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.
Hi! I've recently been working on my first article and am having trouble getting it accepted. The article is about a film writer, director, and producer who is highly cited across the internet and in entertainment media news and is the winner of several industry awards, yet doesn't seem to have a page. (The name of this filmmaker is Ari Katcher.) He's show running the new adaptation of Jennette McCurdy's memoir I'm Glad My Mom Died for Apple TV+ starring Jennifer Aniston, so I believe he will continue to pick up notoriety as the series progresses and it would be great to start a Wikipedia profile. My draft article has been declined twice now for the same reasoning of "notability / not enough reliable, independent secondary sources cited."
The first time I submitted, the majority of my citations about his work credits were pulled from IMDb, which I understand is an editable cite, so maybe not recognized as an independent source. However, in preparation for my resubmission, I added several articles from various reputable entertainment news outlets, including Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and Vanity Fair, as well as the official sites of the organizations that granted Ari his several industry awards. My resubmission was still declined for the same reasoning though. I'm wondering if anyone could take a look at the page and let me know if there is something different I should be including to help this page be accepted? Here is the link to the draft article:Draft:Ari KatcherXor19nemr16 (talk)15:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Only the O'Falt source discusses him in any significant manner. The others only mention him in passing. Suggest you find at least one more source that discusses him for about 250 or more words.
Btw: all you've really got so far is the lead of the article. That could be enough for a stub but you should really be aiming to write sectionsEarly life and education,Career,Awards and Recognition. APersonal Life section isn't obligatory but you'll probably find information as you do more research.
And if you can't undo, you can open a previous version of the page (from article history) in another window and copy and paste the infobox or the source code.MmeMaigret (talk)06:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Question(s) about rules
Hey there, I have a question and I really hope I’m in the right place here to ask. (All the different places appear to suggest I should go to a place)
My question is a bit double. I want to know if there is a place on Wikipedia where I can find someone to answer a question about the rules/policies of Wikipedia, because I am not sure if what I am doing is allowed or not.
Someone suggested I ask an Admin, but
I don’t want to bother them.
I don’t know any
it might need to (or specifically not?) be an admin related to a specific topic because it is about rules from the arbitration committee.
So I wanted to come here first to ask if and what’s the right place to ask a question like this. (About rules) AND if it turns out that this place (teahouse) is also the right place for this, I’d like to follow up with asking the actual question about rules here, linking to the conversation where my confusion lead to the question(s).
So basically my questions are roughly contained inthis message on my talk page.
although even before I would ask those, I might already be helped greatly if someone could direct me to a very detailed explanation of how the rules from ARBPIA work. (If I can read that, maybe I can figure it out myself. The thing linked by the person I was talking to, did not really answer my questions)
Not really tbh. I’ve read these already and they don’t reassure me if I am or am not allowed to edit on P/I issues/pages. The issue is mostly that another editor warned me this was not allowed because I don’t have 500 edits in the mainspace (see the link above, which is a comment replying to that editor) despite having been granted extended confirmed status.
The point that editor brought up was basically accusing me of “gaming” because the plurality of my edits are on talk pages.Slomo666 (talk)17:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Slomo666, the other editor's concerns seemed to be about yougaming the system, which is manipulating the rules to gain an advantage or an advanced permission. Despite a comment by that other editor on your user talk page, there is no requirement that the 500 edits for extended confirmed status be to article space. On the other hand, it is required that the edits be useful and productive, and not phony "make work" edits. While talk page edits can certainly be constructive, not every such edit actually is. On your talk page, you commentedI have a lot of talk page edits because I tend to get into very long (sometimes pointless) conversations. In response to that, my two pieces of advice to you are to be succinct and to avoid pointless conversations. For example, asking a question about whether you are allowed to ask a question at the Teahouse is a bit bizarre. The ARBPIA topic area is one where tempers are often frayed and some editors may be looking for evidence of misconduct. Do not behave in a manner that is highly likely to irritate other editors. That never ends well in the ARBPIA world.Cullen328 (talk)18:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I am an administrator as is331dot. Asking a legitimate question is never "bothering" and we became administrators to help with such matters. On the other hand, it is not a good idea to develop a reputation of being a pest.Cullen328 (talk)18:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Consoling words, Cullen, as I sometimes wonder if we who come for assistance to the Teahouse and Help Desk might cross the line to pestdom even with legitimate questions after reaching a certain count! 😅Augnablik (talk)18:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Augnablik, rest assured that there is no limit on the number of legitimate questions that any editor can ask to help them become a better editor. That is the purpose of the Teahouse.Cullen328 (talk)21:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Dear All, I will be happy receiving your help for translate in English a page. It is about an artist (1932!) who spent in London many years. He made many exhibitions and I have some catalogues. Happy if someone would like to help.Cecio208 (talk)16:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Where is the original page, and what language is it in?
If the original article has citations which are satisfactory and adequate for the criteria in English Wikipedia (seeWP:42), then simply translating the article may be enough. But if the sources are not adequate (which is often the case for articles in other-language Wikipedia, since English Wikipedia's criteria are stricter than most), then translating the existing article is mostly a waste of time, and the only productive approach is to treat it as a new article in English, and start by finding suitable sources. SeeWP:YFA.ColinFine (talk)20:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Cecio208 and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Everything said up until now is correct, but I want emphasise that as always you will need to ensure that the English translation is written in proper English without mistakes.Mariamnei (talk)06:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Draft on Puanbom declined
My Draft on Puanbom got declined on 31 May 2025, help required!
I would like to mention that this article represents the indigenous knowledge related to the Hrangkhawl tribe from the state of Tripura, North East India. There are very few credible, documented sources available on this domain, and any ascertainable sources related to Puanbom, which is a female traditional attire of the Hrangkhawl tribe, are already cited. Let us know in details what else can be done.Hrangkhawlpreety9889 (talk)08:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello,Hrangkhawlpreety9889. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, which violates the core content policyVerifiability. Any material that you have added based on your own personal knowledge is a violation of another core content policy,No original research. The photo that conceals a woman's face violates the policyWikipedia is not censored. Your draft saysIt is crucial to mention here that ... No, it is not the role of a Wikipedia editor to tell readers what is and is not crucial. Our readers decide that for themselves. So, remove all policy violating content, and see what is left. If little is left, then an acceptable Wikipedia article about this topic is not possible to write at this time.Cullen328 (talk)08:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I'm still new to editing. I was updating the page etocyanozene (previously etocyanazene, which is incorrect) but misspelt in my own move to eto'cyonazene' and have been blocked from fixing.
In chemistry and in this space, 'cyano'etonitazene is the correct term, just trying to fix an honest mistake making 5-cyano-desnitazene colloquial naming more consistent to aid the finding of resources by those who are hearing about these substances as the present at drug checking and harm reduction services.
Hi there, welcome to the Teahouse and welcome to Wikipedia!
I'm assuming you got one of those messages saying the page could not be moved because the target already exists (or something similar)? If so, you'll need to request a technical page move atWP:RM/TR. Another editor will fix it up for you over there.SnowyRiver28(talk)12:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Operation Clog the Toilet
There has been a lot of news lately, especially in the India press, about "Operation Clog the Toilet" started by the 4chan community. This was a coordinated online campaign to block flight bookings for Indian H-1B visa holders returning to the United States, in wake of the Trump administration announcement of imposing a $100,000 annual fee for H-1B visas entering the country by a deadline (amended to "new H-1Bs only", and also amended to "not annually" after the 4chan operation began).
By virtue of the sources I found, I thought it may be worth writing a draft about it, but looking atWP:NEVENT I'm not so sure, especially since the corrections by the Trump administration kind of nullified it, so it doesn't have lasting impact, which is a requirement for an event to be notable. What do the regulars think? ~Anachronist(talk)16:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
It probably warrants a sentence or two in whichever article covers the H-1B furore. It more material emerges over time, a section can be created, and then spun out into a full article, later.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits19:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Catalogues
are catalogues of former exhibition allow in wikipedia for upload? can thay be used as a source? how to use them in case? I have the pdf scan of themCecio208 (talk)19:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello. For what reason do you want to cite a catalog as a source? Leaving aside copyright issues, you don't need to upload an actual copy of it, just write out a citation(the publication, publication date, page numbers, etc.). Seereferencing for beginners.331dot (talk)19:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
You can only upload them if they are copyright expired or freely licensed; you can cite them as sources most things, if they are published by reputable institutions.
Many large museums and large art museums heavily invest in large exhibitions. A high percentage of these are accompanied by large books, aiming to depict and say something perceptive about each exhibit, perhaps strictly exhibit by exhibit, perhaps not. These heavyweight successors to the catalogues [in a more normal sense of the word] of a few decades ago are still often called catalogues. Uh ..... I was about to refer you,Cecio208, to the articleExhibition catalogue, but it's a mess. And its history shows that I'm partly to blame. (Well, that was mostly back in 2007, a simpler time.) Anyway, today's exhibition catalogues can normally be treated in the same way as books that haven't accompanied exhibitions. --Hoary (talk)23:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
thanks a lot for the explanation. I thought there could be a problem with the copyright... at the same time, catalogues are sometime the primary source of information. I will see if quoting part of the text as "book" is acceptable.Cecio208 (talk)15:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
HelloJohnDavies9612. Sure, you can use it—it only requires being logged in. To use it on Wikipedia, visitWikipedia:User scripts/List and follow the instructions there. Basically, clickthis link, search for Cat-a-lot in the list (you can use ctrl+f to search for it), and click the Install link. Feel free to ask any other questions :). Cheers,Sophocrat (talk)21:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
This edit several months ago strippedGoogle Finance of all wikilinks and references, and the article now reads like an advertisement and AI-generated text. Where can I report this to a rollbacker since I can't revert the dozen-ish edits made since?GGOTCC05:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Done,GGOTCC. (I mean, rolled back to the preceding state.) Thank you for having pointed out how this page had been damaged. Happy editing! --Hoary (talk)06:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I see that the edit, which was made in good faith but sabotaged the entire article, was made by a student on an editing course. I wonder if there's a way to contact the teacher of the course and encourage them to look out for such destructive edits by their students?Maproom (talk)08:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
GGOTCC, I've a hunch that what the course offers, you already know. That aside, I've donea little rewording. My understanding of finance is limited (to put it mildly), so somebody knowledgable may wish to revert. --Hoary (talk)22:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the changes, the article is looking better!
This user appears to be performing repeated vandalism on pages related to North Korea. Here is the link:Special:Contributions/Kylin China. I am notifying you because i do not feel confident handling this. Some of the edits appear to insert a screenshot of the long term abuse page for a specific user. The edit summaries also appear to be disruptive. The link provided is for the contribution page as the user does not have a userpage and the talk page is empty.RandomNumber-x3lz-School (talk)15:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
As part of my employment at Landsec (as Digital Content Manager), I have been asked by Ian Cheshire (the person in question above), to update his Wiki page. I'm having some difficulty.
I've disclosed my profile as paid edits, but really I just need to pass to someone a word document with the proposed edits. I am not proficient enough to use citations on Wiki correctly, or perhaps structure too.
To save any more back and forth with mods and Geoffrey Lane, can I pass a word document to someone who can update Ian's wiki profile for me? ThanksOlliegb619 (talk)18:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. The content of the encyclopedia is best thought of asarticles, not "wiki profiles".
I went down the request edit route, as requested by another volunteer. But I don't have the proficiency to embed the edits appropriately. Is there anyone I can pass a word document of proposed edits too, that can upload for me? And yes articles. Ian's employment history is very out of date, and this is why he is asking for it to be updated, quite fairly.Olliegb619 (talk)18:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest that you would have an easier time proposing smaller, incremental changes, not everything you want to do in one go.331dot (talk)19:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Olliegb619 Frankly, if you're being paid to be here, it's incumbent upon you to learn how to do what's needed; we're here for free and have little interest in helping you make money. This doesn't mean we wont help with your questions, but you've got to put some effort in.331dot (talk)18:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that prescribing a wholesale list of changes isn't possible. Each individual change needs to be proposed one by one, and is subject to change again at any time by others.TooManyFingers (talk)19:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I was just wondering if someone was free to check whether the copy-editing notice is still needed onDmytro Dontsov. I did a rushed rewrite of the page back in July which was then sent off for a GA review and the reviewer put the notice on the page, mainly because of an abundance of run-off sentences.
Since then, I've rewritten and expanded it (it's still lacking an appropriate lede and legacy section) and these issues have hopefully been fixed with the assistance of other editors. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk)19:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
When I read the "Ideology and style" section, my head hurts a little. There is quite a lot of "using fancy language just for the sake of using fancy language", so much that it begins to obscure the points being made. It's probably not wrong, but I consider it poorly written because it can be said much more plainly and clearly.TooManyFingers (talk)19:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I get it's a bit technical but for instance I can't paraphrase "voluntarism" to say something different, that's how the source describes it and it's linked to for readers to learn about. At least that's what I think you mean? Reading the original sources on the matter hurt my head as well.Joko2468 (talk)20:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't mean the words - not mainly, anyway, though there are some. I mean that many of the sentences are far more complicated than they need to be. People who read this article are being put through an unnecessary and very distracting course in trick-sophisticated writing skills, when they only came here to find out about Dontsov.
(My friends often complain that my use of language is over-the-top, but compared with this article, my writing is child's play.)
Thanks but do you mean just in theIdeology and style section or the whole article? Do you have the time to give me an example so I can understand?Joko2468 (talk)20:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Here's an example, in which I've taken part of your sentence and made my own version:
______
Dontsov biographer Trevor Erlacher characterises his personality and the all-encompassing taxonomy of his largely discontinuous body of work as 'iconoclastic authoritarianism', ...
______
Trevor Erlacher characterises both Dontsov's personality and his work as 'iconoclastic authoritarianism', ...
______
I only cut out excess descriptive language and redundant material (redundant because we very soon get a footnote showing that Erlacher is a biographer). This is much easier to read, and in my opinion it loses nothing that was of any importance.TooManyFingers (talk)20:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, the purpose of "discontinuous" was originally to explain the vagueness of his characterisation but that's already been added above. I couldn't think of a better word than "taxonomy". I tend to try to shoehorn in as much meaning as possible which makes it tough to evaluate what's necessary.Joko2468 (talk)20:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
A-ha! :)
Delete every bit of shoehorning! Stop trying to increase the meaning. It's as if you have prepared a lovely dinner for us, and then you push it down our throats as quickly as you can. :)TooManyFingers (talk)20:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
In fact, make an effort to cut the meaning down as far as possible, while not losing what's essential. It's an encyclopedia article, not a detailed complete biography.TooManyFingers (talk)20:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
It was not deleted, it was moved toDraft:Afsana Lachaux where you may work on it and submit it for a review before it is formally part of the encyclopedia. The draft is completely unsourced with no indication ofnotability. Please seeYour first article.
Ah, understood. I embedded the sources within the text rather than list them at the bottom. I had checked and believe that Afsana Lachaux does meet the criteria for notability. I have followed her story from when she was trapped in Dubai, then all her legal cases in the UK and her work in the charity sector.Akali1880 (talk)22:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
The criteria for notability leave almost no room for belief. If someone is extremely close to meeting the criteria, maybe a little bit of belief helps - but a large majority of those who don't meet the criteria are not close at all.
A person is not notable because their story is compelling; they are notable because of how many reliable third-party sources have already told that story.TooManyFingers (talk)04:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Not just the boldfacing, but the phrasing, with unsubstantiated AI-puffery editorializing such as "became the cornerstone", "laid the groundwork", "widely used", "significantly advancing", "continues to refine", all without citations. I haven't checked if the sources thatare cited are hallucinated.
But no, as it is now,@Harold Foppele: that history section wouldn't be acceptable in the article without a major rewrite. As for the position, a history section typically occurs early on in the article. ~Anachronist(talk)14:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
As a reply on a friendly question for comment, instead of a discussion in science, I got slammed with tar and feathers. Since there is no LLM involved but a lot of "footwork" well .....Harold Foppele (talk)18:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Harold Foppele, It is unlikely that a random selection of Teahouse responders will know more about the science than you, the writer of the section.
The responses above are to perceived genuine problems or nonconformities in the section from a Wikipedia point of view, of the type frequently dealt with here. The advice given is doubtless sincere, and not intended to be condemnatory in any way – we are all here to work in concert (including with you) and achieve consensus. I see no evidence of "tar and feathers", merely honest assessments.
On this project (Wikipedia) experienced Users tend to take a no-frills, 'rolled-up sleeves' approach, which some newcomers may find a little robust, but pleaseAssume good faith. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}90.193.153.108 (talk)22:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
There was no tarring and feathering from me. I commented on issues I found with that history section,which you invited. What did you expect? I stand by my assessment about unsourced promotional editorializing, likely originating from an LLM. For that section, GPTZero reports a mix of AI and human generation with about 2/3 of the sentences originating with AI, edited by human. ~Anachronist(talk)02:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you both. I understand your point of view. Please I appologise too. After a lot of work I felt …. Well you know😄😄 I hope we meet again. CheersHarold Foppele (talk)22:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Can someone verify these articles look okay to you? I enjoy contributing to Wiki and these citations look weird to me even though they check out on crossref for me.
Whether "these articles look okay" to us in which sense? Whichever Wikipedia article each of these is or might be used on, the Wikipedia article has a talk page; and it's on that talk page that you can ask about the looking-okay-ness of this or that potential source. Though you should be a lot clearer than "[looking] okay to you". Also, be sure to be logged in as Bogwife when you ask, and indeed when you edit in general. --Hoary (talk)22:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Certificates look fine. But there’s no WHOIS page for the URLs. Seems like potentially AI-generated and malicious but very subtle?Bogwife (talk)00:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
@Bogwife Your Talk page starts with "thank you!". It's not clear who you are thanking. And it says "I agree with you" and I agree" in a couple of other places. Who is "you"?David10244 (talk)22:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
The first journal looks okay, nothing initially comes up when I look for people discussing it being predatory. In general, I would do that journals as many of them have not been discussed atWP:RSN orWP:RSP. Also, be heavily mindful ofWP:MEDRS and note that my strategy is likely not foolproof.✶Quxyz✶ (talk)22:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
That's pretty much why I only analyzed the journal's credentials as to if it was predatory or not; I do not want to finick with MEDRS as I am relatively unqualified in analyzing a source to that level as my fields (history and earth sciences) do not require such depth.✶Quxyz✶ (talk)13:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
When you call it "your discussion", for me that causes a sort of alarm bell. For Wikipedia, it needs to be someone else's discussion. All you can be in the article is a reporter - not a discusser.TooManyFingers (talk)06:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Your citation should look like this:
There is nothing unusual about my edits. You are referring to the uw-vandalism1 template that I placed on your talk page, after I had reverted three of your recent edits, namely:
revision 1312493525, where you added a hidden message toTalk:Twiggy
I was requesting readers for this the-independent.com interview in that it was a rare occurrence byJustin de Villeneuve and it needed to be scrutinized carefully
in other wordscan anyone find something in this article that can be independently verified
Hi, thanks for responding! What I meant was what I think is a specific issue with this page not with the mobile Wikipedia as a whole. For example today's featured articleThomas J. Hudner Jr. works as expected; for me the sections are uncollapsed and I can collapse or uncollapse them by pressing on the section heading, and this is the same for most Wikipedia pages. However that specific one I mentioned above (AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol) is not only collapsed by default, but it is not possible to uncollapse the sections. I think this is an issue with the formatting of that page, although my attempt to fix it through editing didn't work.Stockhausenfan (talk)12:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Hmm ok. I've had a look on my phone on both the website and app and I can't see any issues. I assume you're on the mobile website from your edit tags. The article is all mainly one big section which is expanded for me when I open the page. Sorry I've not been of much help!SnowyRiver28(talk)12:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Luichi luichi Hello. I fixed your link, it doesn't need the url. You are essentially asking for us to review your draft before it is reviewed; please let the process play out. The reviewer will leave feedback if they don't accept the draft.331dot (talk)12:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
If you've taken the last reviewer's advice literally and in detail, the chances go up. The reviewers tell you straight out, which parts of Wikipedia's criteria are the ones that need your attention. Don't try to go by other more general criteria instead, because you'll lose focus on what needs doing.TooManyFingers (talk)14:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Social media not being a reliable source
Hello to all, would you please explain on why is social media not a very reliable source to begin with? Also, are RSS feeds allowed to be cited as a source? What happens if you add social media links to an article?107.116.89.118 (talk)11:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Peer Review Guidelines is not clear on whether IP editors can nominate for PR. Though I won't remember to do it by the time I get home. I know intellectually that its unlikely due to IP editors not being able to create pages however.
I'm going to be checking every few hours while I am at this district.
I see nothing to prevent an IP address from requesting a peer review. The only thing that would stop you is a semi-protected talk page. Otherwise, just follow the instructions. ~Anachronist(talk)14:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Yep, can't create the PR page
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
Wikipedia does not have aproject page with this exact name.
Ah, I see. Right, if you have to create a page, that stops an IP editor from proceeding. Do you have an objection to creating an account for yourself? ~Anachronist(talk)15:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Technical errors? For an existing account? Can you elaborate? At first I was thinking the account may need IP block exemption, but you're already editing from an IP address and clearly not blocked. ~Anachronist(talk)21:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
hello! I have a question. why is it that wikipedia permits paid editing to occur at all? right now, paid editors have to declare their COI, which is nice, but to me at least it would make more sense to ban paid editing entirely. given all of the scams, and wasted time, and useless questions, and disruptive editors, I think it would be better to make paid editing and COI editing against wikipedia policy. after all, wikimedia doesn't get compensated for paid editing work or anything. of course, I'm not demanding this decades-old policy be changed immediately. I'm just genuinely curious. that's all. thanks!67.218.119.178 (talk)22:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The consensus of the Wikipedia community has been that if we were to ban paid editing, the paid editors would probably still edit here but would not admit it and thus be more difficult to regulate.MrOllie (talk)22:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
We highly discourage paid editors from editing articles directly. Some of them have useful suggestions, and as for the rest: I expect that people are more likely to comply with disclosure and editing requirements than to respect a strict ban. And given thatour scam warning hasn't kept scammers from promising they can publish and protect articles (or alternatively threaten to delete them, as blackmail), I doubt announcing a strict ban would affect them much either.jlwoodwa (talk)22:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I hadn't known that we have paid editors. If they are discouraged from editing articles directly, then what do they edit? I'm just curious; I have no interest in being one.Maurice Magnus (talk)22:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
They can also, for example, edit directly if they are revertingegregious vandalism; makinguncontroversial factual updates or technical fixes; or addinguncontroversial and non-promotional citations; all providing that appropriate declarations are made. They can also make edits suggested via the edit request process, if they are invited to so so by an independent editor. And seeWP:CURATOR.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits16:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Not all paid editors are ill-intentioned scammers! For example, it's quite likely that when there's a staff reshuffle at a university, and there's a new vice-chancellor, it will be some random member of faculty, grad student or post-doc who first notices that Wikipedia hasn't caught up. They aren't necessarily employed by the university's comms department, but because they're employed by the university, they're paid editors. They are, however, quite useful.Elemimele (talk)12:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Some paid editors are very helpful in keeping articles up-to-date. Some I interact with provide relevant photographs and suggest new sources that can be used: all via article talk pages, as required by the COI provisions.Mike Turnbull (talk)13:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
If you look carefully at the wording of thepaid editing policy, you'll see that's wrong. Just being an employee who updates an employer's article doesn't make you a paid editor. Publicity efforts need to be part of your job description. I disagree with this, personally. I think an employee who makes promotional edits about their employer should be considered a paid editor regardless of whether PR is part of their job. ~Anachronist(talk)14:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors. If someone's role at a company is completely unrelated to publicity, they are not (by a strict reading ofWP:PAID) a paid editor. Many editors disagree or use a different definition in practice; that is exactly Anachronist's point.jlwoodwa (talk)16:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion about this onWikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure in which I suggested an expansion to the current definition in the policy to include any person making promotional edits in behalf of the entity paying them, regardless of whether promotion/publicity is part of their actual job. I proposed that because that's the consensus I see on individual user talk pages as well as this discussion right here above. ~Anachronist(talk)17:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
A Teahouse query titled 'Editing help' was posted by Kalapito on 13 September 2025. There is a link to it onUser talk:Kalapito in the currently last section 'Your thread has been archived'. It was/is not consideredWP:Vandalism, which is a deliberate attempt to harm or obstruct Wikipedia in some way. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}90.193.153.108 (talk)22:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Duplicate articles
Hey there,
I just finished writing and publishing an article, but when I was tidying it up I realised there’s already an article on the same topic. The one I put together is a bit broader, more up-to-date and has more info. The earlier article has an outdated title, which is probably why I didn’t come across it before. What is the correct way to go about this situation?KiltedKangaroo (talk)10:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Gold or Lurk and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia! There is always a lot to do in Wikipedia, from writing new articles, adding information and sources to existing articles, nominatingWP:DYK and bringing articles toWP:GA status. I hope this gives you a general idea of some of the many things that can be done on Wikipedia, and feel free to ask me any follow up questions.Mariamnei (talk)07:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Somewhat obviously, another thing you can do on Wikipedia is read the encyclopedia! Wikipedia is packed with fascinating articles, and quite often I find myself making contributions and improvements to articles I've come across only by going down different rabbit-holes and expanding my knowledge, simply by exploring Wikipedia's millions of articles.SnowyRiver28(talk)09:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
By first waiting till you've made a couple of hundred non-trivial edits to articles, and have experienced disagreements with other editors of those articles, and thereby familiarized yourself with such matters as where unhelpful but good-natured editing ends and vandalism begins. You'll then be a lot better equipped to diagnose and deal with vandalism than you probably are now. --Hoary (talk)00:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Crystalite13, I should have added: "... and you'll have made valuable contributions to existing articles". There's plenty to be done, and on nontrivial subjects too. Consider the two nations namedCongo. They're so close that the capital of the one is just across the river from the capital of the other. But now see the articleDemocratic Republic of the Congo–Republic of the Congo relations. This currently tells the reader about events in 1971, and ... uh ... that's it. --Hoary (talk)00:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Struggling to get an article accepted
Hi, can someone please give me some support to finalise a submission Draft:Annah Stretton 2
I see. Unfortunately, the only way to fix this problem is to find those references they talked about. It means that so far, the article's references are the wrong kind. Does that make sense?TooManyFingers (talk)02:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Everybody knows that Wikipedia must have an article about Einstein, one of the most important figures in 20th-century science.
Everybody knows that Wikipedia must NOT have an article about me, because I am not important to the rest of the world, only to me and a few people who know me.
Almost every person is in between: they are more notable than me, but less notable than Einstein. To have an article about them, we have to prove they are notable. (It's easy to prove Einstein is notable, and impossible to prove I am notable.)TooManyFingers (talk)03:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your response. I think I understand what you are saying. My subject is definitely notable in New Zealand, which is evidenced by the number of awards she has won in business and fashion. I can find examples of other New Zealanders with less notoriety and they have used media sources aswell. Are you able to access the draft?Mesomay (talk)04:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Awards don't help unless the awards themselves are notable awards. (On a different topic, think of those "car of the year" awards that the carmakers always give to each other and that nobody follows.) Published material (independent sources choosing to write articles about her work without interviewing her, for example) is worth a lot more. Have you carefully read the requirements listed in the message you got? Those requirements are tailored to your particular situation - it's not just a form letter that everyone gets.TooManyFingers (talk)12:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
This is aboutDraft:Annah Stretton 2 (started byMesomay); not to be confused withDraft:Annah Stretton (about the same person, and started byRKLET). "Media source" is a term that covers anything from scrupulously compiled material read for enlightenment and/or pleasure (and for which one would willingly pay money) all the way down to uncritically recycled PR bumf. There is no simple relationship between (A) degree of fame (or "notoriety") and (B)notability (as understood here). --Hoary (talk)07:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
@MesomayIn order to establish notability, you've got to satisfy one of thecategories of presumed notability or show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Your article needs restructuring and doesn't do a good job of highlighting her notability. You've also got so many sources that, in some ways, they hide the better sources. I've revised the article and beefed up the lead, which now highlights her order of merit (seeWP:ANYBIO) in the lead. It would help if some of the articles about her, that likely show sig cov (eg. the NZ Herald articles) weren't behind paywalls. You might see if you can find free sources so people can see that they actually show sig cov.MmeMaigret (talk)04:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Please be aware ofWP:SCAM and note that help from real Wikipedia volunteers is always free. Real Wikipedia volunteers will never ask you for money or any other compensation. No one can guarantee that a draft will be accepted or an article will be kept in exchange for payment.Theroadislong (talk)09:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Rovos Rail is a 'pocket of excellence' when it comes to South African tourism – widly regarded as one of the best luxury train experiences globally. However I notice thatRovos Rail focuses on a derailment – to some extent overshadowing Rovos’ success and benefits that it brings to regional tourism- in a remarkably challenging Southern African rail environment.
Ceres Rail Company focuses on the restoration of both freight and tourist rail services within the Western Cape province of South Africa to; (1) reduce traffic congestion in Cape Town, caused in part by booming regional tourism and property sectors, and;(2) promote tourism in outlying rural regions of the Western Cape, notablyElgin, South Africa andCeres, South Africa, in addition to occasionally Darling,Simon's Town and overnight trips to Mossell Bay. Recently Ceres Rail Company has addedBotrivier as a destination which will enhance the tourism appeal of another rural town.
Ceres Rail Company retains skills from former Transnet (State Logics Company) employees to maintain and restore heritage locomotives, such asSouth African Class 26 4-8-4 and rollingstock including the Union Limited, formerlyBlue Train (South Africa) and more recently the restoration of rail infostructure. CRC’s other primary focus is enabling the migration of road freight to rail from Ceres, the leading fruit growing region of South Africa, to the Port of Cape Town. Unfortunately theMichell's Pass branch line was severely damaged during floods in June 2023. CRC is now endeavoring to restorage the railway through the pass at its own cost in order to restore the freight and tourism rail services between Cape Town and Ceres.
The restoration of freight rail services provides significant benefits to the region, including reduced damage to provincial roads, reduced logistics costs for exports, reduced truck induced road accidents and reduced congestion in the City of Cape Town. In the context of the incident you mention, as you have pointed out, the experienced locomotive crew was able to brake hard to avoid the train heading into parked rail wagons, which unfortunately caused some passengers to be thrown forward. Fortunately, the incident was not severe to an extent that it required the involvement of the company’s Public Liability Insurance provider. However in an ideal world the incident mentioned shouldn’t overshadow the mission of restoring rail operations in the Western Cape.
The reasons why I’m looking into Wikipedia in the context of Ceres Rail Company are ;(1) numerous Wikipedia search results make references to Ceres Rail Company, without it obviously having a Wikipedia page and (2) AI generated search results contain a surprising amount of misinformation orHallucination (artificial intelligence) I figured that a dedicated Wikipedia page could help remedy the above.
Apologies for not being able to keep my response to a few lines.
I hope you know that the vast majority of what you just wrote here is never going to be accepted in an article. If you try, it will be cut out very quickly.TooManyFingers (talk)20:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
What I wrote was merely a synopsis. If I were to create a draft article, I'd prompt Grok.ai to draft it. Alternatively I'd seek the services of a paid "content creator'Simon Le May Beckett (talk)06:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I want to add that hiring a content creator for a Wikipedia article is very much like hiring a "money creator" at the very moment you need to buy something. Buying something requires you to have the money already, and no matter how qualified an expert is, they can't create money.
In the same way, the content of a Wikipedia article is strictly limited to the content that already existed before you start, and no expert is able to just create some for you.
(In fact getting an article on Wikipedia is even more strict than needing money before you buy something, because Wikipedia can't defer its requirements about legitimate content that already existed. No credit card exists for this.)TooManyFingers (talk)19:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
The point isSimon Le May Beckett, that appeals to other editors to write an article for you (for whatever reason) don't often work, because everybody here is a volunteer that chooses what they spend their time on. If you are lucky enough to catch somebody's interest, so they want to work on it: great; but that doesn't often happen.
So most of the time, if you want an article writing, the most likely way to make that happen is to do it yourself. Thearticles for creation process is designed for (among other things) people with a COI to create articles even with their COI.
Having said that, creating an article is the most difficult and challenging task for new editors. 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. And that's even without a COI.
Wikipedia has no barrier to entry but it does have rules/ways of operating and as you can see you’ve already run foul of a number of them. Suggest you create the draft page as suggested. You can also add the page to a WikiProject for South Africa? (not South Australia, right?) and hope someone writes it. Or you can write the page yourself and declare your conflict on the talk page. But note the company needs to be notable to warrant a page, seeWP: company. This is an encyclopaedia - if the company wouldn’t make it into an encyclopaedia for ZA, it won’t make it into a global encyclopaedia. Also suggest you use another quality company article as a guide. You might also get someone else at your company to write the page. You never know, you might already have an existing WP editor. But avoid choosing Comms. Comms/PR writing is not WP writing and, like your explanation above, it shows. ps People are more likely to have a look when you have something to review.MmeMaigret (talk)06:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I've resubmitted the Morris Miller biography, correcting the citations and adding more text. I'm not sure how to respond to your point that his marriage and children must be confirmed with a citation. Please take a look at the article now.Equusreserve (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Equusreserve (talk)10:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
About not knowing how to respond: Dishonest people exist, so all of us must follow rules that are made to filter out dishonest statements. Every item needs third-party evidence.TooManyFingers (talk)17:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Jumping the queue
Hello! I've submittedDraft:65,000 Years: A Short History of Australian Art to AfC, which is about an art exhibition that is running until 22 November. I understand that jumping the queue is frowned upon, but I'm hoping an autopatrolled AfC reviewer can take pity and move this to article space so it can be consulted while the exhibition is still running. Thankyou.128.250.0.194 (talk)11:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask. Inominated an article for did you know, and it was reviewed an approved by the nominator. However, nothing has come of it and it's almost a month after approval, and it no longer appears onTemplate talk:Did you know. Any suggestions on where to ask to have it promoted to a prep? If it's helpful, this is my second nomination. Thanks,Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk)16:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I am trying to improve theBusiness analysis article by finding sources. I added an inline citation for the information in the section called "sub-disciplines" but it looks like the whole section is just copied directly from that source. It doesn't seem to be a very reliable source either, it's just a blog of some data management consulting company. What would be best practice in this situation?TambourineDream (talk)18:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
The text was initially not sourced at all. I did a search and found the source, then realized it was a word for word copy. There is a template asking for editors to add sources to that section.TambourineDream (talk)18:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question. The source doesn't have any date that it was published. It only has a last updated date of July 9, 2025. That is a good point. It could have been easily copied from Wikipedia in the first place. I searched through the edit history of the Wikipedia article and I can see this wording as far back as 2009. I've only been editing on Wikipedia for about a week so apologies for any mistakes.TambourineDream (talk)20:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I can give some suggestions here so that the draft gets better. Hope it helps!
The lead should be at least 100 words, it is too short right now.
The plot section and the cast section need sources.
The production section and the release section should be expanded, if sources can be found to help with the expansions. Right now, they only have some sentences each.
It is common convention to write the reception section as prose, not as lists.
Contrary to what was said above, a plot section in an article about a movie does not need references. SeeMOS:FILMPLOT which says "Since films are primary sources for their articles, basic descriptions of their plots do not need references to an outside source."CodeTalker (talk)21:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Certifications for IPv6
Am I allowed to mention engineer certifications for IPv6 as a section for IPv6 or an article? ==
Title. I am from NLTVC Education and I would like to make additions to the subject mentioned in the title. Is there anything I need to be aware of? Thanks.
Not a Wikipedia issue but the second ipv6forum.com source switches between mentioning theIETF and the IPv6 forum as if they were the same without directly saying whether it is or not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The topic may be notable but trying to squeeze it intoIPv6 seems like squeezingdriver's license intocar. I'd suggest you start atWP:AFC using the guidance you can find atyour first article.
1.The WMF's terms of use require you to declare your status as a paid editor - see WP:PAID. Please do this before making any further edits.
Does this include the chat at teahouse? This is otherwise clear about the article mentioned.
2.The first ipv6forum.com source is just a list of companies. What do you intend using it to show?
"This Certification is recognized worldwide by leading vendors including CISCO, Huawei, and Juniper Networks as Authorized Training Providers" This statement here, about the IPv6 forum education program. I am not sure if it needs to be included.
3. The nltvc.com source is a primary source, With your conflict of interest it would be seen as advertising if you used it. WP:PSTS provides guidance on the types of sources and their acceptability. Strive for reliable, verifiable, independent sources.
Noted. I will bring this up again with my supervisor.
4.Not a Wikipedia issue but the second ipv6forum.com source switches between mentioning the IETF and the IPv6 forum as if they were the same without directly saying whether it is or not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, I can see how that's an issue regarding sources. Do I need to find another reference source? I can't seem to find any mention of their about us page elsewhere, like inhttps://ipv6forum.com/ .
5.The topic may be notable but trying to squeeze it into IPv6 seems like squeezing driver's license into car. I'd suggest you start at WP:AFC using the guidance you can find at your first article.
Noted. Thanks for answering if it should be a new article.
With these answered, I would like to ask one more question.
Currently the draft article that my supervisor has mostly filled up seems more like a product placement stating how Authorized Training Providers as stated by the first source would teach the subject.
(Disclosure: This help section is written by an intern with access and permission to the company account, on behalf of the ipv6 forum education program here:
I'm not sure what the words "this help section" really refer to. Are you saying that the company has a company account on Wikipedia? That would be in violation ofWP:ROLE orWP:NOSHARE.
User has a CoI/ paid editing declaration on their user page, which is correct according to our policies. I see nothing which suggests a shared account.
Read it, though my superiors want to post about the courses or at least the types of courses/sections of IPv6 education available. How do I go about this? It says not to make a page about the company/organizations I am working for preferably, but nothing about a topic that is adjacent to the companies I work with. @Pigsonthewing
I believe at worst this clashes with the "no advertisement" policyWP:PROMO here and the neutrality policy at Wikipedia. I have already informed my superiors about it and that Wikipedia articles take time.Sureswaran Ramadass (talk)07:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
new editor
I noticed that the author of the article is the new editor and I sent a ping in theAfD. Would you give me some advice on how to approach a new editor? And would you help me support the new editor? --SilverMatsu (talk)03:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
A suggestion,TooManyFingers: Silvermatsu is less suggesting that you, TooManyFingers, would want to help than thatsomebody here -- possibly you, possibly me, very likely somebody else -- would like to help. --Hoary (talk)05:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I know that. Yet it's a silly and obtuse suggestion that seems more likely to be an attempt at canvassing than an honest effort to help a newbie.TooManyFingers (talk)05:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
The creator of the article is indeed new,SilverMatsu, and, on the talk page of the article, has made a polite request that, as it comes from a new user, seems unremarkable to me. In your place (nominator of the AfD), I'd provide a candid but gentle response, but I'd be careful to word it to avoid any risk of starting up a discussion in parallel to the AfD. --Hoary (talk)05:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, when I was a new editor, I didn't understand how discussions on AfD, so I was concerned about the article creator. I was considering replying on the article's talk page as well, but it seems better not to do that. --SilverMatsu (talk)06:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
SilverMatsu, I'm pretty sure that on occasion I've nominated an article for deletion and given its creator tips on how to defend it effectively. (Also, that on occasion I've withdrawn my own nomination, having realized that the assumptions or inferences prompting the nomination had been mistaken.) --Hoary (talk)06:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
My page got pulled in 2021 - and we don't know what to do.
Hi, I had a page up for years, started and updated by people I do not know, and when my team added a few new items in 2021, they pulled my page, saying I did not have the proper notoriety to have a page. I'm aveteran filmmaker, won awards since 1990's. And now I am a published scientist -many articles peer-reviewed and cited many times, have had many articles written on my team's work, many books that include my team's work. I've been interviewed onnational TV and radio, been on scores of podcasts. Our social media campaign has just top 140 million views. We are absolutely wanting to follow Wikipedia rules - and I'm a donor to Wikipedia because I support its mission. We do not know what to do at this point - we feel a page for me reflects Wikipedia's requirements. We are open to any help. Peter ByckPMB2025 (talk)21:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion about deleting the article focused on two things: at that time you didn't meet the notability requirements, and the article was written like a CV.TooManyFingers (talk)21:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
On 1 March 2021,PMB2025, and thus after the article was "deleted", it was converted into a draft:Draft:Peter Byck. Three days later,Bib123456 submitted a revised version for review.Salimfadhley declined this. The most recent edit to the draft was made in May '21. On 9 September 2021,Liz deleted it, saying: "(G13: Abandoned draft or AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please seeWP:REFUND/G13)". So if you think the draft merits further work and eventual resubmission for article status, please go toWP:REFUND/G13 and follow the instructions provided there. --Hoary (talk)00:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
... and, on a positive note, the basis of the earlier problems was not your career accomplishments; it was lack of reliable third-party coverage (those third parties have had a few years to catch up) and the writing style (which something can be done about).
But if it's accepted, it will be because it's (to you) a totally unrecognizable article compared to the earlier one. About 99.6% of the successful article will intentionally be information that is recycled from mainstream media.TooManyFingers (talk)03:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
The answer is to go tod:Q4375583#Wikipedia on Wikidata (your Wikipedia account will work there also) and add it there. Click the pencil icon, type "en" in the "wiki" field, and then paste the article title in the next field; then click the tick icon to save. Note that this doesn't yet work in mobile view.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits13:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Issue with edit request
Hey, I was going through some of the edit requests onuser:AnomieBOT/SPERTable and I saw an request on an not-protected page. It turned out to have been intended as a COI request, so I set it to answered and asked the person to fix their request, but I am here to ask if there is maybe a technical problem? I saw on the template page for the template they had used, that it is supposed to default to COI requests if the page it is on is not protected. And yet… it showed up as a semi-protected edit request.
(edit conflict)@Slomo666 andPhoenixCaelestis: It appears that they had used the{{request edit}} template, which is a redirect to{{Edit protected}}, which says it defaults to "semi", not "COI", and doesn't even seem to have an option for "COI". (OTOH, that doc doesn't mention that it ignores the level parameter if the page is protected at a different level.) Where are you seeing something saying that the template they used is supposed to default to COI requests?Please ping on reply if my attention is needed, not watchlisting this page.Anomie⚔13:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
You are right. I think I was looking at the pageTemplate:Request edit button where it does say it will use {{edit COI}} if no protection is given/exists, and must have confused it for the request edit one.
@NotAGenious I am answering your question in this reply as well. I made a mistake when I was trying to figure out what went wrong.
It seems then that I don’t quite know why the COI edit-requester made the mistake, but it doesn’t appear to have been a technical issue (based on what you both have told me).
@Slomo666 : For non-protected pages,Template:Edit protected automatically makes a semi-protected edit request ({{#invoke:protected edit request|{{if empty|{{{level|}}}|semi}}}} - if level parameter is empty, uses the page's protection level, else sets a semi protected edit request). Did you find other information elsewhere?NotAGenious (talk)13:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Neeraj Churi (producer of Sabar Bonda)
Hi everyone,
I wanted to ask for guidance on whether it would be appropriate to create a Wikipedia article about Neeraj Churi. He is a film producer who producedCactus Pears an Indian-Marathi queer film that won World Cinema Grand Jury Prize Dramatic. There are others listed as producer but the media coverage and his interviews elicit that he was the force behind the film.
Beyond this film, he has produced several other notable works such asSheer Qorma (film),Ek Jagah Apni (screened at Cannes). I noticed that WP:Author gives notability to authors if their books have significant reviews in reliable sources. Is similar perspective taken for film producers?
Interviews don't count toward notability. Also, whileWP:NAUTHOR does say that multiple reviews of their works means the subject islikely to be notable, it isn't a definite thing. In practice, this isn't really a good criterion, becausenotability is not inherited. It is possible for a book to be notable while the author is not. Likewise, it is common for a wine to be notable while the winemaker is not, and song to be notable but the songwriter is not (although in the case of a musical recording, the artist must be notable before we can have an article on the recording).
In my years on Wikipedia, I have seen that it is difficult for a producer to qualify for an article, especially if all you have are interviews. The film producer isn't an "author". A film producer typically plans, coordinates, arranges financing, and makes administrative decisions, but wouldn't be considered a "creative professional" in the creation of the film. I would sayWP:NAUTHOR doesn't apply butWP:GNG does. ~Anachronist(talk)14:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I do not know how to edit Wiki pages, but wanted to post it here in case an editor could update it to include this new information about the Hit Man author. Thank you!NotADropToDrink (talk)17:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
@NotADropToDrink, welcome to wikipedia! I've added that link to the article (seeSpecial:Diff/1313165103) so that future readers and editors will be able to find it easily. I'll also leave you some links on your user talk page in case you'd like to get into learning how to edit wikipedia yourself. --asilvering (talk)17:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Pseudo-Drafting - Is this okay?
So, I'm planning to write an article on the upcoming game Pony Island 2. This game is not even released yet, let alone notable. I do want to start fiddling with writing it, though, but again, not notable enough to be a draft. Would this be suitable to make in userspace (e.g.User:Fractal-Dreamz/PonyIsland2)? Or would that be a misuse of userspace? I'd prefer not to do it in a sandbox, nor outside Wikipedia because of templates, infoboxes, etc., but if I can't, then I can't. Any advice is appreciated.FractalDreamz✯16:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't have an official or reliable answer, but it seems to me that, compared to writing a good article with quality references, templates and infoboxes are really easy. I would write such an article entirely "at home" without Wikipedia, in plain text, and then much later paste it into somewhere on Wikipedia and add the missing bells and whistles.TooManyFingers (talk)16:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
You could do it that way or as a regular draft.Help:Userspace draft states that "Inan RfC regarding the applicability ofWikipedia:Notability to drafts within the userspace and draftspace, community consensus determined that "notability guidelines do not apply to userspace and draftspace drafts.""
If you make it in userspace, I'd recommend usingTemplate:Userspace draft to make it clear that it's a draft article. If you make it in draftspace, note that drafts that have not been edited in six months may be deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G13--but they shouldn't be deleted for failing notability, as I understand it.
While, as others have indicated, there is nothing forbidding it, writing a draft before the subject becomes notable is may be a considerable waste of time.
To use a house-building analogy, it is like building the walls before you have surveyed the plot of land, or even determined that it is suitable for building on.
Whether a subject is notable depends almost entirely on whether it gets written about, by people unconnected with it, in reliable publications - and there is no way to predict whether that will happen.
If it doesn't happen, there can be no article, and all your work will be wasted.
If it does happen, it will be possible to write an article - but that article should be a summary of what those independent sources say, which you don't yet know; so you might have to junk what you've written and start again.
For example, suppose the critics all think the that the game is terrible. If enough of them write about it at length, there can be an article; but the bulk of the article should be summarising how those critics pan it.
Hello @UnityDecit555. Beingconfirmed means your account is 4 days old and has completed at least 10 edits (when given automatically, which is usually the case, you are "autoconfirmed"). Being confirmed allows you to create articles, editsemi-protected pages, etc. Beingextended-confirmed (also given automatically most of the time) requires 500 edits and a 30 day old account and allows for more permissions.Tarlby(t) (c)18:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Article not indexed by New Page Patrol
Hi,
I recently created the pageZachary Fisk, he's a physicist who is a professor atUniversity of California, Irvine. I created the page in my user sandbox and moved it to the mainspace when I was finished. I've checked theNew Pages Feed but my article doesn't show up, even though pages created later than mine have been listed there. Have I made some sort of error and is there any way to have my article indexed by the feed?
Hi there, it is in the new pages feed. It was created on 26 September, and can be seen in the feed for that date (17:00, 26 September 2025). The date is not when it is moved to mainspace, but when it is first created - even if it is theoretically a Draft created in 2001 that was moved to mainspace today, it would show as being created in 2001.jolielover♥talk06:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
@Abaciscus: That is because the hash character (#) is used for internal links to point to a specific section on a page. Thus, linking [[!]] will instead point you to the section named "33" on theAmpersand page, which - since it does not exist - sets it at the top of the page. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques05:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Greetings. Is there a limit, rule, or some consideration for marking old pages forspeedy deletion? I just learned that on the Spanish Wikipedia speedy deletion is solely for recent pages, and was wondering if the same applied here and I somehow didn't realize.Sophocrat (talk)02:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Editors here have their own interests and will edit pages depending on them. Whomever is interested in Alexander McQueen regularly gets them to FA, and then to TFA. I do have to say I haven't noticed a theme with the others? Ok, English history is pretty common to see on the main page (particularly OTD) but I don't think it's niche enough to be a recurring theme, more like it's a country with a large native English-speaking population and thus more potential editors interested in expanding articles relating to it.jolielover♥talk02:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
This is a bit of an odd one, but in 2010 Icreated theRutgers Campus Buses article in my sandbox, and for some reason never published it. Another editor must have found it anddid, merely copying what Iwrote. Is there a way to merge these histories so that my work on it can be credited? I dont mind being copied really, but I would like the credit. It looks like I can useTemplate:history merge, but that creates a banner, so I wanted to check before doing so that this is correct. Thanks!Metallurgist (talk)21:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
That was actually the easiest merge I've done in a while, because none of the histories overlapped. Most of the time there's some overlap, and it gets messy. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)03:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
DUDA
Quiero crear un articulo sobre la directora de mi escuela, existe varia información sobre ella sin embargo no tiene su biografía en Wikipedia que es algo que le gastaría ¿Me pueden orientar si cumple con la relevancia enciclopédica?189.233.165.229 (talk)21:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
As I type this, I'm on a break from the Celtic Knot Wikipedia conference; hosted on Zoom. Tomorrow, I'll be delivering Wikipedia training via Zoom, as volunteer at a WikimediaUK event..
Where can we find out about these trainings and events? I'm sure there's a page explaining it, but sometimes I'm lost in the WP jungle :PBarbalalaika (talk)15:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Soy Luciano 543 and welcome to the Teahouse and to English Wikipedia.WP:autoconfirmed should happen automatically when your account is at least 4 days old and you have made at least 10 edits. To be consideredextended confirmed, your account will need to be at least 30 days old and you will need to make at least 500 edits.Mariamnei (talk)06:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I have made the necessary changes (company name capitalization, adding more external sources and deleted one section to better match the encyclopedic format). Before re-submitting, could I receive a little bit more in-depth feedback in case the current version still needs some tweaks?
I see ColinFine's comment that we don't normally do pre-reviews, but I just had a look, and to me the whole article still looks very much like advertising. The problem (as I see it) is not style, but content. The whole article is set up to show what this company can offer me if I do business with them, and how I can become their customer – most or all of that needs to be deleted. A Wikipedia article showsmainly (taking almost all of the words in the article) how the company has been seen in the past by the general public who are not doing business with them. We want to merely collect and show the information that any member of the general public could already find in the public library and the news. We don't want any information that wasn't already communicated to the public by reliable sources unrelated to the company (or only a little of that).TooManyFingers (talk)16:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
I looked at the References section a little bit. Many of them are press releases and links to the company's own site. To improve the article in the most effective and efficient way, I suggest first deleting all parts of the article that are sourced to any of the following:
- a press release
- the company's own publications (websites or any other kind)
- publications by partner companies
- articles that include an interview with a company representative
- any coverage that the company paid for in other sources.
After all those parts of the article have been cut out, take a look at what remains.
Note: I just took a quick look at what it might be like to do that myself. By my very rough estimate, there were only two or three sentences worth keeping.TooManyFingers (talk)18:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
(In fact it is sometimes OK for some of those kinds of things to appear, in the proper context,in an article that would still be good if they were deleted. But this article currently has almost no core content - the promotional fluff is essentially all there is.)TooManyFingers (talk)19:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Most of it's not encyclopaedic. If I revised it, I'd trim at least half. Tell me why someone in another country (eg. Uruguay or Fiji) would want to know about this company? Why is the company special?MmeMaigret (talk)10:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I have an article that I have drafted for a consumer electronics company. Despite it looking like articles for other consumer goods companies, the reviewers said I needed a more neutral tone. I have eliminated all subjective phrases and only cite out to 3rd party reviewers for any statements about the products qualities and consumer satisfaction. I am not sure how to offer a more neutral tone so any help would be much appreciated. Here is a link to the draft article:Draft:TP-Link Systems. Thank you for any assistance in VisualEditor.Gguice (talk)21:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
How much primary sourcing would you say the article contains right now? Things that are in there becauseyou know them, not because the public already knew?TooManyFingers (talk)22:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I haven't read the article. But I did glance at it, whereupon I immediately noticed (i) citation of Wikipedia (shown by|url=https://en.wikipedia.org); (ii) "In 2024, TP-Link held a 36.6% unit share (and 31% dollar share) of the U.S. direct-to-consumer router market", citing TP-Link for this. First, do not cite Wikipedia. Secondly, do not cite the company itself, other perhaps than for matters that are minor and can't be described as achievements. --Hoary (talk)22:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Gguice. "Despite it looking like articles for other consumer goods companies" is not relevant. We have many thousands of seriously deficient articles, mostly from an earlier era when we weren't so careful, simply because not many volunteeers want to spend time trawling through them. Seeother stuff exists. Drafts are reviewed on their own, not against existing articles.ColinFine (talk)23:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Reference where there's no book etc
I found old letters my father wrote, and the responses, in 1946 during WWII and one is a printout of a radio interview with a US Senator in 1946 that I am referring to in my Wiki entry for the senator and don't know how to reference it. The interview is nowhere in a book or magazine; all the info (date, network, radio stations etc.) just in this printout I have from 1946. Just how do I reference this? All the templates want a web or other source; there is none. Just this typed print-out from my dad's papers. Thanks so much.Wikijanieo (talk)03:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi. I believe the template you could use isTemplate:Cite AV media. There is a parameter that asks for a URL, but you don't have to fill out every parameter, just what you have from the transcript.
It fails forverifiability,Wikijanieo. You have statedat the help desk that this is something you found among your father's papers. Unless you specify where your fathers' papers are to be found, and where among them this is, and unless you also make it clear that the article's readers are welcome to look at the printout for themselves, we can't consult it and any attributions to it are not verifiable. --Hoary (talk)05:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
@Wikijanieo, Welcome to the teahouse and to Wikipedia! As previously mentioned, this will usually be an issue ofWP:V. Even if you can somehow get around this issue, you will need to make that your edits do not violateWP:OR.Mariamnei (talk)07:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I think there are probably some arguable reasons for wanting to do what that editor did, but doing it without any discussion or even an edit summary seems like a bad idea.TooManyFingers (talk)16:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, in principle. The difficulty is that IPs associated with individual people can change over time and hence if you want to join a project it would be better to create an account. English Wikipedia will move to "temporary accounts" instead of IP addresses, on October 7, so the problem will be less severe after that.Mike Turnbull (talk)11:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Reusing citations
If a citation/reference I used supports more than one fact in an entry, e.g., it states both a person's place of residence and their pet's names,can I use it as a reference for both facts? If so, how do I do that?תמי ניניו (talk)14:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes. If you're using the source editor, write <ref name="foo">Citation details here</ref> the first time and then <ref name="foo"/> the second time. If you're using the visual editor, just click the reference, control-C, and then control-V wherever you want to reuse it.Mrfoogles (talk)14:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
I rather think that the OP was just using that as a theoretical example, not suggesting any actual intention to do so, just as Mrfoogles was not suggesting the actual use of "foo" as a ref name. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}90.193.153.108 (talk)01:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
@תמי ניניו, welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. Everything said here is correct, but I will advise that you should ensure that you never reuse the same name for two distinct references in the same article, which will create a template error. It happens two often that there will be a <ref name="NYTimes"> and then the next New York Times article will inadvertently receive the same name.Mariamnei (talk)06:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
No we shouldn't,XtraMateSo2, because trivia is mere trivia. Do articles exist with trivia sections? Yes they do, often titled "In popular culture" or similar. --Hoary (talk)11:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
There are times when "in popular culture" contains something worthwhile, but it's often just an excuse for a trivia section.
It seems to me that sections actually headed "Trivia" used to be more accepted (or not removed as swiftly anyway); I'm glad they're gone, but I think it's worse when trivial material is silently put into the main parts of articles by people who just aren't good writers.TooManyFingers (talk)13:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi ... I am a relatively new employee at a company that I believe meets the notability threshold that would merit a dedicated Wikipedia article. I am aware of the need to disclose that relationship in the course of article submission. I know the bar for this type of article is high (rightfully so), but I just want to gut check that I'm correct in my notability assessment before submitting the article. Basically I don't want to waste anyone's time if the endeavor is doomed from the start.
For context, Equilar is a 25 year old company that works in executive data and intelligence. The main element that warrants a notability discussion in my opinion is that its data is frequently and extensively cited by major independent media outlets on the subject of executive compensation, CEO pay in particular. Equilar experts are frequently cited in these articles, it is more than just a cursory mention or quick data point.
I've included a representative but far from exhaustive group of potential citations below.
This is far from an exhaustive list of possible citations, but I chose these to establish the following:
While not necessarily the subject of these articles, Equilar data often represents the bulk of if not the entirety of the foundation for the reporting, including regular annual studies done in partnership with the New York Times and Associated Press (to be clear Equilar is only involved from a data standpoint. There is no editorial control over the content itself on Equilar's part).
In addition to providing data, Equilar is frequently quoted as an expert on topics of executive compensation and corporate governance (see Hollywood Reporter and Wall St Journal articles as examples).
The Harvard Business Review article is a bit older but I included it to reflect that these types of citations have been occurring for a significant number of years, as well as another case of Equilar research representing the entire news peg for the story. If it would help, there are similar citations going back as far as 2002, I just didn't want to overdo it from a quantity standpoint.
I can include some citations on topics beyond CEO pay if they would be of interest, though the CEO compensation data definitely yields the most substantial citations in independent media because of widespread public interest in the topic.
I recognize these do not quite rise to the level of, say, a full-on feature or profile on the company, but I feel they do clearly rise above the level of citation Wikipedia considers to be trivial according to its guidelines. CEO pay in particular continues to be a highly socially relevant issue for a number of reasons, and Equilar is a frequently cited and quoted authority on that topic across a wide swath of independent media. I believe it is reasonable to the public interest to have a Wikipedia article establishing the nature of the origin of that data.
If there are any particular types of citations missing from the above that would be helpful, I am happy to provide additional reporting.
Thanks for taking the time taken to evaluate the above, and if Equilar is deemed to meet the notability guidelines I would look forward to following all processes and guidelines in creating the article.
Hello, @MCLynch121, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being open about your status, and asking before you dive in.
It doesn't seem to me as if citations of that sort aresignificant coverage, and it's also not clear that they areindependent of Equilar. Please evaluate each of your sources against all the criteria in thegolden rule: only if a source meets all of these can it contribute to establishingnotability.
Note that qualities such as "social relevance" often get mentioned as a reason that this or that draft should be accepted, or article not deleted. Such qualities are irrelevant to the question of whether the subject is notable.ColinFine (talk)21:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Can I just go in-depth on one of the citations that would maybe clarify my point a little bit. It would seem to me that this does rise to the level of "significant coverage" as outlined by Wikipedia.
Take the Hollywood Reporter article. This is an independent media source that built it's article about CEO pay in Hollywood entirely around the Equilar 100 annual report on the highest paid CEOs. Here's a passage of the article for context:
"However, one trend of the past kept up. Many Hollywood top executives’ pay packages ended up above the median total compensation for this year’s first-take Equilar 100 list, compiled by the data firm based on annual compensation disclosures by the largest companies by revenue across multiple sectors. (That list was revealed at the end of March, meaning various big entertainment players are excluded.) The Equilar 100 median total pay was $25.6 million, which represents a 9.5 perfect increase for the same set of companies from the previous year.
Looking at the broader entertainment industry compensation compiled byTHR, many toppers received “sizable” long-term stock or options awards, notes Amit Batish, senior director of content at data firm Equilar. “Despite weak stock performance at some of these companies, the media and entertainment industry is constantly evolving, and both companies and boards prioritize long-term stability in their top executive roles. This desire for continuity may help explain why many of these pay packages exceed the median in our study.”
For comparison, and taking a broader view across all industries, the Equilar list is led by Jim Anderson, the CEO of Coherent Corp. (which makes equipment for networks and lasers), whose compensation package amounted to $101.5 million. Microsoft boss Satya Nadella ranks fourth with $79.1 million, followed by Apple CEO Tim Cook with $74.6 million."
So you have a major independent media outlet 1) Using Equilar data as the entire foundation for its article 2) Quoting from an Equilar employee and treating them as an expert on the topic.
As the guidelines on significant coverage note: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
There are many citations available along these lines in very reputable, independent publications. If the above wouldn't qualify as "significant" then I would likely cease the attempt but I am also struggling to find which part of the stated guidelines this example would fail to meet.MCLynch121 (talk)22:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I think it's important that they bediscussing Equilar - that they intend to be telling a storyabout Equilar, rather than using the company's services to tell someone else's story. If it's inside a different story that's fine, but we should be able to point out the part where they directly discuss Equilar for a significant length.TooManyFingers (talk)22:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
All I can say is, in the same way a book can be notable while the author is not, or a wine be notable while the winemaker is not, or a song be notable while the songwriter is not, so can a company's product be notable while the company is not. Based on what you've written here, that's the impression I get about Equilar. You might want to re-cast the draft to be about the product rather than the company. It would be a better article, more likely to be accepted. SeeWP:NPRODUCT, which suggests writing about both the product and the company with the primary focus on the product. ~Anachronist(talk)03:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Okay, appreciate the helpful feedback. In a world where I had a mix of both types of citations (some from independent sources speaking about the company ... maybe not NYT or WSJ level but still substantial independent publications, as well as some more product-focused along the lines of those in this thread) would that help to meet the notability threshold?MCLynch121 (talk)14:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Don't forget to declare your COI on your user page, or declare yourself a paid editor if you're receiving any sort of compensation (financial or otherwise) for this. ~Anachronist(talk)15:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure that, if they had been nominated, some would have at least been merged. Some of the ones that weren't nominated were even much shorter than the ones that were nominated. (example:Project Princess).FaviFake (talk)16:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
On the page forCarlos Fernandes (activist) I want to include the Facebook funeral announcement from the NGO he was a founder of, Iris Angola, as a source his date of birth.
For context, other news outlets do not provide his birth date. Some say he was 41, but according the funeral announcement from Iris Angola, he was 40 at the time of his passing. Considering this is the only source that gives a date of birth at all, and considering it would be odd for the organization he founded to get his birthday wrong, I think it should be used for date of birth.
However, it is a self-published source (a Facebook post) which typically isn't allowed. I verified the Facebook account is legitimate and does belong to the real Iris Angola since another news source, the Bay Area Reporter, linked to it saying it was Iris.
I think one main reason this should be good is that there's no sign of possible controversy about this particular person's birth date. If controversy was expected, it might be different.TooManyFingers (talk)13:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
You can include it on the basis that that's where you got the information. It's just won't count as a reliable secondary source. You can also add the date with an "independent citation needed" template after it, or add the date and the fb source with an "independent citation needed" template after it.MmeMaigret (talk)03:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Seems A-OK. I did a similar thing with a date for a specific festival. If you're worried about it, perhaps include a <!---hidden message---/!> explaining why you think the source is good enough to prevent other editors from fiddling with it. (Unless they found a better source, of course.)Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk)00:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Map in infobox
How to make a map and marker only appear in the top infobox when there are infoboxes for multiple nearby places on a page?
Hello, I have done several pages about sports complexes. In some cases, it is technically impossible, or makes it too cluttered, to have just one infobox for the entire complex. So I have one with general info about the complex on top of the page, plus one or two others about its main facilities. However, when a mod or user activates the map function on the page, the map ends up being displayed in several or all of these infoboxes. Given that the facilities are in most cases within immediate proximity, I'd rather only have the map in the top infobox. How can I do that? Thanks. A couple examples: Piscine patinoire de Boulogne-Billancourt, Parc Pierre-Lagravère[Asked at 00:50, 25 September 2025 byRedacwiki]
Hello, I am pretty new here and I don't know where to start
I am pretty new at editing and I don't know where to start. I mean most of my edits are just me improving grammar or adding links, but I don't know where to begin in making an article, I just found a topic that I could make one for, Supraglottoplasty for example, is a type of surgery, but I haven't found any articles in wikipedia for that matter. And I want to start now. Can you give me reccomendations or suggestions on practicing this?PSHSstudent10101 (talk)09:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
If there not an article and if you know it's notable enough and has quality, you can start making it. Like i first suggest to make a draft likeDraft:Supraglottoplasty and add {{Draft article}} tag and when completed fully upload the things or put it on a review. For new users i suggest to put it on review.Abdullah1099 (talk)09:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Abdullah1099 I deactivated the draft template so this page isn't considered to be a draft. Template will function as intended unless you surround them with nowiki tags(check the edit history to see how I did this).
I would also suggest not recommending that new users dive right in to creating articles- the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia- and instead suggest they use thenew user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia first, or to edit existing articles.331dot (talk)09:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I want to thank for the feedback on my submission for Frank J Basloe. I appreciate you referencing the issues for the citations for this article about Frank J Basloe. I apologize but I want to know if the feedback on the citations references the format of my citations or the references, themselves, idenified by the citations. Thank you for your help and support.IAJJSS34 (talk)03:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
IAJJSS34, I have read your request above three times but still don't understand it, unfortunately. However, it's clear that you're asking about references.Draft:Frank J. Basloe currently has an untitled list of what I suppose are references; however, this list is formatted oddly and there's no indication of which part of the article derives from which of the listed sources. There are various ways of indicating this (recently I've been usingTemplate:Sfnp). Perhaps the best course is to choose a "good article" that interests you, and to emulate what's done in that (which is pretty straightforward when "editing source"; I've no idea about the "visual editor"). --Hoary (talk)04:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Hoary:
Thank you for your feedback on my questions.
I apologize for not being clear enough.
However, your follow up comments have given me a pathway forward, I believe.
I will edit my article and better identify what information a citation is supporting.
I will also follow your recommendation for Template sfnp and emulate what I perceive is a 'good article".
All the best with it,IAJJSS34. On reflection, though: Sfnp is rather difficult to get one's head around at first: It's likely that you'd be happier withref tags, combined, where helpful, withTemplate:Rp. --Hoary (talk)06:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Very much appreciate the follow up advise and understanding.
I will proceed accordingly with your updated advise.
I am trying to write full-fledged Wikipedia article. By the way, i already wrote an article onCadet College Swat . Unfortunately, it deleted due to weak and dead independent news citations. Here, i need your humble opinion;
Can I use independent news sources in my article even if the article’s main subject is not specifically about my topic, but the topic is still mentioned and covered within the news story (for example, in its description or as part of a broader report)?
@Hogshine: you seem (Special:CentralAuth/Hogshine) to have visited the Ukrainian Wikipedia today, and the Italian one a few days ago. When you do, your account gets 'attached' to that project, just in case you start making edits. With some projects that triggers an automatic welcome message to you. You can ignore those. --DoubleGrazing (talk)17:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Note that it wasn't a real sign-up process - it's the same account you already had, being automatically recognized by other Wikipedia sites. This means, if you visited Ukrainian and Italian pages but didn't intend to become a major participant in them, there's nothing you need to do about it.TooManyFingers (talk)17:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I think I like that proposal - basically that they can't send you those messages unless you have been active on purpose on that site, rather than just visiting.TooManyFingers (talk)19:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I expect that your accidental visits to other languages' Wikipedias happened when (for example) you clicked a link to get more information on a Ukrainian person or topic, but because English Wikipedia had nothing on them, an English editor gave a link to Ukrainian Wikipedia because a foreign language link is better than no information.TooManyFingers (talk)21:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Why was the Acanthonus armatus called “bony eared assfish”
To enlarge on that, "Acanthonus"could be translated as "Donkey (Greek:onus) that lacks (a-) eye-corners (canth[i])" (notice its very round eyes). The "familiar" name is doubtless based on the scientific one, since as a deep sea species it had likely never been seen before being collected by scientists, but may not reflect what theoriginal scientific namer had in mind. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}90.193.153.108 (talk)23:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Gratuitous Gratitude
Hi, just wondering if there is a way to see, or if anyone knows, what the edit on Wikipedia is that has received the most "Thank"s? Thank you.ButterCashier (talk)13:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
If I could choose a brand-new amazing Wikipedia feature, it would be this: Edits without edit summaries give every appearance of succeeding, but in fact disappear without a trace after 10 minutes.TooManyFingers (talk)19:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
There's a setting in your user preferences to give you a reminder if you try to submit an edit without an edit summary. Once it teaches you the habit, you almost never see that reminder come up again. ~Anachronist(talk) 00:40, 26 September 2025
Ciao fellow editors--When you have some extra time perhaps someone can assist in reviewing and movingDraft:La Cadena de las Americas into the mainspace from the Draft Space. It appears to be well documented and it describes a colarborative effort to create a nonprofit international radio network to promotecultural diplomacy and international peace byWilliam S. Paley at theColumbia Broadcasting System andNelson Rockefeller at theOffice of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs throughout North and South America during World War II as in support ofFranklin Delano Roosevelt's interest inPan-Americanism. The network received widespread recognition by diplomates throughout South America for its promotion of democratic ideals while also providing a forum for musicians and composers from both North and South America to participate as cultural ambassadors for international peace--- an unusual and remarkable cooperative effort by a private media conglomerate and a government agency. Thanks again in advance for your thoughtful assistance and Happy Editing. With best regards..47.19.187.198 (talk)22:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)NHPL
Somebody -- perhaps you (I didn't check) -- has submitted this for a review. That was and is enough. In time, it will be reviewed. --Hoary (talk)00:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
I started to post the notion of transnational proximity. It was denied and I revised it substantially. I still don't know whether it is enough to be accepted. Please check and I will greatly appreciated.Messenger12 (talk)23:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I looked at the first sentence,Messenger12:In the global cultural sphere, several major approaches talk about the flow of popular culture. (i) I don't understand "global cultural sphere". What (if anything) does it mean? (ii) Do approaches really talk? (iii) What kind of "flow"? (Is this the epidemiology of pop culture?) That sentence aside, the first reference readsStraubhaar, J. (2021). Cultural proximity. In the Routledge Handbook of Digital Media and Globalization. Who is the editor (or who are the editors) of the book? Page numbers? Publication details? And the last reference is to IMdB, but IMdB is not reliable. And the whole thing seems intended less to inform its readers than to impress them. Please inform, in straightforward language. --Hoary (talk)00:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
In addition, it also appears to use complex terms with no context. Please also note that a Wikipedia article is intended to be read by the general public, not people who already have a specific amount of knowledge in something.thetechie@enwiki (she/they |talk)00:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Encyclopedia articles don't start out with a list of definitions. SeeWP:LAYOUT. There's a lead section that provides an overview summary of the rest of the article, highlighting major points in each section. The lead is then followed by the rest of the article. As it is, it's an essay, not an encyclopedia article. ~Anachronist(talk)02:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
new article
I have published an article that I have not finished. How to move the article to drafts? I am still actively working on it. Thank you!Irina Tubbs (talk)03:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Well, you haven't submitted anything to Wikipedia yet except for your single question above.
Hello - I've been asked to write an article regarding an organization. The draft (Draft:Rehabilitation_Medicine_Society_of_Australia_and_New_Zealand) was declined due to the references "not showing that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article". While I understand that referring the website is not enough, I thought the other references met the expectations for a wikipedia article (independent, reliable, secondary). I have read other wikipedia articles that had less references. Is there anything else I can do with the references to show that this organization qualifies for a Wikipedia article?Drgdfry (talk)10:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Drgdfry Hello. Please readother stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways for inappropriate content to exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken and we reduce the chances that others will do what you did. We are only as good as the people who choose to help us.
For that reason it is a poor- if understandable- idea to use any random article as a model or example. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that areclassified as good articles, which have received community vetting.331dot (talk)10:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
One very important aspect is where the references come from. Here's an example that might help: if I come to you suggesting that we go into business together, will you take the word of my friends and family that I'm honest? Or will you hope for references that are not so biased?TooManyFingers (talk)16:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
There are way too few references for an article of that size. There are entire sections without a single reference. Either remove them or add more citationsmgjertson (talk) (contribs)17:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
@Drgdfry Your article is too long (sometimes less is more) and filled with extraneous info that doesn't reveal anything special about the organisation - it's like a who's who of NZ companies entry rather than an encyclopedic entry. There are two ways to qualify for a Wikipedia article - you've got to be presumed notable, seeWP:company, or you've got to have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. So none of the references to the organisation's own site qualify - in fact I would delete them - nor does the organisation's own submission. The other references are only establishing facts; they don't discuss the organisation in any detail.MmeMaigret (talk)03:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
An article can only be one ofgood orfeatured at any one time. If a featured article isreviewed and demoted, it does not automatically become a good article without subsequent review.
I submitted to AfC a couple weeks ago, and I feel really confident about this particular article. Instead of waiting for another month or so, can go ahead and make it live myself? Or is that bad protocol to submit to AfC for consideration and then skip and move to mainspace?SueRostvold (talk)14:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
BLUF: What should be done when the perpetrator of a crime is killed and will never face trial?
I'm curious to know if there is established precedent on this, or if we maybe need a clearer policy. This has come to bear in a few recent cases likeAnnunciation Catholic Church shooting andGrand Blanc Township church attack, etc, where the suspect is killed or kills themself. Once the suspect is identified, there is a rush to add their name to the article, which can be seen to violateWP:BLPCRIME as it also applies to recently deceased persons. We do not generally name perpetrators if they have not been found guilty, so we find ourselves in a dilemma where the suspect will never be found guilty in a court of law.
And so my question is: when do you add the name of a dead suspect to an article? First news report? Preponderance of news reports? Once a final investigation has been released? Once the suspect is no longer recently deceased? Once consensus is reached at each individual article that the person has appropriate notoriety because of the news coverage? Something else?
I noticed the cited source of this 2022 chartFile:Statista_long_covid.jpg uses newer 2024 statistics that are different from the 2022 statistics. I tried contacting the image uploader but it seems they've stopped editing after they got blocked. How would I go about replacing this image with a newer 2024 one, or is there a COVID-19 discussion board or portal in wikipedia that I can notify?NinuKinuski (talk)12:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Versions111 Hello. I deactivated your use of the tags here, which served to apply them to this page(not merely serve as you showing us them). If you feel that you have addressed the issues described in the tags, you may remove them.331dot (talk)08:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi,WFertonani, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, the best advice I can give you about this is: don't. Wikipedia has a very negative view of people who are trying to write an article promote their company, and while editing on topics that you have aconflict of interest isn't outrightforbidden, it isvery strongly discouraged. See also the policies and requirements aroundpaid editing. The nutshell is that you, through no fault of your own, will not be able to maintain the kind of neutrality and objectivity required of a Wikipedia article when it's your own company that you're writing about. If your company is trulynotable by Wikipedia standards, then it will get written about by someone else eventually; if not, it shouldn't have an article to begin with. Thanks,Writ Keeper⚇♔12:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
There are similar articles and companies on Wikipedia, the idea is to get the business shown as a legitimate corporation and show the trajectory of its growth.
the company operates in Brazil a tough place to get recognition and one of Wikipedia care value is to offer this as a platform. The page is neutral and the only aim is to offer information through a reliable platform.2804:18:14F:A559:D094:4B8F:C664:3D9F (talk)17:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Well... see, your "idea" is inherently to promote and grow your company, which is not encouraged. If you'd like to create a neutral page, please see thearticles for creation process, where you can make and submit draft articles for experienced editors to review to make sure it is up to Wikipedia's standards.jolielover♥talk17:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
"... the idea is to get the business shown as a legitimate corporation and show the trajectory of its growth."
No, that is NOT the idea - not here. On your company's own website, you should do what you want, but on Wikipedia that type of article will get rejected every time.TooManyFingers (talk)21:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
I've done this after contacting EF5 over the Wikimedia discord (you should join by the way!) in case anyone else was looking to solve it but already seen that it was done.Kline •talk •contribs21:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
I want to know thw reason why the article was decliened by ur editor and what all things i need to take care while writing the article. I need an explaination in simple english. Please me out with this.TMWala (talk)05:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I want to suggest that all football clubs around the world have their first official game, & the best and worst results in the infobox just like the national teams.Aminabzz (talk)14:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I am not autoconfirmed and can only request articles, not create or publish new ones. The draft appears near completion and has solid sources, but it is stuck in the requested articles section as I do not have publishing rights.
Would any experienced editor be willing to help move, review, and publish the article for me?
If the text needs any improvements, I am happy to revise or provide additional sources.
Hello IP, as I understand it, List of Requested Articles ist just that: a list! It's helpful for interested people if someone puts some references in there, but not a whole draft. Even if you (as IP) cannot create articles directly, you can always use theWP:AFC process. So my advice would be: make a draft out of your text and work from there.Maresa63Talk06:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
"X has an article so I think Y should have" is OK as a motivation to create an article, but it doesn't necessarily mean that an article is possible. The very first thing you should do in creating an article is research whether or not there are adequatesources to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria fornotability. Just because another wrestler meets these criteria does not mean that yours necessarily does. Indeed, if the other article has been around for a while, it may be that he doesn't meet the criteria, and the article should be deleted, but nobody has looked at it yet. Seeother stuff exists.
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.
Hello,I was reading an article about Nicolás Atanes inTNYT, and I was surprised to discover that there doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia article about him. In 2023, he gave aTEDx talk, was featured in major national press, and even met with Spanish Prime MinisterPedro Sánchez. More recently, in 2025, he was seen alongside KingFelipe VI and PrincessLeonor of Spain. Given his visibility and accomplishments, particularly in such high-profile contexts to talk them about maths, I thought it was quite surprising that there's no article about him yet.Could anyone provide insight into why that might be, or possibly start an article on him?Thank you!130.206.158.187 (talk)17:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello Editors, I recently submitted a article for review of a sex therapist, who I believe meets the requirements for a Wiki Page. I've been doing a ton of research and came up with the most neutral page and wrote it. I would greatly appreciate if you could review the page and help me get it live. It has been a pleasure working on Wikipedia and I look forward to improving and editing pages as well as publishing new ones. The Draft -Draft:Neil Cannon
Yes, I unhesitatingly deleted it, as blatant advertising. I am amazed to be informed (on my talk page) that an editor in good standing wants it restored. I shall dutifully restore it. --Hoary (talk)21:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
I quote the lead: "His innovative and groundbreaking contributions have shaped the work and careers of sexologists worldwide." With a reference, to Neil Cannon himself. --Hoary (talk)21:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Hoary@Theroadislong - i see that neils profile has been deleted, i had a chat with a couple of editors and they guided me on how to improve it, however you have mentioned above you shall restore it, does that mean you will get it to mainpage or for review? I have pointed out the mistakes and have figured out a way to improve them, can you guide me whats the next best course of action??Jason Quinnn (talk)22:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
It isn't "mistakes" that need fixing; the article is written completely wrong, with the wrong attitude and using the wrong material. Of course it can be changed to make it better, but the changes will be absolutely massive.TooManyFingers (talk)22:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers I understand, I am on it, working on the draft as we speak, Thanks!
Do you think if i change it and make it perfect, and submit it to mainspace, it will be sustainable? I talked to one of the editors and I am seeking his long standing expertise and he said show me the profile once its done, and if is happy move it to mainspace directly, what do you say?Jason Quinnn (talk)22:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
It's not a profile. It's not a way for Cannon to become better known. It's not a way to get the word out about his services.
What it is is an overview ofonly the already independently reliably published material about him, excluding publications by his business acquaintances, friends, and family. Nothing from his website, nothing from anyone who has employed him or worked for him, nothing from press releases or interviews, no inside knowledge that wasn't already independently published. Is that what you're intending?TooManyFingers (talk)22:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Basically, what a super-zealous researcher could find in public libraries (excluding anything published by his connections) is all there is to work with.TooManyFingers (talk)22:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers I am adding sources from certification pages, directory, and conference listings from AASECT, and university of Michigan program page, is that fine for you. I have other ones aswell but these two are something Im a little doubtful on because they can somehow be affiliated but are not promotional , do you approve?Jason Quinnn (talk)23:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Jason Quinnn, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that none of those will help; Wikipedia is not interested in what officialdom says about him, or what his own institutions or conferences say about him. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject inreliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establishnotability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
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)09:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Request for review feedback
Hello, I have made major changes to Neil Cannons draft based on the earlier feedback by the editors, specially @TooManyFingers, thank you for your feedback and guidance, really means alot. I removed promotional language, added independent secondary sources, and revised the citations for accuracy. Would someone be able to take another look and let me know if further improvements are needed?
I wouldn't decline it, I'd reject it outright. It includes hallucinated sources from an AI, and not one single cited source meets all theWP:Golden rule criteria. There is nothing in the prose to explain why this individual is notable or different from any of hundreds of others in his profession. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)00:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
You can put "bad words", just not in a way intended forvandalism. For example, inserting quotes; it's actually recommended to just say the word rather than a censored version. You can also edit anything, but again, just please don't vandalize. Welcome to the project!jolielover♥talk04:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
No,Sethdecastro1 ("Joshua"), you may not. An insult (e.g. "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries") need not include any word that any reasonable person would call "bad". Yet you may not libel the subject of an article, regardless of how you word the libel. For that matter, you may not address either the subject or the reader as "you" (or indeed as anything else). And there are various other kinds of edits that you may not make. --Hoary (talk)11:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Guyz, my question is regarding theघंसौर article on hindi wikipedia (hindi article forghansor page theirs a image I have put there the help I need is, the image isn't showing as thumbnail can anyone tell me why ??— Precedingunsigned comment added byGamerzer (talk •contribs)10:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I'd like some help with a table. Here's an example:
A
B
C (hide)
1
Main table data 1
Main table data 1
Extended info 1a
Extended info 1b
Extended info 1c
Extended info 1d
2
Main table data 2
Main table data 2
Extended info 2a
Extended info 2b
Extended info 2c
Extended info 2d
3
Main table data 3
Main table data 3
Extended info 3a
Extended info 3b
Extended info 3c
Extended info 3d
Is there a way to make the rightmost column collapsible? That would make users able to access the longer extended info only if they'd like, and keep the information more dense:
Hello thereRockfighterz M. As far as I know there's no way to make a single table column collapsible. You can collapse complete tables though (as noted inHelp:Collapsing tables and more), so perhaps you could place a collapsible table inside a regular table? Let me try it.
My table with collapsible info
A
B
C
Extended info 1a
Extended info 1b
Extended info 1c
Extended info 1d
Extended info 2a
Extended info 2b
Extended info 2c
Extended info 2d
Extended info 3a
Extended info 3b
Extended info 3c
Extended info 3d
1
Main table data 1
Main table data 1
2
Main table data 2
Main table data 2
3
Main table data 3
Main table data 3
Well, that's kinda awkward in presentation and in wikitext. Hm. Hopefully another editor can come up with something better. Cheers,Sophocrat (talk)02:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Apologies if this is a strange question. I was looking at the article for the2017 New Democratic Party leadership election. Some of these are outdated (for example, Peter Julian is no longer an MP, he lost his seat) and I was wondering how to update these? Do we try to keep these up to date or leave them as they are to provide a more accurate picture for how the landscape was at the time?Hahm3724 (talk)14:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
The article is about the 2017 election, so it should reflect who the candidates were at the time of the 2017 election. If we continually updated things in this way, 50 years from now, we'd have a weird article in which no MPs endorsed any candidate, and many of the candidates likely to be deceased.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi there! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia - good work so far! For this article, I'd recommend adding citations since the page currently lacks them.jolielover♥talk17:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I've found a couple of potential citations but I'm not sure which ones to add. There's not really any second-hand articles on the subject. To be honest I'm not even sure it meets notability criteria, but since it's a bbc show I figured it does. Here's the few links I could find:
It has won aChildren's Bafta and 2 Broadcast Digital Awards (2017 and2019). There's aKidscreen article I can't access. There'sthis page by the production company. Also there's theportfolio website of the composer which confirms his role. Plus there's ablog post by the lead designer, not sure I'm allowed to link to that but it has a couple useful screenshots.
It's also distributed on ABC iPlayer and RTÉ Player, should I add those to the external links section?
Area ofHayling Island is given as 30 km^2, which looks obviously wrong to me, but this figure has been in the article since 2008, and it seems surprising (alarming in fact) that it would not have been corrected in all that time. Can someone just do a sanity check on this before I change it? I cannot find any published figures with an Internet search, but I could try to get a rough figure from Google Maps.2A00:23C8:7B20:CC01:6415:A095:2E53:6D6E (talk)12:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
It looks to me like it's around 30 km^2 at low tide (including the sandbanks), and around 20 km^2 at high tide. The high tide area would make more sense to me, but discuss on the Talk page first.Shantavira|feed me13:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Moreover, it and other such geographical facts should be cited to a reliable source: currently neither the infobox nor the Geography section have any references at all. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}90.193.153.108 (talk)17:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Can I just merge two articles if they evolve around the same topic?
Hello, I am fairly new to Wikipedia and wanted to rewrite an article. Specifically, I noticed regarding the topic I am interested in that there are two existing articles to same main idea that treat different aspects: classical cluster expansion (Cluster expansion) and the quantum cluster expansion (Cluster-expansion approach). So I was wondering if it is possible to merge these two articles into one.NudelTraum (talk)03:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
If the resulting article wouldn't be unwieldy long, and merging them would be uncontroversial, then go ahead.
If the merging might be controversial, you can propose them for merging. If you want the material merged intocluster expansion, you would put a{{mergeto|Cluster expansion}} tag at the top of thecluster-expansion approach article, and a{{mergefrom|cluster-expansion approach}} tag at the top of thecluster expansion article. When you tag either one, you will see a link to a discussion. Click on that link and create a new discussion at that location. Wait a week or so, and if nobody objects, merge the material. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)04:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Native speaker German-Newbie - a little bit lost in the wikipedia-universe. My first draft was recently declined. One reason given is the possibility of a conflict of interest. I found the article „Are you connected to the article topic?“ which says „ you must disclose your relationship“. Where I have do disclose my relationship? In the article? I know Giselle Anne because I am a dancer of the Argentinian Tango too, but I have no close personal contact. I am a collector, historian, teacher and organizer of the subject „Argentine Tango“ since 33 years without financial interests. I think the work of Giselle Anne is worth appearing on Wikipedia. I have absolutely no idea how to continue here on wikipedia. I think I need someone from the community to guide me through my first steps toward improving the article? Who has special experience in training newbies/beginners?Info.Forscher (talk)11:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse,Info.Forscher. The possibility of a COI wasn't actually part of the reason given for the decline of the draft; those reasons are given inside the pink box atDraft:Giselle Anne. What you describe above isn't a close enough connection to require declaring, but part of the reason why the COI tag was added (here) was because you've indicated that the photos you've used in the article, which look like promotional shots, are your own work (e.g.File:Giselle Anne.jpg). This suggests a closer relationship than you describe here. Could you perhaps clarify?Cordless Larry (talk)14:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Self explanatory, but for some articles, those with PhDs have their dissertations in their infobox, but this is not universal. What is the Wikipedia practice here?Madeinlondon2023 (talk)03:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
There is no standard practice, because most infobox fields are optional, but available for completeness if needed. If the infobox allows a dissertation field, and the dissertation is available online, there's no harm filling it in. If the subject of the article is known for a different field of work than what the dissertation was about, I'd say there's no need to include it.
I don't have a PhD myself, but both my undergraduate and master's degrees were only tangentially related to my career, and the same is true for other PhDs I know. One friend with a PhD in physics decided to go to medical school and now works as a neuroscience researcher, so his dissertation would likely be irrelevant if he was notable for his neuroscience publications. Another friend with a physics PhD has spent his career running his family's lucrative automobile parts business, and has made a name for himself as aluthier, totally unrelated to his dissertation on focused electron beams. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)06:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
List of Guidances for Statistics in Regulatory Affairs
I would say yes it does, due to the inline external links on every entry. The only saving grace of that list is the summary description of each entry. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)06:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
As noted on your draft, "This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,704 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient.331dot (talk)08:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Admins are appointed by the community to carry our certain advanced functions, but may do so only in accordance with the community's decisions and policies. A few people have yet more advanced technical roles, but the same applies.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits11:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
If I submit an edit request for an ECP article, and then notice another issue before the other edit request is answered, is it better to edit the first edit request or submit another? The banner at the top says I can "only edit this talk page to submit an edit request" which feels slightly ambiguous.lp0 on fire (talk)14:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
You can certainly make multiple requests. In fact if the requests are unrelated or only slightly related, it's probably better to do so, because then the editor who handles each request has a less intimidating task, and it's easy for someone to accept one of your changes while refusing another.Elemimele (talk)18:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikidata
Hello guys,
I am trying to linkthis inWikidata, but it's a struggle to add this. Can anybody help?
Hi, I just saw this on Draft: Vincent A Lynch page
I do not know what it means but i do know there has been no copyright violation and I would like to be able to address this concern but i do not know where the comentator believes the potential violation can be found with in the page... Can anyone help me sort this out?
The commentator was a bot that checks for copyright issues. Something you added on August 29 looked like it might come from somewhere. You could check your edits of that day just in case.TooManyFingers (talk)21:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, but it does not work. I added the line for color into the template but when you use the template on a page it ignores it just as if it was blank. Trying to add the other parameters you mentioned also failed. You can better understand what I am saying if you go to the page I made Giant American Crest an try making an edit adding color and you will see that it fails. Just try adding many for the value. If when you do it and it does not fail, please just leave it that way and I will go back and change it to the actual color list. Any ideas you have appreciated.
When I wrote my first page, Kominternlied, it got delted for being a copyright violation- which I read and think I understand. Now Bolshevik Leaves Home is getting deleted for "Failing WPNSONG". I looked at the page but I'm still cofnsued. How do I know a song is going to stay up ans not get deleted? it says it has to win a Grammy or be on a sales chart but I like writing about Soviet songs from the 1900s.. what makes them notable?
Hello, @Kommandant-Brot, and welcome to the Teahouse. A Wikipedia article can only exist if the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria fornotability. This is mainly whether or not there exist adequate independent reliable sources about the subject (seeWP:42). The special notability rules such asWP:NSONG are heuristics: if a subject meets those criteria, then it is likely that adequate sources exist, but you still need to find and cite the sources. None of your current sources meet the criteria.
Soviet songs from the 1900s are unlikely to be adequately sourced in English, but it is possible that they are in Russian, which is acceptable. The sources also don't have to be online - but if they are not, it may take even longer for you draft to be reviewed, as the reviewer may need to get access to them.
In thistalk page topic of the pageBarbara Avedon, it is mentioned that Barbara has married thirce. However, the cited sources state only two husbands. I had asked her son @Javedon, who had presumably made the change to '3 husbands' to link us to a credible source stating the same, but has not responded to the query yet.
I have created an article using the provided template. I have used ref tags for the citations. BUT none of them are displayed at the bottom of the article under References.Natrlron (talk)19:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. The Wiki template already had a "References" at the end. When I tried to enter the {{reflist}} it didn't accept it.Natrlron (talk)20:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Natrlron, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your user contributions show only your edits here: did you create the draft under another account? What is it called?
(I don't know what you mean by "using the provided template", but this may be because I am an old-school source-editor editor).ColinFine (talk)20:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
There’s an old Castle in Cleveland Ohio called the Franklin Castle.It was restored back in 2013,14 and 15. I read an article about it from Wikipedia yrs ago. My name is Bryan Lavelle I was a professional window glazier by trade. Local 6 Cleveland Oh. Painters and Allied trades. I also had my own Window restoration company called Lavelle Glass.Well I was the one selected to redo all the windows for the Franklin Castle in 2014. And completed them. I’d like to know if you can add me to the Wikipedia article for redoing those windows on that Historic Landmark? I’m retired now and reside in [personal information redacted]. My phone number is [personal information redacted]. I would be grateful if you could add that for me. Thx B. Lavelle73.23.29.251 (talk)02:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
What we need for that to happen is a reliable source, such as a news article, talking about your involvement in the restoration.Ultraodan (talk)05:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
If/when you can point to such a reliable source, then feel free to ask again, but atTalk:Franklin Castle. (Please don't supply your phone number, email address, or other personal information.) --Hoary (talk)06:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Not only it's not an old castle, it's not a castle at all. It's a residential house, just mimicking a castle – and not even a real castle, but rather some fairy-tale-movie one. --CiaPan (talk)13:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi, if you guess me, but is there a database on where I can access the whole history of Wikipedia? Where did it start, and what early versions of Wikipedia software look like?SaveStone83 (talk)11:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Right now I’m learning and focusing on small simple tasks. In the future, Simple editing; Can i use peer reviewed journals singularly when up dating things like science information? Also, I have research dating back from the 70’s about a topic. Not my research but peer reviewed journals and military released documents. Would I post an update with one paper and need other kinds of sources or are multiple peer reviewed journals and military documents accepted?LectraMae (talk)01:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Citations to peer reviewed sources are always welcome, but be careful if they relate to medical topics, in which case we have some rather stringent requirements described inWP:MEDRS. Otherwisebe bold! ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)06:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I cannot understand your question,LectraMae. Are you asking about dependence for a single assertion on a single, peer-reviewed article, dependence for the content of an entire article on a single, peer-reviewed journal, dependence for the content of an entire article on multiple, peer-reviewed journals, or something else? As for military documents, a military force is not a disinterested source on that military force; nor is a supplier of arms a disinterested source on the arms that it supplies. --Hoary (talk)07:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi! I'm new to editing Wikipedia. I want to make a page for a song. I see that there is template for songs but I can't find a blank one. Can somebody please help me with that and the other stuff on how to make an article for a song? Thanks!SweetLikeChoco (talk)02:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi @SweetLikeChoco, before you get started I'd recommend having a read overthis criteria. It's very rare for a song to benotable enough to warrant a standalone article, and there's nothing worse than putting in a bunch of time and effort writing an article only for it to be deleted.
Before you start a new draft,SweetLikeChoco, be sure to practise your editing skills by making significant additions and improvements to some articles that already exist. And please don't attempt an article on a song that you wrote. (No, doing so is not forbidden; but it is discouraged. If a song of yours is notable, somebody else will eventually want to write about it.) --Hoary (talk)04:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
hey, im kinda new here and just wanna make sure im doing categories right. like if a bio already says (and cites) where someone studied or what job they got, is that enough to add the category (like alumni or profession) or do i need a seperate cite just for the category? also whats the easiest way to check if a category is already existing so i dont make red links?
Hello,Lonedavidyu. The most important thing to remember about categories is that they should be defining characteristics of that topic. Please readWikipedia:Defining. Any serious biograpical coverage of a person is likely to include their education and profession. So those types of categories are acceptable. It is neither necessary nor desirable to have separate references for categories. If a person graduated from Yale, a single reference can support that in the body of the article and also justify adding a Yale alumni category. Simply enter any proposed category into the search box to verify whether or not it exists. Don't add non-existent categories. Often, with a bit of searching, you can find the appropriate category worded a bit different from your first guess.Cullen328 (talk)08:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
[E/C] I'll just consider the last of your questions,Lonedavidyu. (Others are sure to respond to the other questions.) Theeasiest way may be to guess, preview, and see if the link is blue or red; and then to keep the blue and delete the red. But that's not the best way. A farbetter way is to see if the link is blue, and if it is, then to click on it and see if it contains one or more more specific categories that apply to the person whose article you're constructing. Also, I often find it helpful to think of people who are similar, or at least comparable: examining the categories they've been placed in can bring me ideas that wouldn't otherwise have occurred to me. --Hoary (talk)08:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Deleting an old draft and starting a new one
Hi, I have been working on a page for awhile and keep getting the referencing wrong. I'd now like to delete that page and start again from scratch. Is this possible? Will deleting the previous draft impact the publication of the new draft?Melindajb (talk)03:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
How would this be easier for you, or otherwise preferable for you, than just redoing the referencing in a different way and making other incremental changes,Melindajb? --Hoary (talk)04:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Great question. I'm not sure! I just don't want to get it wrong again. If I edit in the existing draft. I need to redo all the referencing, but if not, I need to reenter so I guess its the same either way right?Melindajb (talk)06:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Pretty much. One way to approach it would be to delete most of the existingcontent (which will still be available for consultation and selected copy-and-pasting via the draft's "View history" tab), decide which of your sources meetall the criteria atWP:42, and rewrite by summarisingjust those sources. This should give you a basis which demonstrates the subject'sNotability (which I think ought to be possible in this case).
Having done this, you can addnon-controversial information (like date of birth) from Reliable sources that arenot necessarily independent of the subject (so cannot support Notability), or arenot 'significant coverage' (ditto).
Don't worry about mistakes, which are virtually always easily reversable. Making them and having them corrected is how almosteverybody learns how to edit Wikipedia (see the process described atWP:BRD): nothing will be held against you unless you make malicious edits (seeWP:Vandalism), which I'm sure you don't plan. Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}90.193.153.108 (talk)10:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Publishing page - follow up
Thanks for the earlier replies regarding publishing a english wiki for artist Peter Lodwick:no:Peter Lodwick. It would be very helpful to have access to the previous English version of the Peter Lodwick page so that I don’t need to start entirely from scratch. However, since I had some difficulties when I tried publishing it several times and things got a bit messy, I’m worried this might affect the chances of getting it approved now. Would it be better to start fresh in a new sandbox?Andy Mabbett
331dot I also see that I have a draft on Marit Krogeide there. But that page is already published on the Norwegian Wikipedia (or at least I thought so). How can I create a new sandbox without deleting the Marit Krogeide article?
One last FU question is: When referring to years in the text, should each year be linked to its corresponding Wikipedia page, or is it sufficient to link only selected years? Linking every single year could result in an excessive number of internal links.
Edit - I missed the fact that the existing sandbox was in Norwegian, so what I've said above, though correct, is unhelpful. You can simple blank your sandbox: go into editing and delete all the contents. Alternatively, if you're going to work on Krodeide in English, I'd suggest using theWP:article wizard to createDraft:Marit Krodeide directly. --ColinFine (talk)11:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Sources
Hi to all. I'm struggling to get a page published given that it seems I need to lose a lot of information.
I'm told I cannot use a memoir as a source for information. As ghostwriter of said memoir, I know it is the single most authoritative source on her life, it is uncontested and without it I am very limited in what I can say. Also advised that I can't use Famousfix, Instagram, Reddit and IMDb as sources?
That limits the information further, almost to nothing. Is it the case that I should delete all this information?
Just need to check as it's probably not worth her having a page in that case.
I'm not sure,CeaselessSearch, whether you're saying that, or asking whether, you can't use Famousfix, Instagram, Reddit and IMDb as sources. If you're asking, I've not heard of Famousfix, but for most purposes you can't use the other three. Certainly you can't base an article on them. If her (ghostwritten) memoir gets reviews of some substance, then these would be usable. You could simply wait a few months and, if such reviews do appear, adjust the draft accordingly. (If the draft is untouched for six months, it will be "deleted" -- but if it is "deleted" for this reason and you credibly promise to improve it, it can be "undeleted".) --Hoary (talk)10:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for this.
Quite a few years of life have been lived out as a model/actress, and there has recently been a great deal more added to what was known about her via her memoir.
I had hoped to lean on that in the entry but I assume 'substance' means either many more reviews than her book already has or authoritative/established reviewers (or both).
I'm in a bit of a muddle as to what to use without any of the sources being available, even though she was very prominent in the late 80s/early 90s and her story, in which she addresses the Leveson Inquiry, has historical and current significance.
While I understand the importance of quality sources, I'm not quite grasping the logic of why the restrictions must apply in every case given there's a good deal of material out there on this woman. But, as you can tell, I'm new to this. I'll just leave it I think.
Hello, @CeaselessSearch. The simple answer is that if enough independent reliable sources about her do not exist to base an article on, then there cannot be an article, period. This is encapsulated in the concept ofnotability - which does not mean quite the same as its usual sense, but rather means that the subject hasalready been noted by independent commentators in reliable publications.
A memoir doesn't help because Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject inreliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establishnotability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
I also note that if you ghost-wrote the memoir, then you at the very least have aconflict of interest and quite likely would fall under the definition of apaid editor (even if you are not paid specifically to write a Wikipedia article). These do not prevent you from creating such an article, but they do place certain limitations, and indicate that you are likely to find even harder to write the article than would otherwise be the case.
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)11:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Ibelieve you will not be able to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, unfortunately. From my research the groups the photo is cited to, two appear to be federally funded, one is a joint operation between Chile and the US, and the last is a private entity. I believe you will be able to upload it asfair use using thefile upload wizard, and mark it as a non-free file. This will only be allowed, however, if the page you're adding it to is in mainspace - it cannot be in draft or userspace.
@Abdullah1099 - no major problems were made, it's alright! We all make mistakes.
I think you can use the one without a circle, and if you wish, you can add a circle in something like Photoshop and then upload your version of the image, captioned with something like "edited from XYZ original picture".
In 2022 I added some comments to the Talk Page of the article "Anchor (housing association)" and now realise that they would be much more appropriately placed on the Talk Page of the article "Anchor Housing Group". Is there any simple way in which that might be done without typing them all again!? If so perhaps someone more competent with computers than I am would kindly do that on my behalf. Anthony Camp, MBE.AnthonyCamp (talk)10:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC).
They are, however, not relevant there; nor anywhere on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a campaigning or general discussion forum. If the matter receives press coverage, it might warrant asentence in the article. Accordingly, I have removed your post from the talk page.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits12:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
List of deceased/victims
Is there a policy or guideline that allows or prohibits listing the names of victims of a crowd crush on an article? From what I can see, most of the otherarticles do not include such lists/notes, except for2025 New Delhi railway station crowd crush.
I've been an on and off 'surface level' editor on Wikipedia for the past few years, but I'm interested in now engaging more substantively. I found a start-class rated article that hasn't been majorly improved since 2006, which I would like to bring up to GA or FA level quality. The Talk Page also hasn't had any recent discussions since then either.
I was considering making the rewrite on my sandbox, but wasn't sure how to proceed from there, since I think the request is only for article creation. I tried looking up some kind of standard operating procedure for this situation, but wasn't able to find anything. Any pointers would be helpful here!Thucydidean Gamer (talk)13:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello Teahouse editors,I’ve drafted a Wikipedia article about the Belgian visual artist Karien Vandekerkhove in following sandbox:User:TheAuntsStory/sandbox.The draft includes education, selected exhibitions, awards, and publications. I have referenced her official website for verifiable information and included notable figures such as Philip Ball and Ann Demeester in connection with her work.I would greatly appreciate any feedback on:The article’s structure and toneUse of references and notabilityAny improvements before attempting to move it to the live Wikipedia spaceThank you very much for your guidance!TheAuntsStory (talk)15:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
I have added a template which generates a button that you can use to submit it for review, via the process described atWP:AFC. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it as an article. If not, they will give you further advice.
I'm afraid that you have made some of the standard mistakes that new editors commonly make when they plunge into the challenging task of creating a new encyclopaedia article: you have written what the artist might want to say, drawing from her website. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject inreliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establishnotability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
The majority of your sources - and all the sources which are intended to demonstrate that she meets Wikipedia's criteria fornotability - should be entirely independent of her: not written, published, edited, or commissioned by her or any of her associates (including organisations she is connected with, and galleries who have exhibited her). Theonly things that should ever be cited from her own website is a few pieces of uncontroversial factual data like dates and places.
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)16:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello again, and thank you for your earlier guidance.
Addingindependent, reliable sources (Copyright Bookshop, BelPhotobooks, Youkobo Art Space, Hopper&Fuchs / Google Books).
Keeping only neutral, verifiable information.
Cleaning the structure (biography, education, exhibitions, publications, references).
I would be very grateful if you could take another look and let me know whether the references and notability evidence are now moving in the right direction.
No, I'm sorry. A bookshop that publishes her is in no way independent of her, and nor is a gallery which exhibited her.
And no Wikipedia article should ever contain a sentence that starts "Her artistic voice is..." unless that is a direct quotation cited from a work completely unconnected with the artist.ColinFine (talk)18:02, 26 September 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.
Yesterday, on September 1, I createdDraft:Tropical Depression Paolo (2025), an active and potentially strong tropical cyclone in the Western Pacific basin. No one cared about that, with one saying I was too quick and another one creating a draft having a different title but the EXACT same information just three hours later.
I want to merge the latter draft,Draft:Tropical Storm Matmo to the former one, then changing the title toDraft:Tropical Storm Matmo again. Is it possible, or, at least alright?
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.
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 everyone, i have been trying to published an article for Bright the seer and at this point its quite frustrating. i believe i have followed the guidelines properly don't know what seems to be the problem.
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.
Somewhere around the edge of this web page,Mjhdiajcjac, you should see a link named "Learn to edit". Click it, follow to other pages, and read. If you don't understand part of what you read, feel free to ask about it here. --Hoary (talk)21:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
What makes you think they aren't sufficiently viewed; why is that a problem; and why are you interested in increasing viewers? Do you work in the entertainment industry?331dot (talk)12:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
I think the best way to achieve your goal is to write your article down on a piece of paper, post a video of it on Tik-Tok...
And make it about cats.
Any other suggestions I can think to make are even worse. The goal of editing or writing an article on Wikipedia should never be to make it "go viral". Go do something noteworthy in the real world, preferably something for the good of all humans, and perhaps it will get an article here that everyone wants to read about.OwlParty (talk)09:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Requesting feedback on Superbet draft
Hi everyone!
I’ve been working on the [Superbet Group draft] (Draft:Superbet) for several months and received multiple rounds of feedback from different reviewers. Two editors previously mentioned that the structure and tone were appropriate, and that the article was close to being acceptable, the main issue being the need for an additional independent, in-depth source (per WP:42).
Based on that guidance, I’ve revised the draft multiple times to follow a strictly neutral tone, removed any promotional content, and kept only independent, verifiable sources. Recently, I’ve also come across a few new sources, including coverage in Newsweek, Forbes Romania, The Recursive, Profit.ro, and others which I’ve integrated into the draft with proper citations.
The most recent resubmission was declined again, this time with the note that it still “reads like an advertisement.” I left a message on the reviewer’s talk page asking for clarification (especially about which parts seem promotional), but haven’t received a reply after 10+ days.
I would really appreciate a fresh set of eyes to clarify if the current draft still falls short of Wikipedia standards, or if the updated sources and structure now meet the notability and tone requirements.
Hi @Pigsonthewing, thank you for the nudge to follow up and for previously pointing out the need for higher-quality sources. I've now reworked the draft again to remove sources that lacked in-depth coverage and added several that hopefully meet WP:42 more clearly.
Contributor Marius: a couple of minor points about your draft (and irrelevant to its repeated declines): section headers should be in sentence case not headline case, and Brazil is not in Europe.Maproom (talk)22:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Maproom, thanks for pointing out those small issues, I’ve fixed the section headers to sentence case and corrected the geographic reference for Brazil. I understand your comment was more about style than substance, but I appreciate you flagging those details nonetheless. The updated draft now also includes new sources with stronger editorial weight. I’ll be resubmitting shortly and will continue refining based on your input.Contributor Marius (talk)12:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
During my review, I found the article written for promotional and advertising purposes. Sources were trivia and routine. What I was looking for is the depth of coverage in the sources that provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization that shows a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. If you believe that since my review you have made notable changes, you are welcome to resubmit the draft for review again.RangersRus (talk)13:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi @RangersRus, thanks again for taking the time to clarify your feedback, it’s very helpful to better understand what’s needed. I completely see your point regarding the depth and type of coverage required (not just brief mentions or routine updates), and I’ve since revised the draft accordingly.
I’ve removed several sources that were borderline or lacked sufficient analysis, and I’ve added new ones that offer more detailed reporting, such as The Recursive's deep-dive on fundraising strategies and Profit.ro's feature on Superbet’s tech expansion. I've also reviewed the structure and language once again to remove anything that could appear promotional.
I’ll finalize these updates shortly and resubmit. Thanks again for your transparency, it's helped me recalibrate how I assess “notability” in this context.Contributor Marius (talk)13:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I followed the same structure as another local football team in our division used and had sources pointing to information provided. Just not understanding how mine was declined but they are approved with a single source point that just points to AFL Queensland Wiki. If anyone can please help me to get this approved.Draft:Pomona-Cooroy_Demons_Football_clubBayHarborButcher1 (talk)02:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
BayHarborButcher1, for one thing, it seems less like an encyclopedia entry than like a tourist brochure. A single sentence:Nestled in thescenic Noosa Hinterland, the club is based in the small town of Pomona (population 2,931),renowned for thestriking silhouette of Mount Cooroora, which risesdramatically behind the oval and is bordered by dense native forest creating one of the mostpicturesque backdrops in regional sport. (Emphases added.) --Hoary (talk)04:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
You are making a common mistake of supposing that if you just get the format or structure right, most of your job is done This is like saying "I built a house that looks like that one", when you haven't built any foundations for it. By far the most important part of creating an article is finding suitable sources, that meetWP:42.
Your assumption that the other article was "approved" may not be right. Wikipedia has thousands upon thousands of seriously unsatisfactory articles, which should be improved or (in many cases) deleted; but as it is a volunteer project, people don't necessarily want to work on these. We evaluate new drafts on their own merits, not against existing articles. Seeother stuff exists.
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)13:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I would like someone to review it and suggest improvements so that it can be accepted into the main Wikipedia article namespace. I have added reliable sources and citations. Any feedback on formatting, notability, or sources would be highly appreciated. Thank you!Baljitjaalvi (talk)06:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the issue with the photograph. I have uploaded a new image that is my own work. Please let me know if any further corrections are needed.Baljitjaalvi (talk)07:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your guidance. I recognize the potential conflict of interest and will ensure that any further edits are made in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.Baljitjaalvi (talk)08:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi! I’ve submittedDraft:Gerald Edward Galloway Jr. for AfC review. I have a declared COI ({{connected contributor|user=Jgalloway24|declared=yes}}) and would appreciate neutral feedback.
Key independent sources already cited in the draft:• National Academy of Engineering member page (elected 2004) • Congress.gov nomination/confirmation (Mississippi River Commission) • International Joint Commission 1998 release (U.S. Section Secretary) • IFMRC “Galloway Report” (1994) + contemporary coverage in St. Louis Post-Dispatch (1994-05-27) and AP/Columbia Daily Tribune (1994-10-15) • Engineering News-Record Top 25 Newsmakers (2018) • Washington Post (2017-08-29) on urban flooding
Jgalloway24 I deactivated your use of the connected contributor template so it isn't displayed as a formal declaration(as that is meant for article talk pages).
Hi! Can someone help nominate the page of a scammer for deletion? I have never done that before and the instructions seem confusing. The real name of this fraudster is BASSEL FARRAN. People have been laughing at him because he has been calling himself the founder of the multi-billion-dollar company DoorDash, and a billionaire with 20 billion dollars. All sources are fake PR. He even added a fake GQ South Africa website that has no connection to the real GQ, as well as a fake paid Rolling Stone article clearly marked as paid. It does not meet notability criteria, nor the general criteria, nor the actor criteria.
Looks like a paid page. I laughed reading it. I am having issues trying to understand how to place the nomination tag. Thank you very much in advance!
I have came across an expose a while ago on Reddit, about scammers. Wanted to check what new they are up to and saw a wikipedia page. Wild. I do not seem to understand how the nomination tag works. Should I also go clean up the article before the nomination? (remove unsourced information and sources)WestwoodHights573 (talk)19:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if you are familiar with the saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You are going to need specific evidence that particular sources are fake or paid placement.331dot (talk)19:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
@331dot This complaint has merit; these sources have generic bylines and/or other telltale signs of PR pieces. I'm too busy to nominate at the moment but might do so later today if nobody else has.Helpful Raccoon (talk)20:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I tried to place the code from instructions to nominate, and it says it should open a window to add the reasons, but the window does not appear. I could be wrong, but I do not see even one real source that can be used.
@Helpful Raccoon Hi! I wanted to add a note for you. As you can see, I tried to put the template on the page, but when I looked for the delete template, it did not long the window for me to write the comment. I tried to follow instructions from wikipedia guide. Do you have any ideas on what could be wrong? I'd appreciate the help.WestwoodHights573 (talk)16:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Apologies for the confusion of my phrasing. I mean it has no editorial connection to the GQ magazine, published by staff. It is managed by a separate unrelated media entity from Conte Nast, and is only under the GQ trademark. If you read the text - it is deeply promotional. Editorial pieces, real interviews are in separate section. So it is not a reliable source.WestwoodHights573 (talk)20:12, 29 September 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.
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.
Unregistered user trouble
Greetings! An unregistered user has reverted an edit I made to a page twice without explanation (one,two). If I start a discussion on the talk page, is there a way to ping the user to let them know? What's the right procedure here?Tioaeu8943 (talk)19:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
@Tioaeu8943 I've already reverted the IP editor's (unregister) unexplained removals. So in the future when you come across something like this the best step is to start a discussion on the article talk page (and then) or leave a short note on the IP editor’s talk page with a link. Since IPs can not be pinged posting on their talk page is the way to notify them. ThanksThilioR O B O T🤖talk20:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
not a biography but a play in chat just in where users voice the characters who hate wolfoo because it uses peppa pig artstyle91.234.25.26 (talk)14:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have that. I don't know the best places for chat, but if you do it on Wikipedia it will just get deleted anyway. (Even on your own user page, it will still get deleted.) Please go somewhere that is made for chat.TooManyFingers (talk)15:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
What do you mean? You want to talk to other people, or you want to make a page? You can't really talk with other people here (well, I guess brief messages on user talk pages are fine) since Wikipedia is not a social media site or forum. You're welcome to join thediscord server though - plenty of talking there, even unrelated to the site!
Well, you could use theIRC then, although I'm not familiar enough with this to know much about casual chatting. Why exactly do you want to chat?jolielover♥talk18:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not posting this toWP:DR believing that a civil discussion here will be enough.
I was reviewing the articleGol Maal when I noticed the poster is not appropriate for the film.There are several flaws in the poster:
The old poster is not the official poster
It is not aesthetically pleasing.
A supporting actress occupies the main space in that poster, while the two main characters are pushed to the side.
It is also quite difficult to make out who the actors in that poster are as the poster is (badly) handdrawn.
I think it misrepresents the movie completely and should be removed.
I went to theposter file and replaced it with a poster that I thought served the purpose better. But the original editor, user @Kailash29792, reverted the change with a bad-faith curt comment, "No way".
I started the discussion onthe user's talk page and mentioned the flaws I found. I also mentioned that the comment was not constructive. But the user stated that my poster was a DVD cover (I don't know how they reached that conclusion). When I pointed out thatWP:FILMPOSTER states that DVD covers are acceptable, the user said that they should not be used when a theatrical release poster is available. But the point is that the uploaded theatrical release poster is not official! It's a creation of some third-party actor.
The user then created adifferent new file (I don't know why they didn't simply alter the file we were discussing upon). The new poster is quite similar in content to the old poster and hence has the same flaws.
I don't understand what should be the next step here. I feel that the image I uploaded is valid for fair-use rationale and also suits the article given its prominence in popular culture. I sincerely believe that either my old image orthis image (from a source mentioned byWP:FILMPOSTER should be used.
When I participate in Articles for deletions discussions, I first have to click edit source to comment. There isn’t any easier way to take part in Articles for deletions discussions. Delete4ever (talk)10:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm an LTA for the Japanese Wikipedia.I was initially blocked, mainly because someone tricked me into revealing my password and showing disrespect towards others.I've since reformed and barely received any warnings, but CheckUser detected my IP address and blocked me againMy talk page has also been blocked, so there's nothing I can do.What should I do?
↓By the way, this is the sockpuppet account I was using until just now.As you can see, I haven't had any trouble at all.I have completely reformed and have not made any problematic edits whatsoever.
In a novel, there was an important information about the author in the "Afterword" section. I would like to know if I could cite it as a reliable source or not. Thanks in advance!AntJoyZz (talk)17:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
AntJoyZz, this may well not apply in the case of whoever your author is, but be aware that some novels are published under pseudonyms, and it is not unknown for the real author, or the publisher, to make up a completely fictional biography for the pseudonym and add it as an afterword, a closing 'About the author' page, or some similar piece of text. I speak from experience as a bookseller, publisher's editor, and book collector. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}90.193.153.108 (talk)09:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not literate enough and it seems I upset someone. I can explain if there is someone in Australia who may be in a better position than myself to fix?? I'm way out of my league on this.Scott Mayman (talk)07:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi Scott, it's highly recommended that editors do not edit articles about themselves (seeWP:COI). One option is to make edit requests on the article's talk page, followingWP:COIREQUEST, and another editor will evaluate the proposed edits for you.
Hi - and many thanks for your response... I made an update and I didn't know I was causing an issue. It was not my intention. I'm locked out of edits. I like your idea of another editor evaluating. I don't want to walk away from this but instead, I'd like to reach out to someone who can review the edit and fix the issue. I promise not to do my own edits anymore... any thoughts on this?Scott Mayman (talk)08:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
@Scott Mayman Happy to have a look in the upcoming week. But I would recommend the article be moved (back) to draftspace because it would help to start with a bullet-pointed career summary in chrono order with dates. Also, have you been covered in a book, newspaper or magazine at length?MmeMaigret (talk)08:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi - yes, lots of newspaper stories and trade publications - which are already listed on the page.
I think Wiki wants someone else to edit... or atleast review and accept the article is OK... but I'm not technically minded enough to fix this myself. Thank you for your reply... I think I need someone to speak with on the phone who is willing to jump in and fix this...Scott Mayman (talk)09:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Just reiterating something I said on your talk – remember that most editors here are volunteers who work on what we choose to work on when we have the time. There are no paid staff who can take edit requests over the phone.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)09:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
@Scott Mayman @ClaudineChionh For info, I've done a once over (quick revision) of the page, which is what I take it you were after. I've added a heading to the query on the talk page, which also highlights your COI. I think the article is still liable to be recommended for deletion at some point because it's not clear that there is sig cov. The problem with your sources is they're mainly from the same publication (counts as one source) and they're behind paywalls so its hard to tell if they're significant. You shouldn't amend the page yourself but I'm happy to discuss the sources with you on the article talk page or your user talk page.MmeMaigret (talk)10:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I really had no idea I was doing the wrong thing. I don't normally do work in this particular sphere - I'm in broadcasting, not the back end digital side and I find it incredibly complicated.. It became a problem in June and everything I did to fix things, just seemed like I was going down a rabbit hole. I'm not going to touch it anymore. It looks like the things you did made it better and I am very grateful. I really appreciate your effort and time... and I'm even more grateful, knowing you and the rest of Wiki crew are volunteers. thank you.Scott Mayman (talk)23:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi... and thank you for your assistance. would these help?
Can these links help? they are from Linked In... can they replace the questionable links?
I think it's important for you to know that no one is upset with you. You did two things that aren't accepted - putting up material about yourself or someone you know, and not being up-front about who you are when you did that - but it didn't upset people. Don't do those things anymore, but nobody is angry.TooManyFingers (talk)22:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. It became an issue in June and everything I did, just seemed to make it worse. I mentioned this in a separate reply that it was like I was going down a rabbit hole. I really had no idea I was doing the wrong thing. I also thank you for reaching out saying you don't think anyone's upset with me. I now know I did things that are not accepted (I had no idea of that at the time.. I thought I was doing the right thing) I'm not a technological person.. I'm not that smart.. I'm just an everyday person. It was never my intention to do the wrong thing... I won't touch the page anymore and will leave it as is. Having said that, I really appreciate you reaching out, the way you did, along with your wiki colleagues over the past day who've responded with such helpful advice and jumped in to review the situation. It really has turned things around and I'm incredibly gracious. thank you.Scott Mayman (talk)23:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Looks like I'm a bit late to the party, but I just want to say that I hope this does not discourage you from editing Wikipedia in the future. I know the technical stuff can get pretty complicated. I barely know what I'm doing half the time. But there are always simple ways you can help out, especially if you find Wikipedia to be a useful resource. Sometimes I am just reading an article and find simple spelling/grammar errors which are easy to fix, down to just a single letter even, and taking care of those when you catch them is a great way to ease into the process.
Also, I find that reading article talk pages and looking through revision histories can often add a lot more depth and and context to the information presented in just the article itself. Wikipedia is not a static book to be read as if permanently printed on the pulp of dead trees. It is a fluid document presenting the best consensus of verifiable (and note-worthy) information we've come up with so far. Just reading the articles is only a fraction of the experience. If I understand correctly, the actual articles only make up about 11% of the total size of Wikipedia.Wikipedia:Size of WikipediaOwlParty (talk)09:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi - and I really appreciate you reaching. Yes, this entire experience has discouraged me from editing. I suffered a stroke recently, and the technical side of wiki has made things all too difficult. but I get what you're saying. It's just not for me anymore. I don't know how to remove the mention at the top of the page that questions the credibility of the wiki page. but it's a heck of a lot better now. It used to have multiple listings of issues but not anymore, thanks to so many others who stepped in to help. I gotta say, the wiki community was impressive when I called out for help. I respect everyone's a volunteer, which makes this an even better outcome. For me, I'll just let it be. I won't touch it again. If it needs updating, I'll seek advice but no I won't be editing again.Scott Mayman (talk)09:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I believe this item can be archived now. (I revised the page and added notability and BLP sources templates (the former I have subsequently addressed and removed) and his COI has been signposted on the article's talk page.)MmeMaigret (talk)17:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for all that you've done. Like I previously said, It became too much for me to continue. I don't know what "Archived" means but it sounds like you have gone out of your way and I am very thankful. I really appreciate your effort and everyone's comments. I know you're all volunteers which makes your effort even more grateful.Scott Mayman (talk)01:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Draft disappeared
I was working all afternoon on a draft article and must have accidentally closed the window. I went rto my home page but I don't see anything there to pull it up again. HELP.Natrlron (talk)20:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello. Your edit history indicates all of your edits so far have been to this page. Unfortunately it appears your draft was lost. It's important to click "publish changes" occasionally to save your work.331dot (talk)20:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
For the future, pressing Ctrl+Shift+T will reopen a tab you accidentally close – many times your browser will have cached the content as well.Nil🥝20:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I found it. Now my question is where is this public drafting area where published drafts are kept where you can continue editing. I see no link to it.Natrlron (talk)20:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Any page name that begins withDraft: is in the draft namespace.
Thanks, I found my draft. A few other questions if I may bother you. THe first is, where is the public drafting area where your draft is saved for future ediiting?. I can find no link to it. The second question is I used ref tags for my inline citations, but none of them appear at the bottom under References. According to the info box when I clicked on References, that should happen automatically.Natrlron (talk)20:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Can you link to the draft? Your edit history indicates no edits to a draft(though you may have while logged out).
AsTheroadislong has pointed out, this (i) was lifted from a page of somebody's website, and (ii) even if it hadn't been lifted from elsewhere, would be utterly inappropriate for Wikipedia.Natrlron, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia by reading some ofits better articles before attempting to add to these, and of course observe copyright constraints. --Hoary (talk)21:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi Hoary,
It is mostly an article I wrote on my website, so it wasn't lifted. But I'm curious as to wby it was inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.
The topic is certainly appropriate. I take a neutral tone. It is footnoted to legitimate sources. What is the problem?
Yeah, this isn't a place to post your thoughts about American values(especially where this is a global website). Your website is exactly where that should be.331dot (talk)00:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi, A few questions. After I send Widkipedia the copyright permission email, if I remove my opinion as to the "right" answer and the article is just an exposition of the 2 differing approaches to defining American values, will it then be an appropriate encyclopedic article? There are many entries that are strictly American matters. If the answer is YES, why did my inline citations using ref tags not automatically show up under References in the Wizard template? And after I hit "Publish," how do I go back to my draft from my home page?
The 'article' would not be an appropriate encyclopedic article because it would be anessay or 'exposition' presenting, or including, your personal interpretations. This falls under the heading ofWP:Original research and is not allowed by Wikipedia'sfundamental policies. Wikipediaarticles mustonly summarise,without editorial interpretations or judgements, material published byReliable sources, which your personal blog is not (unless you happen to be arecognised academic authority and/or expert on the particular subject in question). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}90.193.153.108 (talk)06:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
The difference between conservatives and liberals on American values is a fact. This is not my interpretation. The original draft/my website article did present my interpretation of which view was correct. My proposed article would just present the two opposing views without making any judgment. The reliable source is not my blog, but my 2004 book, We Still Hold These Truths, which was endorsed by James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic. I have become an expert on this question. I recently became a regular contributor to Fulcrum, an online magazine, (fulcrum.us) and I have been asked to write articles about the Declaration of Independence for Lawyers Defending American Democracy in celebration of the 250th anniversary.
I would also add that the rest of the world is very confused by what has been happening in the US and my article would help people understand what is going on.Natrlron (talk)14:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
So that would be the book we have an article onhere.
In general we prefer editors _not_ to base their article contributions on, and excessively cite, their own published work, however eminent (seeWikipedia:Expert editors andWikipedia:Attribution#Citing yourself), though other editors of course may use it. You would need to be very careful to avoid presenting your own original research for that book as well as that in the book itself, and you really need to title the proposed article with a term already widely used and written aboutexplicitly in several other publishedReliable sources, and avoid copying passages from them verbatim or from your own (doubtless copyrighted) material, which is an absolute legal no-no for Wikipedia even if you're copying yourself. Wikipedia articles must be basedonly on summaries (in fresh words) of such already-published sources, and mustnot contain new or re-interpreted ideas.
Writing in compliance with Wikipedia's peculiar requirements is often difficult for even experienced academics and journalists used to other conventions. As a rule of thumb, if a piece is anything like an essay or piece that might be published in a journal or news outlet, it willnot be suitable for Wikipedia.
All that said, you are free to create and submit a (non-copyright-violating) draft (preferably via theWP:AfC process); the worst that can happen is that it gets declined with reasons given, so that you can improve it and try again, which is quite normal. I would advise you, however, to first spend a few days familiarising yourself more with Wikipedia'sPolicies and guidelines. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}90.193.153.108 (talk)09:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Is there a limit of doing GA’s/FA’s?
I have seen some discussion about this, and I want to have clear. (I guess I didn’t know as much of Wikipedia as I thought)Protoeus (talk)00:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
If someone is doing a lot of good work, they should not be stopped. And if they're doing a lot of top-quality work, all of it should be recognized as such. The other choice would be to patiently wait forme to produce a top-quality article, and I probably won't ever do that.TooManyFingers (talk)20:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
"Other side", meaning he wasn't doing good work? I didn't read, but that makes sense. There are people who are very intense and dedicated but who do it in the wrong way.TooManyFingers (talk)21:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Trying to understand notability
Recently worked on creating a page namelyDraft:OCK Group Berhad and my submission was rejected due to "Primary sources and routine business reporting do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. This is basically just a company presentation, the business telling the world about itself, which makes it inherently promotional."
Keen to understand how to get around this? Does this mean OCK Group at this point can't have a Wikipedia page or I have to work on making more neutral, etc. If the answer is OCK Group is not suited to have a page now, then will move on I guess.William Ooi Inn Khang (talk)08:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I see it now- you may wish to disclose on your user page, for better visibility(you disclosed on your user talk page with a template meant for article talk pages). You may just write out a statement onUser:William Ooi Inn Khang.
Sources that make their story by quoting a company representative or a press release are never independent. They may be used for certain things in an article, but they don't help to show notability.TooManyFingers (talk)20:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Coppa 2.0
can i make rants about Coppa 2.0 on The COPPA Talk page or just any rant in general? i promise i wont harass anyone and all opinions handled.Douglas15amor (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Douglas15amor Douglas15amor (talk)19:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
talk pages are for discussing the article itself, not the thing that is the subject of the article. Jay =^•ﻌ•^=19:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
no, you cannot rant because if it isn't about the article it would be irrelevant, and if it was about article you would be rude, and this is Wikipedia, not twitter Jay =^•ﻌ•^=20:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I am interested in getting feedback about an article I have been working on about an American Cardiologist, who is noteworthy. I would like to expedite the review process. I would love any feedback, and even better would be any endorsements that anyone is willing to lend to the project. Thanks a lot in advance!
You have already submitted it for review. We generally don't do pre-review reviews here. All I'll say is that it's hard to find sources that meet all three requirements ofWP:Golden rule, which is what the reviewers will be looking for. It relies far too much on primary sources and wouldn't be accepted in that state. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)04:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
As "Polandball63", you have no experience of editing an article. So attempting to create a draft, even a draft on a promising subject, will be tough for you. You'd better first get experience of improving and augmenting existing articles. And any article subject has to be "notable" (that is,"notable" as defined by and for Wikipedia). Have you checked that this subject is notable? --Hoary (talk)04:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
How do I make my signature colorful?
I have seen multiple posts by people on talk pages where their username is a different color from the standard one, and I was wondering how I could do this (I want to make my username on talk pages purple too)Icannotchoosemyuser (talk)19:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
@Icannotchoosemyuser I think there's a policy that your signature should contain your username, but I'm not 100% sure about that. The signature you have chosen is confusing. Maybe someone else can clarify this.David10244 (talk)04:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Steve Hickel, and welcome to the Teahouse.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the company in reliable publications, and little else.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject inreliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establishnotability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
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)10:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Acceptable links/references on Jerome Ro Brooks
Before I get started on writing a page, I have a question on links I have on an actor, Jerome Ro Brooks. Are these acceptable?: Links and references
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject inreliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establishnotability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Most of your sources should be completely independent of the subject. An article which is basically an interview is not that.WP:42 is a useful guide to the criteria for sources.
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.. (I see you created your account nearly two years ago, but you have yet to make a single edit in article space, and your one previous draft was abandoned and deleted: I'd say you are still a new editor!).ColinFine (talk)17:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
It also looks like a lot of the spelling and other errors were re-added? I'm not sure if it's vandalism or I'm missing something.Snuggle 🖤 (talk)16:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, I left a note on the talk page. What is the protocol for reverting edits if they don't respond? There are a decent amount of errors that were added back in plus a lot of tone changes.Snuggle 🖤 (talk)16:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I would give it about 24 hours before taking further action, due to timezones and to make that the IP reads the message. If they don't respond by then, then I think it would be appropriate to restore your previous edits to the page.PhoenixCaelestis (Talk ·Contributions)18:51, 1 October 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.
Found inStremio a reference to this file formathttps://github.com/electron/asar. It looks like similar totar. But it's probably not notable enough for a separate article. Added an entry inAsar (without a link). Or is there a better place to add this? Something that can be linked from Stremio. I don't want to waste time writing something that will be reverted.jcubic (talk)22:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Jcubic, you also asked this questionon the article talk page, which is the best place for your question. While the Teahouse is for general questions about editing, we have a diverse range of interests and expertise so you're more likely to get useful answers to specific content questions on article talk pages. You do have to be patient and wait a lot longer than ten minutes for an answer.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)02:52, 4 October 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.
At 500×750 pixels,Kingsacrificer, your version is unnecessarily and improperly large.WP:IMAGERES recommends resolutions in the area of 320×240 or 250×400 pixels. I'm about to resize it accordingly. (I'd concede that this is rather silly, as the image quality of the 500×750 version is so poor that it looks no better than something blown up from an approved, smaller resolution.) ¶ Frankly I findWP:NFCI rather obscure; somebody else here may wish to comment on issues unrelated to resolution. --Hoary (talk)01:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Good question,Andy Mabbett. I thought that rules required that the higher-resolution original should be deleted, or anyway rendered unviewable, but probably chose the wrong way of going about that. (I plead sleepiness and senility.) Theinfo page for the file does still name Kingsacrificer. --Hoary (talk)11:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I apologise for the oversight. Did you resize the from any local or third-party tool? Inthis image, I can see that a bot resized it automatically. Why didn't that happen with me? Thanks for the change!Kingsacrificer (talk)12:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I've encountered an issue I couldn't find any help on fromWP:DAB,H:T, orH:TQG.The template{{Asia topic|Military of|title=Militaries of Asia}} links toMilitary of Palestine, a disambiguation page that I have no idea how to direct to the appropriate article.Example below:
Can any one (sr editor) adopt me to guide me through Wikipedia’s guidelines? I’m really exhausted from having to keep coming back to the Teahouse again and again.Delete4ever (talk)12:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
How to make button on dispute resolution noticeboard work?
I have a disagreement on this talk thread -[4] My edits were made properly and I believe needed to be done. I saw certain unsourced statements that were additionally incorrect so I corrected them and added a source to support. Additionally, I saw an edit that may give readers the wrong impression so I initially added context. Etc etc. Regardless the issue here is it seems almost inevitable that I need to take it to dispute resolution notice board as another keeps unfairly undoing them all. But I tried clicking on 'click request' for dispute content noticeboard but the button doesn't work.[5] Additionally, considering another is undoing edits and they don't give individual reasons for most of my edits where I am mainly correcting unsourced debunked disinfo properly - may I take it to vandalism noticeboard instead or somewhere else?49.181.203.101 (talk)02:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
It appears you are heavily relying on one single not-very-reliable source. AND you are doing this on a topic that is likely to create controversy.
I was expecting "I just don't like it" arguments but saying my sources are unreliable is just false. Insteada major information I am correcting has no sources to support it.[6] At least I actually have reliable sources to support all my main edits. Which overall is this -[7] - And I don't appreciate your unhelpful claims that my sources are poor. Is there any Wikipedia guidelines specifically saying my sources are not to be used and discredited? I highly doubt a professional body that uses reputable experts to give quality information, is a bad source.49.181.203.101 (talk)02:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
PerWP:THECONVERSATION that is a reliable source, since Ben Saul is a subject matter expert. As for what you can do @IP is post this at eitherWP:3O for a third opinion (my recommendation) or atWP:DRN for a more in depth discussion. As for the button not working, I've got no clue. Maybe try on another device or browser. Making an account could help. The vandalism noticeboard isnot appropriate since these are good faith edits from both of you, the only problem is a content dispute.Ultraodan (talk)03:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming it's a decent source. Option 3O may not be feasible, since another editor weighed in but hasn't responded. From my experience, you can sometimes wait a whole year on talk pages and get no reply, which I'd rather avoid. And their only counter argument is my source is unreliable - which isn't true. I would prefer to escalate toWP:DRN, but I'm having trouble accessing it on any device. Would it be possible to ask a neutral volunteer to submit the DRN request for me? They could just note that there's a content dispute and link to the thread - that’s all. It would be really helpful and shouldn’t be too difficult.49.181.203.101 (talk)03:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@Ultraodan Never mind - it seems an account is required for the button to work. I have created an account, and the button now appears functional. I will use it if the talk discussion becomes unproductive.JaredMcKenzie (talk)05:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Stephane d'esposito
Hello,
I have been working on improving my draft about Stéphane D’Esposito (aka Neo). I added multiple independent and reliable sources, such as BBC Radio, SoulTracks, Paris Jazz Club, and Remix Japan.
Could someone please take a look at the draft and let me know if it now meets the notability and sourcing requirements?
It currently says that your draft is waiting for review. "This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,921 pending submissions waiting for review." Your reviewer, once they get to the draft, will either approve the page and move it to mainspace or provide feedback on how to fix the draft so it can then be approved in a subsequent review.
As a minor note, I would suggest adding somewikilinks to your draft. This way, readers can click on a topic and get to a related one. I'd suggest things like places, and (in your case) news outlets and individuals.
No, it's not required, but I was thinking something along the lines of "a voice clip is better than no voice clip", especially because Gilbert is notable for being a YouTuber, which requires a lot of talking.Based5290 :3 (talk)08:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I’ve noticed that images are not showing up on Wikipedia pages. Instead of displaying the usual pictures, the pages are only showing empty placeholders (or broken image icons). This seems to be affecting multiple articles, not just one.Mediainc55 (talk)10:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Guwahati editor. Somebody resubmitted the draft on 5th September. It says at the topReview waiting, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,859 pending submissions waiting for review.
In the meantime, if you are concerned with this draft, you should find some sources which are people wholly unconnected with the school writing significant coverage about the school in reliable publications. (SeeWP:42). At present few, if any of your sources meet the criteria, and the draft will be quickly declined (or perhaps rejected: if you have no managed to find any suitable sources in four attempts, the reviewer may decide that there is no point in spending any more time trying).
I am a little surprised that you are asking about a draft on which you have made no edits at all. How does this come about?ColinFine (talk)16:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
bringing it up here for an little discussion about this, since it is used universally across Wikipedia. Feel free to send this to an sources reliability page.Protoeus (talk)16:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
heya, i've been editing the article fortamil cuisine and it seems like there are two sections just describing and listing foods (Dishes and Typical meals). the latter has a lot of awkward wording and formatting, while the former lacks descriptions for the food entirely. removing an entire section seems a littletooWP:BOLD. they're also both entirely unsourced, but thats easy to fix. ive also posted this on the talkpage.lumerix18:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Its fine, remember, no edits are permanent. maybe try rewriting the second section to be less akward, or editing the former to include descriptions of food, then deleting the unedited section. Jay =^•ﻌ•^=20:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Goodmorning, i want to contest the decline byPythoncoder is there anyone that can help me with it? I tried to question it on his talk page but got no response. The reason given: Wikipedia already has an article on quantum mechanics. This makes no sense to me. A simple search tells me Wikipedia has 28,244 articles about or containing quantum. Then there is a question, not a statement. Also at the history:Draft:Quantum: A Walk Through the Universe: Revision history you can see three different reasons for decline within 10 minutes. I hope someone can look at it. CheersHarold Foppele (talk)09:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I think you might be misunderstanding the role of Wikipedia. It's not a text-book, it's not a popular science magazine, nor is it a blog host. What you're trying to do - write a simple introduction to quantum science - might be a worthy endeavour, but what you've written is a personal pop-science essay. It needs hosting somewhere else. I'm afraid Pythoncoder was probably right. I'd encourage you to seek a different venue. Good luck, the world does need that sort of thing!Elemimele (talk)09:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Elemimele Thanks for replying to me and for the time you took. Ofcourse you are right about the role of Wikipedia and I'm glad you mentioned a different venue. This article is also published at Wikiversity and it is drawing readers. Yet, did you look at the "View history" it changed the reason of decline a few times and i feel/think that is not ok. A statement like "We have already ....." while there are roughly 30,000 articles about the subject makes no sense to me. Also the implied suggestion about LLM tastes not very well. The objective of my article is 1. encyclopedic 2. attract more (younger) readers. I kindly disagree it beeing pop-science it is all based science and properly cited. The subtitle is in my view just an attraction point to the article. But maybe i see it wrong 😊Harold Foppele (talk)10:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
The goals you had going into writing this article are not in line with those Wikipedia, as the articles here are not intended to attract younger readers (though it is a plus if they are interpretable by them). If you have already published this on Wikiversity, that is probably a better place for it than here. I would also suggest Wikibooks. --Reconrabbit19:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
@Elemimele,@Reconrabbit, Thank you both for your kind words! You are prob right that the tone etc is not wikipedian, i can try to correct that. But what disturbed me is the way the reject was formulated. Also the 3 different formulations within 10 minutes, well ..... Did you look at the view history of the article? Maybe you should, to me it is a strange way to encourage editors. Is any of you familiar with the subject? Would love to here back. CheersHarold Foppele (talk)21:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Encouraging editors is important but only if we also keep in mind "encourage them to do what?"
@TooManyFingers, I think you did not get my point. Rejecting is one, but then i would like a valid reason. The reason given makes no sense and i feel insulted over the AI remark. It is now the second time and if you read their talk page a lot of reviwes if not all carry the same mark. Esp since it went from speedy deletion to we have it already within 10 minutes. Look at the view history pls.Harold Foppele (talk)07:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
I think people should get to read what you've written, and I know that Wikipedia is not going to be the place where that happens. If you have a blog or a personal website, you should start by putting it there.
Please consider what would happen if I made very insistent offers that you must include my thoughts on how to play the piano,inside your quantum article. You'd say no, and you'd say the quantum article is not the place for what I've written, and you'd say I should publish it myself or find a piano site to put it on, where they'll want that kind of thing. That's exactly what's happening for you; your article belongs somewhere, but it doesn't belong here.TooManyFingers (talk)14:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Very well: The essay is, in your own words, "A Frivolous Approach to Quantum". For that reason alone, it is utterly unsuited to publication on Wikipedia, and would have been better outright rejected, rather than declined. Theonly way to "contest the decline" is to rewrite the draft in line with Wikipedia's requirements, and resubmit it for review. Since we already have an article on quantum mechanics, and because it is already on Wikiversity, that would be pointless.
@Harold Foppele, I have looked at the draft history as you requested, and I see this sequence of events: firstly, a request for speedy deletion, secondly a revert of that request, and then thirdly a decline. I'll go into this in more detail:
(1) The speedy deletion request includes a link that shows you the criteria being relied on, which in this case was LLM/AI generation without human review. Pythoncoder then decided this was incorrect three minutes later, and (2) reverted themselves - this is the correct Wikipedia etiquette; reverting yourself is an acknowledgement that you may be mistaken. They were, however, still concerned that an LLM might have been involved - we are dealing with a huge amount of LLM/AI-generated text at the moment, and there are a few things in your draft that would also have sounded alarm bells for me. So they decided to ask you directly, since the text could easily belong to either a human or an AI and theyassumed good faith: a very important Wikipedia principle. They had reverted their speedy deletion request and decided not to leave an AI-generated tag on the draft, so there is nothing on the draft or in the history that would cause later reviewers to view it with AI-related suspicion.
After that, Pythoncoder looked to see if there was already an article that your draft overlapped with - this is also part of the AfC reviewer's role, so we don't end up with fifty different articles on one popular subject. (3) They saw that there was such an article, and therefore declined your draft to avoid overlapping. If there is new and properly sourced information in a draft, a reviewer will usually suggest that the editor add that information to the current article. I'm guessing that quantum mechanics has been thoroughly covered and so there was no new information to add, hence Pythoncoder did not make that suggestion - it would only waste your time.
Experienced AfC reviewers (and indeed many experienced editors generally) use scripts that make things like reverting and accepting/declining drafts much quicker, so the timing here really isn't unusual. I'm sure that someone asking whether your work includes LLM/AI is frustrating when you know it does not, but please understand that we are snowed under by new editors who are not only using AI but not even bothering to check that the AI is giving them accurate information. All you need to do is answer truthfully if you're asked about AI/LLM use, and don't look at it as an aspersion against you - it's not meant to be one, and no one will judge you for being asked.
@Meadowlark Thank you for giving a so indept answer! It is realy admirable that you take time to go into my concern. Maybe you should know that this is the second time that i have a colission with the same reviewer. To me it looks a bit fobic, I try to write honestly and take great value in AGF.
Found it inspiring and I love the title: A Voyage through Quantum Wonderland.
Having found it after writing my title: Quantum: A Walk Through the Universe and subtitle: A Frivolous Approach to Quantum. Yet trying to bring something "new" to Wikipedia backfires. I re-wrote the article in my sandbox:User:Harold Foppele/sandbox-5 and added more information about "size" and "entanglement" maybe, if you want, you can take a look at it. After all the opposition, i shall not put it up for review. Just keep writing articles for my self and some for Wikiversity. Thanks again for your time and kind words! CheersHarold Foppele (talk)08:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
The idea of "bringing something 'new' to Wikipedia" - and Wikipedia seeming to not appreciate this gift - seems to be part of the problem. Wikipedia already has an article on the topic, so you can't mean you brought a new topic. Therefore I'm sure you must mean bringing a new style of articles. Wikipedia doesn't need a new style of articles. Wikipedia doesn't evenwant a new style of articles.
It's like going into a car dealers with a big shipment of suits for them to sell, and being offended when they say they're not in the clothing business and to please take the suits elsewhere.TooManyFingers (talk)15:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Thmxrist, looking at it you've put it under "image", there's multiple possible images for settlement. The name for what you want is "image_flag".Ultraodan (talk)10:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I have an image that the owner of has told me is not copyrighted, but when i try to post anything in wiki commons, i have to choose some sort of copyright.Thmxrist (talk)10:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
@Thmxrist: - there are several reasons why an image can be out of copyright, usually to do with how long ago it was taken, and there are relevant options for these on the licensing dropdown list. Did the image owner say on what basis they believe the image to be out of copyright? --ChrisTheDude (talk)12:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
@Thmxrist: copyright (in most cases) arises automatically upon the property's creation, there is no need for any sort of extra steps to be taken for something to be "copyrighted". If you mean that the copyright was never registered, then that's a different thing; the copyright would still exist. --DoubleGrazing (talk)13:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
im really not sure. the guy who made the image hasent done anything to it, hes posted it on a couple of places and its been reposted some times, and ive contacted him myself and asked if theres any sort of copyright on it, and he answered with "No.".Thmxrist (talk)21:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
In many places, it is quite difficult for an original copyright owner to get out of owning it. If they merely say they never intended it to be copyrighted, the law doesn't care - they are still the owner, and someone can still violate that copyright that the original owner never intended to own.
So we would still need their proper legal permission before we can use the picture, even if they themselves don't care. And it's whoever TOOK the picture we normally need the licensing information from - not the person who's IN the picture.TooManyFingers (talk)15:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
The easiest thing to do would be for the photographer to personally upload the image to Commons. They can then release the image as the photographer. It would be more complicated if you tried to upload it.331dot (talk)08:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I am helping my daughter create her Wikipedia. We are two completely nil in technology, however, given her background, her exposure and online presence, we would like to create the simplest page for her. I am unsure on where to start, what to change. If you can help an older lady, I would be grateful.SallyKalli (talk)16:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
HiSallyKalli, and welcome! While we're more than willing to help you with editing questions, if you're trying to create an article, you should first make sure you understand what goes into the encyclopedia. We have aguideline about notability that describes what should be part of Wikipedia, and what is part of Wikipedia isnot intended for self-promotion (and in fact,an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing). If you're okay with that, and you think there's good coverage of her in reliable sources, you are welcome to create a draft – theArticles for Creation process is a great place to start. I just wanted to give you a heads up, though, that creating an article on Wikipedia is pretty difficult as a newcomer, and about someone you know (or yourself) is more so. Feel free to let us know if you have any more questions, and happy editing!Perfect4th (talk)16:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article about a person is always mainly just repeating what independent sources have already published about them. ("Independent" meaning "not influenced by their closeness to the subject".)
The best person to write the article about your daughter is someone who has heard of her but has no way of contacting her (and no way of contacting her family, friends, or associates either). It can be extremely difficult for you, being her mother, to act as if you are that kind of person while you write the article.TooManyFingers (talk)16:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah... is that so? I had no idea. I was just helping her as she is swamped with life and maledictions. Please allow me to tell you how this started. We recently found out that she had a Wikipedia page with wrong information. She never inquired for one, nor did she ever ask for creation. It was a must that I see, and truthfully all was wrong. I decided to help her by making wrong, not knowing that this will make it worse for her. Oh dear... Should I delete her page then? Please help me here.SallyKalli (talk)17:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello again,SallyKalli! Do you happen to know the name of the article that she already had that was incorrect? I was unable to find it, and it might make it easier if we can work on an existing article than a draft. Best,Perfect4th (talk)17:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Gathered on the table, we decided to simply create something that was legitimate enough, such as mayoral campaign, which will suffice, without extras, and which is also announced publicly.SallyKalli (talk)17:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake,SallyKalli, I do see that the article was moved and is the draft you've been working on now. The reason TooManyFingers suggests not working on the article yourself is that when one has aconflict of interest, such as with your daughter, it is much harder to write according to specific guidelines. For instance, Wikipedia has a policy about having aneutral point of view, and we tend to be extra positive about people we know, so that's very hard to do. But first off: the draft itself is not currently "in articlespace" – it's not in the main encyclopedia, just being worked on as a draft so it can be improved first before it goes into articlespace, so you can make all the improvements you want there (within policies & guidelines, which I'm happy to explain more if you like). The biggest part, though, is going to be that question of notability, as that's the deciding factor on whether or not a draft should become an article. You're on the right track with looking for things that were announced publicly/externally reported. Do you happen to know of anysecondary sources talking about your daughter? Wikipedia looks for sources that are secondary and independent of the subject to help define notability. I hope this helps!Perfect4th (talk)17:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Perfect4th, you are a kind person. Dinah was a candidate in the 2018 Niagara Falls mayoral election. This candidacy was covered by independent media and confirmed by official records. For example:
– Global News (national outlet) listed me among the candidates in the 2018 race.
– Niagara Falls Review published several articles mentioning me during the campaign (Sept–Oct 2018).
– The City of Niagara Falls published her official candidate financial disclosure form, and the official results show her candidacy and vote totals.
These are third-party, reliable sources documenting her public role. I would like to propose a short, factual stub-level page reflecting this coverage, with citations to these sources. Could you confirm if this satisfies the notability standard, and if not, suggest how best to present it?SallyKalli (talk)20:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
SallyKalli, do you happen to know how much of the coverage issignificant? That's one of a list of things that make a source help count for notability, which you can find atthe general notability guideline. I find using asource assess table useful to see this visually, though it is a bit more complicated as it involves more template markup.
This is also a bit unrelated, but I noticed you switched between "she" and "me" when talking about your daughter – Wikipedia doesn't allow sharing accounts, so if you both want to edit on Wikipedia you should each have a separate account. Just wanted to make sure you were aware and didn't get in trouble accidentally from that :)
This sounds possible, but please keep in mind that announcements are not enough to have an article. The most important part is showing where she personally has been thetopic of discussions that she wasn't participating in herself.TooManyFingers (talk)18:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
It was broadcasted in the News, by reporters. Oh dear...I am uncertain of this page. Is there someone who can carry this heavy weight?SallyKalli (talk)20:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi! I’m a student working on a draft article aboutIrish faction fighting in the 18th and 19th centuries, this is my first every attempt at creating an article.
maybe rename The Caravats and Shanavests could be their own article, because the article feels to be about the physical fighting, not the reasons it occured. if you want to keep that information, maybe you could have a section title something like "common factions in the practice" or something (do not use my name for the section my name is very bad) and include other commonly fighting factions Jay =^•ﻌ•^=20:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion, I have changed the title of this section to 'Notable faction groups', perhaos it is not even necessary for this section to remain.Wiki Editor mq (talk)21:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Congratulations on the promotion to article status,Wiki Editor mq. As for your question, to me, "Notable faction groups" sounds no more informative than "Notable faction factions". Why not simply "Notable factions"? --Hoary (talk)22:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Good thoughFaction fighting is,Wiki Editor mq, you could and I think should improve it. You refer several times to the bookIrish Peasants: Violence and Political Unrest, 1780–1914. I believe that this is an edited volume of papers, totalling over four hundred pages. So it's unlikely that each of your references to the book is to the book as a whole. Which paper within it are you referring to? And at four hundred plus pages this is a rather extreme example of a problem common to your references, many of which are to papers that are dozens of pages long. Just which page, page span, or other collection of pages are you referring to each time? Wikipedia provides various ways of indicating this. Since you're already using REF tags, I think the easiest course for you is to augment these withTemplate:Rp wherever doing so would help the reader. --Hoary (talk)23:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply and advice on the references, I have this publication on my kindle and shall try to ammend same. I shall also try to familiarise myself with 'Template:Rp: as I am new to wikipedia any suggestions are helpful.Wiki Editor mq (talk)09:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Wiki Editor mq, I've forgotten how the Kindle works (I possess one, somewhere -- I mislaid it years ago), but very likely it doesn't display page numbers. If it doesn't, well, we'll have to do without them. But surely the Kindle doesn't make it too hard to identify which chapter of a book you're looking at, and to see both the author's name (authors' names) and the title of the chapter. And for those sources for which you'll be able to find page numbers, I think you'll findTemplate:Rp an easy way of displaying them. --Hoary (talk)10:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I am having difficulty correcting the referencing on the article, I have attempted to add page number for the bookIrish Peasants: Violence and Political Unrest, 1780–1914, I was defeated by my attempts to use Template:Rp and now I have multiple references appearing on the botton to the same book,. Any assistance or advice greatly appreciated.Wiki Editor mq (talk)23:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I have tried to fix the problem with the refernece in relation to this book..'Irish Peasants; Violence and Political Unrest', I have made a complete mess of it. I am listing below the reference in order as they appear in the text and the words where the citation mark can be found. I would be very grateful if you could ammend same.
Wiki Editor mq, you currently provide four references to Owens, "'A moral insurrection', faction fighters, public demonstrations and the O'Connelite campaign, 1828". In the order in which these four references appear in your article, what is the relevant page number (what are the relevant page numbers) within this 28-page paper? (Please dish them up in a reply below, as in the -- of course entirely fictitious -- example(1) 515; (2) 521–522, 526; (3) 537–539; (4) 526.) Then, using Rp, I'll add the page numbers, whereupon you'll understand the use of Rp. --Hoary (talk)10:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to assist me..the references for Ownes appear in the following order, (I have included each word from the text where the citations are located
Wiki Editor mq, your attempt at usingTemplate:Rp was unfortunate, because you put it immediately before</ref>, whereas it should gone immediatelyafter. I've fixed that. I've also used Rp for your references to Owens's paper. Now, this bookIrish Peasants: Violence and Political Unrest, 1780–1914: is it not a collection of papers? If it is, then presumably you're referring to one paper at a time. You can pattern the reference to a paper within an edited book after this example:{{Cite book | first=Adelheid | last=Voskuhl | chapter=Motions and passions: Music-playing women automata and the culture of affect in late eighteenth-century Germany | editor-first=Jessica | editor-last=Riskin | editor-link=Jessica Riskin | title=Genesis Redux: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Artificial Life | location=Chicago | publisher=University of Chicago Press | year=2007 | pages=293–320 | isbn=978-0-226-72080-7}} Be patient! (You'll need to be.) --Hoary (talk)22:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much for fixing my mistaken use of{{rp}} and for explaining how to cite chapters in edited books. I’m still finding the technical side of Wikipedia a bit overwhelming and really appreciate the patience and clear advice.
For clarity, the material I’ve been using comes fromP. E. W. Roberts, “Whiteboyism and Faction Fighting in East Munster, 1802–11,” inIrish Peasants: Violence and Political Unrest, 1780–1914, edited by Samuel Clark and James S. Donnelly Jr. (Manchester University Press, 1983, pp. 64–101).
Courtesy link: Draft:Puanbom
JohnDavies9612 (talk)02:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Done. MergedUser:Metallurgist/Rutgers bus into history ofRutgers Campus Buses. ~Anachronist(talk)21:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Hogshine (talk)16:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_film_poster.webp){kind=link}
_film_poster.webp%26amp%3baction%3dinfo){kind=link}
