Hello. I created an article about Archie Henderson (comedian) and just went to upload it. I then discovered there were versions in draft that have been rejected a few times.

What is the protocol about uploading a new version which, I believe, has sufficient quality citations? bbc.co.uk, theguardian.com, telegraph.co.uk plus newspapers.

It is a much reduced version of what was proposed before, but I believe it fits requirements.

Do I just copy and paste my new article into the draft space? Any suggestions appreciated.

Thank you 04:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC) BJCHK (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will suggest you to improve Draft:Archie Henderson (comedian). It was declined couple of times and needs improvement, you can improve that. If you think that some portion from that draft need to be removed (non-cited) do it and if you have enough sources from across the web, then include them too.–– kemel49 04:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KEmel49 thanks - the thing is I have already written and prepared an entire article already so I feel a bit meh about having to rejig what's already there. I might try uploading mine and see what happens. BJCHK (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then i would suggest you to submit your piece of work to AFC through your sandbox.–– kemel49 05:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a draft page for the Iyanya album Applaudise but it's a redirect. Should I just turn the redirect to a page? OsigbemheEJB (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First create a draft as Draft:Applaudise. after completing that draft, Submit to AFC. rest will be done then only.–– kemel49 05:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OsigbemheEJB You are autoconfirmed and reasonably experienced, so there is nothing to prevent you creating a new article at the redirect Applaudise, if you are confident it will survive the new pages patrol, who check all such new submissions. My advice would be to develop the text in your sandbox so that when you first overwrite the redirect the new article already looks OK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OsigbemheEJB Well done. That looks fine to me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference number 18 on this page is incorrect. Please repair. I cannot. Sorry and thank you, 175.38.37.197 (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears resolved. Tollens (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion of the footnotes on Talk:Regensburg subcamp. Not to mention the lack of engagement from the primary author, s/he doesn't seem to have the skill to fix the references so that the resources are moved to the bottom and titled bibliography. This is standard for better quality articles. I am not a subject matter expert in this topic so I'm requesting some help over in that section of the talk page. Logoshimpo (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi team I recently Published an Article I wanna Change it's Display name Please help me about it. My Author's name is "Howard Hughes III" but on Article it's showing "Edward Hughes" please help me in this regard. thanks Saadkhan1233 (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saadkhan1233 You added links to an article about a completely different person(Edward Hughes) than the person you wrote about. Your draft is located at Draft:Howard Hughes III. As a new user you cannot directly create articles and must submit your draft for a review.

You will need to disclose your connection to Mr. Hughes, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. It appears that you know him as you took professional looking images of him and he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is also completely unsourced. See Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were references at the version of the article which had hijacked the dabpage Edward Hughes, none of which were independent of the subject, and none of which contributed to notability. Saadkhan1233, it seems you and Hbhughes3 have a serious misimpression about the purpose of Wikipedia. See WP:42 and WP:GNG. Folly Mox (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a Wikipedia article, is there a way to link to a *subheading* within another Wikipedia article, as opposed to linking to the full article? As an example, how do I link to "Early life (1732–1752)" subheading in the article George Washington? Thanks! Tfhentz (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put a # after the article name and then write the name of the heading: George Washington#Early life (1732–1752). See WP:ANCHOR for detailed instructions. Perception312 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perception312, Excellent; that really improves my presentation. Thanks. Tfhentz (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These emojis appear as boxes for me: 🪾🫜🫆🪉🫩🫟. How do I make this not happen? Frost 15:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frost: I don't know about the rest of them, but the first one is "leafless tree" and is in the set of emoji unicodes in the draft inclusion for this year. Wikipedia sends the new unicode. Your browser interprets it. You will not see the actual emoji until your browser gets updated, probably early next year. see this article. -Arch dude (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Thanks! Frost 16:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frost: If you copy-paste them to the "Characters" field at https://r12a.github.io/app-conversion/ (not affiliated with Wikimedia) and click "View in Uniview" then you get this which shows images and names. The images are made by the site and not your browser. It doesn't have something which can make your browser show them at other sites. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Useful tool. Thank you. Frost 18:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While going through AfC pending reviews, I stumbled upon a draft submitted today, here (User:John Balao/sandbox). This page appears to be a copy-and-paste from somewhere, and even Turnitin shows ~75% similarity to a few sites. However, I can't seem to find where this was pasted from to report a copyvio.

The article itself has several formatting oddities, which led me to believe this was a definite copyvio, but does anyone think I'm missing something? Recommended course of action, or a user to step in who knows more about this situation? Regards, OnlyNano 19:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OnlyNano: Another edit has declined it as giant wall of unformatted text. I did notice the submission started with "EDIT BELOWCASE STUDY", so maybe it is from a medical textbook. Did you check the sites Turnitin suggested? RudolfRed (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they seemed to have some content copied, but not actual sentances. OnlyNano 20:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's extremely obviously copypasted from somewhere. A positive identification of the source shouldn't be necessary to delete as copyvio. Folly Mox (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great point, thanks! OnlyNano 20:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Page deleted. DMacks (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge request on the page Severe weather sequence of July 13–16, 2024 has had unanimous consensus for about 2 weeks now. However, the two times it has been closed were by socks of WP:LTA/Andrew5, who improperly closed it under two different accounts over the past 2 days. I was considering closing it myself, but I am an involved editor and the situation with the socks might overrule that. Also, at WP:CR, the second sock requested a closer, but it was denied due to sock activity. I know WP:SNOW dictates that involved editors can close discussions with unanimous consensus, but if an involved closer didn't, I'm unsure if involved editors have the authority to do it. Is it fair to finish closing the merge myself, given unanimous consensus? Note none of the socks had voted on the merge !vote. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Support Team,

I want to creat a Wikipedia article for Orkhan Hasani, a writer whose work has gained recognition. Before proceeding, I would like to seek your guidance on ensuring that the article meets Wikipedia's standards for notability and reliable sourcing.

Orkhan Hasani has contributed significantly to literature, and I believe his achievements are notable. However, I want to ensure that the article adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines on biographies. Could you provide any specific advice on the types of sources that would be considered reliable for this purpose, as well as any additional tips for creating a well-structured and compliant article?

Your assistance in helping me navigate this process would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and support.

Sincerely, Aytekin 78.109.54.4 (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything unclear in Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Unfortunately this doesn't suggest significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a photo to an existing article? J. L. Shegull (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might start here: Help:Pictures. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I'm not new to Wikipedia but I don't know where else to post this:
For me, citing is a tedious work. To cite correctly (e.g. with a template like {{cite book}} ), some fields need to be filled. I don't know about the technical complexity and it can be start small. But I would find it great if all we have to do is to give the Wikidata item of the citation (If it has one) and the template will output a citation with all the information for the reader (a 'style' option can be added in a second time). What do you think ?

Kind regards, Jona (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that can be done, in most cases you'll still have to add a page number. And I wonder if very many individual articles in journals (never mind individual pages on websites) are ever going to have Wikidata items.

But I can see it might be useful in some cases. I suggest mooting it at WP:VPI. ColinFine (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite q}} is a sometimes successful attempt to do that. There are those among us (I am one) who intensely dislike {{cite q}} because of its, and wikidata's, failings (I say this even though I contributed to its code base). If {{cite q}} were drawing from a database dedicated to citations; if {{cite q}} obeyed WP:CITEVAR; if {{cite q}} autosubsted so that editors reading an article's wikitext would know who and what was being cited ({{cite q|Q12345}} has no more contextual meaning than visual editor's <ref name=":0" /> – don't encode that which ought not be encoded)... For these latter reasons, I and other editors expand {{cite q}} references on sight. Please don't make extra work for us.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jona: As one who spends a fair amount of time improving existing citations by providing an updated url or archive-url parameter, and realizing that the same source I am modifying is used in numerous other Wikipedia articles, I have often thought how sad it is that we couldn't just have a single instance of the citation stored externally, so that when the url needed updating, we could just update the single instance in the external source. What????? Now I learn that this functionality is already present???

And so what is the objection? That when I'm editing, I can only see the qid and not the details that will be displayed when the article is viewed? I don't get it.

And what is the alternative? It's that when I fix a citation referencing a url, and that same citation is used in 23 places, 22 of them remain broken. And the desired display format is different in different articles? This objection doesn't have much appeal to me, the fact we are replicating this information in each different place it's needed, that seems to overlook basic principles of information management. Facepalm Fabrickator (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia generally does a really excellent job of overlooking basic principles of information management.

I don't have a theoretical objection to {{cite q}}, but if one is malfunctioning I'll replace it with its contents and modify to fix, since changing the Wikidata claims to get the CS1 to play nice with it again is both beyond my competence and likely to break something somewhere else.

I do think that a centralised repository for bibliographic metadata is called for, from which individual views can be extracted for different projects and CITEVARs, but I think that Wikidata is not the best place for this: it's too general and fairly inscrutable. I'm aware that Wikidata already has a big repository of citations that are actually used by real academics outside the Wikimedia ecosystem, but it's not convenient or transparent enough for our purposes here, in my personal opinion.

One problem with any centralised means of creating citations, from {{cite q}} to a hypothetical successor to regular old single-source CS1 wrappers, is that their CITEREF values all have to be whitelisted manually at Module talk:Footnotes before they can be used in shortened footnote without being misfiled into Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, since the CITEREFs don't seem to be available to the parser at the point maintenance categories are added. Folly Mox (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Trappist the monk to let me know about {{cite q}} ! How do you "expand {{cite q}} references on sight" ? Jona (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite q|Q12345|expand=yes}}

{{Citation |id=[[WDQ (identifier)|Wikidata]] [[:d:Q12345|Q12345]] |title=[[Count von Count]]}}

then replace the {{cite q}} template with the expansion and fix/add/delete parameters as needed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Substing {{Cite Q}} would be orthogonal to its purpose; and Wikidata is "dedicated to citations"; among other things. There have been entire international conferences about such use. You are welcome to supply code to address citevar issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the extreme top of my User page, between my User name and the tab for my Talk page, are two icons. One is for high-level notifications which shows the number of notifications waiting in a red square; and the other is for low-level notifications which shows number of notifications waiting in a blue square.

For the past few weeks I have been unable to activate either of these facilities. There are notifications waiting to be read but clicking on the icon doesn’t cause anything to happen. I can’t read my notifications and I can’t clear the wait list. How do I fix it?Dolphin (t) 12:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dolphin51 What happens if you navigate to Special:Notifications directly by clicking the link here? Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Turnbull Thanks Mike. That worked perfectly. I have now read my notifications and the counters have reset to grey (zero?). Dolphin (t) 21:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help with the {{reflist}} issue on the Vizhinjam International Seaport page? The template provides incorrect information, and I don't know how to remove it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Vizhinjam_International_Seaport_Thiruvananthapuram Thank you. Hobbywriterae (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at the Teahouse, I think. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed problem with template use Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Miss Charm 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The pageant listed above is an unscheduled future event for a new pageant. Since it does not have an established history it is non zero probability that it will not occur this year. Not sure what to do with this, as some of the references for national contests in 2024 seem good enough. But should there be an article at all? Should it be a draft until a date appears?

I have tried to initiate a discussion on the article talkpage, but no participation has occurred yet. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some information there. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.209.45 (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Per another editor's suggestion I have draftified to Draft:Miss Charm 2024. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The unincorporated town of ALSA, TEXAS is in Van Zandt County, but the lat & long show it being outside GILMER, TEXAS in Upsur County. When I manually enter the information from USGS I get this error Coordinates: 32°81′8″N 96°0′3″W Coordinates: latitude minutes >= 60

{{#coordinates:}}: invalid latitude. Also what is the second set of coordinates shown? DMc75771 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're entering the decimal coordinates (32.818, -95.034) in degrees–minutes–seconds form, the second two parameters of which live in a finite field of modulo sixty. See the GeoHack page.  Courtesy link: Alsa, Texas. What second set of coordinates are you referring to, DMc75771? Folly Mox (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, when I search Google maps for "Alsa TX" and drop a pin, I get a longitude pretty exactly one full degree West of the longitude recorded at Wikidata (which populates the infobox map). The latitude is identical. Sounds like a typo. I'll see if I can fix it. Folly Mox (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conformed longitude degree measure with OSM and GMaps value at Wikidata and here. Should be

Resolved

 – (Unless I screwed it up.)

Folly Mox (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create a wikipedia page for a family member, Samuel Krimm, professor emeritus at University of Michigan in physics (researcher in biophysics).

I understand there are conflict-of-interest issues, and it may not be best for me to create the page. I'm wondering how best to proceed.

It is possible to create a robust page using published sources such as the following:

• https://lsa.umich.edu/physics/people/emeritus/skrimm.html
• https://apps.lib.umich.edu/faculty-memoir/apps.lib.umich.edu/faculty-memoir/faculty/samuel-krimm.html
• https://lsa.umich.edu/biophysics/people/emeritus/skrimm.html
• https://macro.engin.umich.edu/profile/krimm-samuel/
• https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Samuel-Krimm-15083197
• https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/75/9/30/2845466/The-trailblazing-career-of-Willie-Hobbs-MooreThe

If I were to limit myself to these sources, would that be sufficient to ameliorate perceptions of bias?

If not, who would be a better source to create the page? (Could some administrator at the University of Michigan do so?) Philscijazz (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who writes it: they should not, and it will be deleted.

There's just not enough to hang an article on, by our standards. And I googled for anything else on him, got nothing. What you'd need is a biographical article in at least two reasonably notable independent publications. Couple-few meaty paragraphs about him in an article or section of an article in say the Detroit Free Press or a book or something. Where he came from, how come he got interested in the field, that sort of thing; not just a list of works, not just citations of his work, not just passing mentions.. University biographies don't count, they are not independent.

Doesn't have to be as big as the Free Press, but it can't be some very obscure venue. Ann Arbor paper -- maybe, if that's considered independent of having a special interest. I can't guarantee it. And, oddly, interviews probably won't be counted as a valid. So unless there are a couple of biographical articles hiding from google, it's not enough. Sorry. Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, here is an article with a couple paragraphs involving Krimm. Benton Harbor, Michigan paper. Population 9,000. If it was about Krimm it'd help some. But its just him talking about someone else. It doesn't help. Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this helps clarify a great deal. The specifically biographical component required is probably a tough find, though maybe not impossible.

If I can find something in Ann Arbor News (or something comparable) I'll come back and ask for a judgment. If there is any bio from a professional society like American Physical Society (he won an award in High Polymer Physics in 1986), is that still too close? Philscijazz (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It might be for me, but I'm pretty liberal. You should probably go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow that process. And those people are pretty strict on bios. Anybody else know if the American Physical Society would be an independent source? Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the APS/HPP prize was 1977. 1986 was a different milestone. Philscijazz (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philscijazz, the requirements for an article for a professor such as Krimm are a bit different. They are covered in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). He is definitely notable enough for an article since he was elected a fellow of the American Physical Society in 1959. His name is already in Wikipedia on the list of fellows here. A reference for that award is the database at the APS website. That same database reports that he received the Polymer Physics Prize in 1977 for "his outstanding experimental studies and theoretical developments in infrared and Ra-man spectroscopy and X-ray scattering from natural and synthetic polymers". Material published on the University website, including his curriculum vitae is fine for facts about him. Biographical coverage in newspapers is not expected but can be very helpful. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Now, who can create the article? If a family member does, is that acceptable as long as there is an explicit disclaimer of the family relationship and all content is cited properly?

If I would be eligible to do it, I will set about doing it. If not, I'd need to look for a properly eligible creator. Philscijazz (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philscijazz: If you think you're capable of writing a WP:NPOV article about this person that reflects the WP:SIGCOV they've received in WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources or otherwise that meets the criteria listed in WP:NACADEMIC, then you can try. However, given your personal connection to the subject, you should first create a WP:DRAFT and then submit it to WP:AFC for review when you think it's ready. You should also follow the guidance given in WP:COI, particularly with respect to WP:DECLARECOI. Before you do start working on a draft though, you might want to take a look at WP:LUC, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:PROUD and WP:OWN because once an article about this person is created, you won't have any type of final editorial control over it and won't be able to prevent others from editing it. In fact, you will for the most part be expected not to directly edit it yourself, but rather follow the guidance given in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. So, it's quite possible that the article may subsequently move in a different direction from the one you originally intended or perhaps even include content that you rather it doesn't. So, if your primary intent is to highlight all the great things this person has done while perhaps overlooking some of their not so great moments, you might find WP:ALTERNATIVES to Wikipedia to be more to suited to such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks very much.

I have direct knowledge of the subject, and there aren't any skeletons in the closet to worry about, no controversies. Not concerned about things "moving in a different direction" once independent editors take over, just aiming to establish some posterity for his work, which is considered important by the academy. But I appreciate the warning just in case.

He meets criteria 2 and 3 in the academic notability page (APS fellow 1959 and APS prize 1977).

If indeed university materials and CV are significant enough and secondary/reliable enough to qualify the article, then I think I can put this together and hand it off for evaluation. I'll do the best I can, and hopefully there will be enough to warrant an article. Philscijazz (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of what you will need to do as a family member is to essentially forget absolutely everything you know about him, and write only what you can find in published sources - this can be difficult to do. ColinFine (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, I totally get that! Journo hat on, here. If it isn't in a legitimate/independent web source, it ain't in the article.

One thing I'm going to try to get right is when something very technical would benefit from translation/paraphrasing from jargon into a more vernacular expression for broader accessibility.

Also, in order to convey some particular aspect of his work, is it acceptable to cite a couple of his peer-reviewed journal articles? (This is where the paraphrasing might really come in handy.) Philscijazz (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] is a passing mention but it hints there might be better sources out there. Assuming it's the droid we're looking for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly the droid, thanks.

This is a related link (see original post above):

https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/75/9/30/2845466/The-trailblazing-career-of-Willie-Hobbs-MooreThe

But there aren't really personal bios along the lines that seem to be required of non-academics.

The original post here has a number of sources at the university that seem to be sufficient according to StarryGrandma. CV is found secondarily at the first link:

https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/physics-assets/physics-documents/Krimm_CV.pdf

So the only remaining question seems to be whether an immediate family member can create this article. Philscijazz (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philscijazz All a family member need do is read WP:COIEDIT and comply with 1) the disclosure requirements and 2) use the articles for creation process. A more relevant issue in your case is your inexperience: writing articles is quite difficult for newcomers, even without a COI. So I suggest you contribute to existing articles for a while, to get used to our policies and guidelines before tackling the larger task. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten some tremendous start-up assistance from the Help Desk folks here, really appreciate it. Especially the process map from @Marchjuly, and I've seen the policies and guidelines. It makes me bold enough to try it in one shot, with a draft.

I do have a good deal of writing experience in various contexts, and I've been a frequent user of Wikipedia for many years. I'll compare with comparable existing articles for story format. I'm taking all the various cautions very much to heart, but I'm a pretty quick study on things like this, and I'm going to take considerable care with it - I totally understand it's not just a casual thing like a social media post or even business email. It's essentially a journalistic enterprise. I've been involved in enough formal writing to know the difference, and to adhere to policies. Thanks much. Philscijazz (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't really the journalistic enterprise many seem to think it is, and often users who approach it as such (including some say they're professional journalists with lots of formal writing experience) find themselves having a hard type getting articles created. My suggestion to you is to focus your draft's content on clearly establishing the subject's Wikipedia notability and keep that content as minimal as possible. Trying to do too much might allow whatever COI bias you have to start to creep in, and this, in turn, could start to make things a bit cloudy and harder to assess. You don't need really need to create anything more than a WP:STUB which has a clear claim of Wikipedia notability. Once the draft has been approved by AfC, you can then use the article talk page to make edit requests using Template:Edit COI regarding future expansion of the article, or (ideally) you can just leave it to others to build on what you've started. Everything you've posted above so far sounds great, but pretty much everyone wanting to create an article about a family member says the same thing. Many people in a similar situation as you think everything is great until their draft is declined the first time or things don't otherwise go as they want. At that point, some people get really frustrated and give up, lash out or do some combination of the two. I'm not trying to discourage you; I'm only suggesting you temper your expectations and think small. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and understood. My approach will indeed be minimalistic, in the sense of ensuring everything is directly citable and relevant. And if I make a mistake, I'll be looking to the editorial authorities for continuing guidance (I know I'm a newbie, but I do have some amount of transferrable skills).

I'm approaching this with the mission of doing what's possible, and learning the Wiki Way along the way. I'm going to make my best effort to get it as close to right the first time, but I'm also prepared to be alerted to mistakes. My mission then will be to explore how to correct the mistake, if possible.

A good model for my approach is to observe my initial response to the suggestion that without a couple of conventional bio sources the article would be deleted (or really, the draft would be rejected - the draft process makes a whole lot more sense to me). I basically accepted that, and set my mission to see if any such thing existed in citable form on the web. When it was noted that the academic notability criteria were different, that gave me a new round of hope, and redirected my efforts. Philscijazz (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One specific question about legitimate sources. The following link is a mixed source:

https://apps.lib.umich.edu/faculty-memoir/apps.lib.umich.edu/faculty-memoir/faculty/samuel-krimm.html

There is an official bio, and links to CV and a list of publications. May I presume that would be treated as authoritative? Is it acceptable to draw from this bio for the draft article I'm going to write? (Details are pretty much covered in the CV, but I can cross-check to be certain. He may have written the bio himself, but I presume it would have been verified by the university for publication.)

Following that is a Memoir section, written by him as author, and mentioning many other relevant figures in the history of biophysics at UMich (he is included in passing). I presume that this is not considered a source for his own article, but perhaps it might be a legitimate source for articles about others mentioned in the history. He had a particularly close and comprehensive view of the introduction development of biophysics research at the university. Philscijazz (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philscijazz The main problem with that source and several others you are using is that they are not independent. We need about three sources which fully meet these criteria. I would advise you to focus on the awards, with proper citations: not external links in the body text but properly formatted as we do them, explained at this Help article. You can wikilink the Humboldt Prize, which helps show it is of significance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've been working on the draft.

I have a link to APS (the election as fellow, and the Polymer Prize), and I have a link to the Humboldt Prize website where he is listed by name. But thanks for the Humboldt wikilink, I'll reformat that so the body text goes to the wikilink, and I'll add the Humboldt website link as a reference. The link to APS is currently in the body text (I also have a wikilink to APS), but I can make that a reference instead as well.

I have a direct link in references to the CV on the university website (as @StarryGrandma suggested would be acceptable for an academic, and I'm using that as a source for birthdate, area of research, education, and career academic/administrative positions. Pretty cut and dry factual information. FWIW, he was a muck-a-muck in the biophysics programs in multiple schools at the university (LSA/undergrad, IST, Engineering, graduate program), which has one of the more prestigious physics departments around. But my approach was to let his actual appointments speak for him in that regard, without further editorial comment.

I also added a direct reference link to the list of his peer-reviewed publications published at the university website. If this is inappropriate I can remove it, I wasn't sure.

I am not using the memoir article as a source here, per se.

Would it be appropriate to link to his faculty pages at the university? I haven't included those at this point, but two of the three do include more detailed (technical, jargony) descriptions of his research program.

Finally, I'm adding references to his final two peer-reviewed journal articles where he and his colleague have proposed a new paradigm in the area of protein folding ("milieu folding"), and a generic description of that in the body text. That seems particularly notable from a scientific perspective.

I'm currently working to get the HTML formatting of the references correct (I was working in visual editor, and it seems like refs ultimately need to go deep into the source editing?), and I need to figure out the best method to declare COI (I'm a direct descendant, i.e., he is my father).

When I have a draft that seems ready to submit, is it appropriate to link that here in the Help Desk section for a "pre-review" as to technicalities? Or does that only happen once it's submitted, by the reviewing editors? Philscijazz (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, declare your COI both on your userpage (click on what is currently the redlink to your name to create that) and on the Talk Page of the draft. Best not to expand any more here in this thread: either comment on the Talk Page of the article or at the top of the draft using the {{AfC comment}} template. And yes, best to submit to get a review from those who are most experienced at doing these and who can accept/decline the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done the declaration of COI in both places now (userpage and draft talk page).

Last question here: if I can't get the references HTML jump-formatting to work (I think that's my last pending tweak), can I just submit the draft and let the editors whip it into shape, or is that just too newbie to fly? Philscijazz (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. I found the citation icon in the visual editor menu, and converted all my citations/references to correct form. Will be submitting the draft soon. Philscijazz (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 6 is in red - please repair - I cannot work it put at all, thank you 175.38.37.197 (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to use a photo from British newspaper from 1908. I have looked at the "image use policy" and the "when Does copyright expire" page but this kind of thing isn't my forte and I am struggling to grasp it. I believe the photo is relevant and beneficial for the article but would appreciate some guidance in normal English please! Thanks BJCHK (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BJCHK: It's impossible to answer without knowing which image, from which paper, and/ or the identity of the photographer if known. Please provide a link, or details, or both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BJCHK My understanding is that if the photographer is unknown, the photo is in the public domain and you can upload it on Commons as such. Otherwise [2] it may be PD depending on when the photographer died, life+70 years is the line. If this is about a leadimage for a WP-bio, you can use it locally on en-WP if it's not in PD. Probably. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BJCHK, if the newspaper was published before 1923, any copyright in it has expired, and you can upload an image to Commons and use it in any Wikipedia. (I also disagree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång's statement about unknown photographers: if you don't know who the photographer was, you won't be able to establish their date of death, and so won't be able to use the "after date of death" calculation.) Maproom (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the Commons Help says, which is: Anonymous works: Photographs created before 30 June 1957: 70 years after creation if unpublished, 70 years after publication if published within 70 years of creation (so fine in this case) but Standard copyright term: Life + 70 years if the photographer is known. GGS is therefore correct. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same minute. WE ARE BORG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom That, according to Commons, is the British part of the equation.

"If the work is a photograph with an unknown author taken before 1 June 1957 then copyright expires 70 years after creation or, if during that period the work is made available to the public, 70 years after that. "

I agree that the US part of it is fine, but Commons need both US and country-of-origin-if-other rules to be cleared. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Pigsonthewing @Michael D. Turnbull - thank you for all your input. I will take Maproom's approach and upload it as it is over 110 years old now. For clarity, the article is Week of Self-Denial and the photo is of two of the central women standing outside a tube station collecting money for the cause. BJCHK (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I publish the entire page publicly? Masierra2008 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Masierra2008: Assuming you're talking about Draft:Medusa Film, you'd use {{subst:submit}}, which you've apparently learned to use at User:Masierra2008/sandbox. Your draft does not have any inline citations that establish any wikinotability, so it definitely won't be considered as it is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Appreciate it! Means to me! Masierra2008 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quack...Do you have another account by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Milk's wiki page has a random, uneditable section on Lithuania for some reason. Should be removed, but is a protected wiki. 2A02:C7E:300B:3A00:9935:E255:90AF:77D5 (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ 18:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix! 2A02:C7E:300B:3A00:9935:E255:90AF:77D5 (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why is this 2A00:23C4:C303:A901:586B:BD3B:C364:F081 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a random section because an editor thought it was an improvement. If you are curious you can look at the article history. TSventon (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Jorda was both a judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (a UN tribunal) and a judge of the International Criminal Court (a non-UN international court). The article was included both in Category:French judges of international courts and tribunals and in its (usually) diffusing subcategory Category:French judges of United Nations courts and tribunals. (It was the only article included in both categories.) Not realizing the subtlety involved, I removed the supercategory. Now I'm wondering whether that was correct. If he'd only been an ICC judge, he should only be in the supercategory; and if he'd only been an ICTY judge, he should only be in the subcategory. There's a somewhat irritating asymmetry in the fact that his role at the ICTY is now explicitly reflected in the subcategory, whereas his role at the ICC is only implicitly reflected in that he's in the supercategory by virtue of being in the subcategory. Perhaps it was appropriate to put him in both categories after all? I couldn’t find anything about a case like this in WP:Categorization. Joriki (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a number to call to guide me as to how I can set up a wikipedia page? I have tried but it will not go thru. 45.49.230.182 (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no phone number to call. There should be a link to create an account on your screen, or you may use WP:ACC. We write articles here, not "set up pages", and writing an article is the most difficult task to attempt here. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no number, but there is a live chat. Look for the line at the top of this page that says "For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let me know what you think before you speak. All I need to do is go do my thing. Masierra2008 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant to put this comment in the earlier section #Publishing My Work Entirely, @Masierra2008? (Not that I can make any sense of what you've said wherever it goes). ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are some reliable sources about modern computer games? Redstone catman (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref number 6 is all wrong - I cannot work it all out, please repair. Thank you in advance. 115.70.23.77 (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The access date on the source read: "27 August 20024". Please be more careful next time. Regards. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 01:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles citing sources allegedly published in the two-hundredth-plus century continue to have quite an overlap with articles eagerly mentioning tangential Middletons. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the website citation template, how do I add the author when it's the name of a group or organization, like "Editorial board" or "XYZ Research Project"?

I get an error if I fill in Last name only, and if I add a "author" parameter in source.

Thanks! Tsavage (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The parameters "author" and "author1" are aliases for "last" or "last1". Only one of these should be used. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon this article Silver thiocyanate that has citations in some headers. Should citations be in headers? Sorry, I couldn't find anything on the MoS. SecretSpectre (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEFOOT said: "Citations should not be placed within, or on the same line as, section headings." So no citations are allowed on the headers. You can move the citations to the body of the said section. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SecretSpectre (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how i can make new biography page where is editor Tbz Fertilizer (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor, for you, is wherever you found it in order to ask the question immediately above. Improve existing edits, always citing reliable sources. Once you've become adept at that, read and digest Help:Your first article. -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tbz Fertilizer.

Since it appears likely that you represent the Pakistani fertiliser company TBZ, there are some things that it is very important for you to understand. (If you are not connected with them, then I apologise for my assumption: but you should still change your user name).

First, user names which suggest that they represent a company or organisation are forbidden. You will need to Change username (or abandon that one and create a new one, which must be personal to the individual who is editing).

Next, Promotion of any kind is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. If your purpose here is to promote (i.e. "tell the world about") your company, please find another outlet to do so. If your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (and only in that case) then there can be an article about the company. The article will not belong to the company, will not be controlled by the company, could be edited by almost anybody in the world except people associated with the company, and will not be in any way for the benefit of the company, except incidentally. Please read WP:PROUD and WP:BOSS

If your company is notable in Wikipedia's sense, then eventually somebody will write and article about it: you are discouraged from doing so.

If you decided to go ahead with an article about your company (or anything closely associated with it, such as its founder, or a product) then please note the following:

- If you intend to work on any article connected with your company, you must read and understand our policy on editing with a conflict of interest, and should make a declaration of this status. If you are in any way employed or remunerated by the company, you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor.

- Whoever creates an article, 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.

- Creating a Wikipedia article is extremely difficult for new editors, even where they haven't a conflict of interest. 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. ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A question has come up with the article Amina Sabri. I tagged it for Notability because the article does not really talk about the subject herself: it is nearly all about her husband and her (royal) family instead. I also mentioned this on the original author's User Talk page (here), and he/she replied "Amina received the title of Her gloriness Al Nabila & the title of Princess. Would that make her notable?" WP:ANYBIO says that a person is likely to be notable if they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor". So the question is - do those royal titles satisfy the criteria of a "significant award or honor"? Gronk Oz (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those "titles" sound pretty dubious given that Egypt is a republic, and I notice that there is no article about her husband. This looks very marginal to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabri married in 1924 and died in 1925 in the Kingdom of Egypt, but I agree notability is not obvious and the article is now at AfD. TSventon (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gronk Oz, the "significant award or honor" criterion was debated at length in April, see Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:ANYBIO at AfD. I don't believe that it covers royal titles, you could follow the AfD to see what other editors think. TSventon (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you weren't kidding when you said it was "debated at length"! Thanks for that link - it makes me feel a lot better that I did not know the answer. Apparently nobody else does, either (or everybody does, but they are all different). I read through the first few pages, but it's 4:30 am here and my pillow is calling me. I will be intrigued to see what comes from the AfD.--Gronk Oz (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how do i display the line breaks, when pasting a lot of text from another source? below is the page where i need some help with this. please ping me, when you reply. thanks!

• User:Sm8900/nyc_services#formatted_list

Sm8900 (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: You need to put additional line breaks to make an empty lines between paragraphs. --CiaPan (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make separate indented lines, you needn't put additional lines between them, just prepend a colon : to each of them. See my reply here (on edit mide) for an example.. --CiaPan (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can use {{pre}} to surpress normal HTML formatting.

Please note that user space may be used for activity relating to Wikipedia only. The fact that you have no citations on that page inclines me to think that you are not developing something for Wikipedia. Please see WP:UPNO and WP:NOTWEBHOST. ColinFine (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i am trying to determine which public resources might have enough published data to be worth noting in an overview article on services for that general region, or else alternately to make an article of their own for these items. Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, yes {{pre}} works. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. In that case, it looks as if you are working BACKWARDS, which is a very inefficient way of writing articles. ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

true, but it's not just the content of the list, it is also the placement, visilbility, and overall role and structure. fyi, this seems to be posted at an official court website. i'm not sure why, or the basis for this. i'm just trying to see what's out there, overall. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sm8900, it appears that you have copied that material from New York City websites that are labeled "all rights reserved". Accordingly, that content is a copyright violation and it must be removed from Wikipedia. Am I misunderstanding anything here? Cullen328 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are requested for living persons. I don't know what is needed but would be happy to supply any appropriate information to the editors. DBBorenstein (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DBBorenstein. I'm assuming from the messages on your user talk page that this relates to the article Daniel B. Borenstein, and that that is about you.

The only thing that can render that article acceptable is to add citations to sources that are reliably published, wholly independent of your and your associates, and contain significant coverage of you specifically - see WP:42 for more detail - and to remove everything from the text which is not supported by a reliable source. (Not all sources have to be independent for this purpose - uncontroversial factual information such as the dates of your presidency can come from the Psychiatry Online article, for example - but most must be: see WP:IS). No other information from you will be relevant to the article, as a Wikipedia article should be based 100% on published sources.

Normally I would suggest that you find such sources, and edit the article to insert them and remove unsourced information; but because of your conflict of interest, that is strongly discouraged. Instead, what you would need to do is to make edit requests on the talk page Talk:Daniel B. Borenstein, making them as specific as possible, and being sure to cite a source for any information you wanted to add.

Alternatively, if you can find several sources that meet the criteria above, if you just put the citations on the talk page, it may be that somebody would be willing to edit the article then. ColinFine (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so an editor commented that once an article had been previously AfDed and was kept, the article can not be tagged with a notability maintenance template. Special:Diff/1242561008. I think that's a fair interpretation for something that was fairly recent, but in the article in question, that AfD was years ago and the argument provided in AfD from four years ago leaves plenty of questions, such as claim that it's notable because it's listed in something and being in that list is not an indication of notability per the applicable WP:SNG. I know there's a guideline in place that precludes the use of PROD once it's been PRODded in the past, but is there such a guideline on maintenance template? Courtesy ping to @Alalch E.: Graywalls (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. The template instructions are not WP:PAG but this tag's instructions specifically request not to put it on on an article that has already survived a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as "keep". That is because maintenance templates are for problems noticed by one editor and not resolved by that one editor... for a variety of reasons depending on the tag and the situation, but with this tag it's always approximately: "seems non-notable but I do not want to start a deletion process because I am not sure, as I have not done a thorough WP:BEFORE, and/or can not access some of the sources (etc.), but someone else who is sure either way should start the deletion process--or--remove the tag." And after a whole AfD, when multiple editors have been introduced to the problem and still supported keeping, it's no longer a maintenance issue, it's a consensus issue. A new consensus can be reached in the corresponding process. The tag does not help to notify someone of an issue anymore, people had already been notified, and a particular decision was made.

WP:WTRMT is about this: After an AfD, the issue has been adequately addressed (via AfD), and the maintenance template is not supported anymore given a "keep" outcome. Point 9 is especially illuminating. Some problems can never be resolved. An article on a non-notable topic which was kept in an AfD can only benefit from a new AfD as it's beyond the power of editors to resolve lack of notability. What a prospective notability tagger should do under those circumstances is refer to past discussions (which in the case of a keep outcome exist and provide informative clues), form better deletion arguments, and nominate again, following WP:RENOM. —Alalch E. 17:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RENOM doesn't specifically forbids tagging article for notability. Also, the article in question is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Macgirl and there's no indication of tagging previously AfD'd article with notability template. Graywalls (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that essay because I suggested renominating, but renominating shouldn't be done either if it would be too soon, per the essay. What do you think about the other things I said? —Alalch E. 18:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E.:, If it was nominated for notability failure five years ago, but it was kept, because one person said "it's in the list of top 30 places in the city to go eat and it's listed in the state heritage listing" followed by two "keep per nom", there's a cause for tagging notability, absent guideline prohibiting it, as in the case of PROD. Once PRODded, it can't be prodded again. There's no such thing as this for notability and I find the tagging for questionable notability perfectly reasonable. You've not cited policy disallowing it, as in the case of PROD. WP:ESSAY is not a policy. Graywalls (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you're disregarding around 90% of what I wrote and are basing yourself on my non-essential mention of WP:RENOM which I retract as entirely not the point. How about the other things I said, including references to the template's documentation and WP:WTRMT? —Alalch E. 21:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am working with a musician who wants there picture changed on their Wikipedia page. However I haven't got confirmed status.

Can anyone help me? Richard.Scotts (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have profiles here, we have articles. You may work with other editors to upload an image at Files For Upload. You will need to formally disclose your connection, I will post information on your user talk page as to how. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

de:Sean Smith (Bassist) – Wikipedia Ssmithbasscomp (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]