also note that it is redundant to resubmit for review and then ask for feedback; the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Substantiator, and welc ome to the Teahouse. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello please could someone who is able check the above article. Is there any better way to display the 3 audio files  ? Thank you Moribundum (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Moribundum: {{listen}} allows for embedding multiple audio files in a box. ObserveOwl (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@ObserveOwl Yes, that's perfect. Thank you, Moribundum (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, could I get any help regarding to my draft Draft:Taiyoukei Erika as it's been declined and I'm not sure what to do. Applesauce666 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Applesauce666, and welcome to the Teahouse. On a quick look, it appears to me that you have based your draft on what the Originator wants people to know. 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.

Far more seriously, as the originator of the software, you are regarded as a paid editor, and it is mandatory for you to make a formal declaration of this, usually on your user page.

If you create an article about your own software, it is likely to read as promotional, unless you do something like this:

• Find reliable sources that are wholly independent of you - not written or commissioned by you, not quoting you, but independently written.
• Forget everything you know about the software, and write a summary of what those sources say even if you think they are wrong.

Of course, this is hard to do, which is why writing about your own creation in Wikipedia is rarely successful. ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Applesauce666, please be aware that Fandom is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. Read WP:FANDOM for community consensus on this source. Cullen328 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I’d like to add detail about Leytonstone House and the Bethnal Green Industrial School which are only mentioned briefly on the page about Leytonstone. Should I create new pages or add to the existing page? I’d like to create new pages but there would be repetition of what is already there. I’ll need help as I haven’t made a contribution for years! Tanzi22 (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

You can add to the existing page first; it can eventually be split or spun-off into its own article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I am Shaneapickle, and I am wondering about the page I made (linked here) And I am wondering how can I improve this draft? Link: Draft:Selam (moon)

Shaneapickle (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'd say that is a pretty good start to an article. To improve the page, perhaps you can add academic sources. There seem to be a lot of coverage about this object in Google Scholar [2]. However, there is already an article on the larger satallite 152830 Dinkinesh, which already contains a detailed description of the moon. I think you should focus on improving that section instead of splitting a new article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Then why does Dimorphos have a page on it then? Shaneapickle (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

If you believe there is so much to be written about Selam exclusively that it would clutter the 152830 Dinkinesh article, feel free to continue working on the draft. Currently the draft is much smaller than the pre-existing section on 152830 Dinkinesh. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

ok Shaneapickle (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Shaneapickle, it should be quite obvious why we have the article Dimorphos. It is, after all, the only moon of an asteroid that was deliberately struck by a massive spacecraft that ejected about a million kilograms of debris and permanently altered the orbit of this object. The purpose was to develop and test technology for protecting earth from potentially catastrophic meteor impacts. The widespread coverage of this object and the collision with it in reliable sources makes its notability a no brainer. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I am a new editor in a wikipedia course and have published the above page, Major Food Group. I am looking for some help editing and polishing up my article. The biggest problem I had been having is removing promotional content and making sure I keep a neutral point of view. I feel like I have made progress with this but was hoping for some feedback from more experienced editors, thank you all in advance! SpressNEU (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I read a bit of the article. I can't found a source inside the article that seems "reliable" and indicating "notability" of "Major Food Group. Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@SpressNEU: A good place to start would be ensuring that the content in the article is directly supported by the cited source. There seem to be a whole lot of instance where you include one or two facts that are in the source, and then layer on a bunch of extra content that comes from...presumably somewhere else.

Just taking the section on Parm as an example, nowhere in the source is it referred to as casual dining. The source doesn't seem to talk about comfort food. There's nothing there about having Parm locations in Vegas or Boston. That's just doing a quick overview of one small piece. But you really can't use a source to support some detail in an article, and make space to insert a lot of other stuff on top of it. GMG^talk 19:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @SpressNEU, and welcome to the Teahouse. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, and very little else. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@SpressNEU Do you consider ours answers are sufficient or do you think you need more guidance ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I joined Wikipedia fairly recently and after discovering scripts I've been cleaning up articles, particularly those with duplicated references. The problem I have noticed is that sometimes two references are flagged as duplicated for having the same URL but they are not really the same; for example both refer to a book but one points to a different page. Or maybe they highlight different quotes, which are included in the reference. In that case, they clearly cannot be fixed by naming one reference and replacing the other with that. So what would be the best way to deal with this? Paprikaiser (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Paprikaiser, great question! There's a few different ways to deal with that kind of issue. If it's just a matter of different page numbers, you can merge the references and then use an additional template like {{rp}} to mark the page number. Alternatively, you could use one of the varieties of shorted form references, such as with the {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} templates. Those last forms in particular are good for quotes. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Paprikaiser (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, are we allowed to redirect from one category to another category like: Category:Cat to Category:Cats? If we are allowed, then I will add a redirect to it, but if we are not allowed, then I will not add it. Thanks.

thetree284 (talk and edits) 00:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It can be done, but it requires some special tricks and typically shouldn't be done proactively or for such simple cases. See WP:CATRED. DMacks (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi - I am looking for someone who can reveiw an article that I have been working on. Previous two versions of the article were quick to be reviewed, and made changes according to the feedback. But the article is pending a review since more than a week now. Will be really glad if someone could review the article.

It is a biography of a living author, who has published a lot of caste issues, Ambedkar, Buddhism, and political theory in general.

Here is a link

Thanks Ips.delhi (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

lps.delhi Your draft was just reviewed. Note that we cannot guarantee a speedy review, the timeframe is given when it is submitted; it's usually weeks or even months, because this is a volunteer project with people doing what they can, when they can. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should add Tomas Kalnoky to the Gibson page, since for a long time he used a Gibson ES-335. Some photos of him show the headstock of his guitar taped up. I'm really skeptical. Coretto958 (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

If you mean adding the name of Tomas Kalnoky to the List of Gibson players Wikipedia article, you would first need to find a reliable source for this. His article doesn't mention his ever using a Gibson. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I have created Sikh Heritage Month but this page hasn't been reviewed and doesn't even appear in a simple Google Search. This was created 6 months ago and have 0 luck with any progress getting a review on this.

Please can I get help ! Jattlife121 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jattlife121 I'm not sure why you think it isn't reviewed. The logs show this was done on 20 January. Quite often, Google doesn't index the page until another edit is done after that date. If you make a minor edit now, I'm sure it will appear very soon thereafter in search engines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

But Basics of Sikhi hasn't also been reviewed per the log, this was made in October 2024 ? Jattlife121 (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jattlife121 Correct but it is now indexed in Google (here in the UK) now you made a small edit yesterday. Articles automatically become available to search engines after 90 days, even if not reviewed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

(If this question is too technical for the Teahouse, feel free to point me to the proper venue)

An article is drawing attention mainly from IP editors desiring a change that has no consensus. This results in repeated edits that gets reverted and edit requests that get denied.

Our normal tool is to add an edit notice to help the editor not waste time (theirs and ours) editing a page.

However, if a page is protected in some way, some users will get a message saying something like "This page is protected so that only certain users can edit it. You can submit an edit request." without getting the edit notice (since they're not editing the page).

How do I convey the same "before you waste your time" message to users about to make edit requests as an edit notice would help someone about to make an edit?

Can I complement the existing standard "About edit requests" message to intercept edit requests before they are made, in a similar fashion to how edit notices are intended to intercept edits before they are made? If so, how?

Best Regards CapnZapp (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi CapnZapp. Please always be specific and include a relevant link. Can you give an example of a page which has an edit notice for that specific page but doesn't show it if you cannot edit the page due to protection? I still see Template:Editnotices/Page/1988 Hamas charter if I try to edit 1988 Hamas charter while logged out. If you are thinking of the biographies of living persons (BLP) notice on Raegan Revord then it's not a page-specific notice. There is no Template:Editnotices/Page/Raegan Revord. A BLP notice is automatically loaded on all BLP's in another way. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, PrimeHunter. An edit notice is meant to be displayed to users BEFORE they post edits. What can be displayed to users BEFORE they make edit requests? Edit notices won't show for users that can't edit pages. This in itself is perfectly normal, but how do we intercept edit requests in a similar way? CapnZapp (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: GIVE AN EXAMPLE of a page which has an edit notice for that specific page but doesn't show it if you cannot edit the page but try to start an edit. I gave an example which does show an edit notice, at least for me. If I log out then I cannot edit 1988 Hamas charter. If I click "View source", or manually add ?action=edit to the url, or enter the page at Special:EditPage, then I get a page which shows both Template:Editnotices/Page/1988 Hamas charter and a button to make an edit request. Do you not see the edit notice or are you referring to something else? If so, give a clear example with a link. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I get it now. I need to put the edit notice both on the page (for edits) and on the talk page (for edit requests). CapnZapp (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I am a self-admitted absolute beginner with editing Wikipedia, so I appreciate your patience for any confusion. I've done a lot of peeking through Wikipedia's provided pages/guides on citation, but this is an oddly specific type that I can't find an answer for. I read Socialist economics, and I noticed a section (Self-managed economy) that named a subsect of the topic plus its details and relevant authors, but didn't have a citation for any of those authors works on the subject, nor any kind of citation at all to learn about or confirm the information written. Would this be an appropriate place to add reference to those aformentioned authors flagship work on the subject for further reading/confirmation? Or is the mere mention of the authors considered enough? Thank you! TBlack7205 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@TBlack7205: Hello! Adding reliable sources does seem appropriate here, as virtually every fact on an article should be verifiable through inline citations (outside the initial paragraphs of an article, which summarize the rest of the article). However, in my view, the article's claim that the model was "most extensively" developed by them might require an independent reliable source attributing them as such. ObserveOwl (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! TBlack7205 (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I recently left a note on User talk:SOCAMX about unexplained content removal, and @SOCAMX said "I don't want my book cited on this page". I'm assuming the editor is an author who does not want their works to be referenced on Wikipedia. What should be done in this situation? x RozuRozu • ^tea_cups 18:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a case where involved parties needs to be informed of basic Wikipedia policies, like "Don't edit your own page" and "You can't control how notable literature you've written is used by Wikipedia". CapnZapp (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

User has also edited the article about themselves here... Frank McDonough. Theroadislong (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I was just looking at this article. Take a look under "Other books"... only the first paragraph has a citation to a secondary source, the rest has no citations at all or is cited to the author's website. That can actually all be taken out, not necessarily because the author asked, but because it doesn't seem like it's actually discussed by secondary sources. MediaKyle (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

And again it's removing mention of this book. There can be a lot of reasons that an author wants to down-play one of their works. Most of those are things Wikipedia is likely to be agnostic toward. However it might not hurt to ask @SOCAMX: why he doesn't want his book mentioned here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason the author of a book should be able to decide who cites it for statements -- once you publish a book, you can't just stop people from reading it and talking about it. If he's saying it doesn't say the thing Wikipedia claims it says, then it would make sense to remove the citation, but if it does say what it cites, and is reliable, there's no reason to remove it. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to expand a page topic (it currently covers only gen 1 of a smartphone, but i have information & sources on later versions/ "pro" variation of that phone, but i dont think they warrant their own pages individually). Can I change the page title and expand to cover the whole phone series or else what is the procedure? Tioseafj (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Which article do you want to expand ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Tioseafj. The best thing to do in such circumstances is to open a discussion on the article's talk page. It might also be helpful to put a note on the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects pointing to the discussion on the talk page. (Relevant WikiProjects are usually linked at the top of the article's talk page). ColinFine (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I would just boldly move it to a new title referring to the series, unless anyone complains or it's a really popular page, in which you want to open a talk page discussion. If you don't have the permissions to move it, see WP:Requested moves. Overall it seems like a fine thing to do to me. Basically you can do it unless anyone complains, in which case you have a discussion on the talk page until a consensus emerges. The procedure for opening such a discussion, if the move is controversial, is also at WP:Requested moves. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to give my opinion in an RFC discussion (and/or the general issue) of the Gaza genocide article, but I can't do so in the standard method as I am not an extended-protected user. I was going to make an edit request to raise my concern, though a part of the "what can I do" section raised some problems with this. The part in question reads as follows:

• If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple, non-controversial change, please check the talk pagefirst in case the issue is already being discussed. If the issue has not been discussed yet, you can submit an edit request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. Make sure to clearly describe which page your request is about, and which change exactly you are requesting.

Not only is the RFC discussion surrounding a controversial issue, but obviously the discussion means that the issue has already been discussed. Is there anything I can do to voice my thoughts, or do I just have to sit it out? LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@LordOfWalruses: It's unlikely you'll be allowed to participate in the discussion regardless, since the General Sanctions apply to the Arab-Iraeli conflict topic area writ large. You'd only be able to request specific edits to the article; edits that involve content currently being debated thru an RfC will be summarily declined due to the ongoing discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the info. LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

One follow-up question that I must ask: does this apply to non-RFC issues? LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

LordOfWalruses, general sanctions restrictions on non-extended confirmed editors regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict apply to every edit to every page on Wikipedia, with the only exception being requests for simple, non controversial changes. This would apply only to typographical errors, spelling errors, date errors and little else. Cullen328 (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

OP blocked due to WP:ECR. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This template has had a full support for a merge for several months now. Who makes that change happen? Template:Infobox Jewish leader is to be merged into Template:Infobox religious biography, but months go by and it hasn't been done. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

And I do not believe that I have the permissions to do so even if I could. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This link is what the closer did, it appears -- they're not required to actually do the merging. The template is in fact present on the Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Holding_cell page. I'm not sure how template merging actually works? But I assume that someone with the permissions to edit semi-protected articles has to replace the content of the template with essentially an invocation of the merge target template that translates the parameters; or people have to manually go and replace every use of the template with the merge target and then it's deleted. Probably the former is better. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

At this diff, I ran the citation bot on the article. It changed the quotation mark within the citation to another version. Is this normal? Justjourney (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's normal for Citation bot to do it, but the change is a good one, so I wouldn't worry about it. A number of bots seem to make good changes that aren't part of their ostensible purpose. Deor (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney: Forgot to ping. Deor (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Justjourney (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

May I ask if WP:HOAX applies to the sandbox? I used to use it to store templates for me to use(so I did not have to search for hours for which template it was), and for some of the infoboxes I just simply wrote random stuff or filled it in with school-related inside jokes. Keep in mind, I have removed the school related inside jokes, my sandbox was never published(and now that I am more experienced, I don't need to use it to store templates) and in the near future I will likely repurpose it. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

If your sandbox page does not mimic a real article, and is related to Wikipedia(as your infboxes seems to be), I see no problems with your sandbox pages. 👍 Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok. I removed the infoboxes with inside jokes two years ago anyways, just be safe and because I no longer need them. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, is it possible to move an infobox to the left side of the page? Humaan316 (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

No, you can not change the alignment/position of an infobox. It's technically impossible. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Humaan316, welcome to the Teahouse. We don't do it in articles so there is no infobox parameter for it but it actually is possible by wrapping the infobox. Which infobox on which page is it about? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Humaan316: it is possible to move all infoboxes to the left, just for yourself (everyone else will still see the infoboxes on the right) by editing your user stylepage Special:MyPage/common.css and adding the following:

div.mw-parser-output .infobox { float: left!important; }

MKFI (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Over a decade ago I made this list with some students, and some anonymous help, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_university_art_museums_and_galleries_in_New_York_State

I want to make another similar list, but i want it to be illustrated. So, a sortable list, with illustrations. I would also like it to be numbered.

Are there examples I could look at? I swear I have seen some, like buildings lists or something... Vhfs (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vhfs List of cryptids? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently revised my draft **Draft:Areen Masrour Barzani** based on feedback I received from the previous reviewer. I have improved the sources, added inline citations, and ensured that the content meets Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Since there are many pending drafts, I was wondering if any experienced editor could take a look at my submission and provide feedback or review it if possible.

Thank you so much for your time and help!

Best regards, Daniah Albanaa (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Daniah Albanaa Hello. You have resubmitted your draft and it is pending. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers, doing what they can, when they can. Please be patient- in essence you are asking to "jump the line" and be reviewed ahead of thousands of other drafts; everyone would like their draft reviewed next, but we can't treat you different than anyone else. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Daniah Albanaa I am not an AfC reviewer but would suggest you 1) remove external links in the main text (see WP:EL), or convert them to citations that verify details about Barzani. 2) Place the section on early life immediately after the WP:LEAD. 3) Remove bolding per MOS:BOLD. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Can a source considered "generally unreliable" still be used to establish notability of a article for a non-controversial or overly contentious claim? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, no. Coverage in reliable sources is required to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

What then, if anything can an "unreliable" source be used for that is different? And how is that further changed from "deprecated"? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping by the way. I often miss responses on my Teahouse questions when there is no ping. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn WP:DEPRECATED points out that there may be active filters preventing anyone from adding them as citations. Source reliability is a spectrum (see WP:SOURCEDEF) so a source unreliable for, say, establishing notability may be OK for other uses. WP:ABOUTSELF is a perfect example of that. As editors, we have to learn when to use what type of source, or ask for help at the reliable sources noticeboard. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I would like to ask what is the difference between Category:Types of museums and Category:Museums by type? I feel confused and I think one of the categories should be redirected Badak Jawa (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Badak Jawa, welcome to the Teahouse. Category:Types of museums is for general articles about a whole type of museum, e.g. Architecture museum. Category:Museums by type is for subcategories with individual museums of a specific type, e.g. Category:Architecture museums. Every entry in Category:Museums by type is under "Subcategories". There is no "Pages" heading like in Category:Types of museums. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit Ivan Aleksandrovich Flerov but all of the sources are in Russian and I don't trust the machine translation. BadEditor93 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@BadEditor93 We have a category Category:Translators ru-en, so you could ask one of these editors for help via their talk page(s). Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

So if am citing a website, in the access date field, do I put the date I've accessed the website as the current date in utc, or my local date/time? Justjourney (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Justjourney. Ideally UTC but don't worry if you miss it. Our citation documentation doesn't even mention the issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter If I find more information about the subject from the same source later on, do I change the access date? Justjourney (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney: If the citation is referenced where you add the information then it's best to update the access date. Certainly do it if there is any doubt whether the source already said it on the earlier access date. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am working on improving the David Hynam article and have added recent awards he received in the Recognition and Awards section. He has received significant media coverage and has been recognized by multiple LGBTQ+ awards. Could someone review the additions and let me know if they improve the article? Are there other areas that could be strengthened?

Additionally, I came across the page for Evelyn Bourke, who has a similar background and profile. Any insights on how to further develop Hynam’s article to meet Wikipedia’s standards would be appreciated.

Thank you! KP070707 (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Answered at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk § 20:34, 18 March 2025 review of submission by KP070707 Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I have been working on resolving some broken reference names in various articles, and have encountered an issue I'm unsure how to resolve.

In the article Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, there are two broken reference names in the Crovalimab section, which are defined in the Crovalimab article, but outside the section that is taken as an excerpt in the PNH article.

Would it be best to move the definition of the reference to the section that is an excerpt in the other article, or could that cause issues on other pages that might take an excerpt from the Crovalimab article? Or is there a way to link the references from the original article, or some other option that would help resolve the broken reference names at the PNH article? NovaHyperion (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @NovaHyperion and thank you for fixing broken references. This can be a major headache with using excerpts. There isn't a way to link to the references in the source article. The simplest solution is to move the full definition of the named references that are giving the problem into the section that is being excerpted. (I usually mutter imprecations against the whole transclusion system while doing this.) I have also used the solution of copying the full references into the target article as list-defined references. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: Thank you! I had once previously moved the full citation to section being excerpted, but figured I should check to make sure that was the recommended strategy before I went ahead and broke something.

In the interest of generalizing this issue beyond this one article, is there a way to see/search for all pages that take an extract from a certain article? If fixing a reference for one page causes a broken reference on a different page, it seems like list-defined references would be preferable. NovaHyperion (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how to search for that. You might ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). There are various methods for doing such transclusions. See Help:Transclusion#Selective transclusion. StarryGrandma (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, noted. Thanks so much for your advice, I appreciate it. NovaHyperion (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

My film is set to release on 18th April 2025 and it's very disappointing that as a maker, I have to rely on news portal as wikipedia is not helping me approve my article and yet I need to connect with people where Wikipedia can pay a part a bridge between me and the people. Why this point isn't considered by Wikipedia? Sushilranakoti (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. Please read WP:NOT. Sarsenet (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

If you want a bridge between you and the people, use social media. WP is not that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia is not IMDB or film promotion website, you are openly swore to use it as 'bridge between you and people' and this is NOT ALLOWED in wikipedia, make sure you do not do this repeatedly you will lose your account for violating wiki peace. It is not a PR tool. Sys64wiki (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm pretty new here- hoping someone can review a draft I submitted for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CitrusAd and let me know if there is anything else I need to do or what the process is from here. Thank you in advance. TLN27 (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@TLN27 You can use the process described at WP:AFCSUBMIT to submit your draft for review. If you did that now, it would rapidly be declined because your sources are not specific. See Help:Referencing for beginners. By policy, the citations must allow readers to verify the information you have added. I suspect that most of the ones you have used are from the company itself, so will not establish its notability. That's always the issue that newcomers here stumble over. See also the essay WP:BACKWARDS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

TLN27, 12 of your 14 references lack URLs or full bibliographic information. One that does have a URL is to the company website, which is of no value in establishing notability. Please read the Notability guideline for companies carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very helpful. I will cite the key reliable news sources and work on establishing notability first. I will also delete the company website link- technically this company has already been folded into another company so I am not sure why their website is still up and I expect it will go away someday anyways. I appreciate the feedbsck @Michael D. Turnbull and @Cullen328. TLN27 (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

My draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Esteban_Campod%C3%B3nico was declined since the references did not show that the subject is sufficiently notable. The article as originally submitted only included 2 references. There are not a lot of references about him since he died in 1938. I have added references for a total of 8. He should be considered notable because an annual prize of USD 50,000 in his name is awarded each year. He was also a scholar of international reputation (as evidenced by the obituary by a US colleague published in a journal of the AMA shortly after his death, reference 4). Reference 1 is a 528-page biography of him, indicating notability.

Have I sufficiently demonstrated notability? If not, what else do I need to provide? RobertMoniot (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@RobertMoniot The usual criteria for determining if the person whose name is used for an award makes that person notable is if we have an article about the award itself here: Nobel prize would be an obvious example. I don't think that is the case for Draft:Esteban Campodónico. On the other hand, you have now shown that he was himself awarded several honors where we do have articles, so I think you are now likely to be OK if you re-submit the draft (but I'm not a reviewer). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@RobertMoniot: If there's a 500-page biography of him, then he's notable. I added a handful of "citation needed" tags. Can you add sources for the sentences with "citation needed" tags and then I'll accept it? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11 will do, thank you. RobertMoniot (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I have added the citations requested (and a few more). I have resubmitted the article. RobertMoniot (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ellen Roy Herzfelder

Hello, Teahouse! I have been working on the draft for the former politician. She was Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs for Governor Mitt Romney. The draft was declined with the comment saying doesn't pass WP:NPOL. She has received significant coverage from Independent reliable sources. WP:POLOUTCOMES says "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable". She meets WP:GNG, If I was to push it, she technically counts for WP:NPOL too. The Governor of Massachusetts appoints the Secretaries, even though they aren't members of legislative bodies, they can bring bills and such.

This office is notable. There are multiple article for Cabinet member of politicians. (Rick Sullivan, Edward A. Flynn, John Cogliano, Jennifer Davis Carey, Thomas G. Kelley, etc.) Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon An autopatrolled editor has now moved this to mainspace. My only observation is that you have one deprecated source, the Mail online. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Just saw Silver seren moved it. Thank you for pointing out the deprecated source, it gave me a message but didn't tell me which one it was. I will replace it, Thank you! CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon I suggest you install the script described at User:Headbomb/unreliable. It highlights sources according to their reliability (or not) and quickly shows the ones you should definitely worry about. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Huh, never heard of it. Thank you, I will try to add it. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Just a general question, is there any difference between this and that script TNM101 (chat) 17:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@TNM101, User:Headbomb/unreliable only highlights unreliable sources. Cite highlighter will tell you if a specific citation is reliable or not. Thank you mentioning Cite Highlighter, I will try using that. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 17:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia app (iOS 18.3.1), the “preview” photo at the top of the page is often cropped, resulting the main content of image being hidden. Is there a guideline for how to set the origin point or cropping behaviour? Davidley (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Davidley, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) may be more helpful. Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 17:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I need input from experienced editor(s) regarding overlinking and underlinking policy as per MOS:OL. Specifically, I am trying to determine when is it valid to link to "major geographical features, countries, settlements"? Policy states these should "generally" NOT be linked. My understanding is that one exception would be if the target is strongly associated with the article topic. Thus it is valid if London links to England, or Canada links to North America. But an article on The Beatles should NOT link to London (but ok to link to Liverpool). If this is better asked elsewhere (Village Pump?) please advise. Thanks! Jp2207 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jp2207: Yup, I think you've got it. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Grumpylawnchair & @Shantavira for taking the time to respond. I have since discovered this excellent essay which illuminates the finer points of linking. Jp2207 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

A user has added non-English content to an article without a reference, claiming "a name written in its original language doesn't need a source". When challenged, the user has added an elementary grammar book in that language claiming it supports the content added. Does a source need to be provided for a name written in its original language? Mugsalot (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, a source is generally required for a name written in its original language, especially in a formal or encyclopedic context like Wikipedia. Here’s why:

1. You need a reliable source to prove your words even if they are logically accurate.

2. Many languages have multiple ways of writing names (e.g., different scripts, transliterations, or historical variations). A source ensures that the most widely accepted form is used.

3. You MUST NOT use real published contained.

4. While a grammar book might explain language rules, it does not necessarily confirm how a specific name is officially or commonly written. A more relevant source (like an official document, book, or scholarly article) should be cited.

Thus, the user should provide a reliable source that specifically supports the original-language name rather than relying on general linguistic rules. Sys64wiki (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sys64wiki Are you sure you didn't use AI for this response? Sounds very LLM to me TNM101 (chat) 16:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@TNM101: See User talk:Sys64wiki#Use of large language models Other editors have raised concerns about the use of AI by Sys64wiki. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Could somebody help me with the coding of this source? I've been struggling with it for the past hour trying to get it to work. Thanks! Theedecemberblues (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Theedecemberblues (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Theedecemberblues: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1251. Looks like your closing ref tag is missing the opening bracket <. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. I guess sometimes the most basic mistakes are the ones that allude us. THANK you lol Tenryuu.

Also was wondering, do you know how to add a LCCN to a ref like this? The website didn't list an ISBN, but it did list an LCCN because the source resides in the Library of Congress. I was trying to fins a way to add it to the ref without messing up the coding. Thanks again Theedecemberblues (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Theedecemberblues: I'd check the documentation for the citation template you're using. For example, {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} both recognise the |lccn= parameter. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thank you so much!! It worked. Hope you have a lovely day Theedecemberblues (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi!

I was wondering if the musician Janine Ling Carr should have an Article. I have several sources and news articles to access, and thought it would be a good idea. She is a beatboxer, who placed in the top 10 in the 2018 Female Beatbox world championships. As well as that, she is briefly mentioned on the page for Applications of 3D printing, for creating the first 3D printed (emotions)?

Thanks, I have several sources and articles giving useful information. 23r2 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Her mention can be found here 23r2 (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Here

23r2 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

How can we judge her level of "notability" and if the sources are "reliable" if we haven't the sources ?

Please , can you give sources you're mentionning ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that OP tried to create a hoax (Wikipedia:Teahouse#Ainu Baluchi), I am pleasantly surprised Janine Carr is indeed mentioned at Applications of 3D printing. That said, it is one mention sourced to her own social media account. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah! Ok, I didn't realise it was sourced to a social media account. I'm sure the gallery will have some news on it, otherwise I have other articles about her beatboxing career, from BEATBOX UK and other official sources under the topic. If you did want to do some research, her stage name is J9 Beatbox.

Thanks, 23r2 (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi!

They are also sourced as J9 on 'UK BEATBOX CHAMPIONSHOPS' under 2014 (or 2015?) /Woman's/ Semifinalists. 23r2 (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest you do as @Anatole-berthe, has said and provide all of the citations that you think are "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

If you are intending to write it as a musician's bio see WP:BAND if otherwise see Wikipedia:BIO. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@23r2 I searched reliable sources about her with "Janine Ling Carr" then "J9 Beatbox" as keywords.

I wasn't able to find this kind of sources about her. I consider she's not notable. Anatole-berthe (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

On further thoughts, I think I agree.

Thanks, 23r2 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

When viewing the Demographics section of the Behchokǫ̀ article on desktop view on iPad, the first word of the first paragraph - "In" - is displayed before the included table, but the rest of the paragraph is displayed after the table. It looks sloppy and unprofessional but I'm fairly new and don't know how to fix it. This happens in both portrait and landscape orientation. Could someone be so kind as to tell me how to fix this? Thank you! BasicBichette (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@BasicBichette: I believe this edit has fixed it. Deor (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

It has! Now I know how to fix any future issue. Thank you! BasicBichette (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi!

I recently realised that h1t1, also known as John Casterline, surprisingly doesn't have a Wikipedia page. He is a TikToker and YouTuber with over 3 million followers, who mainly makes reaction videos to other TikToks/Shorts and talks about news.

Would is be possible to have some assistance in creating him an article?

Thanks, 23r2 (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Number of followers doesn't help as far as whether or not we can have an article on him. See WP:Notability and WP:Notability (people). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I would definitely call him noteable, because he has created several trends that the majority of social media users would recognise, and is a very well known creator.

Thanks, 23r2 (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@23r2 can you provide examples of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject? Yeshivish613 (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Yep! Here's one, let me find more.

https://sg.style.yahoo.com/h1t1-media-growth-strategy-earning-082545826.html? 23r2 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Who is John Casterline? YouTuber responds after MrBeast seemingly appears while searching for him on Google https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/streamers/who-john-casterline-youtuber-responds-mrbeast-seemingly-appears-searching-google?utm_source=www.sportskeeda.com&utm_medium=native&utm_campaign=ShareArticle 23r2 (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

There are many more, but they are easy to access. 23r2 (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for having a go at this. Please carefully read all the links regarding notability and reliable sources that Jéské and Yeshivish613 provided above. Regarding the two sources you've listed:

1. I haven't seen Latestly before but that piece reads like a press release (too many publications are lazy and just copy press releases instead of doing real journalism). Even if it is technically independent of the subject, it reads like a § puff piece and is not helpful for evaluating notability.
2. Previous discussions have established that WP:SPORTSKEEDA is generally unreliable and cannot be used.

If you want to create an article about this person, the onus is on you to find sources that establish notability. If you can't find at least three sources that meet the standards listed above, unfortunately that means they probably don't warrant a Wikipedia article at this time. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 00:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello all. I a newbie and seek help regarding citing an information. I have been reading a page on Theriogenology, when I suddenly realized that there exists a prominent journal on this subject. There is no mention of this in the page and I thought it was worth adding this information. However I simply do not know how to cite it. The information pages, which confirm the existence of this journal are (1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/421510 (2)https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/theriogenology. Can someone please advise? Can we use the parameters for a regular website? Or is there some other parameter for scientific sites like the ones I am citing? Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Welcome! If there is a specific text you would like to cite from the journal, use Template:Cite journal ({{cite journal}}). I believe you cannot just cite the journal exists, it has to be text that the journal published. Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The article has an External link to the Society, and at that website, at the top, there is a link to Clinical Theriogenology. I suppose you could add another external link if the journal you mention is not the same one. David notMD (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks David notMD. I did visit that just now [after the hint given be you]. Actually - and quite interestingly - this is another journal, though similar sounding. The exact NLM link is here - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/101681552. But yes, this is a good lead. Actually coming to think of it, I could mention both journals at the original site. Mentioning the journal as an external link [as you indicate] is one thing, and you would agree, mentioning it within the article is yet another. But a good lead. Thanks. I would anyway want to know how to cite the NLM journal site. Neotaruntius (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Thanks. That exactly is my problem. I am indeed aware of the "Cite journal" template. But it was a bit tricky to cite just the National Library of Medicine site. That is why I was wondering if I could just use a "cite web" template. However NLM is not an ordinary website, and hence the query. Thanks anyway. Neotaruntius (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the unclear explanation. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

CF-501 Falcon, no problem. You tried to help and that is enough. Neotaruntius (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I am still of the mind that organization of journal websites are better as External links rather than references. David notMD (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

David notMD thanks. I would then go by your vision. Shall put an external link to both journals. Regards. Neotaruntius (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem with using a "Cite web" template to cite the main page of a journal -- in fact, you don't strictly have to use any template at all. You can technically just write an MLA citation if you feel like it. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Neotaruntius, You need to keep in mind the difference between in-line citations, which are used in the body of an article to verifiy specific assertions in the Wikipedia article, and a general reference, which isn't specifically connected to anything in the article, but just to the whole topic in general. You can use template {{cite journal}} for both cases, but you fill them out differently for the two cases, and where you put them is different. It sounds like you are talking about a general reference, which can be placed in the appendix of an article, most likely under a section entitled, "Further reading", or possibly with the External links as previously mentioned. I would code it like this:

• {{cite journal |author1=Society for Theriogenology Conference |author2=Society for Theriogenology |author3=American College of Theriogenologists |journal=Clinical theriogenology |date=2009 |title=Clinical theriogenology |publisher=Society for Theriogenology |location=Montgomery, Alabama |type=Conference papers and proceedings |issn=2154-3968 |url=https://clinicaltheriogenology.net |oclc=460193107}}

And it might appear like this:

Further reading

• Society for Theriogenology Conference; Society for Theriogenology; American College of Theriogenologists (2009). "Clinical theriogenology". Clinical theriogenology (Conference papers and proceedings). Montgomery, Alabama: Society for Theriogenology. ISSN 2154-3968. OCLC 460193107.

Does this help? If you are using it to cite specific content, the citation will look a little different, and it will be placed in the body, not in an Appendix. Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I know this sounds like a dumb question, but I see many users have barnstars on their user pages, and I would like to know how to do the same. I have recently gotten my first barnstar and I would like to have it on my user page. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac Congratulations! You can just copy the barnstar code from your talk page to your user page. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 06:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks. Was planning to do this. Just wanted to make sure. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's say, hypothetically, that someone in the world has 15 jobs all at once (somehow). When writing an article on Wikipedia about them, should we list all of their jobs? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, TrademarkedTWOrantula. No, only list the jobs that contribute to their notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Once someone already has notability from one of his jobs, the others might be mentioned somewhere in the article if they are mentioned in reliable sources, just like we say people's personal life even though it is not relevant to their notability, but it will definitely not be in the lead. Yeshivish613 (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello I would like to add a documentary called Matt Bakers travels with Mum & Dad which featured Cragside and Cragend Farm on Channel 4 September 2024 in Rothbury. There are other entries of Restoration Man and Car SOS and this is the most recent documentary about the attractions available in Rothbury. I would like to add this as it will benefit the area for tourism and therefore the pubs and shops of Rothbury village. Cragend Renwick (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cragend Renwick: Two problems immediately pop up:

1. Sources are required for any topic on Wikipedia to demonstrate that they are notable as we define the term. We would be looking for professional reviews of the documentary.
2. We do not care about Rothbury's tourism industry.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

So I have been adding logos to Canadian company articles, but I've noticed something else missing in these articles. An image to go along with the company. And what I am curious about is if I am able to screenshot a company location, headquarters, etc on Google Maps to add to the article? Liam9287 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

One problem about this though is that when you look closely on Google Maps, there is a small watermark (when you are on street view) and that would look bad on a Wikipedia article Liam9287 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Liam9287: Hi Liam9287, and welcome to the Teahouse. What I would recommend is to go to the company's website, right click on the logo, save it, and upload it under a non-free license if it meets WP:FREER, which is the part of the non-free content policy that says that non-free images should not be used if there can be a free replacement. You can do this using the file upload wizard and selecting "non-free". Hope this helps! Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Liam9287, with regards to Google Street View, the short answer is "no". Any image that you find on the internet is presumed to be restricted by copyright, unless you have evidence in writing that it is in the public domain or is freely licensed in a way acceptable on Wikipedia. Google's image use policy is too restrictive for use on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I actually already do this, that is how I upload them, but thank you for the help1 Liam9287 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh that was meant to be sent to Grumpylawnchair, lol Liam9287 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I saw it. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

If you would ever visit these places and take a picture yourself, you are welcome to add it yourself as own work. Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Liam9287 (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I was told to come here because Herod the Great's page is semi-protected.

I have a notable source that reorders his wives that does not match the order on the page. Here's what I added on the talk page.

Hello, I have been reading a scholarly source from my university library that tells me that King Herod had a total of ten wives; however, not in the order that is on the main page. This came from my research into his seventh wife [as the source says] Cleopatra that born Philip. This book is called Herod the Great : Statesman, Visionary, Tyrant by by Norman Gelb 2013.

Here's his notes: pg. 101-102

1. Doris - Herod married her at a young age but divorced and banished her with only coming back on religious holidays.
2. Miriamne, but remarried Doris later when their son Antipater and gained Herod's affections. Doris was considered a primary participant in palace conspiracies. [The remarried doesn't count in the calculation of considering Doris as wife number 3.]
3. Herod's third wife was a niece, whose name was lost to history.
4. Herod's fourth wife was a cousin, whose name was lost to history.
5. Miriamne II - Her father was raised to a high priest so Herod could marry her rank respectfully.
6. Malthace - Samaritan who born Archelaus and Antipas
7. Cleopatra - A Jerusalem woman who born Philip (<- whom I'm originally doing research for)
8. Pallas - little is known
9. Phedra - little is known
10. Elpis - little is known

Norman Gelb. 2013. Herod the Great : Statesman, Visionary, Tyrant. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. https://research-ebsco-com.nwulibrary.idm.oclc.org/linkprocessor/plink?id=b76b51b9-19a8-36c7-8236-8455ffa3765e.

What would be my options and next steps because I would gladly like to discuss the topic with someone!

Thanks in advanced, MamaBearMunch (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi MamaBearMunch, and welcome to the Teahouse! I would recommend you to take this matter to the article's talk page (which is Talk:Herod the Great), as this is a content dispute. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually, since you already to seem to have posted there, use the {{edit request}} template (see instructions here) and someone will answer it. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote a draft of an artist, this is the second artist i write about, the first one the page its been up for months succesfully, the second one just send it over to review now, I've created this article about this singer with few quite notable articles, cause with wikipedia guidelines is not quantity it is quality. that is what I did and also cited information I found from the articles. could anyone give a look into it for me please.

User:Meio2934/sandbox Meio2934 (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Meio2934. What is required to establish notability are multiple references to reliable sources that are independent of Maycon Pimentella and that devote significant coverage to Pimentella. Your first reference says that it is to The Post Athens but the URL leads to CanvasRebel. Your second reference leads to a magazine cover. Your other references are CanvasRebel again and Bold Journey Magazine, both of which are interviews. Please be aware that interviews may have some value in articles about a clearly notable person but they do not help establish notability because they are not independent of the interviewee. Also, your draft consists of just three sentences, and does not mention makeup, which is discussed extensively in one of the interviews. Is this person a singer or a makeup artist? Your prose fails to make the case that Pimentella is notable, either as a singer or as a makeup artist. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

omg thank you for replying, I don't know why is showing canvasrebel where the post athens is at, but I can actually send you the link of the article: https://www.thepostathens.com/article/2025/01/artist-spotlight-maycon-devon

about the singer or makeup artist, i am confused on writting about it. because You need source for everything you are writting on. so should I mention more about the makeup since as you pointed it out it shows more in the article ? Meio2934 (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

also forgot to mention, but the Post Athens is the one that talks more about the music, and the other one from TJPL magazine that is actually a printed magazine. so I tried to find the onlline flipbook to put it in Meio2934 (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

sorry for giving too many replies but the Magazine link, its not a cover you have to click on the sideways to go to the next page. Pimentella is cited on pages 22-23 of the magazine. This also talks more about music. The article is short cause I don't know how to rephrase or cite from the sources. If I write more don't I need more articles to cite it ?. or I can reuse the same sources that talks about different topics ? Meio2934 (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I was in the middle of a hyperfixation, hunting down the typo "aswell" when I found the page for Murrumbidgee Regional High School and noticed it's full of obviously untrue information. Could someone with rollback permissions take us back to this revision? I'm on mobile and I think trying to edit it manually would risk my making typos or messing with formatting, but if someone else sees this and prefers to revert manually that's perfectly fine too. EllieDellie (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, EllieDellie. Thank you for pointing it out. Incidentally, while I agree that "aswell" is an unorthodox and thus slightly distracting alternative to "as well", I'd say that it's a trivial matter. By contrast, consider for example "legend", in the sense of "person"; thus for example "guitar legend" meaning "guitarist". Much horribler than "aswell", imho. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd be interested in amending that phrasing too, do you have suggestions on alternatives? "Noted guitarist"? EllieDellie (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Please no, EllieDellie. Instead, "guitarist". Similarly, "legendary guitarist" → "guitarist", "guitar icon" → "guitarist", "iconic guitarist" → "guitarist", "renowned guitarist" → "guitarist".... Hoary (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Good to know! EllieDellie (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@EllieDellie: This has been resolved, but you don't need rollback rights to automatically restore a previous revision. The instructions for doing so are at Help:Reverting#Restoring a past version. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

EllieDellie, please be aware that Hoary is correct that a Wikipedia editor cannot use such superlatives for guitarists on their own, because that is original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. However, it is perfectly fine to write that Jimi Hendrix is widely regarded as one of the greatest and most influential guitarists of all time because that accurately summarizes what many professional music critics say. For those who do not like hard rock, we can also write that Django Reinhardt is regarded as one of the greatest guitar players of all time, for the same reason as the Hendrix description. The distinction is that reliable sources are welcome to make such assessments, but Wikipedia editors aren't. Those assessments in the lead must be backed up by references to reliable sources in the body. And they are. Cullen328 (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen, that explanation is very clear! EllieDellie (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I was doing some recent changes patrolling when i noticed that an IP was removing large swaths of information from articles regarding the districts of Durham & Northumberland? I checked the talk pages, and no mention of these blanks was made. Im a bit rusty on the finer points of how this should be handled, so i thought the best thing to do would be check in here. If needed, heres the pages that were edited: Counties 1, Counties 2, and Counties 3

Thank you for the help

-I.R.B.A.T^{(yell at me) (The IRBAT Files)} 14:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Im really bad at this the first thing to do would be to WP:WARN them on their talk page (which I've just done). If they continue to vandalize after being warned multiple times you can report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Yeshivish613 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Something like, say, WP:SOURCECONSENSUS? Ss0jse (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ss0jse Can you be a bit more specific about your question? Wikipedia wants editors to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS as to what should appear in articles but sources may conflict among themselves, which we have no control over. In that case, we sometimes present multiple viewpoints in a proportionate, neutral way. We are of course influenced by the reliability of various possible sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Context: Talk:Constitutional_crisis#c-Ss0jse-20250324143400-Alenoach-20250324025000 Ss0jse (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Draft:Devyani International Limited Help me with improvement in the article to improve it accordingly. MSD50 (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @MSD50, and welcome to the Teahouse.

While it is not forbidden to ask for editors to collaborate on an article here, your request is unlikely to be successful: that is not what the Teahouse is for.

I haven't looked at your sources, only at your reference list; but it does not look to me as if you have even one source where a writer wholly unconnected with DIL has written significant coverage of the company (not just routine business announcements) and been published in a reliable place: see WP:42. Finding such sources is the very first step in writing an article, and writing so much as a single word without first finding several such sources is like building a house without first surveying the plot to make sure it is fit to build on.

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, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to complete an article on Gerald L Burke (Draft:Gerald L. Burke) who first discovered and refined the method of successfully using tantalum as an implant material in surgery and dentistry in 1940. His work was documented in detail in medical journals of the time, and Google Scholar turns up hundreds of references to his work in the years since. However my submission was rejected by the Wikipedia reviewer who said the man and his work was not notable. Google Scholar shows 216 primary journal articles mentioning Burke's discoveries and research. Should I include them in the article to establish notability? It seems like overkill, but I'm not an expert at Wikipedia. Here's Google Scholar's result pointing to the 216 journal articles: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Burke+GL.+the+corrosion+of+metals+in+tissues;+and+an+introduction+to+tantalum.+Can+Med+Assoc+J.+1940;43:125–8.+20321780++ . There's more on Burke's other research, but this one topic is about all I can handle for now. Henrilebec (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)!

Henrilebec, no-one doubts that tantalum is used in surgery and that Burke originated that use, see Tantalum#Surgical_uses. What is missing from your draft is sources that discuss Burke himself. Maproom (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Yup. Answers are the same as the ones in the November 2024 Teahouse and AfC help desk (AHD) posts, as well as the more granular January 2025 AHD thread on this draft. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Is this a requirement to establish notability? Like, information about his personal life, etc? He appears to have been a rather private individual, devoted to extraordinary research projects. There is some information on his work during the war, how his parents were killed by the Germans, etc. He spent his spare time(?) helping repair war-wounded, amputees, etc. Would that help? Henrilebec (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Henrilebec Wikipedia is a summary of what reliable sources say about the subject. So the article should focus on whatever the sources focus on, which is his research projects, and only mention other things like his personal life as a sidepoint.

However to establish notability, we need to have such sources which exist, which talk about him and his work. This will tell us he is a notable person, and not the actual work which he writes. Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Why are phylum’s and such replaced with clades on Wikipedia articles on genus’s and spieces Vestrix (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Vestrix. Because in modern cladistics the traditional taxonomies often do not have enough levels. If DNA analysis shows that some of the classes in a phylum are more closely related to each other than to the other classes, that identifies a clade: what do you call that clade? Traditionally a sub-phylum. Then you find a new clade within the sub-phylum: what's that? Perhaps an infra-phylum. Then you identify a superclass, and so on. But the real world doesn't have a limit on the number of possible clades between kingdom (or domain if you prefer) and (sub-)species. So in the end there is often no useful name for many clades other than "clade". ColinFine (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you so much! Vestrix (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I notice a new user is creating BLP articles in main space incorrectly. I think I have seen a specific friendly welcome template, or talkpage template asking the user to use sandbox. Also I think the userpage is being used as web-hosting and I can't find that template either. Can someone direct me to those templates? Thanks, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates, try Template:Uw-userpage, and see also WP:NOTRESUME. Mathglot (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot. I don't know if they know their talk page exists, but trying to AGF. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates, it does not matter if they know it exists. Anything written by anybody on that page, will cause them to receive an automatic alert by the Wikimedia notification system, in exactly the same way as you got one just now, but without having to {{ping}} them or wikilink their username in the message. Any change to their Talk page will alert them. So, if you leave them a message, they will be alerted to it. There are some arcane exceptions for mobile-only users, and although this user is using the mobile editor, you can generally assume they will get the message as the exceptions are mostly fixed now. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot. It looks like they have found their talk page now. My experience is that mobile users remain unaware for ages. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I recently created the page on Weaponized incompetence and was looking for some feedback on ways to improve it? BarC23 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

BarC23, see Talk:Weaponized_incompetence#Sources. -- Hoary (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

what's the point of the box at the top of a section saying "this article may contain irrelevant references to popular culture". If they are irrelevant, why have them there at all? It just seems to me to be a cop-out for lazy editing or research?? I've seen it in the entry for Charles Bukowski SRC0933 (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of the box at the top of a section (e.g., "this article may contain irrelevant references to popular culture") is to flag potential issues with the article’s content. It does not justify keeping irrelevant references but instead alerts editors and readers that certain parts may need revision or removal.

It’s not a "cop-out" but rather a work-in-progress marker—similar to how Wikipedia uses "citation needed" tags for unsourced claims. Ideally, editors should either improve, source, or remove such content, but Wikipedia is a collaborative project where cleanup happens gradually.

If you believe the references are truly irrelevant, you can start a discussion on the article’s talk page or be bold and edit them yourself. The tag exists to encourage exactly this kind of editorial improvement. Sys64wiki (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @SRC0933. As the editor above me said, the tag isn't there to excuse a bad article, but an alert to both the reader and editor that this problem is there and should be fixed. If you see something that should be removed, go fix it! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, im a new editor

I want to contribute images to the english wikipedia, but im hitting some bumps when it comes to copyright, especially determining whether or not an image is free work or not

the image I want in particular is a picture of this postage stamp, seen on this following ebay listing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/116507617462

I've read through the service agreement of ebay and unless I'm misinterpreting, it seems like the company and other sellers using the website are free to use any images posted by sellers, but im not sure if that freedom extends outside the website and onto a place like wikipedia https://community.ebay.com/t5/Selling/Copyright-of-my-listing-photos/td-p/33619759 Zaniff (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Zaniff, ebay is quoted there as saying: "When you create listings you give eBay and its customers permission, through our user agreement, to use your images, videos and product details." Wikipedia is neither eBay nor its customers. Additionally, such a declaration would surely assume that (for example) the images that I uploaded were images whose copyright is mine: a very lazy assumption. Wikimedia Commons (which hosts most images used in Wikipedia) observes its interpretation of US copyright law, according to which interpretation the copyright of a pretty straightforward photographic reproduction_(A) of a two-dimensional image_(B) belongs to whoever holds the copyright of image_(B). For your current dilemma, image_(B) is a very recent Latvian stamp. Ebay's policies, whatever they are, are irrelevant here. Please see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Latvia. If you have further questions on this or another image copyright matter, please ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, where your chances of getting well-informed responses are higher than they are here (with people such as myself who are only hazily informed). -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and help, appreciate it. Zaniff (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

An additional complication is that -- if I understand the ebay listing right -- the stamp reproduces something from an animated movie. The latter can be assumed to be conventionally copyright ("all rights reserved") unless you can point to explicit evidence that it isn't. A claim of "fair use" is likely to fail; but even if you have good reason to think it would succeed you'd better wait till this FfD is concluded. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

There's currently this draft Draft:Slay (TV series) that hasn't passed for article creation. Yet this editor @Nhoiialmanzor: made a duplicate article - Slay (2025 TV series).[3] When the duplicate article was turned into a redirect by me, Nhoiialmanzor reverted my redirect, then they moved the duplicate article as a draft- Draft:Slay (2025 TV series). So now there's two drafts for the same TV series. I've messaged the editor through their talkpage and they didn't communicate back. It looks really quite messy. Is there anything that can be done with this? This also the 2nd time a duplicate article was made for the Tv series, the first time was under Slay (upcoming TV series) Hotwiki (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

With reliable and trustworthy background, i want to make changes in an article. Although it may have far end supporters in the opposing side. Is there a way that i can make adjustments with help of other people (pool, collective thought etc.) Thatllfindyou (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thatllfindyou, welcome to the Teahouse! I recommend reading the lists of contentious topics and general sanctions. If you believe your edit might be against consensus or Wikipedia policy, don't be afraid to discuss it on the talk page. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes you must discuss the issue on talk page of both the opposing party and the article page and reach a consensus before applying your edit. Avoid to prove yourself throught multiple editing without logic. Try to visit WK:RSM or WK:Help desk. If the discussion is about some sensitive matter try out Wikipedia Administration page. However you are already at the most basic help desk in wiki. Sys64wiki (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

In addition to talk pages (the usual), you could try asking for help at the relevant WP:WikiProject. I think it's proper form to put a link on the article talk page if you do though so other people can see the discussion? Not sure. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

General question, should categories be retained or even added to articles that have been redirected? Asking because I saw a user add such cats to an article that was redirected https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kris_Myers&curid=4292816&diff=1282235489&oldid=1090801936 FMSky (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

"Should" depends on the specifics of each redirect. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects is the guideline. DMacks (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I edited Trombi–Varadarajan theorem a while ago. I then read an essay, I think it was User:Grutness/Croughton-London rule of stubs, and I now don't know if I should have marked it a stub. I know I'm supposed to Wikipedia:Be bold, but I can't help wondering if I made the right choice. It would be good to know for future reference. thanks! Math Bard (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Math Bard: It's definitely a stub; you did the right thing. But no big deal if you had made a mistake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Math Bard, it is difficult for me to imagine a one sentence article that would not be a stub. I do not understand the math but surely there is more that could be said about the topic. The table of contents of the cited journal article has 23 sections, after all. On the other hand, without references to reliable sources independent of Trombi and Varadarajan, is the theorem even notable? With only one primary source, that is not yet established. Cullen328 (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

This is my first time adding an article to Wikipedia. My draft for HASAN.VC was initially rejected, and I received feedback for improvements. Based on that feedback, I have updated the article.

Here is the updated draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:HASAN.VC

I would appreciate it if someone could review it and confirm whether it meets the requirements before I submit it for review again. Any suggestions for further improvements are also welcome. Ayeshanissa (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry - my advice is to give up on this one. It's a VC firm that was started barely more than a year ago. The chances this meets the guidelines at WP:NCORP is very, very low. -- asilvering (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I emailed the address checkuser-en-wp@wikimedia.org requesting for a member of the team to perform a checkuser, but I am unsure of when they may get back to me, and the email I sent seems to have failed to reach the team (Gmail sent me a notification). Is there a way to reach the team faster, or a different email address? Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Checkusers are volunteers, doing what they can when they can; it likely that your message simply hasn't been looked at yet. Is your issue particularly urgent? 331dot (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

My issue isn't an urgent one, but I'm just worried that because Gmail sent me a "Delivery incomplete" notification that they're not going to receive my request. I was wondering if that case there was an alternative way to contact them. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3 Delivery incomplete means they did not receive your message, maybe you sent it to the wrong email? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 03:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I did send it to checkuser-en-wp@wikimedia.org instead of checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org, but I resent it to the latter address. I'm assuming the latter one is the correct address to email? Surayeproject3 (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you get any errors this time, it should work now. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 09:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

So far I haven't gotten any message of a failed delivery, so I think I'm good. I'll be sure to say something at Teahouse if I run into any other issues though. Surayeproject3 (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Jean Newell Grey88W (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

In a word, no. It's blatantly promotional. I'm trying to think of a reason for not deleting the thing. -- Hoary (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You were rejected as an advert, and you resubmitted without fixing the issue. That's abusive. PhilKnight (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

declined, not rejected, the difference is kind of important here. but if resubmitted without changes, i think it can be safely rejected consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 12:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I have suggested factual updates on the Talk page of the Advans article (see Advans). Since I have a declared paid contribution, I cannot edit the page directly. However, no editors have reviewed my suggestions yet. Could someone take a look or advise on how to proceed? Should I notify specific editors? Thanks in advance for your help!

Kindly, Solenereboulet (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

We are all volunteers here whilst you are being paid, patience is required. Content like "In 2014, Advans surpassed 500,000 clients, marking a significant milestone in its financial and social impact." is entirely promotional and inappropriate; the awards are not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback.

I appreciate your time in reviewing my suggestions. I’ve removed the statement you mentioned to ensure full compliance with Wikipedia's neutrality standards. My goal is simply to contribute verifiable and well-sourced content, in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Solenereboulet (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You have requested 31 changes, mostly promotional in nature, you may have quite a wait. Your edits are not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to modify Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Recognized content so that it uses the JL-Bot to get itself updated. I think I know how to do this (having looked at another project's Recognized Content), but how do I get it debugged? Do I have to submit my change and then wait until Saturday to see if it worked? (Because the documentation says the the bot runs every week, typically on Saturday.) If possible, I would like to get the bot to look at my stuff right now, not Saturday. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Bruce leverett, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest asking on User talk:JL-Bot. ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, thought of that later. Actually I asked on User talk:JLaTondre and it got answered by probably the same talk page lurker that would have caught it on User talk:JL-Bot. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I recently saw that a [citation needed] tag was added in the lead of an article I follow. The sentence in question is sourced in the body of the article. According to MOS:LEADCITE citations in the lead are not necessary. But if it already has some references, is it then necessary to source everything? Sort of an all or nothing scenario. Asking for some clarification because I am not sure what to do. Thank you! Paprikaiser (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Paprikaiser and welcome to the Teahouse. From my understanding of LEADCITE, if the statement in question in the lead is cited in the body, it doesn't need to be cited in the lead. You probably should remove that citation needed tag; it may have been placed in error. Hope this helps! Sincerely, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Paprikaiser (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

If the article is controversial, it would not hurt to have citations in the lead. It avoids reactions. A.Cython (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll keep that in mind. Thank you! Paprikaiser (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I need help with sockpuppets who have created brand-new IPs and erased all edits on a Wikipedia page, reverting it to a very old version using outdated code. Then, they usually make some "reasonable" grammar corrections and may add a few lines of original text. The problem is that they aim to keep false claims on the page—claims that have already been debunked in the Talk page discussions.

When I check the history, I see that these false claims originate from permanently blocked users who have already been permanently or temporarily blocked for using sockpuppets and vandalizing multiple politically sensitive pages, including history-related topics.

Does this mean that these new IPs are obviously sockpuppets? Or not? To me, when claims have already been addressed on the Talk page and someone erases almost everything, it seems obvious. Would this be considered obvious sockpuppetry?

My concern today is regarding the Tommy Cash (rapper) Wikipedia page. He is one of the main favorites for the 2025 Eurovision Song Contest, and some users have consistently added false claims that he "self-identifies as Russian", that his parents are Russian, or that he is pro-Russian in some way. In reality, he is Estonian, his mother is Ukrainian, and his father is half Estonian, half Russian. He has talked about hard feelings regarding political situation in various interviews - and those links have been all selectively deleted, repeatedly, using exactly the same template. Does it mean that vandalism and sockpuppets are obvious in this and similar case?

I know that what comes to Tommy Cash's page, Estonian and Ukrainian version of it has been so heavily vandalized that administratiors needed to suspend any activity, and Cash had to make official political statements to the journalists about the truth more than a week ago already. And today, 24 it still is under constant vandalization, as people make news stories and reaction videos about Cash and about his participation of Eurovision song contest.

Does making the same changes, using a very old version of the page, similar to previous blocked sockpuppets, and skipping the Talk page, pretty much automatically mean that sockpuppetry is officially obvious? It is, at least to me, very clear. What are the correct rules here? Does it all start with warning number 1, once again? And when should I report to administrators? They can simply use brand-new IP addresses without an upper limit because they have paid for a proxy server service.

Thank you a lot! Muruhaldjas (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Muruhaldjas. I don't have the time to look further into what you're talking about, but WP:SPI is where you should go to investigate potential sockpuppets. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Muruhaldjas, you're going to need to provide diffs of the identical edits to make this easier for administrators to do something about. I have to go pretty far back into the page history to find any blocked editors, and the IPs themselves don't immediately leap out to me as proxies or sockpuppets. You can take this to SPI as suggested, but since it's all IP editors you may have more luck at WP:ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, mildly nerdsniped, I did get one that was more obvious than the rest. The others are still up to you to prove, though. -- asilvering (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

T

Thank you!

I'm relatively a beginner here. I have made some contributions over a decade, but... I got sick, and it is going to take me a very long time to heal. So now, I have time to scroll on the internet and maybe make some useful contributions here—perhaps more in Estonian, though, but... I am trying to learn the general system Wikipedia uses. I looked carefully into edit history pages, trying to track some changes. I am now just amazed at how systematically and skillfully some users, or obviously related IP addresses, insert the same propaganda into articles, like they have full-time jobs doing this over many years, even decades.

Estonian Vikipeedia is pretty much like nobody cares, only one million people speak it, but there are some very dedicated people who want to edit history and identities. Whoever naively makes edits—like, "Oh, such an obvious mistake, or let's put here something!"—will see those edits disappear very soon. So, I call it a frustration I have discovered myself in looking into history pages. I am trying to understand on a more meta level whether this is all pretty much pointless or not... I suspect I need to learn more meta-skills for a start—unless I need to put up content that nobody cares about or is interested in.

I have already dug into some users' edit logs, and it seems to me that Estonian Wikipedia and the English one are not so closely connected. For example, the same user may have received a permanent block from English Wikipedia but has no official warnings in Estonian Vikipeedia yet—only some complaints and confused questions from other users. And since I can understand what they write in Estonian, it is sometimes obvious to me what these different IPs are up to.

Yeah, I will look into it more and more, I'm sure—one step at a time. Tnx again. Muruhaldjas (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I got sick, and it is going to take me a very long time to heal. Lots of us here in this same boat. Wishing you health! Regarding edits disappearing very soon, that happens on English Wikipedia too. You can always go ask the editor who reverted you why they did that, or you can come here to ask for help. Regarding the separation of the wikis, yes, that's true - each edition of wikipedia is independent. Good luck and happy editing! -- asilvering (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I see a silver lining in my sickness here, fortunately. I'm not alone. Muruhaldjas (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

asilvering What can be done regarding Tommy Cash (rapper) page? The same person creates new IP-s and seem to work full-time to change his page into pro-russian propaganda. Can that page become protected in some ways? Right now, he linked one article in Estonia, claiming Cash never went to Estonian army. The article even never mentioned the military stuff at all, nor citizenchip. Cash is right now one of the favorites of Eurovision song contest, so people all over the world look that wiki page. They just do not know even where Estonia is... Muruhaldjas (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Muruhaldjas, I think the best thing for you to do right now is to go to WP:BLPN and ask for help from experienced editors in cleaning up this page. They may tell you that some of your edits are wrong, because you're new and haven't learned all of wikipedia's guidelines yet, so be prepared for that to happen. But the folks there are very good at handling this kind of thing. I'm also going to put WP:CTOP notices on this page (you'll see what that means in a moment). We can protect the page so that it can't be edited by IP editors if we really have to, but it's better not to do that if possible, so please head to WP:BLPN first and ask for help first. Let them know that you're new and you're not sure what to do. -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Yep, I did post to the WP:BLPN page yesterday, but so far, nobody has responded. I also noticed the notice box—this issue was repeatedly marked as "very low priority" either when I mentioned it somewhere or when I came across it. Additionally, earlier today, I sent an email asking for help.

As I mentioned in previous messages, I'm trying to learn, especially after diving deep into that pro-Russian content—it was a horror to go through. They are fluent in English and actually know all the formatting rules required on Wikipedia, so they manage to do some "favors" that, at a quick glance, might even make some people want to thank them.

So, no worries about being told I did something wrong by reverting their edits or being seen as the "bad guy"—that’s the least of my concerns right now.

I need to become just as skilled.

Thank you! Muruhaldjas (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Thank you. The page is now protected until the Eurovision is over. Muruhaldjas (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I had a draft Draft:GameGuardian and it was denied due to a lack of a reliable source. Its a very popular cheating tool in said community yet I am unable to find any news sources covering it. I need help with finding citations and would accept any help if possible. DotesConks (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Not quite, DotesConks. It was declined because of the apparent lack of multiple published sources (not just one) that are all of reliable, in-depth, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject. It's hard to believe that for a subject such as this there are printed sources that aren't on the web; and if they're on the web, then you would have found them. Unfortunately, it looks as if you attempted to create this article backwards. Suggestion: Copy what you have written to your hard drive (or your SSD or whatever), and forget about GameGuardian for a year. After a year, Duckduckgo (or Google, or Bing) GameGuardian again, and see whether new, good sources have appeared. If they have, start your draft afresh. -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary GameGuardian has been around for nearly 9 years. If a source wasn't created then, it wont be created in a year. DotesConks (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I took a look on Google as well -- it's possibly, unfortunately, that there are no news sources covering it. Not every cheating tool is well-documented in reliable sources. If it's 9 years old, you could try Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games's resources and try to find it in some print magazines, as a last resort? Overall, it seems likely to me coverage doesn't exist. I suppose you could try contacting GameGuardian -- probably they would know if they ever got interviewed. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

I noticed an error on the Uncle Sam billboard page under the "messages" heading. It says that in the 1980's the sign read "Home of environmental terrorists and homos" in reference to Centralia Community College. However, the source listed does not actually touch on the sign being in reference to CCC.There is a photo of when the billboard had a similar message, but it was in reference to the Evergreen State College and fully said "EVERGREEN STATE COLLEGE- HOME OF THE ENVIROMENTAL TERRORISTS AND HOMOS?"

The only places I can find photos or reference to this sign are on blogs or news sites. Is there a way I could cite one of these? Or even just the photo?

Other sites with the photo: the chronicle, a postcard blog,

Many thanks! Ricecookerhours (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Ricecookerhours, "the chronicle" is an actual newspaper: The Chronicle (Centralia, Washington). The current assertion comes with a reference to what appears to be a different actual newspaper (though I haven't even glanced at it). If the latter source indeed says what it's described in the WP article as saying ... well, if one assertion is correct, does that mean that the other is necessarily incorrect? (The billboard owner seems to have had quite an obsession with gays over the years; it's imaginable that he repeated the same old phobias, attributing terrorism and gaiety first to one institution, then to another.) Anyway, the place to discuss the matter is Talk:Uncle Sam billboard. -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

As for the postcard blog, Ricecookerhours, no, please don't cite it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:Elliott Branch Jr., I've submitted for AfC a few times but haven't had much detail as to why it was declined.

The subject meets:

I'm tempted to move to article space, but I'm hesitant because significant coverage is limited. Here's the 2 best sources I could find (1 2). I've included more sources within the draft. Some are more than a mention, but I'm not sure they are significant enough so I would like another opinion on this. Filmforme (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

"Sue White ... quoted several of Branch's jokes, one of which received a positive reaction" does not sound complimentary. Was that your intention? Maproom (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Filmforme, those award nominations are not major. The films listed are brief parody films. Your claimed two best sources are a PDF of the entire contents of a daily newspaper (?), seventy some pages long, and a routine event listing. The "Notability (comedy)" thing is obsolete and not recognized as a guideline. Special notability guidelines are yardsticks for determining whether a topic is likely to be notable and should not be stretched. The most important thing by far is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and that's not yet there. To be frank, I am unconvinced that Branch is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The article for My Talking Tom was moved to My Talking Horror by a vandal named User:Fires999, and I noticed this and tried moving it back. But I think something must have gone wrong because now the My Talking Tom article is a redirect to itself with no history. Besides that, I don't know why, but when I used Twinkle to tag the My Talking Horror page for deletion, it sent a CSD notice (as seen here [4]) to @PhilKnight instead of the vandal who had moved the page.

So I would like help with recovering the original article and an explanation as to whether this was a bug or I missed something. Tube·of·Light 06:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem seemed to fix itself. PhilKnight (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Huh, that's odd but good. Still have no idea why the CSD notice went to you but as long as it was a one-off bug I suppose all is well. Tube·of·Light 04:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tube of Light: There was no bug, just unfortunate timing. You and PhilKnight spotted the same move vandalism and both moved the page back, causing some confusion. You did it first, leaving a redirect. PhilKnight then made the same move which at the time meant he moved the redirect page, and he also left a redirect behind. He is an administrator and deleted the target My Talking Tom to make way for the move but at the time, the target was the article you had already moved back. This only left a redirect to itself. You tagged My Talking Horror for deletion after PhilKnight had also moved it so he was the page creator (of a redirect from his move) at the time and got the notification. The page creator is not necessarily the first user to ever create a page there. It is the author of the earliest edit currently in the page history, excluding deleted edits. The vandal was never page creator of My Talking Horror. After the vandal move it was the creator of the original article which had its page history moved. After your move it was you (Twinkle would have detected this and not notified yourself) but after PhilKnight's move it was him. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. Tube·of·Light 11:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit I now realise that i need to dig up better and more notable sources in order to improve on the page's notability, thank you to everyone that contributed. Will be deleting the draft for now until i can find better sources.

Hello,

I recently had a page speedily removed as it was considered advertising, I was hoping to improve on the page to remove the bias and make it more neutral.

A bit about me for transparency, I work at a marketing agency where i head the SEO and I want to start building out Wikipedia pages for notable brands that we work with. I am paid by Pure Agency, and i thought i would trial this by creating a page for the agency to start with, the page was speedily removed as you know. So reason being is i deal with improving websites E-E-A-T signals and Wikipedia and Wikidata are considered highly authoritive references even though the links are nofollows.

I have put the page back into sandbox and would really appreciate the help in doing this the right way, adhering to Wiki's policies.

So any help would be highly appreciated from editors that wouldnt mind taking the time to help me learn.

Regards TrevorAingworth (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing in your sandbox to suggest that your company is notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you , I realised that after seeing the comments left by one of the administrators.

Have a much better understanding of notable sources now. TrevorAingworth (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I asked earlier if someone could review this page, Swedenburg v. Kelly, they "rated" it as a stub class, but when really what I asked about was if it could be reviewed. Thanks tea house friends. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Iljhgtn, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has six different kinds of review. What are you asking for? ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Patrolled I think might be the correct word then. I am sorry if I used the wrong word. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine I believe our friend is referring to Wikipedia:Page Curation. Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know when, but at some point along the road someone helped me to add the gadget which shows me whether or not one of my articles has been patrolled. I periodically check. Sometimes it is really fast, other times it takes a while (by patrolled I mean the review that then allows the article to be indexed and found by search engines I think?). Please correct me if I am using incorrect terms for any of these activities. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct and describing my experience exactly. There are currently 17193 articles waiting to be patrolled, and sometimes it just takes time for the new page reviewers to get to it. I'm not a reviewer myself, but if any reviewer or admin here is nice enough they may review it. Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. In my view there are far, far, too few new page reviewers and the backlog is bad and only getting worse, so occasionally I pop over here and ask about a page I created to get patrolled. I really do think they should loosen the requirements to approve more NPR's. Not too much, just a tad. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am a little stuck on figuring out how to add a photo to the article I am creating. This person is notable enough that they have hundreds of photos online, how can I determine which ones I am cleared to use? Some of the photos I found I'm having a hard time chasing up the owners(hip). Any advice would help, thank you! Kinfolx1114 (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:FILE might be able to help you. Ss0jse (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kinfolx1114 there is no obligation to have a photo in every article. I would advise first working on your draft, and once it is ready you should think about adding a photo.

Though there are hundreds of photos of Rahsaan Thomas online, most pictures you find online will be copyrighted and will not meet Wikipedia's image use policy. Even if you cannot see a copyright tag, it is always copyright unless it is explicitly available under a suitable license. If it is possible you can try contacting the owner of a photo and asking them to donate their photo so it can be used.

Best of luck with your article, and let me know if you need any more help! Yeshivish613 (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, this information is so helpful! Kinfolx1114 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kinfolx1114 Is this the right guy? I found it on Wikimedia Commons, which is basically where WP keeps the "free" pictures. If so, you can use that. You can use pictures that are clearly uploaded with a Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses, but, as has been noted, professional photographers likes to get paid, so they rarely do that, though it does happen.. The rule of thumb is that any random image you find online is not under a "free" and so can't used on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like @Kinfolx1114 uploaded that image themself. Of course you are welcome to use any photo you take yourself. Yeshivish613 (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah. Details, details... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, once you've made the article (which seems quite possible at glance), you could mail him, saying something like "Hi! There is now a Wikipedia-article about you. Please consider contributing an image for it, Wikipedia:A picture of you has guidance on how." It's free to ask. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, great idea, and Wikipedia:A picture of you is a perfect resource. Many thanks for sharing this! Kinfolx1114 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I want to add a city in the list of largest cities of the article 'List of largest cities', can I do it?

Sobhit Chakma (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Technically, you can do so- but is it a good idea to do so? I'd be curious as to why someone hasn't beaten you to it already. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Which city do you want to add that isn't there? 331dot (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

That article lists only cities with a population exceeding 5 million, so as long as it qualifies (with a reliable source to confirm that) it can be added. Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Not quite, Shantavira. The list is of "2018 estimates by the United Nations", which are estimates that "include a mixture of city proper, metropolitan area, and urban area". Each of "city proper", "metropolitan area", and "urban area" is explained in the list article; however, the particular "mixture" doesn't seem to be. If the list article misrepresents what the UN says, then you, Sobhit Chakma, could make the correction; but I don't see how you could add a city. What you could do is suggest on Talk:List of largest cities that it's time to replace the 2018 list with something newer or better; however, I think that in order to have a chance of being persuasive you'd have to nominate a particular list and be able to argue for its integrity (and not just its newness). -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually, Sobhit Chakma, there are a number of similar objections on the list article's talk page. They're polite and understandable (so they're better than plenty of objections/demands I've seen on other talk pages), but they're disappointingly feeble. People want the population of this or that city updated/corrected, but show no sign of awareness that these figures are from a list prepared by the UN. Or they want the list article to move on from dependence on the UN to something newer and better -- but fail to suggest what source, or what method, should replace it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I was trying to create the page for the sled dog race Avannaata Qimussersua but it was declined for lack of reliable sources. I've tried to improve it hope now is better. It is an important dog sled race, and since it's on the news due to Usha Vance visit I thouhgt it deserved an entry. de.wiki already had one de:Avannaata Qimussersua WikiCheshireCat (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@WikiCheshireCat: if Draft:Avannaata Qimussersua ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is declined again, my suggestion is to take some of it and add that to the relevant entry at List of dog sled races#Sprint races. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good advice even if I think we would lose a lot of information by doing that. Usually having a dedicated page is also an incentive for users to add photos or content while a paragraph in List of dog sled races would stay as it is probably forever. It is a quite relevant event in Greenland so I was thinking that WP:NOTABILITY was established. WikiCheshireCat (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, can we get help from ChatGPT when creating a new article? Leo^talk 19:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Lionel Cristiano, welcome to the Teahouse! I would advise reading Wikipedia:CHATGPT. Happy editing! Yeshivish613 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. @Yeshivish613 Leo^talk 20:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Bluntly, you'd spend just as much time correcting whatever output an LLM gives you as you would just finding proper sources and writing a Wikipedia article from scratch. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It is strongly discouraged. In fact, I would just say: no. Cremastra (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'm currently trying to whittle down the Pages with duplicate reference names backlog, and I'm having trouble with the LGBTQ rights by country or territory page. The reference name in question, ILGA, is used in multiple templates that are in the article, and because of this, I'm unable to get rid of the cite error. Is there any way to solve this issue?

Thank you in advance! ɯoꓷ▲^talk 11:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Domorito, welcome to the Teahouse. That was very tricky because the reference is used hundreds of times and the different definition was also missing a quotation mark around the name so it didn't show up in my searches which only showed five already identical definitions. I finally found and fixed a sixth definition in one of the used templates.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP! I've been spending a few days trying to figure out which one of the citations was the odd one out and never found it. Appreciate the help! (: ɯoꓷ▲^talk 16:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have just submitted a draft for review titled Draft:Fire at New Mexico Republican Party headquarters. I would like some feedback from experienced editors. Can anyone check my draft to see if it's notable enough to become an article? Editorthatedits (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Editorthatedits I'll give you my view. It looks alright on the face of it, though you should check WP:FOX (politics, yep), WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:NYPOST and I'm guessing US Mirror would be considered about the same as WP:DAILYMIRROR. When evaluating if this should be an article now, people will look at WP:NEVENT and WP:SUSTAINED. It's not the Reichstag fire just yet. My own bias is that if this article sticks, it will have a "conspiracy theories" section fairly soon, or at least talkpage discussion on if there should be one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I added Republican_Party_of_New_Mexico#Headquarters_fire, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Editorthatedits: I would say the lead has too many inline citations, but read MOS:CITELEAD to guide your final decision. Also, Newsweek, Associated Press and ABC News are not author's names. That's why you're getting so many red citeweb errors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kire1975 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I started an article recently titled This is Gavin Newsom, can any experienced editor help to improve it or add more links to it from other articles? Thanks! Editorthatedits (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, I would like it mainly expanded. I would also like some grammatical corrections. Editorthatedits (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

And, is there any way to make it rank higher in Google's search results? Editorthatedits (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Note: I would mainly like the lead to be expanded. Editorthatedits (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Editorthatedits. While it is not impossible that somebody will see your post and decide that they are interested in working on the article you created, that is not the purpose of the Teahouse.

It is possible (no more than that) that you will find a collaborator by asking at one of WikiProjects you have attached the article to.

As for Google search results: that is absolutely of no interest to Wikipedia, and the fact that you are asking for it suggests to me that your purpose may be promotion. ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

What do I do if I see an article that might have been generated by artificial intelligence?GenericUser24 (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@GenericUser24 If you suspect an article to be made by AI, you can request an administrator to revision delete the edit (if it is entirely copied from somewhere)and also warn the creator of the page so that they don't repeat it. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 03:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Or if it is page, you can ask for it to be deleted. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 03:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

There was also this discussion on simple. If you want, you can take a look. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 08:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

simplewiki is governed by different guidelines and consensuses (conensusi? consensusen?) than enwiki, is it not? Cremastra (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I am just saying, if you want you can read it.--Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 22:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

"consensus" or "consensuses" consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@GenericUser24 It's complicated. If you could link to the page or send us its name it would be much more helpful. We would start with seeing if the page fits into any of the speedy deletion criteria. If it is completely hallucinated for example, we could WP:G3 it. If not, I would check if the sourcing is correct or not. Its always good to tag {{AI-generated}} if you're not sure. Justiyaya 03:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The article is Free play. I don't think it meets any speedy deletion criteria. so I added the tag. Looking at the sources, they partially (but not completely) support the text of the article. GenericUser24 (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You may also want to mention it on Talk:Free play/GA1#GA Review. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

app.gptzero.me says 99% AI generated. Theroadislong (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Follow up question: Can the article creator remove the tag? GenericUser24 (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

If this was improper, I will replace this tag if anyone requests. But, as I have explained on the talk, I wrote the article myself so adding a tag saying it was AI generated and needed cleanup seemed incorrect. As I also explained, when you click on the links for most of the papers, you will only see a free preview (which may be why the sources... partially (but not completely) support the text when you click on it), you need to use WP:TWL to access the full versions which normally require payment to access, which I made sure support all claims when I was writing it. I will work on migrating all references to use {{sfn}} (which I did not know about at the time of writing the article), like in my other article Abditibacterium which make it easier to see specifically which page of the full PDF version accessible via TWL that each claim comes from. Thank you for trying to help with this and for your feedback! :) MolecularPilot^Talk 06:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Only the fourth and sixth source are partial versions. GenericUser24 (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this one probably wasn't AI-generated, but linking WP:WikiProject AI Cleanup, which is centered around exactly this kind of work. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

User operates an AI bot. See Talk. Mathglot (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I operate a DeBERTa based bot to classify Wikipedia usernames if they violate the policy that received WP:VPT consensus for it (I am still testing it in usersapce before filing BRFA). I'm not sure how this is related to accused article generating - something completely different. MolecularPilot^Talk 21:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I made a change to a page and I just looked at it and it says "reverted" does that mean my changed were removed? Mccoyjacob22565 (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Mccoyjacob22565! Yes, it was reverted here, with the explanation that "Controversies" sections are a discouraged section type, and that the source is not reliable (it appears to be a self-published blog). If you disagree, you can explaining your changes while notifying the reverting user (SounderBruce). ObserveOwl (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Should this article's title be "The WRLDFMS Tony Williams" or "The Wrldfms Tony Williams"? dotXK 01:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Doubting that many people would say "the double you are ell dee eff em ess Tony Williams" or similar, I'd forgo full capitalization. -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

See WP:ARTICLETITLE -- probably the best criterion to use is what reliable sources use. If reliable sources (news, books, etc.) use WRLDFMS, use that. Otherwise, use Wrldfms. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

This isn't the first edit I've seen like it, but this edit removed information about a criminal charge from a BLP on the grounds that it has been dismissed. In the past, my instinct has been to revert those kinds of edits. I couldn't find anything in WP:BLP or the MOS about dismissed criminal charges - should I continue to revert similar removals in the future? Anerdw (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Anerdw, BLP policy calls for us to be very conservative and cautious about including content that might imply criminal guilt. In this case, the individual was arrested four years ago for an offense that is a misdemeanor but is considered highly embarrassing, and the charges were dismissed by a judge three years ago. The person was a notable politician but left office 12 years ago. I see no benefit in keeping this content in the article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey, i was monitering recent changes and found a case of a large amount of content being removed by an account with a Battleground edit summary, ive been trying to avoid violating Civility rules and the 3RR, but i genuinely dont know how to proceed from here without either biting a newbie or possibly causing an edit war. Actual conflict is here. Im still quite rusty about how to handle disputes on WP (i mostly just stick to reverting vandalism) -I.R.B.A.T^{(yell at me) (The IRBAT Files)} 13:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Im really bad at this, if you supply a diff (or point to the particular edit(s) in some other way), then somebody here will be able to investigate and comment. -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary if you would take a look at the history of the page he linked you would get a good idea what IRBAT is talking about. Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the prod, Yeshivish613. I must have somehow missed "Actual conflict is here." The IP's edit summaries are pugnacious but I don't find them rude (other than where he addresses the subject of the article). I'm unfamiliar with most of the sources within the deleted-restored-deleted-restored passages and have no great enthusiasm either for studying and evaluating them or for submerging myself in a sea of celebs, but even to me it's obvious that some of these sources are unsatisfactory. (Instagram? Please no.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Have you ever gone to a Wikipedia article and felt like you've stumbled upon an ancient cairn that hasn't been disturbed for years? Its a cool feeling traipsing Wikipedia and finding long lost articles to improve, but it does feel a bit lonely sometimes. I like venturing off like this but its not the only kind of editing I want to do here. I want to actively collaborate with other editors, not just build upon an article that hasn't been touched by other editors in years. The only "contact" I've had with other editors is through automated bots. I love the idea of Wikiprojects, but they don't give any clear instructions on how to get into contact with other editors on the project, and I don't want to bother them on their talk page with unsolicited requests for a collaboration. I know about the GA article review process as a way of working with other editors and I am planning to both review GA candidates and submit one myself. I was wondering if anyone here knew of ways to meet, talk, collaborate, and make friends with other editors organically and without it feeling forced.

Thanks, Surfinsi (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Surfinsi: What are your areas of interest? Some WikiProjects can feel like active communities while others are more like ghost towns. If you have a particular article in mind that you want to improve and there seems to be an active WikiProject on the subject, then by all means start a conversation there – the WikiProject's Talk page is usually a good place to start.

There are also a number of Wikipedia and Wikimedia channels on Discord (which is very social) and IRC (which tends to be more solution-oriented). These platforms are moderated but not controlled by Wikimedia volunteers, and discussions about improving Wikipedia content should take place on Wikipedia itself, but Discord in particular does have a kind of collegial coffee-break-room atmosphere that might be what you're after. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 09:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Although the Teahouse is oriented to somewhat more nuts-and-bolts topics, @Surfinsi, I think you’ve raised a great question. After all, meaningful connections help foster not just warm fuzzies but also useful collaboration.

I’ve been amazed to find many new friendships through Wikipedia. And all very organically, mainly at “tables” in the Teahouse, then later at the Help Desk and Village Pump. I'll offer my experience in hopes that it may help inspire you to see possibilities right here.

Almost every friendship with other editors I can think of during my nearly three years as a Wikipedian developed initially in some way, shape, or form through a discussion thread at one of these tables. I don’t know whether more friendships began by me picking up on another editor’s message, or another editor picking up on one of mine. What I do know is that incredible feeling of “Yessss!” when something has deeply resonated with me. It could be a unique shared interest or concern, or an idea proposed to solve a problem or offer fresh perspective. It could also be in just coming across such an insightful and delightful dash of humor that it brightened a week’s worth of clouds.

Often what began in one of these "table" discussion threads was the beginning in turn of further conversation on a Talk page, mine or another editor’s. Or in Discord (which I’ve only recently come to know of: a good place to chat that’s less "out in the open" than a Talk page but not a personal e-mail account).

Now, @Surfinsi, after having made a case for you to think of the Teahouse and other help venues as good places to connect with other Wikipedians, I'll leave you with a much less organic but what looks like a good way to look for groups focused on a particular project, as @ClaudineChionh mentioned in her earlier reply to you: the Find a WikiProject search box. Augnablik (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I’m drafting an article in my sandbox titled The Principle of Collaboration and Cooperation (TPOCo):

It’s an interdisciplinary framework that synthesizes peer-reviewed research from biology, psychology, and systems science. The core idea is that cooperation — across all life forms — is driven by energy capture, coordination, and resource sharing. The article is structured around seven key principles and includes a flowchart visual.

I’ve already shared it with related WikiProjects, but I’d love some broader feedback here.  

• Is this a suitable topic for Wikipedia?  

• Does it appear neutral and encyclopedic?  

• What would you recommend I do next?

Any help or advice is welcome — thank you! Darwipli (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Darwipli. Unfortunately, your article doesn't seem too encyclopedic to work as an article (WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA). This page looks more like an essay/research project that would belong somewhere else. I suggest you look at other high quality articles we have (i.e Philosophy, Life, Evolution) and compare. You should be able to see the difference in how you've written your draft and those pages. It'd also be very beneficial to go over a lot of our policies of how our articles should be structured including WP:Manual of Style, WP:Verifiability, WP:Original research, WP:Notability, and WP:What Wikipedia is not.

Based on those resources, determine whether this article would truly work in an encyclopedia or if it'd fit somewhere on your own website or something. Whatever happens though, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Tarlby, your suggested "somewhere else" may already exist: co-operatio.org. -- Hoary (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Darwipli. Synthesis is a form of original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please read No original research, which is one of three core content policies. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all very much (@Tarlby, @Hoary, and @Cullen328) for your thoughtful feedback and helpful guidance regarding my draft on "The Principle of Cooperation and Collaboration (TPOCo)." Your suggestions and references to specific Wikipedia guidelines and policies have provided clarity on how best to proceed.

I recognize now that my current content constitutes original research, making it unsuitable for Wikipedia at this stage. As suggested, the detailed documentation currently resides on my website, co-operatio.org, which indeed seems like the appropriate place for it right now.

In response to your helpful feedback, I have reached out to Professor Michael Tomasello, whose work greatly influenced my thinking on cooperation, to seek his collaboration or guidance on publishing a peer-reviewed article. This would help to establish external verification and recognition for the TPOCo framework, potentially making it suitable for Wikipedia inclusion in the future.

I sincerely appreciate your patience, guidance, and clarity. Thanks again for taking the time to help me improve my understanding of Wikipedia's standards and practices.

Warm regards, Peter Darwipli (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Good luck to you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I tried to publish this article, but it was pushed back to the draft space because the resources weren't reliable enough. Can someone give me a bit of advice on what exactly is wrong with my resources? Also what other resources would I need to make the article good enough? Thank you. GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Would this source be something worth inserting? https://www.raiplay.it/programmi/streetfootball GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I've found these sources. Would this be enough? https://www.leparisien.fr/seine-saint-denis-93/l-inspirateur-de-foot-2-rue-encourage-les-joueurs-15-05-2006-2006985155.php

https://cinecittanews.it/11-00-la-compagnia-dei-celestini-su-rai2/

https://www.20minutes.fr/podcast/4049157-20230821-foot-2-rue-dessin-anime-inclusif-raconter-vie-jeunes-passionnes-foot

https://web.archive.org/web/20241210155223/https://www.caviarmagazine.fr/foot2rueretoursurpetitecran/

https://web.archive.org/web/20191208043623/https://port.hu/adatlap/film/tv/street-football--street-football/movie-136797 GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

GrimaldiiSolace, it's rather odd to talk of a source being worth inserting (or anyway it's odd when the context isn't understood). Rather, you might ask whether the source says something that's worth summarizing for the article, whether it's reliable for that purpose, and whether the material within it that's worth summarizing is already in the article and adequately referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Worth inserting, meaning a viable source to adequately take the place of the non-reliable sources I had previously used. Maybe you missed where I explained the context above. Sorry for the misunderstanding. GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I was too hasty, GrimaldiiSolace. I've looked at the draft, at Timtrent's comment that "Your sourcing is all unreliable with the likely exception of Le Monde", and (in an unsatisfactory, monoglot way) at three sources. There seems to be an implication here of a non-trivial probability that the Le Monde source is unreliable. I don't understand how. (Are there now questions about the reliability of Le Monde?) The problem with this web page that it says very little. In the version of the draft that Timtrent declined, it's cited for (A) the start date and for (B) a description of the general situation in which the story takes place. It certainly backs up (B), but I don't see how it backs up (A). The port.hu page says even less; I've no particular reason not to think that it's competent at this kind of coverage. The Le Parisien article (currently cited, but not yet cited in the version that Timtrent declined) seems competent too. And yes, this Parisien article does verify what you attribute to it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary, thank you for taking a closer look at it! Hopefully, I've updated the sourcing enough to show notability. GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello editors,

It looks like a bot archived my previous post thinking it was settled, but I'm still looking for constructive feedback on the CrowdTangle draft I proposed. The previously reviewing editor suggested seeking feedback here. I am eager to make this draft better, so I want to make a request for feedback again.

To recap: 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? 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) 17:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Brandonsilverman, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The Business insider piece says very little about CT that is not quoting a spokesperson from CT. The Verge piece is almost entirely quoting what FB says. This means that neither of them is independent. I didn't look further.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine this is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for!

I think you'll find that Axios and Reuters articles I mentioned don't lean on quotes from the company or spokesperson and the Poynter starts with a quote but provides independent research later in the article.

A few journalistic articles I did not mention above but are independent include Fast Company, the Associated Press, and more Axios coverage].

If you have a chance to check them out, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on those. Brandonsilverman (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi there everyone! I recently submitted this page and it was declined due to insufficient reliable sources. There are 14 sources from reputable US media outlets that span several years. Does anyone have advice about how to improve the sourcing for the page? Thanks so much for your help. Draft:Collier Prize for State Government Accountability Kapparently (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Kapparently and welcome to Wikipedia! The main problem I see with your draft is that the sources don't establish the notability of the award. For example, look at the Academy Awards. It has content (and sources) about the award itself. Most of the sources in your draft talk about Χ receiving the award. If I have time later I will see if I can find you some sources. Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kapparently I took a look on newspapers.com and found one useful clip, which I have saved for you. There may be others, although even this one doesn't have a lot of details about the prize. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

... and this one which relates the prize to a descendant of Peter Fenelon Collier. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

This was extremely helpful - I added some statements and links to support the notability of the award. I just resubmitted it for review. Appreciate your help! Kapparently (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

This was extremely helpful - I added some statements and links to support the notability of the award. I just resubmitted it for review. Appreciate your help! Kapparently (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Please suggest edits for this article Draft:ULYSTAR Satishmnavy85 (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, @Satishmnavy85, it has already been speedily deleted by an admin as unambiguously promotional. You will need to start again after reading Help:Your first article. We know from much experience that newcomers to editing who jump straight into creating drafts almost always fail: start instead by improving existing articles on topics that interest you until you have learned how things work here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Satishmnavy85 You have now restored a version of the article. However, it is clear at a glance that it does not demonstrate that this company, of which you are the CEO, is notable as defined by Wikipedia. Without sources which are in depth, from reliable publications entirely independent of the company, no article is possible. It is likely that it is simply too soon to create one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Satishmnavy85, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that if you continue trying to use Wikipedia to promote your company, you are likely to find yourself blocked.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what reliable independent sources have published about its subject, and very little else. What the company (or its personnel or associates) say or wish to say about itself is of almost no interest or relevance to Wikipedia. If you, as a paid editor try to write an article about your company, you will find that this makes it even more difficult than the already challenging task of creating a Wikipedia article, because you will basically need to forget every single thing you know about the company, and write only information which has appeared in independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Satishmnavy85: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1251. In addition to what users have said above, do not use AI to generate article content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Redundancies of content cut. Other stuff cut. Still too soon for any evidence this company meets WP:NCORP. David notMD (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I put up the article for peer review almost a month ago now, but so far no bites. My goal is to get it to GA, but I'm not sure what else needs to be done... This is my first attempt at a GA, so I don't really know what I'm doing. Any advice would be very helpful. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Both peer reviews and Good Article reviews have highly variable wait times. More technical topics tend to have longer wait times than more generally approachable topics. Similarly, the longer an article is the longer the wait tends to be. This article is both on the more technical side and the long side for waiting for reviews. If you want quicker feedback, I would suggest that you leave a notice on the talkpage of relevant WikiProjects (WT:WPMATH appears to be relatively active). Currently the oldest unreviewed mathematics GA nomination is from September, to give you an idea of likely wait times. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

(It can also help your chances of being reviewed to do your own GA reviews: there is a social component to the GA review process, and people do to some extent favour reviewing articles by people they recognise as doing their bit to contribute to the process.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public, I'd like to, but since I'm still new to this, I don't wanna accidentally pass an article that has lots of issues I didn't know to check, y'know? I was hoping to get a GA done before I tried to review anything.

Do people usually do GA reviews without having a GA themselves? How big of a deal is it when someone messes up a GA review? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Farkle Griffen: I did 9 or 10 GA reviews before I finally had a GA to my name. My suggestion is to take a look at Wikipedia:Good article mentorship and learn how to do reviews, if you're interested. Cheers! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Example, in the intro of the National Inventors Hall of Fame article a number is stated, e.g, "623 inventors". How can I automatically reuse that number in the article's infobox? The current method relies on manual editing. I want to remove that risk of omission by coding the reuse of a number or a string.TomStonehunter (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi TomStonehunter, welcome to the Teahouse. This is not possible unless the number is stored in another page like a template. We don't do that for a simple number which is only used in one article. It would be possible with mw:Extension:Variables but that extension is unwanted in Wikimedia wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I know that Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues has a list of articles with many different style-related tags, including inappropriate person, but is there a list with just articles tagged with "inappropriate person"? Thanks JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 22:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Wow. That's interesting (and inappropriate). 518 uses. Likely some form of long term vandal. (D'oh!) Thanks for speaking up about it. BusterD (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

One legitimate use is to call out an article if it's written in the First person or Second person as in Grammatical person. Both 1st and 2nd would be inappropriate ways to write in Wikipedia articlespace. Such usages are both common in talkspace or other discussion spaces. BusterD (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's a link to the template: Template:Inappropriate person. It's listed on a longer template of frequently used templates. It doesn't refer to individuals, but to articles written from an incorrect perspective. BusterD (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

How do I start a move discussion for an article? Like with the Requested move notice template. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid: Simply follow the instructions at WP:RSPM. Deor (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I added this edit recently, which another editor thought it may have violated WP:DUE and removed. But I don't see how it violates, as the incident (causing backlash against the subject) is presented by sources (I cited newspaper) from Hong Kong and Macau (I just found two additional Taiwan reports, haven't added them yet), so I believed the incident is in wide coverage from reliable, published sources. Also, the editor thought I address this as an incident violates WP:NPOV, which I also have no idea how it violates (the sources state it as incident)?

I decide to discuss this with the editor, but before I reach consensus with them, I want to make sure I do not violate WP:DUE and WP:NPOV (I am still confused). So, I would like some help to provide me another perspective. Thanks a lot EleniXDD※Talk 02:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've been updating some articles about novels and authors, and I'm hoping to include audiobook details. Can anyone please tell me what form the citations should take, please? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Cite AV media}} might be appropriate, although that's intended more for videos. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you: I'll try that. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Not really satisfied with my ongoing rewrite for the Battle of Zinjibar article. So far I've just been listing every single round of fighting and notable event for each day, but I don't think that makes it particularly better or more informative. I'd like some advice as for what would make a certain event in a battle worthy of inclusion, and just a general layout for writing articles such as this. Hsnkn (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hsnkn, there is a large group of editors who have joined together to form a "WikiProject" devoted to military history, and will have all sorts of good advice on this topic. You can contact them at WT:WikiProject Military history. Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding how my article Draft:Furhat Robotics reads as an advertisement? Would appreciate help and advice. Viljowf (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The reviewer said there are WP:COI concerns. Do you work for the company? Kire1975 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kire1975, I've declared that it is a paid contribution, but I'm an independent editor and don't work for the company, and have based it on a range of external sources. I've also triple checked for promotional language. Viljowf (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Viljowf, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If reads like an ad because it reads like the company telling the world what they want people to know about it, not like a summary of what independent commentators have written about it. A rule of thumb for writing an article (especially if you have a COI) is:

1. Find independent reliable sources. Make sure every one meets the criteria in WP:42 - so nothing written, published, or commissioned by the company or its employees or associates, or based on an interview or press release.
2. Forget absolutely everything you know about the company, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say about it.
3. If that gives you a viable article, you can add limited uncontroversial factual information (such as dates and locations) from non-independent sources. But if none of the independent sources mention your favourite fact about the company, then you should probably not put it in the article.

ColinFine (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Thx ColinFine! The thing is, I think I have actually underplayed the positive reception of Furhat. The robot is described in the literature as "the most advanced social robot" and many other such labels. Do you think it's best to just remove all sources to the company website or documentation, even if supplemented by external sources? Viljowf (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and also remove citations to partner organisations that are only brief mentions e.g. current #30 to Merck/PETRA, which is clearly not independent or significant coverage. The topic is likely notable but doesn't need hype. Sentences ending ... highlighting its involvement in forward-looking robotics projects in the region will make the reader think "As opposed to what? Backward-looking projects?" Your bare URL in citations need to be converted into proper references, attributing their authors. See {{cite web}} and Help:Referencing for beginners. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Thx Mike! Viljowf (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I recently wrote an article related to ophthalmology titled Macular Pigment Optical Density. It's a measurable parameter used in diagnostics, but I’m unsure which infobox would be the most suitable for it. The Infobox medical condition template seems suitable for it, but since it’s commonly used for diseases, I’m not sure if it fits. Need Guidance! 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 09:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@JesusisGreat7 To a non-specialist in medicine like me, the article seems to be about a measurement, not a disease. In that respect it resembles blood pressure or human body temperature and maybe a version of an introductory box should be more lke them. I also wonder why you chose to call the article Macular Pigment Optical Density rather than Macular pigment optical density? Most of your sources use sentence case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull, Thanks for the guidance. I chose the capitalized title because it looks more formal and appears in some sources I used. 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 13:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@JesusisGreat7 The guidance at WP:NCCPT suggests that "looks more formal" is not a consideration. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull, Got it! If this is a major issue, the page title can be changed accordingly! 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 13:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

You should be able to WP:MOVE it yourself with the "Move" tool. See linked page for detailed instructions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

👍 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 14:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @JesusisGreat7, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest asking at WT:WikiProject Medicine/Ophthalmology task force. Note that an Infobox is not a requirement for an article. ColinFine (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine,Thanks! Just posted my doubt there, waiting on a reply. 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 13:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

How do I expand articles with adding new information? How to get new articles accepted if they were a stub? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 09:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@ParticularEvent318 Thanks for wanting to improve Wikipedia. Everything here is based on finding appropriate reliable sources and summarizing their content into our articles. So, I suggest you look at topic that interest you and think whether you can find more relevant information that could be included. So, for example, you could look at articles about places near where you live and use local newspapers for new content. Or take some pictures to upload to Wikimedia Commons. Failing that, try the WP:Task centre. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Good then. What can be a reliable source? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 20:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

To answer your second question, as long as articles have sufficient sources to establish notability and they provide sufficient context, stubs have no problem being created. Yeshivish613 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Can stubs be expanded if they have only one sentence? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 20:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@ParticularEvent318 Yes, and they should be! It would be relatively rare to be able to show that a topic was notable in just one sentence. As to reliable sources, please read the page I have linked about that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, can it be blogs or listicles? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 09:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

With few exceptions, no. David notMD (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Reasoning? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 00:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Blogs and listicles are generally not considered reliable sources. There are exceptions, though, for example a blog written by a respected researcher in a field relevant to what is being written about. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

What are examples of reliable blogs and listicles? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 07:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

See WP:BLOG, which explains why self-published sources are normally not considered reliable. The exception mentioned there is 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. However it says such sources should be used with caution, and adds Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. CodeTalker (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

For a reason, why should self-published sources not be used in biographical articles of living people despite author being well known expert? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 15:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello all,

I recently made a page and there is an "N" next to the edit summary of it. Does anyone know what this means? Also how will I know when my page has been reviewed? Thanks! Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Gjb0zWxOb, and welcome to the Teahouse. "N" means its a new page - otherwise you would get a (positive or negative) number showing the net number of bytes you had added/removed. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this meets the threshold for notability in WP:CRIME. Please check that carefully. ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Indef-blocked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello! I’ve been involved in a content dispute recently regarding a peer-reviewed Wiley textbook on Markov chains. I followed policy-based steps (Talk page, RSN, DRN), but I’ve faced pushback and even threats of blocking. I’d appreciate any guidance on how to remain engaged constructively and ensure that reliable sources are not dismissed based on personal opinion. Thank you! EricoLivingstone (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

So I want to edit the Byzantine Empire page by adding a word of information to it but since it is semi protected I think I need confirmation to do it and make it permanent so I need confirmation from you guys.

I would like to add the word "mid" to "'Byzantine' was used adjectivally alongside terms such as "Empire of the Greeks" until the mid 19th century." I am requesting for permission for this edit (unless I can already do it but it'll only last 1 month without confirmation like the most recent edit on that page)

Link: Byzantine Empire Holy Cube (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello; the best place to ask this is the article talk page, Talk:Byzantine Empire. You can also make a formal edit request by using the edit request wizard, to draw the attention of other editors. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Holy Cube (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I noticed the page for John Shahidi John Shahidi

is deleted and redirected to a company page. this seems like an error as there are so many references and articles on this podcaster Larryshamblin (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Larryshambmin Hello and welcome. The whole url is not needed when linking, I've fixed this. The article was changed to a redirect as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Shahidi (2nd nomination). 331dot (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

seems like this page got deleted per the talk because he is a "Trump Supporter". Larryshamblin (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

There is not a mention of that in the deletion discussion that 331dot pointed to, @Larryshamblin. ColinFine (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

i saw it mentioned somewhere it was because he is a trump supporter, i have been supporting and updating this page and it makes no other sense why it was redirected to his company. frankly i think he has more news and articles than his comopany Larryshamblin (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors, I was told to come here in a message on my "talk" page. I looked into changing my name. Mostly because using it was an impulsive decision and I'm not actually a full-fledged monarchist. Can this be done without connecting an email to my account? I would like to stay anonymous if possible. Monárquico1975 (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

It is; see Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Just be aware you will be forced-logged-out if the rename goes through, so make sure you can remember your password. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok. But the email I provide is not public, right? Just double-checking. Monárquico1975 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

You do not need to provide an email address for the rename. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I was going to put Bob Barker's date of birth, under 'Early Life,' when I chose not to risk myself, at doing it, because it might be vandalism, is there anything wrong with that? Can you please help me? Thank you. Televisionbuff831G (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean this article? The birth date is included in reference 2 so it would be appropriate to include it. As long as it is suitably reference, then it should be fine to add. Knitsey (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely! Televisionbuff831G (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! Televisionbuff831G (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Not a problem. Always have a look at the references and if it is confirmed then you will be OK. Just to note, Wikipedia:Vandalism is quite specific. If you add something that requires a reference, that isn't usually vandalism. You might get a note about referencing, but not for vandalism. Enjoy! Knitsey (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you show me how I reference it?! This is hard or it may be harder. I don't want to get disqualified from using Wikipedia, just as it happened before, please?! Thank you! Televisionbuff831G (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

this should help. Or here Wikipedia:Citing sources. Knitsey (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Although, as the reference is already there then you don't need to use another source necessarily. At the beginning of the Early life section, add the date (mdy for American dates). Use an edit summary something along the lines of 'already referenced below', or the name of the publication. Knitsey (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I feel much better! No more worries, no more drama! Televisionbuff831G (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Why are we not doing something for April fools on the main page? where is the wikihumor?? Bastubunny (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bastubunny You were an hour early – the main page changes date at midnight UTC. Have another look now! ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 00:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

lol my bad its een april fools for me for 12 hours already where i live :p Bastubunny (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Another editor de-linked the Philippine languages mentioned in Isapuso, an article I created. They cited a WP policy that mentions that "major" examples of languages (such as English, Spanish, and French) should not be linked in articles. However, this GA-status article links the Philippine languages Tagalog and Cebuano: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagtatag!

I'm just confused. What exactly qualifies as a "major" language? Is it locally or globally? Tagalog and Cebuano are two of the Philippines' major languages, but I guess they're not internationally recognized (especially Cebuano). Please let me know if I should link or not link Philippine languages (or which ones to link) in articles. Thank you so much. Bloomagiliw (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Bloomagiliw, the list in the infobox "Bicolano Cebuano English Ilocano Kalinga Kapampangan Tagalog Tausūg" is just that, a list. Because it's not a sentence, links for some or all of these could hardly be distracting. Linking all eight would add fewer than twenty bytes to the "wikitext", and, by today's standards, a negligible number of bytes to the HTML. I'd link six of them; other editors might link eight: I for one can't get worked up over the difference. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! My draft article Christian J. Wiedermann was recently declined with the comment that it is "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." I’m trying to understand what is missing or how I might revise it properly. Christian J. Wiedermann is already listed in the German-language Wikipedia and is a recognized academic with peer-reviewed publications. Importantly, his contribution to uncovering the scientific misconduct in the Boldt scandal was cited by Science magazine and acknowledged by all editors of the U.S.-based Society of Critical Care Medicine. I would appreciate any guidance on how to present this information in a way that meets notability and content standards on the English Wikipedia. Thank you very much! Christian Wiedermann (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid your draft has been rejected, not declined, which means it will not be accepted on English Wikipedia. Every language Wikipedia has its own policies and procedures for accepting new articles, and English Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographical articles. Another editor here might write an article about you if they independently decides that it warrants inclusion in this Wikipedia, but you won't be able to create that article or have any influence over its creation. (Also, noting that you have referred to Wiedermann in the third person, if you are not Christian Wiedermann then your account may be blocked for impersonation.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Help My password suddenly stopped working. Now I cant get into wikipedia to edit and so on! Can someone help? Soon?Actonactonacton (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Actonactonacton (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

You're logged in to your account now, and before today you hadn't edited in over two years. (were you logged in to read?) If you are unable to remember your password and you do not have a email address in your preferences, you may need to create a new account and identify it as a successor to your old account. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are right! If your Wikipedia account has an email address associated with it, you can reset your password. Thanks. (V12U253 (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Actonactonacton. It looks as if there has been a glitch that affected some users: see the discussion at WP:HD#Can't log-in via Foxfire, but can log-in via Safari, and the places linked from there. ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Are people who are listed as “Key People” in a major company’s Wikipedia page considered “notable” enough to warrant their own article and/or mention under a notable alumni section of a school?

For example, is Nihar Malaviy, the CEO of Penguin Random House, considered a “notable” person under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines? Alvin S. Theodore (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Alvin S. Theodore. That depends entirely on whether or not the person in question has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are fully independent of the person and their employer. Cullen328 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

How to write a technology article on Wikipedia and where to get its infobox? Thanks. (V12U253 (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

A technology article, as far as I am aware, can go through the normal article creation process. As for the box... I assume you mean the project box? That's probably a template you can insert. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 09:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, how do I find the info box? Help me!

(V12U253 (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@V12U253: See Help:Your first article. An infobox is a box with summary information at the top right of an article. Articles are not required to have an infobox but maybe you can find a suitable one in Category:Technology and applied science infobox templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, if you need any help let me know! I appreciate your help! (V12U253 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I created this page a few days ago. But it is currently not appearing on Google. I know Google takes time to index new content but is there any way to make it appear faster on Google? Babin Mew (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Babin Mew, perhaps it's lucky that Google hasn't discovered the page yet. It looks promising, but entire paragraphs are unreferenced, the author of a source is described as last=HOUSE |first=A. PIXEL (presumably somehow inferred from "© 2025 Website Designed and Developed by: 'A PIXEL HOUSE' "), and the prose needs some work. -- Hoary (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I have added citations to the article. Can you look into it again? Babin Mew (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I do like Draft:Sahaganj Dunlop Factory, and it is improving -- but it's still odd. We learn that the "Dunlop Factory is part of a larger ground called Dunlop estate". And then we read about the latter: the area it covers -- surprisingly for me, in acres: Aren't hectares less alien to today's India? -- and its male and female population and the literacy rate of both sexes combined (though presumably somehow excluding infants). And it doesn't stop there. We're told that the Dunlop estate comprises this and that, and ultimately: "Another remarkable place of Dunlop estate is the Dunlop math or Dunlop ground where Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to make a speech in 2020." Too much digression! -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

A new article is not indexed by search engines unless one of two things happens: Either the article has been reviewed by a New pages patroller, or the article is more than 90 days old. Please read Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing for more information. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I have draftified the article so it can be worked on and then submitted for review. Theroadislong (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Babin Mew Yes, that's right, but it will be published at least 7 days (1 week) after I create a Wikipedia articles. Has this happened to you? Thanks. (V12U253 (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Babin Mew Do you have a particular need for it to appear in Google quickly? 331dot (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  No. Whoever will review my article, please take their time. Babin Mew (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, this article appears to have been deleted. (V12U253 (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Draftified. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

So now at Draft:Sahaganj Dunlop Factory. David notMD (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi all -- I posted earlier this week in the Teahouse about looking for some advice on my article. The promotional tone tag has been placed on my article, and if anyone could review my work to see what can be removed/improved, that would be much appreciated. Thank you! Bubblegum111 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Just for Teahouse hosts' reference Bubblegum is referring to PopUp Bagels. Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Bubblegum111, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's promotional because it reads as "this is what the company want people to know about it". But Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the company wants people to know about it: a Wikipedia article should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it.

It is clear, for example, that the NM piece is based on an interview. That means that almost all the information in it comes from the company, and does not belong in a Wikipedia article about the company. I can't read the NYT piece without logging in, but I'm betting that the same is true for that.

You can sometimes use limited information from a non-independent source, but the bulk of information in an article must be derived from wholly independent reliably-published sources.

My advice is always in the first instance to ignore non-independent sources entirely, forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what the independent sources say about it. ColinFine (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

ColinFine has given you sound advice above. As an example, in February I wrote an article for Freak Lunchbox, a Canadian candy store chain, and since seen it promoted to GA. If you take a look at that article you might get an idea of a more neutral way to approach such a topic. Some better comparables I found in the GA list might be Bernstein's Bagels, Westman's Bagel & Coffee and Henry Higgins Boiled Bagels. Good luck! MediaKyle (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Just need some help CoolberryBTCWiki (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Pls review Wikipedia:Rules for Fools Moxy🍁 00:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

OP blocked for AFDing Banana. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Overridden. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. I am seeking assistance with two articles that are BLPs of the same subject: Queen Mother Sêmévo 1st and Dòwòti Désir. I am very new to Wikipedia and do not feel able to handle this myself; I have posted on the talk page here but don't know how else to escalate. Thank you! Audrey Woolf (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I just read your user page, what guitar are you referring to? Regular or electric guitar? (V12U253 (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean merge pages? (V12U253 (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I would say the articles need to be merged, except they contain largely the exact same information (both were created by the same now-deleted user), and I do not believe the subject meets notability guidelines. Audrey Woolf (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you know how to combine articles? (V12U253 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Not really. I found Wikipedia:Merging but it's an overwhelming task for me as a new editor, especially as the advice refers to articles which both have useful information. I've marked one as a duplicate for now. As I said on the talk page, I think more work on this would be a waste of time given the lack of notability of the subject. Audrey Woolf (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Audrey Woolf Ignoring the notability issue (which is debatable) the simplest thing to do would be to convert Queen Mother Sêmévo 1st into a redirect. As the edit history of Dòwòti Désir said when User:Robertsky moved it from the original name of the Queen, "we don't put job titles even for monarchs, see Charles III." Unless anyone has a better idea, I'll make that redirect later today. The edit history will retain any material that need to be moved later, although I don't think there is any. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I have not checked on the content of both articles, but if they are largely similar, a redirect would suffice if there is a parallel editing history. – robertsky (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I've made the redirect and found a couple of possible new sources (see Talk:Dòwòti Désir) but I'm not convinced of notability, given that most of the content is from her own website. User:CoconutOctopus may like to comment as someone who contacted User:Iambl about the original article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I see a lot of boats getting referred to as 'she' and 'her', mostly USN vessels, what the Wikipedia policy on this? BigBoiWikiWhale (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jacob Lee 6939. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Third-person pronouns. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Jacob Lee 6939, and welcome! You can see the guideline at MOS:SHIP – neutral or feminine terms are both acceptable on Wikipedia. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

i found this page that has stuff like "This work was accomplished so successfully that Professor Alexander Dallas Bache, Colonel John Charles Frémont, and Senator Thomas Hart Benton used their influence with Sec. George Bancroft to have him appointed professor of mathematics in the navy." with like zero citations should this be tagged for speedy or could this article be salvaged (with a full rewrite and extensive research)

it looks like something a student would write as an essay on this persons achievements and most defiantly breaks npov so should we mark this for a speedy or try to salvage it Localbluepikmin (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't have "like zero citations", it's cited to Appleton’s Cyclopedia vol.3 p. 292. And appears to be a copy of the text there. So it needs proper attribution, and it certainly needs editing for tone. Not eligible for speedy. Just needs editors to edit it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Localbluepikmin there are no inline citations, but Wikipedia counts a bibliography at the end (i.e., the mention of the Cyclopedia) as a citation. Therefore it can't be deleted under the WP:BLPPROD policy, which would be what would apply (not speedy deletion in this case). I went in and tried to verify that it was a copy of the Cyclopedia text, in which case I would have just put an inline citation to that on every paragraph, but I couldn't find his entry so I didn't. That might help. A rewrite might be necessary for tone -- research, probably not that much, luckily enough. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

To be honest this sort of article really annoys me. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, summarising multiple reliable sources with balance, not just a mirror site regurgitating anything that happens to be in the public domain, word-for-word, with a lazy "incorporates text" template. We may as well rebrand ourselves WikiRegurgitation if we're going to do that. At the very least, our readers deserve to know exactly what text is merely a mirror. The current reference is in many ways worse than useless, because by sowing a general feeling that the text probably came from Appletons', it conceals the fact that any subsequent, unsourced edits, are an invisible mutation of the original text. This is just all wrong. But it's also perfectly above-board and according to policy. Annoying. Elemimele (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree, Ememile. The smallest of edits are held feet to the fire by certain WP editors, and yet entire pages like this are slipped through the cracks with hardly a scrutiny. Who at WP writes like this: "whither he had been attracted", "in a classical school", "he was appointed computer of the observations of latitude and longitude made on Captain John Charles Frémont’s expedition", "He was so commissioned on 7 May 1845", "his work comprised many special investigations", "His later but equally valuable researches". I mean, come on. I highly doubt this claim: "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain". More like: copy-paste verbatim. Listing a a book under References with no inline citations is pointless; not to mention a 432 word article that only cites that 1 page (if that) reference? Both External Links are 404 Not Found. This article is ripe for template headers and a hard scrubbing. It should be held to WP standards just like every other article. Period. Maineartists (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Welcome, I hope I have a great day on Wikipedia. However, can you please explain what are the core values on Wikipedia and if there are 5 pillars, then which one? I have an attempt on what Wikipedia goals are and how the encyclopedia works, this includes new ideas. If in doubt, answer me completely. TopDisky5835 (in records) 06:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, TopDisky5835.The Five pillars are the philosophical underpinnings of the project. There are three interrelated and interdependent core content policies. They are Verifiability, the Neutral point of view and No original research. Another exceptionally important policy is Biographies of living persons, which recognizes that Wikipedia editors can cause real harm to people's lives if we fail to write such articles with great caution and attention to accuracy. A "complete" answer about such a massive and complex project is not possible within the confines of a Teahouse reply, but if you read all of those links, plus the links they include, you will be well on your way to a deeper understanding. Cullen328 (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

How are the 5 pillars formed? TopDisky5835 (in records) 08:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

As so many things in Wikipedia, they evolved over time. Before the 5 pillars, we had Wikipedia:Trifecta and the Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset. Lectonar (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

What about ignoring all rules? TopDisky5835 (in records) 15:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That's the fifth pillar. Not having rules is part of the rules. Or more specifically, not thoughtlessly following rules for their own sake. GMG^talk 15:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

How could this rule be broken if the page says so? TopDisky5835 (in records) 15:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@TopDisky5835 Academics wonder that too. See for example Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet. In short, lots of discussion over time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Is this a book or a journal? TopDisky5835 (in records) 16:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

American Political Science Review. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Cullen328 Is this accessible on print or physical? TopDisky5835 (in records) 17:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

You can download a .pdf from the URL already provided. It is licensed CC BY SA 4.0, the same as your contributions here are licensed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

“First, change was not caused by the entry of new actors, but rather the loss of actors. Whereas other approaches to the study of institutions tend to see the relevant population of an institution as being stable or increasing, my account shows that the loss of a particular population contributed to Wikipedia’s shift. Furthermore, other accounts see conflicts within institutions as resulting in winners and losers where the losers typically remain within the institution.”

After reading this quote from a journal, what does that mean if there is a change in actors? Secondly, what does this change if there are winners or losers in general resulted? TopDisky5835 (in records) 18:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why the writer used the word "actor". Here in Wikipedia these would be referred to as "editors", i.e. the people who contribute to Wikipedia articles. The point being made is that change came about because some people left the editing community, never to return. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Does it apply to scholars who used to edit Wikipedia? TopDisky5835 (in records) 18:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

What would one do in cases such as this? I believe that it was deleted from French Wikipedia so someone just pasted it into here, so would it be PROD or CSD (and, if so, which one/reason)? Also, say it was a perfectly fine article (but in French) that does not exist on the French WP. What would one do then? Surely it can't be allowed to remain. Also (sorry for so many questions haha) is there a process for draftification? Thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for creating a new article. V12U253 (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@GoldRomean Please see WP:A2. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. (V12U253 (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, may I know which reason it would qualify for then? Sorry, I'm a little confused by CSD (heh). GoldRomean (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I read the guide you sent me. (V12U253 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@GoldRomean it would be A10, which is the given reason for the deletion request. It states that "article[s] with no relevant page history that [duplicate] an existing English Wikipedia article" fall under this category. Please note that the article being in French in of itself does not warrant deletion, per point 12 of the non-criteria segment of the speedy deletion page. You can view the full page here. Hope this helps! PhoenixCaelestis · Talk · Contributions 19:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)