I'd like to know if there are a mean to see the number of edits for each space.
When I'm talking about space. I'm talking for example about the "Mainspace" and "Talk-Pages". Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anatole-berthe: presumably you mean your edits (in different namespaces)? In which case, you can see that info (for en.wiki) here: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Anatole-berthe -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! You did perfectly understood. Anatole-berthe (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered https://wikiscan.org/ Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing, Anatole-berthe, and Cullen328: Hello. Is it just me, or the xtools is down for everyone? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran, I am currently getting an error message at xtools. Cullen328 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, and responding, it is appreciated a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: Some days ago , I got an "error message". I don't know if there are a link with the problem you had.

I don't remember what was the message. Anatole-berthe (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: I did some tests. On my side , it's running without problems Anatole-berthe (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you in two of my previous messages @Usernamekiran.

I don't think you'll receive these because I edited my messages to include these.

I haven't the confirmation I sent these , therefore I write this message to send you a ping. Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have translated and published an article from Wikipedia in Japanese about Tomodachiga Yatteru Cafe, a cafe staffed by actors. I think the quality and quantity of this article is plenty good, and the subject is humorous, notable and worth introducing. However, at the moment it is an orphan. (This is the same situation with the original Japanese article, which has almost no links to the original article.)

Is there any good source of links to the article anywhere, or if you have any good ideas, please let me know. Thank you very much. 狄の用務員 (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be linked from articles on the actors, or from the location it is in. Or maybe an article like List of museums in Tokyo if it is now a museum.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your advice. 狄の用務員 (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

狄の用務員, another route is via categories. You have added it to Category:Coffeehouses and cafés in Japan, which has several other entries. You could add your article to the See also section of each of those articles, creating the section in those cases where it does not yet exist. I'm not sure if Category:Japanese performance artists would be helpful, and you can always create a new category, if a valid one exists conceptually, and add articles to it, such as Category:Performance art in Japan, where your article would be a good fit. But if there aren't any other articles that would go there, then don't create the category. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much! 狄の用務員 (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the latest submission received a response that indicates it is identical with an earlier submission when it has been rewritten in an encyclopaedic format and completely revised?? Xyzbio (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyzbio: Welcome to the Teahouse. According to the latest reviewer, the tone is still not suitable for an encyclopedia. At some points it feels like the draft lionises her, like Matilda Wallace is commemorated as a pioneer settler in Australian history. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Xyzbio! The reviewer has not said that it is exactly identical, but it is another draft with the same name as the previous one you created, that is Draft:Matilda Wallace. Although that is not the reason for the decline, the actual reason is what Tenryuu mentioned above. Please do not resubmit drafts before doing the changes mentioned by the reviewer, I noticed you only removed a bullet point and resubmitted TNM101 (chat) 06:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Status: There are two drafts Draft:Matilda Wallace and a subsequent, longer Draft:Matilda Wallace a pioneer woman. The latter has been declined several times for not being in encyclopedia format. In addition, you have article-related content on your User page and your Talk page. Delete all that. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Status (update): There are now three drafts on this subject, with Draft:Matilda Wallace: pioneer pastoralist joining the fray. I've posted advice on the user's talk page regarding multiple drafts, as well as the purpose of user pages. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop creating drafts or all of them will be Speedy deleted and your account will be indefinitely blocked. And you still have not removed content from your User and Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about this. My understanding was that I could keep editing and did not realise I was creating new versions. I will be 89 in a few weeks and that may explain why! I have done my best to respond to comments but do not always comprehend their meaning. I have never before written an encyclopaedia entry so have looked at and edited other entries to get a feel for what I should write and read the guides My sister has been researching this topic for 30 years and has an extensive collection of material which I have drawn on when writing. She is unwell and cannot do so herself. I don't know how to remove content from my user and talk pages. Please help. I wish to complete this task while I still can. Xyzbio (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the great deal you've written it seems likely that a good article can be drawn up out of it, but all the information should be placed on one page. I see historian A. T. Saunders investigated her story in the 1920s. Find the most useful aspects of her life and legacy as described by the material you are working from, and put it in one place, preferably this page: Draft:Matilda Wallace.

Draft:Matilda Wallace: pioneer pastoralist is a good attempt, but it is hampered by the existence of other drafts under similar names. I can try and help out in a while as I am indisposed shortly. Reconrabbit 21:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,I will shortly commence cancer treatment that's why I have beavered away in hurried manner. Xyzbio (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the content that did not belong on your User page and Talk page because it is in draft. David notMD (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My son helped me do a further edit today to make the submission fit the style and tone required.

Hope you see an improvement!

Thanks David. Xyzbio (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i recently edited an article that appeared to be vandalized, as it cited sources from 2014 for changes to a US national park that occurred in 2024 involving the installation of a phallic poem on a plaque in a US national park. Other citations in the article did not work. upon manually searching the broken link's website, no literature appeared regarding the installation of, or existence of this poem. I removed the section of the article that i thought was vandalized and explained my reasoning, asking the previous editor to discuss it in the talk page or to add better sources. My changes were reverted by an anonymous editor with the editing notes saying that the links had been updated and better sources were added, and that the incorrect year was a typo, with the correct year being 2014. However, the source added was a 1969 book, which, after skimming it on Open Library, contains no modern foreword regarding the plaque, nor any mention of the plaque's author, on top of the fact that it was publish 50 years prior to the claimed installation date. All this combined with the fact that this article seems to have been vandalized a couple of times in the past leads me to believe that the revert from my edit is vandalism.

With all that being said, I:

1) cannot physically visit the park to verify the plaque is there (and upload an image of it to commons),

2) am relatively new to the site so i'm not 100 percent confident that i am correct, and the other editors seem adamant

3) do not want to start an edit war

My apologies for the long winded explanation, but i felt the context was important. So, for those of you who have been around here longer than I, could you please tell me if I am in the wrong here, and if not, could you please suggest some next steps that should be taken? Errizona (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, the addition of the poor quality selfie does hint that this may be trolling. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Errizona, I am highly confident that the recently added content is a deliberate hoax. Accordingly, I have semi-protected the article for a month and also upgraded the URL in the article reference that links to the coverage of the crash site on the National Park Service website. In the spirit of full disclosure, my late uncle George Davidson served on US aerial search and rescue missions in the Aleutian Islands during Workd War II, and came home with what is now called post-traumatic stress disorder. Cullen328 (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the account and the IP responsible for the hoax. Cullen328 (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help! Errizona (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input and for taking a look! Errizona (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a category called "Sanskrit aesthetics" so that all pages on this topic can be grouped together. I think it makes most sense as a subcategory of "aesthetics." I started tagging some pages with this category, but I'm not sure how to integrate it into the "aesthetics" page. Any tips?

Also, does this sound like a good idea? Since there's a rich history of aesthetic philosophy in Sanskrit, it seemed appropriate, but perhaps it might benefit from a larger category ("South Asian aesthetics"). My hope is that this starts more non-anglophone categories of aesthetic philosophy. Oraclesto (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oraclesto! It looks like you managed to create the category, located at Category:Sanskrit Aesthetics. I have added that category to the parent category Category:Aesthetics. I am not qualified to answer the question if this is a good idea, but luckily on Wikipedia most mistakes are fixable and if you make a mistake someone will be quick to correct you. Perhaps you could ask User:JEN9841 who is also a participant of the Aesthetics task force. Polygnotus (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Polygnotus, I see it under Aesthetics as well! I also appreciate you tagging in another user. :) Oraclesto (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FOLLOW UP Q: I goofed! I seem to have made two categories-- one called Sanskrit Aesthetics and one called Sanskrit aesthetics (the latter without a page)... any ideas on how to combine these? Should I make a page for the latter, and then somehow combine the two categories?

I switched to lowercase after reading more about Wiki naming conventions. Not sure how to fix this! Oraclesto (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can request a rename of the category at WP:CfD --rchard2scout (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikieveryone: The Athletic Director (AD) at my high school has put together a timeline of our school's athletic history. He did this using the school yearbooks, newspaper, and magazine. I suggested I create a new wikipedia page based on his research. QUESTION: Is it better to expand the athletics section of the current high school article OR can I start a new linked article just on our athletic program's history? Thanks, I'll take my answer off the air. Mcadorette (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello Mcadorette and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia should reflect the information that is published in WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RELIABLE sources on a topic. It sounds like your plan is to add what we in Wiki-jargon call original research. Unfortunately I don't think Wikipedia is a suitable location, unless the article can be supported by reliable sources that are independent of the school. Have you considered using for example a free wordpress blog, or a social media site? Polygnotus (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcadorette: WP:DUE is something you may need to consider here to answer that question. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcadorette: You've already asked this question two days ago at the help desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. The article Waterford High School (Connecticut) currently lists sports and state championships. That is enough. Adding a timeline of when sports were started, or whatever, is beyond the scope of articlea about high schools. David notMD (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teahouse. I recently created an article, Atal Innovation Mission. While it's been reviewed, the article doesn't show up on the Wikipedia search bar, and hasn't been picked up by web crawlers either. Is this an error or something else? Or has it not been reviewed? I can't quite grasp.

One more thing, while the article has been created, it lacks a talk page. I'm unfamiliar with the procedure of creating a talk page, so I would highly appreciate if anyone could check out the article and build a talk page – even though I understand Teahouse folks are here to guide and advice, not co-author. 2311173DasguptaRajdeep (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can do one of the following:

1. Do it yourself
2. Ask other Wikipedians or administrators for help
3. Go to new article review guideline page. If you're not eligible, ask the Wikipedians for this.

CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! If I go over to the new article review guideline page, what should I ask there, though? 2311173DasguptaRajdeep (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About reviewing new articles and how to review one. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2311173DasguptaRajdeep, I've added a talk page to your article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2311173DasguptaRajdeep According to the logs for the article, it has now been marked as reviewed, so it should show up in search engines shortly. We have no control exactly how long that will take. It already shows up in the WP:VECTOR22 search bar. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:RFPP, pages are requested for protection because of vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit wars, and other disruptive stuff. But how much of bad editing is enough for protection. How much vandalism/sockpuppetry/edit warring/disruptive editing/etc. is enough for a page protection request?

NOTE: I know that edit warring (at least 2-3 reverts of the same action, three revert rule ensues) will warrant temporary full protection. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard-and-fast rule: each request is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking, and I mean really generally, if the benefit of protecting a page exceeds the detriment of preventing some good-faith users from editing it for a period of time, it will be protected. Each administrator's point of view on that will be slightly different, and that's fine: administrators are expected to be able to justify their decisions, not necessarily to follow a specific set of written rules. In your example: depending on the page and other circumstances, an administrator might see it as a better solution to block the editors who are revert warring instead of protecting the page, especially if other editors are also trying to edit. The goal is to limit disruption while also keeping editing as open as possible, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From a requesting-editor's point of view, I only request protection when more than one editor is disrupting the article, particularly multiple IP and/or brand new editors. (When it's one editor, that editor should be dealt with rather than the article itself.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in case of Politics of Russia, only one IP edit, contained bad words/vandalism. It was reverted. Is it still enough for protection? Or it needs more vandalism? Or it needs another editor to be intervened in vandalizing for protection? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CreatorTheWikipedian2009, protection should be applied only when necessary to stop disruption. One reverted edit is not a reason to request protection. Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But what if the offended Wikipedian restores their edit? Will someone revert this edit again? Is this considered edit warring? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on edit-warring grants limited exemptions for a few types of revert, such as obvious vandalism. Please read that policy to learn more about it. (Probably also helpful to read WP:VANDALISM, because wrong doesn't necessarily mean vandalism.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CreatorTheWikipedian2009, if a single editor is responsible for the recent disruption to an article, then an administrator will block that editor, and article protection is not needed. If the disruption then resumes from IPs or new accounts, then article protection is appropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In such a situation, blocks can be requsted at WP:AIV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Speaking only for myself: no, I wouldn't protect that page. There is just the one IP editor who made a couple of unconstructive edits (I call it "drive-by vandalism") and then seems to have gone away, so there's not likely to be more vandalism and no action is needed. If they kept coming back to the page with the same IP or account then I would block the IP or account and still not protect the page. If the disruptive editing was coming from many accounts and IPs, then I would consider page protection. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd, maybe you should protect the page, ONLY, and I mean really only when you see it, in case of edit warring. If you're not an admin, you should do a request. Don't forget to file an edit war report. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CreatorTheWikipedian2009: I don't understand why you're telling Schazjmd things that she's already aware of. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an advice. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While working on the Richard C. Rudolph Wikipedia page, I noticed that almost the entirety of the "Career" section, which represents the majority of the article, has been directly copied from his obituary, written by his son and published in the University of California website. I have looked at the guide for dealing with copyright infringement but I am still unsure on the best way to adress this. Thank you for your help. HC226 (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HC226, it looks like permission to release that text under a free license was received in 2016: [1]. That said, a wholesale copied obituary isn't particularly appropriate as essentially a whole article; it could certainly do with some trimming and paraphrasing, but given the OTRS permission we don't have to be concerned with copyvio. Seraphimblade 22:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will continue to work on the article, focusing on trimming down and improving the phrasing/style. HC226 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HC226, I have taken an interest in Richard C. Rudolph, and have edited the article extensively in the past couple of days. Cullen328 (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi there! im a relatively new editor who doesnt know how everything works. my question is: what is a tracking category & how would I go about making one? thanks! Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 22:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@8UB3RG1N3 There is a brief description of them at Help:Category#Tracking_categories and if you are interested you should read all that page. However, as a newish editor, I'd be inclined to ignore this aspect of Wikimedia software, and I certainly would not try to create a new one! Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at editing an infobox of this article and I use visual editor, but it seems to be corrupted or some error is showing Wikimarkup in the visual editor mode when you select that. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did my edit fix the problem? JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 22:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what did you do to fix it? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were just two missing brackets. Instead of two brackets on either side of the link, it had two brackets on one side and only one on the other. JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 23:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings everyone !

Is there a way to know which account (Including bots) has made the most contributions (Per number of edits) to Wikipedia in English ?

I have the same question for IPs not tied to an user account. Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anatole-berthe: For your first question, see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits and Wikipedia:List of bots by number of edits. GoingBatty (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that a bunch of bots have beeen used on fewer than 10 articles. David notMD (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm working on this draft and next on my list is to include some competing narratives in it. Essentially it's a real estate development project, where the developers say they're going to do one thing, but their actions haven't always matched what they say they're going to do, which has led to significant confusion and controversy. I know WP aims to avoid 'controversy' sections, but is there any reason to not include a competing narratives section? See below for an example of what I'm talking about. The competing narratives are central to the reason this has gotten so much coverage, and are very notable; therefore are important to add to the article, but am not sure if this is the right way to do so, and welcome feedback.

In response to the pushback, Neil Mehta penned an op-ed in the San Francisco Standard stating that he donated his "entire interest to a nonprofit, I have zero financial interest in these properties and will receive nothing in return." Furthermore, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Allen's statement that the acquisitions were "made on behalf of a nonprofit entity called SF Reserve Foundation 'with the objective of bringing in more small businesses, rather than introducing formula retail tenants.'"

However, the San Francisco Chronicle reported "The Chronicle has not been able to verify the nonprofit organization." Additionally, the Standard reported that "The organization has no website, and no record of it could be found with federal tax officials."

Delectopierre (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Draft reviewed, and unfortunately declined. Reasons can be found on the draft page. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reviewing. I saw your notes.

The ABC7 reference was cited on the previous sentence (reference #10). Is the guideline that I cite it on two sentences in a row? I thought that would lead to excessive citations, but am not sure.

I included citations from included references on the BLP sentence you mentioned.

Regarding formal tone, could you please provide me with examples? I'm unclear where it is not NPOV/formal tone. Delectopierre (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current location is fine. The problem was that you claimed ABC 7 reported something but there were no ABC 7 reports as a reference behind that. The citation problem is likely resolved.

Okay, on the WP:NPOV concerns, the article reads slightly negative towards the project.

• so-called Urban Renewal, focused in Lower Fillmore after WWII, which predominantly removed Black, Japanese, Jewish, and Latino residents, "uprooting thousands of families and destroying lively, well-established communities." - Not sure if that was quoted from one of the source, but this doesn't read that neutral.

ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is from the public press (cited) and the rest of the information can be found in the other two citations. There’s also a lot of information to support that in the wiki linked article on in the draft.

I’m confused why you would call that not NPOV though. Just because it’s bad, upsetting, etc, doesn’t mean it’s not neutral. Sometimes presenting the facts on their own is eye opening. But isn’t that the definition of neutral? Delectopierre (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you say ‘but there were no ABC 7 reports behind that’ do you mean ‘following that’ or ‘backing it up’? Because, as I said, there was an ABC 7 article cited the sentence before. where is it supposed to go? Delectopierre (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got assistance with the original question. This can be closed, if you’d like. Delectopierre (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I am currently considering writing an article about the Shamate subculture, but I haven't found any freely licensed images.

If I cannot find a freely licensed photograph, does the English Wikipedia allow for freely licensed drawings to be used instead?

P.S. of course a photograph would be better, so if you have any idea where I could obtain a freely licensed one, it would be much appreciated. QuickQuokka 11:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka Any image with a free license or in the public domain can be used, whether it's a photo, drawing, logo or anything else. Ultraodan (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka: The answer given above is too much of an over simplification in my opinion; it's not wrong per se, but there's more involved. Image use on Wikipedia needs to be in accordance with Wikipedia:Image use policy, and there are essentially two parts to assessing an image's suitability: copyright status and encyclopedic relevance. The answer above is correct when it comes to copyright status, but any photo, drawing, logo or whatever you find freely licensed or within the public domain still needs to be encyclopedically relevant and perhaps of a decent quality to be of any value to a Wikipedia reader. Sometimes there are disagreements over this between editors, and those disagreements will need to be resolved via Wikipedia:Dispute resolution just as would be the case regarding a disagreement over text content. So, not everything is OK just because it has an acceptable copyright license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently found that an article I translated and published a long time ago is on the Wikipedia:Unusual articles list.

Where can I find out the criteria for UA listing and how to make a nomination? The Japanese version of Wikipedia has a voting selection process for UA listings, but the English version does not seem to have one. If I personally consider some article to meet the UA criteria, can I edit and add it to the UA list? 狄の用務員 (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 狄の用務員. This sounds like a question better off asked at Wikipedia talk:Unusual articles. You did notice the two banners ({{Humor}} and "Please note") at the top of the page, right? The lead section of the page also list several "criteria" for inclusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply.　I have of course read through the two banners at the top of the page and the criteria for publication in the lead section, but I can't find any discussion of the decision to publish, so I thought maybe there was another place to discuss it, so I asked here. Wikipedia talk:Unusual articles does not seem to be very active, so I thought it would be better to ask here, but if that page is better, I will ask there. thank you very much. 狄の用務員 (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@狄の用務員: My apologies if my response seemed snarky; you could also try checking the page's history to see if there are some editors who seem to be monitoring/maintaining it. Perhaps, you'll see an edit being reverted in which the edit summary left states "non-appropriate" or something similar. These might be good people to ask about the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed and useful information. I will take it into consideration. Thank you very much. 狄の用務員 (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated previously above, I am considering writing a Wikipedia article regarding the Shamate aesthetic of China.

I am currently gathering sources regarding this subculture, but many of them are in Chinese, a language (family) I don't speak.

I have 2 questions:

1. Are we allowed to use machine translation on sources and then cite what it says?
2. If so, can any Chinese speakers tell me how accurate machine translation from Chinese to English is?

Thanks, QuickQuokka 13:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QuickQuokka. Non-English sources can be used on Wikipedia as long as they meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source as explained here, but English sources are preferrable because they easier for readers to assess and verify. In general, machine translations are frowned upon when it comes to article content as explained here, but if you want to use them to "read" a non-English source for personal research reasons, then that's up to you so to speak; it would, however, be better if you somewhat understood the source language because that might help you catch any errors that machine translation site or software you use might make. Perhaps the best thing to do here would be to ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China to see whether you can find someone who might be interested in the subject matter to help you with the assessing of the non-English sources. You might also want to take a look at this because any article you try to create about this subject is going to need to meet Wikipedia:Notability regardless of whether the sources are in English or some other language. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Very thorough, yet concise answer. Thank you very much! QuickQuokka 13:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So when I encountered the article for Serfoji II I realized that 90% of the text was unreferenced, misspelled, and praising him. I have added quite a few tags over there. So at that point I realized that it would be efficient to start a draft in my userspace and then make the needed changes (as he's quite notable; we cannot just draftify it or something; and for a second thing its from 2006.) The first revision has no sources; but the majority of the body is written by Ravichandar84 over multiple edits way back in 2007.

Can I rewrite the entire article in the draft and directly post it? or is it too rash and should i try to find sources for each of the statements.

Another question is, the article has been in this state for decades so why were there no cleanup tags until i added them??

Sorry if it bothers anyone here ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scratchinghead I can answer both of those questions through personal experience. I've rewritten large portions of articles that were either poor for a very long time without tags or have had tags for yonks, the Battle of Cynoscephalae and William Henry Harrison Seeley come to mind.

Quite often, old articles simply aren't brought up to snuff or don't have cleanup tags because they're old, because there aren't enough eyes on them or because there aren't the right eyes on them. In the last 90 days, the article has had a daily average of 50 people visiting it, that's 4,541 views. I'd estimate that maybe 5% of that was people who use Wikipedia to edit.

In the case of old articles, standards were very different when they were created, and they have improved dramatically since. If there are unsourced sections, verify them. If you can't verify them, remove them. CommissarDoggo 13:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scratchinghead: All Wikipedia articles are, in principle, a work in progress; so, if you can make this article better in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then be WP:BOLD and do so. Whether you do it in one fell swoop or in bits and pieces is up to you, but you're less likely to get any blowback if you can retain as much of the original content as possible. Anything that's too promotional or a clear-cut violation should be removed, but perhaps try to keep what can be kept, source what can be sourced, and otherwise cleanup what can be cleaned up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I've got a question. I'm sure that Reserachgate articles are self published and all of that but would This be considered reliable? it has multiple citation to what seems like reliable ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scratchinghead Generally speaking, it's better to simply look up the citations they've listed and use them instead of the article. CommissarDoggo 12:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the list of sockpuppetry cases? I need to know it fast. Gnu779 ( talk) 14:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnu779 You can look through the archives at WP:SPI Ultraodan (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Wikipedia:Long-term abuse where some highly destructive/disruptive and persistent sockpuppeteers are listed. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please i mean seriously accept whatever abuse and monetarily aggressive policies used by the game devs staunchly defend their abusers and do whatever they can to please their abusers and work within their rules of engagement as in the credit card or suffer Legendme1234567890 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Legendme1234567890. The edit you made here to Stockholm Syndrome was reverted per Wikipedia:Original research because it wasn't supported by any citations to reliable soruces. The editor who reverted you should was correct in doing so, but they should've left an WP:EDITSUMMARY explaining why, and then they probably confused you even more by the template they added to your user talk page. In this case, it would've been better if they had added Template:Welcome-unsourced instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because your edit made no sense. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: how many words worth of coverage in reliable sources does a subject need to satisfy WP:SIGCOV? — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) 15:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LunaEclipse. I don't think there's a brightline number of words for indicating whether something is significant coverage per se, but what matters more is the quality and scope of the source cited and the context in which it's being cited. A single sentence in a major newspaper is probably going to be considered a "trivial mention" by most Wikipedians, but a few paragraphs in a local neighborhood newsletter would likely also be considered trivial by many Wikipedians. Perhaps you'll find Wikipedia:Extracting the meaning of significant coverage to be helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someplace in the policies or guidelines I recall seeing something about not adding "former" to job titles. For example, in a list of notable people, not writing "Mary Jones, former US ambassador". Has anyone else seen this? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should not add "former" to article titles. Keep it like "Mary Jones" and not "Mary Jones, former US ambassador" nor adding commas to article titles i.e. having it like "Mary Jones, US ambassador" JustSomeoneNo (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JustSomeoneNo: Is there a guideline about not using it in the text of an article? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I think it would be better to specify a time frame, so something like "Mary Jones, US ambassador from 1991 to 2015", rather than just "former US ambassador". That still makes the "former" status clear, but provides more information while doing so. Just saying "former" could mean any time from 1776 to the present. Seraphimblade 16:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most people do not die with their job title so former is not the assumption anyways. It’s more to distinguish Mary Jones from others. If there was another notable ambassador of same name, then years would be warranted. This is common with spies athletes. See WP:Article title ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to article titles; I'm referring to edits like this, or articles that start like this. The "former" is unnecessary because what they are notable for is timeless. Is there a guideline that addresses this? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 The MOS has advice at MOS:REALTIME, which mentions "former(ly)". Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the ticket. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i have just created Aldous (disambiguation) as a redirect to Aldous, which is a disambiguation page. I think what I should have done was to have moved Aldous to Aldous (disambiguation). So (assuming I'm right!), how to I revert my creation? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tag it with {{db-g7}}. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 16:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I copy edit as I read if I come across something easily fixable. On the Creatine page, I tried to do such a minor edit, but Wikipedia crashed as I hit the edit pencil icon. Someone has hacked that page. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Here.it.comes.again: Welcome to the Teahouse. Have you tried editing again? It works fine for me. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific as to "hacked that page"? At Creatine I do not see your attempted edit or anyone else's recent edit. David notMD (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Here.it.comes.again That article has been pending-changes protected since 2017 owing to persistent vandalism. That may have had something to do with the problem you ran into. There is a pop-up message you see when opening the visual editor which your browser may not have liked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is deep state do in world and words?M SANJOSE1959 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am new or editing is complicated :( SANJOSE1959 (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Welcome added to your Talk page with links (blue words) to how-to content. David notMD (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much : SANJOSE1959 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In my sandbox, I am currently writing an article about the Shamate subculture in China. I also want to note that it is a transliteration of the English smart.

Here is my introduction currently (it's a rough draft):

Shamate (simplified Chinese: 杀马特; traditional Chinese: 殺馬特; pinyin: Shāmǎtè) is a youth subculture and fashion movement originating from factory workers in 2000s South China.

Do you think I should note that it's a transliteration like so:

Shamate (simplified Chinese: 杀马特; traditional Chinese: 殺馬特; pinyin: Shāmǎtè, transliteration of the English word smart) is a youth subculture and fashion movement originating from factory workers in 2000s South China.

Or something more like so:

Shamate (simplified Chinese: 杀马特; traditional Chinese: 殺馬特; pinyin: Shāmǎtè) is a youth subculture and fashion movement originating from factory workers in 2000s South China. Its name is a transliteration of the English word smart.

Or is there some template I don't know about?

P.S. All of the above is just a rough draft. It's basically all I have in the article currently, since I just started actually working on it. QuickQuokka 19:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about if I wrote it more like

Shamate (simplified Chinese: 杀马特; traditional Chinese: 殺馬特; pinyin: Shāmǎtè, transliteration of the English word smart) or SMART is a youth subculture and fashion movement originating from factory workers in 2000s South China.

? QuickQuokka 19:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who really dislikes lead bloat, I'd suggest":

Shamate, a transliteration of the English word smart, is a youth subculture...

Just my two cents. Cremastra (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra: Thanks! QuickQuokka 21:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an infrequent and inexperienced editor, but have been watching the "In the News" postings and have noticed that there have been no mentions of the recent confirmations of Marco Rubio, John Ratcliffe, Pete Hegseth and Kristi Noem. I think that at least some if not all of these confirmations are as newsworthy as a fire at a ski resort in Turkey. So I tried to investigate how to go about this, and it does seem very complicated. I thought of contacting one of the recent contributors e.g. 217.180.201.163 for advice about this, but need help to understand how to even do that. With time short to nominate articles, I thought I'd just start here and see if there's some reason that these confirmations are not considered of sufficient interest, to be posted to the "In the News" section?

I did post this on Maine.Township (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC) but then thought that wasn't the best way to ask this question. Thanks for your understanding. Maine.Township (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maine.Township, a good place to start is Wikipedia:In_the_news#Criteria. I expect those confirmations might be considered routine, so not "significant", but I could be wrong (I don't participate there). Nominations are made at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, it has a set of instructions at the top. Schazjmd (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maine.Township, in order for an article to be featured "In the news", the article has to exist. The 2025 Kartalkaya hotel fire that killed 78 people exists. Confirmation of Pete Hegseth, which got the most news coverage, does not exist. You could write it. Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maine.Township: Wikipedia is an international website and "In the news" brings very few stories. There is virtually no chance that confirmation of a cabinet member other than head of state or government in any country will be accepted. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, and that was exactly what I was looking for. I may or may not agree with the rationale, but obviously need to observe whatever the current guidelines indicate. However, I would say, isn't our English page more heavily oriented toward those countries using that language? I do think there's a great deal of interest in the UK, Canada and Australia at least, in quite a few of the details of American politics. Especially for internationally important officials such as Secretary of State or Defense? In the case of Hegseth, this was not a routine confirmation, it was only the second in history decided by the vote of the Vice President. But still, if you think the article would not be accepted, then that's the end of it. Thanks again for your assistance! Maine.Township (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maine.Township, you ask isn't our English page more heavily oriented toward those countries using that language? The answer is "no". This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world (and universe), not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Cullen328 (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does that fact, right now, Hegseth’s article is the second most read article in English Wikipedia change that at all? Delectopierre (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "short answer" for the unfamiliar is WP:ITN has its own idiosyncratic critera for what gets approved; said criteria are a recurring topic of discussion and debate that people have differing views on. "New" government officials besides heads of state/heads of government are essentially never posted, short of something exceptionally "out there"—on the order of something like, Taylor Swift being made US Speaker of the House. Anyone can nominate an item to be featured, but the "importance" criterion is fundamentally subjective; my forecast is anything regarding Hesgeth would be rapidly rejected.

(One thing that influences it, is that ITN has to fit within the rest of the Main page layout without "blowing it out", and is quite space-constrained as a result. In turn, the Main Page's layout is ahh, something of a string-and-duct-tape affair and is challenging to make big revisions to in a way which satisfies everybody.) --Slowking Man (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful to know, thank you. No tech project/product/etc is complete without tech debt (aka string and duct tape).

Has there been, or is there, an initiative to remedy that? Or has the focus been more on the criteria (ideology) side of things? Delectopierre (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm drafting a new article and then belatedly noticed a typo in the name of the already submitted draft. Can I rename it somehow, or do I need to resubmit a new draft with the correct name? And then somehow delete the first (incorrectly named) one...? Wawenock (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can rename it, since you are 'confirmed': go to the topright tab and hover over "more", then select "move". Fill out the form and rename the page.

Or, you can provide the title of your draft (with the misspelling) and I can rename it for you. Cremastra (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Wawenock, and welcome to the Teahouse. I wouldn't worry about the name of the Draft: when a reviewer accepts the review, they will move it to the right name, sorting out any disambiguation or correction as required - you could put a Comment at the top of the draft pointing out that it will need renaming.

What you do need to do to Draft:Elbidge W. Locke is to sort out the referencing. Please study WP:REFB. As well as formatting the references properly, you need to cite which reliable source the information in the biography came from, and show how he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. You can continue to edit the draft while it is awaiting review, and I recommend you do so. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all! I think it's all fixed: Draft:Elbridge W. Locke. And thanks for the reminders on notability and on reliable source. Wawenock (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sections created. All content needs properly formated references. Consider listing songs to no more than ten. David notMD (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You created Draft:Elbridge W. Locke and Draft:Elbidge W. Locke. Abandon the one with the wrong name. It will be deleted after six months of no editing activity. David notMD (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have found a user with a username that impersonates another user. I know that you should report usernames to Usernames for administrator attention, but when you report a user for username violation using Twinkle, it shows 4 report reasons: Promotional, Disruptive, Misleading and Offensive usernames. If a username impersonates another user, which report reason should I select? NicePrettyFlower (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NicePrettyFlower I imagine that would be misleading, as in misleading people about who is running the account. Ultraodan (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extra column I can see in the box, no clue why/how that happened, been trying to fix it but isn't working. It has been there since this edit by me. Anyone know what happened? Was just adding references for all the awards. jolielover♥talk 06:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it with this edit. There were extra cells in certain rows. When a cell has a 'rowspan', the corresponding location in the subsequent row(s) over which it spreads must not have their own cell there. DMacks (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolielover: Browsers reveal the location of extra cells by showing cell borders in the extra column. Your case [2] shows three cells removed by DMacks. Whether it was caused by rowspan or something else, they should just be removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Noted. jolielover♥talk 08:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Syriac Orthodox Church is currently a C-class article. Can anybody point out what should be improved to make this one into a higher class (like B) ? Thanks in advance! Warriorglance (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Warriorglance, the very first sentence of the lead section is mind-bogglingly complex, mentioning no less than five alternate names for the denomination, and is thoroughly confusing to the casual reader. The rest of the lead is heavily focused on intricate details of various theological disputes in the denomination's history 1500 years ago. A reader trying to learn about the significance of this denomination in the modern era is offered just a couple of tiny tidbits at the very end of the lead section, and does not even learn that the current head of the denomination, Ignatius Aphrem II, is an American citizen. The lead section bewilderingly does not even mention how many members the denomination has. The casual reader comes off with the impression that this is a barely relevant ancient sect as opposed to a living, breathing 21st century religious community, which I doubt is the impression you are trying to convey.

According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. I recommend that you read that section of the Manual of Style carefully, and edit accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently writing a draft regarding the Shamate subculture in China, and I am now adding categories to the page; however, I think Category:Chinese subcultures would fit if it existed. Can I create a new category for just one page? QuickQuokka 07:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not think of other pages, already in existence, that could appropriately be added to the category that you propose? -- Hoary (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: If we're being honest, I haven't really researched any other Chinese subcultures other than maybe Yabi, but that is because the article had info on both the Yabi and Shamate subcultures (also signature change yay) QuickQuokka 09:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka: Then the existing Category:Chinese youth culture sounds better to me. It already has a sub-culture article but two is still a bit low for a new category. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puteri Indonesia#External links has twenty (20) infoboxes navboxes. This seems excessive to me. But the way they are broken down into multiple successive pageants makes it difficult to consolidate. So I came here to see if we can get a rough consensus on a way forward with this.

I would bring this up at WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants, but it is effectively defunct. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree, @Bri. But at least those are collapsed (they're navboxes by the way, rather than infoboxes). I'd be much more concerned about all the tables in the "Before Puteri Indonesia" section, which all point to the relevant articles anyway. How are they improving the article? ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked that very same question on another pageant article, but will have to go find it. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thailand at the Big Four beauty pageants. The main argument was exactly what you brought up: there really wasn't any new info there, just a rehashing of tables listed elsewhere. I attempted to bundle Bangladesh at major beauty pageants, but messed it up. This verbosity is a problem with a lot of pageant series articles (among many other issues). ☆ Bri (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teahouse, I'm a mentor to new user @QS Messenger who is asking me at User_talk:Mujinga#Question_from_QS_Messenger_(20:16,_19_January_2025) for help with making a wikibook. I suggested they come here but they asked me to ask on their behalf. Their request is as follows -

Is there a way to store or save the current status of a Wiki Book while compiling and editing? The book I’ve begun is meant as a historical time reference for a particular place with a focus on notable people and their legacy. It’s intended as a convenient compilation of Wikipedia pages. If it can only be legally printed within the bounds of Wikimedia, that’s fine—though I’d like to add a Forward which could include reference to those not found in WIKI. The problem I’m encountering is saving the pages as a book from one session to the next day, though still being logged on. I’m assuming (perhaps wrongly) the only means of creating the book is saving it locally through .pdf—yet then it wouldn’t make sense for the “create a book” page to have a non-functional save button...

Thanks if anyone can help with this! Mujinga (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Books the book system was withdrawn in 2021, but it points you to Wikipedia:Books#What alternatives are there?, which says there's a thing called the "Book Creator" - from the description, it sounds as if you can set up a book and come back to it later, though I've never tried it. ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga A comment on the re-use aspect. Anyone can take Wikipedia content and compile it into something they print externally, even to sell, provided they follow the creative commons rules described at WP:REUSE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi i made a draft page at Draft:De Anza Boulevard. is there anything i can improve

Thanks! Leonardo da vin (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Leonardo da vin. You need to base your article on references to reliable, published sources that devote significant coverage to this road as a topic. Linking to Google Maps does not establish notability. Read the general guidance at WP:NROAD. Cullen328 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In the page for Bipin Singh Thounaojam, I have made the majority of the recent edits, and had split them into relevant sub-headings as well within the article. However, someone got rid of the sub-headings yesterday, making the article look cluttered. Should I re-add the sub-headings or leave the page as it is? Indianfootballfan29 (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Indianfootballfan29 Please see the bold, revert, discuss process. You did a bold edit, someone else reverted it, now you both need to discuss it. Ultraodan (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/key/User:Bobanfasil

suspected sock, be careful Cenderabird (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing that you have a long history of editing as IP 136.232.10.214 and then recently established account User:Indianfootballfan29. Going forward, stop editing without logging in. Separately, there is an investigation as to whether you account is a false account created by Bobanfasil, who has been identified as having used many accounts (sockpuppetry). David notMD (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is there a way I can prove I'm not connected to that account? Since I'm not in any way linked to it. Indianfootballfan29 (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The suspicion is because Bobanfasil used many accounts to edit Indian football articles. Sockpuppet investigations are conducted by experienced people, so if you are not connected you should be cleared to continue. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just started looking into Wikipedia bots and I’m keen to learn more. Can one user use bots made by someone else, or do you need to make your own? How do they actually get used? Also, anyone know of a good guide that explains everything in simple terms? KiltedKangaroo (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KiltedKangaroo I don't know about "simple" but you should start reading at WP:Bots. Most editors use bots made by others and creating one's own is subject to the WP:Bot policy, which is quite strict. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I have a more formal tone to my article that I'm creating: https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Draft:Bckidwellsings%3DRadhikaVekaria Bckidwellsings (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bckidwellsings, welcome to the Teahouse. Blue text like the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia is a link. Click it to see more. The main tone problems I see are "As her life progressed, she found her vocation in music as a form of healing" and "She continues to advocate and celebrate the ancient wisdom of the Vedas in the 21st century for peace, harmony and internal truth." PrimeHunter (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft name Draft:Bckidwellsings=RadhikaVekaria is confusing, but if a reviewer accepts it, will be changed to Radhika Vekaria. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bckidwellsings. With what I understand from your User Page, you have a conflict of interest with Radhika Vekaria, Nicole Zuraitis, Jeff Harnar and Tony Glausi. Of your edits to articles (xtools) all of them have been to an article in your "Friends" name. If you haven't already I would encourage you to read WP:COIEDIT and WP:DCOI. Please follow the instructions on WP:DCOI to declare it properly. Happy Editing, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bckidwellsings. Because of your conflicts of interests, you are strongly discouraged from further editing of the articles you are personally connected to. Please read WP:COIE for a simple conflict of interest guide. Thanks. Tarlby 16:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me understand how to make a page on Wikipedia look good and actually be reliable? My first page was declined because it was "Unreliable", which I understand. Roingus Wiki (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They most likely are referring to sources. You can see info on reliable sources Here Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have created and submitted for AfC three drafts without references. See WP:42 for requirements for references. Do not submit any drafts without references, as that just wastes reviewers' precious time. David notMD (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, new editors are advised to work on improving edisting articles before attmempting to create articles. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Roingus Wiki WP:BACKWARD might be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I am currently writing an article about the Shamate subculture in China, and I found this source, however, I checked the RSP list and it is deprecated.

I see that it has a lot of unreliable information, but this seems relatively non-controversial. Can I use it still or is it better not to? QuickQuokka 15:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. there are a ton of other both English and Chinese-language sources which are almost certainly high-quality QuickQuokka 15:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka Given how many sources I found in a custom Google search, I don't think you need to use a deprecated one, however "uncontroversial". Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Thank you for your advice! And yes, I am absolutely ecstatic at the amount of high-quality sources there are. I currently have over 46 open tabs of sources with more on the way. QuickQuokka 16:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid over-referencing David notMD (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]