Wikipedia:Teahouse

Eman235, 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? ; 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.

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly. Alternatively, you can contact an experienced editor by visiting your homepage and clicking "Ask your mentor a question about editing".

There are currently 1 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

December 30th: Addition?

Though it is mentioned in another article on said date, the Hurricane Creek Mine Disaster which happened in Leslie County isn’t included in the article. I sure do hope it isn’t because of notability reasons. I mean, it can’t be said guideline, it has its own article. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

If you are referring to the December 30 article, I see no reason why you shouldn't add Hurricane Creek mine disaster. Please also read WP:DAYS. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

OP has not responded, so I have added it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I was reverted by User:Kiwipete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

As @Shantavira has mentioned, please read WP:DAYS, and also as I mentioned in my edit summary, WP:DOYCITE. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

DAYS is a WikiProject style guide, not a policy ("An advice page has the status of an essay and is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.", as it clearly says), and DOYCITE is a guideline and again not a policy, from which you removed the text "...editors reviewing unsourced entries are encouraged to check for a suitable source themselves before tagging or removing the entry." Perhaps you can tell us why you did not do that, and why you think it is acceptable to revert edits such as mine, instead of building on them—which is I understand, how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You should also take note of the Page Notice displayed whenever you edit a DOY article, specifically "Citations required: Each addition to this page must include a direct citation from a reliable source. Simply providing a wikilink is insufficient; entries without direct sources will be removed.". This is also the reason for removing that text from WP:DOYCITE. I would suggest that if you have further questions, you raise them at the project's talk page. Kiwipete (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You keep asking me to read different pages/ texts which say the same thing, but which have an equal lack of weight, and none of which refer to a policy or a community consensus.

I note that, leaving my addition aside, 25 of the 30 entries in the relevant section have no adjacent sources (they are of course sourced on the linked pages, as was mine), and yet you have not removed them.

You have still not explained why you destructively removed my addition, rather than collaboratively building upon it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Just people trying to shove notability up your butt. Don’t listen to Kiwipete. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

HI! I am new here Arseo.0111 (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

ههههه 105.37.95.104 (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

What the flip? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Kantara 2022 film's article title

Kantara A Legend was released in 2022. Later, in 2023 a prequel, Kantara A Legend Chapter 1 was announced, and it is set to be released in October this year. In February 2023, the director said the 2022 film was part 2. The page of the first film (Kantara (film)) was moved to Kantara: Chapter 2 in July this year. Should not the first film's article be titled Kantara (2022 film)? The first film is known as Kantara or Kantara A Legend by the audience, the title Kantara Chapter 2 is often interpreted as the 2025 film. Additionally, retroactive titles are not allowed Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope or Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1. these are some examples. The current title (Kantara Chapter 2) does not meet the WP:OFFICIAL guidelines, Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. WP:UCN commonly recognizable names should be used. WP:NCFILM clearly says that this kind of article title is not allowed. I requested a move but it is getting opposed, so what can I do? I do have the option to move the article myself. The film in posters and onscreen, is titled Kantara: A Legend. Optim594 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Optim594 Since the move request is already under discussion and facing opposition the best approach is to continue on the article’s talk page or requested moves page rather than moving the article unilaterally. Per WP:RM and WP:CONSENSUS, contested title changes require community agreement. You have made valid points citing WP:OFFICIAL, WP:UCN and WP:NCFILM,.... To strengthen your case add multiple independent reliable English language sources that refer to the 2022 film simply as Kantara or Kantara: A Legend and clearly show that “Kantara Chapter 2” creates confusion with the upcoming prequel.

If consensus is not reached you can wait 30 days and submit a new well sourced request. Avoid unilateral moves as they may be reverted under WP:BRD. Continue discussion on the RM page, add strong reliable sources supporting your title and avoid unilateral moves until consensus is reached.

🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 16:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I have added sources but I have one more question, even if it did not confuse, can the title really be changed?, it has not even been retitled, I think apple tv title is because of wikipedia, recently apple tv linked movies to prime video.

An IP user said that it is better to have retitled title than an disambiguation. But Star Wars (film) was retitled and has disambiguation instead of retitled title. Optim594 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

If the film has not been officially renamed Wikipedia’s guidelines (WP:NCFILM and WP:UCN) recommend using the original title... adding the release year if necessary (example, Kantara (2022 film)). Retroactive titles should only be applied when supported by significant usage in reliable sources. As your move request is still under discussion, continue adding high-quality sources demonstrating the common title and avoid moving the page yourself without prior agreement (WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RM). 🐍 Thilio🤖 04:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kantara:_Chapter_2#c-DareshMohan-20250811170500-2001:8F8:172B:45CE:E0D6:344D:987D:E91A-20250808155200 what do I do next, please help. Optim594 (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I mean when 7 days get completed, what do I do. IP oppose counts or not? Optim594 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Plane crashes in picture montages

What's up with the excessive use of plane crashes in the picture montages for "year" articles?

I like looking at the Wikipedia articles for each year to see all the events that took place in each respective year. One thing I noticed though is in the picture montages, there seems to be so many pictures of planes that crashed. Yes these are tragic with significant loss of life, but are plane crashes really so important as to define the ethos of a year?

For example I was just looking at the article for "2000" and there are 2 plane crashes in the montage. Here are some others: "1991" has 2. "1992" has 2. "1995" has 1. "1996" has 3. "1997" has 3. "1998" has 2. "2006" has 2. "2007" has 1. "2008" has 1. "2009" has 2. "2014" has 1.

Seems excessive to feature this many plane crashes. I didn't even look at any before 1990 but I assume there are more. I even wonder if it is a single person making the montages who seems to prefer putting plane crash pictures there. What are your thoughts? Airgum (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Airgum. There is an editor who is very active on Wikimedia Commons, called User:Nagae Iku. This user seems to enjoy creating these "year" collages and may be the best person to ask. Please be aware that this editor's native language is Chinese and they claim only basic English competency. Cullen328 (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Airgum. An example link for courtesy is 1996. That montage has an incredibly long and hard to follow caption!

I think there is a way to create a montage as individual photos, that way it will be easier to swap out events/photos per discussions (like this one), and you could click on each photo to see what it is about.

That would be more of a wiki way, rather than referring to a static grouping made at some point.

To be honest I would need help in figuring if there are any technical limitations or other reasons as to why it hasn't been done that way yet. Commander Keane (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

My Draft Was Declined

I submitted my article for approval, its the second time it was declined, I am wondering what information to put in, because when I had information that was useful and insightful it was said that it felt biased, but now that I took the information out they said that it was trivial, if anyone could help by looking at the sources, and looking into the content that would be super helpful here is the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sjonnyon#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_TAIT_(August_12) Sjonnyon (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You need to show that the subject meets the requirements outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE. There is additional guidance on suitable sources at WP:NCORP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Sjonnyon, Draft:TAIT cites 32 sources. That's a lot for you to expect anyone here to check. Which three, in your opinion, do most to establish thet the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense? They'll need to be to sources each of which is reliable, is independent of the subject, and has extensive discussion of it. Maproom (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

How can I make an addition or edit to a Wikipedia page?

I want to add a name to a list of distinguished alumni from my high school, and make other edits on Wikipedia pages, mostly on World War II, my specialty. I have written numerous articles for WW2 History magazine on the subject, and they can be used as citations for various entries on various battles and biographies on this subject. Please contact me to tell me how I do it. Kiwiwriter47 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

see Wp:How to edit Wikipedia. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 15:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

We only add people to alumni lists who are the subject of a Wikipedia article.

We recommend that you do not write an article about yourself.

You have a CoI with regard to your own works, but if you think they could be useful, please mention them on the talk pages of relevant articles; or at WT:MILHIST.

Now that you have published your email address here, beware of scams. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I canked the address. THANKS! 2600:4040:A366:E700:6513:1544:CB85:955C (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The address had already been removed. What you did was to remove Kiwiwriter47's username, which I have restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Page on Barchart

Guidance Needed

All My Edits Removed – Seeking Help Writing Informative Page on Barchart

Hello,

I’m hoping to get some guidance. I’ve been attempting to make edits to related Wikipedia pages in preparation for creating an article about Barchart, a financial data provider. I have already disclosed my connection to the company on my user page and in edit summaries.

Unfortunately, every single edit I’ve made so far has been removed, and I’ve now received warnings that my account could be blocked. I have been following what I believe to be Wikipedia guidelines:

• Writing in a neutral, factual tone
• Citing reliable sources
• Ensuring content fits the context of the page

Despite this, the edits are still being reverted, and I’m unsure what I am doing wrong. My goal is to create a fully compliant, informative article about Barchart without promotional language, but I would like to make sure I’m taking the correct approach to avoid further issues.

Could anyone point me toward specific best practices or examples for creating company pages that meet Wikipedia standards, especially when there is a conflict of interest? I would really appreciate detailed feedback before I try again.

Thank you FintechContext (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

FintechContext, none of your five edits thus far appear to be disclosing a COI, and you do not currently have a userpage, as indicated by your username being a redlink. So step one is to actually make the appropriate disclosures and make sure that they're saved, per WP:COIDISCLOSE. Otherwise, while best practices would have you make edit requests relating to topics with which you have a COI as opposed to adding the content directly, I think the bigger issue here is that you did not present any independent sources to justify that your additions were WP:DUE. In order for it to be appropriate to mention Barchart in a given article, you need a source other than Barchart or its creators to highlight its relevance in a given context. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The mistaken assertion that you'd already complied with disclosures (and also the fact that you say here My goal is to create a fully compliant, informative article about Barchart when you have yet to try to create a new article at all) makes me suspect that your post here was largely drafted by an LLM. If so, don't do that again. LLMs are not savvy enough to replace communication on Wikipedia and constantly commit errors that will get caught. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

To add to Rosguill's answer, in these edits, you added Barchart to a list of industry bodies, but unless I'm mistaken, it isn't an industry body. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

FintechContext, best practice for creating a company page is to choose a company that you're not associated with. Wikipedia is an encyclopdia, not a platform for free publicity. Yours appears to be a spam-only account. Maproom (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Proper sourcing and notability

Hi all, first time editor here. I have been working on Draft:Anirban Pathak. However I had a few questions about sourcing and notability after my first draft was declined.

Much thanks to the community for helping me out with my improper formatting.

I read that when writing about academics, the subject must pass one of 8 guidelines, one of which is being awarded a prize of national or international importance, another one being a fellow of a Society. Both of which I believe I have now catered to in my second draft.

Another thing I was confused about was sourcing, I am unsure if adding citations after each sentence and linking related wikipedia articles are enough.

Please help out, thanks :D Pustakp (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear what your questions are.

Your draft was declined again (so needs further work); please see the advice given in the decline notice.

You have clearly found Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The reviewer disagrees that you have shown that Pathak meets this requirement.

Technically, your referencing is fine, although you have some sentences that are still uncited. Either cite, or remove, them.

Do you have some kind of connection to Pathak? If so, please say so here, and see WP:COI Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

There's a COI disclosure on the draft and the user's page. The Om Prakash Bhasin Award is notable enough to have a WP article and so, IMO, Pathak meets WP:NACADEMIC #2. Whether #3 is also met depends whether the Fellowships are obtained merely by paying a membership fee or require an election similar to the Royal Society. I've made a comment on the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected page on WikiData

I need to change two images the infobox of a museum as a freelance job, but it appears to me as "semi-protected", so I can not edit the page yet. What are the steps to unlock this "edit" option for me, in this case? Slamoreira (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Slamoreira :). Semiprotected pages can be edited by "autoconfirmed" accounts, which on Wikidata requires a 4-day-old account and 50 edits. Alternatively you can ask another user to do it for you (I can do it), or you can ask to be confirmed manually at their requests for permissions page. The same applies for semiprotected pages on Wikipedia (except we require only 10 edits). Feel free to ask any other questions :). Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sophocrat,

I appreciate your help! I just need to change two images currently showcasing in the infobox of this page: d:Q82941

The one representing the buildins (currently this one: c:File:Novo MASP.jpg) should be actually this:

c:File:Vista do edifício Lina Bo Bardi e Pietro Maria Bardi, lado a lado, 2024 Foto Pedro Truffi.jpg

The one representing the new logo should be this:

c:File:Novo logo masp.jpg

Could you update the Wikidata page with those two, please? Thank you so much. I just ask because it's a bit urgent. Slamoreira (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The new logo image is a JPG; the old one is SVG, and SVG is preferred for such simple shapes.

The photograph lacks evidence of permission (i.e. a licence release) from Pedro Truffi, the photographer. Please see c:COM:THIRD for guidance on how to resolve this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Slamoreira: Are you being paid by the museum to edit Wikipedia/Wikidata? If so, you are required to make a paid-contribution disclosure as per WP:PAID, and wikidata:Wikidata:Disclosure of paid editing. You should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, the Teahouse is for questions about Wikipedia, most of us can't help with Wikidata. In the future, maybe ask wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Slamoreira yep, you’ll have to get a few more edits until you can edit that page. HQIQ (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Helpful Raccoon: There are plenty of people here with good knowledge of Wikidata, and questions relating to it—especially in relation to how its content is transcluded on Wikipedia—should be welcomed, just as they would be for one asked about how to change an image transcluded from Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Deleting a page because the business no longer exists

Hi there,

I've come across a page about a business and that business no longer exists - is that page entry worth keeping anymore?

What's the view on that, eg a business that stopped trading over 5 years ago? Is that a legitimate reason to delete the page?

Thanks! Ukdatageek (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Once an article exists, and the subject has passed/passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), I do not see why we should delete the article. Wikipedia isn't a business directory. And we do not delete articles about people because they have died, either. Lectonar (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ukdatageek I hope that you will agree that articles about defunct businesses such as ICI are of interest and worth keeping. You don't name the article which triggered your question but encyclopedias should cover both current and historically-significant topics. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Lectonar@Michael D. Turnbull My thanks to you both, all noted and understood. Ukdatageek (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

You can perhaps improve the article by rewriting it in the past tense and by checking that the business' demise (or takeover) is mentioned and properly cited.

Is it Pricesearcher? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Ukdatageek; have a read through WP:NOTTEMPORARY. If the company was notable during its existence, that notability is not temporary. So sure, we can keep it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I can’t successfully create an article about an artist I like.

Hi, I have been trying to write a biography of a Thai musician, I tried to follow all the guidelines. He has appeared on multiple tvshows and news articles(more than30), which I think would definitely pass the notability guide. But I’m new to Wikipedia and I tried to paste the links of the tv shows but failed, now I can only paste some news article links that Wikipedia approves and it is very frustrating. I having been trying this for months now, I am struggling, I also can’t paste pictures,it would be great if anyone would go and read or check the article in my sandbox that I have written for me, and it would also be very great if they can help me edit it and let it go through to googles for you page(or whatever it’s called) hahaha. It’s not a lot that I wrote but I’m sure I can improve from everyone’s suggestions. Thankyou Assawongkvin (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I have moved the sandbox to Draft:Assawongrat Assarangchai; you should submit it to review to get more input; as it is, I do not think the page is ready for mainspace. Lectonar (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou so much, I will try that out, I don’t even know if I’m gonna do it right haha. But Thankyou so much Assawongkvin (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi I tried pasting it again where you told me to. Did I do it right or what should I do. Thankyouuu Assawongkvin (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I think I did it, but it’s waiting for someone to read, Thankyouuu so much Assawongkvin (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Take a look at this version from 21 July, Assawongkvin. It has a decline notice (by DoubleGrazing). This says "Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted." In the next edit, you removed the notice. Any comment? -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes that’s why it is so frustrating, and I don’t know what to do now, I will try to draft everything up again and hopefully this time it would be a success and pass Assawongkvin (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NMUSICIAN explains what we need to show that a musician is an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article.

You will see that "appeared on multiple tvshows" is not listed there; the closest is "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.". This needs to be demonstrated through citations to reliable, independent sources. Your draft's section on his TV appearances is currently uncited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I wrote that before and pasted all the links but unfortunately Wikipedia doesn’t allow any YouTube links, sad Assawongkvin (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Assawongkvin. Wikipedia does allow linking to some Youtube sites, but they need to be official channels of reliable publishers/broadcasters, because most of the material on YouTube is not reliably published, and much of it is copyright violations. See WP:YOUTUBE.

You need to ensure that most of your citations (and all the citations you're relying on to establish notability meet all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I hate this

I edited the Mahan Air fleet so it could be easily understand for people. But why didn't Wikipedia accept it? Germanwings9525 (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted (undone) because they were unsourced; the need for sources is explained at WP:Verifiability. You may also find WP:Referencing for beginners helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Help with new article

Hello, I’m a new user and I’m doing my best to write an article that follows Wikipedia’s guidelines. I’m hoping to find some friendly and patient guidance as I work through the process. Is there a particular user who might be able to help me with this?

Thank you so much for your time and support. User972364 (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@User972364 Welcome to Teahouse.... Please Leave Message on my Talkpage we shell work on something together. Cheer...🐍 Thilio🤖 14:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

You can ask for a mentor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Changing a name

Hi! I work for CBR (formerly Comic Book Resources) I am trying to change the wikipedia name. How do I do that.

Thank you! Valnetmp (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• Hi Valnetmp, two things. First, look at WP:COI, and follow the guidelines on how to declare your conflict of interest--a box on your user page is the simplest way to do it. Second, place an edit request on Talk:Comic Book Resources, and if it's well-verified it should be an easy one for editors to handle. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Valnetmp, I see that the name is already handled in the lead, and an entry is on CBR, the disambiguation page. A name change requires a move, and it would have to be to something like "CBR (comic books site)" or something unwieldy like that. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

    Changing the article's name has been discussed a few times; two times it was suggested the move be to "CBR (website)". The last three move discussions resulted in "no consensus" so the status quo remains (2019, 2023, and 2024). Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! First of all thank you for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. The only way you can rename a wikipedia page, is if you move it. Though that requires appropiate permissions, and also in your case because you are affiliated with the company, it causes an Conflict of interest (C.O.I), which is then generally recommended to not act upon yourself and on general edits ask onether editor about your proposing modifications, or in your case make a page move request. See: Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Edit requests. Mant08 (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Valnetmp, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The first thing I will say is that if you work for CBR, and you intend to edit articles relating to CBR, Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor (even if you're not paid specifically to edit Wikipedia), and you must make a formal declaration of this, preferably on your user page User:Valnetmp (which is red because you haven't created it yet. There is no obligation to have one, but that's the best place to declare your status).

Then, you should not directly make edits to the article Comic Book Resources, but instead should make edit requests on its talk page.

In this case, what you are wanting is called a move - you cannot do this yourself yet anyway, because your account is too new. But again, you should not even if you technically could.

It will not be possible to move it to CBR, because that already exists as a disambiguation page. It should probably be somethihg like CBR (website).

If you think the move is uncontroversial, you can request it at Requested moves. But if you think anybody is likely to disagree, it would be best to propose it at Talk:Comic Book Resources and get agreement. ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

There has been no consensus in favor of prior requested moves at the talk discussion, and I do not see that changing with another discussion from an involved party on the company's behalf. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, Wikipedia articles are never retitled just because the subject wants us to call it something else. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

A quick look at Talk:Comic Book Resources shows that the move you're talking about has been requested multiple times previously. Each time the requested move was not done due to lack of editor consensus. I very much doubt you'll have much success with getting the article moved without some sort of new significant justification. 161.11.160.60 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

How to create a post

I need help with creating a post for a new technology that is out. What would i need and how do i do this without being flagged? 68.105.255.102 (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

First, your use of "post" sounds as if, like many people, you are mistaking Wikipedia for a social media site, where people post things they want the world to know about. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which contains articles which summarise what reliable independent sources say about a subject.

This means that unless people wholly unconected with this technology have already published about it in reliable publications (not blogs or social media) then there is no chance of an article being accepted at present - the Wikipedia jargon for this is that the subject is not yet notable. ("New" or "Up and coming" things almost always have this problem - see WP:TOOSOON).

If there are several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42, then an article is possible, and you may well meet another hurdle: what is your connection with the technology in question? If you have any connection with it, you have at least a conflict of interest, and possibly you are what Wikipedia counts as a paid editor. If either of these hold, then you are not forbidden from creating an article about it, but there are certain things you need to to (see the links above).

Whether or not you have a COI, if you are to write an article, you should summarise what those independent sources say, and very little else. Almost nothing that you know about the subject is relevant, unless it happens to be covered in one of those sources.

More generally 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. And that is even if you don't have a COI. ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Self promotion question/advise?

Hello wiki community. I only have about 40 edits under my belt and have begun making pages specifically around outer space exploration. I created a page for an organization I read about that has sent two people to space. I found this incredibly noteworth so created a wikipage for it. A few days later it was speedydeleted for self promotion. I am not affiliated with the organization so was wondering if y'all had any tips for a newbie on how to make things as non-promotional as possible. I felt it was super neutral so am surprised it got deleted for self promotion. It almosts seems like any wikipedia article for a living person or organization could be interpreted as self promotion. Any insight welcome, I'll use your feedback to test with another page I'm working on in my sandbox. Cheers! Space.tracker.nerd (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

For example, things like "ground-breaking technology" or "high quality products" don't work. This is an encyclopedia, not essay work. See Wikipedia:Yes, it is promotion. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 22:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Roger that. Thank you! Space.tracker.nerd (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Space.tracker.nerd I appreciate that you understood my comment. Thank you too :D ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Sections like "Mission and Vision" are almost always promotional, since they consist of what the organization wants to say about itself, rather than what independent sources say about it. Also, crypto-focused news outlets such as CoinTelegraph are generally not considered reliable independent sources for crypto-related topics. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for the insight. Space.tracker.nerd (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Surrounded by a morass of web pages about the "incredibly noteworthy", Space.tracker.nerd, Wikipedia dispassionately describes the credibly noteworthy. -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

For example there are other organizations that have passed the wiki "noteworthy" standard such as Space for Humanity. What others are showing me here is that the web resources that provide details on the organization are not the best but I think it would be a poor article if I only mentioned their achievement of sending two people to space. Thank you for the insight, I'll keep tabs on this organization and see if there are better resoures on them into the future but will move on for now. Space.tracker.nerd (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The Shepherd of the Hills 1941

Substantially revising an article on The Shepherd of the Hills 1941

 Courtesy link: The Shepherd of the Hills (1941 film)

I have never edited a page before. I just watched the last portion of a 1941 movie named The Shepherd of the Hills, starring John Wayne and Harry Carey. After watching, I checked the Wikipedia article, which was totally wrong. It might have been describing the book but the article indicates it is about the 1941. Moreover, it has a section on how the movie differs from the book. I am hesitant to attempt to correct the text for three reasons: (1) I have never written on Wikipdia before; (2) the changes would be massive (what is written currently might be describing the book accurately; and (3) I did not see the first 5-10 minutes of the movie. LingPo1975 (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

You can fix it by adding reliable, secondary, and independent sources if they can be found. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 01:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi LingPo1975, for a plot summary specifically it's OK not to go based off of a secondary source. If you just saw the movie, you're currently en expert on what was in it -- if it was different from the explanation in the article, please do update the article! It looks like the summary at The Shepherd of the Hills (1941 film) is written pretty badly, so it would also be wonderful if you re-wrote it to be more concise and use paragraph breaks to structure things more readably. (Personally, I wouldn't be sad to see the whole thing deleted and replaced...) As for missing the beginning of the movie -- you can leave the beginning of the summary as-is, and pick up with what you know for sure. It'll still be on average more accurate than it was before. If you have any specific problems as you work, feel free to ask for more advice. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with others that you should go ahead. While it does need a major rewrite, I suggest you make a number of smaller steps. Start by splitting the existing section into paragraphs, then rewrite each of those paragraphs, one at a time. Save the page after each.

That will make it easier for other people to see what you are doing, and you can review your work as you go. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Qualification of reference sources

I just got started as a Wikipedia editor and I'm having trouble distinguishing whether or not a reference is reliable and qualified. An article that I have been working on keeps getting declined because of this. I have looked up Wikipedia:Notability thoroughly, but the definitions are somewhat vague and some even conflict with several references in actual articles. So it would be really nice if anyone could give me a more detailed review of the article or just point out the exact reference that's unqualified in my article. That would help me a lot on improving my editing. Thanks!

The article that I'm working on: Draft:Unilumin. Yeehai9527 (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeehai9527, Draft:Unilumin has not been declined because of the unreliability of the supplied references. Instead, it has been declined because of the insufficiency of supplied references that are all four of (i) "in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)", (ii) "reliable", (iii) "secondary", and (iv) "strictly independent of the subject". There's a possibility that this means lack of reliability alone; but I immediately notice that Its product portfolio covers indoor and outdoor LED displays, transparent and creative form-factor screens, cinema LED systems, sports and event display solutions, and smart lighting such as multifunctional smart poles is referenced to prnewswire.com, which, it seems, will happily put out whatever it's paid to put out. (I'm also struck by the lack in this draft of any comment -- from reliable and independent sources, of course -- about the company.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for replying! Can you elaborate more on "comment" that you mentioned though? Is it a necessary part for a article on organizations and companies? What kind of content exactly is considered "comment"? It would be better if you can provide me with one or two example, because I have read through several existing simular articles but there doesn't seem to be anything that look like comment? Yeehai9527 (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yeehai9527 Maybe "commentary" would be a better word. The point is that Wikipedia articles about companies don't just have to show the company exists but that it has attracted attention from reliable sources (newspapers, industry commentators, academics etc) independent of the company itself who have covered some aspect of it in depth. This is what we mean by saying that the article has to demonstrate that the company is notable. This is summarised by our golden rule about decent sources. When you have found three or so such sources, base your draft just on what they say: adding what the company itself would say on their own website is much less important. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

disambiguation showed up significan conflation on term "GPGPU"

hi there is huge conflation on the word "GPGPU" - i just found a mistake on Nintendo switch where it is used to describe the wrong type of hardware (wrong technical term for an internal part of a GPU). this is a massive task, far too big for one person. how does one go about alerting editors with a view to collaboratively fixing this? (the computing task force is semi-retired/ended, otherwise i would go there) Lkcl (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

tia. Lkcl (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:General-purpose_computing_on_graphics_processing_units_(hardware)#c-Lkcl-20250814130400-Lkcl-20250814051200 Lkcl (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Finding Source for articles

I'm trying to find sources for my articles so they don't get deleted. However, I can't seem to find any sources. What should I do? Breck0530 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used.

However, lack of sources is often an indicator that a topic does not meet our requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources do not need to be online, as long as they can be appropiately cited. But any article needs to be cited to reliable sources--without these, there is literally nothing upon which a proper encyclopedia article can be based, so if the sources cannot be found, then the subject may simply not be notable enough (in Wikipedia's particular sense of the term) to merit an article here at this time. Hope this helps. Feel free to ask further questions. Thanks, and happy editing! --Finngall ^talk 18:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

You're going about it WP:BACKWARD. You find your sources first, before you write a single word of your article. If you cannot find adequate sources, then don't start writing the article. It's that simple. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't have enough sources because I only found 1 or 2 sources about the article and also I've looked at books and none of them talk about the topics I'm writing about. Breck0530 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you can return to this in the future? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

As I said, if you can't find sources, don't bother writing the article. If you write the article first and try to find sources later, you're wasting your time. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I can't find sources so I want to delete the articles that were cited with not enough sources, do I just wait or do I tell them that they can remove it. Breck0530 (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

You can tag them with {{db-author}}, or just leave them and they will be deleted six months after the last edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

ok thanks I will wait Breck0530 (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Breck0530, I took a quick look at your list of contributions and more or less randomly clicked on "1975 Small Club World Cup". This cites one source. I am ignorant of Venezuela (my excuse: it's very distant from where I happen to live), and I have no interest in watching people running around after balls, so it's not surprising that I have no immediate suggestions. But I imagine that the Argentine, East German, Portuguese, Spanish and Venezuelan (and Paraguayan?) press of the time would have said something. Now, if it's even possible to look through newspapers (whether digitized somehow, or on microfilm or microfiche, or on actual, crumbling paper), this is exhausting work; but presumably there were sports/soccer magazines in 1975 and it's likely that some reference library stocks these. You might ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Your interest in Californian highways suggests to me that you may be in California; if you are, it's unlikely that you'd be able to visit a large library in Argentina, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Venezuela, or Paraguay. Wherever you are, and whatever the languages are that you can and can't read, be sure to word your question in a way that minimizes the risk that respondents would spend a lot of time typing kinds of advice that you couldn't possibly use. -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Can I turn the articles into redirects? Breck0530 (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. You might also be able to put some of the material from them so long as it is cited into the target articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Page approval help

Hi there - I have adjusted my page to be less commercial in tone and added many references. Any other suggestions on how to get it approved? Draft:Numerator

NUWP2025 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@NUWP2025 Submitting it for review is one of the steps to take when you are satisfied that you have dealt with the three prior declines. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and, NUWP2025, get rid of the PR announcements and churnalism you are using for references. The add no value to any notability the topic may have. It is still an advert. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

NUWP2025, please answer 331dot's question. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

NUWP2025, why are you keen to get your draft approved? It does not give a good impression of the company. The first paragraph says that it spies on consumers' purchase data. The second says that it has an app which people install on their mobiles. (The rest is about the company's acquisition history.) Most people reading it will be wary of installing that app. Maproom (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

help for sandbox

User:Harold Foppele/sandbox Please see if this page is now correct to publish. If it is, can you please help me to publish it? Thank You ! Harold Foppele (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Your page is in Dutch; this is the English-language Wikipedia. Are you sure you wanted to publish it here? Lectonar (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

lack reliable secondary sources. 🐍 Thilio🤖 11:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Changed it to English.

Thanks for the help.

Is it now ok to publish ?

Greetings,

Harold Harold Foppele (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not suitable for EN-wiki. Try nl:Hoofdpagina. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Changed it to EN :) Harold Foppele (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Harold Foppele Your draft appears to consist of original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Although you have included some prior references, you do not use inline citations to make it clear what is already-published information and what is your own new material. Only if you can show that all the content is well-established math will the draft become acceptable. I note that the phrase "C-Wave Quantum Computing" generates no hits on Google Scholar Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

No, this is still not usable for Wikipedia. It's just a personal blog essay. Even the "References" are useless: None of them have links or DOI numbers; the first one does not have a date, and the other two do not have title names or even the full name of the publication. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I changed the title, the content and the references.

The original title could be confusing i guess.

What do you think of it now ?

Greetings,

Harold Foppele Harold Foppele (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

No, this is still not usable for Wikipedia. It's just a personal blog essay. Even the "References" are useless: None of them have links or DOI numbers; the first one does not have a date, and the others either do not have title names or the full name of the publication. The ones I found online do not even mention your premise or title. And there are no inline citations. Softlavender (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/f/quantum-computation-and-quantum-information/30538576/

I am cnfused, the references are so easy to find.

Do you want them to be hyperlinked ??

Greetings,

Harold Harold Foppele (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Read what I wrote, twice already. They need to have viewable links (or, at the very least, DOI numbers). Softlavender (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear Softlavender.

All references now have veryfiable links.

I hope you are satisfied with this :)

Greetings,

Harold Foppele Harold Foppele (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

More importantly, @Harold Foppele, you need Inline citations - you must show us where the information in each paragraph (or sentence) comes from. Have a look at Referencing for beginners for more information. References don't need to be online, but if they are then links are very useful for reviewers and readers. Meadowlark (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Harold Foppele (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear Meadowlark,

I have done that also.

Is it now publish ready ?

Greetings,

Harold Foppele Harold Foppele (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Harold Foppele I suggest you clean up the LLM or ChatGPT generated texts before submitting for Draft AFC review. 🐍 Thilio🤖 19:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, done that.

My feeling is that it slowly is driven away from the original concept.

But if you think this is better, i have to live with that :)

Greetings,

Harold Foppele Harold Foppele (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Now you have provided properly cited information, I think that most of the content would be much better if added to our article on the Bloch sphere, which you didn't Wikilink. That article is, IMO, far too technical and your more introductory approach might assist readers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks.

are you able to publish my article? 185.91.249.37 (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I could do it :):):)

Thanks to all the moderators that made it work !

Greetings,

Harold Foppele Harold Foppele (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Harold Foppele Although you found that it was technically possible to move your draft to mainspace, there is no guarantee that it will survive attention from the new pages patrol and it won't be indexed by search engines until that happens. Meanwhile, getting into an edit-war with admin User:331dot over the "essay-like" and "notability" tags he added to the article is not a good idea. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

I had no idea that i was involved in an edit war.

My impression was that someone fiddled with my page without asking or telling me.

It would be so nice if they let me know what and why, and that would be fine by me.

I think that would be decent.

Yet now, after you told me that it was properly cited, i am back to square 1 with no clue of what to do next.

Could you help me? If the textblocks on top need to be put in, ok, Otherwise i do not know what to do.

I put a lot of work in research and assembling started it a long time ago and now finaly it looked smooth. Not exactly what i wanted, but thats fine.

Please tell me what to do. if you want that is.

Greetings,

Harold Foppele Harold Foppele (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not your page and no one needs to ask permission from you (or anyone) to edit it, These are core tenets of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not my page, but it is my research and work.

So it the page is moved with no other explanation: Not fit for publication, and a whole sentence is not cited, while Mike wrote to me it was all ok, i dont know what to do.

Are you willing to help me ? Harold Foppele (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

For the reasons given above, I have moved the article to Draft:Bloch sphere representation in mode-counting quantum models.

In particular, one section remains completely uncited.

When you feel it is ready for publication, submit the article for review, via the process described at WP:AFC. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it to "mainspace". If not, they will give you further advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

How to not get flagged as 'unambiguous promotion'

Hi, I picked a company to try to write an article on (easyJet holidays), I made an effort to be matter of fact and for it to read like an encyclopaedia entry rather than promotional material, every statement was supported by references such as Reuters, Financial Times, The Times, The Standard, Marketing Week etc. However, it was rejected and deleted.

My hope is I did simply fail in my sincere attempt to write matter-of-factly, and that someone can provide guidance and examples of company bio pages done well. Or even better show where I went wrong, although may not be possible now the article is deleted.

However, I suspect that the subject matter is the problem, and that a new company bio will have a very high chance of being deleted however it's written. Is it possible that reviewers are being overly cynical of articles concerning commercial entities?

I'm new and clueless so happy to be put straight, I just ask that you do your best to explain. Thanks. Jlbedits (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

If this is your company article [1], it does not merit its own article, it merely warrants a sentence or two in the easyJet article. Plus there need to be WP:INLINE citations (with <ref></ref> tags) and the citations should be clickable/viewable. My recommendation would be to abandon this effort and focus on improving Wikipedia in other ways, which will give you experience in how Wikipedia works and why. Try out WP:TWA (which is fun!) and the newcomer edits suggested on your userpage for starters. Softlavender (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I can't see the drafts you wrote, because they have been deleted, but I can see the version in your sandbox. Two things stand out:

• It has no sources; you must cite reliable, independent sources, showing us what neutral third parties say about the company. WP:NCORP has guidance; and WP:Referencing for beginners tells you how to make citations.
• It reads like it was copied from their website. That might be me getting the wrong impression, but you must write in your own words.

If you work for easyJet or have some other connection to them, you must abide by WP:PAID and WP:COI.

I suggest you start by making some small edits to the existing article on easyJet, with citations, to get a feel for how things work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

To be blunt, when we see sentences like It emphasized flexibility, technology-forward booking, and categorised accommodation (e.g., Luxury, Adult, Family, Boutique, Undiscovered), with features like integrated mapping and itineraries powered by a partnership with Google., there should be a great deal of cynicism. The draft reads a lot like what EasyJet would like to release in a marketing pamphlet, not what an NPOV encyclopedia would say about something.

I agree with Softlavender that notability hasn't been established separately enough for this to be a standalone article. And as is, the sourcing is a mess anyway. When there is a fact in an article, we cite it directly to the independent, reliable source that provided this information. That may be in the form of an exact web page or information to get us to the right page in the exact book, magazine, research paper, or newspaper to find that information. Just typing "Financial Times" or "Reuters" in a pile at the end of an article isn't helpful. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Jlbedits How did you select this company to edit about? People rarely edit about a topic at random. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Draft not published

I am a new edittor.I made a draft and submitted.But that was not worthy to publish.

Can you please help to create a publishable biography? Dsanjustin (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

We will not look for sources for you. How do we know anything said about this subject is accurate? How do YOU know anything you wrote about the subject is accurate? Frankly, the page looks like you're promoting a politician, not writing an article. BusterD (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok .I got u. But I want to create a draft in neutral way.To do this i need help that where can i edit or which subject can be added or remove? Dsanjustin (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:Your first article, and the pages it links to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Dsanjustin. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Creating a draft for review

I created a draft in my sandbox but only have the option to PUBLISH (no option to submit for review). Do I just publish or am I missing something? 64.98.199.224 (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. You have logged out, so we cannot see any other contributions so I have no idea what sandbox you are referring to. On Wikipedia, "Publish page" is akin to "Save" on a word processor. If you want to then submit for review, add the code {{AfC submission}} to the top. qcne (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

cool designs

I've seen people when they reply to other people's comments they have special design on username and talk. How do I make that? Breck0530 (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Signatures. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

If you go to your preferences, you can edit your signature in a text box. Also, you can choose for it to be treated as wikitext or not, allowing you to do some pretty cool stuff. Hope this helps, CoroneC0rnix-64 (talk).

how can i update my article properly

 Courtesy link: Draft:Al Baru Mustakim Nibir

please tell me the way to update my article Al Baru Mustakim Nibir (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Al Baru Mustakim Nibir, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The answer is that you almost certainly don't.

Writing about yourself in Wikipedia is so difficult, and so rarely successful, that it is strongly discouraged.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.

An article about you should not be based on what you know, still less on what you want the world to know: it should be based on what people you don't know at all have chosen to publish about you - even if you don't like what they have written.

An article about you (whoever writes it) will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, and may say things you would not like it to say.

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. And that's even without a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I find it ironic that the autobiography claims the subject is a "journalist" yet doesn't show the slightest evidence of journalism. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia help

How to get help to use this site and, also, get to Ancestry.com 2601:1C2:C004:69B0:8143:30B2:625E:832A (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @2601:1C2:C004:69B0:8143:30B2:625E:832A! A good way to get started on Wikipedia is by creating an account and going through The Wikipedia Adventure, which will show you how to edit Wikipedia. If you have more questions, put {{help me}} in the talk page, and an experienced editor will give you a hand. Also, when you create an account, you are assigned a mentor who can lend you a hand.

As for the Ancestry.com question, Wikipedia is in no way affiliated with Ancestry, so we can't be of any help there.

Happy editing!

-Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot Although Wikipedia is not affiliated with Ancestry,com, editors here who are members of the Wikipedia library can obtain free access to it and related sites like newspapaers.com, as well as many other resources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello

Its nice to be a part of Wikipedia. Just had few questions: 1. Where to start? 2. what are the rules? 3. My limitations as newcomer 4. What are administrators? Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, @Isolatedchimpanzee!

1. Help:Getting started provides helpful resources. As a newcomer, you may want to play The Wikipedia Adventure, which can get you acquainted with basic Wikipedia editing knowledge.
2. There are five pillars which summarize the fundamental principles here, but you can view a more comprehensive list of policies and guidelines here.
3. The basic limitations of a new account are restricted article creation, inability to upload files and not being able to move pages. However, you can "unlock" these easily by becoming "autoconfirmed". See Wikipedia:User groups#User groups granted to accounts for more information.
4. In simple terms, administrators (also called "admins" or "sysops") are highly-trusted volunteer editors, who can perform important and restricted maintenance tasks on the wiki, like blocking bad users, deleting bad pages and more, but they're still equally important as all the other contributors.

Lastly, you may want to see WP:NewbieGuide. Feel free to reply if you have any further questions. randomdude121    04:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

thanks but from 3rd question I meant internal restrictions rather than technicals. As I see there are lot of freedom and I dont want to be entangled into too much branches to my own pain. Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Isolatedchimpanzee Until you are more familiar with Wikipedia, it is probably sensible not to make edits like this one where you removed an interlanguage link. These are intended to help readers by showing that there is an article about something in another language (in this case German) which is missing currently in English. I have reverted that edit. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Isolatedchimpanzee that's the neat part. Unless there is a technical reason to prevent you from doing something, you're free to be bold and make any changes you feel would improve Wikipedia! After all, Wikipedia's intent is to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 15:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

User seems to be making hundreds of POV category edits

User:Suite1408 seems to have, over the course of the past year or so, gone through pages of Catholic people and deleted the Catholic categories ("American Roman Catholic", "African-American Catholic", etc) from their page if he deemed them not to have been "practicing" Catholics (per his edit summaries). It seems to have involved many, many pages, and he may have been trailing some of my edits to find pages to delete categories from. In virtually all cases, the sources and content on the pages indicate the person was a Catholic, and of course the categories have nothing to do with whether they were practicing (churchgoing?) or not. I have reverted many of his edits, and some editors have taken care of others, but this seems like a systemic matter that should be addressed. Am I handling this correctly? natemup (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Natemup: I examined three category removals [2][3][4] and they all appear in accordance with Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people#Religion. We don't call somebody Catholic just because a source says they were raised as Catholics or went to a Catholic school. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

How do you figure with Duplessis? He is literally identified in a source as a practicing Catholic, referring to a recorded quote. And in other cases, why should we assume someone who was raised Catholic is no longer Catholic? (I don't know what your Catholic school reference is to.) natemup (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I saw that you undid a lot of Suite1408s edits calling them vandalism, where they removed the category from articles that nowhere state the subject is/was catholic. Calling that vandalism seems a pretty intense accusation? -- NotCharizard ^🗨 10:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

It was late and I may have fudged some, but I made the reversions because he was clearly following a pattern that ignored whether the person is Catholic (raised Catholic, is Catholic, buried Catholic, etc.) and simply made the category about whether one is practicing. That seems like his personal interpretation of what it means to be Catholic. natemup (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Your specific point has been answered, but more generally, if you have a dispute with another editor, please follow the process described at at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Create a article on a site critic literary

Hello I would like to create a arcticle was a site critics literrary, i can create? Quirbajou (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm French but I Don't can Speak good English but I'm So Excited for asnwers! Quirbajou (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I am so Excited yes yes yes! Quirbajou (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

If you don't speak good English you are likely to have difficulty writing for this site. Perhaps you can write an article in French; on the French Wikipedia (see fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux) and maybe then someone will translate it into English. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I have already prepared my article . This site is Makibook. Quirbajou (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Then post it at Draft:Makibook so we can see it and give you better advice. Don't forget to include sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

article about myself has been dropped

I really need help to have an article about me. I have done great work for the wellbeing of humanity, especially farming community. Raziq2007 (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

We don't host articles because of the subject's wishes. There are alternative outlets for that.

We host articles about subjects that are Notable according to our criteria.

In particular, be wary of scammers who offer to write about you for money. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Raziq2007, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that Wikipedia's needs are not the same as yours. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (and only then), then Wikipedia would like to have an article about you.

But such an article would not be based on what you say or want to say, or on what your associates say: it should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with you have independently chosen to publish about you in reliable publications, and very little else.

Experience has shown that almost nobody can successfully write such an article about themselves, and so they are strongly advised not to try: see autobiography.

If you insist on trying, then I must tell you that Draft:Dr. Abdul Raziq Kakar is written backwards: it begins with what you know, but Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject 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. ColinFine (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• User:Raziq2007 needs deleted as obvious self-promotion. 2A00:23C5:E9AC:DA01:BCF0:9806:F22E:E221 (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Abdul Raziq Kakar

Please help me in improving this article and want to be published on wikipedia. Raziq2007 (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

See above. Please don't keep asking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

World camel day

 Courtesy link: Draft:World Camel Day

What stuff is available on world camel day at Wikipedia?

please tell me about the subject cited above. What we can do to highlight this important day. Raziq2007 (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The same applies here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, @Raziq2007. "to highlight this important day" is exactly what Wikipedia calls promotion, and is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.

Again, if there are substantial independent sources about the event sufficient to establish that it is notable, then Wikipedia could have an article on it. Again, such an article would be based on what those independent sources say, not on what the creators or organisers of the event say or want to say. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Raziq2007: You seem to like getting other people to do things for you. Did you try searching for "world camel day"? I did and got a result in the first entry returned. Bazza 7 (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I have now linked to OP's draft, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know if my draft will pass notability standards

Hi, last time I edited from the advice y’all gave me and now it’s waiting for review. This is the fifth time I have edited this, I hope this will be the last time. Thankyou for all your advices, of any of you could check my draft I would be very greatful. If I do not pass the notability standard, I am willing to learn from my mistakes. Assawongkvin (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it to "mainspace". If not, they will give you further advice.

There is a backlog; The Teahouse is not here to circumvent that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok thankyou Assawongkvin (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Assawongkvin. You need to attend to your YouTube links. YouTube is not the publisher, it is the medium, and it is crucial to know who the publisher is in order to tell whether this could be a reliable source. (Most material on YouTube is not reliable, and some of it is copyright infringements, and Wikipedia should never link to those. See WP:YouTube ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thankyouuu Assawongkvin (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I can't create a new article!

My sandbox was moved to a drafts page. Now I seem to have no sandbox. I would like to start a new article but it appears this isn't possible. This interface is extremely frustrating. Jrdemers (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)