Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

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

Most recent archives
1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249

 Courtesy link: Draft:Mark Kevin Wykoff, Sr.

I recently written about an attorney in my area who is representing a man who shot and killed Sonya Massey... and they declined it saying that it appears that I am getting paid for the submission even though I am not... I responded to the individual, but I'm just curious why they would ask that and how do I fix it? InTheField217 (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most drafts on attorneys and doctors appear to be put in by someone connected to them, and they are usually not notable. I don't know about your writings, but another clue is a promotional tone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should declare on your Talk page and the Talk page of the draft that you have no financial or personal connection to Wykoff, or if you do, the nature of the connection. David notMD (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So should I do it on my talk page or the Mark Wykoff talk page? And once I do, should I resubmit it or will it automatically be viewed because the page I believe was declined because of that? InTheField217 (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@InTheField217: Looking at the rejection notice, it was not rejected because of a concern about conflict of interest. Instead, it was because there was a lack of suitable references to show that the subject was notable (in Wikipedia's special meaning of that word). That might seem strange in light of the 23 sources there - but the ones I looked at don't talk about Wykoff in detail. It needs to have a few (preferably at least three) reliable, independent sources that discuss Wykoff himself in detail. Not about the cases, but about Wykoff. I have not reviewed them all, so if you think there are such sources then please list the very best three here... --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of my articles have been nominated for deletion. Why is there a way to write a new article in the first place? Everything notable has already been written about. Mangoflies (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote a reply at User_talk:Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång#Question_from_Mangoflies_(02:52,_28_February_2025). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoflies, you are incorrect. On my userpage, User: Cullen328#My redlinks, I list 16 topics that I believe are notable. Feel free to write about any of those topics. There is wide agreement that songs that have appeared on the major Billboard charts are worthy of Wikipedia articles. Most songs from recent decades are covered, but the Billboard charts started in 1913. There are countless hit songs from the 1920s through 1940s that lack articles. There is wide agreement that elected members of national, state and provincial legislatures are notable. There are thousands of biographies of 19th century legislators yet to be written, and thousands of legislators currently serving in non-English speaking countries. And you started Draft:Middle Eastern Airlines Flight 444 about a 1964 plane crash that killed 49 people. That crash is certainly notable but you stopped working on it last November. There is a book called The RAF Air Sea Rescue Service, 1918–1986 that has 15 sentences about the crash. With a little bit of work, that draft will be ready to be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-dating Billboard, there are songs like As some day it may happen that can probably be made into articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never written an article about anything new or even alive, that I can recall. First, learn WP:GNG and WP:RS and a few more in the alphabet soup linked in those pages. Avoiding living subjects gives you less to worry about (so far so good). Find your inspiration where you read and want to know, without a mind to creation in particular. But when it strikes you, try using WP:AFC. JFHJr (㊟) 06:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mangoflies. I don't know about you, but for me, it was a great relief to realise that creating new articles wasn't the only way to contribute to Wikipedia. I've been editing for nearly twenty years, have 26 000 edits - but I've only ever created a handful of articles. ColinFine (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some lists of articles which don't exist in English Wikipedia, but many of which likely should: Most-wanted articles · Requested articles · WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles

There are plenty of articles which do exist on English Wikipedia but are quite short and you could work on expanding; for those look at WikiProject Stub improvement. --Slowking Man (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used that AfC list and the articles I wrote just got nominated for deletion. Mangoflies (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop creating articles. You have a history of having AfC drafts Declined, and when you bypassed AfC to create articles in main space, having those nominated for deletion. Going forward, create drafts and submit to AfC. If declined, understand why, and try to remedy before resubmitting. Only after a series of successes should you again consider bypassing AfC. David notMD (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Women in Red has some redlink lists, although they're not always easy to find sources on. Overall though the crucial rule to follow is WP:THREE -- three reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage. If you can't find that, probably don't make an article; if you can, you're probably fine. Additionally, it's really hard to get articles that are written a bit like resumés through AFC, like you're trying to with the lawyer one. I'd recommend writing about non-living subjects or just not about people, to some extent -- I don't think I've written any articles about currently living people, personally. There's a higher barrier to try to keep out articles about people who don't really have a lot of coverage. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoflies, if I was you, I would work on Draft:Middle Eastern Airlines Flight 444. It is very promosing and I gave you a great reference to use. Cullen328 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. There is already an article on it. Middle East Airlines Flight 444 Mangoflies (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoflies: Very good: then you may simply merge the useful additions from your draft into the article! See: WP:MERGE. When you are finished, then simply redirect the draft page to the article. To do this, blank the content of the draft page and replace it with the following:

#REDIRECT [[Middle East Airlines Flight 444]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from drafts}}
}}

--Slowking Man (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

Hello! I want to improve this article ("Religious responses to the problem of evil") the "good article" quality. I have already added images, made it more readable, filled up the categories, fixed the references, and added some notes. Is there anything else that should be improved in that specific article before it is ready for a nomination? Brent Silby (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brent Silby. Thanks for your contributions, the article is looking good. For directions on how to nominate the article for GA review, you can check out the instructions page here. I recommend you read carefully the criteria, and first put yourself in the shoes of the reviewer by thoroughly going over the article and checking for yourself that it meets all the criteria. When you're satisfied with it, and you'd like to have someone review it, feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll do my best to get to it in a timely manner. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can referencing be collapsed? Appears 101-106 are to the same work, can this be replaced by one ref that covers all the page numbers? Ditto 116 & 118, and 128-131. David notMD (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing! I will look into this right now and see what can be collapsed. Brent Silby (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Silby the second to fourth references are currently (after deletion of some markup):

• The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Evidential Problem of Evil", Nick Trakakis
• Problem of Evil, Paul Brians, Washington State University
• Stephen D. O'Leary (1998). Arguing the Apocalypse. Oxford University Press. pp. 34–35. ISBN 978-0-19-535296-2.

Better decide if the author's name goes at the start or (a novel notion for me) at the end, what italics are and aren't used for, and (looking ahead to reference 7) whether authors' names are inverted or not ... etc. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys! Today I tried to create a page about CARS1 gene (in VisualEditor) and when I tried to insert infobox gene into the article, it showed me an error. This error said that “ An Error has occurred retrieving Wikidata item for infobox” although this infobox was on Ukrainian wiki article about that gene.

What can I do? NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NotCarlJohnson1992: Not use VisualEditor. It's been known to foul up when it comes to templates (and this includes infoboxen). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So how can I insert infobox gene template in Source Editor?

Thank you for your time! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NotCarlJohnson1992: See template:Infobox gene for usage notes. If there's a template, its page will include documentation on it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to insert that infobox in Source editor but it still showed me an error. NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you link to the draft you're working on so people can see what you're doing. Specifically, the error you're getting probably means that the template automatically requests info over the web from WikiData -- probably there is no WikiData item for your gene, so you probably want to create one. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See d:Special:NewItem, I think -- although make sure WikiData doesn't already have an item for it. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately I deleted the draft and wikidata has data about that gene.

Here’s the link: d:Q17855882 NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted the links to Wikidata from external links into Wikilinks. --ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @NotCarlJohnson1992. Looking at uk:Цистеїл-тРНК-синтаза, it calls uk:Шаблон:Картка гена, which is the Ukrainian version of Template:Infobox gene without any arguments. This picks up its data from the Wikidata page it is linked to, which I'm pretty sure has to be done from the Wikidata end. If the page is not linked, the template will not populate.

I don't know where your draft was, or how you deleted it, but you can ask for it to be restored (see WP:undelete). I advise not worrying about the infobox until the article is in mainspace, and can be linked from the Wikidata item. ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry for the confusion, By “deletion” I meant that I didn’t upload it at all, i just closed the browser’s page. @ColinFine NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also thank you for the advice! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Well, it certainly won't have been linked from Wikidata then!

I repeat that you don't need an infobox in the first version of an article - in fact, you don't need an infobox in any version of an article - it's at best a "nice to have", and some editors don't like them at all. The important bit of an article is the citations to solid sources, and the textual summary of those sources. All else - infoboxes, images, additional information from less solid sources - is secondary. ColinFine (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created a CARS1 stub and linked it to d:Q17855882 as ColinFine suggested above. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advices! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor NotCarlJohnson1992: Another bit of editing advice: for a new article, start it in your very own personal fancy-dancy userspace: to get there just follow this link. Help:My sandbox will also show you how to ger there quickly. There you can edit and experiment at your leisure. You can even request help from other editors who can edit it as well! When you feel it's ready, you can just move it to "mainspace". --Slowking Man (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll take your advice. NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see in the Greek wikipedia page several logos from dioceses in Greece, but only on the Greek wikipedia page (like this and this one). I'm not sure what the copywrite status of these or what Wikipedia's policy is on logos such as these. Alexthegod5 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Fair use -- there's a list of criteria any non-freely-licensed work (i.e. any work owned by someone, who hasn't given permission for anyone to use it for pretty much anything) have to satisfy. There's a whole form to fill out if you click "Upload file" somewhere in the Wikipedia sidebar? If there's diocese logos I imagine it would be somewhat likely they would meet the criteria. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfoogles I'll take another stab at it, but when I was filling it out I wasn't sure which selections to chose from. Thanks! Alexthegod5 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the option you want is "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc.", if it helps Mrfoogles (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Alexthegod5. Please have a look at WP:Logos. ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have some page ideas but I don't know if they're board or well known enough to constitute a page. BigBoiWikiWhale (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, even the most specific topics can warrant a Wikipedia article so long as they meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Also, be bold! If an article doesn't exist but you think it should, why not create it and try putting it through the WP:AfC process? guninvalid (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George H. W. Bush broccoli comments is notable enough to have a WP:GA, so whatever it is you want to make, I promise you it won't hurt to try. guninvalid (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jacob Lee 6939. Further to what @Guninvalid says - it won't hurt to try and establish that the subject is notable by finding satisfactory sources that are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage (see WP:42. Doing anything else before that is like starting to build a house without surveying the building plot - it is likely to be time and effort wasted. ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a lack of Wikipedia articles covering many cybersecurity topics such as data breaches and vulnerabilities, and many of the articles on networking technology are old and poor-quality. I am interested in collaborating with other Wikipedians with an interest in this field. Is there an existing project I can join, or how would I start one? guninvalid (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Guninvalid. There's WikiProject Computer security, but it says it is "semi-active". You might want to ask on the parent project, WP:WikiProject Computing. ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

What is the process for proposing an essay for deletion?

I came across this essay just now. While I understand it was intended in jest, it engages in subtle racism, xenophobia, eurocentrism, and othering.

The author has an indefinite block, though I'm unclear why. Delectopierre (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delectopierre, the user was a sock of Icewhiz, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz--a particularly nasty ongoing threat to the health of the project and the mental health of a number of our editors. Since Icewhiz was blocked in 2019 and this was created in 2021, I can delete it per WP:G5. Thanks for bringing this here. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! Delectopierre (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MFD, it's the process used where Wikipedia:MAIN PAGE got deleted. It's in your Twinkle's XFD menu. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Delectopierre (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do edits like this one have to be reverted for arbitration reasons? I gave the user {subst:alert} already, but is it necessary to revert comments like those as they are not ERs? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I did it--thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, ok. Then what about Talk:Gaza war hostage crisis#POV title? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 23:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit request, it was implemented, and the template was changed to “yes”

Then another editor came along and changed it to “no” without any other editing. My implemented edit request is still live on the article, they just changed the template answer. Is this normal? Is there any policy page that deals with a 3rd party re-opening an accepted request? Mikewem (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikewem I'm assuming you're referring to Talk:Israel#Edit request 28 February 2025. The request wasn't accepted, it was just read. When the template parameter is changed from "answered=no" to "answered=yes", it just means that it is reviewed and responded and that it is not listed at Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests, a category listing all the edit requests that needs attention. The way Remsense did it is so that another editor can take a look at the edit request. So to me it seems extremely normal to do that. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 23:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually Talk:Jews#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2025

And I got my facts slightly wrong. The edit was implemented into the article but the editor who did the implementing maybe neglected to change the template or maybe purposely left the request open. Then a third party changed it to yes and then changed it back to no Mikewem (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I report a user to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, do I have to tell them through their talk page? If yes, what template do I use? Justjourney (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not required to notify them. If you choose to do so, see Template:Uw-socksuspect Meters (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Want to use this image to show the prisoners from the 2006 Yemen prison escape, but I'm not exactly sure if there's an appropriate rationale for uploading it via Fair Use. As for my (extremely limited) copyright knowledge, these images are a collection of mugshots, so would that possibly put it under public domain? Hsnkn (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hsnkn: No, it would not likely be under public domain. From what I can see, Interpol (who appears to be the source of the mugshots) does not necessarily release their images into the public domain, instead listing them as "approved for public dissemination" (see: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:AntonioAnglés.jpg for example). Even if Interpol isn't the original photographer, you would have to find the original photographer (or the agency/government) that took the picture and see if they have released it into the public domain. Per the Commons page with rules for Yemen, I wouldn't necessarily say that a mugshot taken by a police/prison would be public domain by default.

The onus would be on you (as the uploader) to show that they are in the public domain - i.e. there is an explicit release of copyright by the copyright holder (either in bulk, or individually). If you want a better answer, you may wish to ask at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, where they may be able to offer better advice. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez: Got it, ill try to upload it under fair use first and then see how it goes Hsnkn (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hsnkn, there is strong consensus that non-free images of living people cannot be uploaded to or used on the English Wikipedia. See the policy language at Non-free images. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have read that being uploading. I'll take it down and see if I can find any other images for the article. Hsnkn (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the article for some time now, and it seems like it's getting to a point were GA may be possible. I'm looking for some scrutiny from other editors to help prepare it, and to make sure I didn't miss any major details. I've never gone through the GA process, and I don't really know what I'm doing, so any feedback on the article, good or bad, would be very helpful. Thank you! – Farkle Griffen (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe using numbers without their consent is morally wrong, but maybe @Eigenbra: can help you? Polygnotus (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farkle Griffen, here's a reference that I chose at random: {{Cite book |last1=Heath |first1=Thomas Little |url=https://archive.org/details/diophantusofalex00heatiala/ |title=Diophantus of Alexandria; a study in the history of Greek algebra |last2=Euler |first2=Leonhard |date=1910 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |others=University of California Libraries}} As I view this, it's a book by Heath, not by Heath and Euler. It's the second edition, a fact that you don't mention. You've missed the "location". What species of "other" is "University of California Libraries"? (I suspect that, like many editors, you don't understand the "others" field.) The book of course predates ISBNs, but you could helpfully add an accurate OCLC number. Main title and subtitle are, in English, conventionally separated by a colon, not a semicolon. Use of the "via" field would be helpful. And you don't specify the page(s) or page range(s) that you're citing within this book. -- Hoary (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Cite_book Polygnotus (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I mostly use the automatic citation feature, which should hopefully explain most of the errors. I'll work on fixing those.

Can you possibly do one more so I can get an idea of the general errors that might be in most of the citations? I expect theres a lot more. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farkle Griffen, take automatic citation as a guess. If you undertake to go through Template:Cite book/doc and nominate one other reference, I'll look at and comment on that one other reference. -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been THE major editor since July 2024, during which time the article has quadrupled in length and gone from 8 to 80+ refs. Bravo. (And it's likely that it is at least B-class quality rather than the current, unrevised, C-class.) Nominate it now. There may be a weeks to months delay before a reviewer selects it, so you probably have time to continue to fix stuff. David notMD (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References consistency: some ISBN are hyphenated, some not; in most articles I am familiar with, publishers (Dover, Stanford Univ) and authors' names (Marcus, Solomon) are not Wiki-linked. David notMD (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um, hello? How about this pair:

• {{Cite book |last=Suppes |first=Patrick |url=https://web.mit.edu/gleitz/www/Introduction%20to%20Logic%20-%20P.%20Suppes%20(1957)%20WW.pdf#page=120 |title=Introduction to Logic |date=1957 |publisher=[[Van Nostrand Reinhold]] |location=New York |pages=101–102 |lccn=57-8153}}
• {{Cite book |last=Suppes |first=Patrick |url=https://web.mit.edu/gleitz/www/Introduction%20to%20Logic%20-%20P.%20Suppes%20(1957)%20WW.pdf#page=120 |title=Introduction to Logic |date=1957 |publisher=[[Van Nostrand Reinhold]] |location=New York |pages=103 |lccn=57-8153}}

They are of course virtually identical. This way of formatting references is acceptable, but to me it does seem a little wasteful; I'd use the combination of (i) a single reference with no mention of page number (and no pointer such as "#page=120" to a particular page) and (ii) Template:Rp. But mine is a minority taste; more editors seem to prefer "Harvard" style referencing. The link to a PDF of the book is of course most helpful, but I wonder about its copyright status: it does rather look as if some professor named Gleitz uploaded it regardless of its age or the number of years (currently just 11) that have elapsed since the death of its author. But perhaps he got permission, and anyway the same worries are raised by this PDF of the book at the Internet Archive (a PDF whose text is searchable). -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are very likely to be copyright violations and need to be removed per WP policy. We have no control over what other people do but project policy is to not provide such links. Note: by this I mean only the |url= part not the whole citation. If the Internet Archive (which is a library legally) or some other source has a "legit" way of accessing the book it can be linked; Internet Archive has many digital book editions provided by permission, available for "borrowing" by users. --Slowking Man (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the caption of the first image in the Equality_(mathematics)#In_set_theory section. There is no "arrangement" – the definition of "set" uses no such concept. Maproom (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom, It's a pretty common misconception for those just learning about sets that, for example, {1,2,3} and {3,2,1} are somehow "not the same." Formally, you're correct, but "arrangement" here refers to the arrangement in the diagram, not in the sets themselves. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

programmer-brain switched on  Right of course, they're arrays, or lists or whatever terminology the particular programming language uses, which contain identical element values, but the arrays are sorted in different orders. Huh let's see do we have quicksort in this standard library, or a map function to map the corresponding array values, or do ya get to do it by hand here... 😁 --Slowking Man (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just below that image is a quotation from "Richard Dedekind, 1888 (Translated by José Ferreirós)". No source is provided. Make sure that every quotation is referenced. ¶ I believe that the field "website" in Template:Cite web is for the title of the relevant website, and that it's only for the domain name when the title is the domain name (as it is for a minority of websites these these days). But you provide the domain name surprisingly often. (However, I don't find the matter discussed in Template:Cite web/doc.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary, There's only two quotations in the page, so I honesty can't believe I've looked at that so many times without noticing I hadn't cited it. Thank you! About the Cite Web template, is that something they care about durring a GA review? I'm making my goal today to start going through these citations to get them up to par, but I'm not sure what's "bad" and what's "personal preference". Based on your first comment, there's clearly quite a few bad things, but it's getting hard to see whats actually necessary for a GA review. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think page numbers missing is the worst aspect. No alt tags in the images. Lede is a bit too long. You could submit for WP:PR but would likely be either a too long a list of problems or possibly rejected as not ready for PR. The references are the worst. They need wholesale revision. Notes are not referenced. scope_creep^Talk 00:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all!

As an LGBT contributor new to editing on Wikipedia, I wanted to ask about moderators. You all give up your time, which is, of course, valuable, and I want to acknowledge that your work is noticed by new members of the contribution community. I recently added an article under Alexander Paul Burton but received strict feedback, even though I don't feel that the page breaks any rules.

I completely understand the need for guidelines, but at times, the process can feel a little overwhelming—especially for someone who is LGBT and mindful of how online spaces can impact mental health. I’ve created a few articles now, and while I appreciate the need for high standards, at times, the moderation can feel quite intense. I don’t mean this in a negative way—I’d just love to understand the reasoning behind these approaches so I can improve as a contributor and avoid unnecessary stress.

Could anyone share insights into what it's like to be a moderator, how decisions are made, and any advice on how to navigate feedback constructively? I genuinely want to contribute positively while also ensuring that Wikipedia remains a welcoming space for everyone.

Live long and prosper!

Peter PeterLawriwBahan (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @PeterLawriwBahan. Nobody's answered this yet, so I'll give it a go.

It's hard to answer, because Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. It has administrators who are trusted with certain tools, for example to delete pages, and to block users - but these are normally only used in response to a consensus, not off their own bat. When not "in role" as an admin, an admin is no different - and has no more authority - than any other editor.

What I expect you are referring to is reviewers - editors who have been given access to one or other of the sets of tools associated with review - there are several kinds of review. AFC reviewers may decline or reject a draft; new page patrollers can decide whether to approve an article, or whether to return it to draft or to nominate if for deletion. In these roles, reviewers do usually work on their own, and if somebody disagrees with their action, they should take it up with the reviewer directly.

One point which may or may not be associated with your word "moderator": new editors, especially those who have had a disagreement with another editor, sometimes go looking for a place where they can appeal to some sort of authority for a ruling. But that is not how Wikipedia works. We work on consensus, not authority.

I haven't answered your question about what it is like to be something we haven't got, but I hope I have at least partly answered you. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"what it's like to be a moderator": As ColinFine said above, we don't have moderators. We do have admins, but I'm not one (nor is Theroadislong, who nominated the article for deletion), so I can't help you there.

"how decisions are made": by consensus.

"and any advice on how to navigate feedback constructively?": Read it, understand it, and follow it. If you want an article on Burton to be accepted, you'll need to establish that he's notable, in Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sense. You may be able to do this by finding several reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of him, and citing them in the article. But accusing Theroadislong of having a personal vendetta aganst Burton won't help at all. Much more liklely, Theroadislong, like me, had never heard of Burton until today, and is aimimg to maintain Wikipedia's policies. Maproom (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct and I am still hoping that PeterLawriwBahan will properly disclose their conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually quite a bit on what it's like to be an administrator @PeterLawriwBahan, but not in a separate compilation. I've read so many very insightful, often touching, personal stories by admins during some of the past election periods for new admins when current admins ask the candidate questions about how he or she might handle different situations that could arise if the candidate is promoted to admin, often sharing stories about issues and even struggles that arose for them.

As a still newish editor at the time, I found these stories far more than merely curiosity-satisfying. To me, it really helped me see much more clearly how all of us, editors and admins alike, fit together into the larger team picture, each making our individual contributions. With a more personal connection with admins, even if not in person, I felt a very real bond with that larger team (my little corroboration of much research showing how that sort of thing makes a real difference in workplace productivity and staff retention).

I wish I could remember how I ran across these discussions, @PeterLawriwBahan, but I'm sure that more seasoned editors can explain how to get to these election archives. Augnablik (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what if i put a citation that is cited from Wikipedia itself? Will it be a bad idea? Gnu779 ( talk) 12:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnu779 Yes, a bad idea since WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Much better to look at the sourcing in the article here on Wikipedia and copy its sources into your target article, assuming the source is good. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yep, true. There are many problems with some articles, too. Vandalism also makes it bad. Gnu779 ( talk) 13:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just by way of clarification, @Gnu779:

Although CITING a Wikipedia article is a no-no, LINKING TO one is not — in fact, it’s actually encouraged. Linking simply makes it possible for readers to go to an article that has some relationship to a similar topic they might find of interest. An invitation to expand their understanding of something, you could say. Augnablik (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right Gnu779 ( talk) 12:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi so my page Illyrian invasion of Macedonia (360 BC) had been redirected to another page the battle of upper macedon could anyone review the page the guy that made the decision of redirecting the page allows me to restore the page if i don't feel like the decision was correct but another editor told me i should ask for a review before restoring the page so could anyone review it? Sigma.212 (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this page was reviewed, by the community at AfD, with a pretty clear consensus to convert the article to a redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes but the guy that made the decision allows me to restore the page only another guy had a problem telling me frist I should ask for a review of the page Sigma.212 (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. To clarify, I told the editor to ask for a review of the decision to redirect and make a case for it since they disagree with it. Is there such a procedure though? I know that there is a procedure that one can initiate if the article gets deleted, but in this case the article became a redirect. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's still essentially a question of challenging an AfD outcome, I think WP:DRV is the appropriate venue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some one suggest me to change name of my sandbox from draft:____ to User:__/sandbox,I moved it but redirect is created, now I don't know how to delete redirect😭. Plz help me, i create another problem while solving problem 😞.

Thank you 獅眠洞 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 獅眠洞! There’s a template for such things  – you can put {{db-g7}} at the top of pages you’re the only contributor to and request their deletion. Hope this helps! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you 獅眠洞 (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, apologies in advance if this is a silly question -- I am a new-ish user hoping to add an image to St. Elizabeth's Indian School. I found some photos in a Smithsonian museum collection[1] taken between 1899-1903. I'm specifically interested in this one here[2] for the infobox. The copyright is listed as not determined. The collection creator died in 1918[3]. It's also been over 120 years since the photo was created. I realize image copyright is quite complex so I was hoping to check with a more experienced editor to see if I could use the image without making a formal request to the archives of the National Museum of the American Indian. Zzz plant (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Zzz plant. I'm pretty sure that will be public domain, but I'm not an expert: I suggest asking the Commons experts at C:COM:Village pump/Copyright ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - apologies for not seeing there was a specific help desk for copyright questions. Thanks again! Zzz plant (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zzz plant, a photo published over 95 years ago in the United States is indisputably in the public domain. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you very much! Zzz plant (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m finding myself refreshing notifications a little too frequently. Any tips for a healthier way to check my notifications? Is there an email setting that will aggregate notifications to once a day? I bet there’s a good essay on this already but I’m not sure what to search for. Also, are there opportunities for synchronous discussions (chat, etc)? Dw31415 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you rather check your notifications once a day. There are opportunities for chatting, in the articles talk page and sometimes your user talk page. But about Wikipedia related. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 15:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dw31415 There is a drop-down at the top of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo which allows you to aggregate notifications daily or even weekly rather than have each one immediately. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous things like browser extensions and functionality included in various operating system platforms to assist or "enforce" with limiting time on a certain Web site, or using the Internet altogether, etc. You will have to do a little Web searching to get recommendations and evaluate what you might wish to try. There is a Wikipedia-specific script at User:Anomie/lockout.js which will "lock you out" of the site during a portion of each day, but you'll have to copy-and-paste it and edit the time interval to your liking: see WP:Userscripts for explanation. For various interactive chat fora associated with the project, see WP:Chat. --Slowking Man (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want recruit people for a quest. Every intro in the Simpsons Lisa plays an instrument. I could be a sax, tuba, harp, etc. I want to add in the info box what instrument Lisa played. If I can just get 1 person for each season we would be good. If no one wants to that’s fine this was just an idea. (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Boeing747Pilot. I suggest you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons. Maybe you can ask there. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 16:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Boeing747Pilot, and welcome to the Teahouse. In my personal view, that doesn't belong in Wikipedia unless there has been independent discussion of it in reliable sources. Others may disagree. ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! It was just an idea i got from watching the simpsons.

(Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking guidance on BankSathi's draft status. I revised Draft:Banksathi with improved sourcing (The Hindu BusinessLine, Entrepreneur, Times of India, Economic Times) to address notability. However, Draft:BankSathi, a previously declined draft by another user, also exists. I have a previously undisclosed connection to the company, now declared, but no other COI. Please advise on the preferred draft for review, and if these sources establish sufficient notability. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MH-wiki2025: Sorry, could you clarify I have a previously undisclosed connection to the company, now declared, but no other COI? Where have you made that disclosure, and what is your connection to the company? --bonadea contributions talk 17:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I revised Draft:Banksathi with improved sourcing for notability. Draft:BankSathi, previously declined, is not connected to me; my past customer relationship is disclosed on my user talk page. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I want to add this into the news if possible:

• A wikipedian introduced new theory of the Moon's formation.(WB)

--EXVM (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @EXVM. I suggest you propose in Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Also read the guidelines before you propose. :) Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 16:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @EXVM, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Absolutely not. Wikibooks is user-generated, and is therefore by definition not a reliable source. Wikipedia does not report on original research, or on anything which has not been reported in a reliable source. Unless and until there is independent reliable discussion of this book or its content, it does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia. (And that applies to all the other places you have been spamming with your theory. Get it published by a reliable source, and reviewed by other reliable sources, and we can look at it). ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hope, discussions and citations will appear, since it is free content. --EXVM (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject of an article was quoted in multiple reliable sources as an expert in their field, but isn't the main focus of the reliable source and it's often a single quote, would that qualify as WP:SIGCOV in general? Can't get into specifics as that might be WP:Canvassing— 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 17:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually not. Significant coverage is defined as "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So if it is just a single quote in the source regarding the topic, then that is usually not considered "significant". If you provide the sources and topic I could take a look into it and check. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 19:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sophisticatedevening, thank you your response. Just to clarify, the articles quote the person in question as an expert in their field, as in "Person X, an expert in the financial field, has stated 'There is nothing to worry about regarding the recent NASDAQ downturn". However, there are dozens of such articles present, and I'm just curious if the aggregate might be sufficient to establish notability. This question only came to mind because of a recent AfD, which is why I'll avoid disclosing the individual in general. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 21:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"As an expert in their field" can sometimes be very subjective! If the subject represents a popular or leading organization in their field and is quoted because of the organization they represent, then they are just a talking head. The aggregate of their opinions probably cannot be included in their article, as the article should be about them and their work, not their opinions or thoughts on something that generally lacks encyclopedic value, except in a few very rare instances. Moreover it definitely does not help in establishing GNG rather, NPROF has specific criteria for that. There have also been articles deleted about subjects who have been quoted 30-50+ times in reliable sources yet had no significant coverage about them, so ultimately it all depends on the particular subject, credibility of sources and their field of work. If you need more clarity, you should ask your query at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is very helpful! I'll definitely be taking a look at the Notability talk page to learn more. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 07:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Jacksonville Kingfish Tournament's infobox, cleaning it up by removing the underscores and capitalizing the individual labels. I am wondering whether the capitalization was needed here. Justjourney (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you used sentence casing for the infobox, so everything looks good! — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 21:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justjourney, I agree with VolatileAnomaly about the infobox, and will offer a brief explanation. I think that looks correct. That article is using Template:Infobox directly, so the labels can be given any name. Most articles use a specialized template that calls Template:Infobox. And if you go check out any of those specific infobox templates like Template:Infobox tournament, they typically use sentence casing for the labels. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I update the photos on the pages Beulah, North Dakota and Beulah School. Just the photos in the info box 17:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing747Pilot (talk • contribs)

Go ahead. If it's not vandalism or a copyrighted image, you should be fine. Can you sign your questions with four tildes (~~~~) next time? It makes it easier to identify you. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 19:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry. I decided the photos are too good to get rid of so I’m just adding some more (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to ignore notifications, such as talk page messages, from certain users? I ask since I have this one user nagging me about creating an article about Facebook on Cherokee Wikipedia. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RedactedHumanoid There is general advice at Wikipedia:Etiquette#A_few_things_to_bear_in_mind. having read your talk page, I think that you can reasonably respond by saying that, although you have agreed in principle to do something, WP:There are no deadlines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to update the page on Astrofogre to be more detailed on how the Odin spacecraft is doing. In the past, I've noticed most Wikipedia articles use news sites, books, and similar as sources. Would it be appropriate to use press releases and other primary sources (e.g. this video) to expand the article? Given there's a notice about undisclosed payments and non-neutral point of view at the top, I figured I'd check in before doing anything. Light Curve (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I have no association with Astroforge. Light Curve (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not... press releases are not reliable independent sources and a primary source video isn't of any interest either. Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll improve the article based on news articles when I have time. Light Curve (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor point, there is a case to be made for using primary sources to support uncontroversial information that can't be found elsewhere (e.g a train schedule for a notable train station), but it's always better to utilize reliable new sites and books when possible. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 21:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind. Light Curve (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently submitted a draft article on Arun Chockalingam, but it was declined due to unreliable sources. The reviewer did not specify which references were unreliable.

Could someone help me review my references and suggest how I can find better sources to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Here is the draft: Draft:Arun Chockalingam

As a new member in Wikipedia your help means a lot to me. Thanks in advance for your help!

Best regards,

Bio Editss. BioEditss (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BioEditss. What is required to meet the General notability guideline are several references to published reliable sources that are entirely independent of Chockalingam and that devote significant coverage to Chockalingam. None of your current references meet that standard. Try to find better references. Another approach is the special notability guideline for academics. This may be more promising. Google Scholar shows that he is listed as an author of some widely cited medical journal articles. I suggest creating a brief bibliography of his most widely cited articles, especially those where he is listed as the lead author. Cullen328 (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Message: Hello Wikipedia editors, I previously submitted a request for review of my Wikipedia article about Cyusa Ian Berulo, but unfortunately, I did not receive any feedback. It seems my request was ignored, which is disappointing, considering the article is based on verifiable facts and reliable sources such as The New Times, KT Press, and Igihe.com. The article covers my work as a humanitarian and technology innovator, including founding the Berulo App, which fights school dropout and child neglect. This app is actively used by over 10,000 people daily and ranks high in Google Search Engines, proving its significance. I strongly believe that my article meets Wikipedia's notability and reliable sourcing standards. Could you please provide guidance on why my submission was overlooked and what steps I need to take for approval? Your feedback would be highly appreciated. Best regards, Cyusa Ian Berulo Cyusa Ian Berulo (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently submitted a draft article on Cyusa Ian Berulo, but unfortunately, I did not receive any feedback. It is disappointing to be ignored, especially since the article is based on strong, verifiable facts from reliable sources like The New Times, KT Press, and Igihe.com.

The article highlights my work as a humanitarian and technology innovator, including the Berulo App, which is actively used by over 10,000 people daily to combat school dropout and child neglect. The app also ranks high on Google Search, proving its real-world impact.

I believe my article meets Wikipedia’s notability and reliable sourcing standards. Could someone review my submission and let me know why it has not been considered? Any guidance on how to move forward would be greatly appreciated.

Here is the draft: [link to your draft]

As a dedicated contributor, I value your support in ensuring this important article is published. Thank you in advance for your help!

Best regards,

Cyusa Ian Berulo Cyusa Ian Berulo (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyusa Ian Berulo: From a quick look at your edit history, you did not submit the page for review. You moved your draft into mainspace yourself. Twice it was moved back to draftspace and then was nominated for deletion. You were also warned against writing an article about yourself. Also, your latest response on here appears to be AI-generated. Please talk to other editors yourself rather than through AI. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how do I have templates? this user is () or this user is part of wikiproject () ThatRandomGuy147 (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're asking about userboxes. For more info about related stuff: WP:User page · Help:Contents Enjoy! --Slowking Man (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. ThatRandomGuy147 (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better way to find articles to improve on? I mainly just click random article from the menu and that's that. Justjourney (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do know wp:tasks Justjourney (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also it depends on the type of improvement you're trying to do, which can range from simple tasks like copyediting/categorization/fixing citations to more advanced stuff like expanding articles or curating new pages. Depending on what you're interested in I can definitely offer advice/suggestions. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 02:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess for right now I would want to fix small things, but bigger things I'd leave off for later. Justjourney (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the home page was helpful in finding articles to copyedit. Categorization I haven't done much, but WP:Tasks is helpful in that regard. If you're interested in fixing duplicate citations, there's a script I can link you to. Let me know if any of those sound interesting, or if you'd prefer something else like anti-vandal work. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 05:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm fine now, thanks for the advice. Justjourney (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Community portal is a great place to learn about productive tasks that need to be done. Cullen328 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im trying to become a member, but none of the tutors who have open spots are responding to my requests. Vestrix (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Give them a couple days to respond, my request was even archived before my trainer managed to get back to me. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 02:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you Vestrix (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrix, I am sorry but you do not have nearly enough experience to be an AFC reviewer. You just barely meet the minimum requirement for CVU, but just a few days ago, you were making and defending some very poor edits to Jewish deli and arguing with far more experienced editors. You are not ready for any advanced permissions. Learn how to actually improve articles and learn from other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Vestrix (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I should link to other users in AFD discussions, because I know it would notify the users I link. Would it be a good idea to link to the users? Justjourney (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justjourney: You do not have to provide a link while mentioning a user. Or you can link to a user without pinging with {{no ping}} if it is useful for others to click through. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Justjourney, if you are replying to a specific point made by a specific editor, it is a good practice to ping that editor. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a edit filter get triggered in my filter log. I was still able to edit that page (TimedText). Should I still report this as a false positive, even though the edit still went through? Justjourney (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justjourney. Some filters prevent the edit and some only tag it. The filter was triggered because you only wrote two digits after the comma and not three like commons:Commons:Timed Text#General tips. The filter is working as intended. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have a doubt, I created a mainspace article on the Bulgarian Bride Market which is quite famous on the reports, there are many reliable reports available online on the web so I created an article on it, It's been quite controversial for the selling of the brides, so I am posting this question to take guidance! here the article -- Kalaidzhi Bride Market, And pls also guide can such articles be created on the Wiki so that I might be careful for the next time, Thanks JesusisGreat7 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JesusisGreat7 I'm not exactly sure what your doubt is. The article looks like it has some good sources that clearly establish notability, so there's no problem with it being created. Ultraodan (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JesusisGreat7, if the topic is notable, it certainly deserves more than three sentences. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created an article in my sandbox about a company and I foolishly moved it to the mainspace without submitting it for review. My question is can I still submit it after it became a draft? how do I do that? Hiba Aslan (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiba Aslan It has already been moved to Draft:DataQueue, and I've added the information required for you to submit the draft for review. You will need to make the Terms of Use-required paid editing disclosure as an employee of the company.

Note that the draft is not likely to be accepted at this time, as it just summarizes the routine business activities of the company- and not independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the company, showing how it is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to just tell about themselves or their offerings. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just experimenting on editing portel template in my sandbox, to understand the format working in source editing format, someone suggest me to use user:____/sandbox/header Within templet.

I am a new editor I did not know much about this thing can you explain me this, which may help me to contribute in Wikipedia in a better way.

Thank you 獅眠洞 (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 獅眠洞, could you link to the place where they suggested this? Experimenting in you sandbox sounds like a good place to experiment. I am not sure what the editor was suggesting based just on your post. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rijjiii, it's here I am new, that's why little afraid to provide link,

Because in original template, most of things are not present in source editing format, which make me curious, so I start experimenting in sandbox. Find how it is possible. 獅眠洞 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@獅眠洞, yeah, that is understandable; Wikipedia can have pretty tense vibe. Before giving a long explanation, I want to make clear that the kind of experimenting that you are doing is fine, and I don't believe that anyone was trying to stop your experiments.

Are you asking about the move from "Draft:(My 獅眠洞-sandbox)" to "User:獅眠洞/sandbox-3"? A page in the draft namespace is supposed to be a rough a version or work-in-progress towards an article. Since (My 獅眠洞-sandbox) will never be an encyclopedia article, an editor moved it to the user namespace. You can draft and create new content in either the draft (Draft:) or user (User:) namespaces. Both will hide the material from the searches and make clear that it is not (right now) a part of the encyclopedia. There are two potential benefits to using the draft namespace. First, it encourages other editors to join in and help out. Second, it allows other editors who might be thinking of creating the page to see that someone is already working on it. Since neither apply to this experiment, it should be in the user (User:) namespace.

Also, I don't know if you are aware, but any page in the draft namespace has to be actively worked on or moved into the actual main namespace of the encyclopedia. If you leave a test page up in the draft namespace for more than a few months without working on it, there is a bot that will delete it. I'm going to also explain transclusions for portals in a bit, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@獅眠洞, here is a technical explanation for the "user:____/sandbox/header" links that appear in your sandbox:

Anything placed inside of double curly brackets {{like this}} will be transcluded from that page. You can include the namespace when transcluding. For example, {{Wikipedia:Ignore all rules}} will give output, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". If the transcluded page is in the template namespace (Template:), you do not have to include the namespace. So {{Template:Example}}, {{Example}}, and {{example}} all output:

This is an example of a template. For help with templates, see Help:Template.

If the transcluded page is on subpage of where is it is being transcluded, you don't have to use the namespace or the main page's title, just a slash. So {{/box-header}} used on Portal:Islam will transclude Portal:Islam/box-header. When used on Portal:Free and open-source software it will transclude Portal:Free and open-source software/box-header. In your sandbox, {{/box-header}} is creating a red link because the subpage does not yet exist. Portals typically rely very heavily on transclusion in a way that articles do not.

Everything after a pipe character (|) inside double curly brackets is a parameter that is passed to the transcluded page (usually a template). Anything inside of triple curly brackets {{{like this}}} can be replaced by the equivalent parameter for the rendered output. Parameters can be named parameters like {{ cite comic | title=[[Bone (comics)|Bone]] | date=July 1991 | publisher=[[Cartoon Books]] }}. In this case, the values behind the equal sign will replace the parameter names in the template. So for example, July 1991 will replace {{{date}}} on the rendered page. Parameters can also be unnamed or numbered like {{abbr|1st parameter|2nd parameter}} or {{abbr|1=1st parameter|2=2nd parameter}}. When there is no name give after the pipe, it is treated as "1=", "2=", and so on. In the case of {{/box-header|Introduction}}, "Introduction" will replace {{{1}}} or {{{1|}}} in the transcluded subpage. Because the subpage does not yet exist for your sandbox, there is no {{{1}}} for "Introduction" to replace, and it is just discarded for the rendered page.

I realize that's kind of complicated, but as you continue to experiment, it makes more sense. In addition to asking at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, you can post technical questions about Portals or transclusion to WP:VPT. And feel free to {{ping}} me or leave a message on my talk page if you have more questions, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I mistakenly say recommended, it was added in my experiment section, so I was confused at that time. by someone. 獅眠洞 (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@獅眠洞: {{/box-header}} transcludes a subpage of whatever page it is on. When the page was moved to a different location, it pointed {{/box-header}} at a different subpage location. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i've created my own article about my video game, i really wanna change the name tho, I don't like the User:/Your_User/sandbox

And i really wanna make it live.

Thank you.

-Armend Armend XD (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you are autoconfirmed, you are able to change pages names by moving a page with the button on the right side of your screen. There are more instructions at HELP:MOVE which can give a step by step tutorial. If you are having trouble, please feel free to leave a reply and I can take a look at it, cheers! Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 11:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks tho, it sucks u have to wait ur acc has to be 4 days older >_< Armend XD (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please know that your draft is far from being an acceptable Wikipedia article, as it does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. You also have a conflict of interest, please review that policy. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also recommend reading Help:Your first article as well. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 12:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! Armend XD (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much my article is now moved! Armend XD (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to draft space, Draft:Shine Private Basic School. It is not yet suitable as an article, for the reasons I stated above. You also need to formally declare your conflict of interest, see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

y'know what I'm gonna delete it. Armend XD (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked so hard making this :/ Armend XD (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform here; I would suggest learning more about Wikipedia via the tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

alr Armend XD (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

should I submit the draft?

I'm just a young editor and created about a article about my video game ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Armend XD (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless independent reliable sources have given your game significant coverage (typically in the form of a review written by a professional reviewer) it would not merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider taking a look at the task center to find other ways to begin editing. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand any of this and it's just a visual novel

and ofc horror >o< Armend XD (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armend XD Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something, especially something that we ourselves have created. Wikipedia articles tell what others that have nothing to do with a topic say about it, not what those associated with the topic say about it(such as the creator of a game). I might suggest that you read this page with a parent/guardian/custodian, and that may help you understand what exactly it is that we do here. If you just want to tell the world about your game, you should use social media to do that. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Thanks!

(No harassment but(redacted)) Armend XD (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not post personal information about yourself in this very public place. Bad people could see it and use that information to harm you. I again strongly urge you to read this page with your parent/guardian/custodian. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really do that kind of thing cause it's weird Armend XD (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done reading it!

By the way, can you read the article I made, if there is something offenses, (sorry my english is bad) tell me! Armend XD (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anything in it that is offensive.

Your English seems okay to me, but if English is not the main language you use to communicate, I would suggest editing the version of Wikipedia that is in your primary language. You might be more comfortable there. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wanna meet at the talk later :D Armend XD (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way can...I move it now? Armend XD (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. It still doesn't have enough reliable sources to be suitable for mainspace. Please spend some time working to improve it, and then submit it for review by AfC. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 16:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I have to languages?

(Sorry i'm just a young kid editor and don't understand these literally I'm tf dumb) Armend XD (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait i have to add langauages?*

(im a fast typer sorry) Armend XD (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna make a video game character article until I can move my main article,

I shouldn't make a post about this,

didn't know some of you bitch's made it draft, shitmedia Armend XD (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the frustrating experience, Armend XD. This is a common enough problem for new editors that there is an essay explaining how and why these articles get stuck, Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. To have an article on Wikipedia, the subject of the article (not the article itself) must meet Wikipedia:Notability. On reason for this, is that is not possible to meet our standards for content, like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, without independent reliable secondary sources. Say for example, the only serious coverage about your game said something to the effect of, "It's dangerous, it promotes gambling, it's addictive, it takes no skill, and it even causes seizures, so it's like physically harming our children." That would be a very extreme viewpoint to take on a videogame, but there are legit news articles that cover Pokémon in this way. For Pokémon, it's no big deal because the content can be balanced with other viewpoints. That's not possible if there is just one source either promoting or condemning a subject. Also, if you have any connection to the subject of an article you are creating, it will receive much more scrutiny. There is an ongoing issue, where people try to use Wikipedia as PR.

For your article, there are several things you can try:

1. If WP:RS do exists (maybe in Kurdish?), cite those.
2. If the sources do not exist, nothing done to the article will make the game notable. You'd have get copies into the hands of WP:RS and hope that they offer coverage in the future.
3. You could also post your draft to smaller wikis that focus on video games and visual novels. (like https://vndb.org/)

Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then what should I do? wait 5000 years so I can publish it?

PLEASE HOW THE FUCKING SHOULD I DO THAT?

I AIN'T BEEN ON WIKIPEDIA FOR 10318230918 YEARS Armend XD (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry :< Armend XD (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Armend XD, for inclusion into Wikipedia, your videogame basically needs to be known in the wider world. Unfortunately, if your article is published as it stands, it would quickly be removed from Wikipedia for concerns listed above. So yes, you'll need to wait for others to decide whether your game is important (notable). — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 19:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hey Can i make the following Pages?

Saveafox

Finnegan fox

Dixiedo Fox

List of Saveafox's Pets

Mikayla Raines Douglas15amor (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.saveafox.org/ is a non-profit organization, so you can try by creating and submitting a draft (see WP:YFA). I really, really doubt that individual foxes Finnegan and Dixiedo could rate articles, and ditto for a list of named foxes. David notMD (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction! the frase "Finnegan and Dixiedo could rate articles is supposed to be "Finnegan and Dixiedo could have thier own articles" also these foxes are really famous but i understand your point. i dont think famous foxes will have thier own articles. Douglas15amor (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Douglas15amor: Help:Your first article has advice, but in short you will need to demonstrate that the subjects meet our notability criteria. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that you would not 'own' the article. A quick search identified quite a bit of bad press about Saveafox that people could add to said article in a Controversies section. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can not understand why the article le chat (chatbot) was moved to drafts (Draft:Le Chat (chatbot)). It is the translation of the french wikipedia article (fr:Le Chat (chatbot)) . Two references are missing, but not more. The translation is not an machine translation. This seems all very strange ! Christophe Neff (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The concern was likely not that it is a machine translation, but rather the article has only a single reference and therefore does not have significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Articles like that can be moved to draftspace as they do not meet the general notability guideline so as to give them more time to show notability. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 15:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link now is Draft:Le Chat (chatbot). There are a few possible sources as this Google custom search shows. However, User:Christophe Neff, you will need to incorporate sufficient of them into the draft for it to be worth of an article in en:Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Christophe Neff, and welcome to the Teahouse. English Wikipedia has stricter standards for new articles about sourcing than most other versions. Therefore most articles in other Wikipedias are not adequately sourced for English Wikipedia, and simply translating them is not a useful way to create English articles. (You can follow Mike Turnbull's suggestion of adding further sources, but that is a much harder way to create a successful article than starting with the sources: see Backwards) ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Team, I have published an article three times but I got rejected, I have address all the issues that were mentioned and submitted article again. Now its under review for the last month. why is it taking so long. Mishal Mehmood (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. As noted on your draft(Draft:David P. Baker), "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,475 pending submissions waiting for review." Reviews are conducted by volunteers. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mishal Mehmood It would help the reviewers if you added a comment at the top (not in the actual draft) describing which of the criteria at WP:NPROF he meets, in your opinion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for explaining. Mishal Mehmood (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some promotional and unreferenced content removed. David notMD (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns this article: That All Shall Be Saved

The Reception section has already been noted in the talk page to be overly long and detailed, and the final summary contains a criticism of the book's critics by the author. Overall, I feel that this section is both over-sized while simultaneously being somewhat too favorable to the author.

As a result, I'd like to replace it with a much shorter paragraph remarking that there were both hostile and positive reviews.

This is a pretty big change though, so I was wondering if anyone could lend me some advice on how to approach removing and replacing a section like this? Or indeed, if this removal might not be justified in the first place.

Also, if someone could tell me if the very first paragraph is already sufficient, thus meaning I only need to deal with the excess of responses, that would be great. LucasG2001 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, surgery so readical should first be proposed on the Talk page of the article. One problem is that the creating editor has not been active for six months, and so even an invitation may not yield a response. Personally, I agree that a large table of Hart's responses to critics does not belong in the article, nor his summary paragraph at the end. David notMD (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh. That's... quite a thing. The removal would be very justified. Go ahead and make the changes, explaining what they were in your edit summaries, and enter the WP:BRD cycle if someone reverts you. If you end up in an argument with another editor about it, feel free to come back here for advice on how to deal with that. By the way, you might be interested in joining WP:BOOKS. -- asilvering (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your guidance, it really helps clarify the best course of action. Do you know how I can ping the main creator, Brftphoto, so he gets a notification about my comment on my latest edit on the talk page? LucasG2001 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ways to do that, but the easiest is to type {{u|usernamegoeshere}} (everything from the { to the }, including those symbols, and of course swapping in the username you intend to ping). -- asilvering (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that.

If you're not too busy, would you mind taking a look at the article's talk page? I'm not sure if my comment covers all the necessary bases. LucasG2001 (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comment is fine. I notice that the article still says "see table below", not sure if you're still working on it or if you forgot to remove that bit? -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gotten rid of it. Thank you for your attention. LucasG2001 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at WP:PRSOURCE press releases from organizations are often non-independent and self-published. Press releases are often WP:SYNDICATED at other news sites or used as the basis of other news stories at outlets with minimal editorial practices ("churnalism").

My question is the range of types of facts for which press releases may be viewed as reliable sources when independent published alternative sources are not available. Obviously, a press release from an organization saying "our organization is the best" is useless, but there other cases where I'm thinking a press release could be a reliable source for encylopedically-relevant information. For example,

- basic facts about the organization, like their name, relationship to subsidiaries, number of employees, location of an office or other operating site, etc., that the company itself almost certainly knows more about than an independent source would and doesn't really have an interest in somehow mis-stating or exaggerating

- sometimes information from press releases or other self-published documents shows up in a setting where an organization has an interest in ensuring information is accurate, for example, an IRS government form 990 for a nonprofit operating in the US. That seems to increase the reliability of self-published non-independent information even if in the example, the government probably shouldn't be considered to be an independent publisher of the information

- objective facts, like "our organization" "did X" or "participates in X" (as opposed to "is the best at X", or "will do X in the future", or "thinks X is really important" or ...) ProfessorBioTech (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @ProfessorBioTech, and welcome to the Teahouse. Does the list of criteria in WP:SPS answer your questions, or are you looking for more? ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS is helpful, thanks @ColinFine

I suppose what I'm trying to calibrate on is the exercise of caution in press releases specifically as a type of self-published source. WP:SPS says:

"...Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources...."

For releases from organizations that have been around a while and have a significant set of interests in providing accurate information about themselves, there is some basis for reliability, and of course the organization is a subject matter expert about itself. So understanding the main issue in the types of examples I'm focusing on being lack of independence, if it's hard to find the same information independently published elsewhere, probably OK to cite the press release until the info becomes available from an independent source. ProfessorBioTech (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wikiproject dedicated to improving stubs? I just feel that Wikipedia should strive to improve all of their articles, even stubs. Vestrix (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of. There's Wikiproject stub sorting that works directly with stubs and that can help you find a category of stubs that you might want to work with. There are tons of Wikiprojects like Wikiproject military history, Wikiproject Biology and Wikiproject Religion to name a few, and they all work with stubs in their subject areas. I would check out Wikipedia:WikiProject#Finding a project to help you find one you're interested in, good luck! Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 19:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Vestrix (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An edit by someone with Wikipedia was made to a draft I am working on. The edit was incorrect so I removed it. I wanted to discuss the edit with the person who made it and went to his talk page. However, I could not find it on his talk page. Any advice? I am relatively new at this. HarvResearch (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @HarvResearch, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's always helpful to specify (and preferably link) the article or draft you're talking about, and identify the other editor if there is one involved; otherwise somebody who wants to answer you has to go and do some detective work. I take it you're talking about Draft:Jim Simon (writer)? But I'm not sure which other editor you're talking about, as I can't see anywhere where you have obviously reverted somebody else's edit. Are you talking about the IP editor (i.e. without a username, just a long string of digits)? You can't ping IP editors; you can leave a message on their talk pages (that IP user's talk page hasn't been created yet, but you're welcome to create it and leave a message). But leaving messages for IP users is a bit hit-and-miss, because many IP's are dynamic, so if the same person edits tomorrow or next week, their IP will have changed, and they'll never see the message on the old IP's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hyju HarvResearch (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it for you, anyone can remove incorrect edits unsupported by the source. Theroadislong (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, I would like to find out whether my previous draft could be edited by someone else. It shows that it has been deleted. Can it be restored? Ro55e5 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anybody can edit any draft. Sometimes people will ask the creator of the draft first, but that is a matter of politeness, not a rule.

Which draft? You may be able to ask for it to be restored (see wP:REFUND) but it depends why it was deleted. ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as it had not been edited for 6 months. My question is whether if anyone could do it and get it published as it was brought to attention that the filmmaker has been getting numerous emails from companies offering their Wikipedia services. Draft : Vikram Dasgupta Ro55e5 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ro55e5, Draft:Vikram Dasgupta has not been deleted. The fact that you have been trying hard to get the draft accepted without success suggests that Dasgupta does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - it doesn't prove it, but it suggests it. If that is the case then nobody can get the draft accepted, and anybody who tries is wasting their own time and that of anybody else who gets involved, such as reviewers.

If it is true that the filmmaker has been getting numerous mails (as Hoary asks, how do you know that? ) they are scammers, and the filmmaker should be shown WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok noted. I later got to know through an acquaintance.Thank you. Ro55e5 (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ro55e5, another editor could edit Draft:Vikram Dasgupta. How do you know that "the filmmaker has been getting numerous emails from companies offering their Wikipedia services"? -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok noted. I later got to know through an acquaintance.Thank you. Ro55e5 (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my mentor has been USELESS.Im a new editor and my assigned mentor has been ignoring me and i only asked 2 questions.Both of which he has ignored. its been more than 2 months and it always says hes been active but he doesn't reply. My mentor is rusalkii Starmaglclove (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starmaglclove, your questions appear on User talk:Rusalkii/Archives/2024/December. They are (i) "How can i create an article?" (ii) "How do i protect an Article?" My responses: (i) Please see H:YFA. (ii) What's called "protection" is exceedingly rare. You're probably referring to some level of "semi-protection". See WP:Protection policy. Even semi-protection isn't appropriate so frequently. Which article seems to need it? -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I figured this is probably the most fitting place to ask. As seen sometimes on Special:AbuseLog, there are a lot of burner accounts or IPs who go to random talk pages and start new sections with brief snippets of text. I know this is a known problem, but has anyone figured out what the deal is with these bots? I haven't seen one that posted anything obviously promotional. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 23:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A first guess is, trying to "game the system" to rack up edits to get the account autoconfirmed. Since any admin can just revoke it if someone in fact does that, basically just wasting theirs and everyone else's time. Slowking Man (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IPs cannot become autoconfirmed, so that can't explain all of those edits. -- asilvering (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This link does not work for me, due to my place restrictions. May you tell me if this link is exist? What is the author full name, and when was it published? Thank you, _Dgw|Talk 23:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the UK and it isn't working for me. But that doesn't mean much, I get that frequently. Not much help, sorry. Knitsey (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. If the USA editors say that it does not work, I will remove the source. _Dgw|Talk 23:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dorian Gray Wild I'm in France and it does seem to work correctly.

I get "‘Arabs voting in droves’: Elephant in room now part of Israeli election" dated "03/17/2015". Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It works in the United States. Or my part of it, anyway. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 23:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! What is the author full name? _Dgw|Talk 23:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's wrote "Tony Karon" but I don't know if this is his full name. Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine! Thank you. _Dgw|Talk 23:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It works. adding as archive-url. Thank you everybody for the prompt assistance. _Dgw|Talk 00:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a draft article (Monkeytype), but it says it has previously been deleted, because of the draft being abandoned. Even though I didn't create the original draft, can I just start a completely new draft? Justjourney (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can make it under your user page. User:Justjourney/The name of the article. _Dgw|Talk 00:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justjourney it's fine to create a new draft which you intend not to abandon, however if you want you can request the undeletion of the original draft at WP:REFUND/G13 so you can continue to improve that one. Yeshivish613 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justjourney, there wasn't much there, but I've undeleted the draft from before, so you now have something to work from. -- asilvering (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Even though I didn't originally start the article, I can still work and improve on what the previous editor did? Justjourney (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can. _Dgw|Talk 00:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback about the draft

I have added some information, and some citations, although I am not sure if the sources I've cited are reliable. Can someone please help? Justjourney (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justjourney, those sources are fine, but what you need to get through AFC is sources that show the topic is notable. Have a look at WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS for general tips on article writing, and WP:GNG for the actual guideline you need to follow to be accepted. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I recently created the article Groton Hill Music Center as a part of a class I'm taking, and am looking for assistance with improving the article. I will be visiting the Center to take photos of the halls this week. I am specifically looking for help with duplicate citations. Oliviaoestreicher (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I gave you an example with the source: "Groton music center unites students, educators, and music lovers". _Dgw|Talk 01:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Oliviaoestreicher (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tag at the top refers to how to use named references. I cleared about 30 duplications, but a lot more need to be addressed. When done right there is one use of a ref by full name, preceded by superscripted letters that go to the other uses of that ref. David notMD (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oliviaoestreicher the article looks great, I fixed up the rest of them and added an infobox. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! -Oliviaoestreicher — Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the tutorial and now I know the basics of editing Wikipedia. Are there any pages that are in need of editing? Thanks in advance GeorgiaAllTheWay (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer than 2% of the approx seven million articles in English Wikipedia are rated Featured Article or Good Article. (Ratings are shown at top of article Talk pages). The remainder can probably be improved. David notMD (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a more practical note, use Search Wikipedia (upper right) to find articles on topics that you have knowledge about. Read for errors and omissions. Fix stuff. If you are adding new content add a reference at the same time. David notMD (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, GeorgiaAllTheWay, a huge number of them. If you find this hard to believe, then here (in this thread) point us to three that are neither "featured" or "good", and then somebody here will point out problems in one or more of the three. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, but the 3 articles that I found that are neither featured nor good are: Wi-Fi, Dragon, and Microsoft Windows GeorgiaAllTheWay (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take Microsoft Windows, GeorgiaAllTheWay. This obligingly has a template at its head saying that material needs to be cited. So: cite the material! In a little more detail: the lead alone has ^{[citation needed]} twice, and just as oddly it has 14 references. It may seem perverse to complain about both the lack and the provision of references, so I'd better explain that the lead of an article normally summarizes the body of the article: it's the assertions in the body that need referencing in the body; a summary in the lead of those assertions needs no referencing in the lead. So what you can do is check whether the lead represents the body, and whether the body is properly referenced -- if (or so far as) the answers are yes and yes, then both the references in the lead and the complaints in the lead about lack of references can be removed. The best way to fix this is to check the referencing throughout the body; and when that's done, properly check the quality of the lead and remove most, perhaps all, of the referencing from this. ¶ Beyond this, jumping here and there in the article shows me oddities aplenty. For instance: Sticky keys and filter keys are a huge vulnerability of windows. It can allow someone to run any command on the lock screen, including making themselves administrator, just by changing the name of cmd to one of those two programs. I'd guess that "windows" means "Windows" (the subject of this article), but perhaps it actually means the windows that are used by Windows. What are "sticky keys", "filter keys", the "lock screen", the "two programs", and "cmd"? (And which version(s) of Windows is this about?) ¶ And I've hardly scratched the surface of this article. -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgiaAllTheWay With Wi-Fi, Dragon, and Microsoft Windows you have in my opinion set your sights too high. Very popular articles - those viewed hundreds of thousands of times a year - tend to have editors who have chosen to "watch" them, meaning every time they log in, they are notified that the articles they watch have been edited. Work by new editors tends to get reverted if not up to highest standards. Same applies to controversial articles, for example your two edits to Second Trump tariffs, soon gone. Again, I recommend articles about less 'hot' topics that are a deep interest of yours. Could be plant species, airplane models, the place you live, etc. And P.S., Improving existing articles is a far better path for a new editor than trying to create a new article. David notMD (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GeorgiaAllTheWay: Take a look at Wikipedia:Cleanup and Category:All pages needing cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, having read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TurboSuperA+ closes, I've been a bit spooked considering I've switched from participating in discussions to try and facilitate closes (in XfDs in general), since I believe the latter to be more efficient in clearing up a backlog. Just in case, would anyone (preferably those with experience in XfD) be so kind as to look over my closes (and possibly other work) as well? Cheers, it's lio! | talk | work 02:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HKLionel, happy to, but as someone who closes XfDs myself, I'd say that the biggest problem for RfD and AfD is a low number of participants, not closers. -- asilvering (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apart from closing, I try to facilitate discussion as well by pinging previous participants when an alternative proposal has been suggested that could reach consensus. Also, I'm almost never involved in XfDs that are still in the 7-day discussion period (I only vote/close overdue ones). it's lio! | talk | work 04:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only vote/close overdue ones - I certainly hope so!

Looking at your contribs, I see a recent FfD that I think you probably shouldn't have touched (just leave it, though, unless someone challenges it). I don't see a lot of evidence of experience with copyright and files in your contribs, so along with that one in particular not being a great close, I don't think you have enough experience there to step into NACs yet. For CfD, I'll tag in @HouseBlaster for an opinion.

Otherwise, I don't really see many closes, so if you've got any you're curious about, can you link them? Mostly what I'm seeing is relistings. And I would advise that NACs avoid relisting in general, which is not to say that any of your relists were bad. -- asilvering (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever looked on ITunes and spotted this person I mean I wonder why we don’t make an article about them I mean they only made one song and the instrumental for it I know that Lordofcallofduty (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One reason, Lordofcallofduty, could well be that this person isn't "notable". -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC explains what makes a musician Wikipedia-notable (and not). David notMD (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hammond organ / Infobox / source code contains a parameter "inventors", but it does not show up in the box in the article.

As far as I understand it, this is, because the Template:Infobox synthesizer does not have such a parameter -- yet.

Could someone, please, add the parameters "inventor" and "inventors" to Template:Infobox synthesizer?

Steue (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steue, you can propose that edit with an edit request on the talk page of that template. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, asilvering, I will do that.

Steue (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can anyone please fix archiving in my talk page? I have tried to do it and Lowercase sigmabot had archived about 3 of my messages. But now, the messages older than 30 days are not being archived by the Bot. I'm not really good in Wiki markup so if somebody can explain the procedure, I'd be grateful. Thank you! Warriorglance(talk to me) 05:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Warriorglance. A name has been fixed in the archiving code.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter Thank you! And just asking, what is the difference between Lowercase sigmabot and Miszabot? Warriorglance(talk to me) 17:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Warriorglance: User:MiszaBot is deactivated and hasn't edited since 2011. Another bot operator took over the task with Lowercase sigmabot III. It uses the original MiszaBot archiving instructions so it's consistent and doesn't have to be changed on pages which were archived by MiszaBot. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello why does <ref/> work normally in sandbox but gives error in article mainspace? Thanks Moribundum (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Moribundum, and welcome to the Teahouse. You'll have to be more specific about the problem you see.

The following may help: </ref> is a closing tag, and has no meaning unless it is paired with a previous opening <ref>. On the other hand <ref/> is a shorthand for <ref></ref>, i.e. an empty reference. As far as I know that last has no meaningful use, but with a name (<ref/ name=fred> <ref name=fred />) it is very common, to reuse a named reference. Does this resolve your problem? ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: To invoke a named reference, the forward slash goes at the end: <ref name="example" /> —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Tenryuu. Thank you. Corrected above. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Alabama Barker

I honestly don’t think this page should exist. I’m genuinely confused about the Wp:Notability and concerned for the privacy. Not everyone needs a Wikipedia page WereWolf (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WereWolf: Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRESERVE&redirect=no WereWolf (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the notability of the article subject as notability is not inherited; WP:AFD should be the way to go here as I do not see a speedy deletion or WP:PROD would pass unopposed. Lectonar (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would same apply to her brother Landon Barker, or does he have a legitimate music career? David notMD (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a tad more notable (music and some acting). Imho both would be more than ok as redirects to Meet the Barkers, though. Lectonar (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that she is or was signed to Republic Records but I honestly do not know if that warrants an article WereWolf (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can material from the website of an environmental 501c3 nonprofit be used as a verification source? Thanks Judsonnewbern (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. It would help to know what exactly you're trying to do. Please also understand that on this global website many may not know what "501c3 nonprofit" means. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to use material contained in slides from a presentation that has been presented at several city and statewide Environmental conferences. The presentaion does not contain any copyrighted material and the slides and materials can be freely used elesewhere once on Wikipedia, but it has not been pubically released in a publication. The presentation is posted on an environmental nonprofit website in the public domain. Judsonnewbern (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Judsonnewbern, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the materials have appeared on a publicly accessible website, then they have been published. But they are copyright unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary. Whether the website belongs to a charity, a non-profit, or a commercial organisation, has absolutely no bearing on these questions.

When talking about copyright "public domain" is a technical term that means a great deal more than "available to the public". ColinFine (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Judsonnewbern: the answer to this also depends on what you're wanting to verify with the said slide deck. If it's some purely factual, non-contentious factoid like year the organisation was founded, then yes, you can probably support it with a primary source like that (if you really cannot find a better one). Whereas if it's a statement like "we are the best-governed environmental organisation for ten years running", then clearly we couldn't take their own word for it, whether it's their website or corporate brochure or presentation slide deck supporting that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense - thanks very much - Judson Judsonnewbern (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you could please add in the following to the list of HIV Positive people, I would greatly appreciate it.

1. Nisha Noor Nisha Noor AIDS - YouTube

2. Lisa Melendez Lisa Melendez: A Legacy of Talent and Tragedy in the Film Industry - YouTube

3. Sandra Brea Sandra Brea AIDS - YouTube

4. Satiny Miranda andre holstein homenagen a satiny miranda - YouTube

5. Keizy Maria Keizy Maria fotos - YouTube

6. Lesego Motsepe Lesego Motsepe - YouTube Trevor Lafoe (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trevor Lafoe: We generally can't use YouTube as a source. (To cite a YouTube video, it has to be produced by an outlet we'd consider to have editorial oversight and uploaded to that outlet's verified channel; this is to limit the chance the content has been taken from elsewhere.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, Then?

Lisa Melendez (1964-1995) - Find a Grave Memorial

Lisa Melendez: A Legacy of Talent and Tragedy in the Film Industry

Lisa Melendez - Biography - IMDb

dead pornstar list Trevor Lafoe (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not valid sources. IMDB is user generated. That leaves aside that you need more than a source, you need articles about them. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you propose this on the talk page of the article, as you already have for one of them. I haven't checked but they will need to have Wikipedia articles, or at least the prospect of such, in order to be added to a list. Such lists only have members of the topic that have Wikipedia articles, it's not for documenting every possible member of the list that might exist. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you could actually link to the YouTube videos, rather than alluding to them, then another editor could assess the quality of them as sources. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to do that. Per consensus at WP:YOUTUBE, YouTube videos simply aren't considered reliable, as they're typically self-published sources. They're really only usable when they're already a reliable publication. guninvalid (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in creating audio recordings of a few Wikipedia articles. Is there a protocol or best-practices I should follow, and how would I add it to an article? guninvalid (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @User:Guninvalid. WP:SPOKEN might be of interest to you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it. Thank you! guninvalid (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just enjoyed a video (PBS Eons: Why Wasn't There A Second Age of Reptiles?) about the "fungal infection-mammalian selection hypothesis": the hypothesis that the rise of mammalian megafauna after the K-Pg mass extinction instead of re-emergence of reptilian megafauna may be due to the competitive advantage that warm-blooded mammals had with respect to defence against fungal infection.

I came searching wikipedia to find out more abou tit and was surprised I couldn't find any mention here (based on searches for "fungal infection-mammalian selection hypothesis", "fims hypothesis", etc.). I think that this hypothesis is notable as it has been covered in popular science media (ex: PBS Eons video above and also Radiolab's Fungus Amungus episode) as well as being of general public interest.

I would be glad to start working on creating a new article for it, but before I do I'd like to make sure others think this is a good idea. I have had issues in the past with creating new articles and having them proposed for deletion and I'd rather not invest that effort if it's considered to be not notable or not worthy of an article. What do y'all think? — sligocki (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @sligocki. If you would like, you're welcome to try making an article! But if you want your article to stay on Wikipedia, I would recommend you put your article through the articles for creation (WP:AfC) process, along with the guidelines for creating your first article. In short, please ensure that your article is based on reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks, and best of luck on your draft! guninvalid (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]