• 21 Aug, 2019

• By, Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tenryuu, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

• To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
• About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247

Kyoko Masaki Submission page rejected.

I really want to understand how to improve the submission to be accepted. Is there anyone that could revise or assist me in editing the page. User:Kyoko Masaki/sandbox#Community Volunteer

One point is adding references... Computer skills are not my best point. Can I please ask for a mentor, to assist me..

Thank you Kyoko Masaki (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoko Masaki Hello. The good news is that your draft was declined, not rejected- rejected would mean that you could not resubmit it. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

You seem to be writing about yourself- this is highly discouraged, though not forbidden. Please read the autobiography policy.

You have basically posted your resume- not a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you and how you are a notable person as Wikipedia defines one. You have no sources at all, actually. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can learn more about adding references by seeing Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For the information. 1st, this page is not about me, it is about my wife who passed away on Monday 27th of January. I understand a number of Wikipedia writer or revisers keep saying that it is discourage to write about myself and I agree. But, honestly this is about my wife. This page was originally started by the Local Hyogo prefecture government. But, their writing skills are different. More complimentary I think. So, I took over. 2nd in relation to the references, thank you I can do now. Also, I think I would like to add some pages to Wikipedia because there are many references that are on found on Wikipedia. 3rd. I have added reference now. can I ask someone to check? and give next advise. And lastly, the last 4 awards are all outside sources, I maybe its better to remove them?

Thank you again for the information on adding references it was excellent. I will start again tomorrow... Kyoko Masaki (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry to hear of the loss of your wife. I might gently suggest that you change your username so that it better represents you, you may do this via Special:GlobalRenameRequest. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to start a different account and them continue? Kyoko Masaki (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may do that, but then your prior edits would not be associated with your new account. You could still go to and edit the draft you created, but your edit history would then be spread among two different accounts. Renaming your account would transfer your edits to your new username. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will look at the link you gave me. Special:GlobalRenameRequest. 331dot (talk) Please remember I am not that good at computer skills. But, thank you for helping me. I appreciate your kindness. Kyoko Masaki (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for your loss, @Kyoko Masaki. One of the things that makes it very difficult to write successfully about yourself or people close to you is the core Wikipedia principle of verifiability. Effectively, this means that absolutely nothing that you know about your wife should appear in the article unless the information can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely revised your draft at User:Kyoko Masaki/sandbox to have sections that are used for biography articles. Local and minor awards are not taken into account for establishing notability but can be mentioned; I addeda Recognition subsection for her honorary PhD. Please understand that it is unlikely that a reviewer will consider her actions as a cancer support group volunteer as Wikipedia notable. David notMD (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand. I will need to continue researching Wikipedia help files. Just a personal note. Kyoko passed last Monday, but I actually feel lighter doing this project. Thank you... Kyoko Masaki (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can u make a redirect

I’m making an article called the Siege of Jerusalem (1967) but I wanna add redirects,And no I'm Not talking about the “{{Redirect serveral|Siege of Jerusalem)” I want to add like a Redirect like “Redirect to:Siege of Jerusalem” Here’s the name of the Article Draft:Siege of Jerusalem (1967) Noam Elyada (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noam Elyada, welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Siege of Jerusalem (1967) starts with "Draft:". That means it's in draftspace which is not part of the encyclopedia. We don't make redirects or links to drafts in the encyclopedia. They are also excluded from searches by default. It's a deliberate decision to hide drafts from our readers. Draft:Siege of Jerusalem might point out your draft but I guess that's not what you want. If somebody happens to find their way to the non-existing article Siege of Jerusalem (1967) then we have a feature which automatically shows there is a draft by that name but that's all. It's not meant for readers but for editors who might be planning to create the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but when I publish it how can make a redirect Noam Elyada (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noam Elyada: Wikipedia:Redirect has general help but I wouldn't spend time on it now. You can do that if it's actually published. The opening sentence alone ("the third war forced upon Israel") may turn off many reviewers. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :] Noam Elyada (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

on technical/uncontroversial/generally not very debatable cases of moving stuff without redirects

"stuff" in this case being "(version x)" redirects, like olivia harrison (version 2)

in cases like that one, where a redirect evidently exists as an unfinished or botched move and has little to no substantive history, would opening an rm as an uncontroversial technical request be the better option, or should it be tagged for g6 or something instead? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 17:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Consarn I don't entirely understand what you're asking. G6 would seem to apply to the redirect, but I don't see why you'd want to move the redirect page, via an RM or by other means. Are you referring to moving a page without leaving a redirect? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the latter seems to be the more common result, though it doesn't actually seem to matter a lot. for example, this redirect was deleted, while this one was moved without a redirect

though considering how inconsequential this is, i wouldn't be surprised if the answer to "which is the correct option?" was "yes" consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd ask the RMT regulars if they can complete the pageswap. In your first example, you can tell them the pageswap of Olivia Trinidad Arias and Olivia Harrison was incomplete, leaving behind page history and a confusing redirect at (version 2) instead of the Trinidad Arias title. Rotideypoc41352public (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like something to just take to page movers and/or admins' talk pages, then. thanks consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Website of subject in infobox of BLP

I have seen the "official websites" of various subjects in the infobox, typically at the bottom, of various BLPs. I am currently engaged in a talk page discussion about Ross Ulbricht and what seems to evidently be "the official website" for the subject is freeross.org. Images have been used from the website by reliable sources before too, but there is no secondary source that I can find that clearly says in exact language that, "the official website of Ross Ulbricht is freeross.org." Is that really necessary to that degree of precise language? Does every BLP with their own personal website on it have to have a secondary source saying exactly "this XYZ.com is the official website of XYZ person."? That seems to be a high bar for just including a website on an infobox of a BLP when freeross.org appears to be the official website both by its own clear declaration, as well as its use by a reliable source as a source for a clear image as cited above. I only take this comment here and beyond the talk page discussion happening here because I was not sure of the policy in this case and wanted some added uninvolved minds to take a look. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: The official Twitter account of Ross Ulbricht, linked this website, that’s a signal that they are associated with this website. GrabUp - Talk 19:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from the talk discussion! There may not be any official policy governing this specific guideline so it may just be up to editor consensus. I would prefer it not be in the infobox, and I've left it in the External Links section as a compromise of sorts. Template: Infobox Person does say it should be an official website, and of course Wikipedia-wide guidelines like WP:BIO and WP:V still apply. But at this point it might just be editor preference. For what it's worth I'd prefer it not be there, and I've probably broken WP:1RR enforcing that, but if someone else wants to re-add it at this point, I won't put up a fight. guninvalid (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guninvalid: We have guidelines about this. Read WP:ELOFFICIAL. GrabUp - Talk 20:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and inclusion as the first link in external links and the infobox is supported by policy, "The official website should be included in infoboxes such as infobox company, and by convention are listed first in the External links section.", not mere preference, which if we were going by anyway, I would prefer that it is listed in the infobox as it had been as the stable version for well over a year or more prior to removal by editor Guninvalid. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GrabUp, there is ongoing discussion about this at the talk page of the subject matter. There does seem to be some confusion still with some editors calling for, "...a RS indicating that Ulbricht has full control of the website"...and that without this then supposedly, "...it should not be included in the infobox."

I think this is setting a different standard for this particular BLP than we use for other BLPs and "official websites" to be included in the infobox. Am I mistaken here? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Draft articles?

Hello, I'm a new wikipedia user. I'm currently working on a draft for a rowing club. The article is in the drafts section because I started it before I was an autoconfirmed user, but now I am. My problem is I uploaded the clubs emblem, and I was informed by a patroller that non-free images not used on published articles are on the list for speedy deletion and will be purged after seven days.

My question is if I am allowed to move my article from the draft space to the main space (once it's actually ready, which will hopefully be soon), because I'm autoconfirmed now, and am able to start an article without having to go through the drafting process? Sorry if what I'm saying sounds silly I'm still a little confused on the terminology and I'm still learning, feel free to correct me. Pixzzl (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pixzzl, it depends if you have a conflict of interest with the organization. If you are, for example, affiliated with it, you should instead use articles for creation instead of moving it to mainspace yourself, so that an editor without a COI can review it. You of course always can use that process, and I highly recommend it for new editors even if they have no COI—it will still get a review from a substantially more experienced editor, and if the article has problems, you'll just get advice rather than seeing it up for deletion. That said, the article contains a lot of inappropriate and rather promotional material, and that's probably due to a fundamental problem—it relies mostly on sources from the organization itself. An article should primarily focus on what reliable and independent sources say a subject, not what they say about themself. If there is not a substantial quantity of such reference material about a subject available at all, the subject is not notable and it would not be appropriate for there to be an article about it. Currently, the sources cited in the article do not show notability. Seraphimblade 21:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the border as to whether or not to declare COI in the talk-page because I am from the same township, however I'm into rowing independent of the club. I will declare one now.

Is the promotional material you reference the blob of italicized text in the founding section? If so, that's just there for citation. I also have a some sources I haven't added but have used, and I've stored the links in a comment. Those sources are my proof of notability, it's a couple articles on the club that I've found. I also believe the club is notable enough to be moved to the mainspace as last spring, the club had their men's varsity eight place 8th place in the USRowing Youth Nationals. Alongside that they had a women's U16 varsity boat place 12th. The clubs they raced against all contain wikipedia pages, like Oakland Strokes & Gillin Boat Club/St. Joes Prep.

Thank you so much for your help! Pixzzl (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are certainly better. Try to work those into the article (editors won't really look for sources in hidden comments; I know I certainly didn't think of that!), and cite those, sticking mainly to what they said. Definitely that long pull quote needs removed, everything except the initial mention of the organization's name should have bolding removed, and probably the motto being in both the infobox and article is a bit much. Unless any independent sources have commented on the importance of their board and coaches, then that, too, is probably excess detail and a bit too reminiscent of the organization's own site. Seraphimblade 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the motto from the article and keep it in the infobox because it's a part of the standard Template:Infobox rowing club. I was told that I should just cut the lists of coaches and board members, as it will require frequent updates, so I'll just have it be a description of the positions of the board and the head coach(es). I'm really grateful for all your help! Pixzzl (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as to the image—don't sweat it if that gets deleted or get in a rush because of it. If the article goes into mainspace eventually, it can just be reuploaded at that point. Seraphimblade 21:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. This is good to know. I will keep the article in the draft space for now as I work on writing it. Pixzzl (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend deleting the list of coaches and the table of board members. Otherwise that information would need to be updated freqently. Readers of the article can be directed to the club's website instead, via an External link. David notMD (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll probably remove the lists and just have the board members section without the names, and rewrite the coaches section to have the girls and boys head coach only, similar to Oakland Strokes page. Pixzzl (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not allowed to talk on Talk pages

I put a comment on a talk page that got erased and I got warned just like Talk pages were Article pages. Jidanni (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are for discussion related to changing the article. Encouraging people to use Google to find out information about the topic isn't related to changing the article, unless it is in some way that isn't clear. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jidanni, the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss specific actionable proposals to improve the article. It is not to spout off about a Google search you conducted without even mentioning any reliable sources that you discovered that could actually be used to improve the article in the context of suggesting specific changes. Cullen328 (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jidanni, even if your objective is to alert people to the dangers of sucralose (not what a talk page is for), you can do better than that. Give a link to an article in a reputable publication. The findings of a Google search can depend on the reader's search history, the location of their IP address, and maybe other things. Maproom (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is I'll take Sucralose#Possible health effects with a grain of sucralose, sure beats the health effects of salt. I'll stick to Wikipedia for my sources. Jidanni (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help getting a page unlocked.

Last year I created a page for Serenity Cox a well known Canadian performer. After 6 months it was flagged for her not being notable enough, and after a debate (with many agreeing she was) it was deleted. 9 months later there has been much more press coverage and award wins and I would love to revamp a page about her. Unfortunately it is currently locked and require an administrator to unlock it. Can anyone help me out on how to navigate getting this unlocked? Here is a recent article dedicated to her for a noteworthy source: https://avn.com/news/video/night-shift-real-life-hotwife-serenity-cox-goes-pro-with-vmg-178673 SanDiegoDan (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SanDiegoDan: You can create it in Draftspace, then submit for review. You'll need WP:AW. If the article is accepted at AfC, then someone, normally the reviewer, will ask for the WP:SALT to be removed. - Rich 17:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SanDiegoDan I think you can use deletion review for this. in WP:DRVPURPOSE, it states "Deletion review may be used (...) if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" which this seems to fall under. I'd suggest creating a draft that meets Wikipedia's policies, ready to move, so an administrator can reasonably unsalt the page and move the draft into article space. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 20:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Job or Fun or Help or Desire or Interested

are you guys here on Wikipedia for a Job or just fun, or Help with building encyclopedia, or Desire of editing, or interested on Wikipedia??. just a question 👐. KPopMachine (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @KPopMachine. It can Depends on the person, they maybe can do this for fun or just to volunteer. Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 21:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KPopMachine, please see Wikipedia community#Motivation. -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Biographies of a Living Person important?

I get its a living person but why do BLPs have such strict guidelines and requirements for NPOV, no original research, and verifiability? I really don't understand the need that "wikipedia has to get every thing about a living person right" mindset. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because living people can be harmed by false information being spread about them on one of the most visited sites on the internet. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: See Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident for the origin of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleSubCubicGraph, at first glance your question looks innocent; but coming on top of this thread and this one, your participation threatens to be a net drain on other editors' time. If you still don't understand BLP policy or don't agree with it, please avoid editing such articles, and instead work to improve some of the very many articles here that are not about living people. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary I am not trying to drain anyones time, a huge portion of WP articles are contentious topics, BLPs, and pages that require ECP. I legitimately, inside my brain do not understand why BLP is so strict. I want to learn how and why Wikipedia policies are what they are today so I can make good edits. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple solution, SimpleSubCubicGraph: Edit articles that aren't BLPs. -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleSubCubicGraph, MrOllie's reply above is accurate, but not the full story. Living persons can sue Wikipedia if we make defamatory claims without substantial evidence. Maproom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleSubCubicGraph, the premise of your question is misleading. Please be aware that Verifiability and No original research and the Neutral point of view are our three core content policies and they apply to all 6,948,107 articles on Wikipedia. Those policies are enforced more rapidly and stringently on biographies of living people but they apply everywhere. Cullen328 (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs are often tainted by information from the subjects themselves - including interviews and press releases - also from paid agents and unpaid associates and celebrity fans. Such bias can also include removing content seen as negative to their reputations (or adding negative content that is false). Hence, strict standards. Medical/health articles are also held to a strict standard (see WP:MEDRS) because misinformation can potentially harm people. David notMD (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First time dealing with a COI edit request

Resolved

I've just answered an edit request made by an editor with a conflict of interest and I'm not confident that I have complied with the WP:COIRESPONSE guideline, particularly: "Make sure nothing important is missing. Responding editors should do their own search for independent sources. Do not rely on the sources offered by the paid editor." I have searched for reliable sources on the topic other than the ones provided by the COI editor, and I am unable to fully assess the reliability of the sources. I am also unsure of the reliability of the sources provided by the editor because of various issues. If someone can assist me with assessing my response to the edit request, it would be highly appreciated. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 22:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Talk:Trendyol § History ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkle & Fade, looking at the edit request that you answered, it looks like you did due diligence at checking the information and gave a reasonable response to the request. I think you did a good job there. Anytime that you're uncomfortable with an edit request or your ability to evaluate the sources, just leave it for someone else to do. Schazjmd (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Concerns in the Greek Genocides Article

Hello everyone,

The Greek Genocide article faces a neutrality concern from me. The existing version of this article displays a Greek nationalist viewpoint together with a Western media tradition that favors the autochthonous Greek nationalism instead of following Wikipedia's fundamental neutrality mandate. These are the article’s specific problems supported by evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Greek_genocide

Attribution and Terminology: The article currently supports Turkish nationalist figures as the direct perpetrators behind the genocide through its comparison of the Turkish Nationalist Government to a “Kemalist” regime which implies a system of command from one central authority. Research conducted by Stanford J. Shaw in his book History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey and Edward Erickson in his studies demonstrates that state-directed involvement in violence did not occur during this period as most operations emerged from local irregular militias and warlords. Using Kemalist as an official label to describe the governing body distorts Turkey's democratic development by presenting it as a totalitarian dictatorship although the country was forming its government in the aftermath of Ottoman decline.

Selective Sourcing: The present article heavily relies on supportive sources for its one-sided viewpoint while insufficiently showing neutral perspectives. The existing narrative of Turkish guilt from Western and Greek sources finds documented evidence in British archives alongside studies from the International Association of Genocide Scholars that present diversified information about communal warfare during that chaotic period.

Violation of Neutrality: Wikipedia's NPOV policy collides with the biased selection of sources and the application of emotional language which results in historical factual misrepresentation. For a neutral article to meet its standards the present scholarly disputes about responsibility should be noted and major perspectives must receive proportional representation based on their scholarly prominence.

This article's neutrality should be examined because I want to work on content revision with others. All statements require proper backing from balanced reliable sources together with the use of strict language neutrality. Ludusian (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ludusian. The proper place to discuss this matter is Talk:Greek genocide where editors with interest and expertise in the topic can respond. The Teahouse is not the place to iron out content disputes but rather a place to ask and answer questions about editing Wikipedia, and about its policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you I will take the discussion to proper place Ludusian (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt about the relevance of interlinks to non-English-speaking Wikipedias

Greetings ! I have doubts about putting interlinks to Wikipedias others than "Wikipedia in English" concerning articles being lists of first names.

I am thinking for example of the "List of Irish-language given names".
I would like to do that but I don't know if it's an acceptable behavior. We are talking about articles being lists. Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt about the relevance to what of such interlinks, Anatole-berthe? And, if we put Breton aside for a moment, why not link (via Wikidata, of course) from List of Irish-language given names to fr:Liste de prénoms irlandais? (How might doing so not be acceptable behavior?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about putting interlinks to Wikipedia in others languages than English for the "names" themselves in an article that is a "list of names".

Fictious example : There are an article about the given name "Séadna" in "Irish" but not in English.

Can I add an interlink to the entry about this name in the article "List of Irish-language given names" ?

This example is fictious because there are not an article about this given name in any language version of Wikipedia even if there are an entry on Wikidata. Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly what you're asking, you may find the answer at Help:Interlanguage links. Deb (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is my article well-structured?

Hello!

I am currently writing a draft about Shamate, and I would like to know if you think the article is good structure-wise because I'm still not very confident about my abilities. Obviously there's no content yet, but fret not, I will soon start actually adding content to the article, because I first edit it off-wiki.

Thanks, QuickQuokka 08:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. by off-wiki I mean I edit it on a markdown file on my computer. QuickQuokka 09:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QuickQuokka, it's hard to judge the structure when there's almost no content. Also, the lead should summarise the content - and therefore be written once the body of the article is almost complete. Maproom (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New disambiguation issue

Would someone please advise on how to apply disambiguation edits (or page) for my new article on Warren Brandt the artist vs Warren W. Brandt the university president. Thank you! Remando (talk) Remando (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC) PS I see I also broke that article's Categories :( Remando (talk)[reply]

Hello, Remando. I believe that the artist is probably the primary topic and that disambiguation can by handled by hatnotes. Cullen328 (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes are amazing! 🤯 Thank you, @Cullen328! ~~ Remando (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more question, if I may? When I type "Warren Brandt" into the main Search Wikipedia bar, only the first article, Warren W. Brandt previews. Is there another adjustment I can make so that both articles preview? Remando (talk)

Remando, that search term is controlled by a redirect page. Since you and I agree that the artist is the primary topic, I just edited the redirect page so that it now leads to the artist not the university president. If another editor disagrees, it can be discussed then. Another option is to remove the (artist) disambiguator and have the biography of the artist just be titled "Warren Brandt", and let the hat note help readers looking for the university president. Cullen328 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you! I'm happy to leave as you've edited it -- OR remove the (artist) disambiguator -- whichever you think is appropriate. ~~~ Remando (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It's a crazy coincidence but both Warren Brandts worked at SIU Carbondale. No family relation that I am aware of, but the artist was there as art dept chairman from '59-'61 while the other was president there from '74 to '79. This coincidence does not define them, but I suspect it confuses some who are researching SIU Carbondale history. I have wished the artist had a middle name as well, to help differentiate, but in my research on him, he does not have one. ~~~ Remando (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about names in citations

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China § Question about names in citations

 – QuickQuokka 12:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I'm trying to cite this article by Veronica Wang Jingyi, but I don't know what to put for the |last= and |first= parameter, because I think that "Wang" is the surname of the author.

So do I format it like |last= Wang |first= Veronica Jingyi like so:

Wang, Veronica Jingyi (2016-07-28). "How China's White-Collar Workers Are Co-Opting Blue-Collar Punk". Sixth Tone. Retrieved 2025-02-02.

or do I simply use the |author= parameter like so:

Veronica Wang Jingyi (2016-07-28). "How China's White-Collar Workers Are Co-Opting Blue-Collar Punk". Sixth Tone. Retrieved 2025-02-02.

Thanks, and sorry, because I am really not accustomed to Chinese naming conventions... QuickQuokka 11:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QuickQuokka. You might want to try asking about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China because most likely it's something that someone else has brought up before. Perhaps even check that talk page's archive because there could be something there about it. There's also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) which provides some guidance that might be helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many citations is too many?

Hello!

I am currently writing an article about Shamate, and this is what I have for the lede section:

Shamate or SMART is a youth subculture and fashion movement originating from factory workers in 2000s South China. It is characterized by eccentric makeup, hairstyles and clothing.

Is 12 back-to-back citations too many? Is there any guideline against having so many citations next to each other? QuickQuokka 12:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 12 is too many! Quality over quantity. Use just a few in the Lead. The others can be used in the body of the article if those provide different views or detailed information on this youth subculture. David notMD (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a citation is usually to provide verification for one or more claims in the preceding sentence or paragaph: nothing else. (I've put "usually" in for caution: I can't think of any exceptions).

It follows that putting more than one citation at the end of a passage is justified only when the passage contains more than one claim, and the claims are not all verifiable in a single source. ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka Yes there is, WP:OVERCITE. CommissarDoggo 12:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

1. ^ simplified Chinese: 杀马特; traditional Chinese: 殺馬特; pinyin: Shāmǎtè. Transliteration of the English word smart.

References

1. ^ Dalléas, Frédéric (2022-02-01). "The 'left behind' of the Chinese miracle: When China's rural young found their style". Le Monde diplomatique. Translated by Miller, George. Retrieved 2025-02-02.
2. ^ Lu, Rachel (2013-12-02). "Vanity Fail". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2025-02-02.
3. ^ Zhang, Henry; Chang, Luyao (2021-06-01). "Luo Fuxing: 'The Last of the Shamate'". Guernica. Retrieved 2025-02-02.
4. ^ Zhai, Xingli; Liang, Yingxin (2020-11-24). "More than just a hairstyle: will the shamate kids ever grow up?". Jiemian News. Retrieved 2025-02-02.
5. ^ Teng, Wei (2016-07-28). "How 'Shamate' Devolved From Urban to Underclass Fashion". Sixth Tone. Retrieved 2025-02-02.
6. ^ Jubb, Nathan (2016-07-28). "Death of a Subculture: The Life of a Former 'Shamate'". Sixth Tone. Retrieved 2025-02-02.
7. ^ Wang, Lianzhang (2018-06-26). "'Father of "Shamate"' Looks Back at Now-Dead Subculture". Sixth Tone. Retrieved 2025-02-02.
8. ^ Veronica Wang Jingyi (2016-07-28). "How 'Shamate' Devolved From Urban to Underclass Fashion". Sixth Tone. Retrieved 2025-02-02.
9. ^ Meng, Siyuan (2020-12-24). "Shunned, Shattered, Shamate: Telling the Story of China's Most Hated Subculture". Radii. Retrieved 2025-02-02.
10. ^ Zhang, Phoebe (2017-12-17). "A Family Affair". The World of Chinese. No. 6, Cloud Country. China International Book Trading Corporation. p. 6. ISSN 1673-7660. Retrieved 2025-02-02.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
11. ^ SWP (2014-04-29). "Shamate: China's Secret Family". Trebuchet. Retrieved 2025-02-02.
12. ^ Liu, Jue (2014-03-01). "Shamate Alecks". The World of Chinese. Vol. 4, no. 2. The World of Chinese Co., Ltd. p. 72–74. ISSN 1673-7660. Retrieved 2025-02-02.

Task Force Creation

How would I go about creating a task force? I had the idea for a one revolving around Stephen King under WikiProject Horror, but I'm not sure how to start. Help? LeGoldenBoots (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LeGoldenBoots I assume that the editors who might be interested in joining such a task force will already be watching the talk pages of WikiProject Horror, so that's where I suggest you post your idea, giving enough detail about what the TF would actually do. Then you can subsequently begin the work and see if anyone joins in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alt accounts

So I've read over Wikipedia's policy on legitimate alt accounts, but one thing I'm not clear on is whether or not I would be allowed, say, to have an alt account to edit articles I don't want to edit on my main. For example, I am understandably uncomfortable editing articles that are, shall we say, NSFW/fall under WP:NOTCENSORED. Would creating an alt account solely for editing...such pages be a legitimate reason? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot have an unannounced alt account, I think. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 19:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know that, but I am asking if what I listed in the last two sentences in my original message would count as a valid reason to create an alt account. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 20:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RedactedHumanoid! The following is my interpretation of policy only and I don’t claim to speak for all users in what I say. With that disclaimer in mind, I think such an account, though not explicitly allowed by policy, would not fall afoul of policy as long as you are very careful not to use it for any inappropriate uses. For instance, I would especially stay away from contributing to the same discussions with both accounts at all just to be safe even if you’re not hiding your dual-account status – though that’s less likely to be an issue if they handle completely separate topic matters.

Unless you really need to avoid it, I would suggest disclosing as normal in some manner. Policy states Individuals operating undisclosed alternative accounts do so at their own risk and against the recommended operating processes of this project; it does also state Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, unless where doing so would defeat the point of the account, but I don’t think an account like you’re asking about is as likely to fall under that category.

It would probably be best to wait and see if other experienced editors have other thoughts, but I think the main issue is to avoid any illegitimate uses. I don’t think editing other articles is, on its own, an illegitimate use, though.

Hope this helps! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Yeah I've been skeptical of creating an alt account for such purposes because the guidelines for legit alt accounts don't talk about the reason's I'm specifying. I think I'll wait to see what other editors might have to say as you suggested. Thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd roughly agree with that assessment. The whole policy is not so much about legitimate alt accounts, but illegitimate ones. Understanding the inappropriate uses is the key to understanding the policy. With a 'privacy' account, which is what this appears to be, obviously stating the owner may go against that purpose, but it still may be useful to state that it's an alt. Keep your edits strictly segregated, and just don't do anything controversial (in the Wikipedia sense). -- zzuuzz 20:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By strictly segregated I assume you mean only edit articles that the alt account is intended to edit, and not articles that I would normally edit here on my main account? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. Don't cross the streams.[1] -- zzuuzz 20:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

zzuuzz's point is never use more than one account to edit the same article or Talk page. David notMD (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle incorrect graphic elements?

Ok, so on the Heron page, there is a map purportedly showing the worldwide distribution of herons. Clicking on the image, it is "own work" based on a book, which is a lot more intanglible than a newspaper source with a numbered link. However, the map is wrong. Just heading over to the article Grey heron one can see its distribution map, showing it a breeding bird or resident of areas not on the first map.

Now, it seems like I should raise this point on the article talk page instead, but my main question is not about the herons really. Its more about the WP:BOLD thing. My bold response would be to just delete the image, but that seems a bit extreme. Ribidag (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ribidag The map is copied on Commons and very widely used in other-language Wikis as File:Heron_range.png, so I think you should take your concerns to Commons. The original uploader is now long retired. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I brought it up at the map section of their village pump, thanks for directing me there. Ribidag (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

on quoting stuff from other languages

let's say i'm using a source on something. say then, that it's written in some weird fictional language, and says

"O trabalho de Pedro Pepeca, por mais engraçado que seja, sofre de uma falta de variedade. (...) Se tu viu um, tu viu tudo."

transl. "Pedro Pepeca's work, as funny as it is, suffers from a lack of variety. (...) If you've seen one, you've seen it all."

in such cases, if i want to quote it, is it fine to use a literal translation, or is it better to just not directly quote it at all? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Consarn. WP:NONENG says "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations". ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

in the specific case this is about (this review of tattoo asssassins, which keen eyes will notice is written in spanish), it seems the extent of my knowledge of spanish (which admittedly begins and ends at knowing portuguese) would be enough to translate "grotescamente planos" (used to describe that game's stages) as "grotesquely flat", which is so unambiguous that machine translators defaulted to that being portuguese

thanks consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are these good templates and should I make more?

Template:SPI-puppeteer-note

Template:SPI-discussion-note ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 19:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need such template if we already have {{uw-socksuspect}}? ––kemel49 03:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have both cases. A sock warning, and a warning for the puppeteer. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 03:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated both on WP:TFD as similar template exists.––kemel49 03:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally already knew that. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 05:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stumbleannnn Duplicate templates are often viewed as a maintenance burden. I pretty frequently come across templates where the original author hasn't been active for a decade or more, and so bugs get reported on the talk pages but never fixed. Rjj (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Are these templates atleast good?

Template:Uw-typo1

Template:Uw-typo2

Template:Uw-typo3

Template:Uw-typo4

Template:Uw-typo4im ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 21:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stumbleannnn, It would be better if you ask that on talk page of User warnings wikiproject.––kemel49 01:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I'll also note that the one time I did a template of this type, I did get some solid feedback from an experienced editor over there, Rjj (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an Article around an athlete

Hello Teahouse community of Wikipedia, hope you are spending quality and academical times as always!

This is your colleague Mustafa with other served account.

Today I have a question of making an article viewed on Wikipedia, how can i quicken the review process, thanks?

Here is the link of the edited article pending: https://en.wikipedia.org/key/User:MustafaAldahabi/sandbox MustafaAldahabi (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MustafaAldahabi. Your draft has been reviewed, and declined, probably because most of it is unreferenced.

Where did you get the information from? If from a reliable published source, wholly independent of Hani, then cite it. If not, then it probably doesn't belong in the article.

More importantly, you need sources sufficient to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which your draft certainly does not at present.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin for sharing those useful thoughts and contribution tips with me.

Now that I have all data written and displayed.

The problem is with citing and indicating external link only, or using extra paragraphic by mentioning reference notions 'notions found related with other Wikipedia articles and such?

Thanks! MustafaAldahabi (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing of this draft, MustafaAldahabi, is promotional. It reads like a press release. Do not attempt to impress readers. Instead, try your hardest to inform readers. -- Hoary (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And more, MustafaAldahabi. The draft has three references. Each of the three is to something with a specific title, in English. Yet each is linked to the top page of a website. One of these three turns out to be in Arabic. The other two are offline. -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hoary

So if I enhanced it to be informing instead of promoting and highlighting each citations carefully and show that third party links are a proof of identity and achievement claimer to the the Athlete"Ahmad Bani Hani" then the frame of the article will look better and more reading effecient, right? MustafaAldahabi (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Instagram post congratulates Ahmad Bani Hani as your cousin, and directs others to view his self-promotional web site. This makes this Wikepedia article seem like an attempt to promote (not inform), as well as a conflict of interest. I'm not doxxing anyone, the name listed in your userpage self-promotional material is easily searchable. Put your name and the article subject's name in a web search, and your relationship is there. Just Al (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Combined footnote" help

I am in the process of making Pixels (2015 film) a good Article but one of the requests on the review page was:

• use a combined footer text instead of separate captions.

This is what is being addressed (and I do not know how to "use a combined footer text" so if anyone could show me how that would be great thanks): {{multiple image | width = 250 | align = left | image1 = Pixels - NY Subway Entrance - Side View.JPG | caption1 = Movie prop for ''Pixels'' in [[downtown Toronto]] | image2 = Pixels - NY Subway Entrance - End View.JPG | caption2 = Prop for NY Subway entrance has no stairs. }} 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Yovt: If this is what you've currently got:

you can change it to this:

Cremastra (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yovt, building on the suggestion above, you can also swap "width = 250" for "total_width = 500", to make the images the same height:

The documentation for Template:Multiple image is pretty confusing (perhaps because it can do so much?). I think the "captionx" parameters are really only used to identify images; any kind of description or explanation is usually placed in the overall "footer". Rjj (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote and submitted an article for creation in December - Draft:Ancora Holdings Group But I cannot find it on the AfC list of articles pending approval. Did I do something wrong in posting for approval? How can I find out if I posted it correctly? Or if I have to do it again? Thanks. Benetsee (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Benetsee: I might be missing something, but it doesn't look like you ever submitted your draft for review. Did you create your draft using Wikipedia:Articles for creation or did you just create a page in the draft namespace yourself? If you did the latter, you would've needed to manually add the template {{AfC submission/draft}} to the top of the page, and then click the blue "Submit" button when you're ready for it to be reviewed. Do you remember doing any of that? If not, then you might've mistakenly assumed that any draft you created would automatically be submitted for review. FWIW, if you look at the page history for the draft, you'll see that an editor named Justiyaya is currently "reviewing" it; so, perhaps you'll know more in a little while once they've finished. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I don't really remember what I did - it was in December, but it's all working now. I'll remember next time. Benetsee (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Benetsee Hiya, I moved it to mainspace. I don't think the draft was submitted. Most of your sources looks good, I've removed some that wasn't good enough and fixed some tonal issues. Good work! Justiyaya 02:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help. Sometimes I think Wikipedia is like a bar exam - just when you're comfortable, there's more to learn. Appreciate the work you did to assist me. Benetsee (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted this article, Printables, to the Articles for Creation, got a response, but don't know where to start. I'm trying to find reliable sources and add credible information, but I just can't see enough of it out there. What can I do now? MrGumballs (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched a little about that company but i found zero information on reliable and credible ground. maybe that company is not a notable one.––kemel49 03:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it just be better to almost just forget about the article until it becomes notable enough to find credible sources? MrGumballs (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this seems like it may be too soon. You're going to want to find more secondary sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait it out. I'm mainly waiting for one giant milestone in the website's history. MrGumballs (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MrGumballs. Writing an article without first finding adequate sources to establish notability, is like building a house without first surveying the plot to make sure it is fit to build on, or building foundations. Even if you do decide it is fit to build on, you're probably going to have to go back and underpin.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand that. It's the same idea as making a stance on an argument or point of view before evern having any prior knowledge on it. Except on Wikipedia it's more of a neutral point of view. Thank You! MrGumballs (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I made an edit on United States DOGE Service wherein I replaced a link to an executive order on the whitehouse.gov page to one in the federal register, as the latter is a more reliable source etc. The only problem is I am quite unfamiliar with citing US legal sources on Wikipedia, so I just plugged a bunch of values into cite:journal and went with whatever came out (its citation 1). If I'm honest I'm not very happy with winging it with sources and just going with whatever looks right, so I was interested if someone could help me answer the following questions: 1. is it preferable to use a PDF or website link? In my citation I linked a PDF of the EO published in the federal register, and I'm not sure if this is better or worse than using a web page version of it 2. Is this style of citation acceptable on Wikipedia, or should I seek to use the templates in Template:United States legal citation templates for uniformity? 3. Other than those templates, is there anywhere else where I can find information on citing legal sources on wikipedia? Its always seemed like a bit of a struggle to know whether youre citing something correctly or not

Sorry for the long post, these issues are just bothering me, and sorry if the questions are dumb. notadev (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The questions are legitimate and I can see where you're coming from. I would say, with the format you have, a PDF compared to a website link wouldn't matter, unless one of the sources contained more information than the other, in which you'd use that one. Also, if you would like to go through the hastle of finding a template, it would be neater, garnering more reliability in the article. If you're looking for citing sources help, I'd recommend reading through this page thoroughly for a deeper more directed analysis on citiations. MrGumballs (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I guess my question about web page vs PDF was more concerned with preventing link rot, but I think since they’re both US federal government links it should be alright in that regard? I think using the proper templates would be better, but I feel like I come across them so little that they seem more like a novelty… that my might my prejudiced view though notadev (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NotADev, there are many ways to properly format a reference. The specific technique is secondary. What is most important is how the reference displays to readers. The whole point is to present the fullest and most accurate bibliographic information to the reader. That includes the title of the work linked to a URL when available, the author(s), the publisher, the date of publication, the page number if relevant, the ISBN number if it is a book, the name of the publication if it is a newspaper, magazine, journal or reliable website, and in select cases, a brief quotation. Personally, I take great pleasure in crafting accurate, well-formatted references and when I do my final proofread on one, I feel good about it. All that being said, it is best practice to follow the established citation style on decent quality articles if you can do so. Cullen328 (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NotADev, this is unrelated to the citation formatting question, but readers are more likely to click the links in a citation if they are PDF links. No idea why, Rjj (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier for people to open PDF's than websites. Also, take a look between a PDF and a website. Often, I find that naturally I'm inclined to open a PDF because it naturally looks more credible. This doesn't mean it is more credible though at all. MrGumballs (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed at this. For me, having to open a PDF or other file is a definite turn-off, compared to just going to a website. Personal view. --ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Schazjmd (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously submitted a COI request on the Tencent Cloud Talk page, using the COI template as advised but have not received any assistance so far. As a follow-up, I wonder if any voluntary editor would be interested to review our request there? Greatly appreciate the help. TencentCommsYeran (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TencentCommsYeran. It looks like when you originally posted your request you used the {{Help me}} template instead of the {{Edit COI}} template, which is probably why you've not received a reply yet. Even though you tried to remedy this after the fact, your request still seems a bit malformed and more of a discussion than a request. Perhaps the best thing for you to do might just be to start again with a new request. This time I suggest you follow the guidance in Wikipedia:Edit requests and keep your request a simple as possible. The users who help answer such requests are volunteers just like everyone else who edits Wikipedia, and they might pass over requests with lots of moving parts that seem like they might be time consuming to sort out. You might get a faster response if you break your request up so that you're only asking one thing per request instead of trying to do a major rewrite of the article in one fell swoop. There are instructions on how to use the "Edit COI" template on its documentation page; so, just follow the instructions there. You could also try asking about this at WP:COIN, but again trying to request too much at once might lead to your request being passed over by those not willing to try and sort through everything. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, @Marchjuly for this detailed instruction. Will have a try! TencentCommsYeran (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you know the reason why on Wikipedia the page of the Prime Minister of Ireland kept the Irish name (Taoiseach) but the page of the President of Ireland has the English name (sorry English is not my native language !) We are having a discussion on WP:FR about the renaming of Taoiseach. Thank you for your help, best regards, Pierrette13 (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because Taoiseach has made it into English[2], while the President still uses President[3]. CMD (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pierrette13 You can see a previous discussion at Talk:Taoiseach#Just_call_it_Prime_Minister_in_the_Title. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how to move draft page to article Jagirani110 (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jagirani110, are you asking about Draft:Jagirani? For a standalone article the threshold on Wikipedia is explained at Wikipedia:Notability. This is a higher bar than having sources to show the information can be verified. As the summary at the top of the page says, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article." Rjj (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes asking jagirani draft Jagirani110 (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jagirani has a submit for review 'button'. This will submit it for a reviewer to make a approved or declined decision. There is a constant backlog of drafts submitted for review. The system is not a queue, so it can be as fast as a day or as long as months before a reviewer makes a decision. If declined for a stated reason, the draft can be improved and submitted again. David notMD (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not submit until you have added more text.David notMD (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Courtesy link: Draft:Lewis Nitikman

Hello, everyone. Please, delete this draft. See discussion: [4] СтасС (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--СтасС (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please assist with pointing me in the right direction where the citations of my draft are concerned. On of the reasons the draft was declined was due to submission being improperly sourced. I have gone through the list of citations to ensure that they were extracted from reliable sources (ie: News organisations, Notable publishers, Official Government websites, reputably recognised websites etc). I am not sure which of the citations are considered unreliable. I would greatly appreciate any guidance. I am in the process of reviewing neutral encyclopedic tone. Thanks in advance.

Draft: Tsitsi Masiyiwa Substantiator (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Substantiator There is unreferenced content. I did some copyediting to align the draft with Wikipedia guidelines. David notMD (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD Thank you kindly Substantiator (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cut to the chase: If an existing Wikipedia user has to create an additional Wikipedia account, one affiliated with an educational institution/university for training, Wiki-drive, etc., using their name and ID/enrollment number, and they wish not to disclose that on Wikipedia for anonymity (albeit they do not have an issue just specifying the existence of that good faith account), how are they supposed to go about the process? Are there any disclosure rules or guidelines for such a scenario? Thanks, Dissoxciate (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dissoxciate. This kind of thing is covered in WP:SOCKLEGIT. If someone is using alternative accounts in a way that keeps each account separate and distinct from the other, they might go unnoticed; most people, however, exhibit a tell when they edit, and it's possible someone might notice a similarity between two accounts even though the accounts might be being used for entirely different areas of Wikipedia. It's important to understand that Wikipedia is pretty much a honor system; so, the more transparent someone is about any alternative accounts they're using, the less likely they'll find themselves perhaps being accussed by others of doing something inappropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Marchjuly! I understand the case of tell and tone, and how it's advisable to be as transparent as possible about owning multiple accounts. I went through the information provided under WP:SOCKLEGIT. My final question, however, is, so long as the user mentions or discloses the existence of an alternative Wikipedia account within the lines of Sockpuppetry policy on their userpage, without explicitly disclosing the name of said account, there shouldn't be an issue vis-a-vis having multiple accounts, right? Dissoxciate (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

​ (Non-administrator comment) You might be better off asking this question at WT:SOCK, WP:AN or maybe via WP:IRC than here if you're looking for someone to sign off on such a thing and say it's OK to do; however, my personal feeling is that not disclosing the name of an alternative account kind of defeats the purpose of being transparent and could potentially lead to problems, i.e. others (including some outside of Wikipedia) trying to figure out what the other accounts are if they suspect they might be being used inappropriately or maybe even just because they want to. WP:OUTING is taken quite seriously and nobody is required to out themselves on Wikipedia (registering for an account isn't even required to edit most pages and do most things); so, one can try to keep their WP:REALWORLD life as private as possible. In principle, someone should be able to create an alternative account without revealing any or as little personal information about themselves as possible and then just make sure to keep their accounts as separate and distinct as possible. As long as none of the accounts are used to do anything inappropriate or there's no serious overlapping of pages edited, most experienced Wikipedians probably won't go looking for them just for the sake of doing so. A techinical connection between accounts might be detected by some types of users like a WP:CHECKUSER when there's just cause to look for it, but such users aren't really supposed their ability to do so except when justified in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies. Anyway, once a person starts posting on Wikipedia, though, the threat of doxing either within or outside of Wikipedia is always present, but such a thing pretty much seems to apply to any type of online presence. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I've been creating new mainspace articles mostly on floods and other disaster, examples of articles I created are --- Floods in Algeria, Floods in Angola, Floods in Niger etc, this time I'm focusing on to create for botswana My doubt is Droughts are more common there so shall I create an article including all the events, though I'm not sure for the clarity as of my knowledge it would change the path of readers and topic, Need guidance!! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Droughts are a bit harder to define than floods (see Drought and the list link), and where do you stop? Floods in..., Droughts in..., Fires in..., Earthquakes in... Tornados in..., Hurricanes in..., etc.? David notMD (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the general articles be just changed to Natural Disasters in... for conformity and formality. Or would this just mean that people would have a harder time to find the answer to questions on Wikipedia? MrGumballs (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given how short a lot of these articles are, it might be useful to make an article titled "Floods in Africa by country", and then put each country in a section. You could redirect the smaller flood pages to that one, and it might make it easier to cross reference. Alternatively another idea might be to do "Floods by country" unless that article gets too large.

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what your question is. If you want to make an article with all the droughts in Botswana, you'll need to make sure it meets the list notability policy, which can be satisfied most clearly by finding multiple reliable sources discussing "droughts in botswana" as a group. If you have an article of around the quality of the flood articles you might be able to add the actual list of droughts as extra helpful information, and then you wouldn't need to justify the notability of the article based on the list. If each drought is notable and you can find sources that thoroughly discuss them, then a list would also definitely be warranted, I think. There's a lot of ways you could do it as long as you make sure whatever article you do make meets the notability policy. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make an edit to a semi-protected page that requires an autoconfirmed user? https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Anarchism Eliswinterabend (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Eliswinterabend. You can make an edit request here. Tarlby 18:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are auto-confirmed (4 days, 10 edits), so you should be able to edit the article directly. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I was looking at the article for El Ballestero, and I noticed that Hannibal's name formatted with just his first name, and not as Hannibal Barca. I noticed that this is true also on Hannibal's page. Help would be appreciated. VibGans (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the name of the article ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @VibGans, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that WP:COMMONNAME gives most of the answer. ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VibGans I think @ColinFine wrote the better answer you can expect if you was talking about the name of the article. Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VibGans, reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to this Carthaginian general as just "Hannibal", and therefore, Wikipedia will as well. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~@Cullen328 I agree with you. Do you have a particular source in mind ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anatole-berthe, this is not a matter of a specific source. It is a matter of the preponderance of the sources. Just go to Google Books and Google Scholar and search for "Hannibal Barca". You will see many reliable sources that mention once that was his full name although some may say "Hannibal of the Barca clan". But after that brief mention, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to him as just Hannibal, time after time after hundreds of times. In classical antiquity, today's given name-surname structure was unknown, although the Romans developed a version of it over time. Figures like Socrates, Alexander, Plato, Moses, Ptolemy, Hammurabi, Cleopatra and Cyrus were known only by a single name, although other descriptives were often appended as their fame grew. So, "Barca" was the name of his clan and means "thunderbolt" or "lightning" but is not a modern surname, and he was commonly known as "Hannibal" then and now. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation! VibGans (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We agree on the fact the overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to him as just Hannibal.

I thought you had maybe a specific source in mind. Your answer made me realise I was wrong.

Thanks for your answer !

PS : I knew already facts exposed by yourself about "surnames" in classical antiquity.

I hope it will be useful for those who didn't knew. Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings everyone, HC226 here. I have noticed that there is no page for the fitness clothing brand YoungLA. I will create the page if needed but was wondering whether or not it fits notability criteria. It seems to be well-known and has many famous athletes on their roster. However, information about them is minimal and it hasn't been thoroughly covered in the press. HC226 (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HC226 Welcome to the Teahouse. If information about it is minimal then it is unlikely to qualify for an article here. Please see WP:42 for the mimnimum requirements. Being well known and supplying famous athletes is not relevant. Shantavira| 20:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, just thought it was an unusual situation since they are prominent in the fitness industry but don't seem to have attracted news outlets or other mainstream media. HC226 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page [5] is very long, and lots of discussions are ~15 yrs old. Should I archive the discussions which have no recent comments? BennBluee (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my knowledge , there are no policy about managing archives on the "Talk page" of an "User". But I can be wrong.

I think you can act like you want about archives. Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Friedmann equations isn't a user talk page, Anatole-berthe.

BennBluee, it would be worth setting up automatic archiving for that page, I think. See Help:Archiving a talk page for the options. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes , it is not an "user talk page" , I was wrong. Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! BennBluee (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:uw-typo1

Template:uw-typo2

Template:uw-typo3

Template:uw-typo4

Template:uw-typo4im ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 21:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely designed, but oddly specific. While I've seen this kind of vandalism before, generic templates are perfectly good. Cremastra (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the specificity of these are not needed. David notMD (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The very nature of typographical errors is that it is almost impossible to call them "purposeful" with any degree of accuracy. A large majority of such errors are accidental. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's only used in cases where it's very apparent it was on purpose. (E.g: someone adds a typo to a perfect sentence.) ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 07:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of like 3 times a vandal made this type of typo-making edit.

Something like this: "The sky is blue" ---> "The sky is ble" Tarlby 17:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a needlessly-specific type of the well-used {{uw-disruptive1}} series, that includes so many possibilites of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, etc. That template-set allows appending custom text (also supported by TW), if you feel like being more specific. The problem is that it's disruptive; level 1 presumes it's an accident or good-faith. How can an intentional typo be a good-faith edit? DMacks (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the wording for template:uw-typo1 ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 21:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also fixed template:uw-typo2 because I accidentally left the "vandalism" part, changed it to "disrupt", and also changed up the wording to sound more correct. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 21:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still, nope. David notMD (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would like to create an article for Global Manga, so I moved the disambiguation page to Global Manga (disambiguation), thinking this would allow me to start the article. However, Global Manga is still a redirect, and I’m not sure how to proceed from here. Could someone kindly guide me on how to fix this so I can create the article properly? I really appreciate any help. Thank you so much! VelvetQuill (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @VelvetQuill, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

Given your newness as an editor, I would very very very strongly advise you not to attempt to create an article directly, but to create a draft using the Articles for Creation process, and submit it for review.

But in fact, I will go further: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ColinFine

Thank you very much for your thoughtful response and for taking the time to guide new editors. I truly appreciate your advice.

I actually have a few months of experience editing and translating Wikipedia in other languages, so I have a reasonable understanding of how it works, including policies on verifiability, neutrality, and reliable sources. That said, I always welcome guidance and constructive feedback!

My article is already in my sandbox, and I was considering submitting it for review. However, my concern is that the existence of the disambiguation page prevents the title from appearing as a red link, which means I wouldn't be able to properly connect my draft. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this clearly, but I believe this could be an issue.

Would you happen to know the best way to handle this? I want to follow the correct procedures and make sure the article is properly linked once it’s ready.

Thanks again for your time and advice!

Best regards,

@VelvetQuill VelvetQuill (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, @VelvetQuill. One of the advantages of going through the submission process is that when a reviewer accepts your draft, they will sort out any issues of disambiguation, existing redirects etc.

I see that you have added several references, whose titles suggest they might be valuable; but without an indication of the publisher, a reviewer is going to have difficulty evaluating their reliability and independence. While URLs are by no means required (they are a convenience to the reader and reviewer, rather than an essential part of the citation, and sources do not even need to be online) I predict that if you don't provide URLs, publishers, or page numbers, your draft will sit awaiting a review for a long time, because most reviewers will glance at it and say, "The author has left me too much work to do in tracking down the sources, so I will leave it and review something not so challenging" - or else they'll decline it with the message "Citations not properly formatted". It's not even clear what kinds of works these are: are they books, articles, papers? ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to look at my draft and for your detailed feedback @ColinFine

The sources I included are books that I have in print. I thought that only the title and author were strictly required, but if adding more details like ISBN is recommended, I will certainly update the citations to include that information.

Thanks again for your help! I'll make those improvements right away.

Best regards, VelvetQuill (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VelvetQuill, for book sources, please include the page numbers as well. Schazjmd (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think everything should be ok now. VelvetQuill (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VelvetQuill: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you really want to pursue this, I strongly recommend that you go through the Articles for Creation process. Looking at your sandbox where your content is stored, the (one) reference that you have will most likely be insufficient in establishing wikinotability, which means a new pages patroller is almost certainly going to ask for its deletion if it is published in articlespace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tenryuu

Thank you very much for your advice.

I understand your concern regarding notability, and in fact, I was still in the process of completing the article. Since your message, I have already added many more references to strengthen its reliability. That said, if you notice any other issues, I’d be very grateful if you could point them out!

I do believe that Global Manga deserves to have an article rather than just a disambiguation page, even if some adjustments are needed. If necessary, I can also shorten the content, but I think it’s important to at least establish the topic.

Thanks again for your time and guidance! VelvetQuill (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is at User:VelvetQuill/sandbox David notMD (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes, thank you. VelvetQuill (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the end I did submitted it for review...Let's hope for the best!

Thank you everyone! @ColinFine@David notMD@Schazjmd@Tenryuu VelvetQuill (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can I have a small conversation or is it just helping build an article? $HADOW08 (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, $HADOW08, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm assuming you're talking about talk pages. Article talk pages are intended just for helping to improve articles on Wikipedia; conversations about the article topics are best left for somewhere else. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, $HADOW08. WP:What Wikipedia is not should have some answers for you. You can certainly have a "small conversation" about building the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, talk page discussions must be tied to making changes to the article. I see you've edited the some Legend of Zelda talk pages, so to put it in context you may understand:

Acceptable - "Hey everyone, they announced new sales figures for Echoes of Wisdom. I think it's impressive and worth mentioning. Is this a good source for adding it to the article?"

Unacceptable - "Hey everyone, I loved Echoes of Wisdom. What did you think? I hope it sells 20 million copies!"

Hopefully that makes sense. Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make my page more livley other than user boxes, what other templates can be used for my wikipedia profile? IdkWiki700 (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IdkWiki700, your (short) list of contributions to Wikipedia suggests that you have a lot more interest in your own user page than in the total of encyclopedia articles. Please make policy-compliant improvements to encyclopedia articles, and put aside your user page. -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IdkWiki700 Wikipedia:User page design guide might have something you find interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your User page is a confusing mess. I recommend deleting all and starting over. Per WP:UP, User pages are not meant to be 'profiles.' David notMD (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IdkWiki700, there are few hard rules on user pages. Can I ask what the "nowiki" and "references" tags are meant to do there? Rjj (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking it and starting over was a good response to these comments. David notMD (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had the idea to try and reorganize Red Bull GmbH but I've turned it into a jumbled mess. Can someone else please make an attempt at it? Electricmemory (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you made a jumbled mess, just Revert it and try to redo the edit without turning it into a jumbled mess JustSomeoneNo (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You made a massive change to two articles, moving content from Red Bull to Red Bull GmbH. Your changes may get reverted at both. If so, start discussions on the relevant Talk pages. Personally, I agree with your concept, that the first should be about the product, and all the sports and arts and other promotional related content fits better at the company article. Others may disagree. David notMD (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electricmemory Interestingly, at the Red Bull Talk page, back in 2015 (see Archive 1) people were debating whether to merge the product and company articles, or else move all the promotional/sports content to the company article. I am (slightly curious, as a non-user of the product or follower of the events) as to whether your radical changes remain intact. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I know how to actually edit the article, but the edit requests article says to " change the |answered=no parameter to "yes"" which means absolutely nothing to me, and I can't find anything regarding it. Aston305 (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, figured it out, don't mind me Aston305 (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aston305 For anyone else who sees this, an edit request will have a {{edit request}} template. This will appear in the source editor as either {{edit request}} or {{edit request|answered=no}}. To mark it as answered and stop it appearing at CAT:ER, this needs to be changed to {{edit request|answered=yes}}. Ultraodan (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve recently started to heavily edit Air traffic controller as it has quite a lot of problems. My question is, for some controversial edits such as content removal I should seek consensus on the talk page, but no one is actually active on there / replying, so what should I do? Just assume consensus? Squawk7700 (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Squawk7700 That article has 125 page watchers, so plenty of other editors are, in principle, aware of what you are doing, including the "under construction" template at the top of the article. So if I were you I'd keep going until someone objects by reverting one of your edits. That's our standard bold, revert, discuss procedure. You might want to keep edits fairly small so that if someone does object they don't have to remove large chunks of your work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your assistance. I will go ahead like that. Squawk7700 (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Squawk7700: Hi. If you think the edits are controversial, or have a feeling that they should be discussed, then relevant wikiprojects (in that case, aviation) is also a good option. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, thanks for posting the question here. I'll try to respond to some of your messages at the article's talk page later this week, Rjj (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be perfect, thank you Squawk7700 (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good idea, I’ll definitely put some of the edits I want to discuss there. Squawk7700 (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I need some users to edit and help on the Draft:Daxflame article. I did everything on my own and no one else helped me. The article just didn’t approve after I tried to fix some issues. If someone will edit and fix the article I would be glad. Mostly the issues were additional references and sources. Maxi Ruan (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not to co-author or find references. The draft in question has been declined five times. The references (IMDb, YouTube) do not meet Wikipedia's standards. David notMD (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxi Ruan Welcome to the Teahouse. Please see the messages at the top of your draft. I'm afraid no amount of editing can make this subject notable. I suggest you abandon this attempt and learn more about editing other articles and the fundamentals of Wikipedia, then gather information from actual reliable sources before trying to write a new article. Shantavira| 16:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxi Ryan: The vast majority of draft articles are initially written by only one editor until it is moved to the mainspace. Your draft shows no evidence that the subject is notable with no reliable sources talking about this individual. cyberdog958 16:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/key/2012_United_States_presidential_election_in_California#By_city https://en.wikipedia.org/key/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California#By_city https://en.wikipedia.org/key/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_California#By_city

Using California's Supplements to the Statement of Votes as sources, I have added results by city for the 2012, 2016, and 2020 presidential elections in California, as well as swings and flips in 2016 and 2020. I'll add the results for 2000, 2004, and 2008 in those respective articles when I have time. And I'll do so for 2024 once the Supplement to the Statement of Vote comes out for that year. Doing so for elections before 2000 would be extremely difficult since they aren't digitized, the pdfs are scans of papers with not great quality. But let me know if you have any ideas for those earlier elections. These tables unfortunately have no color, as I do not know how to add colors to them without me taking many hours tediously adding them one by one. I was able to do everything else efficiently by making Excel sheets and converting it to the Wikitable format using [6]https://tableconvert.com/excel-to-mediawiki and then only having to make minor changes on Wikipedia itself, but that doesn't help me with the color situation. If you know how to efficiently add colors, feel free to tell me or do it yourself. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have an article called Draft:Siege of Bamyan (1221) and it’s about a battle/siege that happened but my article isnt being accepted and i put a lot of sources and i was wondering if anyone could help me out and add sources with me ? and if i wrote this question on the wrong page then im sorry Shadow. 547 (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow. 547, You could add it into the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire article, the reason states that there isn't enough content to be its own article. You can always add it into the other article of the Mongol invasion. RoyalSilver 19:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoyalSilver Sorry but i dont want to add it to Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire article im gonna try all i can do so it can be its own article because the siege is popular for the amount of destruction and how many people we killed in that siege and i want it to be an article Shadow. 547 (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow. 547, I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. It is just an essay but is a really clear explanation of how notability works and is written about the situation this draft article is in. I agree with the reviewing editor (AirshipJungleman29) who suggested merging at least some of the content into the larger existing article.

Notability relates to the subject. You can write a Wikipedia article with sources that establish a subject's notability, but if the sources don't exist, there is nothing you can do to make the article notable. To make the subject notable, you would have go write for reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. Rjj (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow. 547 Welcome to the Teahouse. Please see the helpful messages at the top of your draft and on your talk page. Click on the blue links for further explanations. I'm afraid no amount of editing can make this subject notable. I suggest you abandon this attempt and learn more about editing other articles and the fundamentals of Wikipedia, then gather in-depth information from actual reliable sources before trying to write a new article. Shantavira| 19:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article is currently Lake Shawnee, should it be Shawnee Lake (Kansas), or stay the same? If it's Shawnee Lake, how do I change the name of the article? RoyalSilver 19:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoyalSilver. Welcome to the Teahouse. We reflect what reliable sources say, and they apparently call it Lake Shawnee. You haven't said why you think the name should be changed, but the correct place to do so is on the talk page of that article. Please clearly state your reasons when you do so. Shantavira| 19:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoyalSilver, the article has seven references to reliable sources and all of them say "Lake Shawnee". There's your answer because we summarize what reliable sources say. Cullen328 (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantavira, if you scroll down to all the other reservoirs in Kansas, they mostly have Lake at the end of their name, that's why I was wondering it would be the same with Lake Shawnee. RoyalSilver 19:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reference links moved to the bottom of my external links. I need help moving it back up where it belongs. thanks Megafilms422 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link to the page where it happened? Thank you. APenguinThatIsSilly("talk") 21:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Megafilms422. I guess it was about Francesco Paolo Michetti. Your account had not edited it for nine years when you posted here but now it has. It was caused by removing {{Reflist}} in [7]. It has been restored in [8]. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Megafilms422. For reference, the Wikipedia software will display all citations formatted as references added to any Wikipedia page (articles, talk pages, userpages, noticeboard, etc.) at the bottom of the page, unless it's told to put them somewhere else. What PrimeHunter did is explained in WP:REFLIST; PrimeHunter just added the template {{reflist}} to the "References" section of the article to tell the software to display the references there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few scans of articles from newspapers that have relevant information of a deceased person, I was just wondering what is the correct way to cite it and what guidelines there are in determining which newspapers can and shouldn't be used? Alexthegod5 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexthegod5: See {{cite news}}. You will need to provide the paper title (work), the edition (date), the byline (first and last), the article title (title), and the pages (page or pages) the article's on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 21:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!@Jéské Couriano Alexthegod5 (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexthegod5: There's some more information on this given in WP:CITEHOW. FWIW, you don't need to upload a scan of the newspaper to cite it as long as you provide enough information about it, it's considered a reliable source, and it's being used cited in accordance with WP:RSCONTEXT. Sources cited in Wikipedia articles aren't required to be available online as explained in WP:PUBLISH and WP:PUBLISHED. One thing, though, is that if you use a citation template to format the source, you shouldn't use the template {{cite web}} to do so because that template actually requires a url be added as part of its syntax and gives off an error message when no url is provided; you can use the template {{cite news}} instead because that also works for cited sources not available online. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexthegod5, as for which newspapers can be used, that needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Some newspapers are known to be unreliable. A well-known example is the Daily Mail in the UK. The New York Post in the US is another example. Sane editors would not try to use Der Stürmer which shouted variations of "Death to the Jews!" repeatedly for 22 years or Weekly World News which repeatedly reported on the exploits of Bat Boy and has reported that Elvis was still alive until today. On the other hand, a majority of ordinary humdrum daily newspapers that reported local news in their cities and towns for decades or more are considered reliable sources, unless there is good evidence that the newspaper regularly and deliberately published sensational falsehoods for profit. The most important skill for a Wikipedia editor is to determine whether or not a given source is reliable. That skill is a type of critical thinking. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings all. I noticed an issue with a citation/reference here Chesterwood (Massachusetts)#cite note-nrhpinv2-3 that was lacking a journal name; only it isn't a journal, it's a website (actually a PDF that lives on a website). I feel like I could just re-do it, however it is used a ton more times in the article and I don't want to potentially mess that up. The template for a journal citation seems pretty rigid. Would someone please explain how to reformat to "website" reference (if indeed that is what it should be)? Not terribly urgent... Thanks. ~~~ Remando (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Remando. Is the original source for the citation a journal, but the relevant part of the journal has simply been posted on some website as a PDF file? If that's the case, then using {{cite journal}} for the citation isn't really incorrect per se because the website is more of a convenience link than a reliable source itself, and the paramter |via= could be added to the citation template's syntax as via=website's name. If the PDF file is true copy of the original source material, it should be OK to do this for the website. On the other hand, if the PDF appears to have been modified in any way that might affect its reliablility as as source, the link to the website should probably be removed, and just the journal cited. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Remando, I would do the citation as below:

Rettig, Polly M.; Bradford, S. S. (April 1976). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: Chesterwood". National Park Service. Retrieved February 4, 2025. With accompanying five photos, from 1971 and 1974

{{Cite web |last1=Rettig |first1=Polly M. |last2=Bradford |first2=S. S. |date=April 1976 |title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: Chesterwood |url={{NRHP url|id=66000652}} |access-date=February 4, 2025 |publisher=[[National Park Service]]}} With {{NRHP url|id=66000652|photos=y|title=accompanying five photos, from 1971 and 1974}}

That changes several details to more closely match the source. To answer the original question, to change from {{cite web}} to {{cite journal}} you would only need to change "cite web" to "cite journal" and "journal=" to "website=". Those two templates both use the same backend software (Module:Citation/CS1) so they are similar in many ways. If you have more questions about those templates or other CS1 templates, you can usually get knowledgeable answers at Help talk:Citation Style 1.

Feel free to ask any followup questions, Rjj (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, @Marchjuly and @Rjjiii for explaining clearly what seemed so tricky, and making the change from cite journal to cite web. Many appreciations. ~~~ Remando (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remando It may be worth mentioning for others reading this thread that it doesn't make any difference that the reference is used a ton more times in the article. It should only appear once in the source code and that's where the template needs to be edited. It uses the concept of named references, so the first appearance has the code <ref name="nrhpinv2"> followed by the cite web template given above, then <ref />. All other instances just use <ref name="nrhpinv2" /> where the reference is re-used. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for that clarification @Michael D. Turnbull ~~~ Remando (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I’m really eager to understand how to improve my submission to increase its chances of being accepted. Is there anyone who could help revise or assist me in editing the page? I’m quite confused—how can a page like Draft:Yuriyan Retriever, which already exists in Japanese and features someone so well-known, be declined in English? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated!" Tanak001 (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanak001 English Wikipedia requires that for a living person, all statements of fact need to be verified by references. See WP:BLP. David notMD (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tanak001. There are many different language Wikipedias, but they're each considered separate projects with their own policies and guidelines. Since English Wikipedia was the first to be established, many of the other projects do lots of things the same way and have similar policies and guidelines; so, ideally, everything should mesh together when it comes to things like WP:N. Unfortunately, not all of the other project communities are as large as English Wikipedia's or are as vigorous in applying their project's policy and guidelines as English Wikipedia's is, which means there's lots of content being hosted on other Wikipedia's that probably shouldn't be being hosted at all. For sure, English Wikipedia as similar problems, but it seems to be doing a bit of a better job in looking for such content and dealing with it when it finds it than perhaps the other projects are doing. For this reason, the English Wikipedia community decided per WP:OTHERLANGS that an article existing on another language Wikipedia doesn't automatically mean it should exist on English Wikipedia, and the subject itself would still need to meet English Wikipedia's notabiity guidelines. The same applies to content of other language Wikipedia articles in that it needs to meet relevant English Wikipedia policies and guidelines for it to be OK for English Wikipedia. This doesn't mean the an article about subject on another language Wikipedia has zero value so to speak; for example, if the sources cited in the non-English article are considered reliable per WP:RS, they can also be cited on English Wikipedia even if not in English, but they will need to be assessed in terms of English Wikipedia policies and guideline. Finally, if your draft includes any content translated from the Japanese Wikipedia article, please make sure you're following the guidance given in WP:TRANSLATION and WP:TFOLWP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance Tanak001 (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanak001: The Japanese Wikipedia article ja:ゆりやんレトリィバァ has lots of content and citations, but Japanese Wikipedia articles can get a bit bloated with lots of trivial information and questionable sourcing, particularly articles about popular entertainers like Yoshida, because fans editing the article might not be too familiar with relevant policies and guidelines; most of those people probably mean well, but many tend to treat the article more like fan page than an encyclopedic article. Again, the same thing happens on English Wikipedia too, but (once again) English Wikipedia seems to a bit better at finding such things and cleaning them up.

Anyway, since you've mentioned the Japanese Wikipedia article, I'm assuming your competent enough in Japanese to read the article and check the reliability of the sources cited. What you might want to do is focus on the things that Yoshida really is Wikipedia Notable for and find the best reliable sources that support that claim of notability; in other words, trim your draft of anything unsourced or trivial so that the claim of Wikipedia notability is clearer to see (for example, a sentence in the draft like "In October 2020, she revealed that she had successfully lost 36 kg (79 lbs). She clarified that her previous weight was not part of her comedy persona but simply a result of overeating." is not only unsourced but rather trivial (at least for English Wikipedia purposes)). You shouldn't really try to re-create the Japanese Wikipedia article word for word in your draft because doing so is likely to add lots of content that's either unsourced or not really relevant encyclopedically. Many think more is always better when it comes to drafts, but more can make things murky and notability harder to assess. Drafts can often be improved by removing what's not needed and focusing on what makes someone Wikipedia notable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanak001 When you translate an article.

Never forget to make the necessary changes like remove sources that aren't considered "reliable" in the eyes of "Wikipedia in English".

Translate an article from another language version of Wikipedia is more than a translation. This is an adaptation. Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More info to be found at Help:Translation. Lectonar (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanak001 I think the community brought you sufficient help. Do you think you need more help ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – QuickQuokka 09:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

If I would like to reuse a citation previously used in the article, do I write it like so with a self-closing tag: <ref name="some-reference" />, or like so without: <ref name="some-reference"></ref>? QuickQuokka 09:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, found WP:REPEATCITE QuickQuokka 09:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I know per MOS:QWQ how you should format nested quotes in the article body, but how should I do so in a citation? Do I do it like so: {{cite magazine |last=Wang |first=Lianzhang |date=2018-06-26 |title='Father of "Shamate{{"'}} ... |url=... }} so it looks like:

Or should I format it in another way because it's a citation? QuickQuokka 11:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka: Most of the citation templates have a |quote= parameter for this use. You can find the exact documentation about this parameter on this page about halfway down under the “quote” heading, but it auto adds the quotation marks for you within the citation template. cyberdog958 14:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberdog958: Thank you for replying, but the |quote= parameter is used for quotes from the article body.

The title of said article is ‘Father of ‘Shamate’’ Looks Back at Now-Dead Subculture, but I changed the quotation marks in the title to  'Father of "Shamate"' Looks Back at Now-Dead Subculture in order to fit Wikipedia's manual of style.

My problem stems from the fact that according to MOS:QWQ, I must add the template {{"'}} if I have a single quote after a double quote, and I'm unsure if I can add templates to an article title in citation templates. QuickQuokka 14:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I said it in an unclear manner... QuickQuokka 14:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the item itself has a single-quoted word within a single-quoted phrase. Our MOS instructs the template trick to use to match our nesting conventions in a legible way. However, each of the Quotation mark templates has a large warning: "This template should not be used in citation templates such as Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, because it includes markup that will pollute the COinS metadata they produce; see Wikipedia:COinS." Regardless of whether you use the original's nesting style or MOS nesting style, you'll need to do it strictly with text and wiki-formatting, not templates that use CSS. DMacks (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: Wow, I didn't even think to check the template... Thanks for your help! QuickQuokka 17:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm asking for your help. She created an article about Alexander Ter-Avanesov, an ex-member of the Federation Council of Russia, using information from reliable sources, the official website of the Federation Council (Russia).

On the page List of members of the Federation Council (Russia) Wikipedia has a footnote number 354 on Alexander Ter-Avanesov as a member of the Federation Council from the Kostroma region from February 8, 2008 to November 27, 2015.

Why is there a comment about unreliable sources when checking if Alexander Ter-Avanesov is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles? How can I accept my article?

I would appreciate an answer!

Xarina17 (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xarina17, when you say that she created an article, I suppose you mean that you created a draft. The template at the top does not charge that the draft cites unreliable sources. Instead, it says "This submission's references [...] do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)." The draft currently cites eight sources. Which three among these eight would you say are the most informative about Ter-Avanesov (while of course being independent of him)? -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Of all the sources, I consider Ter-Avanesov to be the most informative.:

1. The portal of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, which is the official source of the highest representative and legislative body of the Russian Federation: http://council.gov.ru/services/reference/9558 /,

2. The portal of the All-Russian political party "United Russia", which also contains only confirmed information,

3. The official portal of the international information agency "Newsarmenia" https://newsarmenia.am/news/economy/utverzhden-novyy-sostav-soveta-vtb-armeniya /. Xarina17 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So if I accidentally click on the wrong edit summary when finishing an edit, is there any way to change/correct it? For example, see this redirect. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RedactedHumanoid, edit summaries can't be changed, but what you can do is make a dummy edit (add or remove a space, or something), and in that edit summary, write "dummy edit: previous edit summary should have read whatever". I've done that myself several times. Schazjmd (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thank you. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm trying to create my first page, and it seems I'm having some trouble getting it done. Can someone please help?

This page: Draft:Nima Bagheri Jessica plutman (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica plutman Hello and welcome. I reformatted your link, the whole url is not needed. First, have you seen the advice left by reviewers? 331dot (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i did and i replied, got nothing back from them Jessica plutman (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be patient. Wait for a few days, and check. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 01:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jessica plutman. Welcome to the teahouse! First, listen to the reviewers. And I suggest you add reliable sources, read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 23:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined five times, which is not the same as Rejected. Of the nine refs, six are used to confirm he spoke at a conference. That sentence and refs do not contribute to establishing his notability. See WP:42 for what references need to be. David notMD (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote a book about Satoshi Nakamoto, and he has a publisher, so it's not self-published Jessica plutman (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did read those articles, and i have done a lot of research about him, he was mentioned on many independent Cyber security websites Jessica plutman (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessica plutman What are these websites ? My question is about your message dated from "FEB/08/2025" at "00:53 UTC". Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious where I can get more information about when and how village pump policy discussions turn into policy changes. Who decides to mark a discussion as closed (example)?

Related, I was able to identify which edit of this policy stemmed from the previous village pump discussion, but are there any formal links between the change and the discussion that inspired the change? Zentavious (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines gives a broad overview of how policies are created. More specifically, most significant changes to policy come as a result of a request for comment. A discussion is typically closed when the conversation has died down, meaning there haven't been any new comments in at least a day or two. This usually takes around 30 days.

Alternatively, as in the case of the BLP AI images discussion, a discussion may be snow closed, meaning consensus overwhelmingly leans one way.

Many, if not most, pump discussions are closed by admins, though a non-admin may close most discussions as long as they're in good standing and their close is reasonable. In practice, however, highly contentious discussions are almost always closed by administrators.

It's pretty uncommon to include links on the policy page to the relevant RfCs, even in footnotes, because it'd clutter the page. When a policy is introduced, it's common to mention the exact discussion in the edit summary, as was done for the AI RfC Sincerely, Dilettante 19:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Team,

My wikipedia webpage (https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Jeffrey_Broadbent) has this notice attached:

"This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.  (December 2024)"

This accusation is not accurate.  The biographical statements made are fully verifiable and neutral; they are all referenced to objective sources as you can see in the entry.  

I did not originally create this wiki page. However, although I am the subject of the wiki page, I took the liberty to make some clarifications in the biography and put in references to objective sources proving the claims. I also added my most recent publication with a link to its source journal.

As to the second concern,

"The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics.  (December 2024)"

I guess someone must decide whether my accomplishments are sufficient to be given a Wikipedia page or not.

I would most appreciate it if you would remove these notices.

Many thanks for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,

Jeff    Broad001 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Broad001. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I suggest you also read WP:AUTO. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 02:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At Jeffrey Broadbent for now, the tags stay. You have extensively edited the article that is about you (tsk, tsk). Also, your career may not meet any of the criteria at the above-mentioned notability guide for academics. However, one possibility is "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.", which may apply to COMPON. The problem there is that there is no reference to confirm you initiated COMPON, only that you are on the Steering Committee. David notMD (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @David notMD. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 18:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're gonna keep them. You'll live. DACartman (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That last is harshly worded, but I still stand by keeping the tags. For example, the External link to your research website states that you initiated COMPON, but as that site is by you, it cannot be considered independent. David notMD (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DACartman: You probably need to take a look at WP:BLPKIND. If you're going to be answering questions at the Teahouse, you probably should tone your comments down a bit. Most of those posting here for help are new and unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. So, please keep that in mind moving forward. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: how does one find a redirect page? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is WhatLinksHere what you're looking for? 3a74h (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. When one types in a subject in the search and it takes you to a page that is not the subject but merely mentions it in passing within the article because the subject itself does not have a page at WP, how does one find the redirect page for that subject? Creating a page and trying to redirect it. Thanks. PS Yes, the subject is notable to warrant its own page. Maineartists (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Figured it out. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a few times now I have noticed something I might change, and then thought to myself, "There's probably a style guide or a template for that. I should consult that before I edit." Usually I don't make the edit.

This has come up again recently, since I noticed that some articles on moderately important writers, for example Elif Batuman, format lists of the author's work in a way that struck me as particularly annoying: a bulleted list, each line of which begins with the author's name. It's repetitive and doesn't seem to serve any purpose unless it is to provide people with ready made citations. Now I've spent a while poking around relevant Wikiprojects and also the sort of high level "how to edit" stuff without finding any specific rules about this.

Does this just mean that I should edit the article to use a table (seen on some other articles) or a list without the author name repeated, or something else that seems to look good?

I guess I could believe that there's no guide for this issue in particular, and that would be fine, but surely there are consensus rules on things like the infobox for a living animal, or a city. Are there any tips for finding this kind of information, some jargon I'm not familiar with perhaps? Thanks for any suggestions. Philly6097 (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Philly6097. Style guidelines for Wikipedia are covered by the Manual of Style. It covers everything necessary to properly write and format an article. For the example you mentioned, you might be interested in reviewing the guideline for lists of works. Hope this helped, good luck in your future editing! Imconfused3456 05:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That might be exactly what I was looking for, thanks! Philly6097 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general, User:Philly6097, I wouldn't worry so much about such matters. I don't intend to belittle Elif Batuman (a new name to me) in any way when I say that she doesn't seem to have written all that much. (Quality trumps quantity.) If you format the list in a way that's informative, at least moderately conventional, and easily understandable, readers will be happy with it, which is what matters. If somebody later decides that it contravenes this or that stipulation of the MoS, then that person is free to change it and can do so easily. By contrast, if I took it upon myself to provide publishers, ISBNs and so forth for the first (and, if substantially altered, subsequent) editions of all of the numerous books by, say, Edward Lucie-Smith, then I'd feel obliged to look up the relevant content of the MoS and memorize and implement it; because my laziness in not doing so might well cause one or more later editors a lot of unnecessary work. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philly6097. In addition to the advice give by Hoary above, you can use the citation template {{cite book}} for such bullet lists if want but use the parameter |author-mask= together with the parameters |first= and |last= for the author's first and last names as explained in WP:BIB#Using citation templates. The rest of the citation will be formatted accordingly, but an Em dash will be displayed instead of "Bautman, Elif" or "Elif Bautman". There's also other guidance given in WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY regarding how to format such information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is helpful, thank you. Philly6097 (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.. I was created a page named Draft:List of Combined Military Hospitals in Pakistan. This draft article was created by me and i want to delete this page as not enough sources or Page is not notable. Also there is no enough data for me to fill in this draft. Please guide me how to delete this draft ? PB987 (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only contributor (other than trivially), and you expressed a desire to delete it; that was enough for me to delete it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PB987 (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sequelitis/Franchise Fatigue: Term used for when sequels and subsequent instalments in a franchise get significantly worse overtime and fail to live up to the original, usually leading to critical or financial failure. Some notable examples include Jaws, Pirates of the Caribbean, Call of Duty, FIFA, Madden, Jurassic Park/World, Indiana Jones, Daddy Day Care, Ice Age, Todd Philips' Joker, and Home Alone. It has seen official usage by journalists and news outlets such as The Guardian and Variety.
2. Aphmau: American Minecraft YouTuber with 22.9 million subscribers. She has her own line of food products and merchandise, has been nominated for Streamy Awards and Kids Choice Awards, and is set to appear in A Minecraft Movie. She has been covered by sources such as Game Rant and Business Insider.

I wanted to ask here first before making drafts and having them rejected. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edelgardvonhresvelg, the former sounds like one or other of two putative dictionary definitions. But this is not a dictionary; it's an encyclopedia. As for the latter, ask yourself which notability criterion described in Wikipedia:Notability (people) she passes and how you'll be able to demonstrate in the draft that she passes it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edelgardvonhresvelg, routine usage of recently coined terms or neologisms does not confer notability on those words. See WP:DICDEF. On the other hand, if you can find reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the phenomenon of film franchises declining, that discuss and compare and contrast several films franchises that declined in depth, then you may be able to develop an acceptable article. It's got to be much more than something like "Sadly, Christopher Reeve's Superman film franchise went downhill from 1978 to 1987." That's simply stating the obvious. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sequelitis and Franchise Fatigue have been attributed to why certain big budget films failed at the box-office such as Pirates of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, Indiana Jones and The Dial of Destiny, and Transformers: The Last Knight. I wanted to ask here before making a draft for it, because neologisms like Brain rot and AI slop have pages, two terms that emerged far more recently than sequelitis. However, I understand that simply stating "Ice Age's box-office and critical reception worsened with every release, with Ice Age: Collision Course failing to meet expectations domestically" is not encyclopaedic enough. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a useful article could be written if based on more academic analysis of sequelitis rather than focusing on pop media. I found the following decent sources for a start:

• The chapter "From Sequelitis to the Forever Franchise" in Hollywood Remaking (Kathleen Loock, 2024, University of California Press)
• The chapter "Just when you thought it was safe" in The Jaws Book (I.Q. Hunter, 2020, Bloomsbury Publishing)

*The chapter "Sequelism, Sequelitis and Seasonal Rot" in The Sequel Superior (Edward K. Eckhart-Zinn, 2020, Dorrance Publishing)

• The chapter "Gripped by Suspense" in Mood and Mobility (Richard Coyne, 2024, MIT Press)

Schazjmd (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for these. I think that a decent article can be made like the AI slop and Brain rot articles with both the academic sources and news outlets.

As for my Aphmau question, she doesn't really fit into the categories on the Notability page, but I think that internet personalities have different notability standards compared to "normal" entertainers like Pablo Motos or Brett Cooper. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no unique notability requirement for internet personalities; they need to meet WP:BASIC (which is really just reiterating the general notability guidance). Schazjmd (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three books from publishers whose name I immediately recognized, and one from a name (Dorrance) I didn't. Their website is very keen to help prospective authors and doesn't seem to mention that they do publish in such-and-such areas but don't publish in such-and-such other areas. So all in all I suspect that this is a vanity publisher. -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Hoary, thanks for catching that. Schazjmd (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, these books except for The Sequel Superior can be sourced for the Sequelitis draft? Also, how can I find and source these books without physically or digitally owning them, or will I need to purchase them for the creation of the draft? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Edelgardvonhresvelg, you might be able to get the books through your library or via inter-library loan request. Schazjmd (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. I already have a rough draft in Microsoft Word using just the news outlet sources like Variety, The Guardian, and Screen Rant. Once I or another interested editor have these books, I will submit the draft for review if the news outlets aren't enough.

What franchises can I use for a "notable examples" section besides Pirates of the Caribbean, Ice Age, DC (films only), Transformers, Jurassic Park, Jaws, and Indiana Jones? Does The Exorcist fall under sequelitis? Every film past the first one has been critically panned, and Exorcist II: The Heretic is widely considered one of the worst movies ever made. Yet not a single Exorcist sequel has flopped to my knowledge, unlike the other franchises (Jurassic World: Dominion and Ice Age: Collision Course flopped domestically). Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want sources that specifically mention "sequelitis" for a specific franchise. Schazjmd (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources from the outlets that I mentioned discussing sequelitis in the listed franchises. This is the last thing that I will say before this is archived, will the current Sequelitis redirect be changed to the new article if it is accepted? I can put "not to be confused with the web series by Arin Hanson" on the draft. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edelgardvonhresvelg, it seems that you want to write about a phenomenon, one that has been called "sequelitis" but hasn't always been called that. Titling the article "sequelitis" would be proper. The article would of course have to be based on materials about "sequelitis". (These materials wouldn't have to use the word "sequelitis" when describing the phenomenon.) Use the title Draft:Sequelitis as your title: the AfC reviewer will (or anyway should) know what to do with this. I suggest that you start with the examples that are discussed in the sources that you already have, that you continue with examples discussed in the sources that you later acquire, and that if you then want more examples you post a request for them at WT:WikiProject Film. -- Hoary (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article name: Geometry Dash

@B33Net, thanks for classifying my edits as good faith. But why did you revert them? I don't know why. Can you tell me?

Srihan123 (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srihan123 your edits inserted unsourced information and an image that is possibly a copyright violation. In the future, it would be better to ask the reverting editor directly (e.g. at User talk:B33net). '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, sorry for unsourced information :D Srihan123 (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Srihan123, leaving aside possible copyright issues, in my opinion, the image was banal and did not add to the reader's understanding of the game. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry. The ball has no reference to 2.2 :( Srihan123 (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am inquiring whether this AFD constitutes a right closure? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waves (OTT) Bakhtar40 (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakhtar40 since all !votes from other users were keep, yeah, the closure seems right. If you'd like to challenge it, WP:DRV is the right place. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CanonNi, Thank you for your response. I don't want to challenge this AFD. Bakhtar40 (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, two 'keep' !votes, one from the article creator, the other essentially making the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument... meh. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Relisting would not have been amiss, imho. Lectonar (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderwaalforces, would you mind reopening this? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got all excited about new content from Ott (record producer) and it turns out the subject is just an Over-the-top media services in India.

I would not have {{nac}}ed this as "keep". Folly Mox (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it out of this platform ridiculous for a closure I made to be discussed and I was only informed eight hours after the discussion was initiated, after several users had commented. I went ahead to revert and relist the discussion after Jeraxmoira TB me, I didn’t even get the ping above originally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope users from here can go to that AfD and drop a comment especially since some think this was a bad NAC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In creating an article, I've gotten a message about a hidden maintenance message. I've started to create a css page.

1. What is the difference between common.css and skin.css?

2. In creating a common.css page, I've inserted the appropriate text in the editing area, and need to save it. Is "save" the same as "publish"? Johsebb (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johsebb. Yes, in this context, "save" is the same as "publish". Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Two questions:

1. Having created User:Johsebb/common.js, how do I use it to reveal hidden messages?

2. Next to the header is "Cannot install" (and then "Manage user scripts", a link). Does this indicate that the creation was unsuccessful?

Of course, (2) would answer (1). Johsebb (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you have created User:Johsebb/common.css instead of User:Johsebb/common.js.

• User:Johsebb/common.js is where you import scripts that help you complete tasks that would otherwise be tedious. You can read more about user scripts here.
• Wikipedia:User scripts/List - Here you will find a list of scripts that can be installed in your User:Johsebb/common.js by clicking the install button.
• "how do I use it to reveal hidden messages?" - I am not really sure what you mean by revealing hidden messages. If you are referring to invisible comments inside articles, you can read more about them in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text.
• On User:Johsebb/common.js, Manage user scripts option makes it easy for you to see which scripts you are using. It also helps you uninstall, disable or enable scripts. Otherwise, you would have to manually edit the page to remove or disable scripts.

If you need further help regarding this, it is better to ask your questions at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where other editors who are more familiar with this area can help. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also to be precise, it should be created at User:Johsebb/common.css, not at common.css. Whatever you create/code in your User:Johsebb/common.css will apply only to you across all Wiki pages you visit. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have further questions, and will reply to Cullen328. Johsebb (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johsebb: See Wikipedia:Customisation for some general help. Don't create a page called skin.css. It doesn't do anything as a page. User:Johsebb/skin.css automatically redirects to the CSS page for your current skin selection at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. CSS at User:Johsebb/common.css runs in all skins in addition to any skin-specific CSS page. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I simply followed what I understood to be the instructions at Help:CS1_errors#Error_and_maintenance_messages. Perhaps that page needs to be updated or corrected. I'm afraid this whole issue is rather mysterious to those of us who are not experts. Johsebb (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I'm a fairly new editor of Wikipedia and would like some advice on what I could do to improve this article so that it is able to reach the mainspace. st4rry (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @SkullyWasHere, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have said about the subject, and very little else. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Writing an article without first finding independent sources is like building a house without first building the foundations - or even surveying the plot to check that it is suitable to build on.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

(I realise that your account has been around for a couple of years; but with only 28 edits to your name, I think you count as a new editor).

One unrelated point: please don't use a signature that disguises your user name: I was going to begin this reply by asking why you were interested in a draft by somebody else. If you don't like your user name, you can ask for it to be changed: see WP:CHU. ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do listicles need each item to have a reference if the items themselves have corresponding Wikipedia articles? I assume the references are in the articles themselves. I'm asking because, while going through the cleanup page of the WikiProject Germany, I saw that the article List of German musicians got tagged as unreferenced. Thank you in advance! Paprikaiser (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paprikaiser, Generally lists contain only established content, as whoever has wikipedia article. in this manner it doesn't need any specific reference. The Unreferenced tag was included on 31 January 2025 only through this edit.––kemel49 03:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll keep that in mind. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paprikaiser, I'm late but that list doesn't have any content that requires citations according to the guideline at WP:SOURCELIST. If it was a contentious category (say war criminals instead of musicians) then citations would be needed. Thanks for bringing it up here, Rjj (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering! Paprikaiser (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you nominate other Wikipedian articles despite not being the author/creator of said articles? Also, if you helped improved on said articles (not the being the article creator) is it still permissible to make nominations? Rager7 (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rager7, this is rarely done, but not disallowed by Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines. You'll get the best answers on DYK questions by posting the question (or in this case a link to this thread since it's already been asked here) over at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. I would suggest notifying the main author of the article with a {{ping}} on the DYK nomination or on the article's talk page. Also, is the article in question 2025 Southeast Europe retail boycotts? If so, either you or the creator might want to nominate it by tomorrow so that it still meets DYK's newness criteria. Rjj (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii Yeah, I just wanted to make sure. The guidelines did say that anyone can nominate an article as a long they're auto confirmed. Rager7 (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rager7: Gotcha, and good luck with the DYK. Feel free to reach out if you have more questions, Rjj (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I request deletion on user sandboxes? akidfrombethany!(_talk|) 02:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AKidFromBethany: Yes, but only if it is being used for something completely unrelated to Wikipedia or it contains something that needs to be deleted rather than blanked (like a copyright violation or personal information). I think last year a long-standing admin had a sandbox deleted that was just a list of fictional heroes that could inhabit a fictional universe together. What's the reason to delete this sandbox? Rjj (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clear out one of my sandboxes, and was wondering if I could request to delete my own. akidfrombethany!(_talk|) 03:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AKidFromBethany: oh yeah, that's fine. For the rationale, use WP:U1. Rjj (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm trying to figure out how to better structure the categories and lists for communities in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada. It all started when I noticed that every county in N.S. has it's own list article for unincorporated communities, compared to the province of Ontario which keeps all unincorporated communities in one list article nestled under the parent category of "Lists of populated places in Ontario". I posted about the topic in WP:CANADA, initially intending to make the Nova Scotia list more akin to the Ontario list, but after encountering List of communities in Saskatchewan, I'm now wondering if it wouldn't be better to provide a more thorough overview for each type of community on what would be the top-level navigation page for the topic. I'm aiming to get some more featured lists for Nova Scotia and I think I need some advice from someone more experienced before I take action on this. How would you folks handle it? Thank you. — Kylemahar902 (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification:

The top level page for Nova Scotia is List of communities in Nova Scotia.

The top level page for Ontario is List of communities in Ontario

Obviously there's no one "right way," but I'm trying to find the "best way". If more clarification is needed please let me know. Kylemahar902 (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kylemahar902. I really don't think you're going to get any better answer here than at WT:CANADA. ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ColinFine, thanks for replying. I figured this was kind of a long shot but I'm not too keen on the idea of just taking it upon myself to make great sweeping changes to the article structure for places in an entire province without some form of consensus. WT:CANADA is a bit of a ghost town. Do you think there's anywhere else I might be able to seek input? Thank you. — Kylemahar902 (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could always file a request for comment. The editors there may be able to help you reach consensus. Hope it helps! (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 15:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to convert the citations at Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) to look something like the ones in Sheba but they can't seem to work. My edit was tagged as having a "harv-error" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abo Yemen Both these articles seem to be using shortened footnotes, not Harvard citations. Thus you should not be using any harvard-type templates, only ones like {{sfn}}. If the linked pages don't help, you will have to explain the problem in more detail. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to fix the issue here. Thank you for those links 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to add a Chinese version of my school (Rovigo Conservatory of Music) to its wiki page, but it keeps on getting critical error. Do anyone know how can I do that, or maybe help me with this task?

Link below：https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Rovigo_Conservatory_of_Music

Many thanks Ghettolied (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghettolied Not sure what you mean by "Chinese version of my school". Are you saying that there is an article about the school on Chinese Wikipedia? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I don't think there are an article about this school on "Wikipedia in Chinese" because there are no interlinks on WikiData.

EDIT : Maybe the user want to add an interlink on WikiData about the version in Chinese. Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghettolied Do you think you could search for it on the Chinese Wikipedia (here [9]) and paste the link here if you find it? Sophisticatedevening 00:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I recently posted a question about creating a new category on the related talk page Talk:Historic Artists' Homes and Studios. Is that the right way to go about it? Thank you for any guidance. ~~~ Remando (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remando It's worth a shot, but since you were the first person to edit that talkpage since 2017, it's not that certain that anyone interested is actually looking. WP has about 126 000 active editors and almost 7 million articles. So, if nobody replies in a couple of days, you should try elsewhere, like... HERE! Someone here might have some good advice, or you can try for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, & good to know about that WikiProject! :) ~~~ Remando (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello teahouse friends! I have a draft article that I feel is close to submitting for review. I cannot comprehend how I must enter the dates of birth and death for it to appear correctly. I've tried out various ways, and nothing works. Can someone fix this for me (or tell me how to do it?) Please and big thank you! Draft:Derek Pratt (watchmaker)

In addition, I have a callout at the top that states I have no citations, but I do...

In fact, two of the citations require help with the publication dates. I entered everything correctly, per the book. I would greatly appreciate guidance with this, too. The book I'm referencing is this one: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Derek_Pratt_FBHI_Watchmaker/qt6kmwEACAAJ?hl=en

Huge thanks in advance! Louisetarp (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "unsourced" tag, which was placed before sources were added. I also fixed the infobox. I also cleaned up the date problems in the refs. Schazjmd (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

bless you, Schazjmd! That was so quick! Many many thanks!! Louisetarp (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have dozens of paragraphs that are not referenced. David notMD (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few hyperlinks in the body of the article that need to be removed - perhaps those can become references instead? Also, the Notable works content appears to list watches that are described in detail elsewhere. David notMD (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David notMD, can you be more specific about your callouts? 1. dozens of paragraphs not referenced: are you saying there is too much unverified text? 2. which hyperlinks? 3. Notable works: I was thinking of this as a summary of the above, details at a glance kind of thing.. Is that not done? Thanks a million!! Really appreciate your input. Louisetarp (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, yes, content needs to be verified. This can be done with multiple uses of the same references. The Oval, Exhibitions and elsewhere have numbered hyperlinks. Wikipedia does not do summaries or conclusions. David notMD (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Louisetarp We do do summaries, as that's what the WP:LEAD of all articles is supposed to provide. The lead is not required to contain citations, since these can be inferred from citations in the main body of the article, but everything in the main article should be cited to sources which the reader can use to verify the content. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @Michael D. Turnbull can you show me an example of a good summary example?

Also, it's unclear to me if my Draft is already in the Articles for creation section? Or do I need to put it there? Or do I click the "Submit the draft for review" button? Louisetarp (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Louisetarp I hoped to find a WP:GOOD or WP:FEATURED article in the Category:English watchmakers (people) but even John Harrison has not been assessed as high as that, which is where you would normally look for a good lead section. So, instead you could look at today's featured article (see main page). Your draft is in the correct place as an "article for creation" but you need to click the big blue button at the top, when you are ready, and that will submit it for review/formal feedback. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull you're being very generous! Thank you. Ha, if even John Harrison doesn't have a good lead section... I actually got the idea of having a "Notable Works" section that @David notMD was saying is no good from the Ettore Sottsass page. It also seems convenient to see things at a glance, with bullet points, after the wordier stuff at the top. Shall I leave it and see what the formal feedback will be once I submit it, or is it wiser for me to just get rid of it prior to submitting? I'm really grateful for everyone chiming in and helping me! It's fun to be part of the Wiki community. Louisetarp (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better check the (many) details, Louisetarp. This one jumped out at me: "His favorite [bicycle] was a Dursley Pedersen, an early 19 century bicycle known for its hammock-style saddle" (unreferenced). It's a bit of a stretch to call any contraption from earlier than the 1860s a "bicycle". And you'd have to pay me to ride something from earlier than the 1880s, even for the shortest distance. The Dursley Pedersen dates from the very late 19th (not, please, "19") century. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more clear - I meant not summaries at the end. David notMD (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @David notMD Louisetarp (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

got it, thank you so much @Hoary! Keep the comments coming, please :) Really appreciate the eagle eye. Louisetarp (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Lago della Meja

Hello Teahouse, I have come across this article. It has a grand total of a sentence. Does it qualify general notability or geographic notability? Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also like the above. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 23:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I can make one comment. This is the next. The article "Lago della Meja" is not sourced. Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually no articles are notable. (The few exceptions include "John Seigenthaler": notable for the wrong reasons; see Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident.) The questions to ask are: Does the article demonstrate the notability of its subject? Is the subject of the article notable? CF-501 Falcon, you are rightly concerned about the article Lago della Meja. Is the lake notable? Well, use a search engine and evaluate what this brings you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary, No in my opinion it is not. The search results don't show much for Lago della Meja. I am going to propose the article for deletion and see where that goes. Thank you for your advice. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the references cited for it:Lago della Meja say very little. -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to ask other wikipedia content writers to improve this draft article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Draft:Significance_of_numbers_in_Hinduism Alangar Manickam (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem pointed out to you, Alangar Manickam, is that, in its current state, Draft:Significance of numbers in Hinduism "is not adequately supported by reliable sources". You're hoping that other editors will show which reliable sources support which of the many assertions in what you've already written. As a humdrum example: "Six enemies or impurities of mind are Lust, Anger, Greed, Pride, Delusion and Envy." Now, I can enter Hinduism Lust Anger Greed Pride Delusion Envy at Google, and perhaps find it, and if so then write a reference for it, but then you too can do all that. One good reason why you should do it rather than me is that I have little interest in your subject. (I've nothing against it; but I prefer to spend my time on other matters, matters that are unlikely to interest you.) Ditto for other Wikipedia editors. So you should tackle it. (Avoid "bare URLs". And you're likely to find named references a big help.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alangar Manickam: I added {{WikiProject Hinduism}} to the draft talk page. Maybe someone from that project would be willing to help you. GoingBatty (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help. Have a great day, much appreciated. Alangar Manickam (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, would someone be willing to give a second opinion on my talk about whether these edits are within policy? Thank you! Justiyaya 05:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justiyaya I just replied with my thoughts. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under the "Things to monitor" section on my userpage, I'm trying to link to a category without making it a category of the page itself. Does anyone know how to do this the right way? Electricmemory (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricmemory: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you put a colon beforehand, you'll link to the category but not turn the page into one of its members. For example, [[:Category:Example]] gets you Category:Example. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu Thanks! Electricmemory (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm currently working on a song article about the song Vacations by Dirty Heads. I am currently confused about the non-free content policy (outlined here) at Wikipedia local (I asked at commons, but they told me to ask here.)

I want to upload a photo of the song cover. Could anyone explain me as to how I should do this? AravPerfectlyEdits (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ArPerfectlyEdits You need to ensure you only upload non free use material to Wikipedia, not Commons. When uploading, use a low resolution, small physical sized (height and width) file and stated that it is "Fair Use" bit only after the article where you wish to deploy it is in mainspace. Fair use only applies in mainspace.

You ought to be guided by the upload wizard to create a "Fair Use Rationale" but you will see after upload that you need to do so.

I'm afraid policies in this area need to be complex. Breach of copyright is a legality issue. We need to protect both the copyright owner and Wikipedia. The implementation section of the policy you mention simply requires quiet contemplation and to be taken slowly, as with all legalese and works close to legalese 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 10:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArPerfectlyEdits, non-free content policy is necessarily complex. But for now, bear in mind two things. First, no draft may include non-free content, and Draft:Vacation (Dirty Heads song) would be no exception. Secondly, the chances of success in submitting a draft for promotion to article status are not helped at all by the inclusion in the draft of images, even if the copyleft of those images are not problematic. Oh, a third: You've hardly started on Draft:Vacation (Dirty Heads song); you have a lot of work to do on its text. -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My account has just been autoconfirmed. I've been reading about the increased functionality, such as Twinkle, which will be a great help. I was hoping there might be some additional preference gadgets to assist with routine copyediting and the like. In particular, some kind of scripted utility or subroutine that will convert hyphens in date ranges to dashes. One page I worked on had loads of those, and I had to amend them manually; it looks as if it is a common problem. Is there any kind of functionality that can handle this on a whole-page basis? Thank you. Spartathenian (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just do what is easiest for you. There are bots that will along and convert hyphens and dashes to what they ought to be; don't waste an extra second worrying about it. Mathglot (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add ping Spartathenian. Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I see there are numerous user-defined scripts available, though, so maybe one of those could do it. I'll look at them in more depth, when I have time, as it seems you have to upload them and so on. Spartathenian (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartathenian Don't forget that the source editor, in its "advanced" menu, has a search-and-replace feature, so you could do that much like you would in a word processor (skipping the examples where the hyphen was correct). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike. I hadn't seen that, and it is useful. Thanks very much. Spartathenian (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Searching the site for possibilities, I've found User:Ohconfucius/dashes which seems to fit the bill. I've tried it out, and it has done the job, but I'll use it diligently. There are more scripts at the designer's home page. Spartathenian (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need for improvement of my css knowledge Dee Soulza (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dee Soulza I use w3schools.com to increase my meagre knowledge of CSS and much else besides 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 10:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend this too. It's a really good down-to-earth module, and you'll learn a lot from it. Good luck. Spartathenian (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind reply. Dee Soulza (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dee Soulza: Try reading CSS. If you want a good technical resource, try [10]. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make the title of the page Court of Gold be in italics? Thanks, Sushidude21! (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sushidude21! If you check a similar article, you'll see that this is done using the {{italic title}} template. Try that and if you have any problems, repost back here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Wikipedia article for 'Vikaasa Parva,' but it doesn't show up directly in Google search results. I have to click through the link to access the page. Can anyone explain why this is happening and how I can improve its visibility in search results? Thanks! Vikashcv (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You created Vikaasa Parva as an article on 5 February. It will need to be looked at by New Pages Patrol (WP:NPP) before it will be 'seen' by search engines such as Google. NPP has a large list of unreviewed articles, so this may take weeks to months. Also, you have a long list of items under References that are not properly formatted references. Work on improving the article while waiting for NPP. It is possible that NPP will revert the article to a draft if not improved. David notMD (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vikashcv Your main aim now should be to show how this film is notable as defined by Wikipedia. For films, this almost always means that the article needs to include information about how the film was received by critics commenting in reliable sources. For foreign-language sources, you should, as a courtesy to readers, include a translation of the title and perhaps key quotes in English translation. See {{cite web}} for the parameters to use for this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm currently watching the English and Bangla pages for Kazi Nazrul Islam and have noticed several points of information present in the Bangla page missing from the English page. Is there any protocol I should be following to make the English page mirror the Bangla page more so they match? I'm a native Bangla speaker so can translate the information myself, but would that be following protocol or is there a process I should adhere to? I'm editing in visual editor XZY5 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XZY5. Start by reading WP:Translation. Be aware that each language version of Wikipedia sets its own content guidelines, so something that may OK in another language may be inappropriate on the English Wikipedia. For example, there is a very high expectation of Verifiability here. Cullen328 (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware that this is a vital article, a Good article and a former Featured article, so it has had an unusual level of scrutiny and peer review over the years. Please read the article talk page carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XZY5 When you translate an article.

Never forget to make the necessary changes like remove sources (For the version in English. So , don't copy all sources from the article in another language version of Wikipedia) that aren't considered "reliable" in the eyes of "Wikipedia in English".

Translate an article from another language version of Wikipedia is more than a translation. This is an adaptation. Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is: Most Wikipedia articles aren't worth translation (even in part). Treat the Bengali-language article as a potential font of new ideas (good or bad). Where an ingredient seems worthwhile and is lacking in the English-language articlee, look at the sources that it cites. If these sources seem reliable, summarize what they say, bypassing the Bengali-language article. (I hope I needn't add: if there are no sources, or if the sources don't seem to be reliable, then stop and move on to something else.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see in Japan Wikipedia there is a lot of stuff is there about the Islam related pages such as jihad, islamism, Islamic fundamentalism, which are written in a Biased way I want to request investigation or fact check in their Wikipedia but not know how to do it 獅眠洞 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't tell you how the Japanese Wikipedia operates; it is a separate project with its own editors and policies. I assume that the overall structure is similar, and that each article there has its own article talk page, you should first express your concerns there. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx u😇 獅眠洞 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I contribute to Feature Picture Candidates sometimes and in the last couple of months there's been a user, ArionStar, who has already been banned on Commons for sockpuppetry (to the point they're now blocked from editing their own Commons talk page), has ignored a number of warnings about how many nominations one can have on FPC at one time, and is alternately antagonizing other users and asking them to do work for them. At what point does annoyance tip over the edge into bannable behavior? Moonreach (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moonreach. Each Wikimedia project is separate and largely autonomous, so a block on another project has no direct effect on the English Wikipedia. However, if the same behavioral problems that led to a block there are also occurring here, that could lead to a block here. Cullen328 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonreach, if you think what they're doing here is so seriously bad that they should be blocked, you can start a thread at WP:ANI. It looks like they were first blocked on commons for making careless featured picture nominations. I've only done a quick look through their recent history but it does look to me like they might be doing the same thing here, which could indeed be a problem, especially if they're also driving people crazy for additional reasons. Make sure you report it more like "here are the behavioural problems of this editor, by the way, they also have a significant block log on Commons for the same issue and sockpuppetry" and not like "here's a banned commons user who is also annoying over here" so you are less likely to be dismissed for the reason Cullen mentioned. -- asilvering (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a credible archive of the billboard charts going back to at least the 70s? Trying to find and add citations to certain music pages.

The words are unavailable (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, The words are unavailable! The Billboard chart histories are available on Billboard's website under the URL format, billboard(dot)com/artist/artist-name/chart-history (replacing 'artist-name' with the name of the artist, hyphenating between each word; Chappell Roan's chart history for example). You should be able to find a drop-down menu of charts on which the artist's music has appeared. Hope that helps, Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I should be asking this here, or on VPT or on mw:, but I recently raised an issue on Keyoxide's Codeberg page regarding adding identity proofs for Wikipedia/MediaWiki.

Basically what Keyoxide does, is it takes advantage of the fact you can add comments to GPG keys, and uses it basically to confirm your other online identities.

So I raised this issue about adding proofs to Wikipedia/MediaWiki. Is this issue correct on a technical level? I'm not very confident in myself... QuickQuokka 22:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actually any website out there that we consider RS that gives its own separate ratings of source reliability? Or is RSN all just based on the fact-checking (or whatever criteria) the editors do themselves? I know we use Snopes and they do fact-checking, but that's just on an article-by-article basis. By the way, it's kind of funny that there's a template on this page that says "Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse." 😂 Manuductive (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Manuductive, what we consider a reliable source is based on the WP:RS guideline and discussion at WP:RSN not any external website (other than the source itself and anything disproving it). There's a list of commonly discussed and used sources at WP:RSP. Ultraodan (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]