This is anarchive of past discussions onWikipedia:Teahouse.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent main page.
Continental boundaries are arbitrary, the association of islands with said continents even more so. There isn't really a "correct".CMD (talk)15:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
There is an image of Sloggatt at Commons "Arthur H Sloggatt at his drafting table.png" but putting that in the info box generates this cartoon image. Why? Can the correct image be inserted outside the infobox?David notMD (talk)12:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Because this is still a draft??? Perhaps a note to the creating editor to set aside the image until the draft is accepted?David notMD (talk)12:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I was explaining on another thread that the New York Daily Mirror ceased publication in the 1960's so there are no digital archives. However I called the Library of Congress and they confirmed the physical copies of the paper are archived in New York City. A lot of the sources from that time period are not digitized - how do you create a source that exists in physical form but not digitized?Sloggatt (talk)17:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Updating MusiCares page
Hello there, the page forMusiCares is very out of date. I have tried to edit with updated information and cited appropriately, but my edits keep getting reverted, even when not using copyrighted content. Would any experts on this forum be willing to help update this page? Thanks.Fatekerber (talk)18:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
It appears you are attempted to remove cited content and replace it with non-cited content. As one of Wikipedia's core standards isverifiability, you will need to cite a source for any content that you change. It is important we are able to verify what is being posted is true, and as such you should cite whenever you that sort of information.
Also, if you want to see which of your contributions were undone, you can simply go toyour contributions. Those that were undone will have the word "reverted" in the tags beside the edit.
My draft has been denied a lot of times for source issues (seedraft:Randall Standridge) yet there are some articles (likeTactical crew) that are in the main space, but lack sources at all.
@Jacob Lee 6939. Those articles are more or less grandfathered in as the requirements for having articles here becomes tighter. Such articles from the olden days remain until someone have the heart to either work on improving the article or request for deletion. If there is a line, it would be the applicable version of the policy of when the article was first written.– robertsky (talk)19:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, but not yet addressed. As robertsky has alluded to, we're only as good as the people who choose to help us and have the time to take action. Seeother stuff exists.331dot (talk)19:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Jacob Lee 6939! The history of Wikipedia's policy on sourcing has varied significantly. The page you bring up as an example, Tactical crew, was first created in 2004. Back then, Wikipedia's standards on citations were not as strict as they are now. This is especially true forbiographies of living people, which your article is. You should have a source for pretty much every claim in your article, other then the fact thatthe sky is blue. Hope this helps!PhoenixCaelestis (Talk ·Contributions)19:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Tense on fictional character biography
Hello. I was looking at the page forMr. Miyagi, and the character is deceased in-universe. Should the page be in past tense perMOS:BLPTENSE? Couldn't find anything on this for deceased fictional characters.loserhead (talk)19:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey! If you can hit the edit button, you may be able to hit "Submit edit request" or something similar to that, if you cannot, please add {{reply to|Valorrr}} to your message and I'll be happy to help.Valorrr(lets chat)19:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Redirects to redirects
Is it okay for this kind of redirect flow? It seems that this is because of the editor misnomering the article.
I CSD'edKureme, Iraq a few minutes ago per R6 and is deleted now. But this overall redirect flow confuses me and makes me wonder if it is okay to keep them or delete some of the redirects, because for some reason, the redirect from the Draft: namespace to Wikipedia: namespace and vice-versa seems to be an R2 for me (though R2 specifically said "except the Wikipedia: namespace"). But I'm asking here just to be sure and make sense of it.AstrooKai (Talk)06:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Chains of redirect are in themselves fairly harmless. But the final redirect in this chain, from mainspace to a draft, is not permitted.Maproom (talk)07:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Undeletion requests and re-submitted copyrights release but no response from Wikimedia Commons
I have been trying to merge images and copyright releases for three images for the past three months. The copyright owner submitted the release form again on April 21, with the ticket numberTicket:2025042110004161 and I requested the undeletion of the images relating to the releases:
Thank you, @Hoary – do you know of there is a Commons Teahouse? – And yes, those images are for the Draft Derek Pratt (watchmaker) article :)Louisetarp (talk)01:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
point taken, Andy. What's puzzling to me is the 7 day window in which the copyrights release is tied to the upload of images. In this case, the undeletion request of images. So wouldn't those 7 days apply in both directions? I wrote the permissions email within those 7 days, and again after, but my emails are not being replied to. In the past, I've received answers and help. This one feels jinxed, and I cannot comprehend what's different/wrong this time.Louisetarp (talk)12:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
@Louisetarp Your draft has recently been declined but the reviewer kindly provided detailed reasons why. I think it will be rapidly accepted after you have fixed the issues with the citations they mentioned and you can re-submit andWP:PING that reviewer to take another look once you have done so. There is no hurry for the images, as they are irrelevant to acceptance at AfC. There is an essayWP:There is no deadline, although not everyone agrees with that.Mike Turnbull (talk)13:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi Mike, how have you been? Yes, it's exciting that the article is now very close!
The mystery with the images is that we've tried to muddle through the complicated system several times now. The copyright owner is super willing and proud to have the images up on Wikipedia, but requires a lot of handholding. So not hearing back from Permissions as to what the reasons are for the holdup is quite frustrating. It feels like those 7 days of when the newly submitted release is active should be honored by Wikimedia Commons, too.
Moving images around once they've been placed in the article
Hello, I just added three images to an article, but am not happy with the placement within the article. How can I moved them? There doesn't seem to be a simple way to do so, I only see the options of moving to the left, center or middle. I would like to move them within paragraphs for better flow. (this is forDerek Pratt (watchmaker)#Independent watchmaking) Thanks!Louisetarp (talk)08:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
We don't delete Teahouse threads in case they are of use to other readers, we just archive them.Help:Pictures is the general help page for image placement but there are so many browsers and screen sizes in use to view Wikipedia articles that tweaking articles to work well on an individual device can ruin the display for others.
In the article [[2]], the section Background contains blockquotes, in which all paragraph breaks have been eliminated, and the text has become difficult to parse.
<ref>Footnote 11 appears here: "''See'' the Bibliography on Trusts (1913)
followed by a lot more content including quotations, blank lines (probably intended as paragraph breaks) and direct external links. I don't know what's gone wrong, but that is not sensible content for <ref>...</ref> tags.Maproom (talk)07:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. The references are not part of the quote. I will try to fix it. Thanks.Comfr (talk)15:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Protection of featured article summary
I've noticed that the featured article section on the main page is actually a separate page that isn't protected.
I haven't tried editing it because I don't want to break anything but the UI tells me that I can edittoday's featured article section.
Earlier today,Mike Waltz was announced as an intended nominee for US ambassador to the UN. Several editors have modified his infobox to include to this position, though he has not been confirmed to the post. Is this acceptable? I was of the believe that officeholder infoboxes should only feature offices that the subject actually held (or was elected to but has/did not yet assumed). Best, ~Pbritti (talk)21:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
@Valorrr: there is no issue of notability here. Nobody is talking about creating an article—this about whether an infobox should reflect a status they do not yet possess.@Bazza 7:, thanks for the reply. I think you're right that CRYSTAL is most applicable. ~Pbritti (talk)22:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
On the Wikipedia page forTerrance Howard, I have reverted a few edits that redact criticism of the living persons without providing a source, which I believe not to be in good faith as the account has a small history only of reverted edits. I don't think I am in the wrong for these rollbacks, but I am getting notes left by said editor on my talk page regarding edit warring (after only a couple rollbacks of undescribed changes) and "being unkind to fellow Wikipedians", which while I do not agree with them, I am not sure if I am in the right to delete them. I feel like I would be fine given the editor's history but want to check. How do I proceed?CollinDChase (talk)01:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Kind regards. I wanted to ask if there was a precedent for citing from a reference whose origin is not known precisely. An example would be having a physical copy or picture from the page of a book, but not knowing or remembering its name, author or publisher. I wanted to know how this was handled with the traditional <ref><ref/> template, and how known information can be added (such as the library where it was retrieved from), assuming it meets the reliability threshold.NoonIcarus (talk)22:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is massively contaminated with junk, and no doubt there are thousands of precedents,NoonIcarus; but their number don't justify it. However formatted,<ref>Page 35 of a book, almost certainly in English, and published in the late 20th century but no later than 1993.</ref>, for example, wouldn't show the reader where to find the page. Therefore it would be unsuitable, however ingeniously one might use a Cite template for the purpose. --Hoary (talk)22:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. The specific example that I'm thinking about is a list of films along with their respective budgets. The downside is that this makes it harder to identify the source compared to a sentence, but on the bright side it's also probably easier finding the information online or in other references. Still, I leave the question open for bibliographical material that may not be as easily digitlized. --NoonIcarus (talk)14:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Many thanks for your insight. I totally agree that just because a mistake is commonplace or a lot of people makes it doesn't make it right. I guess another way to put the question is how much "complementary" information from the source is enough to turn the lack of main info appropriate, if any. Just some food for thought. --NoonIcarus (talk)14:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Hoary that verifiability is key. If the reader cannot trace the information to a reliable source, then the citation loses its value in an encyclopedia. At the same time, I think your question—how much complementary information is enough when the core citation info is missing—is worth exploring further, especially for physical or rare materials that aren't easily digitized.
One thing I’m considering is whether it's possible to temporarily include such information on the article’s talk page while trying to track down the full reference. Maybe adding a tag like[citation needed] or[better source needed] could also alert others to help identify the source.Jeong seolah (talk)05:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Making a new page
Hey, I tried to make the page "Memelord" but it did not let me do so. Is there any reason why this page cannot be made? It has the RSes to justify a spot on here I would think. Thanks!Gjb0zWxOb (talk)Gjb0zWxOb (talk)15:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
That article has been protected from creation due to extensive vandalism. If you think you can write an acceptable article about this topic, please submit a draft via thearticle wizard.331dot (talk)15:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi there! The reason you’re unable to create the Memelord article is because the page has been protected from creation due to repeated past vandalism or non-notable attempts. That means new pages with that title can’t be created directly.
However, if you believe the topic meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and you have reliable sources (RS) to support it, you can still write a draft version using the Article Wizard. Once written, it can be reviewed by editors before being moved to the mainspace.
Also, note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary—if you’re focusing on the definition or slang usage of memelord, it may be more appropriate for Wiktionary, where an entry already exists.
Is it considered acceptable to use machine-translated text from other wikis
Hello hello! I'm currently working on the (English language) Wikipedia page for theLänsimetro, however I've noticed that the Finnish Wikipedia pagesfi:Länsimetro andfi:Länsimetron_historia are seemingly pretty well done and contain better-presented and generally better information. I do not speak Finnish, nor pretend to, however I still believe it would be beneficial to cross-pollinate between the two articles. Would it be acceptable for me to use machine-translated text from the two Finnish articles in order to update the English article, so long as I flag it on the talk page, or is this a task better left for fluent speakers of Finnish? Thanks!BerkutSimp (talk)14:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Generally you can use machine translation to turn the Finnish text into English, but you should generally copyedit to ensure it sounds like normal prose and isn't a mess of garbled sentences.PhoenixCaelestis (Talk ·Contributions)14:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @BerkutSimp. There are two other caveats: the first is to make sure that your translated text is well sourced and properly cited. If you translate text that is not sourced up to the level required in English Wikipedia (seeWP:42) then what you are doing is effectively writing the articlebackwards. The second is to give correct attribution, which is a legal requirement of the licence Wikipedia uses. SeeWP:Translate us.ColinFine (talk)14:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
If you are not able to read Finnish yourself, you should not be performing translations from Finnish. Seethe page for the content translation tool for descriptions of the past pitfalls of using machine translation; ultimately, if the best we can do is a blind machine translation, readers can do that themselves. I'm not personally familiar with Finnish either or the general quality of machine translation for Finnish to English, but it is a language far enough removed from English that I would be very doubtful of the quality of machine-generated translations, as performance will likely be more similar to English--Chinese or English--Hebrew (read: bad) than English--Spanish (a relatively consonant pair of languages that are also commonly translated, creating a large body of training data to build off of for the translation algorithms)signed,Rosguilltalk14:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Thus far I've simply resigned myself to updating the page with a public transit infobox, because I'd imagine simple figures and one-word entries are far less prone to mistranslation. However, I would rather defer to you if you feel as though even that is too error-prone to bearBerkutSimp (talk)15:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
I frankly don't think this is too much of a problem - I use machine translation as a basis to writeGreat Han Sichuan Military Government andREM-KL (from Chinese and Russian respectively) with few issues. It definitely would help if you cross-reference with other things outside Wikipedia to ensure what you're saying is accurate. As long as you have the general idea of what the original text is saying, you should be fine.PhoenixCaelestis (Talk ·Contributions)15:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
To be frank,BerkutSimp, the advice that you are getting fromPhoenixCaelestis is false. Any editor translating Wikipedia content from another language to English (or vice versa) is expected to have working competence in both languages, or to collaborate with another human editor who speaks the other language well. Machine translation can and regularly does make serious errors in meaning, especially when translating content that discusses complex concepts or includes idioms, slang and colloqualisms. So, I strongly encourage both of you to refrain from irresponsible use of machine translation. I am pingingMathglot to this conversation, a highly experienced editor who is interested in this problem on Wikipedia. I am in general agreement with whatRosguill wrote above.Cullen328 (talk)16:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
BerkutSimp, in a word, no, it is not acceptable. You should leave it for speakers of Finnish. Although machine translation is far better than it once was, it continues to make serious errors on occasion. If you do not know the language, there is no way to know when that occurs, and therefore no way to ensureverifiability, which is acore content policy of Wikipedia. As several editors have already mentioned, competence in the foreign language and in English is a prerequisite to using translated content at Wikipedia.
In addition, the original article was written by Finnish Wikipedia volunteers, not domain experts, and is thereforenot a reliable source. The citations in their article hopefully are reliable and may or may not support the Finnish content, but how would you know if you don't speak the language? Even if the translation of the article is faithful to the Finnish original, it's important to be able to understand the foreign citations in order to maintain verifiability. If you machine-translate unverifiable content and add it here, you are in violation of our verifiability policy. If you need additional help regarding translation, feel free to contact me on my Talk page. Thanks,Mathglot (talk)00:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I see, tysm for letting me know ^_^ I really appreciate it. I don't think any of the information in the infobox I created is inaccurate, at least according to the sources I looked at, however I see how they might not hold up under scrutiny. I leave the question of whether it stays up to more experienced Wikipedians than I, however, though I'd like to say that said Wikipedians should feel free to do so if they feel it is best.BerkutSimp (talk)04:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
@BerkutSimp If you ever do find that a foreigh-language Wikipedia article looks good, and, more ipmortantly, has good sourcing, please feel free to leave a note on the talk page mentioning that! Hopefully somebody competent in the language will see it. Or, if you just want to cite a fact or two, you can maybe ask for help from somebody inCategory:Wikipedians by language. There's no guarantee, but many people are okay with translating a sentence or two. I know I've met people on theWikimedia Discord who've translated things for me, or translated entire documents for other editors... but that's a bit more unusual!GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋04:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
As a native Finnish speaker, I occasionally test Google Translate (and some other tools) between Finnish and English, just to see how they're coming along, especially because Finnish has a notoriously difficult grammar. While these tools are certainly improving, they're still far from perfect. I'd say that if you translate four sentences from Finnish to English, Google gets three of them pretty spot-on, but the fourth one is eitheralmost right but with a subtle mistake such as translating an idiom literally or getting two homographs mixed up, or in some cases is complete gobbledegook. Gobbledegook is easy for anyone to spot, but if you don't know Finnish you're very unlikely to catch the subtle mistake because it looks superficially okay. --DoubleGrazing (talk)09:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Decline my draft
Dear Concern, I am a new editor. I submitted Draft: Rotimi Solomon Ajanaku but it was declined for being too autobiographical and lacking notability. Could someone please review or give guidance on improving it to meet Wikipedia’s standards?
Partly asked and answered atUser talk:HickoryOughtShirt?4. It wasn't declined for being too autobiographical per se, but because there is no proper secondary sourcing. "Too autobiographical" is probably a result of the article not being neutral at all, but "neutral" is a thing that the dictionary can explain to you.Drmies (talk)13:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I recently did a edit for the Qualcomm page adding a new product line, Dragonwing, the IoT, Robotics, and Etc. but it linked to a page called list of x-men enemies, instead of making a red link, or linking to a dragonwing page (which is something that doesn't exist yet). How would I go about writing a article? im really confused.LeoPysmak (talk)13:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
LeoPysmak, if you want there to be an article about theQualcomm product "Dragonwing", you create a draft about it (and don't link to the draft). Once you think it's ready, you submit it for approval. If it gets accepted, the reviewer will sort out the existing redirect for you.Maproom (talk)14:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Translating a new article
Hi everyone, I just finished translating anarticle, which I chanced upon while browsing through theUkrainian Cultural Diplomacy Month page. It can be found on Ukrainian/Crimean Tatar Wikipedia. It's on my userpage right now, and I'm not quite sure how a translated article is added and linked to all the other languages of Wikipedia.NasiLemakAddict (talk)05:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Create a new article with your translation in the appropriate language Wikipedia (e.g., Ukrainian, Crimean Tatar). When saving the article, it is recommended to leave the source of the translation in the edit summary (e.g., “This article is a translation of a Korean Wikipedia article. Original: en:Article name”).
2. Linking between languages (interwiki links)
Once articles are created, you can link them together by adding interlanguage links. In recent years, most interlanguage links have been managed through **Wikidata**, where they can be found at By adding a Sitelink to the article in Wikidata, you can create an interlanguage link, allowing each language Wikipedia to link to each other's article
NasiLemakAddict, you have created this atUser:NasiLemakAddict/Coffee culture of Crimean Tatars. Thank you for making it clear in the summary for your first edit that this is a translation of a uk:Wikipedia page. Before you proceed further, a question. Your user page shows your ability in six languages, but Ukrainian isn't among them. How proficient are you at reading Ukrainian? --Hoary (talk)07:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Not really, I just translate based on Google Chrome's translation. So maybe it doesn't fit some criteria? Maybe someone proficient in Ukrainian can verify and improve. Either way it's an interesting article and I would like to see it available on English.NasiLemakAddict (talk)08:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
NasiLemakAddict, I'll agree that the result is interesting. But we should be able to stand behind the quality of what we write/add -- or at least the fidelity of what we write/add to the reliable sources that this references. We can't do that if we don't understand what we are getting Google Translate to digest. Please look in the thread titled "Is it considered acceptable to use machine-translated text from other wikis", above: it has excellent comments from (in what seems to be chronological order)Rosguill,Cullen328, andMathglot, comments that apply to machine translations from either Finnish or Ukrainian. --Hoary (talk)08:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
The reference to wbrucecameron.com appears to be a blog, which wouldn't do much for notability, but your other two references look good actually.This one might also be of use to you. This seems like it has a good chance at being notable, seeing as the movie has an article. SeeList of individual dogs and you might be able to get an idea of how many references you need from that.MediaKyle (talk)00:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe my answer was a little misleading - when I said your other two references look good, I meant they're good to use as references, but you're going to need more than just those two articles to assert notability. I'd keep looking and see what else you can add.MediaKyle (talk)00:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello... I found some errors in the films list related articleList of Pakistani films of 2025. There are columns, colors and Manual of Style disarranged and difficult to understand. I have made some fixes, which i know and i can do. I need further improvements in the list and columns as per other related lists. Thank youMisopatam (talk |contribs)08:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello Misopatam, lists that are in niche topics such as Pakistani films of 2025 tend to be unorganized and messy. This is true of most lists unless they have a user who fixes them when new information comes out or vandalism occurs. An example for List of World Heritage Sites would be the user Tone. Since there are various ways to arrange pages, you should look at other List of (Demonym) Films of (year) and follow that consensus or change it by discussing it. This can be done either on Wikiprojecet:Lists or the talk page, I am not sure as I have never done it before. The best place to look are featured list in this scope because other less developed lists tend to be less well-formatted. You can also place {FormattingError|error message}} (with two curly brackets at the beginning and end) on the page and hope someone comes by and fixes it.Easternsahara (talk)12:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
I am working on an article,Corruption in Greenland, and I think I have found a good source[4] But it's in Danish/Greenlandic. How would I go about getting it translated? I don't want to use a machine translator as they are inaccurate. Thank you,loserhead (talk)17:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi, on the article that I am creating, (The article isDraft:2024–25 in European women's basketball) some of the leagues have a third place tie, but the tie has a different format (for example, the final could be a best of three while the third place play is a home and away aggregate tie).Bulgaria's league is the example, where the final is a best of five but the third place game is a home and away aggregate tie. How do I change it so it resembles the differing formats?ILoveSport2006 (talk)18:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It wouldn't hurt, but it's probably not necessary, since the editor who made the request is probably watching the page or at least will check back on their own.Deor (talk)23:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, I have a question about Wikipedia guidelines concerning article introductions. My understanding of this from a few years ago was that the introduction is intended to summarize key points from the body of the article. Is that still correct?
I ask because I work at theWyss Foundation, and it's not clear why half of the introductory section for that article is now about a separate organization (the Berger Action Fund). The claims about Berger are largely correct (though there are some important factual omissions from the cited sources), but again Berger is not Wyss, and this information is never referenced again in the body of the article, so I'm not sure why it's in the introduction.
I've made requests about Wyss Foundation content before using the article Talk page, but I want to make sure I understand Wikipedia guidelines correctly before I engage there again. Any feedback would be appreciated.ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk)16:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello,ZH for Wyss Foundation. You are correct that the lead section should summarize the content of the body, and you can learn more atWikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Given that these two groups are funded by the same man, and share offices and staff, and are sometimes discussed together in reliable sources such as theNew York Times, it is not unreasonable to describe them both in the same article. More content about the Berger Action Fund could be added to the body of the article.Cullen328 (talk)17:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I'm still a bit confused, though. There is currently no mention of Berger in the body of the article. Why, then, is Berger covered at length in the introduction?ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk)19:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. It's been several years since I made a Talk page request, and I don't want to make a misstep. Would it be reasonable to ask if the introductory paragraph in question could be moved into the body of the article? And then maybe a sentence or two summary could still be included in the intro?ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk)02:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
ZH for Wyss Foundation, more than reasonable; in fact, that is exactly what should have been done at that article in the first place. Feel free to add youredit request to the talk page. Be sure to be very specific so anyone reading your requeset will understand exactly what is to be moved, and ideally, where in the body. If you have suggested wording for the summary to be added to the lead, please add that, too. Note that the lead is supposed to summarize only the most important points of the article, so if you judge the fund to be a more minor point, the fund would not have to be mentioned in the lead at all; that is more of a judgment call on how important it is to the whole topic.Mathglot (talk)15:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Is there a list of all icon that wikipedia uses for all its pages and pages [not images, ICONS like the one on your computer] that i can publicly view and download?
"Elected legislator" at a national or first-subnational level: notable, no argument. That said, I would wait until all the votes have been counted.DS (talk)19:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
Could someone please review and approve the following drafts?
I reviewed them for you, (declined) you thought the reviews "unfair' and blanked them, and have not disclosed your conflict of interest.Theroadislong (talk)16:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
I clearly explained during the discussion that this is 100% not a paid article or a promotional piece, and that it didn't receive a fair review. It could add value to Wikipedia, if a fair reviewer take a time to review it. An a draft declined in one one second review, wow! We all have something better to do...
I did but since the reviewer had a different interpretation- just reviewed the article on ONE second, then I chose to revert.Wieditor25 (talk)17:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
I am not a reviewer, but it is obvious to me thatDraft:Diriba Eticha Tujuba is not currently acceptable as a Wikipedia article, because as far as I can see it does not have one single source that meets the triple requirement of being reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the subject (seeWP:42).
Most of the sources are from institutions connected with Tujuba, and so are not independent of him, and the ones about the MoU with AHRI are not about him, and in any case (since they are substantially the same) are clearly based on a press release, and so are fail the test of independence as well as the test of significant coverage.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Until you can find and cite several (at least three) different sources which meet the requirements inWP:42, you will not have established notability, and your draft will not be accepted.
Questioning the integrity of the reviewer is not likely to strike other reviewers favourably, and removing your COI declaration because you don't like the review looks like petty spite.ColinFine (talk)17:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct but I felt it prudent to leave it for another editor to decide, since my input is not appreciated.Theroadislong (talk)17:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Request for Fair Review of Deletion Actions
A wiki user is opposing all my drafts/articles. I request a fair review of deletion actions affecting:
If these articles are being considered non-notable, should we also review the other Ethiopian university articles and consider deletion? All follow the same format and notability level.Wieditor25 (talk)18:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that's a definite possibility. That other articles exist does not mean that they were ever approved by anyone, or even if they were, that they may not meet current standards. Schools and universities are particularly problematic because the notability guidelines have changed over the years; it used to be that mere existence was sufficient, but that is no longer the case. They are now treated like any other organization.331dot (talk)18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
I still question the reviewer's fairness toward articles from certain regions, but it's not worth spending time.GL!Wieditor25 (talk)19:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Then it's time you read, or re-read,WP:AGF. If you continue on your current path of making unsubstantiated allegations against other editors, you will end up with your account blocked from editing.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits19:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What Should I Do If an Editor (Chetsford) Is Lying and Another Editor (Bonadea) Is Deferring to Them?
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Howdy,
Recently an AfD nomination for an article on Christopher Mellon was successful. This nomination was made by @Chetsford.
Iredrafted the article, and it was rejected by @BuySomeApples. Nevertheless, I solicited BuySomeApples' help, and we put in a bunch of work to vet suitable sources to satisfyWikipedia:SIGCOV. Throughout this process, Chetsford was commenting on our drafting and sources (and in some casesactively lying about whether sources had been used in the previously deleted version). Based on a reference in my re-drafting efforts, Chetsford then put in anAfD nomination for The Sol Foundation. I suggested that this article should bekept in the AfD discussion, and I believe this attracted the attention of @Very Polite Person.
Very Polite Person then asked if he could help with the drafting of the Mellon article, and I agreed. Theyredrafted and submitted the article in a day.
Chetsford then commented on the draft, suggesting that it should be rejected on the basis of "SIGCOV problems." He listed out 9 sources that he deemed to have these problems.
Very Polite Person's redraft was met with a rejection from @Bonadea, with a justification of "Per Chetsford's source evaluation (supported by my own source checks) and the recent AfD outcome."
NOTE: I don't really have more to offer as I primarily wanted to source things; I've said my peace for the moment. But... I think the problem here ultimately boils down to the fact that this part ofWikipedia:Notability (people) that has beenthe standardsince we added it fifteen years ago in 2010 is that:
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"
I'm happy to explain it.WP:BASIC does not free one from the necessity of meeting the standard ofWP:SIGCOV for sources used to establish theWP:N of a subject. It simply affirms that multiple sources may collectively establish the substantiality of coverage. But each source used to affirm N must still crest the threshold of SIGCOV. In the case of Mellon, it doesn't matter if you have 10,000 articles that simply attribute 1-2 sentence quotes to him; these don't collectively transmutate into SIGCOV by alchemically mashing them altogether. I hope that helps but please don't hesitate to ask for further clarification.Chetsford (talk)02:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Ben.Gowar - I apologize as I don't have time at the moment to read your entire note, but I note the first instance you raised of me "lying" is because I used the term "flying saucer" instead of the term "UAP" which is the term you apparently prefer. I'm not certain that necessarily constitutes "lying" anymore than someone interchangeably using the term "ultramarine" instead of "cobalt" to describe a specific shade of blue. Either way, I apologize if I used imprecise terminology in discussion and this offended you. But I hope you can take confidence that the term used I'm certain did not impact anyone's ultimate determination as the underlying issue was that the source in question lacked SIGCOV. Insofar as my "actively commenting" on the draft, I'm an AfC reviewer and actively comment on many drafts, this one was no exception. (In fact, while I could have declined the draft myself, I proactively chose not to do so as I nominated the previous article for deletion and I felt it was necessary other editors look at your draft to make the decision to decline or accept it independently, which is ultimately what occurred.) This is a fairly normal and rote process of AfC. The only unusual part of this is that I have never seen non-AfC reviewers leave messages in the review section (particularly messages of such robustness) as you and VPP did. While not (I don't think) proscriptive, it is rather atypical. That said, if you feel I acted inappropriately at any point in this process, I encourage you to raise your concerns atWP:ANI.Chetsford (talk)02:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
You did not offend me. However, if you mosey on down to theflying saucer article, you will find the second sentence to be: "Not to be confused withUnidentified flying object." So, no: I do not take confidence in your certitude.
As far as other editors looking at "my draft," well, my draft wasn't submitted. However, given that you commented onthedraft that was submitted before @Bonadea ever did, and given that Bonadea cited your comment as a justification for declination, I would scarcely call Bonadea's decision "independent."
I removed that disambiguation hatnote because it directly contradicted the first sentence of the article describing it as a specific type of UFO.Sesquilinear (talk)06:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
@Ben.Gowar: Accusing another editor of deliberately lying is a form ofcasting aspersions.@Chetsford: is allowed to voice their own opinion on whether a source is trivial or not according to their assessment. If you, I, or any other editor disagrees, that doesn't prove anything except a difference of opinion. To contribute to Wikipedia, you have to adhere to its policies onWikipedia:Civility, and that means no personal attacks. Making a post just to accuse another editor of lying and an AfC reviewer (@Bonadea: of not doing their job is unacceptable. I'd like for you to be able to keep on working on your draft, but while you're doing that you have to act appropriately.BuySomeApples (talk)02:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @BuySomeApples. Based on thecasting aspersions information page, Ican accuse an editor of lying as long as I have evidence and level the accusation in the appropriate place. In this case, I was indeed asking what to do in the case of a particular editor lying (with the evidence cited). So, it sounds like I should have anonymized my inquiry. In any case, I will head on over to theadministrator's noticeboard/Incidents.
Oh, by the way, the number of mentions of a given person in a given source is not a matter of opinion. Nor is whether a source has been used in a previous draft or not.
@Ben.Gowar: I don't think going to ANI will have the results you're hoping for, but go ahead. I'll let the other editors and admins continue helping you with your draft since I think I've given you all the advice I can.BuySomeApples (talk)03:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I suppose no one can force anyone else to stop lying, not even the ANI.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, @Arc Rev! Basically, Medium is a website which hosts user-made blogs. Anybody can write them and there's no editorial oversight, which means nobody officially fact checks the blog posts, and there's no guarantee users will correct the posts if they make mistakes. As such, it's considered a generally unreliable source by the Wikipedia community. You can read more about that here:WP:MEDIUM.There's one exception to that - if the person writing the Medium post is a recognized subject matter expert talking about their field of expertise, or they're talking about themselves. For example, if a highly respected professor who specialized in Chinese film wrote a blog post analyzing a film from the 1950s, you might be able to cite that, or if a famous actor announced their birthdate on their blog, you could cite that. But that's about it, I'm afraid. You can read more on using self-published sources (like medium) atWP:SPS. (And especially note the part of the guideline which says you can't use self-published sources for information about living people who didn't write the source - lots of newbies get triped up on that, but it's an important part of our sourcing requirements forarticles about living people. Can never be too careful there, you know?)GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋08:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorting references
Hi, I am working onDraft:Aramean people, the references at the bottom carry the entire reference, whereas on other articles only the author, year and page of the source is mentioned, when highlighting over it, it shows the entire reference. How can I apply this to my draft as well?
@Wlaak Your draft uses a form of referencing which is common on short articles where everything goes into a single set of references, usually with the template{{reflist}} at the foot. Some articles, includingArameans use an alternative which is best when the sources are books (listed out separately) and then a section where multiple templates{{sfn}}, which stands for "shortened footnotes" in the main text are gathered together. Either type of referencing is perfectly acceptable and if I were you I'd wait until the draft is accepted before worrying about changing the reference style. However, there is a third alternative for citing book, which is to use just one book reference and then place the template{{rp}} each time you refer to the same book, which allows you to specify the page range for that piece of information.Mike Turnbull (talk)12:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
In the article that I am creating (Draft:2024–25 in European women's basketball) every league below Russia has been severely altercated and when I show a preview of an edit, it says the following:Warning:Post-expand include size is too large. Some templates will not be included. Also, at the bottom, it says broken ref. I am confused about this because my article, despite being big, is smaller than other articles I looked at for comparison and they all work.ILoveSport2006 (talk)16:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @ILoveSport2006. It's not the size of the articleper se but the number and complexity of templates used: either you'll need to simplify some of the tables, or split the article up.ColinFine (talk)18:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
No, that is not permitted,ILoveSport2006. You can split the draft article into two drafts about discrete though related topics. Or, simplify your formatting especially tables, using similar articles as an example. Please do not describe other editors expecting you to do things properly as "moaning".Cullen328 (talk)21:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
You can split the draft article into two drafts about discrete though related topics, Can you please give me an example?ILoveSport2006 (talk)21:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
What am I supposed to do if I think there are two different articles dedicated for the same person?
Hello everyone.
I recently came across an article forBalwantrai Mehta, I added the required information to this article, but while trying to verify some information, I came across a different article forBalvantray Mehta. The second article doesn't contain much information except the date of birth and the constituency that they represented. I believe that both these articles are referencing the same person. What am I supposed to do in this situation? Please help me out.Rohitm2000 (talk)00:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don’t really want to be associated with this account anymore. It has my old name and I just want a fresh start and I don’t want to beef with editors anymore, is there a way I can just delete my account and move on? ThanksTzarN64 (talk)01:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello @TzarN64. What you're looking for sounds likeWP:CLEANSTART, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen per it's criteria.
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for though.
If you want topermanently abandon Wikipedia forever, you can request a courtesyWP:VANISH, if you're deemed deserving of one. Good luck with whatever you're doing in the future.Tarlby(t) (c)01:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Well I keep making mistakes so I don’t intend on editing Wikipedia again for a good while so thanks for the offer I’m going too vanish and resolve my blocks at test Wikipedia. Thank youTzarN64 (talk)01:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@TzarN64, what you're looking for isWP:VANISH andWP:CLEANSTART. You're not presently eligible for the former, because you intend to keep editing, nor are you eligible for the latter, because you have an active restriction on your account. You'll have to appeal the restriction first. --asilvering (talk)01:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
You'll have to appeal it atWP:AN. Normally I wouldn't suggest doing that so soon after being unblocked. Hold out for at least another couple of months if you can. --asilvering (talk)01:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you aslivering. I think you’re one of the best admins here aside from seorge numbers whatever his name is. I think I’ll be leaving Wikipedia for a good while nowTzarN64 (talk)01:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
If you're going to be gone for quite a long time - say, 3+ years again - you may as well just start with a brand-new account, like a clean start. Yes, that's against the rules, technically speaking, but no one will notice unless you do something stupid and obvious that links the two accounts. Be free. --asilvering (talk)01:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
You have to make efforts to demonstrate that you understand why you were given that restriction. You also ought not to worry about being able to revert multiple times, you instead need to slow down and listen to what people are saying is wrong. Why are you following certain users? Why are you nominating articles for Good article status despite repeated concerns? Why are you leaving warnings that don't apply?Cukie Gherkin (talk)01:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
For example, I rarely revert more than once unless an edit is blatant vandalism, and even then, I usually seek intervention from an admin if it's constant and persistent.Cukie Gherkin (talk)01:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How can I find drafts for a topic created by a specific user?
Hi, I am a user of Japanese Wikipedia.Immanuelle was indefinitely blocked here, and since then he has created many articles, templates, and categories on Japanese Wikipedia. These are suspected to be machine translations of drafts he created here. For example, he created "Template:徳川信仰（Template:Tokugawa Faith）", but this term does not exist. Our community is not a system where you write a draft first and then publish it as an article. Therefore, I do not know how to find drafts that seem to correspond to a certain article. Can someone tell me how to find it? I do not want to waste other users' time verifying works that were poorly created by users who do not pay attention to the accuracy of the translations. I hope that clarifying the source of these translations will simplify the process of these deletion requests. I need some help, please. These English expressions are my own speculation.
There are many other templates he has created for the Japanese Wikipedia besides the ones I have introduced here, but at first glance they contain a number of incorrect terms, so I do not plan to verify them one by one but will delete them all at once. This may be an unnecessary concern, but I am concerned that the questionable templates, categories, and articles he created here continue to exist.呉野(KURENO) (talk)09:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Further to what @331dot said, @呉野, within the Contributions page, you can pick "Search for contributions", then select namespace "Draft:" and check "Only show edits that are page creations". This will give you only edits where the user created a draft.ColinFine (talk)10:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
What's the point of helping out and get your xontribution deleted in 5 seconds. See:Talk:Minecraft#Improvement Deletion. It is not an excuse to say that the admins/users/... havent seen / answered already since if the have time to revert changes, they defintelly have time to answer. No one should contribute to Wikipedia, A lot of Admins Are Corrupted . Help me please, as this seems the only logical space, In wikipedia.Mant08 (talk)19:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
This does not seem to be a genuine request for help, but an attempt toforum shop. You arerequired to assume good faith regarding the actions of other editors.
@Andy Mabbett @PhoenixCaelestis @331dot OK, indeed this is a missuse of the Teahouse. I am sorry to anyone for that. That was out of frustation, and improper behaviour. Also, I wasn't aware of the policy of not to mention disputes on multiple talk pages. The message was not in of malignant intent. I sent the message here as i wanted to ask help on how to participate on disputes, but this isn't needed since wikipedia already has a guide. I though the other editors were acting with a bad intent, so it was a "special" (sounds ridiculous) case, were wikipedia needed saving. Should i probably delete this before it gets archived?P.S.: @331dot Now reading my message I indeed sound spoiled. ):Mant08
Page Translation tool Quiries
Hey, I've recently been manually translating articles from non-English Wikipedias into the English Wikipedia. I came across the Content Translation tool, but even though I already have extended confirmed rights, the tool doesn't seem to be working for me.
When I try to use it, it doesn’t translate any text or load anything on the English side. I’m not sure if it’s a technical issue or a permission-related restriction. Need Guidance!👑JesusisGreat7 👑 |📜 Royal Talk07:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
When editing a regular page, there should be a dropdown to the right of the undo arrows and to the left of a bolded, underlined, and italicized "A". That dropdown allows you to change what type of text you're using - paragraph, headers, subheaders, etc. This is how you should be able to make a header. If you need further elaboration, just let me know.PhoenixCaelestis (Talk ·Contributions)00:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @BobbleObill, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia
Writing an article withoutfirst finding suitablesources is like building a house without surveying the site or digging foundations - if you manage to get the house built, it will probably fall down, and your work will be wasted.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink 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 asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour 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)09:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm usingthis book as a source, butthis version is available online. It doesn't have everything I need, unfortunately, so I can't just swap it, but I'd still like to link to the free version. Is there a way to do this, but also indicate that it's technically the wrong version?–Farkle Griffen (talk)00:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
One thing to do is create two different citations for each edition of the book. However, the version you are using (4th edition) is fully accessible viaWikiLibrary. Regards,Goldsztajn (talk)00:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Formal close to an RfC so that discussion is not just bot archived
It is standard practice. I can't comment on how it will affect close timing, but closes frequently take long enough that preventing archiving just bogs down the active page.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)19:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I think another editor said that it may never close. Is that also possible? That such a sizable RfC could just go unclosed with no uninvolved closer at all closing it? Ever?Iljhgtn (talk)21:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm struggling with the source formatting. I've left some talk comments about a few aspects of the article and was hoping someone could help? I've followed the guidance for building new pages. Thanks in advance. The page isCentre for Sight and it was the first centre in the UK to offer Lasik laser eye surgery.Erin Dearlove (talk)10:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Age matters in Wikipedia:Reliable sources
I would like to post a map showing the distribution of populations in 1870. The map is from 1870. Is there any justification to object claiming that is an old map and that age matters?SolderUnion (talk)09:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
For a map showing non-contentious information,SolderUnion, a justifiable objection would be unlikely. However, if the information that the map claims to show is contentious, there could very well be reasonable objections. There could be problems related to the names given to populations, the criteria used in order to class people in this or that population (if these criteria are even known), the veracity of the claimed sizes of these populations, and more. Such issues are very likely to arise in areas of ethnic rivalries/injustices/grudges. Andyour talk page shows a considerable interest in the Balkans -- an interest that has already got you into some disagreements. Why the need to post an old map, rather than cite recent academic work that comments on either the distribution of populations in 1870 or the claims made circa 1870 about the distribution of populations? --Hoary (talk)09:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
There is a lack of recent academic sources regarding the matter. The map I want to post is objective. No one objects that it represents the reality of the era.SolderUnion (talk)09:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
The article into which you want to insert the map,SolderUnion, has a talk page. At the foot of that talk page, ask about inserting the map. --Hoary (talk)11:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Draft Review Request: Partido Piquetero Article (Political Organization in Argentina)
Hi! I'm working on a draft article titled "Partido Piquetero" (a political organization in Argentina), and I would appreciate feedback before I submit it through Articles for Creation. I followed reliable sourcing policies, avoided overreliance on self-published sources, and included national media references (like Página/12 and Tiempo Argentino). Could someone please review the draft and let me know if it's on the right track for acceptance?
It seems good, although, you do have many red links; red links are links to an article that doesn’t exist, so I suggest you remove the [[]]s around the “links”.Henihhi28 (talk)20:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
and it’s alsoclearly not appropriate to discuss this here. Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced editors like you.Henihhi28 (talk)22:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
As tweets are able to be posted onto Twitter with no content so long as there is some form of media (images, videos, polls, etc.), how does one cite a tweet onto an article that has no text? In my case I am trying to cite a tweet from a musician that has only posted a picture in the tweet but no content. Leaving a tweet citation with no content (a.k.a. |title=) returns an error as it is required, however I am unsure of where I go from here.
Hello, @Spifory. Why are you wanting to cite this tweet? As Easternsahara says, it is rarely appropriate to cite a tweet; but it is also rare to cite a picture, as it is unusual for a picture to be able to verify a claim in an article (which is pretty well the whole purpose of a citation).ColinFine (talk)22:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, apologies for the late response to you and @Easternsahara, in my case I wanted to cite atweet made byPlayboi Carti on hisWhole Lotta Red album where another person mentioned the release for one of its singles, and as they mentioned that the single's cover was firstly posted to Twitter, I wanted to add a citation with the actual tweet as currently it only cites two music articles.
> On April 14, 2020, Playboi Carti began teasing the single "@ Meh" by sharing its cover art onTwitter, with the track officially released two days later on April 16 as the anticipated lead single forWhole Lotta Red.
Although you must give us more context to determine if this is appropriate. Twitter users are generally not considered reliable or secondary sources.Easternsahara (talk)23:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep – ARV Loshan Sports meets notability guidelines
Keep – ARV Loshan Sports is a notable Tamil-language sports media platform, widely followed in the Tamil-speaking community, especially among Sri Lankan and Indian sports fans. It has been operating for over 5 years, and its founder Ragupathy Vaamalosanan is a veteran media personality with more than 30 years in radio broadcasting. The platform is regularly cited in independent sports news reports and has gained recognition through social media and regional media outlets.
I have added reliable sources to the article, The subject passes Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines due to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.Niroshanraja (talk)07:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@Nvagda, User/editor will need to have been registered users of the English Wikipedia for at least 90 days and have made at least 500 non-deleted edits to the main (article) space. You can further check it outhere. Thank You!Fade258 (talk)15:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
A) Wikipedia Says On Edits And Page Creation To Be "BOLD", as long as it is in good faith. My Question Is, When Creating A New Wikipedia Page That Is Not An Article And Is For Example A "Template:" And Especially Under "Wikipedia:", does it still apply?. I am asking this since i want to recreate the Teahouse In Yhe Greek Wikipedia (Yes I Am Aware This Is The English Wikipedia, But Wikipedia Rules Apply Everywhere), do i have to infrom an Adminsitrator and if especially in this Xase A Beuracrat For That, or Can I be "BOLD"? (Also, Here isMy EL Wikiepdia Draft What Do You Think?) I want to create the Teahouse In Order To Make A Help Center For New Users.
B) (More Relevant) As you can see, my English Wikiepdia Edit / Contribution Log Is Mainly Asking Questions On The Teahouse. How can i find things to when, all the wikipedia articles in The English Wikipedia are 100%, and if i can do any changes it would change the format of the page and probably other users will be annoyed. For Example, The PageAnaemia, has The Types Of Anaemias Not Clearly Sepeated, And If I Moved Them From "Types", It will be Distruptive. So what can i do in this Wiki? Also, can i do changes like for Anaemia, Controvesional achnages, or should'nt?
Hi, Mant! Regarding creating the Teahouse on the Greek Wikipedia, I will note that policies and guidelines across Wikipedias are not necessarily shared (thus we cannot speak for the Greek Wikipedia). I would suggest that 1) it would be a good idea for the Greek Wikipedia to have something like this, but 2) it may be a good idea to ask an administrator to see if anything like this already exists and if not, what it ought to be called. I think being BOLD and attempting to create this may bring about the change you seek, but please also be mindful that, without existing consensus, it can be just as easily reverted. Also be mindful that a lot of work has to go into maintaining the Teahouse, else it may only frustrate new users who don't receive a response.
When making substantial changes on a Wikipedia that is not in your native language, it is usually good practice to ask on the article's talk page and generate consensus first – simply because Wikipedia is difficult on its own, let alone in a second language.TheTechnician27(Talk page)15:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
As to (B), "all the wikipedia articles in The English" are far from perfect! Try theWP:Task Center for ideas. Note that articles here relating to medical topics have very strict sourcing requirements: seeWP:MEDRS, so that's an area where you would be wise to use the article's talk page.Mike Turnbull (talk)15:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Artnascar7. Based on your reviewer feedback, it unfortunately does not appear that the article is in a state to be published to mainspace as of now. The feedback provided is that you need sources—not more sources, butbetter sources. Unless your article has adequate coverage of Mr. Bogues,and not merely passing mentions or user-generated content, then the article will be ready for mainspace.PhoenixCaelestis (Talk ·Contributions)14:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Hey, this is great information. I'll try and use the documentation alternatively. Thank you for the response!Artnascar7 (talk)15:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @PhoenixCaelestis. Most of your sources seem to be primary.
Note that a Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Official publications like census records do not count - see42; but sources do not have to be online. If you can find a book from a major publisher about Bogues, or that treats Bogues at some length, that would serve as one of the acceptable sources.
There are also some odd phrases that do not belong in an encyclopaedia article. For example, the lead describes him as a "modern thinker": what does that mean? Is it an established phrase for a particular intellectual viewpoint at the time? If so, cite a source both for the phrase, and for his identification as such. If it is not an established phrase, but somebody's evaluation of him, then it does not belong in the article unless it is cited to a specific independent reliable source.
Evaluative words like "quaint" do not belong in an article, (again, unless cited to a reliable independent source).
"Acccording to oral tradition" is unacceptable as a source - cite a reliable published source which discussed the tradition, or remove the claim. Even if you are able to cite the traditional claim about his grandfather, I cannot see how the (unsourced) claim about the rank of Clan Macduff, or mention of its crest, are relevant to an article about Bogues.
The paragraph about his grandmother is unsourced.
Any claim including "it would seem" is inappropriate - either cite it to a reliable source, or remove it.
I suspect that your most effective (and certainly most efficient in terms of your own and others' time) course from here will be:
If you cannot find such sources, give up, as you will be unable to write an acceptable article (the Wikipedia jargon is that you cannot establishnotability for him).
If you have the sources, then throw away your existing text, and write a new draft that summarises what those reliable independent sources say.
You may then add limited uncontroversial factual information from primary or non-independent sources, but they still need to bereliable sources.
This likely will not include much of the material you currently have (which is why I suggested starting from scratch), but unless you can find a suitable source for it, it doesn't belong in the article anyway.ColinFine (talk)16:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
[I hope this is the right place to ask this question?]
I am working on an English translation of Polish article about a College in Jelenia Góra. I do not know why, but I cannot set the GPS data properly in order for the Infobox to show a map. Can somebody help me, please?
@Kaworu1992: Well, the coordinates in the draft now don't seem to be those of the academy, and they certainly don't match the address given in the infobox. I think the coordinates I used are the correct ones.Deor (talk)15:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
By the way, when you translate articles from other Wikipedias, you must provide attribution (normally in the edit history); how to do so properly is describedhere. I've done it for you for this draft, but please do this in the future.Grumpylawnchair [ALT](talk)15:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
The coordinates in the draft stated out (albeit entered incorrectly) as 50.54 N, 15.44 E. Fade258's edit changed them from 50.914, 15.730 to 50.9033 N, 15.7397 E.
Hi Everyone, if I want to work on multiple drafts at the same time, is it best to create another sandbox subpage (e.g. User:Username/sandbox2) or create a draft Page as subpage of my user page (e.g. User:Username/Page_title) or just a draft page (e.g. Draft: Page_title)? Thanks for your help!Orlandov123 (talk)17:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Orlandov123! I've personally seen all three variants used by different editors, and I don't believe there's any policy stating which you should use. Go with what you think is best for the draft, I suppose.PhoenixCaelestis (Talk ·Contributions)17:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Orlandov123, I personally would (and do) use multiple pages in Draft space, as in my opinion, it is more collegial and collaborative in that editors may find your drafts more easily if they are in Draft space, and feel less inhibited about helping out, especially if you add{{Draft|join-in=yes}} to the top of your draft.
Another advantage to adding it to Draft space, is what if while you are working on your draft, someone comes along unaware of what you are doing and creates the same article directly in mainspace? If you work in Draft space, this is less likely to happen. Here is why, by way of example: there happens to be a Draft calledDraft:French hospitals out there. Let's suppose you come along, completely unaware, and decide to createFrench hospitals (a red link) directly in main space. Go ahead—click that red link now, and watch what happens. See that big, pink, banner notice at the top? That will lead you to the draft you didn't know existed, and now the two of you can work on it together! That's a big win.
You have the right to work on drafts in aWP:User subpage, like your sandbox or other subpages of your user space if you wish. Other users will be less likely to find your draft there, and if they do somehow find it, most editors will be less likely to touch it there, even though all pages at Wikipedia belong to the community. And there is nothing special about the subpage name /sandbox, it is maybe easier to remember if you are working on five subpages at once, but feel free to name your userspace draftUser:Orlandov123/Iron trade and work on it there, if you wish. But if someone creates Iron trade directly in main space, they will not be notified that your userspace draft already exists—that only works for drafts in Draft space.
There is even a hybrid approach which is kind of cool, because if you stick around for a long time, it makes it really easy to find all your drafts, even the ones that became articles years ago. That works like this: create your article in Draft space, and then create a user subpage as aWP:REDIRECT to the article in Draft space. This way, all of your drafts and articles will always be easily findable just by looking at all of your subpages:Special:PrefixIndex/User:Orlandov123. (Alternatively, you could create a page likeUser:Orlandov123/My_articles, and just list them.)
All in all, I would use Draft space, and maybe the hybrid approach or a subpage list to maintain a handy list of all your pages. Hope this helps; if any of it seems confusing or you need help with it, lmk.(edit conflict)Mathglot (talk)19:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Biography article reframed, how to best proceed?
This was declined because it didn't meet the academic criteria but i reframed for notability, media coverage and resubmitted...any suggestions on next steps or if this the best path? Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Melvin_VopsonWeavingowl (talk)19:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@Weavingowl, if you get declined again, my advice would be to give up on it for now and come back to it in a few years. He has tenure, so he's very likely to continue to publish and thus eventually meet theWP:NPROF criteria. If the draft is deleted, an admin can recover it for you in the future. --asilvering (talk)19:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Article series boxes missing articles
Hi there,
I’ve noticed several histories of English cities are missing from the English history article series box. Is there any way I can add the missing ones, particularly big places like Luton? Or is there a reason Luton is missing? It doesn’t look substantially worse than History of Nottingham or some of those which are included on the article series box.Me.Autem.Minui (talk)14:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Should add - good at trawling old history books to add new info and just about worked out references but I’m a bit technically dim so sorry if this is very basic stuffMe.Autem.Minui (talk)14:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks enormously, that’s exactly the one. I also noticed the English Reformation missing which when I was at school was big news. We’ll see if the collective mind of Wikipedians agree. Thanks again.Me.Autem.Minui (talk)15:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Why do wikipedia have articles that no one k=cares about example:some species of beetle iranian town ETC. when they ironically put a random guildine for notabilltyAAAAAYEHA (talk)04:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm having a few difficulties on archiving my talk pages. So, how can I have my talk page to be archived automatically using a bot?JRGuevarra (talk)00:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, they should. I've blocked them, but in the future, youusually don't get such quick service on this page, andWP:AIV is often a better bet for stuff like this.Floquenbeam (talk)22:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Can't access InternetArchiveBot
I've already been on Wikipedia for over 10 days now, but I still can’t access InternetArchiveBot. Just wondering—what could be the issue? —ArćRèv •talk04:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Arc Rev, Apologies for late reply. If you have been on Wikipedia for over 10 days and still can't use InternetArchiveBot, the issue likely isn't the time since registration but rather user permissions. Why you might not have access yet may be Account age alone isn't enough InternetArchiveBot typically requires that you have autoconfirmed status and account must be 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits. InternetArchiveBot doesn't work like a user-run tool. You can't access it directly in most cases.You can request a bot run on a talk page or use the URL at IA Bot interface if you're in a project where it's available.You may not be editing a namespace where it functions automatically. InternetArchiveBot mainly works in article space, not user sandboxes or drafts (unless requested). Further, You can try using the bot via:https://ia.wikibots.org/ Or you can probably ask for a bot run at Wikipedia:InternetArchiveBot/Requests. I guess.Fade258 (talk)17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@Fade258: A day later, I was able to run the bot. But I noticed that not all the references in the article I asked it to analyze were archived—only a few. Is that normal? —ArćRèv •talk23:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
What is the Wikipedia rule about not "point scoring" with your God?
I was going through the rules a year ago and I recall one that explicitly called out religious people who try and secretly spread religious propaganda or suppress criticism of their faith. I remember seeing it in "Wikipedia is not censored" but I don't see it there now.NotQualified(talk)16:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello @NotQualified, With the best of my knowledge and If I take your question rightly then, Wikipedia discourages writing with the intent to please a deity or promote religious views. All contributions should aim to summarize what reliable sources say, not express personal or spiritual motives. Mainly it focuses on neutral point of view.Fade258 (talk)16:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
It was something along the lines of "Wikipedia is not censored and is allowed to offend people. Do not edit articles to try and score points with your deity by secretly spreading religious propaganda."NotQualified(talk)16:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@NotQualified, Wikipedia is governed by a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, which means content must be present fairly, proportionately, and without bias including religious bias. Editors must not use Wikipedia as a platform for apologetics, or religious promotion.Fade258 (talk)16:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@NotQualified , the essayWP:NOTHERE, subsection "Trying to score brownie points outside of Wikipedia", includes "...Examples include edits to articles related to one's religion intended to score points with one's deity(ies),...".Larry/Traveling_Man (talk)17:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
This is a serious request, please do not scroll away. On thePenis talk page,User:Ludichris1 raised his concern thatUser:Autisticeditor 20 vandalized the page by removing thousands of bytes worth of information. There have been good faith contributions in between his edits and the present, so what action should be taken? Is there a special template that can be placed on the page or something?Easternsahara (talk)00:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi, ES. I can't think of any templates that specifically apply here. Something I noticed that should not be reinstated until it can be cited with reliable sources is the subsection on 'Humans'. This violatedWP:V which itself is disallowed, but it's especially important for medical reasons that everything we say about the human body is verifiable. Also,vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and it's not what Autisticeditor 20 did to this article; at worst, this would bedisruptive editing. Checking the talk page archives, AE20 never discussed these changes at all, which makes me surprised they were never reverted. Looking at the article prior to AE20's edits, I think they threw the baby out with the bathwater and effectively destroyed it, and I'd be more than happy to help if you want any specific advice or work done. Maybe if I edit this andDouglas Spink in quick enough succession, I can have the most disastrousRfA in Wikipedia history if I ever apply in the future.TheTechnician27(Talk page)02:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Public domain or creative commons license for blp
I am looking at adding a image of a blp in their infobox, but those are the hardest for me to understand the copyright, creative commons, and other restrictions. I have read the relevant policies, but I still am confused. I searched for "all creative commons" licenses with a bing search, and I think I found some, but could someone please help verify if what I am seeing can be correctly uploaded and used. The blp I am looking at is:Amy PeikoffIljhgtn (talk)21:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
How it works is as follows: because the subject is alive, unless 1) the owner of the image's copyright has expressly placed it under a compatible license (listedhere), or 2) the image is provably in the public domain (for specifics of the US public domain specifically, refer tothe Hirtle chart), we can't use it. If no license is ever given, then (except for some old images discussed in the Hirtle chart) the image is by default all rights reserved for whoever took the image. It is therefore entirely possible that no compatible image of her currently exists. As Peikoff appears to be a highly public figure, it's likely possible to ask her yourself (we have a form for that around here somewhere), although as the US' far-right rabidly distrusts Wikipedia, it's questionable if she'd agree.TheTechnician27(Talk page)03:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Help with my talk page and establishing a OneClickArchiver
Hi so. Some are my conservations are getting bloated and I want to clean some things up, but want to keep some of my achievements and recent conversations. I find setting up the a OneClickArchiver very confusing. I tried, but it did not work.
Hello @Historyguy1138, Have you tried by enabling Javascript for OneClickArchiever by using this codemw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SD0001/OneClickArchiver.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');. Copy the above code and pastehereFade258 (talk)02:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi all, I wondered if someone could assistADITYAKUSHWAHA999 (talk·contribs). I think they have a question about a caste but I don't have the knowledge to answer them. This is in relation to theKushwaha (surname). I reverted an edit where they tried to add someone, but now I think they have a different question? Thank in advance to which one of you kind editors takes a look.Knitsey (talk)18:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
@Knitsey: From my understanding of Indian castes (I'm diaspora), ADITYAKUSHWAHA999 is saying that an unnamed editor described people who hold the Kushwaha surname asshudra (worker class in caste system), when Aditya says that Kushwahas are actuallyKshatriya (warrior class; higher in rank in the caste system than shudra), and says that they have proof that Kushwahas are kshatriya instead of shudra. They go on to claim that the editor refuses to accept their edit request because they hate the Kushwahas for some reason. Perhaps a warning about casting aspersions would be in order?Grumpylawnchair (talk)00:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Please see the link above. Quite clearly, the Kushwahas belong to the OBC (Other Backward Castes) basis, at the very least. They do not belong to the Kshatriya category basis, both historically and societally. This is as per official government of India documentation. Hence, my suggestion would be not to be specific about the 'Shudra' category which is both psephologically, and societally, irrelevant, but instead denote the surname as OBC as has been observed by the National Commission for Backward CastesRohanvyavaharkar (talk)11:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Borishalikov, formatting is a relatively minor matter. You say "As of 2025, Rhinotales has a core team of approximately 30 professionals working full-time onCritical Shift." How do you know this? And though I've read the sentence "Rhinotales is actively involved in the development of Kazakhstan's gamedev ecosystem" I can't deduce any real meaning from it. (Just what does the active involvement comprise? What's a "gamedev ecosystem"?) --Hoary (talk)08:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Borishalikov, Thank You for your contribution. I have checked your draft and looks good but you need to addindependent andreliable references and please remove social links from external links persocial and also you need to reformat the writing style.Fade258 (talk)08:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Borishalikov, and welcome to the Teahouse.
For this reason, writing a draftbefore finding suitable sources is mostly a waste of time and effort. It is like building a house without first building foundations or even surveying the plot: the house will probably fall down.
You do not have any useful sources: the two in English do not even mention Rhinotales, and the Russian ones just mention it in passing.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink 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 asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour 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)10:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
I tried to create an article which got rejected because it lacked notability for creation. However, I have another idea for an article which I would like to have a go at. I was going to do this through my sandbox, but my old article attempt is in my sandbox, and I'm not sure how to 'clear' the sandbox to make room for my new attempt at another subject.
If I could have some assistance with navigating a way to have a fresh start at a new article, that would be great. Thanks!Forester56 (talk)15:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello. You can just edit your sandbox to remove the content that is there currently, or if you want to preserve it, create an additional sandbox, likeUser:Forester56/sandbox 2. You can even just click on that and begin editing.
Repeated removal of links, but clearly not vandalism (?)
An IP-only user (50.101.200.217) has been editing dozens of Wikipedia pages of various celebrities of the link removing links to districts, towns, and boroughs, instead just linking their larger area (e.g. removing London boroughs and replacing the link with London). This is not vandalism, obviously, but seems from most FA and GA I have seen to not be standard practice, and thus, it seems it should be reverted? Is the most efficient way to revert them one by one, or is it a minor enough thing to just leave be? The editor continues to make these edits and by the looks of their contributions history and talk page would not notice a message given. While I believe these changes to be in good faith, the user appears to have a history of vandalism. Insight appreciated.CollinDChase (talk)02:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I was thinking of WP:GEOLINK. This is not proper editing, but report seems over the top, manually changing a persisting editor seems futile, and a warn seems like it would not be seen.CollinDChase (talk)02:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
The first step is always to try to engage them on their talk page with escalating messages -- either personalized or using templates. Engaging with user talk page communications is absolutely one of the table stakes expectations of being a wikipedia editor. Thus, if you or others have already repeatedly contacted them and they don't respond to messages at all, it's appropriate to escalate toWP:AN orWP:ANI. You can look through current and archived discussions on those boards to see how similar issues tend to be discussed and resolved. --Avocado (talk)16:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Question
Hi, I am working onDraft:Aramean people, when it comes to the Aramean people, they were often called Syrians by Greeks and Romans, thus many sources speak of a Syrian people's history without mentioning "Arameans", is it possible to address this application of the Syrian name to the Arameans (there are many sources addressing this) in a specific section and in other sections such as Antiquity and Early Christianity, so that we can work with sources only mentioning Syrians, not Arameans and still write of them in the Aramean people draft, such as in the Byzantine period (this period, the Syrian name was in full swing)? Because, like earlier stated, Syrian came to mean Aramean, (also evident in the Bible translations, Hebrew --> Greek).
Basically apply information from sources X to source Y? Ex. source X states Arameans came to be called Syrians, and source Y speaks of Syrian history, can we therefore make the connection that source Y speaks of the Arameans (prior to name shift) and include it as a source about Aramean people (but writing "Syrian", not Aramean).
So can we apply information from one set of sources to another? For example, if one source explains that the Arameans came to be called Syrians, and another source speaks about the history of the Syrians, is it acceptable to connect the two and treat the second source as referring to the Arameans before the name shift? In other words, can we use sources that speak only of "Syrians" in the historical sense, as long as we clarify that "Syrian" was the name later applied to the Aramean people, and still include such sources in a draft about the Aramean people, while keeping the original wording "Syrian"?
hope you guys understand what i mean, i know it sounds confusing, even my text could be better explaining the dilemma but i do not know how else to put it.
I don't think you can do this. The first line ofWP:SYNTH isDo not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Others may have a different interpretation.ColinFine (talk)16:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi, Wlaak! This sounds like a massive headache, and I'm really sorry you have to deal with it. Just at a glance, what you're describing seems likesynthesis, which isn't allowed under the "original research" policy. Although reliable scholarly sources say that the Greeks and Romans called the Arameans Syrians, where synthesis enters the picture is determining this on a per-source basis. If contemporary source X uses the term "Syrians" and later source Y says that source X meant "Arameans", then I see this as uncontroversial and non-original research (you would simply have to somehow keep source Y coupled with source X whenever source X is used). However, I don't think you can blanket this unless there's compelling evidence in multiple contemporary, scholarly sources that say that when Greeks and Romans said "Syrians", they always without exception meant "Arameans".TheTechnician27(Talk page)16:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
thank you @ColinFine @Fade258 @TheTechnician27 for the help, what i have done is written of "Syrians", as the sources state, I haven't changed to Arameans.
i've in order stated that Syrian came to mean Aramean in sections about Antiquity and Early Christianity etc. and now in the Byzantine section, i am only writing "Syrian" if the sources mention "Syrian".
am i allowed to write of Syrians in a article about Arameans? considering it would be WP:SYNTH to take info from one source and apply it to interpret what another source meant? basically the Syrian source not mentioning Aramaen makes it ineligible/unrelated/irrelevant for Aramean article?Wlaak (talk)16:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@Wlaak, given that the naming itself is contentious, you'll need to be especially careful here. Your example,Ex. source X states Arameans came to be called Syrians, and source Y speaks of Syrian history, can we therefore make the connection that source Y speaks of the Arameans (prior to name shift) and include it as a source about Aramean people (but writing "Syrian", not Aramean). only works ifall Arameans came to be called Syrians, andno Syrians who were not previously known as Arameans exist at all. Do you see the problem? I'm basically restating what TheTechnician said, but it's important. If it doesn't work this way, and my understanding is that it does not, you're instead going to have to be careful about your implications. It would probably be fine to talk about Syrian history in an article on Aramean history where there is overlap, but all of that will be subject to challenge from editors who disagree that it's relevant, and you'll need to be as clear as you can be to contextualize the information so that readers aren't misled. --asilvering (talk)17:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
i understand, of course not every single Aramean came to be called Syrian, but the majority did and this is the academic understanding of the term Syrian.
could you give example of how i need to put it so that i can write of Syrians? for example, so far, i have already written of Aramean history in antiquity and Early Christianity, and it mentions how Arameans were referred to as Syrians (it also mentions the Bible translations, Greek authors such as Strabo, Eusebius, Posidnoius) etc. there will be a section specific to the name change as well.
if you have time, could you please check the section about Byzantine Periods? how i have written of it as, if that is okay, specially under Ottoman periods, all censuses wrote of "Suryaniler" (Syriacs), Keldaniler (Chaldeans), and Nasturlier (nestorians/assyrians), (last two irrelevant to the draft in terms of Syriac/Aramean history)
@Wlaak sorry, I'd better avoid getting too into any of this content since I've been dealing with this business at ANI as an admin. General advice I can do, but I'll have to bow out of specifics. But if any other teahouse hosts want to get involved, please do. --asilvering (talk)19:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
i understnad, i have one question tho, is there a guideline or a rule of how many sources you need per section/paragraph/sentence? or can i write a entire section based on one source?Wlaak (talk)22:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
You can write a whole section based on one source, sure. Sometimes that's all you've got. If there's only one source holding down a section, that tends to suggest that it's not "due weight" - ie, that we shouldn't cover that section in so much detail. More sources tends to be better in general, up to a point. (egWP:REFBOMB) --asilvering (talk)01:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
thank you, the source states that the Syriacs are the Arameans of antiquity and then goes on to write about these Syriacs (not writing Arameans), am I allowed to write Syriac-Arameans or does it stricitly have to be Syriacs only?Wlaak (talk)09:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
If the source has something so direct as "the Syriacs are the Arameans of antiquity" I think you're justified in using "Arameans" the whole way through if that's appropriate to the article you're writing. Other editors might disagree, and you may need to come to some other kind of consensus - maybe I'd disagree if I had read that source! - but from your description of it, that's well within "editors are allowed to use their brains". --asilvering (talk)16:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Wlaak, I think Yes, with proper sourcing and context, you can use sources that refer to “Syrians” in an article on the Aramean people, as long as you clearly explain the historical naming overlap based on reliable academic sources. This is best of my knowledge and It may differ from person to person.Fade258 (talk)16:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Help with a draft
Hi,
I'd like for someone to review my draft before I resubmit it for publication. I added more than 10 reliable sources and followed the guidelines. Appreciate your feedback or direct changes on the draft!
AnnaStaub Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are essentially asking for a pre-review review, which duplicates effort- the best way to get a review and feedback is to submit your draft.331dot (talk)16:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
AnnaStaub, I'm not qualified to provide a review; but here's a pre-review. The reviewer who declined your draft last time was hoping that you'd providebetter references, rather thanmore. It's the quality of the sources that matters, not the quantity. You need to cite reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of the subject. I've checked the first five. The 1st and 3rd are about his work, not about him. The 2nd and 4th are about what he said, and so are not independent. None of those help to attest that he's wikinotable. The 5th however does help.Maproom (talk)21:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Article Draft
Hello,Together with others, we wanted to draft an article for theHistory of Tourism. It is not supposed to be published yet, but something went wrong, and it was accidentally already submitted for publication. Is it possible to move it to the draft space? Thank you for your help.LouCharlotte (talk)07:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I also added a hint that this is a userspace draft. I deleted the previous contents, because they were the first attempts at writing and formatting in Wikipedia, but nothing 'final' to be published. The other users practice writing their contributions in their personal sandboxes and then later copy them into this sandbox. Thank you.LouCharlotte (talk)08:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
As more than 20 people are writing contributions, I was told by an experienced Wikipedia editor that these additions would be too many to add to a section of the general article on tourism. On the German Wikipedia, there is an extra article onGeschichte des Reisens, that's why I thought, we could create an English-language main article on the History of Tourism, too. But if the course can add several subsections to the History section of theTourism article, I would prefer that over creating a new article! Thank you.LouCharlotte (talk)08:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
If more than twenty people are going to work on a history of tourism, then yes, the result is likely to be a lot more bulky than would be suitable for one section of the article "Tourism". First, move the draft out of your userspace, toDraft:History of tourism. Then the students (your students?) will be free to work on that. Good luck! --Hoary (talk)08:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi, thank you. I wanted to move the article out of my userspace into the draft space, but I didn't have the permission; that's why I opened this question. Do you perhaps know how I can move it to the draft space, or whom I have to ask for it specifically? Thank you for your support! (And yes, my students)LouCharlotte (talk)08:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
I see that it has already been moved. Good. Another tip for you: "=Precursors to Tourism=", at the start of a line, is converted to HTML "<h1>Precursors to Tourism</h1>". But the software (Mediawiki) that Wikipedia uses converts the name of the article to h1, and there should be no more than one h1 header in any page. Also, headings use "sentence case" (capitalization that would also be suitable for regular body text). Therefore not "=Precursors to Tourism=" but instead "==Precursors to tourism==" (which Mediawiki would convert to "<h2>Precursors to tourism</h2>"). --Hoary (talk)10:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Tourism is a B-class rated article with extensive content on history and various types of tourism. If anything, your group - with each student having their own account - can consider working on improving the existing article. Or, if committed to "History of Tourism", start by copying that section of the existing article with references into your draft. (Copying within Wikipedia is allowed as long as the Edit summary clearly states where the information was copied from.). After doing that, work on providing more information - referenced!! - on the historical aspects of tourism. As an example of an article linking to a sub-topic article, seeZinc andZinc in biology. Also, learn how to properly use a reference more than one time.David notMD (talk)15:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I will copy the history section and mention it in the Edit summary. It is still a practice article, so the referencing of the students isn't perfect yet. But I'll make sure to go over the references before submitting the article for review.LouCharlotte (talk)06:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
A Disruptive Editor
Now being discussedhere within WP:AN/I; let's not simultaneously discuss it here (where it anyway doesn't really belong). --Hoary (talk)06:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User @Reeshavp is appending honorifics to the names of several college and university chancellors, presidents, and other esteemed figures. Despite prior warnings and further advisories, they persist in this inappropriate practice. As evidenced by their recent edit made on May 7, 2025 and majority of their edits, their disregard for warnings must be addressed and rectified.VeritasVanguard:"Seeking truth in every edit"03:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This articleMiss Serbia by year has been unreferenced for over five years. I'm seeking advice on whether there is a viable alternative to deletion. I don't see another good article for a redirect, for example. Just leaving stuff like this unreferenced indefinitely doesn't seem like a good option. I would discuss with the article creator, but they wereblocked as a sockpuppet, and I don't see any other major contributors. ☆Bri (talk)18:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I added an introductory sentence and imported some references fromMiss Serbia. I agree that it's in a very poor state though and I'm not planning on looking for more references. It's probably fine as a standalone list aside from being woefully out of date. If you want advice on what to do in similar situations... All I can advise is find similar articles and see if an acceptable level is achievable. --Reconrabbit19:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I read the version of the article with the last edit made in"MAY/05/2025" at"19:48 UTC".
Is there anyone here who can write Traditional Chinese (Taiwan)
On Commons there is an Taiwanese user whom one of the admins are trying to communicate with. Unfortunately said admin cannot write Chinese
If any Wikipedians here could translate his talk page message in a way that the Taiwanese user can read it would be appreciatedTrade (talk)21:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@Trade andPhoenixCaelestis: Admittedly massively over-simplifying this, just to expand on what Andy wrote above, "Chinese" referring to the language, not the country, is written in two different forms,Traditional Chinese characters andSimplified Chinese characters. I seem to recall that there might have been a Wikipedia some sort of attached to the zh.wp Wikipedia that was in traditional characters, but I can't find it right now.Shirt58 (talk) 🦘09:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I was under the impression the Chinese Wikipedia used both, its logo is in both and the English article on it says that it supports both writing types. Is that outdated information?PhoenixCaelestis (Talk ·Contributions)11:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
The situation is: in a conflict infobox, someone under "Commanders and leaders" is dead, and it's unclear how to label them. Their cause of death per the Russian government would be under natural causes ( #), but sources question the reliability of the Russian government's attribution. Other symbols I see (here) are also for specific causes of death. Is there a generic way to label dead people in the infobox when the cause of death is unclear?Placeholderer (talk)18:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion, † is not usable, as well as #. I would suppose something like a footnote, or just a simple(deceased) next to his name might work, as I could not find a template appropriate enough, because the cause of death is disputed. All that is needed is a reference.Cooldudeseven7join in on the tea talk12:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia's role in drawing attention to community heroes
There are a lot of local heroes doing some real grassroots work that impacts hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. However, due to the nature of the media, especially in India, they tend to get only a little bit of attention. I feel like Wikipedia can play a role in helping these people spread their mission and also bring more people to contribute financially and through volunteering efforts. Wikipedia will help in platforming their work (community-based, secular, grassroots volunteerism) but in light of the 'significant personality/notability' parameter on Wikipedia, how would one go about getting these local heroes the recognition they deserve, basis simply the impact they're having locally?Rohanvyavaharkar (talk)10:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Rohanvyavaharkar Per design, this is not WP:s purpose, articles about people that failWP:N would be seen on this website as promotion. The purpose of a WP-article should never be to help someone spread their mission. But the internet is vast, and there are other places to do that.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)10:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires that people and other subjects meet the criteria atWP:N. We only write about people who getmore than "a little bit of attention", by definition.
I understand all the responses. As a former journalists, we have a peculiar situation in India, where a lot of 'notable' people tend to come from a very specific social background with privileges and networks that allow for their 'notability' to be enhanced. This includes actors, politicians, 'entrepreneurs' with barely any substance to their name. I don't want to cast aspersions but WP is rife with examples from India where the real impact on ground has been minimal. I know we can't fix everything but a lot of transformative work, therefore, does not get recognised. E.g. There is a soft ban on coverage of a social activist working on environmental issues. The Freedom of Press aspects apart, the bar for such individuals to reach notability is much higher than someone who, for example, has played a bit part in a commercial film that barely registered a blip at the box office. I don't mean to demean people's achievements but it also seems like notability can be 'fixed' in a media controlled market like India?Rohanvyavaharkar (talk)11:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Bit parts wouldn't meetWP:NACTOR. If you see articles where that's the only claim to notability, they should be proposed for deletion.331dot (talk)11:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
To speak to your larger point, yes, Wikipedia is skewed towards things that there are a lot of easy sources for and that get a lot of attention(like actors/musicians). However,verifiability is a key part of Wikipedia. We can't give topics with less coverage more attention or a pass on policies merely to elevate them.331dot (talk)11:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Your interest in bringing stories about India’s local heroes to light is commendable, @Rohanvyavaharkar. Where you might want to focus for a while instead of Wikipedia for now, however, isWestern media. Human- interest articles and stories of breakthroughs in remote places anround the globe are often published there. Even world-class publications likeThe New York Times has run quite a few stories on local heroes, including Indians, over the past few years.
As word begins to spread in good solid sources about the work of some of these local heroes, then you can come back to Wikipedia and write articles about them that you can’t for now because of their lack of notability.
Whether you approach Indian or Western media, though, you may need help from others with some journalism or public relations background in “pitching” article proposals in such a way that editors easily see their value for their unique readership. If you’re feeling bold, perhaps you could even find a few allies in journalism schools. आपको कामयाबी मिलेAugnablik (talk)12:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
For article: 2025 India–Pakistan border skirmishes
Under section Military Events, subsection May 5th, I was wondering if I should go to the talk page and discuss first then wait for others to insert the NPOV tag or do it straight away? I’m a new editor but I want to learn first then doEmiliaPains24 (talk)15:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, Noa Fay appears to meet a notability standard under the guidelines or policies likeWP:BLP1E andWP:PUBLICFIGURE.I found that the sources are reliable and independent which provide significant coverage about her activism and role. I also noticed that coverage is not limited to routine or local reporting, but rather ties her to a larger national/international movement. Subject also framed as a representative figure or symbol in broader discourse, not merely an incidental participant.I also assume that, people may see this differently, but based on what’s available, I think she’s notable enough.Thank You!Fade258 (talk)13:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
FortunateSons: most of the sources you cite above are based on what the subject said, and so are not independent of the subject and do not help to establish wikinotability. So you're going to need to find at least one better source, withindependent discussion of her. (Her status as an activist is irrelevant to the issue of notability.)Maproom (talk)15:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I might be wrong here, but I think that by my interpretation ofWP:INDEPENDENT, much of Forward and AJT, and decent parts of the JJ source are independent (except, obviously, the paraphrasing/quotes). Could you elaborate on why you believe they might not be?FortunateSons (talk)15:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
In theForward source, thirteen of the twenty paragraphs quote Fay's own words. The article is clearly based on an interview with her. So that source is not independent of Fay. Wikipedia wants to know what others have said about her, not what she has said.Maproom (talk)15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
What about content likethis? For what it’s worth, I do believe the other 7 paragraphs constitute sigcov from an independent source, as an interview does not prevent the general independence of the article.FortunateSons (talk)16:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
The edits are factual, well-sourced, and aim to improve accuracy and neutrality. Could an uninvolved editor take a look and consider implementing the changes or giving feedback?
Lolamortola AtTalk:Eduardo Levy Yeyati you have proposed a complete revision of the article without providing any references to support the new information. To have any potential for success, in a series of requests, in each one, identify what needs to be changed and propose the new content with references.David notMD (talk)17:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
An editor replaced the existing article with your proposed content. I reversed this because your proposed content had no references!!! Instead, it is now back to the earlier version with 20 references.David notMD (talk)17:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree, I want to redirect List of lakes to Lists of lakes and create a different page which is List of lakes by country. I do not think that this move will be particularly controversial, but what is the process of requesting a page with content to become a redirect?Easternsahara (talk)18:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
For option (a), you're probably looking forWP:BLAR for converting List of lakes to a redirect, and then you can just create a new page for the by country list. For option (b), you'll want to readWP:MOVE. After the move, you can change where the redirect points to, and will want to update incoming links, which you can find using thewhat links here tool for the article.
For either path, you have the option of beingWP:BOLD if you think the move will be thoroughly uncontroversial, or discussing first on the talk page if you think objections are likely. --Avocado (talk)18:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
How do I view old past discussions on the Administrator's noticeboard
How do I view old discussions in ANHi all, if there was an old discussion that I wanted to view somehow in AN that happened a long time ago. How does one view it? Are they deleted or archived? NotQualified(talk)15:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I have been reading up on grammar and some different things recently and I was curious about so called "passive voice" writing and the different forms of "voice", which is considered the correct "voice" and could someone point me to the best MOS on this that exactly supports the policy and subsection of what the best voice is to use for the entire encyclopedia please?Iljhgtn (talk)21:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
The one I know of is atMOS:PASSIVE which is just a footnote. Generally, the passive voice is preferred here. While I don't agree with Steven Pinker on everything in this lecture, I think he does a good jobhere of describing why the passive is often so important.TheTechnician27(Talk page)21:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, the "passive voicing leads to less elegant and more ambiguous prose" mantra is a serious bugbear among linguists, second perhaps only to "never end a sentence in a preposition" as a 'language maven' chestnut that comes in for criticism from those who study syntax in a formal manner. For those looking for the long form of Pinker's well-argued case for the need to pushback against the latent dogma on passive voicing that has taken hold in many fields and been uncritically perpetuated for decades, you cna find more in his style guideThe Sense of Style.SnowRise let's rap00:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
"Generally, the passive voice is preferred here." Oh? That's news to me. (I for one have nogeneral preference.) ¶ The footnote to whichTheTechnician27 points us is well-meant, but dubious. It starts: "The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing". I can't think of a singleform of writing for which it would be inappropriate. Whether it would be a good choice for a particularclause depends on what it is that you want to put across to the reader in that clause. ¶Iljhgtn, one thing you have to remember when reading up on the passive is that some of the people who get worked up over use of the "passive" [note the scare quotes] don't even know what the word means in the context of grammar. The article "English passive voice" is well meant and has some good bits, but it's confusing. If you have twenty minutes spare, skip that article and instead go straight toGeoffrey K. Pullum's "The passive in English", which cuts through miscellaneous myths about the passive and gives you the straight dope. (Within it, "passice" is of course a typo for "passive".) ¶ If you don't want to devote the time needed to read and digest Pullum's article, then my advice is not to worry at all about whether or not to express something via what you (rightly or wrongly) believe is passive. --Hoary (talk)05:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Not quite sure what the confusion is here, but in terms of passive and active in Wikipedia articles, the two "voices" put their emphasis in different places. "Smith built an organ in the church of St Stephen" places the emphasis on Smith (it is the natural answer to the question: "what did Smith do?"). It's the natural choice for an article about Smith. "The organ was built by Smith" places the emphasis on the organ (it's the natural answer to the question "Who built the organ in St Stephen's church?"). It's the natural choice for an article about the organ or the church in which it stands.Elemimele (talk)12:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Hoary, I can tell you of at least one field where it is virtually verboten: legal writing. Virtually the entirety of several generations of legal experts in Britain, the Commonwealth, and the U.S. have been indoctrinated into the belief that legal writing should reduce passive voicing to being as close as possible to non-existent. The concern is that in proceedings which concern important rights and impute a particular need for clarity, the passive voicing too often introduces ambiguity as to who undertook what action, both through oversight and intention. Now of course that is at least partly nonsense: while there are cases where the use of the passive can introduce uncertainty (as for example, when thegrammatical agent is omitted), every passive statement can easily be written in a manner which avoids these ambiguities. Likewise, many statements are made incredibly ungainly and ineffective for conveying information by trying to force them into active voicing syntax. Proper advice for the issue of voicing in this field should be a lot more granular and nuanced. But do not hold your breath on such a pivot coming any time soon. Legal culture is incredibly conservative as to form and custom, and this probably it's most ingrained rule when it comes to grammar. Add in the fact that most legal experts have no formal background in linguistics or formal syntax and yet consider themselves low key experts on the subject, and you have the makings for seriously entrenched ideas on effective writing. Note that the legal profession is not the only field to adopt such a standard on passive voicing, but it does seem to be the one which has taken it to greatest extremes and shown the most resistance to relaxing the standard. Now, there's an argument to be made that the oversimplified narrative is surely better than no advice on passive voicing in the legal context, and that maybe anything more complex is likely not be as readily retained by the average practitioner who needs to avoid ambiguity in their work product. I don't know that I buy that, but it (and similar standards in other fields) may contribute to the notion that "passive voicing is not suitable for certain styles of writing" that you found in the footnote. Let's just be glad it is relegated to a footnote: thankfully Wikipedia tends to lean towards the leading edge of modern trends in more rational grammatical rules.SnowRise let's rap00:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I know nothing about the law,Snow Rise, and was about to respond with "I sit corrected"; but idle curiosity nudged me to take a look. Within just the opening page ofGregory et al. v. City of Chicago (article) we see:Argued December 10, 1968.–Decided March 10, 1969. / Petitioners, peaceful civil rights demonstrators, were arrested and convicted.... / 1. Petitioners were denied due process.... / 3. ... acts protected by the First Amendment.... / 39 Il. 2d 47, 233 N. E. 2d 422, reversed. / ... accompanied by Chicago police and an assistant city attorney.... Arguably some of these aren't passives; unarguably, some are. --Hoary (talk)00:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, even though the proscription against passive voicing is more uniform in legal writing than any other field, as far as I am aware, it would pretty difficult to avoid it in 100% of clauses. Further, you'll find slightly laxer standards in rulings and in law review than you will motions, briefings, and other day-to-day work product, since jurists are typically less beholden to anyone constraining their verbiage, and many develop idiosyncratic styles. I also think you're likely to find the rule becomes more pronounced the closer you move towards the 21st century. But yes, lest I overstate the point, it's not an absolute. But it is a consistent and strong feature of anglophone legal culture.SnowRise let's rap01:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Snow Rise, perhaps conventions have changed radically since 1968/1969, perhaps the Supremes really were/are very different from more humdrum legal business; but anyway there's no obvious contrast between the opening material (page 111) of this "opinion of the court" and what follows. I jumped ahead to page 125, and there readour customs and our habits ... would all be wiped out ... / Churches would be compelled to welcome into their buildings invaders who came but to scoff and jeer / ... the purposes for which they were constructed and dedicated ... / ... homes ... would have to have their doors thrown open ... / Men and women who hold public office would be compelled ... to lose the comforts and privacy of an unpicketed home. / ... public matters can be discussed with impunity. But picketing and demonstrating can be regulated like other conduct of men. --Hoary (talk)01:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, again, it's a matter of context and the modern English language simply does not allow for the easy elimination of all passives across the board, so it's not an absolute rule. It's going to be less prevalent in a fifty year old source, and in rulings generally (not just from high courts, but courts of appeal--that is, those with published rulings--generally). At a bare minimum, it's most assuredly fair to say that the rule is more strictly applied in relation to attorney work product (both internal and that which is filed with the court), than it is to statements or rulings issued by court themselves. But I assure you, I'm not making the idea up, nor really overstating how stressed the standard is in everyday practice. I'm certain if you did a google search with obvious keywords of your choice, you'd find nothing less than thousands of references to this quirk of legal writing from law schools, legal style guides, bar associations, and various texts.SnowRise let's rap04:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Long story short,Iljhgtn, I would not worry yourself over much with the voicing you are using here: it will rarely be a point of contention, provided the intent of your statement is clear and the content is otherwise consistent with policy and style guidance. If you're interested in the subject in the abstract, the three sources by subject matter experts cited above are a good place to start.SnowRise let's rap00:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Got it. Thank you everyone above for your comments and insights, it has been really useful to read about and learn more.Iljhgtn (talk)03:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
How many paragraphs can I copy paste quoting a book in talk page
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If it is copyrighted then none preferably. My apologies, I read your question incorrectly, on talk pages copyright doesn't apply unless you abhorrently violate it.Easternsahara (talk)17:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Easternsahara, I am sorry but both of your answers are incorrect. Our restrictions on the use of copyright restricted material applyeverywhere on Wikipedia, including article talk pages. The general principle is to quote the minimum amount of copyrighted material necessary to make an important point. The material must be attributed to the source and set off by quotation marks or byTemplate: Blockquote.Cullen328 (talk)18:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Regarding, "It's perfectly acceptable to quote material while discussing it on a talk page", that is mistaken. There is no distinction in copyright law about where you copy copyrighted material; if it is a violation to copy it into an article, then it is a violation to copy it into a Talk page (or any other page at Wikipedia). The tricky part, is figuring out whether it is covered underfair use. But just because it is a Talk page, does not make it all right.Mathglot (talk)08:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Guitarist article
Hi to all,
Does this meet notability under WP:MUSICBIO or need trimming/structure changes before going live:User:Ivhutt/Oz NoyIvhutt (talk)?
Thank you,Andy Mabbett. When you have a moment, I’d appreciate your thoughts on whether listing multiple Iridium appearances to demonstrate the recurrence of performances is effective or comes across as clumsy. Thank you.Ivhutt (talk)14:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I was going back and forth on this, but was lead by John Scofield's and Nir Felder's articles. Should I keep fewer collaborations or drop them altogether? I do think too muchh is too much, but being involved repeatedly with the "best out there" also gives credence to your own proficiency. Thank you.Ivhutt (talk)19:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that article has decent sourcing and the guy is probably notable by our standards, but the namedropping throughout is a bit offputting.Drmies (talk)19:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Sure thing,Ivhutt. And follow my lead in that copy edit I made. The hard part is that for a lot of sidemen (you know that's in large part what he is) there's not always a lot of biography to write cause you don't have the sources to write actual text, so do the best you can--if you can write a paragraph of uncontroversial biography based on a mediocre source, that's still better, because then you have a body in which you can incorporate the better sources that merely say "he plays a nice solo on this woman's album", you know? Looks more like writing, less like namedropping. Good luck. I love Mike Stern by the way.Drmies (talk)19:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks again,Drmies. I am affiliated with him (and declared it) and I do have physical magazines, tons of them, mostly abviously guitar-related (Guitar Player, Premier Guitar, Guitar World, Guitar Technique, Vintage Guitar, Guitarist, etc, aside from Relix, Downbeat, AllAboutJazz,...). I tried to include the most notable sources (Boston Globe, NYT, LAT, New Yorker).
Ivhutt, I would like to offer some additional suggestions. First of all, a reference is not necessarily better just because the source is widely famous. In this particular case, a reference to in-depth coverage inGuitar World is vastly more useful than a brief passing mention in theNew York Times. On to your mention of modeling your draft on two other articles, please note thatJohn Scofield is a start-class article andNir Felder is a stub-class article tagged as having significant problems. Using such articles as models is roughly analogous to copying the work of a C student and a flunking student. Instead, you should model articles onGood articles andFeatured articles.Vince Gill is a Good article andJimi Hendrix is a Featured article.Cullen328 (talk)02:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you,Cullen328. This is very valuable because I was going back and forth between more extensive articles on the subject vs "the bigger the name". I also see that Bill Frisell has a problematic WIKI article. I also appreciate the humor in your analogy. I'll be observing the A-students in Hendrix and Gil. I'll retouch the Oz Noy article with this in mind.Ivhutt (talk)14:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I revised the draft to minimize name-dropping and focused instead on a narrative approach. Reviews and press coverage are consolidated in theReception section, with an emphasis on in-depth sources over passing mentions. I’ve been mindful of notability standards throughout—though I'm still unsure how to effectively collapse the recurring Iridium dates to demonstrate consistency. I used articles on Hendrix and Gil as structural models, and looked to Wayne Krantz’s page as a stylistic reference, since he's a closer contemporary (and his article avoids overstatement). I’d really appreciate your thoughts, if you have a moment. Thank you.Ivhutt (talk)00:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Hey,Cullen328. I believe I fixed it. Would you mind checking if you find a moment? I'd really appreciate it. (I replied before but forgot to add your name to the response)Ivhutt (talk)03:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
how to deal with arrogance and unwillingness to answer questions?
Someone inserted tags into 2 of my articles, i went to his discussion-site and asked friendly what he didn't find sufficient... he deleted my post and didn't answer. I asked again, why he is so unfriendly, he deleted my post again and didn't answer. I now deleted his tags because it is only his personal opinion - but i'm very frustrated. What is wrong with editors here, if they are unfriendly on purpose??? Why then do they at all "work" in my articles? I find this a very disturbing experience and wished one could do something about the behaviour of this editor.Naomi Hennig (talk)23:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Naomi Hennig, that editor was fully entitled to delete your message without answering it -- but it does seem an odd thing to do. You asked politely enough; surely your question merited at least a laconic response. The editor also made minor improvements to the one article I looked at. (Both articles are easy to find from your list of contributions.) I think that yes, in some ways the article does resemble a résumé. This is not a condemnation of the article or even of some of its sections; I've made first suggestions inTalk:Regine Schumann#Like_a_résumé?. --Hoary (talk)00:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
The editor may have been "entitled", but he is treating me as if i was not even worth an anwer. I'm writing for wikipedia for more than ten years, and i deserve to be treated well and not as if i was a criminal. Noone ever complained about my lists of exhibitions - shouldn't that have been done when i posted the articles? I really don't like that way he treats me AT ALL. We do have a policy here to be friendly to each other and believe that the other person is good-willing, and i really don't understand at all, why a person whom i don't know and have never ever spoken to is out of no reason treating me as if i committed the most terrible crime. I'm absolutely not used to being treated like this - and i find it VERY unpleasant.
And this being said, i'm extremely thankful that you gave me hints to what seems to be wrong and what i could do differently and i will have a deeper look into it and try to make it better. But, also to tell the truth, i'm sitting here crying. I am a person just as this doubledoublex2 and i deserve to be treated in a friendly manner!!! I'm very, very, very upset by the way he behaves. I'm writing for wikipedia for more than ten years, i have written really good articles (like the one he now again put such a tag on) and i don't know, why i'm being a. the goal of this actions and b. why he treats me with so much condemnation - because it that what he does!Naomi Hennig (talk)13:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
And again i just got an unfriendly answer by an administrator (not you!). Why is this being done to me. I'm a kind person, i'm polite, i do ask what did i do wrong, and just because i didn't write Wikipedia with a capital W -he admonishes me. Do admins in general not find it important to be friendly? I just don't get all this arrogance and aggression towards me. We have a conduct of behaviour, doesn't it apply to admins too??? Why this strange behaviour? I just wanted to learn how to do things better, but as nooone behalve you gives me a chance to do so, i'm very sad at the moment. I have not deserved to be treated like this! I'm a human being just as this admin. I just don't get this behaviour towards me. Not at all... and it's a very sad experience.
From the Conduct of Behavior: "In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship." - respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity - i did not experience that from two contributors, only from Hoary.Naomi Hennig (talk)21:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
WikiMedia Public Domain Tag
I have uploaded a copy of a Sanborn Insurance Map available from the Library of Congress, Georgraph and Map Division, Sanborn Maps Collection. The LOC says "The content of the Library of Congress online Sanborn Maps Collection is in the public domain and is free to use and reuse." What is the appropriate tag/licensing to use? It is not PD-old, since the file happens to be from 1944. It is not PD-Gov, since the map was not made by the US government. What do I use?TwoScars (talk)17:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
It would depend why it's in the public domain...did Sandborn release it (or transfer license ownership to LoC who released it), or was it somehow not protected? Commons has a huge collection of them,. I spot-checked the 1940s ones, and they are all in the latter situation, as{{PD-US-no notice}}. If you have a Sandborn map of interest, why not put it on commons so all he wiki sites can share?DMacks (talk)03:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm presuming we're talking aboutc:File:BlenkoFactory1944InsMap.png that you had already uploaded to commons. That was confusing because your original comment seemed to be talking about something here on enwiki. But anyway, I see that you have now added the no-notice tag. I added the Sanborn cats.DMacks (talk)04:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
I have a strong suspicion of a group of people that are editors for years and they truly contribute in Wikipedia but at the same time promote nationalistic narrative in a very sneaky way. How should I proceedSolderUnion (talk)17:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Am I allowed to post talk pages that have independently see a pattern of promoting nationalistic narrative?I ask because I got caution when I post it on talk pages. At the moment three editors including me have the same observation.This cannot be coincidence. I have to stress that the editors in question participate in wikipedia for many years and truly contribute to the project. What they are doing is very subtle and complex. My understanding is repeated omission to act shows intent. For example there was a mistake. The reference provided didn't correspond to what the article was saying. I corrected it and one of them reversed the changes. No one objected even if the mistake was obvious. This clearly shows intent.SolderUnion (talk)19:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict)SolderUnion, First, read the behavioral guidelineWP:Assume good faith. Talking about other editors behavior, especially in a negative way is a sensitive and tricky thing to do, and you are still brand new here, so it is best to avoid that for now. You should start out by locating specific content in one article that you feel promotes a nationalistic narrative, and start a discussion on the Talk page of the article about the *content* in the article, and not the editors. Identify the content you believe isWP:POV, and why you think it is. See how other editors respond to your concerns. Avoid mentioning other editors' names on the Talk page as much as possible, and address your concerns strictly about the article content. You can start a discussion at a second article that has similar problems, If, in time, more senior editors see a pattern of problems in the content of more than one article involving POV editing by the same group of editors, they may address this at user talk pages, or at aWP:WikiProject. An alternative, would be to use the template{{Help me}} on your own Talk page. Good luck, and happy editing!Mathglot (talk)19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Grammar
I might just have bad grammar, but why is it, for example, usuallyThe American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift instead ofAmerican singer-songwriter Taylor Swift? Is this a grammar or style issue? Thanks,GoldRomean (talk)02:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I think it's a primarily a style issue, not a grammar issue. Grammatically, both phrases are correct. The choice depends on context and emphasis.Fade258 (talk)02:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Good question,GoldRomean. "American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift" is an "anarthrous" noun phrase: "an occupational term [American singer-songwriter] is used with no determiner [but here, modified byAmerican] as a bare role [noun phrase] premodifier of a proper name [Taylor Swift]". A comment on this: "It is true that noun phrases likefertilizer salesman Scott Peterson are found in newspaper articles (in fact John Cowan points out to me that it is a well-known feature of the style associated withTime magazine), but I have never yet found anyone but Dan Brown using this construction to open a work of fiction. The construction sounds to me like the opening of an obituary rather than an action sequence. It's not ungrammatical; it just has the wrong feel and style for a novel." Source for all of that:Geoffrey K. Pullum, "Renowned author Dan Brown staggered through his formulaic opening sentence",Language Log, 7 November 2004. It still sounds odd to me, but over the last twenty years it has undoubtedly become a lot more widely used. --Hoary (talk)12:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Hey so not sure if this is the right place to post this, but there seems to be an issue/glitch with the Wikipedia search bar. After trying to type Terence Crawford's name into the search bar, his suggested page does not show up. The same could be said for Junto Nakatani. Both were coming up in the search bar fine yesterday so I’m thinking maybe there’s some sort of glitch? Any help would be appreciated, thanks.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)02:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@GOAT Bones231012 Both are working fine for me now. Looking for Terence Crawford gives four options as suggestions, as well as the standard "Search for pages containing..." Is that what you see now?Mike Turnbull (talk)10:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
How do I separate my userboxes, and how do I make it collapsible?
Currently working on finally tidying up my user page, may I ask how I can make the userbox tab collapsible, whether I can also split it into different sections(and also if I can make those sections collapsible). If you want, just be bold and tidy it up for me, as that would be greatly appreciated.
Since I forgot not only the password but also the username of the previous account, and even the e-mail was not connected to it, I had to create this new one. I'd like to correct the errors or typos mainly. You can see my talk page.Upset New Bird (talk)03:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Upset New Bird Welcome. Creating a new account is fine if you have lost access to a previous one. Standard advice is to do a bit of detective work: try to think of some articles you previously edited, and when. Look in their edit histories and see if you recognise your edits. If you do, mention your old account name on your current user page, to explain the situation.Mike Turnbull (talk)10:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I believe this is a more adminstator level question, but i stil think i should ask here, if someone knows. I uploaded a potrait picture of the singer Klavdia, for herarticle, as fair use, in the English wikipedia only, and mentioning there isn't any alternate free option as for this case, as fair-use guidelines say. When uploading it, i followed the template instructions and it said that the file will be deleted unless i put a reason, as why a non free file is needed, and why there aren't any free alternatives, which i did. It also states, when the image is used, to include a template to the caption. When i published the changes, and clicked on the template it says about F7, which grants the right of immediate deletion (Case 1), and the template code which was auto-generated was "{{Deletable file-caption|Saturday, 10 May 2025|F7}}", which has F7. Should/must the file be deleted immediately, or the a possible case exception, on the upload license template is valid?.
I'm sorry to say that the file should be deleted. While no free image might currently be available, a suitable imagecould be created, which is one of the criteria. If someone were to take a good photo of her at a performance, for instance, they could release it under a free license and we could use it. Maybe there are some Wikipedians who are going to be at Eurovision? --rchard2scout (talk)19:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Rchard2scout Thank you for your response, i am deleting the full size image (somehow?), and if exists a template about that the imahe should be replaced.Mant08 (talk)19:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Both files will be deleted within a few days. They are already marked for automatic processing. I can delete them manually now if you'd prefer to just have them gone.DMacks (talk)23:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Cockleburr1, If you click on "edit", then any of the boxes of the table you can edit inside the table. If you want to add more boxes, press the arrows that show up when you click a box, then click add row/column. Hope that helps,CF-501 Falcon (talk ·contribs)21:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I was afraid to ask because I should have been able to figure this out through the help section but I just couldn't formulate my query to get what I needed. Your kind answer helped me a lot and I appreciate your response. Thank you again.Cockleburr1 (talk)18:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Making a Wikipedia page searchable/visible on Google
When searching for "Alpine Camp for Boys" on Google, the camp website and social media pages come up. If you explicitly search, "Alpine Camp for Boys Wikipedia," a list of summer camps appears (in which the page is linked.) How do pages become verified (if that is the name for the process of making the page easy to find), or how do I make that happen?
So on the articleAri Melber, the whole lead after the first sentence sounds like a very long ad for Melber's MSNBC TV showThe Beat with Ari Melber. Seems like it's beennoticed on the talk page as well. I've already kinda remedied the lead issue onThe Beat's articlehere.
So the question is: can I simply remove the excessive lead content about Melber's TV show from the Ari Melber article? Most of that is already onthe Beat's article.Limmidy(talk)02:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Originally I Submitted this and they moved it to drafts and then deleted because of lack of citations. I have created this one to only include the cited information from the New York Times as well as readily available Veterans information and have included references. Can someone experienced take a look and move to the main page after review? Sloggatt (talk)01:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Sloggatt, I was the editor that converted your page to a drafthere. I did this, to quote the template I used, because it needs more sources to establish notability, you may have a possibleconflict of interest (based on your username), and one of the sources is written by the subject's son. There are also some tips on what Wikipedia callsWP:Reliable sources lefthere on your user talk page.Sarsenet•he/they•(talk)05:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I dont agree with this at all - its getting frustrating working within wikipedia - My Grandfather's cartoons appeared several times a week in the 2nd most widely circulated newspaper in the country in the late 50's and 60's - he was nominated for a Pulitzer prize - most people in America at that time had seen his cartoons. I have a personal archive of over 500 original cartoons that were published. I called the Library of Congress in NYC and they verified all the Daily Mirror papers are on record there with Art Sloggatt's cartoons. The Daily Mirror went out of business so the archives and references online are minimal but they do exist in the LOC. These are historical facts I have no conflict of interest and am not trying to misrepresent him in any way.Sloggatt (talk)15:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I understand how frustrating this may be- Wikipedia has a lot of very specific rules. Writing an article is one of the hardest tasks a newcomer here can do. However, you do have aconflict of interest by Wikipedia's standards, because you're related to him, and must send your drafts through the Articles for Creation process.Sarsenet•he/they•(talk)03:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Sloggatt, Sorry to confuse you. I was the editor who reviewed the current page. I don't know who deleted the old one. The page was not deleted, I am not sure what you mean. It was declined, mainly for not showing that Sloggatt metthe criteria for biographies. Another requirement issignificant coverage, the NYT article alone wouldn't satisfy this. The vet memorial is great but still not enough by itself. His late wife's obituary wouldn't help establish his wiki-notability. I hope that makes it clearer. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.CF-501 Falcon (talk ·contribs)01:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
When I view any article on mobile, whether logged in or logged out, I see the languages button near the upper left. When I click on it, it has my suggested languages (English and Simple English) but it always says "Missing in English", which I believe is supposed to link to the Content Translation interface. Obviously, if I'm already on English Wikipedia, the article is not missing in English. Is anyone else seeing this error, and was it reported somewhere?TagUser (talk)05:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm asking because the taxobox can be pretty long sometimes, making it difficult to fit images into relevant sections without sandwiching text between it and the taxobox.Bloopityboop (talk)17:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Bloopityboop. The answer is "yes, but not rigidly". Looking at articles that use{{taxobox}} there seem to be ways of reducing the impact of such images.Palaeospondylus uses a small image on the left for an image in text affected by the infobox.Oxymonad uses a larger image centered beneath the text to avoid sandwiching the text.the text. That article also uses| image_upright = 0.4 in the taxobox code to narrow the image and thus narrowing the width of the infobox.StarryGrandma (talk)00:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Well,MOS:SANDWICH is very clear that it applies equally to infoboxes. If you have to reduce the size of the image to 40% in order to avoid significant sandwiching, I would say that is undesirable, writing as one of those who are elderly and have less acute sight. If it's really important that an image is placed at a specific point in the text, then one solution is to use a gallery with just that image, which centres the image with no surrounding text.Peter coxhead (talk)06:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Question
So i decided to asking that, i want to translate to Vietnamese in summary and in thisFile but it's said "This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators" so could i edit them and im not an adminstrator too ?киска (Wanna Slay ?)07:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Namngocnghech The file is protected currently because the article about him is linked on the Englishmainpage. If you wait untilZhao Xintong is no longer in the "in the news" section you should find that the file goes back to standard protection and you should be able to add your translation for its caption then.Mike Turnbull (talk)10:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Request for Draft Review
Hello, helpful editors. Could you take a moment to review my submission:
Things I may change; From: Tujuba earned a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics with a specialization in leadership communication from Andhra University in India in 2019. He holds a Master of Arts in English from Adama University (2012) and a Bachelor of Arts in Foreign Language and Literature from Hawassa University (2005). To: Tujuba has graduated Andhra University in India in 2019 with receiving a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics along with a specialization in leadership communication. He also holds a Master of Arts in English from Adama University (2012) and a Bachelor of Arts in Foreign Language and Literature from Hawassa University (2005). From: Under Tujuba’s leadership, Gambella University has established various international collaborations. In January 2024, the university signed a memorandum of understanding with the Armauer Hansen Research Institute (AHRI) to collaborate on research related to indigenous medicinal plants and communicable diseases.[4]Further partnerships were initiated with ICCS College of Engineering and Management in Kerala, India,[5] and Hannam University in South Korea, aimed at faculty development and student exchange programs. To: During Tujuba’s leadership, Gambella University has established various international collaborations. In January 2024, the university signed a memorandum of understanding with the Armauer Hansen Research Institute (AHRI) to collaborate on research related to indigenous medicinal plants and communicable diseases.[4]Further partnerships were initiated with ICCS College of Engineering and Management in Kerala, India,[5] and Hannam University in South Korea, aimed at faculty development and student exchange programs. Valorrr(lets chat)01:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Wieditor25 I think that the current draft will struggle to show that Tujuba isnotable as an academic. Your current citations 3 to 5 cover things the university did but do not providesignificant coverage of him. I suspect that your main citation to a biography at a blockchain conference was written by him, so is notindependent. That can be OK for uncontroversial information but does not help to show notability.Mike Turnbull (talk)10:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I was going to request an article for an album which has some notability, but found it was already a redirect to the band's page, what do I do?
The article isReturn to the Kingdom of Fife which currently redirects to the band that made it, Gloryhammer. However, to keep it in line with the rest of the albums, I believe it should be it's own page. How should I go about requesting that? It has some media coverage, but I don't know how much it needs.Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference)14:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
You can create your article in your sandbox, then copy it over the contents of the redirect when you are ready.
Or you may prefer to create it inWP:DRAFT space and submit it for review using theWP:AFC process, and whoever publishes it will replace the redirect for you.
Dear Sirs, I added several external links and references to this international artists but the items were removed by someone by the name of Tracy. All the information included additional citations for verification, reviews, interviews and links to Opera companies and concerts halls as sources for Gaston Rivero backing up his Wikipedia page.CraigAmstrong (talk)16:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I need help in order to add sources backing up the life of this artist. He is a renowned Opera Singer and this continues showing up in his page: This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous.
Find sources: "Gaston Rivero" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)CraigAmstrong (talk)16:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm an occasional Wikipedia editor. I know what I should do but I don't know well the guidelines to point others towards. I recently noticed a relatively new Wikipedia editor added a level of detail that is probably too much to theClearwater Ferry section. It also seems somewhat bias in favor of the rich man who has been in the spotlight for crashing into the ferry.
Anyway, the information seems factually correct but somehow not exactly needed for the article. I'm not how to approach the situation or which guidelines should be referred to about this.
I don't have a lot of time to edit Wikipedia these days and dealing with a conflict like this isn't something I'm up for.
It would be much appreciated if someone with more experience could help with this situation by either showing what should be done or letting me know it's a non-issue. Thanks!
Hi Guys, hoping someone is able to please point me in the right direction. I submitted a draft for BOLP, this was the 3rd submission and has been declined again on the basis that the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I thought I had applied due diligence in researching all available references on the subject available to the general public and even included references from sources that are credible and impartial (ie: Vanity Fair & Forbes). I would appreciate any guidance. Thank you.Substantiator (talk)09:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Sustantiator Hello and welcome. The whole url is not needed when linking, I fixed this for you.
If you have a connection to this person, that needs to be disclosed, seeWP:COI andWP:PAID. You have basically posted her resume; not a summary of what independentreliable sources have chosen on their own to say about her and what makes her important/significant/influential as a person- what we calla notable person. Awards only contribute to notability if the awards themselves merit articles(likeNobel Peace Prize orAcademy Award).331dot (talk)10:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
For reasons stated The list of honors and awards does not contribute to her notability, but in my opinion that information can remain as it is informative. However, that is half the references. Of the other references, which in your thoughts meet the standards stated atWP:42?David notMD (talk)13:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Company information
Hi all! Need your help, please: if someone wants to add a company on Wikipedia with the basic facts about it, is that possible (allowed) to do and how to do it (the procedure itself)? Thank you very much in advance!Dape13 (talk)09:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
HiDape13, Yes, You can create a article of a company that you want. If the company is notable enough. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable and independent references to the subject.Fade258 (talk)09:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Dape13 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of a company and tell of its offerings, nor is it a place for companies to tell about themselves. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independentreliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets thespecial Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please also seeconflict of interest andpaid editing if it is your company that you want to write about.331dot (talk)09:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
This is only the case if the article is created directly in article space- stubs will not pass theWP:AFC process. Drafts don't need to be complete, but they need to be more than a stub.331dot (talk)11:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi! Hope you're well. I am trying to create a page for Roger Chennells in drafts and a "this title is blacklisted" message popped up. How do I get around this to be able create and edit this page? Thanks!FazielahWonderCommsSA (talk)08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
HiFazielahWonderCommsSA Please ignore the above. Your post has a zero-width space right before Roger. Your browser may reveal there is a non-displayed character when you try to pass it with arrow keys in the edit window. It depends on the copy method whether it's included when you try to make a link. I omitted it here in a working link:Draft:Roger Chennells.https://r12a.github.io/uniview (not affiliated with Wikipedia) can show non-displayed characters.PrimeHunter (talk)09:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Adding 'filler' info to swimming events - unsure of policy to use - WP:MOS?
I read a lot of articles on swimming races on Wikipedia. When it comes to an Summer Olympic event, none of them in the past will start the lead by telling you how many laps of a 50m pool that the race will take. Maybe because it is not necessary and is just filler info. Most people know basic math that a 200m freestyle race will mean 4 laps of a 50m Olympic pool. Yet recently an editor added into articles -Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre freestyle and also,Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre freestyle that those races requires 2 laps in a 50m Olympic pool in the lede. I just think this is unnecessary filler info that isn't suited for a lede that's meant to summarize only the most notable facts. Also it dumbs the article down as if it's accommodated for kindergartners. I made a talk thread -[9] However I have to admit that despite I think it's filler info, I am not 100 percent sure what policy it violates. I do think it goes against Wp:Mos specifically -[10] and that we don't do this for any other Olympic swimming race articles ever but unsure of what policy exists to not allow unnecessary details that most sports readers of these articles don't need to be told about in lede. I already removed them by calling it as filler or unnecessary info.IP49XX (talk)11:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Text doesn't necessarily have to be an explicit violation of policy to be removed. That it's not really helpful to an encyclopedic article about the event would be enough to argue for its removal. You went ahead and boldly removed the text (and I agree with you that it's kinda silly since we don't do that kind of basic aside in the lede for any other sporting event) and included your explanation why.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)14:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I am a moderately experienced editor but I struggled to define the exact policy. I suppose I feel like a stingy landlord where the lede should be regarded as a prime real estate and should be concise and focused on key outcomes, and deliver the most newsworthy facts first; who won and why it mattered like records. Merely adding that the pool length is 50m and 2 laps must be done, is like explaining a soccer game was played on grass- technically that's true, but obvious, expected and distracting. It feels obvious yet I can't define that policy clearly.IP49XX (talk)17:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I just think even if some readers still don't know the Olympic pool is 50m, the lede isn't the place to teach that. The lede is for the result - who won and records broken. Technical details like an Olympic pool length or lap count are better explained in the body or in a footnote. Tho they are better in a more general article like Olympic swimming unless there's some extraordinary reason like this particular race for the first time was done in a non standard pool or there was confusion. regardless the addition of the pool length and lap count is better to be mentioned further down the article and not in the lede where readers want to know what the race is and who won, and not the pool length or lap count. - It's basically like saying 100m sprint run was run on a track so runners needed to stay in their lanes - that may be informative to some, but it's not lead worthy unless something unusual happened.IP49XX (talk)17:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion it's not common enough knowledge that an Olympic pool is 50 metres long. Yes, 200m races are often 8 × 25m, just not in Olympics. To make technical articles understandable, I think this information should be included. It was already useful to the GA reviewer for this article, who didn't already know this.IAWW (talk)17:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
And I agree clarity is important but we should consider placement. Lede is meant to summarize the most important aspects of the event like who won and any records broken. It is not ideal for basic background details unless they're central to the race outcome. I want to keep the article professional and in line with Manual of style. We don't go adding to every single swimming race the first senntences telling people the pool length and laps count. Why start now just because you or Ga reviewer think it's central to the event. I don't think that it means it belongs to the lede,IP49XX (talk)18:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Would a book summary that appears to be taken from Amazon and other websites need to have a notice in the section noting that?
I was going throughSpecial:Random to try finding articles to add links to when I noticed a particular section of an article (Tutankhamun and the Daughter of Ra) that seemed suspicious and might have been plagiarized from elsewhere (Plot summary), so I searched it up, and found it onAmazon,Barnes and Noble and various other sites. I understand thatusers should be bold, but placing a template or notice or something of that sort claiming copyright infringement is a bit too extreme, along with my lack of knowledge about copyright, especially with book summaries. Would this require an edit or any sort of action?hi (talk)14:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Probably not too extreme. Whatis extreme is the copyright infringement, which Wikipedia takes pretty seriously and should be removed and revision deleted ASAP. AndWP:BEBOLD does apply here: the harm done by an accidental copyright template is much less than that of an unnoticed copyvio. Cheers,GoldRomean (talk)14:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Question for other hosts: I've gone ahead and removed the copyrighted content (assuming I'm correct in that itis a copyvio), and now I should probably request revdel. Honestly this article might even ought to be sent to AfD, but do I request revdel of the entire article? Since the copied stuff has been there since the original creation in 2005... Best,GoldRomean (talk)14:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
One of the problems is that sites looking for random blurb often cut-and-paste from Wikipedia without attribution, so you have to work out which way it was plagiarized: did we copy them, or did they copy us? To be honest, I'd be more worried about the notability and sourcing issues. This particular article has no sourcing whatsoever, and if the only sourcing available is a couple of reviews at the time of publication, is it sensible to have an article on the book at all?Elemimele (talk)15:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
True, but the removed content should probably stay like that until we know forcertain if it was stolen or not.hi (talk)16:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I’m here to gauge interest on a Wikipedia article idea of mine, or to see if it has already been created under a different name. I think an article that talks about scientific exploration of magick and occultism could be useful; there are pages about magick but they don’t really contain scientific exploration of the subjects.
It's not a question of "does anyone else want the article to be created". Ifyou want the article to be created, that's the only thing that's necessary. The catch is, if you want the article tostay instead of getting deleted, it has to meet requirements.DS (talk)18:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Fair, so essentially the article must be notable and follow other guidelines of wikipedia. Just curious if others are interested in it to also help with editing itPolkol777 (talk)18:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
It's not thearticle that must be notable: rather, the article must have suitable sources that establish that thesubject meets Wikipedia's criteria fornotability. You would need to cite, and indeed base the article on, several reliable sources that discuss specifically "the scientific exploration of magick and occultism", (or whatever you decide the subject is precisely). Sources whichdo such exploration, as opposed to discussing it as a topic, would not be useful.
Why are some editor saying that I can't write "He Has been serving as mayor since 2024" on politician page because its a Biography. I have to write "He serves as mayor since 2024"M1rrorCr0ss10:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't know why other editors are saying that: have you asked them? I would say "He has served as" rather than either of those.ColinFine (talk)10:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
M1rrorCr0ss, I would avoid use of the present perfect tense ("has been [mayor]") due to possibleWP:RELTIME issues which could make the statement false in the future. If this is a dusty little town that attracts few editors to the article, a reader reading the article in 2026 may be reading a false statement if no one bothers to update the article after the next mayoralty election. It's better to just use wording that isWP:Verifiable regardless when a reader reads it. So I would suggest: "He was elected mayor in 2024" (or, orwas appointed, orbecame, or whatever the case may be). That remains true, regardless who the current mayor is.Mathglot (talk)22:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
correct scientific terms for assemblies, chambers, houses of parliament
what is the correct scientific terms for the following:
national assembly? a house / chamber representing on national level. NOT a bicameral parliament like US congress, but house of representatives, senate.
popular chamber? a house / chamber representing the people in a "one person one vote" fashion, proportionally
federal chamber? a house / chamber representing federated unites, like US senate, swiss ständerat.
territorial chamber? a house representing regions in a unitary state, like french senate.
User id is Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas , We need to know that our submission for Review is approved or something is pending for clarification from our end , please share / regardsChaudhary Akhtar Abbas (talk)05:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
HiChaudhary Akhtar Abbas, I am just seeing your draft and found that, that was in userspace. If you want to publish this page as a Wikipedia article, you need to move it to the correct title and submit it for review through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. You can also follow the instruction given by Cullen.Note: IMO, It looks like an autobiography. Thank You!Fade258 (talk)08:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas/sandbox has been declined. Do not resubmit until all content it referenced by quality references. SeeWP:42 for what that means. If this person (you?) has not been written about by other people, there is no potential for it to become an article.David notMD (talk)13:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
IP Query to Retired (mostly) editor - Any suggestions?
I’ve mostly packed it in, at enwiki (see my userpage) but do the occasional Wikignome edit. An edit toGyaru (Shwingo) caught the attention of an IP that seems to frequent the place (Shawengo,Talk Page Shacacatoh) and I’m not quite sure how to go about his query:
I am really at a loss on how to academically prove about most of the information present in said article(s) is true and not creative community input or AI material.
I’ve been out of touch with this community for years (doubt I ever really got back into the swing of things on my 2020 run). Don’t suppose I could tempt anyone to jump into the convo on my talk page, with better advice than I? Cheers.MM(Give me info.)(Victories)11:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your help. I often see on some pages such as the politics of Yemen a request for citations. However when I tried to add a true fact to the page on the text "lord and father of mankind", it was deleted because the editor didn't like my citation. Why didn't they just post the notice that is was insufficient?
The important thing to remember is that Wikipedia has no central editorial board enforcing policies.It's all done by volunteers, and nobody is 100% up to date on everything.DS (talk)16:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I would also point out that there's a difference between "this statement needs a citation" and "this citation doesn't say what you claim it does" (and also "this statement is unnecessary and promotional").DS (talk)16:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
In an ideal world, we wouldn't use those tags, because all claims in every article would be cited to a reliable source. But particularly in the early days of Wikipedia, many editors didn't do that, so we have thousands and thousands of inadequately cited articles.
In a slightly less ideal world, when an editor finds an uncited piece of information, they would look for a source and add it (or remove the information if they can't find one); sometimes people do that, but often they lack the knowledge, or the time, or the interest to do so, and so sometimes they add one of those tags - this is sometimes referred to asdrive-by tagging.
But when you are adding information now, it is seen as your responsibility to cite a suitable source, since you are the one adding the information.
I think my frustration is that the choral anthem that I was trying record as an alternative setting of the hymn text exists, I have sung it, I have no rights to it. Not sure how you can cite a choral piece without it looking like a promotion. The article references other hymn tunes but doesn't provided any citations for those. It all feels arbitrary But thanks.Newbycpa (talk)15:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
The solution is to remove those other entries unless sources supporting them can be found,Newbycpa, rather than using them as a reason to add more uncited material. The standard for inclusion here is that something isverifiable, not simply that it's true.Cordless Larry (talk)17:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
I think you are confused about what citations are.Politics of Yemen has a "citations needed" tag. That means that the article needs sources. What you added toDear Lord and Father of Mankind had nothing to do with citations on Politics of Yemen. As @Feline Hymnic said in their revert's edit summary,A ref is supposed to be a cite of a reliable source that supports a claim in the article's text. Instead, this looks a promotion of a product. Please see, and follow WP:CITE.GoldRomean (talk)16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
@Thehistorianisaac As long as the article remains in draft space, it will not be considered for DYK, so you need to focus first on getting it approved. This is likely to be difficult as the subject appears to be notable for onlyone event.Shantavira|feed me13:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
My question is not whether the article is notable or will be approved, my question is whether i can have two DYK nominations at the same time.
As stated above, I will publish the article when it is finished(so i'm not asking for a DYK nomination now, I'm asking for when I finish it), and for notability it has been covered by tonnes of media(twice in fact, in 2011 and 2021, due to his death and the aftermath of his death), and we have several other articles of military personnel whose notability mostly comes from the same event likeNathan Bruckenthal andXie Jinyuan, and martyr status in china is considered one of the highest military decorations.Thehistorianisaac (talk)14:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
I've had to log in twice in just the past few minutes, and a couple times more earlier today. I go to save an edit and find that I'm logged out again; sometimes I don't notice and save while logged out. this has been a problem for maybe the last month. I only have to click the 'log in' button without entering my password because I'm still logged in my Wikimedia acct, just not on WP-en. this hasn't been an issue before, but sometimes corresponds with uploading something on commons or visiting another WP - though sometimes not. it rarely seems to happen on any WP other than WP-en, and then only when I haven't visited for a while. has something changed on WP, or any idea why I might be repeatedly logged out?— kwami (talk)00:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
cookies are enabled, and i was logged in automatically when i opened my browser this morning. still, i have half a gigabyte of cookies just on the wikipedia side, so i'll try deleting them.— kwami (talk)19:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
that immediately logged me out, but i logged in and went to wikt, was logged out there but could just click 'log in' because i was logged in centrally [same as wp yesterday]. hopefully this will fix it, thanks.— kwami (talk)19:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Is it possible for a user to silently purge their own log list
Hi all, is it possible that a user with "AP, ECo" could secretly edit their own user log list and delete data that was previously there? Is it possible at all to delete log lists? I believe it is if it's a privacy breach. If so, is it recoverable?NotQualified(talk)19:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Nothing is completely impossible, in the sense that you could have a database corruption that removes entries from a log (but that would not meet the requirement of the user doing it to their own log). Also, aoversighter is able to remove log entries from view, but there are strict rules for that and it is very rare (and I don't think they are allowed to surpress log entries about themselves. For more information, seeWikipedia:Requests for oversight. I believe that oversighters are able to see oversighted stuff. So for example if someone posts someone's home address that can be removed from view.Polygnotus (talk)22:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
School blocked auth.wikimedia.org and now I cannot log in
Unfortunately, I am no longer able to log into Wikipedia from my school since the new login portal was implemented. Does anyone know if there is a way to bypass auth.wikimedia.org and use the old login page? I would really appreciate it. Thanks!E6400 (talk)23:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Assess relevance of list article and which lists are desired on Wikipedia
Hi everyone,
I recently started a draft on thelist of largest Private Banks (by the industry wide standard indicator ofAssets under Management) since i noticed that while there are plenty of lists regardinglist of largest banks overall and by country, (measured by total assets or market cap.) there are none addressing largest private banks. Is such a list relevant for Wikipedia and what precautions should be taken when creating/editing a list page heavily reliant on specific quantitative metrics?Orlandov123 (talk)14:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Welcome! Have you readWP:LISTS andWP:NLISTS? Also, "largest" is not very helpful when banks have diverse business models and liabilities and asset values are incredibly difficult to figure out.Polygnotus (talk)14:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit (which was made last September, and the only edit that account has ever made), and put a message on their talk page. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
Also, your user page currently displays the text "{{User aviation}", whereas you presumably meant to write "{{User aviation}}" to display the user box.The Sophocrat (talk)02:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Maurice Magnus: yes, as I've demonstrated by doing it (though my change doesn't reduce the size of the [14] in the contents list). But this shouldn't be an issue. Links to footnotes should follow the statement that the linked source confirms. But a section header is not a statement, and so doesn't warrant a link to a source.Maproom (talk)15:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
As stated in the title, this is not about political influence or forced change - it's about geographical accuracy and the historical context behind the name. It's extremely disappointing to see the page admin modify the article to include "Also known as," as if alternative names carry equal weight without proper historical or geographical basis.
If everyone begins renaming places on maps to suit political agendas or personal narratives, the result will be confusion and chaos.
Any naming - like any other claim - must be supported by credible references and historical evidence.
Unfortunately, the admin of the Persian Gulf article has not only locked the page but also restricted access to the talk section. This means the admin can unilaterally impose their own viewpoint without allowing community input or open discussion.
This not only contradicts the spirit of Wikipedia’s core principles, but also undermines the values of collaborative editing, neutrality, and transparency that the platform is meant to uphold.
I have restored the deleted content and reported the IP to AIV- this appears to be an ongoing issue over the past two weeks.Sarsenet•he/they•(talk)07:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Partner feature for Wikipedia
Hello all! I'm curious whether there are plans in the future to create a partnership feature to facilitate easy collaboration between users across projects, recognizing the existence of groups. It would be helpful to be able to alert other editors I know in a specific field that a certain article needs additions or references, and fast-track the process as opposed to the somewhat random chance of the talk page, which are nonetheless useful for their own purposes, and for community wide discussion. Let me know what you all think, and if anyone knows of similar tools I'm missing by all means let me know.
I'm writing the article for Adam Linder and it is about to be submitted. I really would like to know if the article is ready because it has already been rejected twice. I really would like to know your opinion about if I'm respecting every writing policies and if there isn't any errors. Someone told me that I had a tense error in the Award section but I can't find it. If there is some little modification to do, I would like to know it before publishing it because revision takes time.
"Other works includeLOYALTY (2017). . . ." If that's pronounced something like "ell oh why ay ell tee why", fine; but if it's pronounced like "loyalty", then change that to "Other works includeLoyalty (2017). . . ." (Ditto forWANT.) And then submit the result. --Hoary (talk)22:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
@Upset New Bird I don't know how active that Project is these days but you could, for example, look at the articles mentioned onWP:WPCOL that are categorised as, say, stubs and try to upgrade them to start or above by adding content. Alternatively, you could ask for suggestions on the related Talk Page for the Project.Mike Turnbull (talk)11:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi everyone,I want to improve articles related to Indian herbs and Ayurveda. Sometimes I find really good information in Hindi-language books or government PDFs.Can I use non-English sources if I translate them myself, and will they be accepted as reliable references?Thanks in advance.Cognowriter (talk)10:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Welcome. I am afraid the answer is no. SeeWP:MEDRS for more information. For new users I would not recommend getting involved in medical-related topics on Wikipedia, because that is probably the second-most difficult topic to get involved in. Did an AI write your userpage?Polygnotus (talk)10:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I did, before I replied. It is possible to write about plants without making medical claims and I like to think that respondents at the Teahouse should try to answer the question asked, even if we need to caution aboutWP:MEDRS-compliant sources, as you did. I see this as an implication ofWP:BITE.Mike Turnbull (talk)12:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
@Maproom That is, obviously, offtopic. Also you can just click -->WP:BITE <-- there and read it. We should be polite to newcomers (but aren't), but that does not mean that we should tell them that unreliable sources are fine. Indian sources are not reliable in the context ofIndian herbs and Ayurveda. Even if they wouldn't be making medical/health claims, which they explicitly told us they will be, and appears to be their raison d'être judging by their userpage, unreliable sources are still unreliable sources and they cannot be used on Wikipedia.Polygnotus (talk)22:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, Mike. That helps a lot.
I understand the importance of MEDRS for health claims, and I will stick to improving articles with verifiable, non-medical plant information — especially focusing on structure, common uses, and cultural relevance.
I’ll also make sure to properly translate and cite any non-English sources per WP:NONENG.
Im writing up a draft for a article about a airshow, (User:Echmo/draftTOMI) and if you scroll down to the shows section and look at 2018, you can see a very, very long list of preforming aircraft that bloats up the screen. Is there a way to use the space on the right so that it can run on both sides? Thanks.Echmo14:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Following the suggestion of user Caleb Stanford - i bring this topic here, to see if you can help me unblockthis publication.
I believe i have followed all steps, and removed most of the parts from previous edits that would have made the article not follow the WP guidelines (e.g. being more sales-focused or copied products from company site instead of notable and independent references)
Now, when comparing to alternative company profiles likeIDquantique , I find similar sections approved, so I would think that the submission should be valid.
Can anyone provide further suggestions or help with this matter please?
FrankTWW Please seeother stuff exists. That another article exists does not necessarily mean it or its content was "approved" by anyone. Standards have changed over time so that what was once acceptable is no longer; also, the draft process has not always existed, and is not required of everyone- so there are many ways inappropriate content can exist. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. Though understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example- instead, use those that are consideredgood articles, which have received community vetting.331dot (talk)15:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Note that "IDquantique" has been marked as problematic since 2015, so it definitely is not a good example to go by.331dot (talk)15:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
(ec) I have blocked this user based on off wiki information, I have established a COIVRT ticket where I provided the basis for the block.331dot (talk)15:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Why does it show sentences that's off topic with "Sovereign states"?
I just finished my work on article aboutKarkonosze University of Applied Sciences. If somebody could look at that, check grammar and vocab, and generally other stuff, I would be grateful ;-) I'm not a native speaker of English and pretty new Wikipedian still, so you know... ;-)
Is it good or bad etiquette to ask a WikiProject for help in an AfD discussion?
I've been active recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and I've seen articles which could use the help of knowledgeable editors about the subject. Example:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solinas prime could use the help of a mathematician.
Is it good or bad etiquette to ask a WikiProject for help?
If it's OK, should I just a section on the project's talk page?
@Itzcuauhtli11 In general, it's perfectly fine toWP:APPNOTE a Wikiproject to an afd, but see that link, your message should be "Your input is welcome" rather than "Please help me save (or get rid of) this article!!!" And yes, just start a new section like you normally would.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)19:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
You can check outWP:CANVASS for where the line is and isn't. Like Gråbergs said, a neutral message on a WikiProject is near-universally totally fine. I would go further and suggest that explicitly asking for help finding sources to establish notability for the sake of the discussion is fine; after all, both sides at an AfD discussion are trying to make articles conform to notability standards, so you're helping both sides in finding reliable, independent sources with significant coverage.TheTechnician27(Talk page)20:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Why is this page name protected? This is a historically important former African American neighborhood in Shreveport, Louisiana. The area is now known asLedbetter Heights, which redirect to the album title of a white musician.FloridaArmy (talk)16:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
It states; You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:The page title that you have attempted to create contains a right single quotation mark (’) Unicode character. Per MOS:STRAIGHT, such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace it with a standard apostrophe, or a modifier letter turned comma (ʻ) or modifier letter apostrophe (ʼ) character if appropriate, and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first. If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you. Valorrr(lets chat)16:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
FloridaArmy: Wikipedia disaproves of the use of curly apostrophes "St. Paul’s", and forbids them in article titles. Why not just use a regular apostrophe "St. Paul's"?Maproom (talk)21:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Request comments for my writing to modify
Hello. I am writing about what I study nowadays. I am studying an International standard from ITU-T about cybersecurity in computer science.It is my first writing on Wikipedia, and it was rejected because of its non-neutral tone (the manager said my writing is like advertising).
I want to introduce what I am studying, especially the positive side of technologies, to everyone in the wiki.What should I modify in my writing?Please check my writing about X.1280 and leave any comments for me.URL :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:X.1280. Best regards.Baker232 (talk)07:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi Baker232. In an article you want avoid stating personal opinion, so comparing something to alternatives and insinuating that it's better than them is against best practice. It also probably requires more citations, especially in sections when none are present. There's a Wikipedia policy page on neutral point of view writingWikipedia:Neutral point of view, I want to particularly draw your interest to the due and undue weight, balance, and how to write neutrally sections. It's also important note that you want to try to avoid conflicts of interest, so it's inadvisable to write articles on anything you're directly involved in.Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Feel free to reach out if you have any other questions or need help.Nixleovel (talk)07:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I tried to put my opinion because simple summary is not enough to upload.
Before I modify my writing, I need to read two policies of the wiki.
You'll want to avoid writing them in the introduction, and when you do need to use them, make sure to quote them instead. Quoting makes it clear to all readers that the comparison is that of the party referenced, not Wikipedia.Nixleovel (talk)08:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Baker232,this is the first version, uploaded by you, ofDraft:X.1280. As I skimread it, I don't get the impression that it was written by the person who posted the message above: it seems to have been written by somebody else. Any comment on this? --Hoary (talk)07:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment about wrong url. I fixed not to point prev writing.
I visited that page,Baker232. No URL is wrong. Do you have any comment on the great difference in prose styles between your writing here and your writing (if it is yours) there? --Hoary (talk)07:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot sharing the manager's comment. The comment is here.
"This is an advertisement for a particular product standard, not an encyclopedic article that covers information about the project as covered in reliable, independent sources."Baker232 (talk)08:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
We can see that,Baker232. How about answering my question? Simply, it seems from what you write here that English is a second language for you. But it seems that the writer of the draft is using English as a first ("native") language. Why the difference? --Hoary (talk)08:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
As you mentioned, I am not native English speaker. So I use a program to write english correctly and put lots of time to write. The name is Grammarly extention. Why I didn't answer yours is I couldn't understand what you meant.Baker232 (talk)08:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't find it helpful when people describe drafts like this as "like a advertisement". It is nothing like an advert. Quite clearly, if it was already published, it would not be deleted.
That said, it does read like a usage guide, and it would benefit from more about what independent third parties have said, about the standard:— whether or not it is useful and the impact it has had on the industry, for example.
Thank you for your comment. I tried to emphasize that he standard can be useful for a specific purpose.
I agree with your opinion, but I need to modify it because it has been rejected.
I use the term "Manager" very often in my office. It would be better to call the guy an "Editor" or a "Reviewer" on wiki.Baker232 (talk)00:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Question regarding attribution
Hello! I recently came across the articleHome Wanted while clicking around, and I had a question regarding the Plot section. It has a citation to 1919 review, and the text in that section appears to be copied word for word from the source. My question is, is it appropriate to copy that much text from a presumably public domain source in an article and attribute it via in-line citation?
I apologize if this is a silly question, but there are a lot of different policies that I'm still getting a handle on, and I want to make sure I understand them properly.NovaHyperion (talk)07:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
It's not at all a silly question,NovaHyperion. I haven't read the article or what it "cites" (allegedly plagiarizes), and am responding to your account of it. No, such copying is not appropriate. It's wrong. For a start, such material should be clearly marked as such, whether<blockquote>like this</blockquote> (if long) or"like this" (if not), and of course using ellipses and/or square brackets to show deviations from the original. And after this start, much of what's so identified will probably better lose its new formatting and instead be rewritten, summarized, or perhaps just cut. --Hoary (talk)07:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt responseHoary. I am aware that copying/plagiarism is frowned upon in general, but I wasn't sure if there were any Wikipedia-specific policies that governed copying text from a source that old with an inline citation.
How can I sort a wikitable from earliest to latest in the filmography section, which is currently ordered from latest to earliest? —ArćRèv •talk02:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Arc Rev, If you are a registered user then you can add a user script to automatically reverse table rows or provide advanced sorting. This is more advanced and for personal use only. If this looks complex to you then you can see furtherhere.Fade258 (talk)03:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Currently, I could not find any user scripts that automatically sort. May be, I will create that scripts soon, otherwise you could go for help link in (click on here) which I mentioned in my previous message. You could see filmography section ofAnsha Sayed, may be this helps you.Fade258 (talk)03:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I have tried posting to relevant Wikiprojects, however, I have not received much response. Is there another place where I can go to present this to editors who might find this topic interesting?
Also, I can answer any questions on those articles' talk pages. Thanks for the assistance on how to proceed!AmandaDLC (talk)21:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @AmandaDLC: you've not only posted the edit requests on those articles' talk pages, you've posted a help request on yours, and this message here. I get that for you the articles about your employer are of supreme importance, but please understand that a) other editors have other interests, b) Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and everyone edits what they want, when they want, and c) there are nodeadlines here. I'm sure someone will get around to dealing with your requests sooner or later. --DoubleGrazing (talk)06:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
No, wikilinks should never be automated as that would produce too many links, andthis indicates there are currently 26 links to the article, which is already plenty.Shantavira|feed me08:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
It's been submitted for review at AfC. A reviewer will deal with it sooner or later. As the header notice on that page currently says:"This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,185 pending submissions waiting for review."Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits12:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
@Cactusisme andPigsonthewing: I don't think you can promote something to the Wikipedia namespace from AfC, which isArticles for Creation. AfC is about promotion to mainspace (the articles). Usually you'd have something like this as an essay in your userspace, and if many people like it it may get moved to the Wikipedia namespace.Polygnotus (talk)12:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
People often list their essays on their userpage. You can also make an "advert" for it and stick that on your userpage.Polygnotus (talk)13:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I want to add sources for information about colleges and universities in India. Details like campus size, enrollment, staff size, website, affiliations, and gradings can be checked using NAAC Information Sheets, Affiliation Documents, and NIRF Applications. Are these considered reliable sources according to Wikipedia’s policies?Also, I have noticed that many mottos are in Indian languages. Should these be replaced with English versions if available?VeritasVanguard☎10:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Waalktheeaarth Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia; it's best to first gain experience and knowledge as to how Wikipedia works by first editing existing articles in areas that interest you. Writing a new article is not the only or even best way one can contribute- many people contribute successfully without writing a single new article. We have millions of articles that need work. Using thenew user tutorial is a good idea, too.
Your draft does little more than document the existence of the school. You must summarize what independentreliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the school and show how it meetsthe definition of a notable organization.
I would add that your signature is piped very oddly; something closer to your actual username would be better.331dot (talk)09:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
WalkTheEarth was registered by someone in 2013 and as such is taken. Given that the account never made any edits,usurpation might be possible (but if it isn't, you should change your link title to avoid the impression of being someone you're not).Victor Schmidt mobil (talk)10:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
@Waalktheeaarth: Echoing what 331dot said: I've been the primary author on twofeatured articles, Ipatrol new articles, I've been here almost eight years, and creating new articles (except forspecies articles) is so hard that I prefer to do almost anything else. On top of that, living people, extant organizations, and products are even more scrutinized than most new articles. Ourtask center lists items by difficulty, and we suggest article creation for "advanced editors" because it really is just that hard. At 7 million articles, finding somethingnotable to write about gets much harder. To be crystal clear: notability does not in any way reflect on the author of the article – the amount of work they put in, their aptitude for contributing, the quality of their prose, their intentions, nothing; it's a characteristic of the subject none of us can change.
You did the right thing by usingarticles for creation. You did the right thing by waiting for a review. You did the right thing by contributing about something you're passionate about. You did the right thing by citing your statements to a reliable source. You did the right thing by keeping your articleneutral in tone.You did nothing wrong here; it's just possible that our guideline onWP:NSCHOOL can't be overcome for this subject. That you tried in the first place is something to be proud of. My biggest suggestion if this experience hasn't (understandably) turned you off from contributing is to look at thetask center; specifically, expanding out small articles is similar to but vastly easier than creating new ones because they've probably already overcome the hurdle of notability.TheTechnician27(Talk page)15:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
How do I declare on my page that I don't have COI with the article subject?
I received this message "You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. S0091 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)" someone replied "You may make the disclosure on your user page." and I don't get it what to do, I am so sorryRobbydillallo (talk)14:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
@Robbydillallo The full details of what to do are explainedon this page. Normally, people use the template{{paid}} to make the disclosure. Your userpage is currently a red link from your signature but if you click on that you'll be able to add the necessary content.Mike Turnbull (talk)15:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I may have misunderstood your question. If youdon't have any COI, you can state that one the Talk Page of the article in question. We have a guideline toassume good faith if you do so.Mike Turnbull (talk)15:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
sorry, I read the article but didn't get it. "you can state that one the Talk Page of the article in question." what exactly has to be done? I am a bit confused, please, don't be mad at meRobbydillallo (talk)15:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
If this is about your draft, then go to its talk pageby clicking here and open a new section. State in simple terms what, if any, your relationship to that organisation is. If none, just say that. This will not make it more likely that your draft will be accepted but will clear up the possible COI issue.Mike Turnbull (talk)15:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Go to (-90.624, 35.856) atthis source and you'll see a road named "Laura Lea" (with no "Rd" or "St" after). What do I call this in an article? I have a street abbreviation paper open, and "Lea" isn't on that list. — EF514:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Polygnotus, that's the thing, I have no idea whether it's a street, road, cove, point, lane etc... what a weird road name. — EF515:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Not sure why people see a requirement to end the name of a road with Rd, Dr, St, etc.Avenue of the Stars has enough notability to get an article.
The USPS ZIP code lookup site uses 'LAURA LEA'. I see the same from property listings and a tax document from Jonesboro. 'Lea' could be a given name or a reference to a pasture or meadow.
But, someone listed as the GIS Coordinator for Jonesboro did list it as 'Laura Lea Dr' in a document created around 2022 named 'Jonesboro Road Names In Use'. I reached out via email to see if there is an official source on the name.Just Al (talk)17:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
In this case, saying “the tornado then impacted Laura Lea” makes it sounds like it hit aperson, which is misleading. Avenue of the Stars has, well, “avenue” in it, so it’s less confusing. “Lea”, however, isn’t a common road name.EF517:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Sure, but writing clearly is the key to reducing confusion. Just like this attempt to sort out the best article name. I was not implying that 'Lea' is a common road name. Maybe it's easier to digest for some people if everything is programmed and repetitive. But it's not a requirement to be common to exist. In this case, however, 'drive' might be the official designation. That makes it easier.Just Al (talk)18:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
That's so weird, here in the U.S. every street has a "Rd" or "Pl" at the end. Thanks@Polygnotus:, I've added the "Drive" per your link. — EF515:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
DuncanHill, hm... Drive or Street? I know its a minor issue, but I want it to be verifiable. I'd go with "Drive", but the "Street" is also compelling. Maybe a note? — EF519:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
When writing the career section of a biographical article about an actor, is it necessary to include all television and film appearances, or only the most notable and widely recognized ones? Thank you. —ArćRèv •talk18:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I've noticed that the unincorporated community "Boca Chica", located Texas, has been renamed "Starbase" on Wikipedia and is now presented as a city: see e.g.[11] and[12]. However, my understanding was that, for the city to be incorporated, the county judge had to enter an order. I cannot find anything about this having happened in the news / in the sources of the articlesBoca Chica (Texas) &Starbase, Texas. Therefore, it seems to me that as of today Boca Chica hasn't been incorporated/renamed yet — in which case the recent changes linked above should be reverted. I am not from the US so I would greatly appreciate feedback from someone more familiar with the incorporation process.
As an uninvolved party, I know nothing except this: a requested move was opened at the talk page, initially closed by a completely new user, contested at technical requests (permalink), and re-closed bywbm1058. From what I can tell, the relevant part ofWP:NAMECHANGES seems to be:common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change inreliable, English-language sources.Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs)17:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Rotideypoc41352 and thanks for your feedback. There were two separate points in my message:
The designation as a city (or type C municipality), which appeared premature, given that from a legal point of view the community hasn't been "incorporated" yet. I'd say this has been solved, in large part with the help of @Wbm1058.
The renaming "Boca Chica" → "Starbase". From a legal point of view, I guess that the renaming hasn't happened yet; but I understand that the "official" name in US government databases isn't necessarily theWP:COMMONNAME (since anyway the "official" name seemed to be Kopernik Shores). That said, I guess a case can be made that we do not know yet whether the name "Starbase" is going to catch on and become the common name — so there is a bit ofWP:CRYSTAL going on here. However I am not going to fight the renaming.
In addition to these two points, I think that @SomethingForDeletion had a point when they said [my words, not theirs] the activity around the renaming was suspicious. In particular, it seems reasonably clear that the main reason for the creation of the account @DCAllStar has been to close requested move and enact the renaming. I wouldn't go as far as to say that this means that DCAllStar is a SockPuppet; but SomethingForDeletion is factually correct in saying that this user's behaviour is"not normal [...] for a brand new user". Not everyone has to be normal of course, so in case DCAllStar is a real user and is reading this: I do not mean to be unwelcoming, on the contrary. It's just that in a world where the person who suggested renaming that community is paying people to make it look like they are good at video games, my threshold for considering something "not unlikely" is quite low...Malparti (talk)19:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
COI policy question
Hello,
I've been working onDraft:Nahida (Genshin Impact character) and let @Nahida, an editor who seemed interested inGenshin Impact before, know about the draft in their talk page and asked if they were interested in helping out. They mentioned that they'd want to be careful editing a page like that givenWP:COI. They have the exact same username as the character, although they did say they'd be interested in minor edits and suggestions. Given that the Nahida in the game is obviously fictional, does the COI policy apply here, and if so, what implications would it have on their ability to edit the article while following the rules?Gommeh➡️Talk to me17:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
There is a big reason for users to have an account on Wikipedia. But how can we edit pages or timelines without making a literal single mistake on an encyclopedia? Are extensions useful? Thanks if told.Userbase10000 (talk)17:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "mass editing pages" mean, could you clarify? True "mass editing" would require bots or tools that you have to get special permission to use.GoldRomean (talk)18:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Userbase10000,Special:Contributions/Userbase10000 currently tells me that you are: "A user with 17 edits. Account created on 3 May 2025. The 17 include only just three edits, all trivial, to articles.PaceTarlby, but that's one reason why it seems very likely that there would be problems with mass edits. (A second reason is that your English is hard or even impossible to understand. Example: How could you "making large amount of edits in a short time"not "[include yourself] editing pages"?) Please start by making careful, constructive, and of course reliably sourced edits to a small number of articles. When you've got some experience in doing this successfully, you can of course be more ambitious. Your purpose in editing should not be to draw attention to yourself but instead to improve articles. --Hoary (talk)01:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi all! I have several articles I've made major improvements to that I'd like to be assessed for a new grade. I wasn't certain where to go about this, but if any admin are here that could post this comment in the right discussion space I'd appreciate it. I doubt any of the articles are up to full standard yet, but I think they've been critically improved to a level that they're deserving of a reassessment at the very least. You can find the articles I've made the most improvements to @Contributions (Please notify me before removing major edits) with current grades attached on my userpage. All articles with a (**) that are at start grade or below I think are eligible for reassessment. I'm not as certain about any articles that are C or higher. My thanks in advance.
Unrelated, but I tried installing Rater a few days ago and it gave me a bunch of errors, I'm super bad at all the Javascript stuff, what am I doing wrong? @Sarsenet thanks.GoldRomean (talk)20:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
At this stage,TypeInfo, there's not much point. "History": the one reference is to the company itself. "Operations": not referenced at all. Total number of sources referenced: three, one of which is the company itself, the other two seemingly humdrum (though each demands that I should disable ad-blocking, and as I have no intention of doing so, I can't see either article). First, have the draft demonstrate "notability"; once it has reached that stage, remove the promotional language. --Hoary (talk)11:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
One source is the company website, one is apress release put out by the company, and the third isroutine coverage. None of these contribute to notability, and two of them are just "whatever the company wants to say about themselves". The third appears to just be rephrasing an existing press release rather than original journalism.
The 'History' section addresses the founders withhonorifics (this reads very weirdly in my view, but maybe this is a barrier between American and Indian English).
"the company [...] was inspired by a vision to create employment opportunities for rural youth and contribute to India's development" ("rural individuals" later comes up in 'Workforce')
Further associates the business with charity by invoking a non-profit previously created by one of its founders with the current business (as an example, not once inMicrosoft do we mention, let alone associate it with, theGates Foundation, for good reason).
"The company serves [...] prestigious institutions"
"BVG India Limited offers a wide range of services, including:" is a hyperlink away from Wikipedia being an affiliate advertiser for BVG.
"The company [...] is recognized for its commitment to social responsibility andsustainable practices"
It is not our job to be any subject's wingman and write for them like this, although I do believe it was not your intent for this to sound like an advertisement. It's okay to point out if praise or criticism of them has been discussed inreliable,independent sources, but we have to let only those sources decide how we describe subjects. PS: Your removal of commercial spam atExcitel Broadband is highly appreciated.TheTechnician27(Talk page)22:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
All three are from professional sources. So long as you spread out citations and don't plagiarize you should be just fine. Just make sure you back it up with additional background info and citations therein. I may be wrong but none seem sketchy.
Therapyisgood, NB Thaller's unpublished dissertation is just that: see the warnings about dissertations/theses withinWikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship. Also, note that this was submitted to the university's Department of English, not that of psychiatry or similar. So it can be cited, but judiciously. (Have you looked for reviews in newspapers or non-academic magazines?) --Hoary (talk)01:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
OK, good luck with a draft,Therapyisgood. I was about to recommendWP:RX for theGeist review, but I see that you've found that page already. Incidentally, we normally skip a book's subtitle when titling an article or draft about it; so rather than "Draft:My Schizophrenic Life: The Road to Recovery from Mental Illness" I suggest "Draft:My Schizophrenic Life" (and rather than "Draft:Operators and Things: The Inner Life of a Schizophrenic" I suggest "Draft:Operators and Things). --Hoary (talk)23:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Policy about lists of articles in a BLP
Hi Tearoom. I'm sure I've seen somewhere a policy or guidance about avoiding lists of articles by the subject of an article, and only including a few particularly notable ones. I referred toWP:NOTRESUME andWP:NOTDIR in cutting a long list fromElizabeth Sims; the subject's wife has responded that she hascarefully read WP:NOTRESUME and WP:NOTDIR and don't see support for your statement that the list is "too long". I've let her know about the CoI policy; but where can I find guidance on the specific list issue? Thanks as ever.Tacyarg (talk)22:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure that any such guidance exists. Lists that others might find long don't worry me, as long as the items in those lists are substantial. (Articles shouldn't look like rather desperately bulked-up résumés.) In the lists within this article, most items do appear to be substantial; though I wonder about items such asSims, Elizabeth (contributor 2019); and Amy Jones, (editor, 2019).2020 Novel & Short Story Writer's Market [...]: just what did ES contribute to this book? Perhaps a good rule of thumb is: If a book contribution merits listing, then the contribution should be specified. --Hoary (talk)23:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the relevant guideline might beWikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works § Basic list style – examples, whichencouragescomplete lists of works, and suggests splitting the list off into a separate articleif the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unsuitable. However, I'm not sure that every contribution that Sims made to the various 'where to get published'-style books warrants inclusion in any such list – just the fiction and anysubstantial works of non-fiction.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)23:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. It's the long list I cuthere, rather than the list of books in the article as it now is.Tacyarg (talk)…
Verifying request
Hello guys! I did some changes on the page named "Wi-Fi Protected Setup", and i don't know if they are correct. If anyone is interested or in the domain of cybersecurity, networking or telecommunications, i would be grateful if they verify my recent changes [on that page].
@Lordofcallofduty I've just played the video perfectly well, so I suspect the problem may be your Internet connection. Have you tried downloading the file from Commons and playing it when you are offline?Mike Turnbull (talk)10:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
"He was imprisoned inLoevestein Castle for his involvement in the controversies over religious policy of theDutch Republic, but escaped hidden in a chest of books that was regularly brought to him and was transported toGorinchem."
on the pageHugo Grotius, and I thought "this is perfect for a DYK," but then I found out that DYK are only for articles that have been createdwithin the last seven days, according toWP:DYKNEW. Why is this the case? There are plenty of things I've seen that I didn't think much about until like a month later or more.
Hello,Guylaen. This has nothing to do with the number of volunteers or the availability of server space. The purpose of DYK is to encourage writingnew content, either new articles or 5X expansion of existing articles. It is not intended to highlight interesting old content.Cullen328 (talk)00:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
So you're basically telling me I have to stick withtalking to my friends and family about the interesting stuff I find in old articles? Ugh, lame.Guylaen (talk)00:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
@Guylaen You could write a column for the Signpost maybe, if you collect it for a month or so. I see some people put a bunch of weird facts on their user pages.Mrfoogles (talk)04:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello, please help me. I'm new here — I've been active for just one week. I have already created a draft translation from Arabic to English for an actor's page. I only translated the content without making any changes. How can I confirm or publish it?Farah244 (talk)10:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
@Farah244 Here's a quick overview: Make sure you translate the template for the files in the article and also other template. Also, make sure sentences sound grammatically correct and flow cohesively, and also makes sense. thebiography also needs morereferences to meet the notability guidelines for a biography. Also, remember to giveattribution on the talk page.Cactus🌵spikyouch10:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
@Farah244 Welcome to the Teahouse. the various language versions of Wikipedia operate independently. So the fact that there is an Arabic article does not mean that there automatically may be an English one. Here on the English Wikipedia we have strict policies on what may be included. In relation tobiographies of living people, there are very strict requirements for inline citations to reliable sources for all statements that could be challenged. The draft also needs to show that she isnotable in the way we define this for actors. I'm afraid that IMDb is not considered areliable source, (seeWP:IMDB), so at present your draft falls considerably short of what we require. Please read the pages I have linked for more details.Mike Turnbull (talk)10:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
English Wikipedia has an article aboutsheet metal but none about the professionsheet metal worker. Swedish Wikipedia's article about this profession instead links to "tinsmith", an apparently obsolete historical term for someone who makes small sheet-metal objects. A modern sheet metal worker usually does roofing and ventilation on construction projects. I know nothing much about sheet metal work, so I'm not confident that any stub article I created on English Wikipedia would stick. Please help!Martin Rundkvist (talk)08:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Mrund, I think, You're absolutely right to be cautious. Wikipedia has notability and verifiability standards that even stub articles must meet. However, a well-sourced stub about the sheet metal worker profession would be very likely be acceptable - IMO. Note: Different user have different views on this.Fade258 (talk)08:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I have noticed another editor clearly engaging inWikipedia:Canvassing. What is the proper warning or result for such behavior? See user:Gcolllins94 history for canvassing of user:Trs9k and user:Orxenhorf in an attempt to bring them into a talk page discussion on theCody Wilson talk page.Iljhgtn (talk)17:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
The proper warning is{{subst:Uw-canvass|Talk:Cody Wilson}}. Just post that on their talk page and save your changes. When you're done, it should look something like this:
It appears that you have beencanvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influenceTalk:Cody Wilson. Whilefriendly notices are allowed, they should belimited andnonpartisan in distribution and should reflect aneutral point of view. Please do not post notices which areindiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certainpoint of view or side of a debate, or which areselectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle ofconsensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
I would strongly encourage users to check the conversations that happened on the talk pages of the specific users mentioned above. First of all, the discussion on TsR9k's page wasn't an "invitation to the talk page" (where he had already participated - so "inviting" him would have been a bit of a moot point), but rather conduct. I'm relatively new to editing, so I was trying to ask someone who had more experience than me how I should proceed. Nevertheless, you showed up. You got warned by an administrator for harassment because you posted an ominous and vaguely threatening comment that included my city and state. That was the point where I told you that these "notices" needed to stop. As I said on my talk page: please take a step back. Even if you think you're in the right, it's time to let someone else take care of it. What you did, coupled with what you're do it now, has bothered me so much that I've thought about washing my hands of the situation and perhaps nuking this account - which I made to read, not edit. It's almost not worth it, and over some mere objections I raised on an article. Secondly, the other user - if you check that profile, you'll see that I mistakenly thought he had reverted something (I was tired at the time), corrected myself, then yes - politely invited him to take a look at it. If that's a faux pas, I do apologize, but this was days ago, and notably days before the RfC, which I would imagine is your real issue at the moment. Rest assured, there's only one other user there besides myself - I thought it was strange you weren't participating, given your intense investment in this issue, but whatever. Please though: if you want to discuss the article, we can do it there, and I promise I'll remain cordial as possible. But as I said on my talk page, this needs to stop. It's time to take a step back. If I've blundered and you feel that needs correction - at this point, please just inform someone else.Bgx14 (talk)20:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I am not harassing you, and I suppose I regret the mention of region, but no harm was meant. The notices are standard practice for each time that you violate a policy in a vandalistic fashion. Most recently the act of canvassing. Furthermore, you do indeed seem to be a very experienced editor for one that has made less than 100 edits, so I just find that intriguing.Iljhgtn (talk)03:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
@Bgx14 A couple other minor points if I may. You seem to take personal offense to the warning templates. No offense is meant by them, they are simply standard procedure for when someone runs afoul of the policies and guidelines, as you have. Also, typically there are up to four such warnings in a month prior to a block, unless the behavior is really obviously vandalism or some other problem is present. In this case, I will admit that it is somewhat hard for me to tell, the line is a bit blurry, but that is why the standard warning templates are exactly the right choice of warning you and abidingWikipedia:AGF. I have no issue of course as well with you removing them from your page, as has been mentioned, when you remove them from your talk page it is just assumed that you have read the warning. It isyour talk page after all! And just as in the warnings, there are policies and guidelines that advise editor conduct in that arena as well. Please note though that blanking your own talk page of warnings does not suddenly change the warning level (let's say you are at a tier 2 warning or tier 3, if you blank that, you do not suddenly revert back down to 1... so just keep that in mind). Additionally, while it is regrettable to ever lose any editor on Wikipedia, except clear and persistent vandals, you mentioned you made the account, "...to read, not edit." If this is indeed true, you do not need an account for that. Anyone can read Wikipedia. Only editing comes with additional rules, privileges and policy and guideline restrictions, which are taken seriously. Lastly, I plan to comment over the next week or so in depth on the original page related to all of your claims, I just need to find the time to do it. Please keep in mindWikipedia:TIND. I am not sure of the sudden rush? I am impressed by your flurry of edits over the past couple of days, especially given that we had first had this discussion almost 6 months ago and then you were almost completely silent since that time. Why the sudden interest again, and why did we not just continue the conversation at that time? Even with the archive bot, there would have been at least a full month before any discussions would have been archived. Still seems very interesting to me.Iljhgtn (talk)04:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
That's sort of what I mean - the accusations you draw seem sort of baseless to me, and intended to undermine any substantive suggestions I might have. Though maybe I should be flattered? But no - given how many basic formatting issues I've had, I think it should be obvious that I'm new to editing.
I have tenuous experience playing with HTML from back in the day, and this is similar, but I do find it all somewhat foreign. Nevertheless, I suppose I'll take that as a compliment?
As for my account - you'll note that I've been primarily using my mobile devices. Having an account allows you to sync saved articles on the app. That's really it haha. Pretty mundane reason there that I don't feel I am obligated to explain to you any further. I wasn't trying to "hide" your notices either -- I was letting you know that I thought them excessive. However, while I'm glad you have "regretted" what you did, this went from being merely annoying to upsetting when you mentioned my location. I genuinely don't fully understand what your intentions are. How could I? Given the nature of the dispute as well, plus the potential concerns about autobiographical editing I raised. The way the comment was phrased almost seemed retaliatory.
It's been about a year (over, actually) by the way since the first concerns about the article were raised. Why did I stop posting before? I gave up with the issue in frustration. I felt you were being obstinate and weren't willing to address my concerns, and I figured the amount of effort spent simply wasn't worth it (I feel like that might have been your intent, frankly). Note I attempted to make a single edit this year to the page (plus fixing the typos), but that was reverted by you. Note that I attempted to work around your major point of contention in those edits. Alas, we'll see what happens when consensus is reached.
More than any particular wording issues, primary concern with the article, what inspired me to at a minimum raise these concerns to editors, are the discoveries I elaborated on in my initial thread on the talk page. That's why I was concerned, you'll note, about it being buried in the archive. Again, despite your accusations, I am genuinely not all that familiar with much of the protocol here, especially for what appears to be something as complex as this. On 'canvassing' - I addressed to that above. I guess your lack of acknowledgement is a rejection of that explaination. Nevertheless, TsR was already in the discussion, and I was raising concerns about personal conduct on his page, not changes to any article. Plus, he was already a participant to the talk page - not that it was even about the talk page at that stage. In fact, the other concerns I had - I wasn't sure what the process was to point out conflicts of interest (namely, the subject of an article making huge autobiographical contributions, which I am still very concerned about). The other user I actually meant to discuss a revert (your revert, it turned out!) when I mistakenly thought it was his due to being tired. I corrected myself, then yes, I did ask him what he thought about everything (because he had edited the article before). However, if that was a mistake - then I do apologize! Both of these incidents were before the RfC -- I struggled through the formatting to even post that, so in retrospect I do think it's a bit amusing (or maybe, again, flattering?) than you're insinuating that I am an "experienced". Alas, if that's a real concern you have, you're free to raise it with someone else.
I do appreciate any substantive thoughts you can add to the discussion though! Nevertheless, I'm going to reiterate that at this stage, given everything that has happened, it is best that you take any concerns you have about mistakes I've made to a third party.Bgx14 (talk)12:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Furthermore: Yes, you were. You were warned about it by an administrator. Let's not downplay it - what you posted seemed to be worded as a vague threat. You posted my town and state, how exactly do you 'suppose' someone would interpret that? No Wikipedia editing is worth compromising one's peace of mind.
You've variously described me trying to raise concerns and issue corrections, while looking for input (and taking into consideration your own, sparse input) as vandalism. You've accused me of being a sockpuppet, that I am simultaneously too 'experienced' to be a new editor, yet unfamiliar with formatting, with policy. You've been paying extraordinarily close attention to my contribution log, and spamming my talk page with bogus warnings and notices. At the same moment you posted the comment that later got you warned for harassment, you were posting angry notices and personal comments to my talk page. I know you really want to lean into the disparity of our level of experience here, but nothing about that is normal behavior - on Wikipedia or anywhere else. It's nasty, it's obsessive, and for me it's genuinely unnerving.
Please appreciate that and that it is inappropriate for you to continue to engage in the way you've been doing.Bgx14 (talk)12:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Finally - since I've brought it up, and because I still don't know what the protocol for dealing with this is, I'll show users what I mean by autobiographical editing:
It's probably worth noting that they've also made edits to a string of other topics related to themselves - the company he founded and owns (he created the article for it, wrote most of it), inserting legal disputes with other companies into their Wiki articles, etc. Honestly? The concerns I've had about what ought to be included to his main article are completely secondary to the ethical issues at play here.
What worried me most when you posted my location is that it almost seemed/seems like it could be retaliation for me bringing attention to this.Bgx14 (talk)14:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, I sent an email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org about it after the incident the other day. Again, I wasn't sure (and am still not sure) what the protocol for this is. I'm sincerely lacking in experience here, especially with something that seems to be as complex as this. I thought simply bringing it up on the talk page would suffice, but I don't really know if it was the correct move to make. I thought about the ANI request (which I'm still going to figure out how to format), but due to the sensitive nature of events, that I would perhaps have to interact with... Kamenev - I wasn't sure if I felt comfortable with that. For what it's worth, I'm just going based on what was put in their bio there (in 2008, before they were a public figure, and the personal webpage link that seems to substantiate it). I just don't know exactly how I should proceed. Frankly, my main goal from the start was simply alerting other users, or someone else at least, to the problems here.
Looks like the issue with Kamenev has just been addressed - you're right though and I do agree, this is probably not the appropriate venue for these discussions.
I also agree there are some very serious allegations being levied here. Looks like one editor was blocked, which based on the history of the page seems to have made sense if they were in fact the subject of the page editing their own page and was undisclosed. Anyway, we can continue the discussion on the article itself and should continue to keepWikipedia:FOC top of mind.Iljhgtn (talk)16:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Third party perspective
My apologies for inviting negative attention here at the Teahouse, but there have been some particularly acrimonious interactions and I asked earlier about a canvassing warning, and now the editor is especially hostile just for using the templated response. Please let me know if I am out of boundsin this interaction.
Note, it would also appear as if the user "Gcollins94" just today even changed their username to "Bgx14". I was not even sure one could change their account name.Iljhgtn (talk)20:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
The name change was directly related to this, where you brought up my location in a message that made me genuinely uncomfortable:
I had to request it. I'm going to leave it at that. It should be self-evident why I'm pleading with you to stop sending me these countless notices, to allow a third party to intervene if you feel it's absolutely necessary.Bgx14 (talk)20:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I won't respond further, but I think that comment, whatever its details, was a very bad call on Iljhgtn's part, given it has now had to be oversighted. By the way, renamings are a very standard procedure.Cremastra (u —c)23:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
1. InForeign relations of the Philippines, I recently made an edit with the summary saying "ruin my life once again and I quit" because I got mad since Semsûrî reverted my previous edit (which I now admit as a mistake because I was admittedly forcing it). Is this normal, or do people with anger issues usually get warnings for doing so?
2. Mytalkpage seems to be full (and most of the messages are from bots notifying me about a deleted topic in this teahouse). What happens if I empty the talkpage? Is it okay if I do so?Underdwarf58 (talk)12:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
1. Don't fret, everbody has bad days. I don't think you'll get any sort of warning as it doesn't seem to be a personal attack, just remember to try to remain civil.
Re (1) a one-off almost certainly isn't going to result in any sort of sanctions. If you demonstrate a repeated pattern of reacting with negative emotions, that may cause you problems in the future. In the end, a Wikipedia edit isn't a life or death matter. If you find yourself getting worked up, I recommend stepping away and giving yourself an hour or a day or a week to cool down before you respond. But don't worry about this one case.
Re (2) Yes, you're permitted to delete items from your own talk page, with a few exceptions (such as block notices). For things like warning templates and actual discussions,archiving them is more convenient for future visitors -- anything you delete is visible in your talk page history anyway. For automated notices like teahouse discussion closures, newsletters, arbitration committe voting notices, and the like, just deleting them is totally fine. --Avocado (talk)13:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
A clerk or admin will go to the thread and perform what is called a "CheckUser", where they can view the IP address of a registered account. Then, if it matches, then the accounts will be blocked for sockpuppetry. It's a volunteer service, like everything on this site, but some users do patrol the page for new entries.PhoenixCaelestis (Talk ·Contributions)15:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
PhoenixCaelestis andUnderdwarf58, checkusers are a very small team of highly trusted administrators with access to powerful tools that are related to editor privacy. These tools are used only when necessary and only when justified by policy. There are only 45 checkusers out of about 440 active administrators. Most of the time, checkuser tools are not necessary to detect sockpupppets because the behavioral evidence is convincing.WP:SPI gets constant attention from administrators.Cullen328 (talk)18:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I have drafted a new article for RR Kabel. It was auto submitted by AfC Submit Wizard and got declined byUser:Jlwoodwa. I have made the necessary changes as per reviewer's feedback. Could you please review the revised draft and share your feedback! Is it ready for submission or any further changes required!!
Sample: "RR Kabel partnered with Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar as its brand ambassador.[36][37][38][39][40][41]" I think that "partnered with" and "brand ambassador" mean "employed" and "shill" respectively; but we mustn't call a spade a spade so let's put the wording aside for a moment. This is a simple assertion, the veracity of which readers are unlikely to question. It therefore does not need six references. It just needs one source. Choose the most convincing of the six, retain it, and remove the other five. --Hoary (talk)06:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Let me put it another way,Sachin.Beedigital. Normally references come one at a time. It's sometimes helpful to have a pair. It's most unusual to need to stack three together. More than three, and the editor is definitely doing something wrong. There's a name for this: "refbombing". It's interpreted as a (failed) attempt to trigger shock and awe in the AFC reviewer, or other reader. However, it doesn't trigger this. The interpretation continues: "The references are junk and the editor who perpetrated this is hoping that their sheer number will make up for this" (it won't). So please reduce the number of references. --Hoary (talk)09:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
"NewsDesk", "Livemint" and the like aren't regarded as authors. (Simply, if no human can be named, then skip "first", "last", and "author".) Then resubmit. Good luck! --Hoary (talk)00:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Judaism is listed as autoconfirmed protected, and I have access to the edit button, but when I clicked it, an ECP warning popped up. Any ideas? Am I allowed to edit this page?I just want to tweak a line in the lead to better reflect the cite and the material in the article.ThanksMikewem (talk)02:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
It's just autoconfirm protected. Looking into the edit notice now. If the text you want to tweak is related to the Arab-Israel conflict, even indirectly, you shouldn't edit it. Otherwise, go for it.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)02:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I really appreciate it. I’ve been working a little onJewish principles of faith and I just want to copy some of that material to the section in the main page. I’ll do the changes right now and I totally understand you may review them to confirm it’s strictly non-conflict stuff.Mikewem (talk)03:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Italic titles
I am trying to accept an AfD draft, but I'm having trouble creating the page with the proper title. Inputting{{Italictitle|string=example1}} (example2) to the helper script gives an error. Thanks in advance,GoldRomean (talk)02:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
HiGoldRomean. I don't know the helper script but if Italictitle causes a problem there then just omit it and add it manually to the page afterwards.{{Italictitle}} is not part of the actual page name but just some code in the wikitext which influences how the name is displayed on the page itself. "{" and "|" areforbidden characters in page names so if you tried to add it to the actual page name then I can understand why it causes an error. If there are still problems then which page is it about?PrimeHunter (talk)08:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Citing page range vs specific numbers? Admin says one thing, guidelines say another
Hello, while editing on the Josef Mengele article I was citingthis expert book byDavid G. Marwell. I have the ebook (PDF) and epub versions. I cited the range of the pages used, which I got from the index on the PDF.
AdminDiannaa tells me she is using the paperback, and told me to "cite specific page numbers"[13] and created individual sfn citations for every page I wrote from. She then told me I got the page number "wrong" and that I need to "get thee to the library"[14]
However, ebooks and PDF versions do not have the same page numbers as paperbacks. They can be a page off. Thus,WP:EBOOK says it is acceptable to cite page ranges:
"Specify the page number orrange of page numbers... if there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number, the section title, or the specific entry"
I was able to get thepage range from the index of the PDF version.
I think a single citation (with a range of 13 pages) is more practical than 13different citations to each single page, which creates a clutter in citations. Often short sentences written on Wikipedia are derived from analysis that spanned multiple pages in a source.
Dianna has insinuated that I must get a paperback copy (it's not available in my local library) otherwise I cannot be citing this work. This seems pretty impractical givenWP:EBOOK guidelines. Citing the range (which I believe does align with the paperback) seems acceptable given I was writing with details that spanned this entire subchapter.
I think Diannaa is serious about creating and maintaining top-quality work, and I think specific page citations are generally an improvement in quality. You're right that your practice is fine per EBOOK, and we should enthusiastically encourage people to add sourced content using ebooks. I sometimes see ebook citations include either quotations or brief snippets of text to search for. My memory isn't perfect, but I'm fairly sure I've seen that even in featured articles.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)02:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
are froming South America so does it's correct ?PAPI12:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Resolved
icon should be at the very top of the page when the sidebar is hidden.LightNightLights (talk •contribs)06:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Courtesy link: MOS:SANDWICH
![[7]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aKlavdia_singer_potrait_2025_non-free.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aKlavdia_singer_potrait_2025_non-free_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
It appears that you have beencanvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influenceTalk:Cody Wilson. Whilefriendly notices are allowed, they should belimited andnonpartisan in distribution and should reflect aneutral point of view. Please do not post notices which areindiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certainpoint of view or side of a debate, or which areselectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle ofconsensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.