Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

Melecie, 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

Discussion on the notability of this topic is ongoing, and it was suggested to bring the discussion back here to the Teahouse. Kevincook13 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably explain more, or people will be confused. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was going to let the editor who suggested that we talk further at the Teahouse lead the discussion, but I will explain more. Kevincook13 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kevincook13, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is true that some reviewer comments on Draft:Finiteness suggested you ask for help at the Teahouse, but unless you make it clear what you are asking for, we're not going to be able to help you much.

What I will say is that a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources say about the subject, and very little else. It doesn't look to me as if any of your cited sources talks specifically about the concept of Finiteness (it's possible that the third one has a section on finiteness, but a search in the Internet Archive didn't turn up anything).

There are two consequences of this. First, everything in your draft is either unsourced, or not about finiteness. Secondly, notability as Wikipedia uses the word is crucially dependent on sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources which reference the concept of finiteness do not always do so using that particular term. Kevincook13 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Finiteness has been rejected, meaning that you should stop wasting your (and other editors') time on it. Maproom (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who rejected the article is the one who suggested opening up the conversation again at the Teahouse. Kevincook13 (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who rejected the draft directed you to Teahouse so that someone could explain what "Rejected" means, not to dispute that your draft did not deserve to be rejected. There is no potential to salvage the draft. Please put it out of its misery by putting Db-author at the top inside double curly brackets {{ }} so that an Administrator will be notified to delete the draft. If "Finiteness" deserves an article, perhaps in time someone will compose it, but bringing it to the attention of the generalists at Teahouse is not the way to find that person. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your draft looked like a dictionary entry. Wiktionary is our corresponding dictionary. We already have an article on finiteness in maths. However there is no article on finite being. So if you do want to write on the topic, find sources and expand on that philosophical / theological aspect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finiteness currently redirects to Finite, a disambiguation page. From 2007 until very recently it also offered a single sentence of explanation attempting to describe what finite means, stating: "Finite is the opposite of infinite." On the talk page I commented that the explanation was circular. Two other editors suggested that it might be a good idea to write a finiteness article.

My draft is short, making it look more like a dictionary article, but it focuses on the state of being limited or ended, as opposed to focusing on the term finiteness as is appropriate in a dictionary. Kevincook13 (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I did request that you withdraw the rejection. I appreciate the discussion we had, and your expressed willingness to continue it here, along with other experienced editors. I would like to discuss the lead paragraph.

Does the lead paragraph describe a concept (as is appropriate for an encyclopedia), or does it describe a term (as is appropriate for a dictionary)?

Does it describe a notable concept?

Does it contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia, as would be expected from a lead paragraph?

In which ways does the lead paragraph detract from Wikipedia?

If the lead paragraph does describe a notable concept, as would be expected, then is the entire article worthy of deletion?

You suggested that you would be willing to accept the article, with the warning that it might be nominated for deletion. I definitely do not want you to accept an article that you esteem a candidate for deletion. I thought that editors accepted articles because they are acceptable, not because doing so facilitates deletion. Kevincook13 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert_McClenon you are the one who wanted to move this discussion between you and I to the Teahouse, which I started on your talk page, and which you took to mine. You told me that you would have participated in the original Teahouse discussion, if it weren't for the fact that you didn't notice it before it was archived. You said that you always participate in discussions of articles that you have reviewed, as long as you are aware of them. Are you planning to participate? If you are, please add a little note here to let us know. Kevincook13 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD one of the things that supporters appreciate about Wikipedia is that editors freely exchange ideas, rather than simply make or comply with demands. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over." do you not understand? 05:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I see that one editor has stated, correctly, that I rejected the draft, and that that means that discussion is finished. So I think that I am asking the other experienced editors here whether they agree that I was right in rejecting this draft, or whether I should have only declined it again, and also whether there is any procedure for discussing a draft or a topic after a draft has been rejected. Do the other editors think that User:Kevincook13 should be able to rework it?

I am sort of uneasy with the idea that rejection is final-final if the draft was submitted by a good-faith editor, which in this case it was. If rejection is final-final, then maybe I should never reject a draft that is submitted by a good-faith editor. (Some drafts that are rejected are submitted either by conflict of interest editors or by trolls. I am not asking about them. This draft was submitted by a good-faith editor whom I think has gone down a rabbit-hole.) Is there any way that a good-faith editor whose draft is rejected can discuss reworking or starting over? And is there a way that a reviewer can ask for third-party comments on their decision to reject an article? If not, maybe I shouldn't reject drafts by good-faith editors, because I don't want to make a final-final judgment against good-faith submissions.

Also, I made an offer to User:Kevincook13 that I was willing to revert my acceptance and accept the draft with the understanding that it was likely to be nominated for deletion. I was willing to let the submitter get his draft into mainspace and let the community be the gatekeeper. What I would do would be to request that the blocking redirect be deleted or moved so that the draft can be moved to mainspace. Is Kevincook13 ready for that?

Those are my questions for the other editors and for the submitter. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-AFC reviewer, I have no opinion over whether the draft should have been rejected over being declined or letting it pass through to mainspace to be AfD'ed by other editors. What I can say, after looking at the draft, is that it is, in its current form, inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The thoughts aren't organised, and the tone sounds off. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Tenryuu. In that case, your opinion equates to saying that I should not have accepted it, because the instructions for AFC reviewers are to accept if we think that the draft has more than a 50% of passing AFD. What I am saying to the author is that I am willing to accept the draft, without making a judgment as to whether it will survive AFD, if that is what the author requests. I don't want to make a one-editor judgment that a draft should be abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Tenryuu for the feedback on my draft. I am eager to learn how it can be improved, starting with the lead paragraph. Is it OK? Do the thoughts seem organized? How is the tone? Kevincook13 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevincook13: You're honestly better off starting the entire thing over from scratch and taking a look at what good articles look like. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are a new pages reviewer, who has volunteered to review my draft. I need more feedback than you have given me so far. No, I don't want the article to go into the mainspace if it is not yet ready. I need feedback on the lead paragraph. Kevincook13 (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevincook13, the existing draft is not "not yet ready", it will never be ready. As has been stated above, it needs to be blown up and started over. It's just a collection of incoherent ramblings. For example, if you want to claim that "A controversial use of ellipses is to simultaneously intend both completion and non-completion, as in 0.999... = 1", you'll need to explain who finds it controversial, why it intends completion, and why it intends non-completion. It seems to me a clear, indeed trivial, statement of fact, accepted by competent mathematicians. Maybe the source cited explains those things, I don't have access to it. Maproom (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to start over, in other words rewrite the lead paragraph, if there is a reason for doing so. What is your personal reason for rejecting it User:Robert McClenon? Kevincook13 (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevincook13 - You have two choices. First, you can accept my offer to move your draft into article space, where an Articles for Deletion discussion will decide whether to keep it or delete it. I made that offer because I do not want to act as a one-person gatekeeper. I don't plan to offer you any more help or any other help. Second, you can recognize that the majority of editors here think that your draft is not about to be ready for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevincook13 - I have already answered why I rejected the draft, and other editors have also commented as to why the draft will not be ready for article space. I am aware that you are not satisfied with my answer, or with any of the other answers. Continuing to ask me the same question is sealioning. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we don't want to be sealioning. My question was not simply a repetition. It was an invitation to reason with you, freely exchange ideas. I wanted to hear your reasoning, your ideas, not just the ideas of others.

At 05:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC) User:David notMD anonymously wrote above: What part of "If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over." do you not understand?

When I first read it I assumed that you wrote it, since the quote was from your rejection. I was curious, so I checked the page history and was surprised to see that User:David notMD was the author. User:David notMD made it appear that you were the author, as if you were the one who was emphasizing the need to blow up my draft. But you weren't.

The lack of desire to build any sort of consensus with me is evidence that my finiteness article is not welcome, at least by some engaged Wikipedians. You seem ambivalent, however you are clearly coordinating your efforts with others who oppose it.

I have tried to build a consensus which includes me. I very much appreciate the feedback I received from those who reviewed my draft earlier and declined it. Each decline has helped me to see something consequential that needed to be addressed.

Please do allow the draft to proceed. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevincook13 - I am not ambivalent about whether the draft will be ready for article space in the future. I was only ambivalent about whether other editors agree with me, and other experienced editors are even more negative than I am. I know that you want to build a consensus that the draft can be improved. That will not happen, because there is a consensus against the draft. I am still willing to accept the draft at your request so that it can go into article space and go to AFD. I will only do that if that is what you are requesting. I am not ambivalent, and I have already provided my reasons for rejecting the draft. Do you want me to move the draft into article space, or are you ready to accept that the consensus here is likely to be the consensus at AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon I only ask that you withdraw the rejection, because it is without merit. Kevincook13 (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevincook13 - My rejection was not "without merit". Other editors here have agreed with me. However, I have restored the draft to the version of 7 February, in order to get the pinniped out of my townhouse. The question now is which of the following happens first: the draft is rejected again; the draft is deleted; you are partially blocked; or you leave the draft alone for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Kevincook13 (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft talk:Tatsusaburo Nakayama is my draft. I have been working on this for a year and a half, and recently spent much time researching more sources and info to add to the draft. Originally, the draft was sourced from the Wiki Japanese page (not sure why the Wiki Japanese page exists but the Wiki English page never has)...but it was my starting template, then I have added from books, magazines, and websites, additional info. I am a wiki page-submission newbie, but I feel in the Martial Arts community, this individual is worthy of having his own English page; so I hope I can get it tightened down enough, to pass submission. My prior submissions failed mostly on insufficient citations, of which I have spent much time researching and adding in the last few months. Can anyone who is accomplished at getting submission approval help me get it accepted? It seems there are so many technical things related to wiki approach, philosophy, format, etc....that must be known beyond just the details of the article itself, and it is quite overwhelming to know when it is 'sufficient' and ready to resubmit, with good chance of success. All help is appreciated. Davidwtaylor1 (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwtaylor1, I can try to rework the way you have used references to make it conform more to the Manual of Style and point out issues, but will leave accepting or declining the draft after that. Give me some time. Thank you Reconrabbit 21:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Recon, I appreciate any and all help! Davidwtaylor1 (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's going to be quite a task, Reconrabbit. The oft-cited "ibid. Threadgill, Tobin and Ohgami Shingo" seems to mean "Threadgill and Ohgami, op. cit." -- but Wikipedia doesn't use "op. cit." (or "ibid."). (The combination of a named reference and Template:Rp would help, of course.) What's a lot more alarming than the mere format of these citations is that the stated ISBN for this book, ISBN 978-1-7334223-2-1, is unknown to WorldCat; and Google only knows of it via Wikipedia and Wikipedia scrapes. There is evidence here of the existence of the book (titled Shindō Yōshin Ryū; note the macrons). It's reviewed favorably, but described as Selbstverlag. Self-publication is alarming; that matter aside, is the book available from any publicly accessible library anywhere; and if not, is it proper for an article to use it as a reference? As an example of a Japanese-language source, what is presented as if a web page reproducing "Mastering the Mystery of Kicking From '2D' to '3D' Techniques" within a special issue of Secret Kick Monthly (though in Japanese, with unspecified titles) turns out to be merely some retailer's page advertising a copy (in "good" condition) that they're selling of 秘伝の蹴り　蹴りの奥義を極める　「二次元」から「三次元」の技へ, an April 1998 supplement to the magazine 空手道 (Karatedō). I can't find this supplement at either CiNii or WorldCat, though I may just be insufficiently caffeinated for the task. -- Hoary (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN was misspelled, it should have been ISBN 9781733422338. The ISBN-10 was being used as an ISBN-13. WorldCat entry here. I am a bit concerned about the self-publication aspect as it pertains to notability but I just want to make the draft more presentable to a potential reviewer. Reconrabbit 01:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks a lot better though. Will be tough to convince someone of the validity of many offline sources though, some of which are through publishers I could find nothing about. Reconrabbit 01:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recon, Thanks for your help. Good catch on the ISBN typo; I have the book, and was about to send a screenshot.

One thing I don't understand, is that the original format/template I used for this draft, was the official Wiki page, in the Japanese language. It was accepted, and is a valid Wiki page in JP. (I used the translation to English option, to get to that page's source, since I am not Japanese fluent). That Wiki page's sourcing was very scant. Much of the sourcing I have done, is my own research, to fulfill the original English wiki responses about lack of sources. Do you think I am trying to include too much on the history of this person? I have seen many martial artists of the 19th century listed in Wiki, with less impact on martial arts (either dead arts now, or just very minimal info), who are likely 'less notable' to the martial arts than Nakayama, based on current-day adherents' population.

IMO Nakayama is as vastly important to tens of thousands of Wado Karate folks around the world, for if he didn't exist, Wado Ryu would not exist. He is also notable for the existing extand Shindo Yoshin Ryu schools around the world, that also are aware of his historic contributions, as well as his high level kendo swordsmanship skills as honored by the Dai Nippon Butokukai. Notability is in the Japanese martial arts world, not as much as the world in general, but aside from the Wado Ryu founder, Nakayama and Gichin Funakoshi are the most notable people of this style, that could not exist without their contributions. I just want his indelible contribute documented.

Also, I realize some of the 'sources' from the JP wiki page are magazine articles that are only available in Japanese language, and some are also 20+ years out of print, so their specific usage for sourcing is limited. My thought on still including some of them, is because they did exist, and do have those articles, and for someone that has them or runs across them or can read Japanese, they might be a useful resource in the future. I may be wrong in my thoughts, but to have a citation of a source even it present-day difficult or not readily accessible still doesn't remove the original material. For example, BlackBelt Magazine #1 might be difficult to find today in 2025, but it did exist many decades ago, and did have useful info within it. I hope that makes sense. My initial thought was to include all prior sources as able, from the published JP Wiki page, assuming (yes I know that is dangerous) they were valid sources at some time in the past, and should still be valid even if difficult to find in 2025. If I should remove some source citations to make the draft pass acceptance, I am willing to do that as well.

Thanks again for everyone here, pitching in to help. Davidwtaylor1 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwtaylor1 There is no concern about non English references. They may be used.

That a subject has an article in another language Wiki does not mean it will be accepted in the English Language Wikipedia, whcih has tyhe strictest inclusion criteria of all of them. It is a common thought that "It has an article there so surely it is valid here, too" but I am afraid that is not always true.

I make no comment on your draft nor on any other part of your conversation above, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am currently writing a draft on the Davis Fire. I am very unfamiliar with uploading images or files to Wikipedia and do not know how to determine copyright permissions. I found pictures on the Davis Fire here: https://www.rgj.com/picture-gallery/news/2024/09/11/davis-fire-gallery-in-pictures-wildfire-rages-south-of-reno-washoe-valley/75177094007/ and if someone knows how to check for copyright permissions, please help! Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help on the copyright images, that is. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of thumb is that unless explicitly stated otherwise, any image is copyrighted and will be assumed to be so until it is shown otherwise explicitly. Those images were taken by a photojournalist for that newspaper - there is zero reason to think that they are freely licensed for anyone to use, and in fact it is virtually certain that either that photographer or the newspaper owns the copyright to the images. They are very unlikely to release them under a free license - they make their money by having employed photojournalists to take images for them that they can publish or sell for money. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. As you can tell, I am very inexperienced with this topic of Wikipedia. I apologize for any inconvenience I caused. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No harm no foul, asking first when you're not sure is not a bad thing! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the case where there are no existing non-copyrighted (or freely usable) images of the fire, you can upload a non-free file to Wikipedia (not Commons) - see WP:NFCC - after the draft is published to illustrate that page. Reconrabbit 19:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Hurricane Wind and Fire: The thing you want to look at for a quick "primer" is Commons:Licensing. Wikimedia Commons is a central repository where "freely-licensed" media go, so that they can be easily reused everywhere. English Wikipedia in limited cases sometimes allows certain fair use media, but photos of "current" or "recent events" aren't one of them so that's not applicable here.

Tip: U.S. government sources are a frequent source of public domain images for many things, and fires/storms and the like are among those. A lot of storm articles for instance, contain satellite and radar imagery from agencies like NASA and National Weather Service. ("Public domain" means they have no copyright protection and are thus free of restrictions for anyone to use.) --Slowking Man (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A current discussion is ongoing to move a page. If the move follows through, the page will have to be moved to an existing redirect page. How would you go about doing that? Rexophile (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rexophile. Please see Help:Redirect. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rexophile more specifically make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for any move requests you cannot do on your own (e.g because of existing redirect) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I *can* do the redirect and move on my own (I think), and I know we're supposed to "be bold" in our edits, but I thought for a reasonably big-ish change like that, I should open it to discussion first. Although maybe that's not necessary since someone else changed it from the redirect it was to what it is now without any discussion I can find, so changing it back probably wouldn't be so bad of me to do. But I do have a discussion on the talk page for anyone who might want to join it. So, yeah, I'll think on it and especially if no one joins the discussion maybe I just go ahead and make the changes myself. I got it/I'll figure it out. Thanks for your help! Wikipedian339 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Recently I have been made aware of this page, Battle of Brebes, that had been approved not too long ago, but the only sources used for the page are obscure Indonesian newspaper articles of dubious authenticity. This page had also made its way to another page, Majapahit–Sundanese conflicts, which was created by the same person. The page claims that the supposed battle are found in the Kidung Sunda, a Balinese kidung detailing the Battle of Bubat, nothing about a supposed battle happening in Brebes. Can someone help? Miserableed (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't speak Indonesian. I can't say you if sources are reliable.

I advise you to find others Indonesian speakers. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of machine-translating the two linked sources the article has. Both seem to line up with what is in the article, though they seem to be more pop-culture and tabloid-like than reliable newspaper publications. I could be wrong, as I have no knowledge of Indonesian culture and their news. Attempting to search "Battle of Brebes" in Google brought up almost nothing other than some forums and the Wikipedia article, though I did find a website called famousfix. Famousfix has a page on the article, though it provides absolutely no information other than linking to other pages on the site. Searching the Google-translated phrase in Indonesian, "Pertempuran Brebes," does bring up pages, though none of them appear to mention the battle and only mention the modern regency. It doesn't even have an article on the Indonesian Wikipedia. I have flagged the article as a possible hoax and plan to do some further research into this topic to conclude. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I had been learning about Majapahit history for quite a while and this is the first time I've heard about the "Battle of Brebes", too. I'll be glad to help if you need anything (like translating Indonesian), just contact me on my talk page! :D Miserableed (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just came back to this and did some more research. I could not find any more information on said battle minus a webpage that appears to circle back to cite Wikipedia, and reading through the article, the linked article "Kidung Sunda" that claims to have resources on it brings up absolutely nothing - not even a name for the site of the battle mentioned. I'm a little nervous to come to a conclusion considering it's been two days, but I think I'm pretty sure that the Battle of Brebes never occurred and that it is a hoax. I will wait a day before I send the article over to AfD, just in case anything new comes to light regarding this situation. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work! I believe the author of the article is using the quote of "Gajah Mada is verbally abused by the Sundanese envoy" from the Kidung Sunda page as a source, which only mentions Jipang. Jipang is the name of several different villages in Java (the most prominent one being from Blora, I think). I don't know why the author is taking it as the one in Brebes specifically, and didn't the quote mentioned that the men of Jipang is chasing the Sundanese? It's just... strange. I suggest also removing Majapahit–Sundanese conflicts, because it was made just for the supposed "Battle of Brebes" (the rest are about the Battle of Bubat, which already has a page), and has weird claims about the Sundanese gaining Lampung with the only source being another obscure Indonesian newspaper article. Miserableed (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll let you go ahead and put both those up for deletion, as I feel. Both articles were made by the same account as well, Holafishes. I would send them a warning as well not to post deliberately fake information on Wikipedia. You’re very much welcome for the help! -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. It's just that I'm not sure if I know how to put those articles up for deletion, can I ask for your help? Sorry if I'm asking too much! :") I'll always be glad to help you with anything else. Miserableed (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that now, thanks for letting me know. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, after several edits & addressed WP:COI for the draft Draft:Winston Utomo, what should be the next step besides improving with editing (and waiting the approval)? Any suggestions for me? Rachael Adrino (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

could you explain what exactly happened? i'm unsure if i'm just missing something or if i just need more context ogusokumushi^{( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ )} 17:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogusokumushi Alright then. After I did several edits to the draft Draft:Winston Utomo and resubmitted it, an editor asked me to address WP:COI in making this draft. As his suggestion, I've stated that I didn't have COI when making this draft on my talk page. Now what should I do then about the resubmitted draft? Rachael Adrino (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

have you explained how there isn't a conflict of interest? providing evidence of that may help your case. or have another editor (who isn't me because i''ve only been here 2 years and i don't think i have that authority yet LOL) look it over. ogusokumushi^{( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ )} 14:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogusokumushi Since only you who recently respond this threat, I'm also wondering & still waiting another editor here to give several suggestions, who next? Please? Rachael Adrino (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

In this edit Special:Diff/1277721004 I have added a link [1] to a reference in English. It is dated Feb 20 and it states professor “...passed away today”. The obvious implication is that professor died on Feb 20.
However, the original in Polish [2] is dated on 19-th and it explicitly states in the very first words professor died on 19-th of February: “19 lutego zmarł...”.
I suppose the English version has been written (or possibly modified) the next day, so it got a next-day date, and the author or editor haven't paid attention to a vague 'today'.

How can it be noted in our article, so that we'll be providing a true and verifiable information but will not distract the reader with too much side details on someone else's mistake? --CiaPan (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CiaPan: I suppose you could annotate the citation to the English source by pointing out the discrepancy with the Polish original. But surely the easiest thing is to leave out the English source and just cite the Polish one instead? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DoubleGrazing! You're right, reverting my change would certainly be the easiest way. :) And it actually was the Polish-language page referenced originally, but I changed it to the English one once I found it at the Tech.Uni. website.
I try to link to sources in English at enwiki whenever available, and I just did not notice the problem until the change got saved. That's why I'm looking for some (unobtrusive) way to improve the current reference instead of restoring the previous one. --CiaPan (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just sent an e-mail note to their spokesperson, let's see what happens. Hopefully they'll fix it on their side. :) CiaPan (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleGrazing I still didn't receive an answer to my e-mail, but the problem with their web page has been fixed: now it says “Professor Jan Krysiński (...) passed away on 19 February.” So my concern became pointless and I mark the section as Resolved. CiaPan (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm trying to create a wikipedia article about the man who's spent the longest time deprived of his freedom - Sten-Erik Eriksson. I need some help making the article meet the notability guidelines, so if you got anything that I could improve - please let me know! Link: Draft:Sten-Erik Eriksson DenRige (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The whole url is not needed when linking.

I'm not clear on the specific issue- though the fact that the sources are in Swedish may be making it difficult for us to examine them(it's fine to have non-English sources, it's just hard to look at them). 331dot (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DenRige! Your draft for Sten-Erik Eriksson needs more diverse and reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Currently, it only has four sources from two websites, which isn't sufficient. Try to find additional sources that provide significant coverage and are independent of the subject. This will help establish Eriksson's notability and improve the article's credibility.

As an aside (not related to notability), I noticed your draft links to many dates and common words. Per MOS:OVERLINK, this shouldn't be done as it can clutter the text. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes – as a native Swedish speaker I can confirm that the sources are nowhere near sufficient. Aftonbladet and Expressen are large newspapers, not exactly unreliable sources but decidedly tabloidish and masters of gossip and clickbait. (I avoid clicking on links leading to those two websites, though I did check these sources now). And none of the major broadsheet papers - Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Göteborgs-Posten – have ever written about this Sten-Erik Eriksson. There are other people by the same name who have been mentioned in the press, but not him. I'm afraid this is simply not a notable topic. --bonadea contributions talk 16:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DenRige

There may be a place for him on this page List of longest prison sentences served rather than trying to make a separate article. Blackballnz (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Teahouse! I've been reading over some articles, (Kings Island, Orion, Mystic Timbers, and more) and realized that there is some very helpful information missing. "Kings Island: A Ride Through Time" by Evan Ponstingle covers the full history of Kings Island up to 2020-ish.

(The linked website is a bundle of the book and another item, but it can be bought separately in-park and was previously able to bought separately online)

It features a lot of interviews from people related to the park. The information inside of it not just gives interesting/amusing details, but it has a bunch of facts and insights that could really be useful.

How could I source the information while also keeping it verifiable? Thanks!

Therguy10 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Therguy10, it's perfectly okay to cite sources which are offline, as long as the source is reliable and verifiable. You can use the cite book template and make sure to cite it correctly, including page numbers, and include a link to https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Kings_Island/OzI3zgEACAAJ. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Yeshivish613! Could this link perhaps be okay to use? The one you included is giving me a different book altogether :/ Therguy10 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Therguy10, I'm pretty sure the link I provided was what book you were referring to, the book you linked is a plain autograph book. In any case if you cannot find a Google Books URL the ISBN (9781732121089 if I'm correct) should be sufficient to verify its existence. (Links to commercial sites like Cedar Fair are not allowed.) Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeshivish613 Okay now this is really funny. The book I got when I clicked on your link was an autograph book by Robert Castleman. But when I put in the ISBN number, I found the correct Kings Island book by Evan Ponstingle.

If you're not seeing "Kings Island: A Ride Through Time" when you click my link, then I have no idea what to do lol. Could perhaps a third person step in and take a look?

In any case, at least I could use the ISBN, but this is fascinating! Therguy10 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Therguy10: Oh my this is really weird. On second look the links we both gave are the same! I am in the UK while you're in the US, though I'm not sure why the two books would mix up based on location. If anyone else can look into this it would be appreciated. Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Therguy10, here is the Google Books listing for the book. It includes all of the bibliographic information that you need to create a reference to the book, and if you use Template: Cite book, you can add the link I gave to the URL field. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 thank you! This seems to be the same link I provided as well - but please correct me if I'm wrong. Ping for @Yeshivish613, does this link work for you by chance? Either way I'll still use it, but I'm curious to see what comes up on your end! Therguy10 (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this happens but apparently this one leads to the right book while the one you provided doesn't, even though they're exactly the same link. Happy editing Yeshivish613 (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is so odd! I may do some digging into it, and I find anything I will let you know on your talk page. And thanks again, Cullen! Therguy10 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article 2025 Bielefeld mass shooting, on a notable mass shooting in Germany, and provided sources.

An overzealous editor then took an action to put the evolving article into another namespace, and then used that cross-namespace reality as the criteria to propose WP:SPEEDY deletion. Weird.

I've contested it; and fully discussed it on the article Talk page.

But it needs an uninvolved editor to remove the speedy.

Would some uninvolved editor please take a look, and then do what needs to be done, to remove the SPEEDY template on this notable event. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: I think you misunderstand the speedy deletion tag – it was placed there because 2025 Bielefeld mass shooting is a redirect to Draft:2025 Bielefeld mass shooting, and Wikipedia does not allow redirects from article space to mainspace. There is nothing weird about it at all, and the speedy deletion tag should not be removed. Feel free to edit the draft page and submit it for review; if accepted it will then be restored to mainspace, but that will only be possible if the redirect is deleted first! --bonadea contributions talk 16:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not misunderstanding. The admin moved the evolving new article to the draft space; THEN used that action they themselves had taken, to SPEEDY the (now just a redirect) article. That is a a weird thing to do. So the actions of that admin should be overturned. (i see that just removing the SPEEDY may not be enough; but the reason for that is the untoward action of that admin). So whomever removes the SPEEDY can also just put the original info back in, from the edits prior to the admin breaking the article. Pinging 'bonadea Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e, the mainspace article and the draft are two separate things. The article was moved to draftspace because it needs more sources to establish notability. You can add this at Draft:2025 Bielefeld mass shooting and once it has sufficient sources it may be moved back to the draftspace.

The speedy deletion tag is only to delete the redirect from mainspace to the draft, which is correct. Your article will still remain at Draft:2025 Bielefeld mass shooting, and can be moved back to the mainspace when it is ready. Yeshivish613 (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, that's perfectly normal. unless something is moved without a redirect, it will stay as a blue link. in the case of this leaving an inappropriate cross namespace redirect, the original title (which is now a redirect) can be safely speedy deleted without losing progress. as is, i do think the article you wrote could use some more time in the oven, so it's fine as a draft

also, reconrabbit, who moved the article to draftspace, isn't an admin or page mover, and thus doesn't have the ability to delete or move without a redirect, hence a regular move followed by tagging the redirect for speedy deletion consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No admin has been involved. Please check the response you received at Talk:2025 Bielefeld mass shooting from the editor who moved the article to draftspace. If an admin had moved the article to draftspace, no redirect would have been created! Since the editor who moved it does not have the Page mover right, the action that moved the draft automatically tagged the redirect for speedy deletion. Again, nothing remotely weird about it. Replacing the redirect with the draft text would not be acceptable; cut-and-paste moves are not allowed since they break the attributions, and when that happens various administrative hoops have to be jumped. That would be counterproductive indeed. --bonadea contributions talk 16:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea You said "Wikipedia does not allow redirects from article space to mainspace." ... "The article was moved to draftspace because it needs more sources to establish notability. ... once it has sufficient sources it may be moved back to the draftspace." Hopefully people got your meaning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. Thanks for pointing that out – I won't tinker with my post now, but hopefully that will teach me to read what I write, for the future.... --bonadea contributions talk 09:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @N2e. It sounds to me as if what you're really objecting to is somebody moving the article to draft space. That is normal for a newish article which is not yet up to the acceptable standard of a Wikipedia article (usually because of sourcing), but has the potential to be improved. ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Colin, that would not be it. It was poor comms. I see the article is speedied, for CS2. When I could not see why/how CS2 made any sence. The admin who did it should have said they speedied it because they wanted to contest only two sources. So, poor comms. There are four more sources on the Talk page. This article on a very notable mass shooting will obviously exist within a few hours or a day just 'cause it'll get cleaned up by others, and of course, many more sources and further description of the events will be added, including the four I added on the Talk page. But it will be by others; I'm done on this one. And wikiprocess has been poorly executed here, and made a lot more work for a lot more editors who will have to clean it up. Cheers to all. N2e (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e, as has been explained above several times, the speedy delete had absolutely nothing to do with the content or quality of the article, but was an administrative action to rectify a technically unacceptable situation, viz a redirect from mainspace to Draft space. The article had already been moved to Draft space, and was in no way affected by the speedy delete. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect has now been replaced by the draft moving back to mainspace. A prod was added and removed. The event may have to wait till there is sustained news coverage, and that will prove it is not a minor one-event. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ethics Policy I found it on the list of articles that I should create, under the Buisness tab. Would anyone provide some feedback and maybe even join in on helping this article? Thanks

—- Mangoflies (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mangoflies. I would say that there is probably nothing salvageable about that draft. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and an article cannot be based just on how-to guides. It would need to be based on (probably academic) papers on "Ethics policies" as an object of study. ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ColinFine

There is a different link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_policy that apperas to be a real wikipedia article. How can I get rid of the draft

--- Mangoflies (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Mangoflies. I see that @Explicit has deleted it. ColinFine (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I recently submitted a draft for Verónica Cheja, an entrepreneur and communications expert in Argentina, co-founder of Urban Grupo de Comunicación. The draft was declined with concerns about notability, neutrality, and source reliability. I have since made significant revisions and would appreciate guidance on further improvements.

Here are the key adjustments I made:

1. Neutrality: Removed subjective or promotional language, ensuring an encyclopedic tone.
2. Verifiable Achievements: Clarified awards and organizational contributions, such as the Cannes Lions recognition.
3. Reliable Sources: The article relies on reputable sources, including La Nación, Infobae, Forbes, AdLatina, and Fortuna, which cover business and corporate affairs in Latin America.
4. Comparative Example: I referred to the article on Darío Straschnoy, which follows a similar structure for a notable figure in the communications industry.

I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria based on her industry impact and media presence, but I would love to get feedback from experienced editors on whether further refinements are needed before resubmitting.

Would anyone be able to review the draft or provide advice on how to strengthen the case for notability?

Thank you! Arcuki74 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to get feedback is to resubmit it. Asking for a pre-review review is redundant. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Arcuki74. I haven't looked at your draft, but I would point out that neither her industry impact nor her media presence is directly relevant to notability as Wikipedia uses the term, unless she has been independently written about. Your sources may be reliable, but are they independent (as opposed to being based on interviews or press releases, for example), and do they contain significant coverage of her individually (as opposed to routine announcements about her businesses)? ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the article Dario Straschnoy has a big box with problems, and may not be a good choice of a model: see other stuff exists.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. (I realise your account has been around for a few years, but with only fourteen edits in your history, you are still a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editors,

Requesting someone to review this page - Sunny Kumar Singh. There's a LLM disclaimer, after which the redundancy was removed, still disclaimer. The person received nation wide media coverage during Delhi Assembly Elections 2025 and is District Magistrate of National Capital of India. Why the page has received a low importance rating?

Any other suggestions to make the article better and more compliant?

Appreciate all the help and time! Thanks for your guidance. Yashvardhan7776 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a question about why someone did something, it's always best to ask that person directly. That rating was left by user:GoingBatty. DS (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yashvardhan7776, I've two comments about that article (in addition to the LLM issue that's already been raised). One is that it contains a lot of unwarranted boldface. The other is that it seems Singh is a senior civil servant, doing his job competently – but what makes him notable? Which three of the sources cited do most, in your opinion, to establish that he's notable? Maproom (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashvardhan7776: Based on the WikiProject India Assessment Guide, most of the articles are assessed at "Low". If you would like another opinion, feel free to add |reassess=y to {{WikiProject India}}.

@Maproom: I removed the unwarranted boldface and make other layout changes. GoingBatty (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any restriction on citing ROM downloads for games (such as fan translations or own created), since I have encountered them at Rhythm Tengoku and List of Creepypastas and just marked them using ^{[non-primary source needed]}. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 04:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps the original rom should also be referenced. FAN created ROM downloads are likely copyright infringement, and so should not be linked. Commentary and interpretation could be used, but it should be from a reliable source, not a fan site of user generated content with no editorial oversight. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question to bring to WikiProject Video Games, where editors who have experience editing such articles can provide more insight. --Slowking Man (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Slowking Man (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Yeren from Tencent's Communications team. As an employee, I've declared a conflict of interest (COI) regarding edits to the Tencent Cloud page. We have one straightforward, non-controversial edit to propose: correcting the Chinese entity names of Tencent Cloud, which are currently incorrect. Although I've already created a topic on the Talk page, for the sake of speed, could we make this edit directly? I understand that I should avoid making any potentially controversial edits at all times. TencentCommsYeran (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is resolved, thanks @Robertsky for the help. TencentCommsYeran (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a functionality for sending a user a private message or a leaving a message that's hidden from public view? I'm curious why a user (pretty sure an admin) made an edit, but I don't want to ask on their talk page in case they take it personally when I'm genuinely just curious. Sigmund7 (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Sigmund7, you can send someone a private email at Special:EmailUser.

For more information see Wikipedia:Emailing users. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sigmund7 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigmund7, see User talk:The 8th Line--I clicked the wrong one in the drop-down menu. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, thanks Sigmund7 (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on the Cyrus cylinder is a quote within which a bracketed reference to a name is wikilinked (e.g., as would appear: "some quote [something] ..."). But because the wl of course uses double square brackets, the original editor had to put the quote's brackets within the link so that they are also highlighted in blue: [Belshazzar]

This of course is imperfect; the square brackets that show in the text should be outside the blue link. But when I try to edit it like this: [[[Belshazzar|Belshazzar]]], it breaks the wikilink. How to properly get this to display? Al Begamut (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Al Begamut. You can always wrap anything not to be interpreted in "nowiki" tags - see WP:nowiki for how. ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a template you can use e.g {{bracket|[[Belshazzar]]}} will produce [Belshazzar]. It's basically doing all the nowiki stuff Colin mentioned for you. - X201 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In nominating an article to DYK, a statement on my user page that I am using a machine translation has raised questions about the accuracy of the article I created. I would very appreciate some comments and suggestions on the following two points.

1. My use of machine translation

I write texts, both on talk pages and in articles, primarily by referring to machine translation. However, I do not write texts as they are output by machine translation. I read and compare the original language text with the output text, check the meanings of all unfamiliar words, and choose words and expressions that are close to the sources as possible. I do not think my writing can be called fluent, but I am writing with the utmost sincerity to the best of my ability.

Furthermore, for this article, I did not directly publish the article, but rather had a draft reviewed and copyedited by an English speaker who can read the original language before publishing it.

Based on my reading of WP:COFAQ#MTRANS and WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, I personally recognize that there is nothing wrong with this use of machine translation, but is there anything I should change about my use of machine translation? Or should I not be involved in machine translation at all?

2. Description of my user page

As written above, I consider my use of machine translation to be acceptable under the guidelines. However, since the accuracy of the article has been questioned based on my user page, should I add some additional explanation or change the wording on my user page regarding the use of machine translation? Or should I not include any words related to machine translation?

I am not too concerned about DYK's publication, as there is almost nothing I can do about the article, but if my user page is the reason for expressing doubts about the article's reliability, then I would like to clarify whether there is a problem with my user page or not. 狄の用務員 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get "autoconfirmed" and able to upload images to my graphic file? I created my account over 4 days ago and have made over 10 edits. thanks Judsonnewbern (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per XTools, your account is already autoconfirmed. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

most appreciated! thanks Judsonnewbern (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again all,

About a week ago, I asked about changing the white text of a logo to black so you can read it against the base-white Wiki background (here's a link to the page/logo I'm talking about). After poking around a little more, I found that the company uses a black-text version of the logo on their press releases. Is it okay to use a logo found on a press release? I've only ever pulled them directly from the websites associated with the topic. 30Four (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@30Four - You could also get the black-text version of the logo from this web site. I found this by going to Reunion's web site, going to News > In the Media, and then clicking on the first article. GoingBatty (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! I'm assuming this means it's okay to use a variation of a logo as long as it's uploaded by the represented topic in some form, even if it's not on their own site. The JPG of the black-text on that site will definitely be easier to read on a white background, but I'll keep looking around for a PNG file of the same version. 30Four (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anyone. I want to change my mentor but I don't know how. Could you please give me an advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applefruitlife (talk • contribs) 18:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Applefruitlife, welcome to the Teahouse. Click the three dots "..." to the right of "Your mentor" at Special:Homepage and select "Opt out of mentorship". You can opt in again and get another mentor assigned. I don't know whether you can choose your mentor. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've picked the editor [3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who have signed up to be mentors can use Special:MentorDashboard to claim mentees. Hence, any new editor can go to the talk page of the person they would like to have as a mentor to ask them to make the change. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’ve begun working on a draft after in a previous Teahouse post there was an agreement that there could be an article could potentially be created. I want to know if I am headed on the right track with my draft. I have confirmed that there are multiple international sources covering it as well, with sustained long term coverage from both national and local news sources, so I hope this is notable enough to continue writing this draft. Atheions (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Atheions. Yes, you're absolutely going in the right direction on this! It looks like there's absolutely enough lasting coverage on the chronic power outages of Puerto Rico to have some sort of article on them. One thing I'd like to introduce you to today is a search engine called Google Scholar. It's designed to bring up more academic sources (like journal articles or reports) than regular Google. It looks like this topic has received coverage in a fair few types of those sources, for example [4] and [5], but if you look around I'm sure you'll find more. And you don't need to worry about a conflict of interest just because you yourself are from Puerto Rico. Conflicts of interest are more to do with if you're writing articles about you, your friends/families/employers, or groups/clubs you are a part of. Nationality/religion may lead you predisposed to bias, but it's a bias every editor has and, fortunately, it's a bias that most editors can be aware of, accept, and then take reasonable steps to mitigate. Good luck with the artice! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a separate thing if the outages are still ongoing it would be better to rename the article to Puerto Rico power outages (2017-present). Other than that it looks like you're off to a good start! Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atheions, I think the article in its current state should be fine as long as you expand it (i.e. adding more info). It's notable enough for inclusion and has lasting news and academic coverage. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 20:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could a more experience editor please have a look at User:Artkritik/sandbox to suggest improvements. Artkritik (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Artkritik. It doesn't look to me as if any of your cited sources meet the triple criteria of being, reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage (See WP:42) - most of them are clearly not independent of Sigerud. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

On what basis are you suggesting that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability? ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to the Wikipedia world and would like to get started with something I know about. I'd like to work on documenting local active transportation projects. I'm in Austin, TX but would be happy to work on projects elsewhere. I see that there was a wikiproject for "Hiking Trails" but it is now defunct. I'm looking to document local greenbelts similar to the Atlanta Beltline page. But that page is using an "organization" infobox. Is there something more appropriate I can use? Or a project I can work on to learn more before starting to document Austin's greenbelts? Fastmole (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fastmole, welcome to Wikipedia! I recommend reading Help:Your first article. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastmole: With regard to infoboxes, there's {{Infobox hiking trail}}, but I wouldn't use that for anything but an actual trail. {{Infobox park}} might be appropriate for some greenbelts. Deor (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I was creating a draft page for NBACentel [sic], a satire NBA news account that has garnered widespread mainstream media attention, someone else created a page for the account. It bugs me a bit that the title contains a space, and also that my draft feels far more complete and comprehensive. Is there a way I could motion to have my draft page entirely replace the existing page? I don't know if it's proper wiki etiquette to just go in there and completely replace the public page with my draft. Also there's the issue that I'd like for the page to be moved from "NBA Centel" to "NBACentel".

Thanks in advance! TSwanyIRL (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just did this myself. Swapped the page content for the content that was in my draft, as it is far more comprehensive. If I did anything wrong please LMK! TSwanyIRL (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TSwanyIRL: It would have been nice to discuss it first with User:Soulbust who spent time creating that page. But now that you've gone and done it, it looks like an improvement so hopefully there won't be any hard feelings there. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to speak generally without passing any judgement on whether or not this was called for in this specific case: In the case of "there are two pages that exist and they should become one page", you want to do a merge. --Slowking Man (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TeaHouse,

I've recently been directed to the teahouse regarding my recent (and first) draft Draft:2025 GR Cup Series, the draft was declined and through my conversation with @KylieTastic and myself. I have since improved the draft through adding more sources + some minor expansion. Could I please get another user's opinion on this?

Thanks

Kburgin24 (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kburgin24: One sentence says "The calendar was released on the 27th of October 2024, during the driver's dinner and an Instagram post." The reference does not say when the calendar was released or that it was released at the driver's dinner. There should not be an external link in that sentence either. GoingBatty (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Thanks for the quick reply! I wasn't sure if I could reference the Instagram post so I just changed it to "The calendar was released on the 27th of October 2024" Kburgin24 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kburgin24: I still don't see a reference for the assertion that "The calendar was released on the 27th of October 2024". GoingBatty (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the one instagram post from tgr_aus I can't seem to find a source to cite it, would I be allowed to cite this instagram post? Or should I just remove the "The calendar was released..." part entirely Kburgin24 (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Apologies I forgot to @ you in my reply Kburgin24 (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kburgin24: I don't think it's important to mention when the calendar was released. GoingBatty (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Cool, Thanks for your help! Kburgin24 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

I've been patrolling recent changes for quite a long time and I just wanted to ask something. Is there an efficient way of patrolling? Do I have to check 'diff' for each and every edit? How do other patrollers do it?

Note:- I am using Twinkle. Warriorglance(talk to me) 01:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Warriorglance! I'm not sure if you're doing this already, but have you tried adding filters to Special:RecentChanges? I've applied filters to it so the program only shows me edits it thinks is vandalism. Here are the filters I applied:

And here's how the edits look after the filters are applied:

You can try it and see if that works. Additionally, when you gain some more vandalism experience, you can apply for rollback permissions so you can use tools such as Huggle and AntiVandal which make the whole vandalism-searching experience easier. Cheers, and reply if you need any help setting up those filters. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Relativity Yes, I use filters but I never knew there was a highlighting feature in filters. This makes it efficient. Thanks a lot! Warriorglance(talk to me) 02:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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]

Hey there! I want to open up a conversation about moving a page to have a different name. I finally figured how to get the tag I want on the talk page (under the header "Requested move 28 February 2025"), but I think(?) I should also be adding one to the actual page itself that says something like 'this page has been requested to move, there's a conversation on the talk page' or something like that to alert anyone who comes to the page? A) is that the correct protocol, and assuming so, B) Do you know how I go about that? Thanks so much! Wikipedian339 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikipedian339, it looks like you managed to figure out doing this yourself. Is there anything you still need help with for the move? Ultraodan (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedian339 once you've requested the move a bot will soon come and tag the article. So there's no need to do anything yourself. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Wikipedian339: You may be interested in using Twinkle, which is a tool that makes easier doing a lot of common "maintenance" tasks including move/renaming requests. If you try it out, "requested moves" are under the "XfD" item in Twinkle's menu. (Slight misnomer here but the alternative would be a whole new menu entry for just move requests.) --Slowking Man (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am new to wiki articles. I worked on an article: Draft:Shehu Musa Yar'Adua Foundation, which was rejected. Please I need help to improve and get my article approved. Thank you. Zeeyas (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeyas Hello and welcome. The good news is that your draft was only 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.

The draft just tells of the organization and its activities, sometimes in a promotional way. A Wikipedia article should do more, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia isn't interested in what the organization says about itself(so the "mission" and "vision" sections should just be removed).

Most of the awards described are about the organization's work(a documentary), not the organization itself. Furthermore, awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).

If you are associated with this organization, that needs to be disclosed, please see conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Thank you so much for your response. I will implement your corrections.

Yes, I work with the organization. Is it possible for a different writer or user (other than myself) to help review the work in order to avoid the conflict or interest from my end? Zeeyas (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may keep editing the draft, but you need to formally disclose your connection as the policies indicate. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot This is noted. Thank you. Zeeyas (talk) 11:16, 28 February 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]

Hello anyone, here is an article anyone can improve by adding information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwert0ky (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anyone, here I have a new article to improve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwert0ky (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qwert0ky Teahouse hosts are generalists here to advise on editing, not to co-author. Perhaps there are other places you can ask. David notMD (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff like this would go in WP:CLEANUP, although that corner of Wikipedia seems to be largely forgotten. MediaKyle (talk) 18:49, 28 February 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[6] taken between 1899-1903. I'm specifically interested in this one here[7] for the infobox. The copyright is listed as not determined. The collection creator died in 1918[8]. 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]

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]

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]

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]

@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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Le_Chat_(chatbot)). It is the translation of the french wikipedia article (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/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]