Hi! Few days back, I created a draft in Afc, Draft:Kappa Ursae Majorids, I havent received any reply. Is there any way to...just have a reviewer to review it? Forgive me if I sounded impatient, Im new here, I dont know all the rules and regulations here, So, a reply would be enough. ---- Warriorglance (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. You have to remain patient because drafts will be reviewed by AFC reviewers in a random order so, just like how the draft says it right now, it may take 2 months or more to be reviewed. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 08:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While you're waiting, Warriorglance, there's more work that you can do by yourself. The ISBN is wrong; what's the correct ISBN? Consider this: "they often receive less attention compared to more prominent meteor showers". It strikes me as pretty much a truism. I mean, I know squat about dog breeds, but I'll hazard a guess that lesser-known dog breeds often receive less attention compared to more prominent dog breeds. And the first sentence: What's singular and what's plural? -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary All right, All right, I will correct those mistakes. But the isbn is correct, you can search that isbn in Google and you will get a result. I don't know what's the problem here. Warriorglance (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warriorglance, the closest I find at WorldCat is OCLC 958134990; but this has different editors and no ISBN (correct or incorrect) is specified for it. You're right about getting a result from googling: in fact you understate what Google returns. (This in particular should be authoritative.) Well then, Template:Listed Invalid ISBN is for you! As for the identities of the editors, here's a wild guess: Are Jenniskens et al perhaps the authors of a particular piece you're citing within the Proceedings? -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was this site. You are right, It has different authors. I will correct it. But as you can see, the isbn is same. So, How do you use the above template. Warriorglance (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, Warriorglance, I'd say "Just skip any mention of the dud ISBN." But it appears frequently and conspicuously; so if you skipped it somebody might later add it, with the same ill-effect. And therefore I've fixed the matter for you, and also specified all the authors and the title of the paper you cited. (I'm tempted to add "So now you owe me a beer." But of course soliciting for payment, whether of bucks or booze, is a no-no.) NB the place where a conference is held is not necessarily the place ("location" in Wikipedia-speak) of publication of a volume of the "proceedings" of the conference. Now I see another note, specifying something on pages 355–356 of Meteoroids 2013: Proceedings of the Astronomical Conference. What's the title of the particular piece you're citing, and who wrote it? Please try to add this info yourself; if you get stuck, ask here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary Thanks a lot for rewriting the reference!👍 Now lemme try to find what you mentioned. If I got any problem, I'll just leave a message on your talk page. ----Warriorglance (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have my first article written and ready to go –– I just want to check a few things?

• There's a little notification that says, "Important, do not remove this line before article has been created." Should I remove it before hitting "publish" (since I've written the article now), or does it mean to wait until the article has been approved by an editor?
• I wrote the article in the Wikipedia wizard. My understanding is that if I hit "publish," it will go to another volunteer editor for review? It won't automatically appear on Wikipedia's home page? The code at the top is subst: AfC submission/draftnew.

Altras&gingerale (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Altras&gingerale, and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to hit "publish" in order to save your draft at all - the name was changed to "publish" some while ago to emphasise that even drafts are public, in that anybody can see them if they go looking. It doesn't mean "Publish to the main encyclopaedia".

Once you have published (i.e. saved) your draft, have a careful look at whether your sources meet WP:42 and the draft establishes that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense. If so, there will be a button that you can pick that says "Submit this draft for review" (or some such language).

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) 16:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I followed your directions and hit published, made a few more edits (added more sources to further establish independence), and then submitted for review, fingers crossed I guess! I appreciate your assistance! Altras&gingerale (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the curious, Draft:Tara Dower. And for A&G, the review system is not a queue, so could be days, weeks, or (sadly) months. David notMD (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've come across a user whose contributions all involve removing content from articles that source material from a site called "Brenton Film", and from edit summaries the user appears to have some sort of conflict of interest. I am unsure of what to do, what the Wikipedia guidelines are for this, and if my concern is even valid. Any advice/help would be appreciated. Thanks - Imconfused3456 19:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Imconfused3456, and welcome to the Teahouse. The IP's grounds for objecting to the site don't seem relevant (sources can be biased and reliable), but I doubt whether Brenton Film counts as a WP:Reliable source in the first place. It looks to me like a Blog, or at any rate an WP:SPS. I suggest asking at WP:RSN. ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how do you remove redirects from (1) subpages to pages and (2) from subpage to subpage? I have difficulty with this logic as it is now.  

Case 1: Page User:17387349L8764/List of requirements engineering tools points to the lemma List of requirements engineering tools and keeps showing as a "subpage", how to remove/unlink this?

Case 2: Page User:17387349L8764/sandbox points to User:17387349L8764/Lost series, but why when the second page has a dedicated name?

What I intend is to simply create subpages as notes; if one of them has "article qualities", it can be moved to the main page, but will the redirect still be set? How can I undo it? Thanks!

17387349L8764 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17387349L8764: you have created two subpages of your own user page, both redirects. (I cannot think of any purpose that would be achieved by doing this, which rather hampers me in giving advice.) One of them was to another redirect, and was automatically rerouted by a robot to avoid the double redirect. If you don't want these redirects to exist, you can just blank them - they're your own subpages, and no-one will mind, or even notice. I don't know what you mean by "will the redirect still be set?". If you blank the content of a redirect, it ceases to be a redirect. Maproom (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there was no particular reason. I think the auto-redirect caused the confusion. Because I moved the article once some time ago, I left it and lost to see the "mechanics" behind it. It all works now, i.e. removing the #redirect and using u1 to remove "used" subpages. 17387349L8764 (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor 17387349L8764: A page is made into a redirect simply by putting the text #redirect [[WP:Example]] at the top (as the very first text contained in the page, nothing before it). This redirects it to whatever page name is inside the [[ ]]—WP:Example here. That's it! Magic! To make it not-a-redirect anymore, you just edit the page to remove the #redirect thing. Important: this means editing the redirected page itself, not the page it is "pointing at" (redirected to). To edit your user sandbox: follow this link. Remove that #redirect part and voila.

Your "userspace" is considered "yours" and you can do whatever with it (as long as it's "productive" Wikipedia Stuff). If you want any pages in it deleted such as User:17387349L8764/List of requirements engineering tools just add the text {{u1}} at the top of the page and an admin will come along and take care of it. I suggest trying out Twinkle if you haven't as it makes easier this and many other Wikipedia tasks.

For a list of every page in your "userspace" have a look at: Special:PrefixIndex/User:17387349L8764. And to look up info about editing WP and how to do various things try Help:Contents. You're also of course welcome to ask for assistance here or the Help desk, or my talk page, and Help:Contents can direct you to other venues to find assistance as well. I hope you have a good day and if you have more questions ask away! --Slowking Man (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this absolutely clear description. This helps me a lot. The German Wikipedia does some things differently, so I have to remember in both spheres. Twinkle is activated and I may use the subpages more often when I see potential to prepare an article. I will bookmark the question/answer. Have a nice day. 17387349L8764 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in that case note also plenty of "project space" pages have interlanguage links as articles do, to go between "equivalent" pages on different language editions. So if you're more fluent in another language you might find it helpful to start from "help" pages in that, and go to the en version. (Note interlang links are kept centralized on Wikidata if you're not aware.) --Slowking Man (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I consider the comment left by User:SafariScribe? When I fix up articles, I only really look at the reason that was provided in the decline box. In this case, it was "This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission." If I fixed up this issue and this issue only, would the page have a higher chance of being accepted? Also, I'm not really sure how to interpret this statement. Are my explanations insufficient? Are they considered hard to properly interpret to the average reader? I also may need some help with the 'Analysis' section because the scholarly analyses I've found on Google Scholar that revolve around the film and its cultural impact are paid. LeGoldenBoots (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LeGoldenBoots: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, your draft would have a higher chance of being accepted if you fixed that problem. It's not a guarantee though—different reviewers have different opinions. As to how you fix the problem, the best thing to do is to imagine that you've never seen The Shining. I, for instance, have never seen it, and I am a bit confused by the draft. For example, I have no idea why "Here's Johnny!" was said, what scene it was in, why it's repeated so many times, etc. There are some comments you might want to look at on the draft. If you need to access certain paywalled sources, you should be eligible for the Wikipedia Library, which might grant you access to those sources, or you could ask at WP:TREX. Happy editing! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Relativity Alright, I had made some edits here and there to the page; particularly in the "Imagery and phrases" section. I also changed some of the vocabulary I used in sections of the article, courtesy of the comment left by User:Hoary. Would the page be in a good spot to be properly submitted now considering I fixed the issues described in the decline box, thanks to your explanation of what that really meant. (Thanks!), or should that be left for me to decide? LeGoldenBoots (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LeGoldenBoots: It's still a bit confusing. My suggestion is to have a "Plot" or "Background" section in the beginning, right after the lead, where you briefly describe the plot and the characters of the film. This section doesn't need to be cited, but it could help clear up some of the confusion as to what character does what. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thank you. LeGoldenBoots (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LeGoldenBoots, I thought I'd clean up a single, very short paragraph, as a demonstration of one kind of the work needed. But I was stumped by "Another similarity is the axe-murdering Salamanca twins, in contrast to the axe-murdered Grady twins." Maybe there's a similarity, maybe there's a contrast, maybe there's even both. But if there are both, then say so directly; don't make the sentence look as if you started it with one idea but reversed yourself less than a dozen words later. Elsewhere in the same section, the draft says that the film Ready Player One "features a plentiful of references" to the film The Shining. I suppose "features" means "has" or "shows", but your use here of "plentiful" is alien to me. (For me, and for Wiktionary, it's an adjective, not a noun.) Perhaps it's just the result of a sleepy and incomplete rewording; but whatever the reason for it, I recommend that you slowly read the draft aloud; and where it sounds strange, rewrite. Best of luck! -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for the clarification! LeGoldenBoots (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy the following question over for me:

Having a strange interaction at Empty string with an editor who seems not to be able to read or understand guidelines; I don’t really know how to talk to a person who thinks this is mandated by the MOS. Advice (or, even better, weighing in gently somewhere) requested. (Is this bad use of punctuation explicitly ruled out somewhere in MOS? Anything that requires interpretation or reading comprehension seems like it would be hard to convey to them.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So try, straightforwardly and of course with no hint of sarcasm, on Talk:Empty string. -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I know that some users on Wikipedia have alternative accounts. Is there a criteria that someone has to meet in order to legitimately have an alt account? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RedactedHumanoid: see WP:SOCKLEGIT. There's no specific criteria, but sock accounts not meeting any of those bullets are at best frowned upon. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 00:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was just wondering, Why are there a lot of articles with no references, Aren't there 'new page reviewers'? Why did they accept articles without references? Warriorglance (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Warriorglance. WP:AUTOCONFIRMED users can post articles without having them reviewed. The WP:NPP backlog is also 11,000+ and growing, so it might take a while for articles to be reviewed. Tarlby 06:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warriorglance, Template:Unreferenced is available for your use to draw attention to such articles. Even better, you can add references to reliable sources yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Ok, I know that, but why is 'Afc' there? Can you please explain the differences? Warriorglance (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Warriorglance: WP:AFC is an option that editors may use when creating articles, and it's often recommended that those (particularly new or newish editors) without sufficient experience in article creation take advantage of it because it can help them avoid having their efforts being quickly deleted if they try to add a new article directly to the encyclopedia themselves. The AfC process allows users to receive feedback on drafts for potential articles and perhaps in the process learn some more about Wikipedia editing. It's not a perfect system but it can be helpful to some; in addition, it's also a way to try to minimize the number of bad articles (e.g. excessively promotional articles) being added to the encyclopedia. As for WP:NPP, Wikipedia has more than six million articles and all Wikipedians are volunteers working in areas that interest them; those involved with NPP probably do whate they can whenever they can, but their efforts will almost always never be enough because there's simply more pages being created than there are NPP people to look them over. All Wikipedia articles are in a sense "new" pages since articles can change (sometimes drastically) from one minute to the next; moreover, all Wikipedians are in a sense "new page patrollers" because they all have the ability to either improve/clean up existing articles or tag/propose/nominate them for deletion. An unreferenced article could be an article that was bad from the start and needs to be deleted; it could be an article that started out OK but morphed into something worse over the years that just needs to be returned to its better state; or, it could be an article that has lots of potential that just needs some one to come along and devote some time to. Figuring out what is what is one of the things that Wikipedia will always have to deal with because from the very beginning it was sent up to not be a peer-reviewed publication with some sort of central editorial or approval board. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, Warriorglance, use of the Articles for Creation process is entirely optional for a large majority of active editors and is mandatory only for paid editors and those with an overt conflict of interest, and for new editors who are not yet autoconfirmed. I have written over 100 new articles and never once used the AfC process. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the fact that the drafting process only came into existence in 2011 and ACPERM didn't happen until 2018, so there are a lot of articles that were created under much, much more permissive conditions than we're used to today. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 19:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur definitely has many issues that i stumbled upon: first off his title "Maharaja" was added in a move by a certain user Rohan TheWikipedian who claimed the original title was "misspelled". I moved it back.

Now my question is, this same user has added a large amount of information in "Legacy" section which is so obviously chatgpt that i'd rather draftify than leave it sitting in article space. "fostered", "enhanced", "unity", etc etc... and its last point is the nail in the coffin which confirms it being an llm, not to mention it is completely unsourced.

Do i go ahead and boldly remove the content in question, or should i draftify because the article truly doesn't look like it belongs in article space. ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scratchinghead The article has been around since 2007, so you can't WP:DRAFTIFY it. You can remove unsourced material, add {{cn}} tags or send it to WP:AfD and you should definitely expand your concerns on its Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After going through the edit history on the article, I would restore the version before Rohan began editing, as their edits also removed some sourced content. Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Talk:Alison Weir (activist) § Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2025

Greetings,

I have an outstanding extended-confirmed-protect edit request that is one of several needed for a page that has been subjected to a rigorous crtique by the organization of the subject of the page. However, there is no editor with extended-confirmed status paying attention to my efforts. I need a volunteer with that editorial status to work with me to more expediently approve or critique my editorial efforts on that page. Any editor with an interest in and understanding of media bias is especially invited to help, as it is the leitmotif of the subject of this page and the controversy surrounding her.

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to help!

Kenfree (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alison_Weir_(activist)#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_11_January_2025 in case anyone is interested. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...which is under PIA sanctions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that is why it requires an extended-confirmed editor to authorize edits...I'm only about half way to the 500-edit mark so I need an editor who's "made the grade" to respond to my edit requests Kenfree (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is no "talk" on her talk page....my edit request just sits there with the crickets Kenfree (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, user: Ultraodan did respond to your edit request. You just didn't like their response, and said so in no uncertain terms. I can't blame them for stepping back, and I'm certainly not interested in working on it after seeing your response. Only 7 editors who have that talk page on their watchlist have visited it in the last month. Maybe one of the other 6 will respond. Meters (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraodan did not want to do the homework, and said so. A ten-page critique of this webpage has been issued by Alison Weir's organization which started the thread. Anyone who takes the time to read it will be in a position to judge whether what is being represented as Alison Weir's views are truly her views or a tendentious distortion of her views, very poorly sourced, I should add. Kenfree (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't assume what I am or am not willing to do. I explained my problems on the talk page and left when it became clear it wasn't worth my free time to deal with it. @Meters gave some good advice about that below this. Ultraodan (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw the request and the response. And decided it was not worth my time to help someone who who reacted like that. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit in contentious topics full stop if I can help it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 06:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

then don"t! Kenfree (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're all volunteers. If you want to find someone to volunteer their time and effort to help you then perhaps you should have explained what your edit request was about before taking the first person to respond to task for not reading your mind. Starting your response off with I cannot tell you how disappointed I am in your response to my edit request. You seem to be totally unaware of the purpose behind the edit request is not a good start and is not likely to convince anyone to help. Meters (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ultraodan had made a previous edit to the page in response to my request, during which my rationale was cited, so he wasn't a complete stranger to it....that said, I believe the ten-page critique of this wikipedia entry by Weir's organization is necessary reading for anyone working on revising this page in response to it, and that's not every editor's cup of tea Kenfree (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kenfree, I had a look at your request and the following discussion. I found it confusing. You want some text moved, but it's not clear what text: the text you want moved is not indented or otherwise distinguished from the request above it. Later, it says "END OF QUOTE", but there's no corresponding start of quote. I expect I could puzzle it out with enough effort; but like everyone else here I'm a volunteer, and I have better uses for my time.

tl;dr: If you want someone to help you, make it clear what it is you want. Maproom (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it looks like you were reading pretty far past the actual edit request, so I have reformatted to distinguish the edit request per se from the responsive commentary. Please let me know if this suffices. Kenfree (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at the Talk page (and added courtesy link above). P.S., to set off the part you want to quote, see {{blockquote}}. Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was wondering if I can add a screenshot from a music video to the infobox for a music single page that doesn't have an artwork, for example "V.A.N (song)" and "Suffocate (Knocked Loose song)". If I could, I'd also use the Special:Upload page to upload the screenshot right? Gabriella Grande (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It'll be non-free content, so make sure you fill out a proper fair use rationale. DS (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okayy thank you so much!. Gabriella Grande (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I promote an article (Michael Porter Jr.) to c-class. Sushidude21! (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article class assessments are done by specific WikiProjects based upon their own sets of criteria. You'd need to go to the relevant WikiProject(s) and raise the issue with them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 04:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jéské Couriano, this doesn't seem to be true any more. These days the AfC reviewer is invited both to add project templates to a fresh article's talk page, and to specify a (single) quality class (whether "stub" or near or far above this) for the article, a class that thereupon propagates to all the project templates. Certainly the promotion-to-article process doesn't point out to the reviewer that standards may differ among projects, let alone encourage the reviewer to read up on the respective standards and act according to what's written. (Actually I've pretty much stopped specifying classes myself. Most recent example: Talk:Tara Dower.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answering @Sushidude21!:'s question: edit the Talk:Michael Porter Jr. page. Near the top change "class=Start" to "class=C". I believe the change is justified. A formal evaluation is not required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been working on a draft article and wanted to know if and how this synopsis of a podcast episode can be added.

https://www.stewardshipcommons.com/article/rajeev-peshawaria/2024/08/29/ep-5-bhargav-sri-prakash-on-digital-vaccines-and-the-future-of-healthcare

I would also welcome any feedback about the draft

Thank you, KrisJohanssen (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be a user contributed content platform, and so would not count as a reliable source. However in general, a podcast from a trustworthy organisation (eg a journal) or from a recognised and proven expert in the topic could be considered as a source. Peer-reviewed material, reviews, or carfully edited material would be superior. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Hi there! Going through recent changes, I've been seeing a lot of edits tagged as possible vandalism that change links to germany to nazi germany, or similar. Examples include this edit and this one. I've been a bit of a lurker here on wikipedia for a while, but I don't edit a lot and I'm unfamiliar with our guidelines for this. Should Germany be linked, perhaps specifically to Germany#Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany, or should Nazi Germany itself be linked? Thanks, Sashanatane (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s inappropriate in these cases. It would be due and relevant the political climate is discussed/relevant, for example they served in the army, or experienced food shortage as a result of being in Nazi Germany. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm new to creating Wiki articles. Is there a way to change the name of this draft from Caitlin McCarthy (activist) to Caitlin McCarthy (writer)? Thank you! Link: Draft:Caitlin McCarthy (activist) WistahHoney508 (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is done via a move; I have moved it to Draft:Caitlin McCarthy (writer). Lectonar (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant; it will be placed at the proper title when accepted. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @WistahHoney508. You will need to remove all the external links from the text. If a link is to a reliable source which verifies a specific piece of information about McCarthy, then convert it into a reference. If it is to a general topic that Wikipedia has an article about (such as Métis) then convert it into a Wikilink. Otherwise, get rid of it. ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems like advertisement.

My username is: Saurabh zadoo Saurabh Zadoo (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Saurabh Zadoo, you just came onto the #wikipedia-en-help live chat channel. As we stated, your draft is absolutely promotional and will be correctly deleted. Carefully read our criteria for inclusion at WP:NMUSICIAN and then read guidance on writing an autobiography at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. We highly discourage autobiographical writing. qcne (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More explanation on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, please I would like to know where in this article (NU) should be improved. Ok1616 17:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Okwanite, and welcome to the Teahouse.

That draft looks not bad for a first attempt - I haven't checked the sources, but assuming they are all reliable sources, they may well be enough to establish that he is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. (It depends on whether they are wholly independent of him, and how much they say about him, as well).

What you need to do is to put some more content in that shows the reader why he is notable: which independent writers have noticed him, and what have they said about him?

But in general, you won't necessarily get this sort of feedback at the Teahouse: the purpose of submitting it for review is to get the feedback. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Draft:Ndifreke Ukpong. I agree that this was not ready for mainspace. Despite having references, the draft has very little to say about him. Content from the refs can be paraphrased. Also, refs 4-7 are reviews confirming existance of his books. Those confirm the books but do not contribute to establishing his notability because they are not about him, or if they are, that information is not used in the draft. David notMD (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I was attempting to find direct detailing about an author, I might look for reviews of their works in reliable sources and apply them to the individual works listed. Often, reviews provide specific third-party detail about the author. BusterD (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm not sure if this is something that someone is able to do, but I have seen stuff that leads me to believe that people are able to set it so their custom made sign-off automatically appears rather than the normal one. It's a pain having to copy-paste my sign-off every time just to look cool... hah... Ali Beary _{(talk2me!) (stalk me?!)} 18:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ali Beary, see WP:CUSTOMSIG for instructions. Schazjmd (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd, thank you!!!!! Ali Beary _{(talk2me!) (stalk me?!)} 18:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to view a deleted page and its history? I have found how to view a deleted page talk discussion history, but not the page itself once deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any user in good standing may request to look at a deleted page. Often the request may be made at WP:Requests for undeletion, but I could assist now. Which page are you interested in? BusterD (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly asking first just as I work around. So it has to be done in a request to undelete a page? I'd rather look at the deleted content first, and not need to request to undelete the page. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the page covers the circumstance you've described, following In the second use case.... BusterD (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you'd like to run for admin yourself... In that circumstance, you would be trusted to look at the material without having to undelete it or userfy it. BusterD (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a weak case for being an admin. Interesting that only admin are allowed to even look. I can understand why they can take action, but to merely look? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can look at the content, then it's not deleted. DS (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting point. Though I suppose by that logic ever "deleted edit" which is in the edit history is "not deleted" as well? Iljhgtn (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've been thinking for a while that there could be a new perm to allow trusted non-admin users to view deleted content (excluding suppressed, obvs, or anything otherwise flagged as too sensitive). This would be helpful in sock-hunting, evaluating G4-able recreations, etc. Slight downside risk is that it would provide a backdoor to undeletion by copypasting, but like any perm this could be removed from anyone abusing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find the deletion discussion for Society of Knights of the Round Table? Sushidude21! (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sushidude21! I see that you have used Proposed deletion, which works differently from Articles for deletion (AFD). A proposed deletion does not involve a discussion. Jolly1253 (talk) 03:53, 23 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]

I need help, I found an edit on Recent CHanges that seemed promotional to me. I reverted the edit but it seems this article has been edited by multiple accounts all trying to fix it. [1][2] and I don't know if they are the same person or organization. MessageApp (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Telecommunications Museum was, and is, about a now closed museum. NationalCommunicationMuseum tried to hijack the article, replacing it its content by unreferenced and promotional material about a different museum. Their changes have been reverted, and their account indefinitely blocked. Maproom (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article regarding a new South Korean football club, Gijang Citizen FC. I'd like to include it in more categories, but some categories are missing.

Under the category:Football in South Korea, there is a subcategory for Category:Football in South Korea by city, but only one city is listed, Seoul. I'd like to add Gijang the city of Busan's subcategory. However, but there is no such subcategory?

How do I add the club, or create a new subcategory? OttoSilver (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OttoSilver There are instructions at Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating_category_pages, but it seems unlikely that article would meet the WP:N criteria at this point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]