The Teahouse is currently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (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. Just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
Doubting that many people would say "the double you are ell dee eff em ess Tony Williams" or similar, I'd forgo full capitalization. -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GenericUser24 If you suspect an article to be made by AI, you can request an administrator to revision delete the edit (if it is entirely copied from somewhere)and also warn the creator of the page so that they don't repeat it. Cactus🌵spikyouch03:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GenericUser24 It's complicated. If you could link to the page or send us its name it would be much more helpful. We would start with seeing if the page fits into any of the speedy deletion criteria. If it is completely hallucinated for example, we could WP:G3 it. If not, I would check if the sourcing is correct or not. Its always good to tag {{AI-generated}} if you're not sure. Justiyaya03:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is Free play. I don't think it meets any speedy deletion criteria. so I added the tag. Looking at the sources, they partially (but not completely) support the text of the article. GenericUser24 (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this was improper, I will replace this tag if anyone requests. But, as I have explained on the talk, I wrote the article myself so adding a tag saying it was AI generated and needed cleanup seemed incorrect. As I also explained, when you click on the links for most of the papers, you will only see a free preview (which may be why the sources... partially (but not completely) support the text when you click on it), you need to use WP:TWL to access the full versions which normally require payment to access, which I made sure support all claims when I was writing it. I will work on migrating all references to use {{sfn}} (which I did not know about at the time of writing the article), like in my other article Abditibacterium which make it easier to see specifically which page of the full PDF version accessible via TWL that each claim comes from. Thank you for trying to help with this and for your feedback! :) MolecularPilotTalk06:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I operate a DeBERTa based bot to classify Wikipedia usernames if they violate the policy that received WP:VPT consensus for it (I am still testing it in usersapce before filing BRFA). I'm not sure how this is related to accused article generating - something completely different. MolecularPilotTalk21:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I put up the article for peer review almost a month ago now, but so far no bites. My goal is to get it to GA, but I'm not sure what else needs to be done... This is my first attempt at a GA, so I don't really know what I'm doing. Any advice would be very helpful. – Farkle Griffen (talk)17:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both peer reviews and Good Article reviews have highly variable wait times. More technical topics tend to have longer wait times than more generally approachable topics. Similarly, the longer an article is the longer the wait tends to be. This article is both on the more technical side and the long side for waiting for reviews. If you want quicker feedback, I would suggest that you leave a notice on the talkpage of relevant WikiProjects (WT:WPMATH appears to be relatively active). Currently the oldest unreviewed mathematics GA nomination is from September, to give you an idea of likely wait times. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(It can also help your chances of being reviewed to do your own GA reviews: there is a social component to the GA review process, and people do to some extent favour reviewing articles by people they recognise as doing their bit to contribute to the process.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto-public, I'd like to, but since I'm still new to this, I don't wanna accidentally pass an article that has lots of issues I didn't know to check, y'know? I was hoping to get a GA done before I tried to review anything.
It’s an interdisciplinary framework that synthesizes peer-reviewed research from biology, psychology, and systems science. The core idea is that cooperation — across all life forms — is driven by energy capture, coordination, and resource sharing. The article is structured around seven key principles and includes a flowchart visual.
I’ve already shared it with related WikiProjects, but I’d love some broader feedback here.
Hello @Darwipli. Unfortunately, your article doesn't seem too encyclopedic to work as an article (WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA). This page looks more like an essay/research project that would belong somewhere else. I suggest you look at other high quality articles we have (i.e Philosophy, Life, Evolution) and compare. You should be able to see the difference in how you've written your draft and those pages. It'd also be very beneficial to go over a lot of our policies of how our articles should be structured including WP:Manual of Style, WP:Verifiability, WP:Original research, WP:Notability, and WP:What Wikipedia is not.Based on those resources, determine whether this article would truly work in an encyclopedia or if it'd fit somewhere on your own website or something. Whatever happens though, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Tarlby(t) (c)05:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all very much (@Tarlby, @Hoary, and @Cullen328) for your thoughtful feedback and helpful guidance regarding my draft on "The Principle of Cooperation and Collaboration (TPOCo)." Your suggestions and references to specific Wikipedia guidelines and policies have provided clarity on how best to proceed.
I recognize now that my current content constitutes original research, making it unsuitable for Wikipedia at this stage. As suggested, the detailed documentation currently resides on my website, co-operatio.org, which indeed seems like the appropriate place for it right now.
In response to your helpful feedback, I have reached out to Professor Michael Tomasello, whose work greatly influenced my thinking on cooperation, to seek his collaboration or guidance on publishing a peer-reviewed article. This would help to establish external verification and recognition for the TPOCo framework, potentially making it suitable for Wikipedia inclusion in the future.
I sincerely appreciate your patience, guidance, and clarity. Thanks again for taking the time to help me improve my understanding of Wikipedia's standards and practices.
Hello there, I’m TechScience2044. I’m very interested in technology, so I might create articles based on this topic and edit articles related to them. In my opinion, Wikipedia is best used for looking on information and technology where it is accessible to anyone. For templates, anyone except for user rights, can use them for unique purposes. Can you please give me the introduction to Wikipedia and what other info do you must present to me based on newcomer contributions and the impact on encyclopedia works? •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 09:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I've posted a welcome message to your user talk page with some links and tips. Feel free to ask any more questions about Wikipedia on the Teahouse whenever you have! ObserveOwl (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You start by finding a project you want to work on. You visit its page. There you'll find things like standards, goals, suggested tasks, active collaborations, etc. (As part of this exploration, you may stumble across some wikiprojects that are either officially or de facto inactive -- the dates of the most recent convos on the project's talk page can be a good indication.)
Some projects have a place for members to formally list themselves; others don't. Either way, joining a project mostly just means starting to work on articles affiliated with that project. The project's talk page is a good place to ask questions specifically about the project's work or about articles in its scope. . -- Avocado (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, every article (in fact, every editable page on Wikipedia) has a "View History" tab. (On some themes it's just called "History", and on mobile it's at the bottom of the page where it says "Last edited <N> days ago by <name>").
Editing Wikipedia is more like writing, but sometimes it's about science, which is fun. Wikitext is basically just regular writing, but if want to make something bold you write <b>bold</b> and you use == Heading name == to make something be formatted as a heading. If you want to see how people made an article look a certain way, you can open the source editor and see what notation they used (I just use visual editors for editing tables though, because the notation there is complicated). Mrfoogles (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<b>...</b> is HTML, and while it works, it's preferable to use wikitext formatting, which is three single quotes on each side of the bolded text '''like this'''. See MOS:BOLD and WP:HTML. The H:CHEAT page lists many of the commonly used wikitext codes. CodeTalker (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[Outdenting] Published your own words where? What do you want to happen if you do, and what are you concerned will happen if you do?
We can probably help you better if you give us more context for your questions and describe in more depth what it is you want to do and what it is you want to know. -- Avocado (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Avocado For context: Publishing my own words, on Wikipedia pages in general, like talk pages, discussions, Wikiprojects, userpages, and when adding information in articles, not just the templates. I mean this. •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 07:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You want to take the words you've put on Wikipedia and also publish them elsewhere? Everything you write on any page of Wikipedia is freely licensed, and you or anyone else are free to publish those words anywhere so long as the person who wrote them gets credit. That's what the terms mean that you see under every edit or reply box:
By clicking "Reply", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
If you have questions about what else happens when you publish words on Wikipedia, or questions about what words you're allowed to publish on Wikipedia, please clarify what it is you want to know? -- Avocado (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i found this page that has stuff like "This work was accomplished so successfully that Professor Alexander Dallas Bache, Colonel John Charles Frémont, and Senator Thomas Hart Benton used their influence with Sec. George Bancroft to have him appointed professor of mathematics in the navy." with like zero citations should this be tagged for speedy or could this article be salvaged (with a full rewrite and extensive research)
it looks like something a student would write as an essay on this persons achievements and most defiantly breaks npov so should we mark this for a speedy or try to salvage it Localbluepikmin (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have "like zero citations", it's cited to Appleton’s Cyclopedia vol.3 p. 292. And appears to be a copy of the text there. So it needs proper attribution, and it certainly needs editing for tone. Not eligible for speedy. Just needs editors to edit it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Localbluepikmin there are no inline citations, but Wikipedia counts a bibliography at the end (i.e., the mention of the Cyclopedia) as a citation. Therefore it can't be deleted under the WP:BLPPROD policy, which would be what would apply (not speedy deletion in this case). I went in and tried to verify that it was a copy of the Cyclopedia text, in which case I would have just put an inline citation to that on every paragraph, but I couldn't find his entry so I didn't. That might help. A rewrite might be necessary for tone -- research, probably not that much, luckily enough. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest this sort of article really annoys me. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, summarising multiple reliable sources with balance, not just a mirror site regurgitating anything that happens to be in the public domain, word-for-word, with a lazy "incorporates text" template. We may as well rebrand ourselves WikiRegurgitation if we're going to do that. At the very least, our readers deserve to know exactly what text is merely a mirror. The current reference is in many ways worse than useless, because by sowing a general feeling that the text probably came from Appletons', it conceals the fact that any subsequent, unsourced edits, are an invisible mutation of the original text. This is just all wrong. But it's also perfectly above-board and according to policy. Annoying. Elemimele (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Ememile. The smallest of edits are held feet to the fire by certain WP editors, and yet entire pages like this are slipped through the cracks with hardly a scrutiny. Who at WP writes like this: "whither he had been attracted", "in a classical school", "he was appointed computer of the observations of latitude and longitude made on Captain John Charles Frémont’s expedition", "He was so commissioned on 7 May 1845", "his work comprised many special investigations", "His later but equally valuable researches". I mean, come on. I highly doubt this claim: "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain". More like: copy-paste verbatim. Listing a a book under References with no inline citations is pointless; not to mention a 432 word article that only cites that 1 page (if that) reference? Both External Links are 404 Not Found. This article is ripe for template headers and a hard scrubbing. It should be held to WP standards just like every other article. Period. Maineartists (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How to proceed?
Hey, i was monitering recent changes and found a case of a large amount of content being removed by an account with a Battleground edit summary, ive been trying to avoid violating Civility rules and the 3RR, but i genuinely dont know how to proceed from here without either biting a newbie or possibly causing an edit war. Actual conflict is here. Im still quite rusty about how to handle disputes on WP (i mostly just stick to reverting vandalism) -I.R.B.A.T(yell at me) (The IRBAT Files)13:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prod, Yeshivish613. I must have somehow missed "Actual conflict is here." The IP's edit summaries are pugnacious but I don't find them rude (other than where he addresses the subject of the article). I'm unfamiliar with most of the sources within the deleted-restored-deleted-restored passages and have no great enthusiasm either for studying and evaluating them or for submerging myself in a sea of celebs, but even to me it's obvious that some of these sources are unsatisfactory. (Instagram? Please no.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CrowdTangle draft input
Hello editors,
It looks like a bot archived my previous post thinking it was settled, but I'm still looking for constructive feedback on the CrowdTangle draft I proposed. The previously reviewing editor suggested seeking feedback here. I am eager to make this draft better, so I want to make a request for feedback again.
To recap:
From the rules the replying editor linked, for corporate notability, the sources in the draft need to:
Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
Be completely independent of the article subject.
Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
I think that the articles from Business Insider, The Verge and Poynter show clear interest from when CrowdTangle was first created and in use. Further articles from Bloomberg, Axios and Reuters covered CrowdTangle up until it was disbanded, showing a continuous, sustained interest in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
All of these articles listed are in-depth, independent, secondary, and reliable.
Could someone please offer additional guidance on how to improve this draft? The language in it is supported by these sources in a neutral, unbiased way while also trying to not violate copyright. Thank you very much!!. Brandonsilverman (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Business insider piece says very little about CT that is not quoting a spokesperson from CT. The Verge piece is almost entirely quoting what FB says. This means that neither of them is independent. I didn't look further.
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) 18:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ColinFine this is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for!
I think you'll find that Axios and Reuters articles I mentioned don't lean on quotes from the company or spokesperson and the Poynter starts with a quote but provides independent research later in the article.
Hi, @Kapparently and welcome to Wikipedia! The main problem I see with your draft is that the sources don't establish the notability of the award. For example, look at the Academy Awards. It has content (and sources) about the award itself. Most of the sources in your draft talk about Χ receiving the award. If I have time later I will see if I can find you some sources. Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was extremely helpful - I added some statements and links to support the notability of the award. I just resubmitted it for review. Appreciate your help! Kapparently (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was extremely helpful - I added some statements and links to support the notability of the award. I just resubmitted it for review. Appreciate your help! Kapparently (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I tried to publish this article, but it was pushed back to the draft space because the resources weren't reliable enough. Can someone give me a bit of advice on what exactly is wrong with my resources? Also what other resources would I need to make the article good enough? Thank you. GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GrimaldiiSolace, it's rather odd to talk of a source being worth inserting (or anyway it's odd when the context isn't understood). Rather, you might ask whether the source says something that's worth summarizing for the article, whether it's reliable for that purpose, and whether the material within it that's worth summarizing is already in the article and adequately referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worth inserting, meaning a viable source to adequately take the place of the non-reliable sources I had previously used. Maybe you missed where I explained the context above. Sorry for the misunderstanding. GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was too hasty, GrimaldiiSolace. I've looked at the draft, at Timtrent's comment that "Your sourcing is all unreliable with the likely exception of Le Monde", and (in an unsatisfactory, monoglot way) at three sources. There seems to be an implication here of a non-trivial probability that the Le Monde source is unreliable. I don't understand how. (Are there now questions about the reliability of Le Monde?) The problem with this web page that it says very little. In the version of the draft that Timtrent declined, it's cited for (A) the start date and for (B) a description of the general situation in which the story takes place. It certainly backs up (B), but I don't see how it backs up (A). The port.hu page says even less; I've no particular reason not to think that it's competent at this kind of coverage. The Le Parisien article (currently cited, but not yet cited in the version that Timtrent declined) seems competent too. And yes, this Parisien article does verify what you attribute to it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the first edit I've seen like it, but this edit removed information about a criminal charge from a BLP on the grounds that it has been dismissed. In the past, my instinct has been to revert those kinds of edits. I couldn't find anything in WP:BLP or the MOS about dismissed criminal charges - should I continue to revert similar removals in the future? Anerdw (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anerdw, BLP policy calls for us to be very conservative and cautious about including content that might imply criminal guilt. In this case, the individual was arrested four years ago for an offense that is a misdemeanor but is considered highly embarrassing, and the charges were dismissed by a judge three years ago. The person was a notable politician but left office 12 years ago. I see no benefit in keeping this content in the article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting other editors, making friends, collaborating on articles
Have you ever gone to a Wikipedia article and felt like you've stumbled upon an ancient cairn that hasn't been disturbed for years? Its a cool feeling traipsing Wikipedia and finding long lost articles to improve, but it does feel a bit lonely sometimes. I like venturing off like this but its not the only kind of editing I want to do here. I want to actively collaborate with other editors, not just build upon an article that hasn't been touched by other editors in years. The only "contact" I've had with other editors is through automated bots. I love the idea of Wikiprojects, but they don't give any clear instructions on how to get into contact with other editors on the project, and I don't want to bother them on their talk page with unsolicited requests for a collaboration. I know about the GA article review process as a way of working with other editors and I am planning to both review GA candidates and submit one myself. I was wondering if anyone here knew of ways to meet, talk, collaborate, and make friends with other editors organically and without it feeling forced.
@Surfinsi: What are your areas of interest? Some WikiProjects can feel like active communities while others are more like ghost towns. If you have a particular article in mind that you want to improve and there seems to be an active WikiProject on the subject, then by all means start a conversation there – the WikiProject's Talk page is usually a good place to start.
There are also a number of Wikipedia and Wikimedia channels on Discord (which is very social) and IRC (which tends to be more solution-oriented). These platforms are moderated but not controlled by Wikimedia volunteers, and discussions about improving Wikipedia content should take place on Wikipedia itself, but Discord in particular does have a kind of collegial coffee-break-room atmosphere that might be what you're after. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 09:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Teahouse is oriented to somewhat more nuts-and-bolts topics, @Surfinsi, I think you’ve raised a great question. After all, meaningful connections help foster not just warm fuzzies but also useful collaboration.
I’ve been amazed to find many new friendships through Wikipedia. And all very organically, mainly at “tables” in the Teahouse, then later at the Help Desk and Village Pump. I'll offer my experience in hopes that it may help inspire you to see possibilities right here.
Almost every friendship with other editors I can think of during my nearly three years as a Wikipedian developed initially in some way, shape, or form through a discussion thread at one of these tables. I don’t know whether more friendships began by me picking up on another editor’s message, or another editor picking up on one of mine. What I do know is that incredible feeling of “Yessss!” when something has deeply resonated with me. It could be a unique shared interest or concern, or an idea proposed to solve a problem or offer fresh perspective. It could also be in just coming across such an insightful and delightful dash of humor that it brightened a week’s worth of clouds.
Often what began in one of these "table" discussion threads was the beginning in turn of further conversation on a Talk page, mine or another editor’s. Or in Discord (which I’ve only recently come to know of: a good place to chat that’s less "out in the open" than a Talk page but not a personal e-mail account).
Now, @Surfinsi, after having made a case for you to think of the Teahouse and other help venues as good places to connect with other Wikipedians, I'll leave you with a much less organic but what looks like a good way to look for groups focused on a particular project, as @ClaudineChionh mentioned in her earlier reply to you: the Find a WikiProject search box. Augnablik (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please help to publish the article if it looks promotional
Sorry, @Satishmnavy85, it has already been speedily deleted by an admin as unambiguously promotional. You will need to start again after reading Help:Your first article. We know from much experience that newcomers to editing who jump straight into creating drafts almost always fail: start instead by improving existing articles on topics that interest you until you have learned how things work here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Satishmnavy85 You have now restored a version of the article. However, it is clear at a glance that it does not demonstrate that this company, of which you are the CEO, is notable as defined by Wikipedia. Without sources which are in depth, from reliable publications entirely independent of the company, no article is possible. It is likely that it is simply too soon to create one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Satishmnavy85, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that if you continue trying to use Wikipedia to promote your company, you are likely to find yourself blocked.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what reliable independent sources have published about its subject, and very little else. What the company (or its personnel or associates) say or wish to say about itself is of almost no interest or relevance to Wikipedia. If you, as a paid editor try to write an article about your company, you will find that this makes it even more difficult than the already challenging task of creating a Wikipedia article, because you will basically need to forget every single thing you know about the company, and write only information which has appeared in independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I expand articles with adding new information? How to get new articles accepted if they were a stub? - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 09:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ParticularEvent318 Thanks for wanting to improve Wikipedia. Everything here is based on finding appropriate reliable sources and summarizing their content into our articles. So, I suggest you look at topic that interest you and think whether you can find more relevant information that could be included. So, for example, you could look at articles about places near where you live and use local newspapers for new content. Or take some pictures to upload to Wikimedia Commons. Failing that, try the WP:Task centre. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs and listicles are generally not considered reliable sources. There are exceptions, though, for example a blog written by a respected researcher in a field relevant to what is being written about. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLOG, which explains why self-published sources are normally not considered reliable. The exception mentioned there is Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. However it says such sources should be used with caution, and adds Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.CodeTalker (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a reason, why should self-published sources not be used in biographical articles of living people despite author being well known expert? - ParticularEvent318home (speak!). 15:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Help on Article
Hi everyone! I am a part of an online communities class, and we have been tasked to create a new Wikipedia page or add onto an existing page. Any help, guidance, or suggestions are welcome as I work to perfect my article. Thank you :) Bubblegum111 (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bubblegum111 Welcome to the Teahouse. As you will see if you read some of the other threads on this page, writing articles from scratch is quite difficult for newcomers. Some of that is discussed in this essay. So, my advice would be to spend your time initially adding to existing articles on topics which interest you or where you have some expertise and can recognise gaps and new reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @[[User:Bubblegum111|Bubblegum111], and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'll say it more strongly than Mike: 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) 10:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Draft:Jsky has had a long history and was rejected (which means "stop trying: this topic is not suitable for Wikipedia") in 2022. The more recent sources still fail to reach our notability requirements, since they are local newspapers giving limited information based mainly on interviews. We need three or so sources which meet the golden rules for good sources. These may appear after his single is released later this year. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tags on my edits
I've had "Tags: possible BLP issue or vandalism" as tags on two of my most recent edits and I'm wondering if I am doing something wrong, or is this expected? Footballcrazyguy (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Footballcrazyguy Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't see any problems with the edits [1] or [2] in question. They were marked automatically by software, not editors, and they have not been reverted. I think that the filter may have worried that you have <30 edits and were using foreign-language sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not unusual, and wouldn't be considered a negative. I can be specific about both edits here. One is that you say someone has been fired. In many biographies this is worth flagging for a quick review (for review, not reversion). The second is a bit more obscure, and relates to the club name Petrocub Hîncești. If you speak English well, you may be able to see why this was picked up. Filters are coded by humans and not perfect. You'll find you'll hit the filters less after you've made more edits. -- zzuuzz(talk)22:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a draft called Draft:Stewart (brand), and I tried to upload Stewart's logo for the article, but it says I can't upload a image for a draft article when I get to the "What article is this image for" part. How do I upload it? Liam9287 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liam9287: Once your draft is moved to the mainspace, you can upload the image then. Because you want to upload a logo, it’s probably going to be WP:NONFREE content, which only allow such files in the mainspace. cyberdog958Talk22:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I know that my question has been asked earlier?
Hello all. I am a newbie and still learning "walking steps", so to say. I have a question "Can a stamp be copyrighted"? For instance, today, when I was searching for stamps on HIV, I came across this - https://www.alamy.com/discoverer-of-the-hiv-virus-luc-montagnier-on-stamp-image593202402.html. It shows a stamp issued by Bhutan and is related to HIV. I need to use it in one of my academic works. But it is supposed to be copyrighted by ALAMY. In the past too, I have seen several such stamps copyrighted by them or by some other agencies. My question is "Can someone simply put its logo on a stamp and assert it is copyrighted by them? How do we know for sure, it is copyrighted by them? Can a public image, like that of stamp be copyrighted?" Now my related question. Before putting this question in this group, I was very much aware that this is a common question, and probably has been asked [and answered] in this forum. Since I did not want to clutter up this space, with duplicate questions, I wanted to search for this question. But could not figure out how. For one thing, people might have asked the question using different words. Then how do I search? Are there any keywords or similar things to search for? How? Kindly explain. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neotaruntius, it's a good idea to "bookmark" c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory, from which you can easily reach c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Bhutan. And from c:Commons:Stamps you can easily reach c:Commons:Stamps/Asia, though unfortunately all this says about Bhutan is "No information available". ¶ Take "No information available" to mean "Lack of clear evidence that these are anything other than conventionally copyright ('all rights reserved')". If they are, or might be, conventionally copyright, they cannot be used on Wikimedia Commons; and if they can't be used there, they also can't be used on English-language Wikipedia, other perhaps than via a claim of "fair use". ¶ Alamy says that this image was contributed by "Peregrine". Click on the link on that page to "Peregrine", and one sees that this person has uploaded over a hundred images, of which most (all?) are of stamps from a great number of nations. I find it hard to believe that Peregrine has the rights to these. But this is the kind of thing that a website (whether Alamy or Wikipedia) can expect when it invites the carefree/optimistic/feckless to upload what they say is their own. ¶ The best place to ask about image copyright and related matters -- other than "fair use" -- is c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, thanks. This is as detailed a reply as can be, although at this moment, I can't claim I have understood your answer completely. Instead of a binary yes or no, it is a much nuanced reply and I will need to understand this properly after visiting all these sites you mentioned. I have heard about Village pump, but I did not realize it had sub-sites also. Thanks again. Neotaruntius (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And more, Neotaruntius. "Can someone simply put its logo on a stamp and assert it is copyrighted by them?" If an image is in the public domain, then yes, I believe that someone can do just that. (Making the claim doesn't necessarily mean that the claim will be taken seriously.) And if the "can" in that question is in the epistemic sense (a matter not of authorization but of probability, as it "It can snow in June", or "Nitwits can vandalize Wikipedia"), then yes. ¶ "How do we know for sure, it is copyrighted by them?" You could email Alamy to ask. ¶ "Can a public image, like that of stamp be copyrighted?" I don't know what you mean here by "public image"; but yes, many nations copyright their stamps. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary thanks for the second part. Come to think of it, I also have only a vague idea of what a public image is or should be. I would imagine that the image of sun should be a public image, because it is available for everyone to see and photograph freely. Probably a Bhutan stamp (but not an extremely rare stamp, or, say, the Kohinoor diamond) is also a public image, but I know you will now easily drag me onto a slippery wicket. Well, another important part of my question has remained unanswered. How do I know this question had been asked earlier? I might be asking a question already answered. Sorry, I sound so naive. Actually I am. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neotaruntius, in this context, "public image" is an unfamiliar term to me. I think that you mean by it something like "image of a sight available to the public". The outside of the building where I live is available to the public (you can come here and view it, or anyway one side of it). The inside is not: If I don't invite you in, you can't come in. But, however incredible it may seem, even the exteriors of buildings facing public streets/roads are, in many parts of the world, not available for published photography, because those areas don't have what's called "freedom of panorama". In many (most?) nations, you also have no right to publish the photographs you take of new statues that anyone is free to view in public places, etc etc. Publicly available/visible stamps, banknotes, posters, etc, must also be assumed to be conventionally copyright ("all rights reserved") unless there's a clear reason for them not to be (public availability/visibility of what's photographed is no reason at all). -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, this is really interesting. I would have imagined that I had a right to publish [on my own Facebook page] my own image taken in front of, say, "Statute of Liberty" and someone could have questioned its validity. I do not visit social media sites often, but whenever I do, I find so commonly people post their pictures by the side of, or in front of, famous sights, and no one takes it seriously. Well I think it may also depend on where you are posting it - in an informal Whats-app group or in an academic book available for sale. I realize "copyright" is a big area of law, and probably cannot be discussed in a series of questions and answers, certainly not with a beginner like me, who knows nothing about it. But your statement "In many (most?) nations, you also have no right to publish the photographs you take of new statues that anyone is free to view in public places, etc etc. " really astonished me. I shall keep learning, although currently it seems like an incredibly large ocean for me to swim across. It is fun to learn anyway. Thanks very much. Neotaruntius (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Neotaruntius To answer the search part of your question: there is a search box that works over the Help pages. You'll find it near the top of this Teahouse page. If you use the keywords "stamp" and "Bhutan" the search returns this hitlist, from which you can see that related questions have been asked and that this thread is already indexed as a hit. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Alamy should not be trusted on matters of copyright. Many of the images which it offers for sale have been copied, without due credit, from Wikimedia Commons. Maproom (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Maproom, this was actually the "core" part of my question. Honestly I wasn't very much worried about Bhutan stamp/its copyright, as much as was the authenticity of Alamy's claim, and the way to check it. I think there are several other similar companies which make similar claims. I think one is Shutterstock or something like that. Not pointing a finger on any one; they may all be making right claims. Just wondered if we can take these claims on their face value, or is there a genuine way of checking it. Thanks to all, who took time to answer a complete newcomer's genuine enquiry. Neotaruntius (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of this specific stamp/image, there are actually several (potential) copyrights to be aware of:
The stamp design: unless you can show that Bhutan freely licenses these designs or makes them copyright-free, or that the copyright would have expired, you should presume that this is in copyright.
The image of Montagnier: this looks as though it is based on a photograph; there is likely to be a separate copyright for this (which if it was specially commissioned by the government of Bhutan for this stamp may also rest with them; otherwise it is likely to be held by the photographer)
sir / mam some one decline my article saying it is a copy but i have made it for the kushwaha community of Nepal not India it is different please check it again kushwaha page exist it is for kushwaha of India not nepal I have made it for Nepal kushwaha are present in Nepal also Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bhaskar sunsari: Now I see that this falls under the Contentious topics procedure so I reiterate that you need to spend more time learning the rules and style guidelines. You will not be allowed to edit or create articles in this area until you have more experience. (This rule applies to all new editors, not just you personally.) — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 08:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i understand sir mam but look at once in my article( kushwaha community of nepal ) once it will help nepali kuswahas in study too it have listed their poplulation in different states of nepal and different districts too it is not related with kushwaha of india please sir/mam it will not harm wikipidea if you accept it and if you accept it it will even motivate me do more contribute to wikipidea please accept my article Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok sir /mam please tell me what changes i have to do to make it accepted i will do changes you will say please ... just tell mei just want to be my article accepted. Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sir i have done too much changes to my page kushwaha community of nepal please accept it now if there is any mistake please suggest me i will correct it ...but look at it once please i m like your brother.... Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop imploring at Teahouse to have your draft approved. Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not review drafts (although some also serve as reviewers). Repeatedly asking/begging to have your draft approved is just annoying. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Need to contribute to Wikipedia
I’m an inexperienced editor on Wikipedia. I have been introduced to wiki editing. How do I get started then? Is there a game that introduces me to contributing to encyclopedia? CoolWeb092 (talk). 09:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Least Action. I believe this type of problem can probably be resolved by:
logging-out,
clearing your browser cookies (at least for the domains wikimedia.org and wikipedia.org),
if you restrict cookies with custom settings, then make sure you are allowing the new auth.wikimedia.org sub-domain
log-in again.
If that doesn't help, please either file a task in Phabricator (if you are comfortable doing that), or reply here with more details about your setup and the specific problem so that we can file a Phabricator task on your behalf, such as: which browser/OS/App are you using when you get logged-out, if you are using any browser-extensions that might be interfering (such as a cookie limiter), how long after logging-in you are getting unintentionally-logged-out (and does it seem to be time-dependent or number-of-pages-visited dependent as you describe above), if you are using a VPN or proxy or a satellite ISP, and anything else you think might be relevant.
General background note: There have been some recent updates to the system for logging-in. Overall, the changes should improve things for everyone, and the changes are needed due to the way that web-browser software is being updated (details at mw:MediaWiki Platform Team/SUL3).
Why should an author be allowed to revert to an old version of a personality page when the page has been especially re-edited to add updated achievements and information on the given personality? Jashnetalat (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors have as much right to aim to improve an article as you have (or more, for a while, now that you've got yourself blocked for edit warring). When your block ends, you should discuss the issues on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question about an article
This article [4] has some issues with it. It needs additional citations for verification and such. But, when I try to do a proposed deletion, it was already nominated. So I was wondering if an article can be re-nominated to be deleted or not. Thanks, Editz2341231 (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Editz2341231. Improvement of an article about a clearly notable topic is always preferable to deletion. If you go to Google Books and enter the character string "water weights load testing", you will find quite a few high quality reliable sources on this topic. Select and summarize the best of them, create references to them, and you will have dramatically improved the article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editz2341231, you are welcome to improve the article in any way you wish. Aside from a very few exceptions, articles don't have notability; however, an article should demonstrate the notability of its subject. Adding to the content of an article goes towards demonstrating the notability of its subject (or increases the obviousness of this notability), as long as the additions are sourced reliably (and, for many kinds of subject, are independent of the subject). -- Hoary (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editz2341231, notability is a property of a topic, not a property of a Wikipedia article about that topic. A poor quality article about a clearly notable topic does not make the topic any less notable. It just means that the article cries out for expansion and improvement. Adding references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic is a good start. Summarizing those references and adding new content is even better. That's why we are here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While expanding stubs I saw an article that doesn't seem to meet requirements based on what I've read. Can I nominate it for deletion as a newbie, or should I do something else? Don't want to overstep. Thanks. Milkywaythegodfather (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Milkywaythegodfather Absolutely you can - the "worst" thing that will happen is somebody finds better sourcing and makes a snarky comment at you. To mitigate the chances of that, make sure you do a proper WP:BEFORE to determine if the subject might be notable, despite the state of the article. That's going to probably involve looking through Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, or other similar platforms. If the article's about an academic, however, make sure you look at ou guidelines for determining academic notability. They're very different, and even experienced users get caught out by that. Don't be afraid to withdraw if somebody finds better sourcing, and good luck on your Wikipedia journey! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋23:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Milkywaythegodfather Yep, perfectly correctly as far as I can see! Good nom, too - contains an analysis of the sources and why you don't feel like they should qualify. And you appear to have managed the transclusions just fine - I remember how weird it was doing those for the first time. If you'd like to make the paperwork side of things easier in the future, now that your account is autoconfirmed, you can always use something like WP:TWINKLE to automate parts of it. You can enable it in Special:Preferences, and while it might look a bit scary, as long as you go slowly it's really useful for stuff like this. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋08:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello editors, I really wanted to edit articles that are metropolitan related, but for pages, such as Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City, it seems that these articles are monitored and patrolled by extended confirmed editors. Can you please explain how to start an edit to these articles without being it patrolled? Is there a way for an edit to be made un an article without being undone? (Magnent)”Harold” (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @MagnentHarold. Assuming you don't mean the articles aren't extended protected, you can try to be bold and just make the edit and improve the article. If it's reverted, that's okay, because you can always discuss with the reverting editors on the article's talk page. Discussion is how Wikipedia grows. If you really aren't sure your edit will be an improvement or abide by guidelines, you can open up a section on the talk page and ask for advice. Tarlby(t) (c)23:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that discussions is how Wikipedia grows. In a collaborative environment, there will always be conflict. That conflict is settled in discussions. Those discussions are how we find how to improve articles. Tarlby(t) (c)04:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MagnentHarold There won't be conflict every time, or even most times (depending on where you edit), but if you keep editing, sooner or later someone will disagree with you on something, and then it's time for discussion. To quote WP:COMMUNICATE. "Most article updates are uncontroversial, so discussion isn't needed. In cases of disagreements amongst editors, though, there is no choice but to communicate with others. All Wikipedia editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to use talk pages to discuss issues when needed."Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, articles with more views per day tend to also have editors who have chosen to have those articles on their "Watch" list, meaning that every time they log in they can check their list to see what has been edited. I 'watch' about 30 articles; some people watch hundreds. And some articles have hundreds of watchers. As mentioned above, unless protected, relatively new editors can edit those articles, but may see that their edits were reverted for cause - most often lack of including a reference or invalid reference. David notMD (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you keep your watchlist so low? I think after a couple months on Wikipedia, my own watchlist was already well above 30. I have over 2000 articles on my watchlist and it's a constant struggle to keep it from growing without bound. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say you are new on Wikipedia,then you want to start your own page in your own language,then you start to have some doubts about the language you chose because not everyone knows your language for example myself my language is Sepedi since I live in South Africa so not everyone knows my language
Yes it could, Lou tshimo. But it could also lead me into putting more effort into creating pages in that language. I read that Sesotho sa Leboa has close to five million native speakers. That's a lot. The number of native speakers of Estonian is less than one third the number of native speakers of Sesotho sa Leboa. One can't evaluate an encyclopedia by comparing what's written (or isn't written) on a tiny number of subjects; but all the same, let's take a look.
Hey All - I asked 4-5 weeks ago about a submissions "Thomas Haugh" he's a basketball player at the U of Florida. In my initial page, I did not indicate "Thomas Haugh (Basketball)" was hoping somebody could help edit. He's been on a tear during March Madness. Working to prove he's notable! Thanks!
Hi @GrassrootHoops101, having a parentheses after a name is only necessary when there are two people with the same name, and we need to have a disambiguator. For example there are more than two people called Joe Johnson who have Wikipedia articles called Joe Johnson, so we need to disambiguate them as Joe Johnson (basketball) and Joe Johnson (baseball). However since there is no other article yet called Thomas Haugh, the current title will be fine, should your draft be accepted. Good luck with your draft! Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GrassrootHoops101, it is never necessary to delete and recreate articles, they can simply be moved to change the name. However as I said your draft is best at the current name, and as said above you should wait until it is reviewed and if it is accepted you can worry about the name. Yeshivish613 (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's edits before creating this draft appears to just be adding basic information, like statistics. I really see nothing about their edits that indicates advertising. Suggesting another editor might be making undisclosed paid contributions without evidence is not very nice... Perhaps they just really like basketball. MediaKyle (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As was explained to you above, we only add disambiguators like (Basketball) to differentiate between two articles with the same name. Because Wikipedia only has a single article on Thomas Haugh, no disambiguation is needed. Madam Fatal (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the reason that why your article doesn't accepted and I found that the topic on which you are creating a article, already existed in Wikipedia as Kushwaha. The same reason is also given by the new page reviewer. Try creating a article on any other notable topic. Please check WP:AFC to avoid mistakes, and to qualify your draft as article. Thank you. ⚡ VortexPhantom ⚡ (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but sir in kushwaha there is nothing listed clearly about kushwaha community of Nepal i want to add details about kushwaha community of Nepal but that page is locked so sir i m creating new page kushwaha community of Nepal and you guys are decling it it is for the kushwaha community of Nepal . Same there is yadavs page but some one yadav of Nepal page is existing but why not of kushwaha Kushwaha are also a legal citizens of nepal . please understand sir Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what's your hurry? And why have you not done as suggested and first expand the existing article? It can always be split off later if needed. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but keep a thing in mind that separate pages cannot be made for Kushwaha in both Nepal and India regions, consider editing in the existing page of you want to add content about Kushwaha in Nepal. If, the page is protected consider visiting Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for reducing page protection or request edit in protected pages. Thank you and happy editing. ⚡ VortexPhantom ⚡ (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that we are not anyone to decide that article protection will be reduced or remain same, it's role of adminstrator and they must handle it. ⚡ VortexPhantom ⚡ (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i understand sir please don't get angry with me but i an wanting to write a article about kushwaha community of Nepal so i was asking please check my darfts of kushwaha community of Nepal is ok and im extremely sorry if i have said anything wrong forgive me Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not angry with you, but you are ignoring what we are telling you. You seem to be in a great hurry to do this. Why? 331dot (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bhaskar sunsari, you are free to make edit requests at the foot of the talk page of the existing article. Tips: (i) Say either precisely what should be changed to precisely what, or precisely what should be added. (If you want material deleted, then say precisely what you want deleted, and why.) (ii) Provide reliable sources for the material you want included. (iii) Start with no more than three requests, and don't let the number of your open requests exceed three. (iv) There's no reason to address anyone as "sir" or "madam". -- Hoary (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I thought that "being an admin" is when a Wiki-user has over 500 edited pages, but I don't know the admin criteria. Respond me if you got a problem! Joe bitten (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joe bitten: WP:RIGHTS lists the access levels. The 30 days and 500 edits is the threshold for extended confirmed, which removes most of the editing restrictions. Why do you think you want to become an administrator? I'm inclined to say that anyone who comes to the teahouse asking this question isn't ready to consider requesting this role, and would do well to keep working away on Wikipedia articles and the many other tasks available to them. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 09:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Joe bitten, and welcome to the Teahouse. Admin rights are granted by the community to an editor who persuades them that there is good reason for them to have those rights. Part of that is showing that they have enough experience, familiarity with Wikipedia's policies etc; another part is showing that there is something they want to do in Wikipedia which requires admin tools.
I have been an editor in Wikipedia for nearly twenty years, and have made over 26 000 edits; but I have never requested admin rights, because the things that I want to do in Wikipedia do not require them. ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that's a good thing. It is difficult, once you're an administrator, to keep being a good content editor and creator, because there is no end of tasks for administrators to do. The role is jokingly referred to as "janitor", but it's no joke, there are always messes to mop up, and they always seem urgent. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Proposal to permanently protect all administrator instruction pages. These pages are meant to guide administrators. They must be preserved to ensue best performance of the admins. As such, any edit here, except updates and corrections, must be kept out of these articles to prevent disruption, in other words, there's no legitmate reason to edit these pages, except in limited circumstances. When I wrote the message, the only articles were protected by my question was Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/instructions, and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Administrator instructions
2. Myth: Users that have customized signatures are desysopped administrators. Any truth? (I'm not a very smart person.)
3. How I do vote for deletion? (regular/speedy/proposed) CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Pages are not protected proactively. 2. Some users with custom signatures are admins, some are former admins, most have never been admins. 3. Deletion processes are described here. Deletion discussions are not votes. --bonadeacontributionstalk18:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recommend asking several independent questions in one post, as you'll often find that some of them get missed.
However:
. We don't normally protect pages pre-emptively; but you are welcome to present your proposal at WP:VPR.
. I have never heard such a preposterous myth. Personally, I've never felt the slightest urge to customise my signature, and don't really understand why people want to; but if you search the archives of this page, you'll find plenty of newbies asking how to do so.
. You'll find all about the different deletion procedures at Deletion policy.
CreatorTheWikipedian2009, what specifically are you trying to propose? And what kind of editing help are you wanting a tool for? There are a number of ways to accomplish both depending on your specific objective. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CreatorTheWikipedian2009, your Homepage should have some suggestions of articles to edit, and the options in the 'Fact-Checking' section at the Task Center are a great way to contribute. There's also de-orphaning articles – make sure to read that page first, and I would stay away from adding links to "See also" sections for now, but that's one of my favorite easy ways to contribute to Wikipedia and I'd be happy to give you more information about it on your talk page if you like. There's all sorts of things you can do that don't even require extra tools! Is there anything specifically that you're interested in? Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please could someone look at the above article, in the section "Imaging" and improve the way the images are displayed? I think it would be better not to have some as side align and others as centered gallery. Thank you, Moribundum (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moribundum Part of the problem seems to be that the images have lengthy captions and I agree that the results are poor. That article has 148 page watchers, so I'm surprised that no-one has tackled this before. Perhaps you should make a proposal on the talk page or just be bold and change the layout as you think is best. WP:CAPTION has some advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My User Page
Hello community. I have find out that this place can help me. My user page is in assending descending order mean its disruptive and hard to understand. Please anyone can help me in arrangements of my user page user boxes and sections. Thank you Tuifjhf (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also can you please add more items to my user page as other accounts user pages have like Infobox and recent changes section etc. Tuifjhf (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The usual way to improve userpages is to look at some of the existing userboxes at WP:UBX/GALLERY. You need to choose your own: other people won't know what are relevant to you. Also, if you see somthing on another editor's page that you want to transfer to your own userpage, you can copy the source code. There's a tutorial at this help page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured topics/Almirante Latorre-class battleship has all featured articles but it doesn’t show the symbol. How do you add the symbol showing if it has all the featured articles Thelifeofan413 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Pale_Moon has a notice at the top that another article was deleted and merged into it, with the link being set as a redirect, but this doesn't seem true (the link that the notice claims to be a redirect just links to an existing article)
should i delete this notice from the talk page? Wojtekpolska1013 (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Jenna1993. We highly recommend that newer users do not dive right in to the very difficult task of creating a new article; imagine asking "how do I build a house" without knowing anything about land acquisition, permitting, obtaining supplies and labor, construction techniques, landscaping, etc. A lot goes into it. The same is with creating a new article. It's best to first learn more about Wikipedia by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is a good idea too. These things will greatly increase your chances for successfully creating a new article.
Hi everyone,
I've been updating some articles about novels and authors, and I'm hoping to include audiobook details. Can anyone please tell me what form the citations should take, please? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Example, in the intro of the National Inventors Hall of Fame article a number is stated, e.g, "623 inventors". How can I automatically reuse that number in the article's infobox? The current method relies on manual editing. I want to remove that risk of omission by coding the reuse of a number or a string.TomStonehunter (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TomStonehunter, welcome to the Teahouse. This is not possible unless the number is stored in another page like a template. We don't do that for a simple number which is only used in one article. It would be possible with mw:Extension:Variables but that extension is unwanted in Wikimedia wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aftershock PC and Ashton Hall
Hello,
I created a page Aftershock PC and it has a tag that reads "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (March 2025)."
I had a connection to the subject, which I fully disclosed. After making several edits with the help of some kind editors here, the article was eventually published. So, could you please advise on how to remove this tag?
Repsjared, Melcous wrote about the "fitness influencer": "not ready for mainspace - notability not demonstrated, use WP:AFC process to submit for review". So check that it does satisfy WP:PERSON, and when you believe it does so, submit it via WP:AFC. -- Hoary (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have applied all the changes, thanks again for the advice! I also wanted to mention that the reference name errors appeared by default when searching for links—I just had no idea I needed to remove them. Repsjared (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response Hoary. @Repsjared As well as WP:NBIO, I would suggest particularly looking at WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED - an influencer who as "gone viral" for one specific thing within the last month flags the notability question around whether an article is WP:TOOSOON. As has been said already, using the WP:AFC process is the best way for this to be determined. Melcous (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, I really appreciate @Melcous. I completely understand you. Maybe, I will leave the article to sit on my draft for a little while I work on other subjects of interest. Repsjared (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hello @Hoary, hope you are well. Really sorry to bother you but is there still a reason why the Aftershock page still has the major contributor tag? Also is it prohibited that I remove it myself? Repsjared (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to see a list of articles tagged with "inappropriate person"?
i saw it mentioned somewhere it was because he is a trump supporter, i have been supporting and updating this page and it makes no other sense why it was redirected to his company. frankly i think he has more news and articles than his comopany Larryshamblin (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone help me check whether my edit violates WP:DUE and WP:NPOV
I added this edit recently, which another editor thought it may have violated WP:DUE and removed. But I don't see how it violates, as the incident (causing backlash against the subject) is presented by sources (I cited newspaper) from Hong Kong and Macau (I just found two additional Taiwan reports, haven't added them yet), so I believed the incident is in wide coverage from reliable, published sources. Also, the editor thought I address this as an incident violates WP:NPOV, which I also have no idea how it violates (the sources state it as incident)?
I decide to discuss this with the editor, but before I reach consensus with them, I want to make sure I do not violate WP:DUE and WP:NPOV (I am still confused). So, I would like some help to provide me another perspective. Thanks a lot EleniXDD※Talk02:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are the core values on Wikipedia?
Welcome, I hope I have a great day on Wikipedia. However, can you please explain what are the core values on Wikipedia and if there are 5 pillars, then which one? I have an attempt on what Wikipedia goals are and how the encyclopedia works, this includes new ideas. If in doubt, answer me completely. TopDisky5835 (in records) 06:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TopDisky5835.The Five pillars are the philosophical underpinnings of the project. There are three interrelated and interdependent core content policies. They are Verifiability, the Neutral point of view and No original research. Another exceptionally important policy is Biographies of living persons, which recognizes that Wikipedia editors can cause real harm to people's lives if we fail to write such articles with great caution and attention to accuracy. A "complete" answer about such a massive and complex project is not possible within the confines of a Teahouse reply, but if you read all of those links, plus the links they include, you will be well on your way to a deeper understanding. Cullen328 (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the fifth pillar. Not having rules is part of the rules. Or more specifically, not thoughtlessly following rules for their own sake. GMGtalk15:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“First, change was not caused by the entry of new actors, but rather the loss of actors. Whereas other approaches to the study of institutions tend to see the relevant population of an institution as being stable or increasing, my account shows that the loss of a particular population contributed to Wikipedia’s shift. Furthermore, other accounts see conflicts within institutions as resulting in winners and losers where the losers typically remain within the institution.”
After reading this quote from a journal, what does that mean if there is a change in actors? Secondly, what does this change if there are winners or losers in general resulted? TopDisky5835 (in records) 18:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the writer used the word "actor". Here in Wikipedia these would be referred to as "editors", i.e. the people who contribute to Wikipedia articles. The point being made is that change came about because some people left the editing community, never to return. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really satisfied with my ongoing rewrite for the Battle of Zinjibar article. So far I've just been listing every single round of fighting and notable event for each day, but I don't think that makes it particularly better or more informative. I'd like some advice as for what would make a certain event in a battle worthy of inclusion, and just a general layout for writing articles such as this. Hsnkn (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently wrote an article related to ophthalmology titled Macular Pigment Optical Density. It's a measurable parameter used in diagnostics, but I’m unsure which infobox would be the most suitable for it. The Infobox medical condition template seems suitable for it, but since it’s commonly used for diseases, I’m not sure if it fits. Need Guidance! 👑 JesusisGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk09:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kire1975, I've declared that it is a paid contribution, but I'm an independent editor and don't work for the company, and have based it on a range of external sources. I've also triple checked for promotional language. Viljowf (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If reads like an ad because it reads like the company telling the world what they want people to know about it, not like a summary of what independent commentators have written about it. A rule of thumb for writing an article (especially if you have a COI) is:
Find independent reliable sources. Make sure every one meets the criteria in WP:42 - so nothing written, published, or commissioned by the company or its employees or associates, or based on an interview or press release.
Forget absolutely everything you know about the company, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say about it.
If that gives you a viable article, you can add limited uncontroversial factual information (such as dates and locations) from non-independent sources. But if none of the independent sources mention your favourite fact about the company, then you should probably not put it in the article.
Thx ColinFine! The thing is, I think I have actually underplayed the positive reception of Furhat. The robot is described in the literature as "the most advanced social robot" and many other such labels. Do you think it's best to just remove all sources to the company website or documentation, even if supplemented by external sources? Viljowf (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and also remove citations to partner organisations that are only brief mentions e.g. current #30 to Merck/PETRA, which is clearly not independent or significant coverage. The topic is likely notable but doesn't need hype. Sentences ending ... highlighting its involvement in forward-looking robotics projects in the region will make the reader think "As opposed to what? Backward-looking projects?" Your bare URL in citations need to be converted into proper references, attributing their authors. See {{cite web}} and Help:Referencing for beginners. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're logged in to your account now, and before today you hadn't edited in over two years. (were you logged in to read?) If you are unable to remember your password and you do not have a email address in your preferences, you may need to create a new account and identify it as a successor to your old account. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently made a page and there is an "N" next to the edit summary of it. Does anyone know what this means? Also how will I know when my page has been reviewed? Thanks! Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Gjb0zWxOb, and welcome to the Teahouse. "N" means its a new page - otherwise you would get a (positive or negative) number showing the net number of bytes you had added/removed. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I want to edit the Byzantine Empire page by adding a word of information to it but since it is semi protected I think I need confirmation to do it and make it permanent so I need confirmation from you guys.
I would like to add the word "mid" to "'Byzantine' was used adjectivally alongside terms such as "Empire of the Greeks" until the mid 19th century." I am requesting for permission for this edit (unless I can already do it but it'll only last 1 month without confirmation like the most recent edit on that page)
Properly sourcing from a photo caption of a magazine or news article?
Hey everyone!
Have been searching for a while and haven't found anything concrete on this issue - in most newspapers and magazines, a photo usually can contain a large synopsis, oftentimes including information that is both informative and factual, but is not specifically repeated or stated so in the article that it heads.
So, two questions -
1. Should we specifically state in the ref that some of the information came from the caption, and if so, how? The only option seems to be under "Quote" but perhaps, "Via". Example, "Quote/Via - some of the summarized text is taken from a photo caption connected to the referenced article".
2. If there is no connected article, just a photo with an informative caption, can we summarize from that? And if so, how do we title it? The few times I have done so, I built out the ref just like any other news article, titling it as "Photo caption" and sometimes with a hyphen to include a bold photo title when there is one.
Although it's a rare need, I've come across this conundrum a few times and I'd appreciate if some of our much better editors could fill me in. As always, I want to make sure I'm doing this all correctly!
A content dispute about a peer-reviewed Wiley textbook on Markov chains
Indef-blocked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello! I’ve been involved in a content dispute recently regarding a peer-reviewed Wiley textbook on Markov chains. I followed policy-based steps (Talk page, RSN, DRN), but I’ve faced pushback and even threats of blocking.
I’d appreciate any guidance on how to remain engaged constructively and ensure that reliable sources are not dismissed based on personal opinion.
Hello!
My draft article Christian J. Wiedermann was recently declined with the comment that it is "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." I’m trying to understand what is missing or how I might revise it properly.
Christian J. Wiedermann is already listed in the German-language Wikipedia and is a recognized academic with peer-reviewed publications. Importantly, his contribution to uncovering the scientific misconduct in the Boldt scandal was cited by Science magazine and acknowledged by all editors of the U.S.-based Society of Critical Care Medicine.
I would appreciate any guidance on how to present this information in a way that meets notability and content standards on the English Wikipedia. Thank you very much! Christian Wiedermann (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your draft has been rejected, not declined, which means it will not be accepted on English Wikipedia. Every language Wikipedia has its own policies and procedures for accepting new articles, and English Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographical articles. Another editor here might write an article about you if they independently decides that it warrants inclusion in this Wikipedia, but you won't be able to create that article or have any influence over its creation. (Also, noting that you have referred to Wiedermann in the third person, if you are not Christian Wiedermann then your account may be blocked for impersonation.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change my name?
Hello fellow editors, I was told to come here in a message on my "talk" page. I looked into changing my name. Mostly because using it was an impulsive decision and I'm not actually a full-fledged monarchist. Can this be done without connecting an email to my account? I would like to stay anonymous if possible. Monárquico1975 (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to put Bob Barker's date of birth, under 'Early Life,' when I chose not to risk myself, at doing it, because it might be vandalism, is there anything wrong with that? Can you please help me? Thank you. Televisionbuff831G (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean this article? The birth date is included in reference 2 so it would be appropriate to include it. As long as it is suitably reference, then it should be fine to add. Knitsey (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Always have a look at the references and if it is confirmed then you will be OK. Just to note, Wikipedia:Vandalism is quite specific. If you add something that requires a reference, that isn't usually vandalism. You might get a note about referencing, but not for vandalism. Enjoy! Knitsey (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me how I reference it?! This is hard or it may be harder. I don't want to get disqualified from using Wikipedia, just as it happened before, please?! Thank you! Televisionbuff831G (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although, as the reference is already there then you don't need to use another source necessarily. At the beginning of the Early life section, add the date (mdy for American dates). Use an edit summary something along the lines of 'already referenced below', or the name of the publication. Knitsey (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also sort of related, is there a limit for the amount of links that can be shared in that section? The one for this article seems too bloated, but I am not sure if there's a policy covering this. I couldn't find any. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Paprikaiser! Categories should generally be at the very bottom of an article, under any see also or reference sections, as well as templates. To answer your second question, I do not believe there is any policy or guideline on the amount of links. WP:Seealso merely says that links should be "limited to a reasonable number." I'd remove the categories in the see also segment, and definitely trim down on the "urban development" subsequent. Hope this helps! PhoenixCaelestis · Talk · Contributions00:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Another editor de-linked the Philippine languages mentioned in Isapuso, an article I created. They cited a WP policy that mentions that "major" examples of languages (such as English, Spanish, and French) should not be linked in articles. However, this GA-status article links the Philippine languages Tagalog and Cebuano: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagtatag!
I'm just confused. What exactly qualifies as a "major" language? Is it locally or globally? Tagalog and Cebuano are two of the Philippines' major languages, but I guess they're not internationally recognized (especially Cebuano). Please let me know if I should link or not link Philippine languages (or which ones to link) in articles. Thank you so much. Bloomagiliw (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomagiliw, the list in the infobox "Bicolano Cebuano English Ilocano Kalinga Kapampangan Tagalog Tausūg" is just that, a list. Because it's not a sentence, links for some or all of these could hardly be distracting. Linking all eight would add fewer than twenty bytes to the "wikitext", and, by today's standards, a negligible number of bytes to the HTML. I'd link six of them; other editors might link eight: I for one can't get worked up over the difference. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I put pages up for deletion for April fools?
since one year, I got stucked with my article in the AfC. The main reasons which reviewers point out is that the article need to be more in-depth, reliable, secondary and strictly independent (4 aspects). While I understood reviewers arguments in the beginning, revised the article and sources several times I am actually now quite convinced to meet such requirements. Thus, for the first time, reviewer @AlphaBetaGamma has "only" pointed out "reliable sources" and was very cooperative to point out to me the exact source of his/her concern. But the next reviewer pointed out the 4 aspects again. Besides proceeding with this article the review stage, I would like to know how to make potential reviewers aware that I have interest that they point out the exact issue, so I can better understand what is still missing, or even argue against a particular review result. Declining an article in general is certainly less time consuming, but gives less lessons for newbies.
Finally, could someone please let me know that a revised declined article shall be sent to AfC AND to the previous reviewer to continue the review? OR just to the AfC bucket? I worry that making multiple reviewers busy was not the right approach. One tricky thing is, that I am using sources in Japanese, German and English, so I am not sure if a reviewer is able to go through this. The need to understand all languages may be the reason why "the full beauty of this article" was not yet discovered.
Hello @Merged account. I am not an AFC reviewer so I can't review it alone, but you can get into further contact with the decliners, i.e. the most recent reviewer. Having a draft decline does send it back to queue for any reviewer to assess; I don't believe the previous AFC reviewer specifically is alerted to a draft being sent back to review. Tarlby(t) (c)05:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarlby: Thanks for the input. Then I understand it in that way that it is common practice not to give a separate trigger to an AfC reviewer, if the previous declined article is now again in the AfC que again. Merged account (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merged account, you have not been told that the draft needed to be in greater depth. You have been told that it needed to cite sources that had several characteristics, the first of these being: in greater depth. According to the draft, the subject of your article is a Japanese company of quite some size, named Correns and コーレンス in Roman and Japanese script respectively. Of the sources that you cite, only one is described as being in Japanese. (In itself, this doesn't matter.) It's no longer where the draft says it is, but it survives here, thanks to the Wayback Machine; you should update the link. It refers to the company not as コーレンス but instead as コレンス. However, the company's own info page calls it コーレンス -- and retrospectively too. (NB this isn't just a spelling difference: コーレンス has a longer first syllable than does コレンス.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary, thank you for this finding! I have added a note to the cited source that it refers to the company not as コーレンス but instead as コレンス. If you see any other reason why this article may still not meet the 4 above mentioned aspects, kindly be asked to point it out. Merged account (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merged account, I suggest that the first thing that you should do is go through the current article with a lot more care. Sample: As of 2022, Correns Corporation employs over 170 individuals and achieved a turnover of 13,679 million JPY. The company operates as a representative and distributor for primarily European suppliers. That's mostly in the present tense (though the 13,679 million yen turnover appears to be in the unspecified past). At the end is a reference -- to a book published in 1976 (and by some organization other than Fukuin Printing, which merely printed it). Once you've done that, check that multiple cited sources have the four characteristics. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also love tea, it is a great blessing, but the same people do not appreciate this blessing, they are mistaken, it is necessary to appreciate it, for me this blessing is highly appreciated, because I like it very much. (V12U253 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I created this page a few days ago. But it is currently not appearing on Google. I know Google takes time to index new content but is there any way to make it appear faster on Google? Babin Mew (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do like Draft:Sahaganj Dunlop Factory, and it is improving -- but it's still odd. We learn that the "Dunlop Factory is part of a larger ground called Dunlop estate". And then we read about the latter: the area it covers -- surprisingly for me, in acres: Aren't hectares less alien to today's India? -- and its male and female population and the literacy rate of both sexes combined (though presumably somehow excluding infants). And it doesn't stop there. We're told that the Dunlop estate comprises this and that, and ultimately: "Another remarkable place of Dunlop estate is the Dunlop math or Dunlop ground where Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to make a speech in 2020." Too much digression! -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability Inquiry for Key People of Notable Companies
Are people who are listed as “Key People” in a major company’s Wikipedia page considered “notable” enough to warrant their own article and/or mention under a notable alumni section of a school?
Hello, Alvin S. Theodore. That depends entirely on whether or not the person in question has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are fully independent of the person and their employer. Cullen328 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. I am seeking assistance with two articles that are BLPs of the same subject: Queen Mother Sêmévo 1st and Dòwòti Désir. I am very new to Wikipedia and do not feel able to handle this myself; I have posted on the talk page here but don't know how else to escalate. Thank you! Audrey Woolf (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the articles need to be merged, except they contain largely the exact same information (both were created by the same now-deleted user), and I do not believe the subject meets notability guidelines. Audrey Woolf (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I found Wikipedia:Merging but it's an overwhelming task for me as a new editor, especially as the advice refers to articles which both have useful information. I've marked one as a duplicate for now. As I said on the talk page, I think more work on this would be a waste of time given the lack of notability of the subject. Audrey Woolf (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Audrey Woolf Ignoring the notability issue (which is debatable) the simplest thing to do would be to convert Queen Mother Sêmévo 1st into a redirect. As the edit history of Dòwòti Désir said when User:Robertskymoved it from the original name of the Queen, "we don't put job titles even for monarchs, see Charles III." Unless anyone has a better idea, I'll make that redirect later today. The edit history will retain any material that need to be moved later, although I don't think there is any. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not checked on the content of both articles, but if they are largely similar, a redirect would suffice if there is a parallel editing history. – robertsky (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, each country's tea taste has its own characteristics and sweet taste, just like the taste of coffee. Thanks. (V12U253 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all -- I posted earlier this week in the Teahouse about looking for some advice on my article. The promotional tone tag has been placed on my article, and if anyone could review my work to see what can be removed/improved, that would be much appreciated. Thank you! Bubblegum111 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bubblegum111, and welcome to the Teahouse.
It's promotional because it reads as "this is what the company want people to know about it". But Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the company wants people to know about it: a Wikipedia article should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it.
It is clear, for example, that the NM piece is based on an interview. That means that almost all the information in it comes from the company, and does not belong in a Wikipedia article about the company. I can't read the NYT piece without logging in, but I'm betting that the same is true for that.
My advice is always in the first instance to ignore non-independent sources entirely, forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what the independent sources say about it. ColinFine (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would one do in cases such as this? I believe that it was deleted from French Wikipedia so someone just pasted it into here, so would it be PROD or CSD (and, if so, which one/reason)? Also, say it was a perfectly fine article (but in French) that does not exist on the French WP. What would one do then? Surely it can't be allowed to remain. Also (sorry for so many questions haha) is there a process for draftification? Thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldRomean it would be A10, which is the given reason for the deletion request. It states that "article[s] with no relevant page history that [duplicate] an existing English Wikipedia article" fall under this category. Please note that the article being in French in of itself does not warrant deletion, per point 12 of the non-criteria segment of the speedy deletion page. You can view the full page here. Hope this helps! PhoenixCaelestis · Talk · Contributions19:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been making small edits to List of most-visited websites and there is an editor, GrowTHC, whose edits frequently would undo other editor's work. Even after explaining this issue to them on their talk page, their next edit was still poorly formed and required cleanup. Looking back at their talk page, it seems like this has been an ongoing issue for a long time now, and I am not the first person to talk to them about this type of thing. I'm just not sure what an appropriate next step would be in this kind of case, if any. But I didn't want the situation to go overlooked. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, Where are the templates for user pages such as "This user is an native English speaker" and "This user is Autoconfirmed", I need help finding them and using them
Sfn help: citing two works written by the same author and published in the same year
I'm currently working on improving the article on Shostakovich's Symphony No. 15 and need some help with sfn citations. There are two sources I need to cite therein: both are by the same author and were published the same year. How can I format these citations to distinguish them from each other? As always, thank you for your help. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I am making edits to my article and push "publish page" at the top right corner of the page, does it just save my work or does it make my edits public? SusieCCameron (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Publish" means save. Submit draft submits your draft to the pool of drafts that go to reviewers. The system is not a chronological queue, so reviews can happen in days, weeks, or (sadly) months. Declined drafts can be improved and submitted again. David notMD (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Internet Archive Bot
Hi, I'm currently working on Neil Robertson with GA in mind. Very few of the references are archived, though they all work bar one. Will the Internet Archive Bot add archives, via the fix dead links tool, to the sources as archiving 150 references will be tedious by hand? I haven't used the tool before and it warns of a vandalism risk. Kind regards. Canary757(talk)10:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am not sure if it does but here's what I mean as an example: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Notes, that is sort of what I want to do, and write say in note one of a page: "It is unknown exactly when X player left X club, but can be assumed in or before X year". and then if there is a reference I would say "see reference 2" or something like that. Or another saying "Distributed by X entertainment" like in this page- Still Life 2#Notes
those sort of citations. The page you show me does give some sort of answer but not fully.
@TheMagicalCraftyLion what you want are called "explanatory footnotes" and are added using the template {{efn}}: that link gives details. Standard references (sometimes, confusingly called "footnotes") go at the end of articles using the template {{reflist}} but explanatory footnotes need the extra template {{notelist}} to be placed where you want the explanatory notes to be placed. You can see the result in some articles like Joe Biden, which has both notes and references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently working on a draft article about Fredrik Schwenk on the English Wikipedia:
Draft:Fredrik_Schwenk
There are already approved Wikipedia articles in German and French, and the Wikidata entry is well-referenced with comprehensive sources. However, my English draft is not progressing, and I would love to get some feedback on how I can improve it and move it to the main namespace.
Are there any issues with notability, sources, or formatting that I should address? The English version would be particularly useful for my international students, so I want to ensure that it meets Wikipedia's standards.
I appreciate any advice you can give me!
Thanks in advance. 😊
Best regards, [FSchwenk] FSchwenk (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For your draft, I would recommend shortening the Works section to include only a select few (the ones that were most influential/popular). What you need to pass the Articles for Creation process is significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. If you have any questions feel free to ask. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FSchwenk: I had a look at the articles in German and French; you are the main author and main contributor of both, and at least the article in French isn't approved in any form (yet). I get the feeling that you see Wikipedia mainly as a vehicle for advertising yourself, as in all 3 languages you haven't many contributions apart from writing about yourself (the exception being the Festival junger Künstler article in German). And your hint that the article "...would be particularly useful for my international students..." makes me even more suspicious. Just follow the advice given above, though. Lectonar (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that Selected works needs to much shorter, and also limit External links to 2-4 at most. Of the references which ones meet the criteria of independent, about you, and at some length? Are there others? Need not be in English. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @FSchwenk, and welcome to the Teahouse. One of the things that makes writing about yourself on Wikipedia so difficult is that 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) 15:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main cases I wish to use this for is for some stuff I'm working on regarding two topics:
October 1907 Russian legislative election section hat-link to Coup of June 1907. I've been reading up on the coup's events, and have written in summary-style a lot of what I've read, and intend to write up in much more detail on the Coup article.
I understand the most about difference between the See also one and the others, but the remaining 3 confuse me. The documentation on each template's page is probably clear for most folks, I'm just not sure what counts as narrower, broader, or as something's main article, or when I'd want to use one over the others. An idiot-proof clarification on their differences would be a big help Bejakyo (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Bejakyo, hopefully I can answer your question.
Further information: For an article containing more broad (though not as broad as broader coverage) information on a topic. Example: A link to Sinking of the Titanic on the Titanic page.
Main article: For an article whose primary job is to cover the information presented in a section in more detail. Example: A link to SS Empire Arrow on the Arrow-class oil tanker page.
Broader coverage: For an article that is less specific and covers a wider field surrounding a topic. Example: A link to school shooting on a page for Columbine massacre.
See also: For articles that are related to the information in the section where the template is placed. Example: A link to sports in China in the sports subsection of the page for Shanghai.
I recently created a page for actress Roselind Byrne and later realized that a page for her already exists in German. However, my attempts to link both pages using the "Add interlanguage link" function have failed. The error message I received was: :
A page "https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Byrne" could not be found on "dewiki".
The external client site "dewiki" did not provide page information for page "https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Byrne".
However, the page does exist.
Did I do something wrong? Could it be because my page is too new?
Thank you for your help.
Best regards, Edmond Furax (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Edmond Furax, welcome to the Teahouse! When linking interwiki articles, you should just provide the name of the article on dewiki in the box, not the full link to the article. I've gone and done it for you. Happy editing! Yeshivish613 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, heres some backstory; in late March 2025 after years of work i finally got the article Wii U GamePad to GA status; then on April 1 after significantly improving the article Wii Chess and then nominating it for GA; user @Boneless Pizza! called the nomination "suspicious" since user @Freedoxm, who previously reviewed the GamePad article came back again to review the Wii Chess article. This has absolutely no merit behind it, but they pushed this narrative and forced Freedoxm to quickfail the nomination before the nomination even got to finish.
Then that brings us to today, this user boneless pizza made a bad faith gar of the game pad article; notifying unrelated users like @Sergecross73 and @Tarlby about the reassesment that will obviously be biased towards him and will vote to get rid of the article. I don't really know what to do since i've been working on these articles for years and i put alot of effort into these only for them to get squashed by this user. I just got un banned after years and people are already hating me. what am i doing wrong? TzarN64 (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I didn't force myself to quickfail the nom. They had a good reason on why I should have failed it. In fact, i'm not very familiar with the GA reviewing. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk·contribs) 18:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This is the Teahouse! Please take any GA concerns to the coordinators and any broader behavioral concerns to the proper noticeboard (I see the AN thread unblocking OP, though closed, is still up). Please do not adjudicate conduct disputes here. Additionally, taking such disputes to multiple fora is generally reflects poorly on the original poster. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 19:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TzarN64, I assure you that I do not hate you nor have any resentment. I'm near your age and also feel frustration when there's critical pushback to something I feel passionate about, but it's important to remember that that's just how it's like when working on this collaborative encyclopedia. I feel that Pizza's tone was a little aggressive, but I'm also 99% sure it's all in good faith. My advice is to step off of any review processes. If you really wanna nominate future GAs, go to WP:Peer review and receive extra criticism before you do so.The Teahouse is also not the place to talk about drama, as the fellow above me has said. Try to talk with Pizza personally and sort things out. Tarlby(t) (c)19:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any uncivil comments in that GAN except "lie" and "poorly reviewed"(Indeed it is). I also received this type of comments while working on a poorly shaped article to FA, but worse like 123. We should treat this as constructive criticism to strive hard. @TzarN64 @Tarlby 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but I do not regret to say that so the reviewer would treat the advices seriously next time. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you were "a little aggressive" without actually making egregious personal attacks, so I don't have too much of a problem. Tarlby(t) (c)20:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Short desc
Is there a list/category of articles without short descriptions? I swear there was one but I can not find it anymore. Thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stewart Brand, the creator of the image (in 1963), has sent the photo to me by email, and he expressed his permission to use it in the article. I can forward the email, if that can support the process.
Hello @Editz2341231. You should obviously be understandable enough that ppl know what you're saying, but professional grammar like that of a high-quality article isn't needed. Tarlby(t) (c)22:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be taken seriously and educated I would say yes..... but as someone who uses speech to text software on talk pages...having to do with having mobility issues, I frequently post things that are all out of whack because of autocorrect etc. Generally my point still gets across despite my grammatical, tents* wrong plurality spelling. Moxy🍁22:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:Kushwaha community of nepal
Trout Tracked syntax errors corrected. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
![[3]](/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2023_January_24#File:Independence_Monument_(27506800337),_cropped,_%C3%84rtogrul.jpg){kind=link}
