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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't claim that it's completely devoid of reason; just that it's not an appropriate distinction. "British India" existed for well over a century, and can't really be said to tell readers anything about the people who lived and died there, although in general we would probably still say "India" unless for some reason we needed to call attention to British rule or the country's pre-1948 borders. "Nazi Germany" was never the name of the country; neither the official name, nor the local name, nor the common name in English. While referring to it as such in the context of articles referring to the Nazis, their rule and policies was and remains common, then as now the "common name" was still "Germany". And there is nothing about the subject of this article that connects him to the Nazis or, as far as I can tell, makes the fact that they had taken power in 1933 relevant. I don't see anything in MOS:GEO that addresses this issue. P Aculeius (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A prime example of the sort of small details people argue about regularly on wikipedia :). Technically either would be fine, but I tend to agree that in the infobox it is not necessary in this case. Polyamorph (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prime example, yeah. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that you objected to [[Nazi Germany|German Reich]] being in the infobox, so the article didn't say "Nazi Germany" either, though commonly we use the article title when we link places and stuff. WP appears to judge "Nazi German" to be the WP:COMMONNAME of the article, if that is wrong, you can try to get it changed. IMO the link makes sense since per infobox he was born in German Empire, but local consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 entirely 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Where to find a reviewer for good article nomination?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am recently reading pages related to demographics in Tripura where I found that some pages related to ethnicity were vandalised by IP address users, I tried to revert but not know how to revert, please seniors editors help me. 獅眠洞 (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like this page Halam tribe, I request u please tell me how to revert, to fight this type of vandalism, and disruptive edits 獅眠洞 (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@獅眠洞 I've reverted that article. This can be done by clicking the "undo" link in the page history or using a tool like WP:Twinkle or WP:Ultraviolet. Ultraodan (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope you're all doing well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks guys! (@Jéské Couriano @Writ Keeper)

@Cullen328

Now that the situation is clear, thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Cullen328, this is much better. Many thanks!

There is no freely licensed image of Tim Kruger available.

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

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

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

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

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

@Cullen328

Done!

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

Your clear guidance and support are truly appreciated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any way to override this?

Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 04:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Okay, I see Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hi,

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

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

thanks in advance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Wikipedians!

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

Thanks!

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

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

I am also a newbie, but after a quick google there seems to a lot of research into it specifically, like this paper looking into its biological, physical and chemical conditions [1] including a multi-disciplinary study with over 100 papers beginning in 1989 and still continuing: [2] Surely these would make it count as notable if referenced properly? Suppposedly (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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