Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; 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 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

Is there an easy way to look for articles flagged under the same maintenance template?

I'm hoping to help edit articles and thought it might be helpful to review a series of articles flagged for the same thing. Is there an easily accessible tool that will let me do that? I've done lots of searching but only found guidelines. If not, is there an easy way to get to the Wikpedia suggested articles for editing that shows articles with templates? ErrataNonGrata (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

See Template:Backlog status Moxy🍁 03:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@ErrataNonGrata There are several tools which help find articles with a given cleanup template but the one I find most useful is WikiProject Cleanup Listings because it subsets the listings into topic areas so I can focus on topics I'm interested in. You can download the lists into a local spreadsheet for sorting if you want. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This is so helpful, thank you! ErrataNonGrata (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Adam Linder Wikipedia's Page WP:Pyramid issue

Hi,

I'm currently working on Adam Linder Wikipedia's page (see: Draft:Adam Linder) and I would like to know how I could avoid the WP:PYRAMID issue. I didn't make it on purpose. I don't understand what I did wrong and I explicitly would like to know which lines are incorrect. Is there any lines that are WP:PYRAMID shocking ?

Thanks for letting me know.

Simononwiki1 (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't put irrelevant details in the lead section of the article. How he divides his time? Nobody cares. The lead section is for giving an overview of the main points of the article, so the reader knows how the subject is notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay thanks I modified the lead section. Besides this, is there only that sentence that made it WP:PYRAMID ? Is my wikipedia article ill-written or written in a way that people doesn't want to read it, because of not following wikipedia's rules ?

Thanks a lot for your time.

Simononwiki1 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Some of it still reads like the author has a conflict of interest. For example, the subjective interpretation "questioning the monetization" is stated as a fact in Wikipedia's narrative voice as if it needs no qualification or citation. Not only is it non-neutral, but it also violates the WP:BLP policy by not being cited to a source. The rest is OK. You have a verb tense error in the Awards section.

While he was won awards, he has also received a few lackluster reviews. Be aware that your client has no control whatsoever over any well-sourced but less-than-flattering statements that get into the article after it's published. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

VPN

What would happen if you edit without logging in and you use a VPN? No worries, I will always use one account (this) and edit when logged in. I was just curious. Cwater1 (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cwater1: VPNs are usually the subject of anonymous blocks on Wikipedia (most notably, Apple's iCloud Private Relay), to prevent precisely this kind of scenario. See WP:VPN for more information. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay makes sense. Sounds like Wikipedia doesn't want true "anonymous" edits. It was a question I thought of. Thanks. Cwater1 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Creating an account is actually quite anonymous:) Fewer people, and only highly trusted people, have access to the underlying IP info than editing with just a more-visible IP itself. DMacks (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Correct by DMacks, to be more advanced really the only people allowed to see IP's of registered users are called "Checkusers", if you wish to read up on it its at Wikipedia:CheckUser. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

You can't edit with a VPN on.

I have turned on a VPN while editing, but I always turn it off before I published the edit. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

"Retired" but not on vacation (editors)

I have seen some editors that claim to be "retired" on their user page/talk page, but then they are highly active. I don't know what is going on with those, and surely someone can do what they want as long as it isn't disruptive (for the most part), but has anyone else ever noticed that? Is that misleading? Makes it hard to know sometimes if they are open to taking suggestions or feedback on their talk page and working on building a certain page up collaboratively with that feedback and sharing the editing work. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Iljhgtn, I have frequently noticed such claims. They're better simply ignored. Click "User contributions" to see what, if anything, is going on. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Very often the user contributions show loads of recent and active editing, but the editor is "retired"... I am all for WP:AGF, but something seems amiss in those cases. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Sadly there is really nothing, we can do to our knowledge. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

A "retired" notice on a Wikipedia editor's user page should be taken with the same level of seriousness as an announcement that some classic rock & roll performer has "retired". Cullen328 (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Or Tom Brady? Iljhgtn (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Inasmuch as retired templates are used to attempt to dodge accountability, they don’t work. ANI, etc proceedings don’t give it any credence if editors’ behavior is to the contrary. I don’t think there’s any need to proactively take issue with people posting these templates as long as they’re not engaging in disruptive editing (and on the occasion that they are, it gets addressed through the normal channels) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. I just like to check the pulse of the Teahouse to see if I am alone in going crazy or if others had experienced something similar. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

A lot of people just don't pay much attention to their own user pages. A long time ago, I got fed up and took a wikibreak. Blanked my userpage except for a note that I wasn't around. Didn't edit for the better part of a decade aside from the occasional compulsive typo fix on an article I happened to be reading. Then during a period of enforced leisure, started editing again at an increasing rate without even really noticing it. Didn't really get around to updating my user page because there wasn't any sort of binary "I'm going to start editing again!" decision; and even if there had been, I wasn't really interested in declaring that to the world (because who really cares except me?). Besides, I might disappear again any day now... -- Avocado (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Incredible, well with an account named "Avocado" I can understand why you'd never quit for good. That sort of simple name simply isn't available anymore. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Just imagine the username of someone who will be saying the same thing about your handle 20 years from now! -- Avocado (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

"Wow 'Iljhgtn' I love your username "*signed* Iljhgtnqoweirwefnwelfnqwrnqewornq2e129482385y9247385sdfsetrwe" Iljhgtn (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

New Articles

Assalamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu!

I would like to ask for step by step instruction and guidance in creating a new page or article here in wikipedia

jazakallahu khayran Sidicalcaluang (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sidicalcaluang Welcome to the Teahouse. There are full instructions at Help:Your first article. My advice would be to start by editing and developing existing articles until you find your way around. The English Wikipedia has a strong requirement that topics for new articles be notable as defined here and you need to aware that writing articles from scratch is not easy, nor even the best way to assist the growth of the encyclopedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

thank you very much, i would try to start first in writing it in msword before writing here Sidicalcaluang (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sidicalcaluang, and welcome.

You may write it in msword first, but that would not be my advice.

Writing an article begins with finding the reliable independent sources - I don't advise writig a single word of an article before you have found the sources - and then continues by summarising what those sources say, citing them as you go.

MSWord will not let you insert citations in the text in the way that Wikipedia needs them; so if you write your text in MSWord, you will have to go back and insert all the citations afterwards, rather than while you are writing. ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sidicalcaluang, as a still-not-far-from new editor myself, perhaps I can help you grasp a little more of the importance on a practical level of what both Mike Turnbull and ColinFine are saying in their recommendations.

1- To pick up on Mike's comments: When we come on board with Wikipedia, especially those of us with long histories of writing and editing, there's no way we can realize at first what a different world we're now part of. There's a huge amount of policies and guidelines to become aware of, like notability that Mike mentioned and lots more multisyllabled terms that he didn't. This includes even how to find those resources in the first place! Then too, there's a lot of unfamiliar Wiki jargon. To throw a few for-instances your way, just for starters, there's BLP, MOS, COI, RS, COPYVIO, AFC, and DIFF. If we plow ahead as newbies without quality time on the learning curve, our work simply gets rejected by editors on patrol duty. Not fun. Not to mention also, a waste of time.

2- To pick up on Colin's comments: As far as starting on actual Wiki article writing, your thought of doing it in MS Word sure brought back memories because that's exactly what I did ... and came to regret. All the time I'd put in on citations was for nothing. As Colin cautioned, the way they have to be done in Wikipedia is much different. I'd even say it's much easier — a least in the WYSIWYG Visual editor, toward which I'm prejudiced, though Source editor fans will be happy to tell you all the advantages they find using that. When you want to create a reference (footnote), you just press a button; up pops a form you fill out, depending on type of citation (book, website, etc.); press Publish; and voilà, there's your reference down below with all the information correctly formatted in Wikipedia's preferred style. Re-using the same reference is also painless.

Writing articles directly in Wikipedia also gives you the unique capability to create links that can take readers to other Wiki articles. So let's say you're writing on Easter customs and you mention hot cross buns. Aware that not everyone may be familiar with what they are, you can easily link the term to a Wiki article, like so: hot cross buns. I love being able to do this. It's opened up so many new ways I now write and even, at times, edit.

Well, Sidicalcaluang, hope you found a few helpful insights here ... and best on your Wiki journey, Augnablik (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about inappropriate citations

I have a question regarding the AJ Parr article I created. It is the second Wikipedia article I have created from scratch, the fist one was the article on Nancy Evans Bush. I saw the following notice on the AJ Parr article: "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent sources. (April 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

After reading this notice I read that Wikipedia recommends not using citations from Amazon and blogs, so I removed all of the inappropriate citations I had originally included from Amazon and one blogpost I had originally included. However, the notice is still there.

Since I still plan on creating a few other articles on people who are not presently included I need to get this straight. Why is the notice still appearing on top of the article after making these changes? Are there other citations that should be replaced? I would like someone with more experience to lend me a hand so I can do a better job next time. Thanks in advance and I hope you can give me some guidance. UncleAlb (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @UncleAlb! The notice was added manually (specifically by the user Omphalographer in this diff, and you may remove it yourself if you feel the issue has been adequately addressed. Hope this helps! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 18:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot PhoenixCaelestis! Have a nice day! UncleAlb (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Whereupon UncleAlb removed the template. But it remains richly deserved (as I explain in Talk:AJ Parr), and I have therefore restored it. (Meanwhile, AJ Parr's notability is not obvious to me.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hoary: Thanks for pointing that out. I eliminated the excessive references and reduced the text's overall length after reading your observation. Please review once more if you can. This is my second Wikimedia page and I am eager to learn, UncleAlb (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Translated by/Trans. by

Is there a preferred WP style in Further reading/Bibliography/External link sections when the translator is included? I couldn't find that mentioned in the Manual of Style. Mcljlm (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, one of the ways to check who it was translated by is the version history of the page, it may not be the easiest, but usually that's how to check it to my knowledge. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mcljlm: If you format a reference to a translated book by using {{Cite book}}, the output is "Translated by", so I don't think you can go wrong with that. "Trans. by" (or just "Trans.") before the translator's name, however, would be perfectly clear, and I'm sure no one would object. Deor (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Simple HTML interface for Wikipedia

Is there any skin like this available for Wikipedia? I know Monobook is close but comparing to this one it's still bloated. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi MinervaNeue, welcome to the Teahouse. The API siteinfo [1] says there is a skin called apioutput. useskin=apioutput shows it but there is no user preference to display pages in apioutput. You can select the old deprecated skins Modern and Cologne Blue by viewing preferences with that skin but it doesn't work for apioutput so I don't know a good answer. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Tbh Cologne Blue is kinda what I want. Still not close to "apioutput" but imho better than Monobook. Thanks! MinervaNeue (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like maybe you just want to disable CSS stylesheets entirely. I'm pretty sure there are browser extensions that can do that. Maybe even ones that can lock that in as a preference on a per-site basis. -- Avocado (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This won't look good because of the navbars and sidebars. I want something that looks close to UseModWiki or 2002 Wikipedia. MinervaNeue (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@MinervaNeue: not related to your question, but why is your user name the same as the mobile skin name: mw:Skin:Minerva Neue? Commander Keane (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

That's on purpose. MinervaNeue (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

O...kay. Why, though? Cremastra _talk 20:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It was not taken, as you can see. MinervaNeue (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Purging an article

What is affected in an article/page when you purge it? I want to ensure I am not deleting anything critical in said page. The specific article I want to purge is UTC-05:00 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9205:00). Somerandomguy55 (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Nothing is deleted. What's purged is the "cache" of the rendered article.

Articles are cached because rendering them takes a lot of computer resources. When an article is edited, the new version is rendered once, and that rendered version is saved to a cache that's used to serve all copies of it until it's edited. Then it's re-rendered and the new rendered version cached.

However, if a template the article uses gets edited, the article itself may not get re-rendered. Purging the article actually just purges its cache. The removal of the cached version forces a new rendering (with templates updated). Then that new rendering is cached and served. Just like editing forces a re-rendering; except purging doesn't change the underlying code of the page.

So purging doesn't change the page code at all. It just makes sure that what's displayed matches the page code and the latest version of all templates that are used. You can do the same thing in most cases by making a "null edit", which additionally purges some other caches involved in rendering other parts of the page. -- Avocado (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to undo an action in the text box of the "Edit source" screen, or retrieve the code from a page preview?

For whatever reason, while editing my sandbox in "Edit source" mode, I deleted all my text from the typing box. Since I had used the "Show preview" button recently, I still had a preview of the page as it would appear in "Read" mode above the typing box, but the version of the text with all the HTML code was gone. When you use "Edit source" mode, is there a way to activate an Undo arrow above the typing box that cancels your last action, as you have in a word processing software, or when you use Wikipedia's normal "Edit" mode? Or at the very least, is there a way that I could have retrieved the HTML version of the text from the "Read" mode page preview that remained above the now empty typing box? Thanks. Redacwiki (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia’s “Edit source” mode (wikitext/HTML editing) does not have an “Undo” button or version history available within the edit window itself. Once you delete content in the editing box and do not save, that deletion cannot be undone with an "Undo" button like in word processors.

Next time, please keep in mind-

1. The “Edit source” interface does not have a built-in undo/redo system beyond your browser's native undo.

2. Could You Retrieve the Wikitext from the Preview Above?

No — not directly. The preview is a rendered output, not editable wikitext. You could have right-clicked the preview and used “Inspect Element” (browser developer tools).

3. Before clicking "Show preview," copy all your current text (Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C) and paste it into a Notepad or text file as a temporary backup. There is no way to recover it through Wikipedia’s interface unless you had saved it previously.

ALso, There is a "Revert" button on Wikipedia, but it applies only in certain cases, and not to unsaved or in-progress edits.

Thanks, Have a great day at Wikipedia. IHitmanI (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

In most browsers, you can undo an edit in a text box by using the system Undo command (ctrl-Z in Windows and Linux, or command-Z in MacOS). CodeTalker (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I just tried this. Thank you so much. Redacwiki (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

A small point, Redacwiki: Although a very limited number of HTML tags and attributes can be used in "wikitext" (aka "source"), the HTML digested by your browser is very different from, and hugely more complex than, the wikitext. As an example, the wikitext pair == == is, simply explained, <h2> </h2>, but the latter are buttressed by a number of <div> </div>, the attributes/values of which do such useful tasks as tell the browser that text should be displayed left to right (dir="ltr"). -- Hoary (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Translation software - relevant policies?

Y Issue resolved

What is the policy on editing using translation software? Are editors required to only edit in languages they know? Could someone point me to relevant policies?

Thank you! i know you're a dog (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You can use any translation software on wikipedia but just keep in mind that Wikipedia:translation says Translations from other-language Wikipedias are encouraged, but must be accurate and readable in the target language and Machine translation is allowed, but not sufficient on its own. You must review and correct the output to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Wikipedia:Machine translation says that if you just blind copy translation, it will be reverted. If you have problem in translation in any language, a strong suggestion is seeking Wikipedia translation community.

Are editor allowed..... they know?

No, actually you can edit in any language as long as you are professionally good at it. But practically it is advised to follow the language you are fluent in. Its not a rigid rule but a way to keep ingenuity out from article pages.

My personal opinion. Do not use LLMs for translation as they can change your words. Use a reliable sources before translation as per WP:RS IHitmanI (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. What about sources in other languages? i know you're a dog (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring to an article written in a different language, with sources cited in some other language? Such sources are acceptable on Wikipedia, as long as they are from reliable and verifiable publications. A source does not have to be in English simply because the article is written in English. The core requirement is verifiability, not the language of the source.

You can think of it like SIM cards from different telecom providers—they may vary in language or brand, but their core function is the same- internet and calls. Similarly, a reliable source in Spanish, German, or any other language can be used to verify facts in an English Wikipedia article, provided it supports the claim made.

This flexibility is especially important in the case of translated articles, where sourcing material in the exact target language may be impractical or unavailable. In such cases, citing reliable sources from the original language is both reasonable and encouraged, as long as the translation of the content is accurate and faithful to the original meaning. IHitmanI (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh that’s great to know, thank you.

What I actually wondered (but didn’t say, I need some sleep!) was can we use translation software to cite non-English sources for English articles?

Despite my mis-asked question, your answer was still very helpful, lest your effort be in vain. i know you're a dog (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thats great! You can use any language as source, as i previously said, any cite it with english pages. Wikipedia demands proof. And have a sleep! IHitmanI (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! i know you're a dog (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Iknowyoureadog, you can use translation software to assist your work, but it is still necessary to have working competence in both languages. Translation software still makes errors although it is getting better. An editor doing software aided translation needs to be able to detect and correct these inevitable errors, in a sandbox for example, before publishing the content to the encyclopedia main space. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually his question was about "Can i use other language source in English or different language article?" and its been already resolved. IHitmanI (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

No, IHitmanI, that was not the question. Cullen328 (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It was the question, (his message) What I actually wondered (but didn’t say, I need some sleep!) was can we use translation software to cite non-English sources for English articles? IHitmanI (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Cullen328, that makes sense. i know you're a dog (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

To give a concrete example: if you were planning on using a French source to back up a statement that John broke Jane's toy, you need to be aware that "il a cassé son jouet" translates equally well to "He broke her toy" and "He broke his toy" (because the possessive pronoun agrees with the object in French, not the subject, as it would in English). There are some language-specific ambiguities that machine-translation software cannot handle, because the ambiguity is fundamental to the language (English has them too: "a kid broke their toy" could refer to the original gender-unknown kid, or another group of kids with whom the kid was playing). Elemimele (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

That is a "beautiful" explanation, I liked it. IHitmanI (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s helpful. i know you're a dog (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I've done this once, before AI tools were available. I used Google Translate to read German sources so I could write the Paul Trappen article, which was on the German Wikipedia at the time but had no English counterpart. I used some of the content from that German article, but many sentences were unsourced. I basically rewrote it using what I could verify in the sources, and I searched for additional sources but didn't find any. It was a lot of work for such a short article. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Wrong date format

I have put the wrong date format for a new book by Sarah Moss Sarah Moss And I can't seem to go in and change the format. Thanks in anticipation. Lakelady2282 (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "i cant seem to go"? Is there any technical issue or you dont want to change it? Is book release date is wrong?

Can you be more explicit? IHitmanI (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The access date is given as "25/04/2025", and should be "25 April 2025". But correcting that doesn't fix the problem, there's something else wrong there. Maproom (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem was, but it seems fine now. I also removed {{redirect}}, since the disambiguation page doesn't exist. —Wasell^(T) 07:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Reliable source help

Hello, I was wondering if I could use an musician's bandcamp page or discogs page as a source for a vinyl release of an album. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Please make yourself familiar with WK:Reliable_Source before making any source changes.

As for your concerns, please keep in mind-

Bandcamp may be used as a source for basic release information if it is the artist’s official page. However, it is a self-published source and should not be used for controversial or interpretative claims. Wikipedia demands a primary (second party) sources.

Discogs is a user-generated site and is generally not considered reliable for citing information in articles.

For reliable sources, use Journalists sites or Any Media sources that is reputable. IHitmanI (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

If you're asking about the release date or just a factual statement saying "X re-released Y album in vinyl format", then you may use the artist's Bandcamp site as a source. I advise you see WP:ABOUTSELF for more info. Thanks! – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 06:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for answering my questions! ErickTheMerrick (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Do I have to disclose these as COI?

There are quite some things that I am a bit confused on whether I need to disclose as COI. Do I need to disclose any of these, or am I fine?

1. I had a (now-deceased) great-uncle who served in the People's Armed Police, which i often edit articles about. However only knew about this after I edited for a while(I had edited the PAP article before I knew about this), and the fact I had a great uncle who was in the PAP is the only thing I really know about him, not even his name or unit, so I chose not to disclose this.
2. I plan to enlist in the PLANMC (or just the Chinese navy) in the future; I edit tonnes of articles related to the PLANMC and PLAN, but I don't think this counts as COI because I am not affiliated with them in any way.... yet. I have put this on the "intro to me" section of my user page
3. I'm currently a student in KGV school in HK. This is in the intro to me section, however not in COI, because i have only edited the article on my school one or two times and don't really see a need to edit it.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, I have distant relatives in the HKPF and HKFSD, but since all are distant relatives and I haven't made much changes to related articles(except for the Marine region, which none of my relatives are part of) so I assume I also do not need to disclose this. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I tried to answers in numbers according to your questions.

1. You don’t need to disclose your great-uncle’s connection to the PAP unless you edit deeply related topics.You only know minimal details about your great-uncle's service (e.g., no name, unit), and it's not something you've heavily edited about. There is no strong personal connection influencing your edits regarding the PAP, so it doesn't sound like a COI.

2. You should disclose your plans to enlist in the PLANMC in your COI section, as it could create potential bias in the future. While you’re not yet enlisted, planning to join the PLANMC means you may have a potential COI in editing articles about the PLANMC or the PLAN (People's Liberation Army Navy). Even though you're not affiliated now, your future potential affiliation could cause bias in your edits.

3. Editing your school’s article is not a COI unless you start editing it extensively or with a promotional tone. You’ve only made a couple of edits to your school’s article, and there doesn’t seem to be a significant personal stake in the content you're editing. A school affiliation typically doesn’t require a COI unless you're actively promoting the institution or involved in heavy edits. IHitmanI (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac: my advice would be to not reveal any details that may compromise your safety in the future. Particularly related to governments and the military. Commander Keane (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed; Particularly for the PLA. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Definitely won't add anything outside of what is publicly available, that's for sure. Even without the legal and ethical issues(and considering that I'm also personally against doing so), WP:OR and WP:YANARS exist. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac: I was not talking about adding article content with regards to your safety (you seem responsible, someone who is conscious of their COI and doesn't go out of their way to hide it is not a problem for Wikipedia). I was saying that expressing any political views, opinions or affiliations on your user page now, COI or otherwise, may affect your safety or career in the future. Say, for example, you mention you like a certain political leader somewhere and then you are assigned to a warship that attacks said leader's country. You have provided evidence of your treason potential. I am overly cautious about these things, but email the oversight team if you wish to have something suppressed. Commander Keane (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm currently fine.

I have thought about removing it but I don't think mine is the most controversial yet. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata Statements

Why I can't edit statements of some posts of Wikidata? NathSt (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

In Wikidata, you might be restricted due to one of these issues:

1. New users or those with low edit counts may be restricted from making certain edits. If you’ve just joined, you might need to gain more experience or make edits to less-sensitive parts of Wikidata before you can edit more protected data.
2. Some statements might be protected or locked due to high visibility or sensitivity, such as statements related to controversial topics, and only experienced or trusted editors can modify them.
3. If you try to add a statement that conflicts with an existing one (for example, a contradicting claim), Wikidata may prevent the edit until the conflict is resolved.
4. If the item is under review or waiting for consensus, some edits might be restricted until a decision is made. You may need to wait for others to approve or for any active discussions to be resolved.

Have you tried Wikidata Help page? Maybe do so if you have'nt. IHitmanI (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@NathSt: also, Wikidata does not work well on Mobile view for some things. But on the same device you can click the "Desktop" link and everything should work. Commander Keane (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Either way I think it is much better to edit any Wikimedia services on desktop (or desktop browser) as they are stable there and you have way too many options than the non-desktop versions. IHitmanI (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Change name

How to change the name of an article? 9Ahmed9 (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@9Ahmed9: There are a lot of rules to do with article titles so the majority of moves requires a requested move discussion. This is a discussion on the talk page of the article where a proposer proposes a title they think the article should be changed to and why. Consensus of whether the article should be retitled to the proposed title or not can then be ascertained by people stating if they agree or oppose the new title. After usually about 1 week, someone will read the discussion and determine if there is consensus to retitle the page or to leave it as it is. You can see the steps to start the discussion here. cyberdog958^Talk 13:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

My article is a biography of the notable Assamese writer Manoj Kumar Goswami, who received the 'Sahitya Akademi Award' in 2022 as an Assamese writer

Hi ,

This is my first article on Wikipedia. My article is a biography of the notable Assamese writer Manoj Kumar Goswami, who received the 'Sahitya Akademi Award' in 2022 as an Assamese writer.

My subject is also a senior journalist from Assam, who, in October 2007, as the editor of Dainik Janasadharan (A daily Assamese News Paper), joined a media delegation accompanying the late Dr. Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India, to South Africa and Nigeria.

Also, In 2025, he has been offered the position of Visiting Professor in the Social Science Department for the current year at Gauhati University, Assam.

Based on these, I started my article but has been declined. Please help me, guide me to make my article live.

ABGDJN (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Manoj Kumar Goswami (2)   Maproom (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ABGDJN, welcome to the teahouse!

Biographies of living people (shortened to BLPs) have very specific guidelines in order for them to be approved, which can be viewed here. Both your reviewers have requested that significant coverage (SIGCOV) has yet to be established. Many editors fall into a trap here and proceed to spam their draft with sources in hopes of getting it approved—alas, it usually fails. What instead I suggest you do is take a look at your sources. Compare them to the page of reliable sources. See what's on the chart, see what pops up when you type it in the archives. Do they have more than passing mentions in articles? Are all your citations considered reliable?

It may also help if you take a step back and examine why your topic is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. What are their major contributions? If these contributions are not notable, there is no chance that the person themself is.

It breaks my heart to see drafts by new users declined and see them giving up. Even if you decide this topic is not worthy of inclusion, maybe something else is. Maybe you read something in a book and decide to write an article on it—that's where my first article came from! Best of luck, PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

As a small addendum: I noticed the feedback left by your first reviewer on your talk page said that you should find more sources that prove his notability past 2024. I highly suggest you some time to do that, maybe you'll dig up something that makes him notable. Don't take your reviewers' feedback halfheartedly, it can genuinely help your article improve. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Editing the profile of a public personality by request

Hello Teahouse community, I consult for actress/producer/nonprofit director Sophina Brown. We are submitting a grant application today that requires an online profile. Her Wikipedia page is ideal for this purpose, but it needs updated information: Sophina Brown I have her permission to update the page, but I don't want to get flagged for making major edits. How do I undertake this task correctly? Thank you! Meganhobza (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I must disappoint you; Wikipedia is not ideal for your purpose. We don't have "profiles" here, not a single one. We have articles, and they are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. A Wikipedia article is not for a person to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability.

If you want to write a profile, I'd suggest social media. If you intend to pursue writing an article, you will need to declare as a paid editor, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Pardon me, I missed that she has an article. You may propose edits to it via the edit request wizard. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Meganhobza. Thank you for disclosing your Conflict of Interest to us. Assuming you are being paid to do this, everything you need to know should be located at WP:PAID. To start, please create your user page and disclose who is paying you and on behalf of who, preferably using the template Template:Paid. It is heavily encouraged you do not edit the article yourself. Instead, create WP:EDITREQUESTs on the article talk page. Our guideline on WP:CONFLICTOFINTERESTs will have more information for you. Note that requests for the sake of promoting the subject will not be accepted. We are here to create a neutral encyclopedia after all! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Meganhobza While you are working on the biography, you might like to help in a number of ways. For example, encourage Brown to let you take and upload to Commons a picture: see WP:A picture of you. Also, if you can provide reliable citations where the article currently says "citation needed", that would be helpful: reviews of her performances in newspapers etc. would be ideal. The submission of a grant application doesn't sound worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article but if an independent source reports it has been granted, that would be good to add. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies -- and for the term article! For clarity: The purpose of the edits is not to promote Sophina or to mention a grant application. The information in her article is outdated. It doesn't include her most recent work in television, most of her work in theatre, and there's no mention of the nonprofit she founded and directs, Support Black Theatre. Also the language could benefit from a few copy edits. We just want to make sure the article is accurate and up to date. Ready with citations and photo. Appreciate the links; I'll familiarize myself with the helpful tools you've shared. FWIW, I have had a user account for some years now as a personal interest, not connected with my work. It was because I already have an account that I offered to edit Sophina's article for her. Should I open a separate user account to update her article? Given my conflict of interest, I'm happy to let someone else do it and/or filter the updates we have to offer. Your advice is appreciated! Meganhobza (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Meganhobza, it is neither necessary nor advisable to create a new account. Simply declare your conflict of interest and use the formal Edit request process. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I'm at the part where I declare my employer (as a grant writer, my consulting contract is with the nonprofit Support Black Theatre). Will this designation be applied only to edits I request for this article? When I go back to regular editing, will I need to undo the stated conflict of interest? Meganhobza (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Please put this template on your user page User:Meganhobza:

{{paid|employer=Support Black Theatre|client=Sophina Brown}}

Disclosure is mandatory, and the best way to do it is on your user page. You entered into a legally-enforceable agreement to make this disclosure when you created your account on Wikipedia. Do this before you make any further edits.

After you have done that, you may use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/Paid to propose changes to the article.

You should not remove that template from your user page. The fact that you may have moved on to other things on Wikipedia doesn't erase the fact that you were paid to work on one thing. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@331dot: "We don't have 'profiles' here" "Profile: Noun (countable) A summary or collection of information, especially about a person". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information. Many use the word "profile" as "here's all the information about this person". Wikipedia is a collection of articles that summarize independent sources. It's not semantics, but an important distinction to provide the right mindset, in my view. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOT is irrelevant to the point at hand; referring to a Wikipedia article as a profile is normal English usage. To suggest otherwise is the "wrong mindset". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"We are submitting a grant application today..." Really? Be aware that there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. If you want the article on your client updated, it isn't going to be a fast process. You would need to propose incremental changes on the article's talk page, and wait for your proposals to be reviewed by other editors and either implemented or declined. As 331dot said, Wikipedia is not ideal for your purpose. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Citing uncontroversial details, like a character's name, in a piece of media.

Hello.

For a while now, I've been adding character names and one line description to the "Cast" section of Wikipedia pages of various movies and TV shows; it's straight-forward stuff: turning a line like "John Smith as Jack" into something like "John Smith as Dr. Jack Smithy, surgeon at FooBar Hospital, husband of Karen Smithy."; a bit more descriptive with some, uncontroversial, details from the work itself. I do this as I know many people, myself included, like to use Wikipedia as sort of a media compendium to quickly reference details in a work of fiction while watching or returning to it after some delay. Obviously, my source for these additions would be from the content/text of media itself, like reading the book, watching the movie or TV series, or playing the videogame.

Recently, I was going about this, adding more character names and basic descriptions to the page for the TV series The Gardener as I was watching the series only to have some of my edits undone by another user because the full names for the characters I added weren't listed in a pre-existing cited news article that only contained the character's first names. I began looking into how I could improve my contributions: either stake my claim (so to speak) that these are uncontroversial details or cite the content of the media itself as the source. I consulted various citation guides on Wikipedia like Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources but nothing I found seemed to address the core issue of citing trivial but helpful and uncontroversial details like names of fictional characters in a piece of media. The closest I found was from this guide primarily pertaining to YouTube videos:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This prevents editors from engaging in original research. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Editors should not use a video as a citation to present their own interpretation of its content. If the material in a video only available on YouTube includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources, then that material may be undue and inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Primary sources, such as an episode of an editor's favorite television program, can easily be incorrectly used to create trivia sections. This should be avoided. Such sources should also not be used to create articles that include only the plot of television shows or movies without additional details found in secondary sources. Although concise plot summaries are usually appropriate, failing to provide secondary coverage puts notability into question and does not provide encyclopedic content.

Editors can use the {{cite episode}} template to cite specific television programs. The {{cite AV media}} template can be used for movies and other visual media. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, a link is not necessary since there is no distinction between using online or offline sources. As much information as possible should be provided to increase the likelihood of the source being accepted as reliable by the community. Including the minutes being referred to in a long video will make the source easier to verify by your fellow editors and the reader. Most relevant details can be found in the credits, any packaging, or through the Internet.

When citing books or unusually long journal articles, an editor should specify the page number(s). Similarly, some means of specifying the location of the referenced content from a video, called a timecode, is strongly encouraged. For YouTube videos, one can specify the start location's timecode by appending to the URL: &t=0m12s, described in more detail in various online posts.

I wouldn't describe basic details as an "interpretation" but rather an instance of the following guideline: "A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." I've looked into using the {{Template:Cite AV media}} mentioned above but it seems most tailored to legacy media, not a streamed miniseries like The Gardener, and I suppose it would necessitate providing a timestamp to an exact moment in an episode a character's full name or an essential detail about them is specified. This would all feel like significant overkill and a cumbersome barrier with little material benefit. I suspect there's a much less convoluted and more direct way of handling this, but my search hasn't found any help pages addressing this specifically.

So, my query is pretty simple: how should I go about doing this, if at all, in a way that will appease sticklers like Asqueladd (said in a friendly way) and hopefully let us continue to make Wikipedia a useful reference for essential details in a work of fiction? Anad0 (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Uncategorized redirect list

Is there some type of special page that lists redirects that are uncategorized (have no rcat templates)? I wanted to easily find some to categorize. DiamondFrxsh (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This is better asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. Not all redirects should be categorized. See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Many redirects are already in hidden categories since they contain an R template like {{R to scientific name|insect}}. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

AfD question regarding a cricketer.

Hello, I hope all here are well. My question is about the current AfD discussion going on here regarding cricketer Tanzeel Altaf. I was reading WP:NCRIC and then WP:OFFICIALCRICKET, and it is shown that Altaf played from 2011 to 2014 in the Super 8 Twenty20 Cup using information from ESPNcricinfo [2]. According to WP:OFFICIALCRICKET, the Cricket WikiProject deems having played in this T20 cup to qualify as having presumably significant coverage. So my question is, would this rule in WP:OFFICIALCRICKET make it so the page for Altaf would not be deleted, no matter if the ESPNcricinfo page was the only SIGCOV? Thanks all for your help, and have a wonderful weekend. Réunion! 01:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I had a go at answering this at the AfD. Reunion is aware. Commander Keane (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Seeking guidance on COI compliance and potential block risk

 Courtesy link: Dianne Blell

Hi everyone,

I'm a new contributor and academic researcher working on an article about a woman artist whose work I’ve studied and published on. I’ve fully disclosed this connection on my User page and the article’s Talk page.

After receiving a first warning about COI and possible paid editing (to be clear, I am not being paid—I’ve personally invested time and funds to help preserve this artist’s archive), I complied fully: I updated my user page with all requested disclosures, acknowledged neutrality concerns, and stopped direct editing. I used the Talk page extensively to ask questions and request help.

I also consulted with my assigned new editor mentor (Toadette), who confirmed that I had followed policy. After posting disclosures, I asked the original editor whether I could revise the article for neutrality. When they didn’t reply for several hours, I moved forward with edits, working carefully with a mentor to ensure the changes were neutral and encyclopedic. Minutes later, I received a message warning me I could be blocked.

This has been very disheartening. I’m trying to document the career of a living woman artist who has had solo shows at a major NYC gallery, and whose work has appeared in The New York Times, Artforum, books, and dissertations. My intention is simply to tell her story—accurately, neutrally, and while she’s still alive to see it. I would truly appreciate a second opinion or guidance on how to proceed.

Please feel free to review my User Talk page for full context.

Thank you so much. Rachelmward (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The "COI" disclosures on you User page were vague (you did not specify the articles) and you later deleted even that much. More to the point, you created a trap for yourself. A person with a declared COI can work on a draft. However, once a draft is in main space (either accepted by a reviewer or moved there by the creator), the creating editor is prohibited from making further edits, and instead must propose changes on the Talk page of the article. I think this applies to Dianne Blell, Nick Weber (artist) and Darius Yektai. I am sure this feels unfair, as you are trying to improve the neutrality of the article in the hope that other editors will remove the tags, but instead your massive edits are being reverted. Regardless, stop editing those articles. Instead, abandon attempts to 'improve' or else propose specific changes as entries on the Talk pages. Going forward, take as a lesson to improve the quality of your drafts before submitting to AfC or moving to main space. David notMD (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

For the Nick Weber article, you created it and moved it to main space. An editor moved it back to draft. You submitted to AfC. It was declined. You moved it to main space again. And now it has multiple tags, and might even be at risk for an AfD nomination. Take all this history as a sign that you are not yet competent to move your drafts to main space. David notMD (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I have sent it to WP:AFD it is not at all clear how they pass WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"the creating editor is prohibited from making further edits" @David notMD: Please read our COI policy, which does not say this. There are restrictions, but nota blanket prohibition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

There is clear evidence of financial COI in at least two article creations, which has been shared with the functionaries. Additionally, citing one's own academic work, is considered self-promotion (I've removed that from the Blell article.) Netherzone (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"citing one's own academic work, is considered self-promotion" It can be, but is also permssible in some circumstances. See WP:EXPERT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Also the mentor TodetteEdit has stated that she assumed Rachelmward had disclosed their employer, but admits that she did not in fact check. User talk:ToadetteEdit#Question from Rachelmward Netherzone (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I am corrected: WP:COI states "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;" You could ask the editor who reverted your edits, on that person's Talk page, what they would consider permissible direct editing. David notMD (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Problem regarding Cyprus

In Wikipedia articles, Cyprus is usually listed in Europe, but the problem is in this article because one user keeps on moving Cyprus back to Asia simply because the UN categorized it as so. Has there been any consensus regarding the matter in Wikipedia before? Underdwarf58 (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Underdwarf58. I think that a quotation from the lead of Cyprus is useful. Although it is geographically located in West Asia, its cultural identity and geopolitical make-up are overwhelmingly Southeast European. This is connected to the broader reality that the "boundary" between Europe and Asia is not clearly defined, and that a logical argument can be made that they are not two separate continents but rather one Eurasian continent. The concept of "continent" is a social convention not a factual matter. Please read Boundaries between the continents which says The modern border between Asia and Europe is a historical and cultural construct, and for that reason, its definition has varied. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Big Indie Pictures

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have created a draft article Draft:Big Indie Pictures, an American film production company. This company produced many acclaimed films. I invite to the Wikipedia Community and Editor to contribute to this Draft and to expand it with Reliable Sources. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: it appears that the author has since requested the draft be deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Since it declined immediately after submitting, so i request for deletion under G7. If you are willing to work on the draft you can refund the article. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questions about paid editing

Who does paid editing and how to do it? How do they contact paid editors? And does Wikipedia has any role in this? If someone promises to pay but don't pay anything. Sistersofchappel (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is typically edited by volunteers. There are people and companies that claim to offer Wikipedia editing services; these have varying reputability, some are legitimate and comply with our policies, but some don't(I've seen some that openly say they don't comply with our policies and disagree with them) and many are scams. No paid editing service is endorsed by Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has no role in putting together paid editors with those seeking their services. It's up to those seeking paid editing services to evaluate the person/company offering the services before hiring them.

If you get scammed or cheated by a purported paid editor, that's something you will need to deal with on your own. Technically it could be reported to the authorities, but given the nature of the Internet it's hard to impossible to find and punish scammers and get your money back. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

If you aspire to be paid for editing, carefully read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. David notMD (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi 331dot I don't want to hire paid editor, it's opposite. Lets say after editing for many months I learn all rules of Wikipedia. Then how can I contact companies that need paid editors. And lets say I create article for their company and if they don't give me money. Sistersofchappel (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Sistersofchappel If you want to be a paid editor, you're going to have to figure out how to do that yourself. When you do, you will need to comply with WP:PAID for all your clients.

If you take on a client, perform the agreed to work, and they decline to pay you, that's a matter you will have to pursue on your own. Wikipedia cannot force a third party to pay you for services you render. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sistersofchappel, and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe I speak for many editors (though not all) when I say that in my view paid editors are tolerated because otherwise they would edit clandestinely. They are not encouraged. ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Ownership of a non-NPOV article

I tried editing, as have others, an article and there was a swarm of activity that reverted and defended that only their point of view should be reflected. I just looked at this article recently, but reading the Talk page and the edits, it has been going on for a long time. I'm not too sure what to do about it. Do I post on an admin board, submit some request for review? I really don't know what to do.StarHOG (Talk) 12:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Guessing this is about Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Article_overhaul_needed, you could try WP:APPNOTEing some relevant wikiprojects/noticeboards, try an rfc, or walk away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Question

Hi, for some reason I couldn't ask a question the last few times I tried. Anyways, I figured out how to create redirects over on Wikiquote. It's really easy in comparison. Can I make redirects using some special tool here or do I need to request their creation somewhere else? I'm obviously not an admin. TerrenceWals (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @TerrenceWals, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

You should be able to create a redirect since your account is AUTOCONFIRMED.

As far as I know there's no special tool for creating Redirects, but it's straightforward: see WP:redirect.

Happy editing. ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin. I will try tomorrow. I have already prepared a 2-page docx lol. TerrenceWals (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

oldafdfull is not linking to a discussion page

In March 2006 the Scintilla (software) article was nominated for deletion through the xFD process. There was a discussion with the result being Keep.

Subsequently, someone documented this on Talk:Scintilla (software) using {{oldafdfull|date=19 March 2006}}

At present, everything looks okay except that the word discussion that the template generates is not linked to the discussion thread. I tried to fix this by adding |page = Scintilla (software) and then |result = '''keep''' parameters to {{oldafdfull}} but those did not help.

I am not familiar enough with the xFD templates to adjust what's currently on the article's talk page so that the deletion discussion in 2006 gets linked. Thank you. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The reason |page=Scintilla did not give you the link you wanted is because there is no deletion discussion for the page Scintilla. The template automatically looks for an xFD that matches the name of the page where it's placed, but as you saw that also wasn't working. The problem was that the page had been moved (renamed) after the xFD, so its current name does not match the discussion-name. Fixed. DMacks (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I had not noticed that the article title had changed. That makes sense. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Template talk:Old XfD multi#Better handling of incorrect page parameter is my diagnosis of the confusion and proposal to handle it better. DMacks (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Making the best article

I’m pimplescrote and (redacted)

how can I make the best Wikipedia article? Pimplescrote (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I would first suggest that you not post your exact location and other personal information in this very public place, for your protection.

Writing a new article is not the only or even best way to contribute. It's the most challenging thing to attempt on Wikipedia. You did use the tutorial, and that's good, but it's highly recommended that you first gain experience by editing existing articles.

You may, however, see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot. I am pimplescrote. Pimplescrote (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Help with move page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wanted to move a page from my Sandbox User:KhoaNguyen1/Hanoi FC – SLNA Rivalry to mainspace, but I accidently messed it up and moved it to a user page User:Hanoi FC – Song Lam Nghe An Rivalry, I cant undo it because it dont let me to. Can anyone help me with this? Thank KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

It is done. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

thank you! I will be careful next time KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

No problem! Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 04:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to deal with talk page blanking of repeated warnings

Hello! Something that I'm sure has happened 100x before but never something that has impacted me specifically, is going on to another user's page to give them a warning, only to see that they have received numerous ones before now but have blanked their talk page to prevent them from being seen. I have two questions on how to deal with this: 1) Is it policy for me to un-blank their prior warnings, and 2) In the case of User talk:Lxbaguette, should they receive a block at this point? Guidance on either one of these questions would be much appreciated, cheers! Johnson524 05:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Johnson524 Hello! Per WP:OWNTALK, a user can remove such warnings if they wish, so you should not re-insert them. It is a taken to mean that they saw and read the message. Removing them doesn't mean they didn't happen.

If you report this user to WP:AIV, an admin might block them since they're being unconstructive and messing with BLP:s, or it might be considered a little to early yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thank you for the guidance! It is much appreciated 🙂 Johnson524 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Recruit CRM

 Courtesy link: Draft:Recruit CRM

Hey there, I have only covered information in this draft that can actually be cited and all information corresponds to all cited sources including some verified ones like Forbes, Economic Insider, Marketwatch, Crunchbase and more, I am not sure why this was declined on the basis of not having reliable in depth sources. It would be great if someone could assist here or help me with editing this article further so that I can understand what issues were pointed out and how they can be fixed. This will also be a great learning point for me from anybody experienced in this forum, I have already raised this as a question in AFC help desk but getting some help from here would mean the world. Thank you in advance, Good day. Rectech enthusiast (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Unfortunately it looks like Recruit CRM does not meet our "notability" requirements. See WP:NOTABLE and WP:NCORP for more information.

We'd need independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)