Wikipedia:Teahouse
Dbfirs, a Teahouse host
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.
Assistance for new editors unable to post here
edit | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).
However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.
There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:
Citations that cannot/are difficult to verify
editHi, I have a query that I've been meaning to ask for a while, and I now have the perfect opportunity to do so: In this edit, User:BlopaGotan has added a number of citations to books that aren't linked and thus are difficult to verify for accuracy. What is the policy on this type of citation, and are they generally admissible? Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Revirvlkodlaku: We accept offline sources, provided a minimum amount of information is provided to look the book up in a library (title, publisher, author, year of publication, pages being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC #). Looking at Blopa's referencing, the lot of the ones he added are missing some of what I just listed. (They'd also be incomplete if these were periodical cites, as he's still missing some of what's required there - publication, edition, article title, article byline, page numbers).) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Jéské Couriano/Decode, thanks for the response. I'm guessing that, failing a successful discussion with BlopaGotan (whose gender is unknown, btw 😉), it would be fair to remove the content, right? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Jéské Couriano/Decode, I'm still hoping to hear back from you on this, so that I know how to proceed. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Revirvlkodlaku I suggest adding {{Page numbers needed}} (once) or {{Page needed}} (after each reference). The books seem to be identifiable, so the ISBN isn't vital.
- You have left a message for BlopaGotan at Talk:Ángel Villoldo querying the lack of online sources, I think that should be updated to ask for page numbers as online sources are not required. Also you could leave a message on their talk page with a link to your message on Talk:Ángel Villoldo as they seem to edit sporadically. They added Pablo to their signature on Talk:Ángel Villoldo, so I think a male pronoun is OK, as of course is "they". TSventon (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- TSventon, sounds good, thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Revirvlkodlaku, I am not Jéské Couriano. TSventon (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- TSventon, sounds good, thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
New, please help me
editHi there folks, I’m new to Wikipedia. How can start contributing? How to get started on Wikipedia? ClimateFolding1507 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ClimateFolding1507 I would check out the task center for ideas which are plenty. Help:Introduction gives an introduction to editing. Please let me know if you found a task or need more guidance. As long as you are very specific in what you ask, we can help you. Interstellarity (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Interstellarity Introduction and task center? That’s good, at least you gave a video to me, right? I’ll go over the basics on Wikipedia after my break. ClimateFolding1507 (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ClimateFolding1507 If I might make another suggestion: read the new posts on the Help desk and this Teahouse desk every day, and browse through older queries above and in the Archives when you have time. You will probably encounter many helpful responses to queries that it would not even have occurred to you to make, but which you will find illuminating. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.210.150.115 (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ClimateFolding1507 Yet another option: Become a Wikipedian in 30 minutes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I already watched that video, and I’m happily satisfied with this. ClimateFolding1507 (talk) 07:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Big Brother 27 Spoiler information
editWhat is Wikipedia's policy on including spoiler information into an article? There must be someway to prevent an editor from inputting "live feed" information that ruins the viewing of the program. As the Spoiler (media ) article points out: "Many feel spoilers irrevocably diminish suspense, speculation, shock value, and the unique experience of organically discovering a narrative. The unpredictable journey is damaged if outcomes are known ahead of time." Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 02:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Spoilers may be added to Wikipedia pages and this page displays current events. My tip would be avoid the page if you do not want "spoilers" same advice for any social media/news outlets dealing with Big Brother. The seasons have always been updated as displayed on live feeds. --> WP:Spoiler JoyfullySmile (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Buster7, a good quality Wikipedia article about, for example, a film or a TV series, will include a reasonably detailed plot summary, including any major "surprises" in the plot. If any reader does not want an accurate plot summary, then they should not read Wikipedia plot summaries. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an editorial arm of the entertainment industry that thinks that incomplete teasers are good for business. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- WP:SPOILER is our standard guideline. DMacks (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Buster7, a good quality Wikipedia article about, for example, a film or a TV series, will include a reasonably detailed plot summary, including any major "surprises" in the plot. If any reader does not want an accurate plot summary, then they should not read Wikipedia plot summaries. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an editorial arm of the entertainment industry that thinks that incomplete teasers are good for business. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Congregation of Teresian Carmelites
editHello, I am working on Draft:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites, which has been declined twice. I would appreciate advice on what improvements are needed to move it into mainspace.
Thank you very much for your guidance! Desertstorm1000 (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Did you even bother to read the detailed explanations in the decline notices? I'll summarize: (a) write in your own words, absolutely don't use an AI to write for you, and (b) most of the sources you cite absolutely must comply with all three criteria described in WP:Golden rule.
- Now go and read the explanations if you haven't done so.
- The current version of the draft does look better. You can continue improving it while you wait for a reviewer.
- Finally, if you are associated with this organization, you must disclose your conflict of interest, preferably on your user page. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Anachronist. I’ll carefully re-read the decline notices, make sure the draft is written fully in my own words, and strengthen it with independent sources per WP:Golden rule. I’ll also keep WP:COI in mind. Much appreciated! Desertstorm1000 (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Desertstorm1000, I know little about such things, but I suspect that "pontifical right" should be "pontifical rite". Maproom (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC) : Thank you, Maproom. That’s a good catch — I’ll fix the wording from “pontifical right” to “pontifical rite” in the draft. Desertstorm1000 (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Have you looked at related articles Discalced Carmelites, Eliswa Vakayil, and Congregation of Mother of Carmel? There is considerable overlap among these. Mathglot (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mathglot. I’ll compare the related articles you mentioned (Discalced Carmelites, Eliswa Vakayil, and Congregation of Mother of Carmel) and work on reducing overlap. Desertstorm1000 (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Desertstorm1000, reducing overlap was not exactly wat I had in mind, although that could perhaps be an improvement, but is not the goal per se. So please allow me to explain. Plenty of articles have overlap, and that is okay; it is the nature of having focus on different parts of a large, overall topic. Overlap on articles about World War II, say, is inevitable, because it is a huge topic with a large set of articles focusing on different fronts, battles, causes, timelines, geographic areas, equipment, and other related topics; they are going to overlap, and that is okay.
- At the other end of the scale, we have something like the CTC, where there is very little information out there about it, maybe no printed books at all, maybe little or nothing in academic journals, and you have to scour the internet for what little bits of reliable sourcing you can find. So the question becomes, is there enough sourcing out there in toto to support four separate articles with different focus, or should they be merged into fewer than four? This is essentially a question about Wikipedia notability, and in particular, whether the topic, even if notabe, deserves a standalone page on Wikipedia.
- So, it's not about "reducing overlap", but about figuring out whether this draft should become an article at all, even if all the reasons for the declines are fixed. And if you can't fix it as a separate article because there just isn't enough significant coverage out there in reliable sources, you may still have bits and pieces of your draft that are reliably sourced and may be perfectly all right as part of Wikipedia, as long as they live in some other article whose topic is clearly notable, even if this one is not.
- These are tricky and subtle distinctions relating to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and if this sounds all a bit murky to you as a new editor, I certainly can't blame you. What I would do if I were you, is take a two-pronged approach:
- Keep improving the draft, and try to respond to reviewer comments as best you can, to see if you can get the Draft approved, bearing in mind that it might not be;
- If it isn't, be aware that a topic (i.e., what the page title represents) must be Notable, but content on a page does not need to be, it only needs to be WP:Verifiable. If the CTC turns out not to be a notable topic, you may be able to transfer some of the content from the draft to one of the other three articles, as long as the content is verifiable.
- Hope this makes sense. Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mathglot, for your detailed explanation. I have also reviewed related articles, as you suggested, to reduce overlap and ensure each article covers distinct aspects. I don’t think they should be merged, as each focuses on separate topics and has enough coverage to justify a standalone page. I will continue improving sourcing and clarity to support this, and remain mindful of WP:Notability and verifiability. Desertstorm1000 (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mathglot. I’ll compare the related articles you mentioned (Discalced Carmelites, Eliswa Vakayil, and Congregation of Mother of Carmel) and work on reducing overlap. Desertstorm1000 (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Is there a way to make passages of books available to other editors?
editDear Editors, I'm working on Sacha Stone, an article about a conspiracy theorist.
I want to cite some sources from published texts which I feel may be relevant to this topic. My concern is that the books in question are rather obscure, and not the easiest things for other editors to obtain, should they wish to verify my work.
Does anybody know if it is permitted (or what is recommended instead), to include some scans from the pages that I want to discuss in the talk discussion, or possibly some other namespace. I want to allow other editors who may not have easy access to the text to verify the source that I want to cite. Salimfadhley (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Salimfadhley, and welcome to the Teahouse.
- Do not include scans - they will almost certainly be copyright violations. In some circumstances you may quote from a source: see quotations (but also see quotations and neutrality) ColinFine (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- ?What about providing a slightly longer quotation in the talk page, does that seem reasonable? Salimfadhley (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, that isn't standard protocol. You can leave a short quote, but otherwise, it's fine. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks everyone for the prompt responses. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, that isn't standard protocol. You can leave a short quote, but otherwise, it's fine. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- ?What about providing a slightly longer quotation in the talk page, does that seem reasonable? Salimfadhley (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Salimfadhley The policy on verification does not require that sources be easy to access, only that they be reliable. The specific wording of that policy is at WP:PAYWALL. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Draft:Smart Tales
editHello,
I am seeking advice on how to improve my draft Draft:Smart Tales. Smart Tales is an educational app for children that combines interactive stories with STEM learning activities.
My submission was declined with the feedback that it reads too much like an advertisement. I wrote the text by directly citing independent and reliable sources, such as coverage from news outlets and international awards, to demonstrate notability.
Could you please guide me on how to adjust the tone to meet neutrality standards, whether the sources I included are adequate to establish notability, and any concrete steps I should take to align the draft with Wikipedia’s expectations?
I noticed that other children’s apps with comparable coverage have live Wikipedia pages, so I’d really appreciate any advice on how to revise mine in the right direction.
Thanks a lot for your help! MaviWiki25 (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- A specific example of sounding like an advertisement is the following sentence:
It promotes social and emotional skills such as empathy, collaboration, inclusion, and respect, and aligns with elementary school curricula.
The sentence is backed up by two sources, one is the app description and the other is a webpage for an award it received. Neither one is independent. Please go through and remove the sources that are not independent of Smart Tales. Then, remove whatever statements are not supported by the remaining sources. That will help you with neutrality issues. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)- @Sungodtemple Sorry to butt in, but I'm not sure if that's the best approach. Dependent sources don't establish notability, but the OP is asking about promotional phrasing. It's best to just rephrase things so they're not so upbeat. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cremastra But any rephrasing would still have to reflect what reliable independent sources say. Shantavira|feed me 17:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- GPTZero scores the draft as 95% AI-generated. Therefore I have nominated it for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:G15. @MaviWiki25: Anything you write on Wikipedia must be your own words. That is actually a legal requirement because you agreed to abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing when you created an account, and that licensing requires proper attribution of content, which is impossible when you use a LLM to write for you. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Sungodtemple Sorry to butt in, but I'm not sure if that's the best approach. Dependent sources don't establish notability, but the OP is asking about promotional phrasing. It's best to just rephrase things so they're not so upbeat. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Kohr Brothers Frozen Custard
editDraft:Kohr Brothers Frozen Custard
I would like to request help on drafting a Wikipedia article for an american chain of Frozen custard shops named Kohr Bros. The company invented frozen custard and operate 25 stores across 4 states. My original draft was denied for notability, but there are many regional chains that have wikipedia pages with equal notoriety compared to Kohr Bros. Such examples would be &pizza, Giant, and Giordano's. Pachiscool11 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
- For sourcing requirements for companies, see WP:NCORP.
- If you have a connection to Kohr Bros. see also WP:PAID.
- Exceptional claims require exceptional sources; who, other then themselves and people quoting them, says they were the first? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- The wikipedia article on frozen custard says they were the first
- “One early commercialization of frozen custard was in Coney Island, New York, in 1919, when ice cream vendors Archie and Elton Kohr found that adding egg yolksto ice cream created a smoother texture and helped the ice cream stay cold longer. In their first weekend on the boardwalk, they sold 18,460 cones.”
- Source:https://web.archive.org/web/20150504073447/http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-06-14/restaurants/happy-days/ Pachiscool11 (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- "One early commercialization" does not mean "the first". The article also says "Egg yolks have been integrated into ice creams since at least the 1690s".
- Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you can find such a source, you need to put it in your draft, not here Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I literally just linked the source and your contradicting yourself because we are using wikipedia right now. also, i DID put it in my draft. Pachiscool11 (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- A source which is a puff-piece for a business, making a claim for the business, vs a source which flat out contradicts it without any bias. Which is more reliable?Despite your manifest skepticism, Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Cabayi (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would love to see your source which “flat out contradicts it without any bias” Pachiscool11 (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- The source the statement came from: McGee, Harold (2004). On Food and Cooking. New York: Scribner. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-684-80001-1. You could see that yourself if you look at the frozen custard article.
- Bottom line, you cannot cite Wikipedia in an article. If you have multiple sources that meet all three criteria spelled out in WP:Golden rule, then you can write your draft based on what those sources say, not repeat unsourced extraordinary claims from the company itself. Company sources can be used to verify noncontroversial facts, such as number of employees, annual sales, executive officer names, and so forth.
- Finally, the claim of Kohr Brothers being "the first" to make frozen custard is contradicted by the claim of Abbott's Frozen Custard, which was founded in 1902, 15 years before the founding of Kohr Brothers. This has a citation by an independent source. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- ok, i just asked for help? not a bullying session for a newbie. Pachiscool11 (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am willing to help. Don't take the above as bullying, I am simply explaining where a claim came from, and what our policies are about sources.
- Please understand that the community, from long experience, has seen thousands of newbies appear and try to write an article about a company as their very first act on Wikipedia, without showing any interest in building an encyclopedia by improving existing content. Usually these people are paid consultants, employees, or other people with a conflict of interest. That's what triggered the paid-editing notice on your talk page, and my followup question.
- I understand now that you're just a happy customer. I have been in that position too when I decided to write about a company or product I bought.
- I think your draft may have potential if you can trim down the primary sources (see WP:Primary sources) and write more about what the secondary sources actually say.
- The best way to write a draft that is likely to be accepted is, don't write a single word until you have collected at least three sources that are reliable, independent of the company, and give significant coverage of the company or its products. Once you have those sources, start writing based on what they say. Then you can introduce other noncontroversial facts from company sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Pachiscool11. 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) 19:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve been on wikipedia since 2021 but my old account (pizza noob 65) i dont have access anymore but i also appreciate your advice and will look for more reliable sources Pachiscool11 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- also, what do i do if there isnt that many reliable, independent or secondsry sources covering the topic? Pachiscool11 (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Move on and write about something else. Not everything is notable. No matter how hard you try, how much or how well you write will make it so. Cabayi (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- ok, i just asked for help? not a bullying session for a newbie. Pachiscool11 (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would love to see your source which “flat out contradicts it without any bias” Pachiscool11 (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- A source which is a puff-piece for a business, making a claim for the business, vs a source which flat out contradicts it without any bias. Which is more reliable?Despite your manifest skepticism, Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Cabayi (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I literally just linked the source and your contradicting yourself because we are using wikipedia right now. also, i DID put it in my draft. Pachiscool11 (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
wiki page for benjamin de almeida
editi noticed that there isn't a wiki page for benoftheweek aka benjamin de almeida (a social media/influencer)? im a new editor so i dont know how to do this too Rashersxx (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Is he notable? Can you show that with reliable, verifiable, independent sources? If so your first article is the guide you're looking for. Cabayi (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Rashersxx, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please make sure you follow the links in Cabayi's reply. When they ask "is he notable?", they don't mean popular, or famous, or influential, or has many followers, but (roughly) "has enough independent material about him been reliably published to base an encyclopaedia article on?"
- If you are contemplating trying to write an article on him, please get some experience first. 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) 19:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding Alameida specifically, I would not recommend writing an article about him. A quick Google search pulls up only profiles and interviews, neither of which contribute to the three sources generally required per article. (Also, if I had a nickle for every male TikTok star with oddly smooth skin born around the turn of the millennium brought up here I could probably buy myself a meal. Take that as you will.) ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- oh okay that's fine i was just wondering if he was worth writing about just because i am new so i still don't really understand how wikipedia works just yet. but thanks anyway:) Rashersxx (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
add contents to the Wikipedia
editHi, how can I add contents to the my Wikipedia page? Can I do it myself or some one has to do it? Mihirannov2022 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- If it is an article about you, then you should request changes on the talk page, as you have a WP:COI. Previously published material must be used as references to support text on pages about people. You can edit your own User:Mihirannov2022, but the purposes are limited, see WP:Userpage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Mihirannov2022, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:About you. ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Does this relate to Shree Ram Lamichhane? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Article Relvance
editHi editors. I have a question and am looking for guidance.
I was suggested to edit the page List of Superstore Characters and as you can see, the reason for flagging the article is "may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a particular audience" which is entirely accurate. While I didn't watch the show Superstore, is the article relevant? As an article, it's well sourced (beyond the "Notable guest stars" section) although most of the references are NBC, the network that aired the show.
Not sure what to do with this one so looking for some guidance. Editori.92263 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Editori.92263:You can not edit the article if you think the article is good. Maybe the suggestion was made automatically, I'll go to the article to see what I can do. PixelWhite (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- PixelWhite, I have never heard that one cannot edit articles that one thinks are good. I frequently do so. (Indeed, I quite often edit "Good Articles", and on occasion even "Featured Articles".) Other editors don't always agree with my edits, but I don't think I've ever been told that I shouldn't make such attempts. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Hoary, I think they are trying to say 'you do not have to edit the article if you think it is already good (even though it was suggested to you for improvement)'. Meadowlark (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Hoary: I said that you don't need to edit the article if in your view it is already good, and I was referring to him, not me. PixelWhite (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- PixelWhite, I have never heard that one cannot edit articles that one thinks are good. I frequently do so. (Indeed, I quite often edit "Good Articles", and on occasion even "Featured Articles".) Other editors don't always agree with my edits, but I don't think I've ever been told that I shouldn't make such attempts. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Editori.92263: I went to the article and read what was written, he wants you to simplify the article, make it more understandable for readers. PixelWhite (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- The list is not hard to understand. Maproom (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input @PixelWhite, @Hoary @Meadowlark and @Maproom but I'm still not sure what to do. I don't love the list but that's my opinion, not a determining factor as to whether or not it should exist. I wouldn't know where to begin to simplify it. I feel like I may be best to just leave it and let someone else deal with it. Maybe a fresh set of eyes will have an idea of what to do with it. Thanks for the conversation though.
- Editori.92263 (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I've often wondered at the tag "may only interest a particular audience". That is one of the strengths of Wikipedia. The internet is littered with fan sites on popular subjects, but for hard-to-find information on out-of-the-way subjects Wikipedia really shines. Doug butler (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
why u decliened my page
editPranav Rajpoot (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- I rejected your draft as it was just advertising and it was then deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
New to editing and self-promotion
editHello everyone, it's good to be here. In a fit of enthusiasm, I added quite a lot of text to wikipdea pages yesterday on work I did many moons ago. The current pages are a bit hit and miss in terms of covering what was know at the time, and I could see gaps that needed filling. However, I think I've done it wrong because I mentioned my own work, which at the time was published in respectable places and acknowledged as reliable. In one post on GP_Fundholding, I copied the page style where authors were mentioned by name. I would normally have put a reference only. I also created a new page Controlling prescribing costs in the NHS. I used ChatgGpt to prrof read, and by error it added me several times as a reference, which shouldn't have occurred. It now has 3 flags - self-promotion, copying style and copyright.
I realise I've gone about things in the wrong way - any advice on what to dogoing forward would be greatly appreciated. Currently, wikipages in my area are not reflective of true picture because they are very thin and do not have the depth needed to give a good picture. I would like to help fix that.
I am happy to learn, and happy to help out of other things to get expereience.
Any advice welcome.
Best wishes,
darrin Darrin Baines (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Darrin Baines While it is OK to cite sources you have authored (see guidance at WP:SELFCITE), this may seem to others as being excessive, which it certainly was at Controlling prescribing costs in the NHS as first written. In the latter case, you would have been better to declare a conflict of interest and used the articles for creation process. As a new editor here, AfC is advised in any case as it allows experienced editors to review what you have done and help improve it. I would advise you 'never to use a chatbot for any purpose on Wikipedia as it causes more problems than it solves. You might also like to read WP:EXPERT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
my own wikipedia
edit- I want to make my own wikipedia and also want to write a book and content for educational purposes .
how to start own Wikipedia. for educational purposes 119.42.59.74 (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever you mean by "[starting] own Wikipedia", I doubt that you can do that and write a book at the same time. One at a time. First, the book. Perhaps the first stage is to accept that it's very unlikely that the book will bring you more than a minuscule income. If that's OK with you, then the next step is to understand your subject "inside out". -- Hoary (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is already for educational purposes. But if that's something you want to do then the MediaWiki software is open source and you can run it off your own server. I believe there are also specialised Wiki hosting services. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 11:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- WikiBooks may be of interest. -- Reconrabbit 13:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Colourisation of table column
editHello, how can I make the first column look similar to the first row (grey by default)? Adacey (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Adacey: Do you mean like this?
C2 C3 C4 R1 a b c R2 d e f R3 g h i
- Bazza 7 (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. That is how I intend to have it. Adacey (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Adacey: All the cells in the table above which are emboldened and have a grey background are header cells. They should be used to indicate that a cell has significance in the table's structure (for example, signify the purpose of the row or column they are in). See Help:Table for lots of information about using tables; or ask more questions here. Bazza 7 (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. That is how I intend to have it. Adacey (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
My first article
editHi! I've discovered a blind harpist from the UK who streams on Twitch and performs in an orchestra, and I'm looking to contribute a Wikipedia article about them. How would I go about doing so? As is usually suggested for new people, I've made some (16 so far) edits in existing articles, and have a draft ready with a list of independent sources covering them. How do I submit this draft for review & feedback?
Thanks in advance! Pandarius17 (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:Your first article; I have moved the draft to Draft:Adelaide Jang; you can submit the draft for review using the process described at WP:AFC, but before you do you need to cite the statements that are currently unsourced; or remove them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response! I'll take a look and work on citing/removing the statements before submitting the draft for review. Much appreciated and hope it's okay to come to you if I need more help. :) Pandarius17 (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Royal Sutton (Or Great Midlands) Fun Run
editHello, in using the task center, I was given this page Great Midlands Fun Run. Which is noted as uncited and possibly un-notable.
Here are 3 examples of independent coverage 1 2 3 In my research, it appears that this event began as the Royal Sutton fun run in 1981, renamed the Great Midlands fun run in the early 2000s, and then after a covid hiatus, came back as the Royal Sutton Fun Run in 2022.
As such, I have 2 main questions
- Do these sources qualify as suitable, independent sources providing significant coverage? My lean is yes, but I do not have a strong sense of what is and isn't acceptable yet.
- If this topic is now notable, how does the article get titled? Does it get moved to a page with its new name, with a redirect page from what it used to be called? Or do we setup a redirect page from what it is now called?
Thank you,
Tech TechGaud (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, those are reputable sources.
- The title is supposed to be that which is (or was) most commonly used (see WP:COMMONNAME). That is probably RSFR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
How to becoming a WP:RBK?
editI'm really interested in becoming a WP:RBK to handle WP:VD but I'm not very good at it and I'm still learning how to use it. I know a little bit about how to use it but not 100%. I have made an application but have not received a response yet. Can anyone help teach me? Thank you. JohnDavies9612 JohnDavies9612 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @JohnDavies9612 Your request has already been declined. Please check [1]. You can find instructions on how to use Rollback here WP:RBK and guidance for dealing with vandalism here WP:VD. ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 15:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @JohnDavies9612: You need some experience with reverting vandalism and warning vandals before applying for rollback, which is why your previous request was declined. It doesn't look like you have been reverting a lot of vandalism since that previous request? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Conflicting information
editArticle on the New Church says Johnny Appleseed came as a missionary from England. Article on Johnny Appleseed says born in America. One must be incorrect. 2607:FEA8:85A1:1C00:A4EA:B9B3:9BFB:8E24 (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have tweaked the wording. The sources for both articles say Appleseed was born in Leominster, Massachusetts, so I don't think the New Church article meant to say that Appleseed came from England. TSventon (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Opening RfCs
editI started this discussion which involves BLPCRIME considerations. Only two other editors are involved and it is yet a young conversation, but indications are it will be robustly contested, as was a previous RfC over issues having parallel concerns. Due to the high profile of the subject and their criminal trial and conviction, I think an RfC is desirable. My specific questions are:
- Is it too soon to call an RfC in this specific case?
- Is it generally ok to apply an RfC tag to an ongoing discussion or better to start a new one?
@Cambial Yellowing and Meters: Courtesy ping involved editors. Xan747 (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Third question: when opening an RfC on an issue with parallel concerns to an RfC on the same subject, is it generally acceptable to ping the editors involved in the prior discussion? Xan747 (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Xan747: Have you read the directions at WP:RFC? In particular, have you exhausted the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I did read the suggested directions. There is a short but stalled discussion between three editors, including myself, so a 3O is not an option. This isn't WP:DR territory. My remaining thought is to ping editors involved in the previous (never closed) RfC on a semi-related issue, and some editors in the article history directly related to the issue, to try to restart the conversation, but I worry about WP:CANVAS. Xan747 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- The first bullet at RFCBEFORE states
Asking for input or assistance at one or more relevant WikiProjects, which are often listed at the top of the article's talk page.
I see that Talk:Danny_Masterson lists three WikiProjects, together with some taskforces (subprojects), so which WikiProjects did you inform? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)- Somehow I missed that. I have put in a request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Danny_Masterson_infobox_image. Thanks for the help. Xan747 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- The first bullet at RFCBEFORE states
- I did read the suggested directions. There is a short but stalled discussion between three editors, including myself, so a 3O is not an option. This isn't WP:DR territory. My remaining thought is to ping editors involved in the previous (never closed) RfC on a semi-related issue, and some editors in the article history directly related to the issue, to try to restart the conversation, but I worry about WP:CANVAS. Xan747 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Xan747: Have you read the directions at WP:RFC? In particular, have you exhausted the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Expand and improvements
editAnyone can improve and expand 2025 Nasser Hospital strikes QalasQalas (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well....technically not anyone, due to the restrictions around editing about the Arab-Israeli conflict. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Further Reading organization
editHi there. I want to update a section of "further reading" that is rather shoddy. Aside from small typos, formatting inconsistencies, and weak sources, it is not arranged in alphabetical or chronological order.
My question: If chronological, which might be good because it gives a hint to foundational writers, you'd need to cite the 1st edition... which could be problematic because the publishers have, often times, changed. Or is it better to just go alphabetical by author and list the latest editions, making the books easier to find? And if you go alphabetical, what do you do when there are two authors? Of course one has a name starting at the front of the alphabet and the other at the end...
I did read the Wiki page about "further reading" and didn't find the answer. Hope this isn't a dumb question and thanks for any help! PaulieZiegfeld (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- PaulieZiegfeld, I'm not convinced that most "Further reading" lists are worthwhile. If a book (or paper, etc), however wrongheaded it now seems, was important in people's earlier (mis) understanding of the subject, better I think to work that into the body text. If it says something worth citing (and does so better than the alternatives do), then cite it, and then it doesn't need to also appear in a "Further reading" list. If it neither is of historical importance nor says anything worth citing, why does it merit being mentioned? ¶ Still, yes, further reading sections are sometimes worthwhile. Are the latest editions the easiest to find? A cheap new "stocking-filler" edition of Andrew Marvell's biggest hits will be easy to buy, but perhaps more elusive in reference libraries than an older, scholarly hardback. ¶ A course in phonology (1999) has its authorship described on its title page as Iggy Roca and Wyn Johnson. The "primary author" (the one named first) is Roca; therefore (if listed alphabetically) the book is listed under Roca. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- OK thank you. Yes in this case as the topic is obscure the further reading list is quite helpful I think. And yes, the latest editions are the easiest to find I just didn't know if chrono order or alpha was better. I guess in thie case alpha is better and thanks for the tip re: order. PaulieZiegfeld (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Some guy is deleting things
edit- Some guy is deleting things he doesn't understand
Some guy deleted a list of vulnerabilities on Bash (Unix shell) yesterday with the message, "rm unnecessary and context-less list of vulns; should be accompanied with a narrative and/or secondary references demo'ing their significance to bash"
It seems to me that it might have been more helpful to request some prose and references rather than simply deleting a work in progress. Blush30720 (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Page: "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:"
- 2. Wikipedia is not limited by paper, but that does not mean it should cover everything.
- Yes, there are citations; I expect to find them at wooledge.org, Bash Hacker's, and somewhere around mitre.org, but they are common knowledge, whether or not they're listed in Wikipedia yet. Blush30720 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- The edit summary does not appear to agree with your claim that the person deleting that section did not understand it. Nor does it appear to be an issue for ANI.
- Is this perhaps something that would work better in your sandbox until you’ve had time to find the citations? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to @OceanLoop. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Revision in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bash_%28Unix_shell%29&diff=1307846447&oldid=1307846009
- Multiple Talk topics discuss problems with this article, which are being exacerbated - not fixed - by recent contributions, in the opinion of this editor. I have asked for additional community input to prevent an edit war. 🌊 oceanloop 01:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- PS: Many of the security vulnerabilities you have added are actually just common footguns that may potentially lead to security issues. The only real vulnerability there is Shellshock. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well, there are CVE's, but that's really not the question, though, is it. Jesus. Blush30720 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Those are CWEs, not CVEs, and Bash isn't inherently affected by any of them. However, if a shell script or an external program calls bash (e.g. through
system()) without, say, properly sanitizing input parameters, it may result in a security vulnerability. In this case, we say the program is vulnerable, not bash. You can replace Bash with any UNIX shell or even cmd.exe and you'll have the same issues if the program doesn't follow proper security practices. If you find reliable sources that specifically link Bash with these vulnerabilities in question, you can add them to the article. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)- I don't believe this Blush30720 (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Which parts of this do you not believe? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't believe this Blush30720 (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Those are CWEs, not CVEs, and Bash isn't inherently affected by any of them. However, if a shell script or an external program calls bash (e.g. through
- Well, there are CVE's, but that's really not the question, though, is it. Jesus. Blush30720 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Scientist Chaogejilatu
editHello, I am new to Wikipedia and I recently submitted a draft article about the environmental scientist "CHAOGEJILATU." Unfortunately, it was declined because there is not enough significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.
As a beginner, I would greatly appreciate kind advice from the Teahouse community:
- What kinds of sources would be considered sufficient to demonstrate notability for a scientist? - Are academic journal articles (where the subject is a co-author) helpful for establishing notability, or do I need more independent media coverage such as newspapers, interviews, or magazines? - If my current references are not enough, what steps should I take to improve the draft so that it has a realistic chance of being accepted?
Thank you very much for your patience and friendly guidance.
CHAOGEJILATU (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Have you already read WP:NOTABILITY? Also, if you are writing about yourself or someone close to you, please also read WP:COI. Let us know if you have any questions about either guidelines. 🌊 oceanloop 03:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- See also WP:NACADEMIC. Polygnotus (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @CHAOGEJILATU Those of us who regularly respond at the Teahouse know that when new editors immediately try to create an WP:Autobiography on Wikipedia they will have a frustrating time and likely fail. I strongly recommend you go about your career and give up trying to promote yourself here. There are several reasons not to want an article in Wikipedia but if there is eventually one it should not be written by you. Please read all the pages I have linked for a fuller explanation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Draft article
editHey,
I was wondering if this little update is good this artist Draft:NLN (rapper) just did a local concert at Shenkman Art Centre in Canada and has some reference from CTV and CBC. It has been declined but I was wondering if it's need more details. 2601:201:8401:EBA0:4526:7A61:3ED8:C92E (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think the relevant guideline is WP:NMUSIC. Bearcat gave good advice in this edit. Polygnotus (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Article declined, need help.
editit asks for citations. i have some belwo. will tht work? Wikipedia: History of Pentecostalism in India In-depth coverage of IPA’s founding, history, and growth Secondary source discussing IPA’s expansion, leadership, social impact Use as direct evidence of IPA’s notability and role in Indian Pentecostalism [1] Pew Research Center: Historical Overview of Pentecostalism in India Reliable demographic and social research Addresses the scale and impact of the Pentecostal movement and denominational data [2] LICAS News: Desecration of Pentecostal church part of hard-line Hindu agenda Reliable news coverage of church incidents, showing the IPA’s presence and effect in India [3] UCA News: Pentecostal center demolished in northern India Independent news source about Pentecostal centers and social/religious challenges, showing real-world impact [4] Social Science Journal: Origin and Development of Pentecostalism in India Academic discussion of Pentecostal movements, growth, and social effect, including IPC and similar organizations [5] Ezek Paul (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
References
- ^ "History of Pentecostalism in India". Wikipedia. Retrieved 2025-08-27.
- ^ "Historical Overview of Pentecostalism in India". Pew Research Center. 5 October 2006. Retrieved 2025-08-27.
- ^ "Desecration of Pentecostal church part of hard-line Hindu agenda, pastors say". LiCAS News. 2020-06-22. Retrieved 2025-08-27.
- ^ "Pentecostal center demolished in northern India". UCA News. Retrieved 2025-08-27.
- ^ "Origin and Development of Pentecostalism in India with special reference to the Indian Pentecostal Church of God" (PDF). International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research. Retrieved 2025-08-27.
- @Ezek Paul: You can't use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources and WP:INLINE. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Ezek Paul. In addition to Wikipedia not being an acceptable source for other Wikipedia articles, the International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research looks like it might be a predatory journal. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Created a page
editHello,
I have created a page for one of most renowed nadi astrologers. User:Vishnubhavanadi - Wikipedia
Want to know what are the next steps or how do get it published ?
Thanks in advance
Deepak
Vishnubhavanadi (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Vishnubhavanadi Hello! You put the draft on your WP:USERPAGE; I moved it for you to User:Vishnubhavanadi/draft. You would need to show that Ram Krishan Goel meets WP:GNG by providing reliable sources about him. Polygnotus (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi there,
- Thanks for responding. All links are available on the page I created which shows his stature. I will keep adding more as it happens.
- Regards Vishnubhavanadi (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm afraid your draft has little chance of being accepted, it shows zero evidence of passing WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yep. HQIQ (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Vishnubhavanadi.
- 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.
- What the subject has published is almost irrelevant, except where independent sources have discussed those publications; and then it is what those indpendent sources have said about them and about the subject in relation to them that should go into the article.
- You appear to be trying to write an article about yourself. This is an extremely bad idea, as it is almost never successful, so we strongly discourage it: see autobiography. ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ColinFine They ended their message above with
Thanks in advance Deepak
so it is likely they are not writing about themselves. Polygnotus (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)- Ah, right. Thanks @Polygnotus.
- @Vishnubhavanadi, if you are not Vishnu Bhavanadi, then you should change your username immediately to something which is not the name of somebody else. (You don't have to use your real name - I do, but most editors do not). ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ColinFine
- Hi ColinFine,
- I’m not writing this article about myself, nor has anyone paid or asked me to do so. I chose to write about someone who is well-known and highly respected in his field.
- Also, vishnubhavanadi is not a name of any person it's just a username. I picked it randomly.
- Thanks
- Deepak Vishnubhavanadi (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- My apologies @Vishnubhavanadi: I misread something, and though you were writing about a person called Vishnu Bhavanadi. ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ColinFine They ended their message above with
- I'm afraid your draft has little chance of being accepted, it shows zero evidence of passing WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
hi
editim confused why am i geting warnings LilbrogotdemBEANZZwtf?! (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @LilbrogotdemBEANZZwtf?! I hope you understand that writing "She made frickin BEANZZZ wtf!! Aw helly nah blud how do I put the redirect back" is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia and constitutes a form of vandalism. Please do not write things like that Wikipedia. I would also recommend reading Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors qcne (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I sent you a Welcome notes with some helpful links Click here I suggest you read it before you do any other edits. ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 12:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Repeated vandalism/ libelous content
edit- Repeated Vandalism/Addition Of Uncited Libelous Content To Some BLP Pages Related To Some Countries . How Should This Be Handled?
The Subject Explains The Issue But I Have Seen Repeated Addition of Uncited Libelous Content on Multiple Different English Wikipedia Pages. The Targeted Pages Mostly Seem To Be Related To Russia/Former USSR Countries Political Leaders/Notable Persons. I Am Wondering How This Should Be Handled. I Do Not Know Where To Put This So I Put It Here. Please Tell Me Where To Put This If Needed. You Can Ask For More Info If Needed And I Will Respond ASAP. I Had A Link To A Targeted Page But I Sadly Lost The Link. RandomNumber-x3lz-School (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello. Please don't capitalize every word that you write, it makes the post harder to read.
- Be advised that Eastern Europe is a formally designated contentious topic. I will provide you with information about this on your user talk page.
- Please discuss your concerns about an article on its talk page. Note that if your concerns are related to Russian or Ukrainian political officials, or otherwise related to the War in Ukraine, you may not edit in those topic areas until you have an account that is 30 days old with 500 substantive edits(not edits made simply to reach 500). 331dot (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @RandomNumber-x3lz-School Your revision to Radovan Višković was indeed a valid removal of obvious recent vandalism.
If you have seen such additions on other pages you should not edit directly owing to the contentious topic designation, please mention the problem on the relevant talk page.Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)- I don't think our contentious topic restrictions are intended to prevent the "valid removal of obvious recent vandalism"; they certainly don't trump our BLP policy, of which the example was an egregious breach. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Did I violate the contentious topics rule by reverting that vandalism? RandomNumber-x3lz-School (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- My point is that you did not. See also WP:IAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Specifically the Extended Confirmed Limit? RandomNumber-x3lz-School (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, you are allowed to remove clear BLP violations. I did not realize that's what you were talking about, apologies. But at least you are now aware of the restrictions so you won't need to get that notice again. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I guess I didn't interpret the comment as being about vandalism(and I failed to check the edit/their edit history) as many, many people call something "libelous" when it actually isn't. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Did I violate the contentious topics rule by reverting that vandalism? RandomNumber-x3lz-School (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- ... that IP has made 8 vandalism edits today and no valid edits, so I have reported them to WP:AIV. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think our contentious topic restrictions are intended to prevent the "valid removal of obvious recent vandalism"; they certainly don't trump our BLP policy, of which the example was an egregious breach. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
University article rewrite
editMy name is Wally, and I work for AUIB. I’ve written a comprehensive and better referenced article about AUIB and would be grateful if someone could kindly review it.
Thank you in advance for any feedback! WallyWicket (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @WallyWicket As we already have the article about AUIB, your best approach now would be to add new content stepwise from your sandbox into it. That way, other editors who are interested in the topic can see what you are doing and revert anything they don't think belongs there. We don't usually replace wholesale the contents of exiting articles with new drafts, and certainly not without consensus reached via the relevant talk page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- ... I missed the part about your being a WP:PAID editor. In that case, you certainly should only make suggestions for new content via the talk page, perhaps using the edit request wizard. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Seeking help with DemandWorks article
edit
Courtesy link: Draft:DemandWorks
Hello,
I wrote an article for a company called DemandWorks. I did disclose that I work there, and we simply just want factual information about our company on Wikipedia. I'm having trouble getting it approved, but keep getting comments that it comes off as promotional. I really don't believe it does - just facts about the company and what they do. Could someone please review it and maybe give me a specific point of what sounds promotional about it? Katherine-Wheeler (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- The article was declined as "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". Please see WP:NCORP for guidance on the sort of references we require. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Katherine-Wheeler: welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was declined because the article's references don't show that the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. On Wikipedia, article subjects generally have to receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be considered notable. Companies and organizations (which applies to yours) have a subject-specific notability guideline (referred to in wiki-speak as "NCORP") that generally follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources. To get your article accepted, you need to add several high-quality, independent sources that substantially cover your company into the article. Thanks! Waning Star (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Katherine-Wheeler What your company wants, and what Wikipedia would want if it had an article about your company, may not coincide.
- What your company wants in an article is, presumably, what it wants people to know about it (and that will quite likely be carefully curated to present it in a good light)>
- What Wikipedia wants in an article is a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about it - whether the company likes what they said or not; whether it presents the company in a good light or not. And if they haven't said anything about it that isn't run of the mill (see WP:CORPTRIV) then Wikipedia probably does not want an article about it in the first place.
- I suggest you read WP:BOSS. ColinFine (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Should I use US state names in locations?
editI have a question about lists or tables with locations both inside and outside the US:
- Tokyo, Japan
- Belgrade, Serbia
- Eugene, Oregon, United States
Should I include the US state as above or is "Eugene, United States" preferred here in a list where all non-US locations are also of the form 'place, country'? I vaguely remember being asked to add US state names, but now I came across someone removing them, and I couldn't find a manual of style page addressing this to know which way to go. – Editør (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I also can't find an applicable MOS article, but omitting the state would be the way I would do it. Looking at articles like List of largest cities and List of cities by elevation as a sort of precedent, it seems like state/county/prefecture/province levels are generally omitted. Maybe if there two cities in the list with the same name in the same country, then disambiguating with the state level would be appropriate. — Rtrb (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Waiting on Response from Admin for page Jainism
editI have suggested improvements on Talk:Jainism (Section: Mathematical Contributions) but have not heard back from the editor to my responses in August 17, 2025. Who else can I reach out to? Buddhimatta (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I can recommend drafting your proposed changes in your Sandbox so their merit is easier to evaluate. Additionally, you should find the respective guidelines for the type of article you are trying to write or modify in support of your proposed task, or even a similar article which has the same motifs. 🌊 oceanloop 22:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Buddhimatta That article has over 1,300 page watchers, so I would have expected others to chip in by now if they were interested. You could point to the discussion at one of the relevant Project talk pages and ask for comments, or you could follow the processes at dispute resolution. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- thanks Buddhimatta (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Reliable websites for page
editI have made a page for an iranian footballer called Yaghoob Barajeh, and as a new wikipedia editor I was unsre why it said I used unreliable sources when I used multiple reliable sources such as transfermarkt Benia Mazaheri (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- WP:RS explains what makes a source reliable. Do you have any specific questions about those guidelines? 🌊 oceanloop 22:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- yes what makes a source reliable, pls tell me Benia Mazaheri (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Benia Mazaheri The problem with Transfermarkt is that it is a user-generated source and, like Wikipedia itself, should not be used directly. It does not contribute to showing that anyone is notable as required for an article. You can see prior discussions about its use, for example at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_150#Transfermarkt_player_profiles and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#Transfermarkt. You can check out specific sources at WP:RSPS, noting that there is a search box to look in its archives, which is how I found those discussions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- yes what makes a source reliable, pls tell me Benia Mazaheri (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Benia Mazaheri. 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) 14:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice it was very helpful Benia Mazaheri (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Random Idea
editCould someone possibly make a page about the underscore? ___ 108.237.221.110 (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes: Underscore. But if you mean the discrete underscore/underline -- ⟨_⟩, as opposed to what is for example under the ⟨M⟩ in ⟨M⟩ -- then the prospective article-creator should first be sure that (i) it would be more helpful to create such a new article than to add material to the already-existing Underscore, and (ii) the subject is notable (as defined by and for Wikipedia). -- Hoary (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- But I may have misinterpreted your question. Perhaps you are asking "If somebody had good reason to create an article titled ⟨_⟩, then (in view of Mediawiki's use of the underscore in page titles to represent a space) would creation of such an article be possible?" -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Spaces and underscores says: "page names consisting of only spaces and underscores are not allowed at all". PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the page, my intentions were literally just to see a page for most characters on a normal keyboard (not F keys or the entire far right side), one of them being the Underscore. The character not like any other meaning, just "_" and stuff about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.237.221.110 (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
New page COI ettiquite
editI am the director of a small US government research program that I believe may be noteworthy enough to warrant a page. There is a significant amount of independent material documenting this program, however, as the program director I am the very definition of coflicted on this topic and as such should not write an article. Is there a mechanism for requesting an editor take a look and consider writing an article? I was thinking about starting a new stub article, and starting a discussion the talk page. Is that a reasonable approach? Funktektronic (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello and welcome. Please see the conflict of interest and paid editing policies.
- There is Requested articles, but it is backlogged to the point of uselessness.
- My advice is that you go on about the work of your program; the best indicator of notability is when an independent editor takes note of significant coverage of a topic in independent reliable sources and chooses to write about it. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for chiming in. I left a request and will call it a day. Funktektronic (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Funktektronic. The downside of having a Wikipedia article is that Wikipedia will always be at the top of all search engine results, which means you will no longer control what people see when they search for that project. Polygnotus (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your concern and setting up a user page for me. I don't think what you are saying is actually true. I frequently search for scientific code projects and usually the project page is the first hit. Funktektronic (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Funktektronic Well, it may be because Google knows that I am most likely to click the Wikipedia link on anything I search.
Polygnotus (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Fair point, and I amore likely to go to the project page. :) Funktektronic (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Funktektronic Well, it may be because Google knows that I am most likely to click the Wikipedia link on anything I search.
- Thanks for your concern and setting up a user page for me. I don't think what you are saying is actually true. I frequently search for scientific code projects and usually the project page is the first hit. Funktektronic (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- You may start a Draft page and submit it for review using the process described at WP:AFC.
- But first, please see WP:Autobiography and WP:About you for further guidance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Charles Wilkes
editIn the past have added some material to this entry on the controversial 19th c. American Naval Admiral. Haven't looked at the article for a number of years, so when I read it over a day ago I was startled to come upon whole paragraphs of ungrammatical English. The instinct was to jump into 'Edit' mode and speedily correct all those awkward spots. But I hesitated, thinking perhaps some illustrious foreign author had written the text and I would be committing a grave international breach of etiquette to perpetrate even one small edit. Should I leave the offending text as I found it or discreetly render it into correct, more grammatical American English? Much thanks for your thoughts. Butcan 21:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would remove any sections which are uncited or do not make coherent sense, per WP:BOLD. You can also check the page history to see significant contributions and question them, or their author/s. I know a little about the subject matter and have subscribed to the article, if you would like copyedit of your revisions. Thank you. 🌊 oceanloop 22:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Butcan. Wikipedia is massively uninterested in whether any particular editor is "illustrious" or not. All text that any of us insert in an article is licensed under CC-BY-SA, and anybody may edit it. Some editors are more familiar with Wikipedia's policies than others, but we are all just "editors".
- If somebody disagrees with an edit you makethey may revert your edit - or you may revert another editors edits in the same way. This is a normal part of how a collaborative project like Wikipedia works: see WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's perfectly okay to correct poor grammar or poorly-written text; in fact by doing so you are helping those non-native editors who can add a lot of factually-useful information and references, but in wobbly English; they rely on someone going along behind and gnoming the language into shape. What doesn't work is over-pedantic piddling around with text that was fine (this is not a helpful place to start a crusade against the Oxford comma), or changing the style to the wrong variety of English (a problem that you clearly understand). Also, verbatim quotations from sources must obviously be left the way they are, even if the English is "wrong". As a native English-english speaker, I appreciate American editors who can de-anglicize me as appropriate. I only get irritated when someone with a First Certificate in Basic English as a Foreign Language decides to demonstrate their skills by mutating into the Grammar Police and doing horribly painful things to my fine and flowing prose. But even then, ColinFine is right. Elemimele (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Please help with formatting this citation
editI don't know what to do about the doi value. The doi listed on the article does not appear valid or if valid is no longer active. Should it simply be omitted? AkilinaL (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Try
doi=10.37547/tajssei/volume02issue11-15per https://search.crossref.org 🌊 oceanloop 22:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @OceanLoop: Note that the DOI you kindly provided doesn't display any errors in Wikipedia, but leads to a 404 File not found page.[2] Note that this reference is in the Tashkent article. GoingBatty (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's also a predatory journal, which should be avoided as citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @OceanLoop: Note that the DOI you kindly provided doesn't display any errors in Wikipedia, but leads to a 404 File not found page.[2] Note that this reference is in the Tashkent article. GoingBatty (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
References
- ^ Ibragimov, Rahmon Ziyodullaevich (November 23, 2020). "On the Stages of the Ancient History of the Tashkent Oasis". The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations. 02 (11–15): 86–92. doi:10.37547 (inactive 2025-08-27). ISSN 2689-100X. Retrieved 2025-08-27.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of August 2025 (link) CS1 maint: ignored DOI errors (link) - ^ Ibragimov, Rahmon Ziyodullaevich (November 23, 2020). "On the Stages of the Ancient History of the Tashkent Oasis". The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations. 02 (11–15): 86–92. doi:10.37547/tajssei/volume02issue11-15 (inactive 28 August 2025). ISSN 2689-100X. Retrieved 2025-08-27.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of August 2025 (link)
Creating a page for a medical school dean
editI apologize for asking a question that has probably been asked many times, but I need assistance in publishing a page for our medical school's dean. I have the content and citations necessary, and his list of accomplishments is long, but since I have never published nor edited a page in my life, I don't know where to start. Is anyone willing to help? Mgmcampbell (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Editing articles where you have a conflict of interest is discouraged - see WP:COI; you may want to work on other pages. You are welcome to experiment with content in your sandbox. Happy editing! 🌊 oceanloop 03:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Mgmcampbell Hello. If you work for the school, you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to make a formal paid editing disclosure. Please also see conflict of interest. While it is discouraged- especially if you lack experience- you are permitted to create and submit a draft via the Article Wizard. I would correct youn in that you would not be creating a "page for" the dean, but an article about them. Wikipedia articles are not for the benefit of the subject, nor are they exclusively controlled by the subject. A Wikipedia article does not merely name accomplishments, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the dean, showing how he is a notable academic narrowly, or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's great that you have collected sources first. Writing an article WP:BACKWARD (finding the sources last) is the wrong way to go about it.
- However, the kind of sources matter. Please read WP:Golden Rule and see how many of your sources meet all three criteria listed. The sources need to be independent of your dean or school. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Edit Request: Editing an image of a Template on Thai Wiki
editI am editing this template th:แม่แบบ:มเหสีเฮนรี8
I would like to update the image of Anne of Cleves
but this appear
'การกระทำนี้ถูกระบุว่าไม่เหมาะสมอัตโนมัติ จึงไม่ได้รับอนุญาตให้ดำเนินการต่อ หากคุณเชื่อว่าการกระทำของคุณสร้างสรรค์ โปรดแจ้งผู้ดูแลระบบถึงสิ่งที่คุณพยายามทำ คำอธิบายโดยสรุปเกี่ยวกับการละเมิดกฎที่ตรงกับการกระทำของคุณ คือ ผู้ใช้ใหม่ก่อกวนหน้าแม่แบบ'
Turns out I was flagged as a new user and need an admin to help me, but being a non-Thai speaker I have no idea where to contact them. Does anyone here have the power to edit the template or knows how to contact someone who can? Cherry567 (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cherry567 The trick is to go to the helpdesk on Enwiki, WP:HELPDESK, and from there in the languages in the side bar go to the correct language version of the helpdesk, th:วิกิพีเดีย:แผนกช่วยเหลือ There you can explain your request. A lot of people in Thailand speak English. Polygnotus (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sent my request th:วิกิพีเดีย:แผนกช่วยเหลือ#Edit Request: 'แม่แบบ:มเหสีเฮนรี8' Update an image. Cherry567 (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Turns out I was able to edit the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sent my request th:วิกิพีเดีย:แผนกช่วยเหลือ#Edit Request: 'แม่แบบ:มเหสีเฮนรี8' Update an image. Cherry567 (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- As an alternative to Polygnotus' suggestion, go to WP:Embassy and find a Thai speaker, or ask on WT:WikiProject Thailand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing Unfortunately no one speaks Thai in that embassy. Polygnotus (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Good point. I've issued an invitation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing Unfortunately no one speaks Thai in that embassy. Polygnotus (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Sources for books
editHello! I’m trying to find a reliable source for a book someone ‘wrote’ (guy sourced it out to someone and claims it as his own but the other guy doesn’t care). What are some reliable sources for books? CREditzWiki, editor (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- It depends on what statement(s) about the book you are wanting to make. Every statement in an article should be based on a source, and to support its Notability they need to be be Reliable sources.
- Your query suggests you may be proceeding WP:Backwards: it is better to first collect your sources, and then draft the article summarising only what they say.
- If you want to summarise its contents (in a section "Plot", if it's fiction), the book itself is the source for that, presuming it has been published – if it hasn't been, or is self-published, it is unlikely to be a suitable subject for an article, though this is still possible.
- You might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Books helpful. See also Ghostwriter, a common practice. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.210.150.115 (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
how do i make a article
edithow do i make a article SonomaJSC (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:Your first article, but we strongly advise that you get much more experience by editing existing articles first. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Is this topic notable enough?
editThough I'm not done yet, I wanted to check. Still looking for more sources that backup their website's history section but I'm hoping I'll find them. They are an institution in our rowing community here in DC. Draft:DC Strokes Rowing Club. Gorazhill (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Gorazhill: not yet, based on those sources. We normally require at least three sources that meet the WP:GNG standard (= significant coverage in secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other), but your draft so far has at best one (and that's assuming that the WaPo piece actually qualifies; I haven't checked it since it's behind a paywall). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
iarchive wikilink
editWhat is the use of [[iarchive:XYZ]]? I have seen it used in the text of pages, but based on searching it looks like it is mainly intended to be used in refs. I could not find anything that elucidated how to use this. Thanks Metallurgist (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Metallurgist See Special:Interwiki. So if you link to iarchive:bub_gb_ePJWAAAAMAAJ the link target is https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_ePJWAAAAMAAJ. Polygnotus (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ah that is useful. But I am wondering where it is appropriate to use this feature. Metallurgist (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Metallurgist Whenever you are too lazy to type out the full URL. Polygnotus (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Should it be used in page text in lieu of an internal wiki link? That is the issue I am seeing. It was used in a bibliography and looked like a wikilink, when it was offsite. It does seem appropriate for use in refs. Metallurgist (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing What say you? Polygnotus (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Metallurgist, there are pro's and cons; pro: saves you some typing; cons: doesn't save you that much, plus you have to go look it up in the table; also, doesn't generate an external link pointer icon like one would expect. My take: more cons than pros for the most part. Maybe using it is a good idea when you have a long table of stuff, where using it 87 times would actually be easier for someone reading the wikicode to follow what was going on (perhaps with a view to altering the table) and where having the external link icon 87 times in the table would just be annoying. In a table with several columns, having it would also mean some wikicode lines would remain visible on one editor line, instead of wrapping, making it slightly easier to edit the line with the source editor. For the majority of cases where it only occurs once or twice on a page, use the full url instead. Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- See Help:Interwiki linking#Interwiki links versus external links. One of the problems with interwiki links in articles is that they look to the reader like conventional wikilinks but they end up when clicked by sometimes taking them to external non-Wikipedia sites. As a result, there is an agreement not to allow such links to IMDb, for example. See WT:WikiProject Film/Archive 79#Masking imdb links as wikilinks and WP:ELBODY. These sort of links are, however, very useful on talk pages, as they can be used to link to digital object identifiers directly, e.g. doi:10.1002/047084289X.rp280. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- That is exactly the concern I had because I saw links I thought were to articles and were actually to Internet Archive links. Metallurgist (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- See Help:Interwiki linking#Interwiki links versus external links. One of the problems with interwiki links in articles is that they look to the reader like conventional wikilinks but they end up when clicked by sometimes taking them to external non-Wikipedia sites. As a result, there is an agreement not to allow such links to IMDb, for example. See WT:WikiProject Film/Archive 79#Masking imdb links as wikilinks and WP:ELBODY. These sort of links are, however, very useful on talk pages, as they can be used to link to digital object identifiers directly, e.g. doi:10.1002/047084289X.rp280. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing What say you? Polygnotus (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Should it be used in page text in lieu of an internal wiki link? That is the issue I am seeing. It was used in a bibliography and looked like a wikilink, when it was offsite. It does seem appropriate for use in refs. Metallurgist (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Metallurgist Whenever you are too lazy to type out the full URL.
- Ah that is useful. But I am wondering where it is appropriate to use this feature. Metallurgist (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Draft:Jack Logan
edit Courtesy link: Draft:Jack Logan
Can you help me improve this article? I have included reliable and independent sources but it keeps getting declined. Please let me know how to improve it. Thank you! RavenFireblade (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- The reviewers have left several screens of advice and useful links at the top of the draft, starting
"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—"
- You have been advised to read WP:THREE, which asks, in effect, which three of your sources meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE? Can you tell us that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Here are the best three. I believe this comes from independent, reliable sources and with significant coverage.
RavenFireblade (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- The first of those is a news item of only three sentences, reporting what Logan said. It is not significant coverage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Here are the best three. I believe this comes from independent, reliable sources and with significant coverage.
1. Manila Bulletin – Coverage of Recognition in Zambales
“Filmmaker Jack Logan honored in Zambales” (2025) Independent, national broadsheet. Provides significant coverage of Logan’s achievements and local recognition, not based on press releases. https://mb.com.ph/2025/08/28/filmmaker-jack-logan-honored-in-zambales
2. Manila Standard – Asian Television Awards Nomination
“Vlogger competes at 28th Asian Television Awards” (2023) National daily newspaper. Covers Logan’s nomination, detailing his role in digital media and context within Philippine entries. https://manilastandard.net/?p=314390181
3. ABS-CBN News – Documentary on West Philippine Sea
“Content creator Jack Logan produces docu on West Philippine Sea” (2025) Leading Philippine mainstream media outlet. https://www.abs-cbn.com/lifestyle/2025/5/27/content-creator-jack-logan-produces-docu-about-west-philippine-sea-1300 RavenFireblade (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Why are a lot of collapsible lists set to not display?
editWhy do a lot of lists have "list_style = display:none"? I've been seeing a lot of collapsible lists recently that can't open. An example is on Guerrero. I really don't understand why anyone would do that. 23.24.240.109 (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- How many is a lot, can you list them? That indicator display:none at Guerrero was added in 2011 (diff) by Hpav7 (talk · contribs) (who hasn't edited since 2016). In that edit, they added the display:none to two different parts, the area codes, and the list of federal deputies. You may remove both of them, if you wish. If there are too many other examples to handle manually, perhaps a bot could be requested to delete all of them, but a list of other examples would help. Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Mathglot I don't have a list of them, I've just been seeing them a lot when I read articles. Another example is Des Moines, Iowa. 23.24.240.109 (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Help with making a new article
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey, I'm Tim Denevi, an author with two published books. I have a well-sourced Wikipedia draft but need someone to submit it due to COI. Can anyone help?
I have strong sourcing--from the New York Times, the Atlantic, and Rolling Stone.
The draft is located at User:TJD470/draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJD470 (talk • contribs)
- Hi @TJD470: You can specifically submit drafts via Articles for Creation with a CoI. This is allowed. I have moved the draft to Draft:Timothy_Jack_Denevi and added a button to allow you to submit it for review.
- You do have some citation errors which you should fix before submitting for review. qcne (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Does it matter that the draft now says it was started and 99.8% written by Polygnotus? TSventon (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I.. don't know how that happened? qcne (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Polygnotus cut and pasted the text from this page to User:TJD470/draft. I think they should have used an edit summary like "text in this edit was copied from Wikipedia:Teahouse and the full edit history is available there". Hopefully there is an easy way of fixing the history. TSventon (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- TJD470 could copy the content (not move it) to Draft:Timothy Denevi (no "Jack") and "publish" (save) it. Polygnotus would then blank Draft:Timothy Jack Denevi (with "Jack"). -- Hoary (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Hoary @TSventon see here. Polygnotus (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I took out the Everipedia sourcing, updated the Timothy Jack Denevi draft to correct other citation errors, and published that text under Timothy Denevi. Does that sound like it would work? Thank you for the help TJD470 (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- TJD470 could copy the content (not move it) to Draft:Timothy Denevi (no "Jack") and "publish" (save) it. Polygnotus would then blank Draft:Timothy Jack Denevi (with "Jack"). -- Hoary (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Polygnotus cut and pasted the text from this page to User:TJD470/draft. I think they should have used an edit summary like "text in this edit was copied from Wikipedia:Teahouse and the full edit history is available there". Hopefully there is an easy way of fixing the history. TSventon (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I.. don't know how that happened? qcne (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Does it matter that the draft now says it was started and 99.8% written by Polygnotus? TSventon (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- The most-cited source is a page at Everipedia. But Everipedia is not a reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- thank you, sounds good, I'm not sure how all this works TJD470 (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- TJD470, please choose whichever one you prefer of Draft:Timothy Jack Denevi and Draft:Timothy Denevi. (Just think of the content. Ignore the title. The title can easily be changed later.) Set out to edit the one you don't prefer. Delete all of its content. "Publish" (i.e. save). Incidentally, I've been here for ages but even so I'm still not sure how much of this works. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
And the Winter Soldier
editWhat to do-or how to handle-likely sockpuppets or ban-worthy accounts that haven't done anything yet? Looking at the recent changes, multiple accounts that are similarly named; (Period6Group9Person2, Period6Group4Person3, etc), but I don't think I can technically report them for sockpuppeting since without one edit, there's not really "evidence". Similarly, if someone made an account called "F*ck/Jane/Doe", as an example. Clearly an offensive name, but action can't be taken until they edit, right? I just want to know how to handle accounts without edits. I know to WP:AGF, but also WP:SPADE? ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 19:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think they are useraccounts for students at a school? Polygnotus (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hm there are a bunch of them. I asked an admin to take a look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers?username=Period6&group=&wpsubmit=&wpFormIdentifier=mw-listusers-form&limit=50 Also period 4 and period 3. Polygnotus (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Babysharkboss2, I'm not sure why you think the first set are socks? The names indicate that they are multiple people. For someone with an obviously offensive username, you can report them at WP:UAA. -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify, I think the usernames don't suggest that multiple people use each account. Rather, they identify specific people. Period6Group9Person2, for example, seems to be an example of a username chosen for a group project in school. That is, they're in sixth period, group 9, and they're person 2. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- But what if they haven't edited? For example, a fresh account (which has likely been glocked as of writing) titled "The Chinese embassy goes up and down and up and down" has been made. It's without a doubt another cog in the LTA machine. But they haven't made any edits. What if someone made a "JaneDoeOnWheelsBMX" account? Should I report them before they edit and cause harm, or do I assume good faith that maybe somehow they unknowingly picked a really unfortunate username? ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 16:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Babysharkboss2, I don't understand what's wrong with JaneDoeOnWheelsBMX? -- asilvering (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering It is a reference to the LTA Willy on Wheels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee/Willy_on_Wheels:A_Case_Study WAID recently wrote about it. Polygnotus (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ah there is even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/BMX_On_WheeIs Polygnotus (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, in the case of obvious LTA sock usernames, you can just go straight to meta with those reports. -- asilvering (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Babysharkboss2, I don't understand what's wrong with JaneDoeOnWheelsBMX? -- asilvering (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Article draft
edit Courtesy link: Draft:Bill FitzGibbons
Can someone help me get a draft article approved? JacobTM13 (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- You have submitted Draft:Bill FitzGibbons for review and it is pending. I think it's likely to be declined (again) or even outright rejected. You have not shown that this man meets WP:NARTIST; you've just documented his work. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I fixed any recommendations that have been made. Do you recommend that I add to his biography? And am I allowed to copy word for word what it says about him from online sources? JacobTM13 (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- With few exceptions (that do not apply here) every word you add to Wikipedia should be your own original work; do not copy from anywhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. JacobTM13 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- With few exceptions (that do not apply here) every word you add to Wikipedia should be your own original work; do not copy from anywhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I fixed any recommendations that have been made. Do you recommend that I add to his biography? And am I allowed to copy word for word what it says about him from online sources? JacobTM13 (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm also very curious to know how you can possibly claim that the image of him is in the public ___domain, since it was clearly not taken before 1930. I will furthermore note that his website(where you claim to have obtained it) says "all rights reserved" meaning that you cannot use the image here and must nominate it for deletion. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- 331dot, there's plenty more where that came from. You may wish to "perform batch task". -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, if I knew how. :) 331dot (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, I have deleted the image of him and also deleted his website from the wikipedia draft. I think the draft is better now. JacobTM13 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- You removed the image from the draft, but you must go to Commons and request the deletion of that and the other images you uploaded from Commons without delay as every second they are Commons exposes them to legal jeopardy.
- Are you associated with this artist in some way? 331dot (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you again I went to commons and had the images nominated for deletion. And no I am not associated with the artist in any way. JacobTM13 (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- 331dot, there's plenty more where that came from. You may wish to "perform batch task". -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- JacobTM13, you have four declines since November 2024, and seven comments from four reviewers, and your draft is pending review again. Have you been reading and responding to their comments to fix the problems? (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes I have been reading and responding and fixing what they comment about. JacobTM13 (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Published. Thank you for your contributions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
How to upload the article in sand box
editGive idea 139.180.119.3 (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Copy the text file from your computer. Open (edit) your "sandbox". Paste the text file. Make whatever edits are needed. "Publish" (save) the result. -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
How to remove upload file
editFiles 139.180.119.3 (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I suspect that this question is based on mistaken premises. But perhaps if you explained what kind of file this is, all will become clear. -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Just did my first page submission
editHow did I do? Draft:Heath Miller (promoter) Noparking9 (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Someone will review the draft in due course. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- How'd you do? Over 2/3 of it appears to be AI-generated. Rewrite using your own words. AI-generated material cannot be accepted, and may be a candidate for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD#G15) if there's evidence you didn't review what the AI generated. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- the claim "AI-generated material cannot be accepted" is not true. LLM material is considered acceptable when reviewed and cleaned up by a human editor. however, G15 still applies if there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Waning Star (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- The Creative Commons license used by Wikipedia requires attribution to someone, and this is impossible with AI generated text, because it isn't traceable, especially to a Wikipedian. Such text violates the license used here. Therefore, when I review a draft that's AI generated, I do not accept it. Perhaps this is erring on the side of caution, but until I see a statement about this from the WMF legal team I will continue to reject AI-generated text. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- that's a whole other legal thing that I didn't consider. maybe this is something that should be raised at VPWMF? oh well, so it goes. – Waning Star (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I thought AI output, at least in the US, wasn't deemed copyrightable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Whether it is or is not isn't the point. Text that has no provenance violates the terms of our license here. If you didn't create it, it cannot be attributable to you. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- We include plenty of other PD text, including much that is anonymous, such as old encyclopedia entries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Unquestionably PD text is a legal status that doesn't exist with AI-generated text. Text from old encyclopedia entries are typically attributed properly. OpenAI has never said that ChatGTP's output is PD although they do grant you broad rights on the use of its output. In any case, I'm going to continue playing it safe by assuming that AI-generated text violates "attribution" clauses of the Wikimedia CC-BY-SA license until I see a statement from the legal team indicating otherwise. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Anachronist If we can get such a statement from WMF legal, it needs to be added to the oft-quoted WP:LLM. Given the history of that page's creation, I would have thought that WMF would already have chipped in if the legal position were clear-cut. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
"OpenAI has never said that ChatGTP's output is PD"
Nor have I claimed that they did.- I have said that it is my understanding that AI output, at least in the US, is deemed uncopyrightable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Unquestionably PD text is a legal status that doesn't exist with AI-generated text. Text from old encyclopedia entries are typically attributed properly. OpenAI has never said that ChatGTP's output is PD although they do grant you broad rights on the use of its output. In any case, I'm going to continue playing it safe by assuming that AI-generated text violates "attribution" clauses of the Wikimedia CC-BY-SA license until I see a statement from the legal team indicating otherwise. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- We include plenty of other PD text, including much that is anonymous, such as old encyclopedia entries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Whether it is or is not isn't the point. Text that has no provenance violates the terms of our license here. If you didn't create it, it cannot be attributable to you. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- The Creative Commons license used by Wikipedia requires attribution to someone, and this is impossible with AI generated text, because it isn't traceable, especially to a Wikipedian. Such text violates the license used here. Therefore, when I review a draft that's AI generated, I do not accept it. Perhaps this is erring on the side of caution, but until I see a statement about this from the WMF legal team I will continue to reject AI-generated text. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- the claim "AI-generated material cannot be accepted" is not true. LLM material is considered acceptable when reviewed and cleaned up by a human editor. however, G15 still applies if there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Waning Star (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
What is unappreciated?
editI would love some guidance on common things that are needed on Wikipedia but aren't "cool" - I know with any project big or small there are always necessities that aren't attractive or flashy - and that is the sort of work I am interested in. Any pointers, ideas how to go about this?
Thank you, one and all! Cairnesteak (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, gosh. I love this question, but have little idea how to answer it. Honestly, there's very little that is "cool" around here. The stuff that goes undone is less often the "uncool" stuff and more the "difficult and bothersome" stuff. My advice would be to pick a backlog that looks large and gross and dive in to see if you like handling it, or at least find it tolerable. As far as particularly difficult and bothersome ones, CAT:COIREQ is one I avoid, personally. More power to the people who can handle that queue, but I sure don't want to touch it. You might want to start with some article maintenance category (you can get a list of these by wikiproject, if you're interested) if you don't want to jump right into handling something quite that hairy. -- asilvering (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: Apparently many editors don't want to touch it. That's why the queue is over 200 requests long. That's a backlog. It needs help, but only from experienced editors. Once in a while I dive in. Some are easy, some are not. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Anachronist, indeed. I'm easily guilt-tripped by a large and intractable backlog (there's a reason I've ended up at CAT:RFU and WP:SPI), but I just can't stomach that one. -- asilvering (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I will take a look at those CATs (meow), but it will be awhile until I get to that point: thank you for the answer! Difficult and bothersome are categories I will eventually tackle - and understanding/parsing backlogs and how to tackle them will be something I will go read about so I have a clearer understanding. As Anachronist says, only from experienced editors, which I ain't (yet). Cairnesteak (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cairnesteak, I wouldn't be too worried about needing experience before having a look at the COI category. The most important thing is that you have the sense to know when you don't know what to do with a request, and to leave those alone. You'll find many of them are very simple to respond to - for example, someone will submit an edit request without any sources provided. Easy decline, virtually no experience needed. For others, I recommend hitting the "subscribe" button on the individual request if you don't know what to do with it and are curious to see how it turns out. By watching experienced editors doing this kind of thing, you can get a sense for how it works quite quickly. -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cairnesteak: Asilvering gives good advice. I would also add that several requests are simple things that the requester could do uncontroversially, but are reluctant to do so, like correcting dates, numbers, names, spelling, reverting obvious vandalism, or providing a source for something that needed a citation. The thing to be most wary of is edit requests that whitewash negative information or seek to promote the subject. Wikipedia isn't to be used as a publicity platform. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cairnesteak, I wouldn't be too worried about needing experience before having a look at the COI category. The most important thing is that you have the sense to know when you don't know what to do with a request, and to leave those alone. You'll find many of them are very simple to respond to - for example, someone will submit an edit request without any sources provided. Easy decline, virtually no experience needed. For others, I recommend hitting the "subscribe" button on the individual request if you don't know what to do with it and are curious to see how it turns out. By watching experienced editors doing this kind of thing, you can get a sense for how it works quite quickly. -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: Apparently many editors don't want to touch it. That's why the queue is over 200 requests long. That's a backlog. It needs help, but only from experienced editors. Once in a while I dive in. Some are easy, some are not. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cairnesteak Typofixing? If that is something you are interested in, hit me up. Polygnotus (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I occasionally work on cleaning up articles tagged as promotional. It isn't "cool," but you learn a lot and it's interesting seeing how these articles got to where they are now. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer!
- I have done some stuff that Wikipedia serves up based on my indicated interests, and promotional is one that comes up - learning is definitely something I still need, so a task that will induce it is good. Cairnesteak (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- i really think the most grueling work is regarding copyrights. places like WikiProject Copyright Cleanup and WP:Contributor copyright investigations are some of the most annoying and repetitive places to work at, and gets especially annoying when the line between acceptable and copyright-violating is blurred. kudos to those guys, and glory to the CCP. Waning Star (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Cairnesteak, people posting here are often warned not to write articles backward. Excellent advice. But, for one reason or another, plenty of articles of the second rank include unreferenced material that looks at least moderately plausible and, if it were only well referenced, would be worthwhile. Unreferenced assertions may have "citations needed" or similar flags. But many do not. Look for unreferenced assertions. Supply references for them. The search for these is unlikely to be easy, if even possible. Note that a reference mustn't merely say something that's compatible with what the article says; it must instead confirm veracity of what the article says. So you may find what you think are references, decide that they're mediocre or worse, and look for better alternatives; you may have to adjust what the article says so that it does match the reference you're supplying for it; you may have to remove an assertion that seems unreferenceable. You'll have to make a lot of use of your head, and all of this is hard work. Is it appreciated? Perhaps, when it's noticed; but don't expect a high ratio of appreciation received to effort expended. -- Hoary (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is something I noticed a bunch - and yeah, it is daunting. I saw an article that, in the opening paragraph, made a pretty big assertion and it wasn't substantiated at all - after some quick searching I found a source and was able to get it some backing: so this is definitely something I will start to work at. It just takes some time, is all. I expect no appreciation, and I appreciate you pointing that out - I view it from the stand point of "if I do this now, someone won't have to do it later, or will be able to build off of it". Cairnesteak (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cairnesteak Here's a link to WikiProject Cleanup Listings. These are split into various groups, so you can choose to do cleanups in areas that are of interest to you. Overall, there are endless amounts of work! See also the Task Center Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you thank you!
- Those are some handy links! Cairnesteak (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Cairnesteak: if you are competent in other languages, WP:PNT has a backlog going back literally years. Lectonar (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I am not competent in other languages, but thanks for the idea! I hope at least one or two other folks see this and can use my question to get an answer for themselves, it can be hard to know what to do or where to start. Cairnesteak (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Phones
editWhy is Wikipedia always blocked on mobile data? Minehollow (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- What error message(s) do you get, Minehollow? -- Hoary (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Some IP ranges by mobile internet providers are blocked because they are often used for vandalism, and at some point the bad outweighed the good by such a margin that blocking them was the best option. Polygnotus (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- By "Wikipedia always blocked", do you an that you cannot read it, or cannot edit it? The latter is explained above by Polygnotus; the former would be down to your device or your service provider. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
(not content farm) page request:
editlist of media used in content farms 91.234.25.26 (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your post doesn't make sense; do you have a question about how to use or contribute to Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- The OP wants an article called List of media used in content farms, apparently. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Wallace Alexander Smart
edit Courtesy link: pl:Wallace Alexander Smart
Wallace alexander smart was a British flying ace,he is on Polish Wikipedia, but not on British. Not sure why .....Is there a way we can put him on UK Wikipedia please ? Thank you. Dnlala (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- He would need to meet the criteria at WP:GNG. As an ace, he most likely will, but the sources in the Polish article do not meet that bar; and any article here needs reliable sources that show he does.
- You might mention this to the folk at WT:MILHIST. If you would like to translate and expand on the article from Polish, see WP:TRANSLATE, then follow the process at WP:AFC for getting the results reviewed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your constructive reply. I know very little about criteria and wikipedia. There are 2 ace sources on Wikipedia-US apparently. Other sources are flyingdiary.co.uk and theaerodrome.com.
- Many thanks. Dnlala (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a "UK Wikipedia"? Or did you mean "English Wikipedia", which was started in, and hosted in, the United States? ~Anachronist (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am not an expert, which is obviously why I am asking for help. Constructive help. Dnlala (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well, the best approach is first to look at the sources cited in the Polish article and pick out the ones that seem reliable (not blogs, not self-published, not forum discussions, etc.). Try to find other sources. While I don't recommend using an AI to write articles (that usually ends badly for whoever tries to do that), an AI can help finding sources for you. Once you have the sources, start writing the article. Don't let the AI write it for you; this is easily detected and will be rejected here.
- You can use a translation of the Polish article as a guide for organization and content if it makes sense, but generally you should make sure that everything in your new article cites a source, regardless of what the Polish version does. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Dnlala. This may not be what you wanted to hear, but: 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) 19:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am not an expert, which is obviously why I am asking for help. Constructive help. Dnlala (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Help Dealing with AI Slop
editHey y'all,
I have recently come across two editors, @StoryWritter1 and @HistoryRiderIndia, who have contributed nothing but AI-generated slop over the past year across a variety of articles. I first discovered this on the article for Rajarajeshwara Temple which I stumbled across while cleaning reference tags, and after 30 minutes attempting to see if I could salvage anything, I made the choice to revert. I have now come to realize that this LLM-generated content, complete with fake citations and accidentally included ChatGPT headers, is not just limited to the earlier article but also to articles such as Madayi Kavu and Kottiyoor Vysakha Mahotsavam. Before I reverted those, I thought it might be best to ask for help from somebody more experienced than I am. What are the next steps towards cleaning up these articles?
3602kiva (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, 3602kiva! I would start by reading the main page of and putting a notice on the talk page of the AI Cleanup Wikiproject, where other editors who have worked on cleaning up LLM issues can give more advice or lend a hand. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- It appears from their talk pages that neither editor has been advised that this is not acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- In the talk page of one of the articles, one of the editors has written an AI-generated essay contesting the quality of their AI-generated work. It's all a bunch of BS - some stuff about double standards.
- In any case, I'll drop in those toothless AI warning messages to the two of them.
- 3602kiva (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you think our current AI warning message templates are "toothless ", you are free to wore your own bespoke messages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Archive box not visible
editDoes anyone know why the links to the archive (and search bar) are not showing on Talk:Bariatric surgery? It has the "User:MiszaBot/config" like other talk pages. 96.95.142.29 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Fixed here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing Ok, why don't the archives appear centered with all the other talk headers, such as on Talk:Justice? 96.95.142.29 (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Because I used {{Archives}}, not {{Talk header}}.
- You're welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I got it. 96.95.142.29 (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing Ok, why don't the archives appear centered with all the other talk headers, such as on Talk:Justice? 96.95.142.29 (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Link does not work
editWhy does the link for [[3D-printed firearms]] not appear to work in the article Halle synagogue shooting, it is redlinked, but that page is a real page and should work. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Iljhgtn the article is 3D-printed firearm, not the plural - I have changed it - Arjayay (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I thought even the plural was a redirect at least. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- You can create it as a redirect if you wish, @Iljhgtn ColinFine (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- 3D printed firearms already does redirect to 3D-printed firearm and was created back in December 2020. So I am confused with why it would not have worked. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Because 3D printed firearms doesn't have a hyphen in it, and 3D-printed firearms with a hyphen does not exist. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- The hyphen strikes again. Thanks for that. Very good attention to detail.
- I made it just now as a cheap redirect to prevent this from happening to someone else again. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Iljhgtn (A comment on wikilinks) The code
[[3D-printed firearm]]s, with the "s" outside the final square bracket, renders as 3D-printed firearms as if the "s" were inside the bracket. Hence there should never be a need for a redirect merely to cover the plural. See Help:Link#Display text agglutination. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Iljhgtn (A comment on wikilinks) The code
- Because 3D printed firearms doesn't have a hyphen in it, and 3D-printed firearms with a hyphen does not exist. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- 3D printed firearms already does redirect to 3D-printed firearm and was created back in December 2020. So I am confused with why it would not have worked. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- You can create it as a redirect if you wish, @Iljhgtn ColinFine (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I thought even the plural was a redirect at least. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Unexpected Treasures (2025) movie page waiting for review
editHello! I have created a draft article at User:NotPhillipN/sandbox about the upcoming film *Unexpected Treasures*. The draft includes multiple reliable sources (Deadline, Screen Rant, Soap Net, ComingSoon.net) covering its Comic-Con premiere, production, and cast. The poster has been uploaded under non-free use, and citations are in place.
I would like this draft moved to mainspace at Unexpected Treasures. I do not yet have permission to move pages myself. Could an experienced editor please review and move it?
Thank you very much for your help! NotPhillipN (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @NotPhillipN, and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft has been submitted for review, and in time a reviewer will look at it.
- In my opinion, it is too soon. Your sources are all either not independent (based on press releases or interviews) or are speculation. Wait until there are solid independent reviews - probably after the film goes on general release.
- My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. (I know your account was created four years ago, but with only seven edits in your history, you are a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Colin Fine, it's too soon. Wait until it gets reported on after its release, then you'll likely have better sources to cite, and you can remove those junk sources about screening preview announcements.
- In the meantime, you should at least wikilink the names of actors who have Wikipedia articles.
- Also, move it to Draft space. That way if someone tries to create an article on that film, the wiki software will detect that there's already a draft about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Help on writing a lead
editI'm inquiring to see if anyone could point me in the direction of resources covering how to write good leads? I'm working on Draft:Xenofiction right now and the lead is very barebones and I'm not sure how to improve it. ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think the lead is pretty good actually. All it needs to do is summarize each major section of the article without adding new information that doesn't exist in the body of the article. I suggest you add something like "A well-known example of this genre is The Call of the Wild" to make the overview more complete. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Serilly There's some general advice at WP:LEAD. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Withdrawing an AFC
editSorry, I have one more question, separate from the above: Is it possible to withdraw an AFC? The more I think about it the more I don't think there's currently enough for Draft:Cyber fashion to be a mainspace article yet and I'm not really that fond of it compared to my other two AFC drafts. ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- You can simply remove the "Review waiting" template at the top. Or you can review it yourself and decline it, which makes sense in an odd sort of way, but still seems weird, like me as an admin blocking myself. Or I can decline it for you if you want. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I think Qianball doesn't exist in China; it may only exist in Denmark. Does anyone know the Chinese name of Qianball?
editI searched Qianball on both the international internet and the Chinese internet in different languages. However, none of the websites revealed their origin. Qianlong is the name of the Qianlong Emperor, and China 100% don't have the sport named 乾隆球. I can't find any Chinese sources with talk about Qianball.
the thing I searched using Chinese
|
|---|
|
Chinese has 312 words called "Qian", which are those below. 乹 乾 亁 仟 仱 伣 佥 俔 倩 偂 傔 僉 儙 兛 凵 刋 前 勥 千 厱 呛 唊 唴 啌 嗆 嗛 嗴 圱 圲 堑 塹 墏 墘 墙 墻 壍 奷 婜 媊 嫱 嬙 嬱 孅 孯 岍 岒 嵌 嵰 嶈 廧 強 强 彊 忴 悓 悭 愆 慊 慳 戕 戗 戧 扦 扲 抢 拑 拪 挳 掅 掔 掮 揵 搴 搶 摤 摪 摼 撁 撍 攐 攑 攓 斨 朁 杄 枪 棈 椌 椠 榩 槍 槏 槧 樯 橬 檣 檶 櫏 欠 欦 欿 歉 歬 汘 汧 浅 淺 溬 漒 潛 潜 濳 灊 炝 炶 煔 熗 爿 牄 牆 牵 牽 犍 猐 獇 玪 玱 瑲 瓩 疆 皘 矼 磏 竏 签 箝 篏 篟 篬 簽 籖 籤 粁 綪 縴 繈 繦 繾 纤 缱 羌 羗 羟 羥 羫 羬 羻 肷 腔 膁 臤 艢 芊 芡 茜 茾 荨 葥 蒨 蔃 蔳 蔷 蕁 薔 蘠 虔 蚈 蚙 蜣 蜸 褰 襁 諐 謒 謙 譴 谦 谴 谸 跄 蹌 蹡 軡 輤 迁 遣 遷 釺 鈆 鈐 鉗 鉛 銭 錢 鍂 鎆 鎗 鏘 鏲 鏹 鑓 钎 钤 钱 钳 铅 锖 锵 镪 阡 韆 顅 騚 騝 騫 骞 鬜 鬝 鰬 鳽 鵮 鶬 鹐 黔 黚 㐸 㗔 㛨 㜞 㟻 㡊 㡨 㥞 㦮 㧄 㨜 㩃 㩖 㩮 㪠 㯠 㸫 㹂 䁮 䃛 䅐 䅚 䅾 䆂 䇂 䈤 䈴 䊴 䋮 䍉 䑶 䔔 䕭 䖍 䙺 䞿 䢪 䤘 䥅 䦲 䨿 䪈 䫡 䭑 䭠 䭤 䯡 䵁 䵖 𠀼 𠄃 𠄋 𠎝 𠒌 𠳋 𠼢 𡓜 𡸤 𢋾 𢍱 𤕭 𥮒 𧢞 𧽐 𨄚 𨓲 𨜻 𨟦 𨺩 𩝽 𪑙 𪠧 𪪺 𫑍 𫖶 𫗳 𫝐 And I added 球(ball, In Chinese, football is called 足球 which is foot-ball, Handball is called 手球 which is hand-ball) after each word and search. 乹球 乾球 亁球 仟球 仱球 伣球 佥球 俔球 倩球 偂球 傔球 僉球 儙球 兛球 凵球 刋球 前球 勥球 千球 厱球 呛球 唊球 唴球 啌球 嗆球 嗛球 嗴球 圱球 圲球 堑球 塹球 墏球 墘球 墙球 墻球 壍球 奷球 婜球 媊球 嫱球 嬙球 嬱球 孅球 孯球 岍球 岒球 嵌球 嵰球 嶈球 廧球 強球 强球 彊球 忴球 悓球 悭球 愆球 慊球 慳球 戕球 戗球 戧球 扦球 扲球 抢球 拑球 拪球 挳球 掅球 掔球 掮球 揵球 搴球 搶球 摤球 摪球 摼球 撁球 撍球 攐球 攑球 攓球 斨球 朁球 杄球 枪球 棈球 椌球 椠球 榩球 槍球 槏球 槧球 樯球 橬球 檣球 檶球 櫏球 欠球 欦球 欿球 歉球 歬球 汘球 汧球 浅球 淺球 溬球 漒球 潛球 潜球 濳球 灊球 炝球 炶球 煔球 熗球 爿球 牄球 牆球 牵球 牽球 犍球 猐球 獇球 玪球 玱球 瑲球 瓩球 疆球 皘球 矼球 磏球 竏球 签球 箝球 篏球 篟球 篬球 簽球 籖球 籤球 粁球 綪球 縴球 繈球 繦球 繾球 纤球 缱球 羌球 羗球 羟球 羥球 羫球 羬球 羻球 肷球 腔球 膁球 臤球 艢球 芊球 芡球 茜球 茾球 荨球 葥球 蒨球 蔃球 蔳球 薔球 蕁球 薔球 蘠球 虔球 蚈球 蚙球 蜣球 蜸球 褰球 襁球 諐球 謒球 謙球 譴球 谦球 谴球 谸球 跄球 蹌球 蹡球 軡球 輤球 迁球 遣球 遷球 釺球 鈆球 鈐球 鉗球 鉛球 銭球 錢球 鍂球 鎆球 鎗球 鏘球 鏲球 鏹球 鑓球 钎球 钤球 钱球 钳球 铅球 锖球 锵球 镪球 阡球 韆球 顅球 騚球 騝球 騫球 骞球 鬜球 鬝球 鰬球 鳽球 鵮球 鶬球 鹐球 黔球 黚球 㐸球 㗔球 㛨球 㜞球 㟻球 㡊球 㡨球 㥞球 㦮球 㧄球 㨜球 㩃球 㩖球 㩮球 㪠球 㯠球 㸫球 㹂球 䁮球 䃛球 䅐球 䅚球 䅾球 䆂球 䇂球 䈤球 䈴球 䊴球 䋮球 䍉球 䑶球 䔔球 䕭球 䖍球 䙺球 䞿球 䢪球 䤘球 䥅球 䦲球 䨿球 䪈球 䫡球 䭑球 䭠球 䭤球 䯡球 䵁球 䵖球 𠀼球 𠄃球 𠄋球 𠎝球 𠒌球 𠳋球 𠼢球 𡓜球 𡸤球 𢋾球 𢍱球 𤕭球 𥮒球 𧢞球 𧽐球 𨄚球 𨓲球 𨜻球 𨟦球 𨺩球 𩝽球 𪑙球 𪠧球 𪪺球 𫑍球 𫖶球 𫗳球 𫝐球 I can't search anything close to Qianball. |
The closest thing that has a ball is the 九轉乾坤鼎 Nine-Turn Qiánkūn Cauldron, which is a home decorative gold ball cauldron, or 金嵌珍珠天球儀 Gold-inlaid pearl celestial globe, which was crafted by the Imperial Household Department at Qianlong.
Any Suggestions
editI'm new to being a member of this website, however I have used it for a long time, I do wonder what parts of this site need pages that are low in information? Or for now should I just ensure that topics I am knowledgeable in don't get vandalized? Asifiknew013 (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- What do you mean? HQIQ (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- idk just new Asifiknew013 (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- pages that are low in information:
- Stub Tags: Look for the ubiquitous stub or more specific tags like bio-stub, science-stub, history-stub at the bottom of articles.
- WikiProjects: Enwiki has thousands of "WikiProjects" – groups of editors focused on specific topics (e.g., WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Star Wars). Many WikiProjects maintain lists of articles within their scope that need expansion or improvement.
- "Requested Articles" and "Articles for Creation": These pages list topics that users have requested or drafts that are awaiting review.
- Your Own Expertise: The most effective way is often to start with what you know. Are you an expert in quantum physics? A history buff on ancient Rome? A connoisseur of obscure indie music?
- 223.122.220.239 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, Asifiknew013. You could try Citation Hunt. This will take you to a Wiki article where something has been tagged as needing a reference. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- pages that are low in information:
- idk just new Asifiknew013 (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
List_of_cricket_commentators
editTalk:List of cricket commentators. 2405:201:D01D:1F4:C86A:86D2:7143:2E63 (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Did you have a question? randomdude121 01:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
can i get a home plan blueprint from your goodhousekeeping home plans of 1994?
editi am using a 1994 home plans book. i want to get a home blueprint for building a house- page 43 price code: p-7697-4 174.107.229.236 (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi. This page is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Suggestions for / Assistance with article
editHello all,
As I've worked on the 2025 Malian protests page, I've realized that constraining the article to the crackdown on political participation and free expression in the country is failing to capture the whole picture of what's currently happening, particularly in regards to the country's recent difficulties with JNIM and other jihadist groups, as well as infighting within the military junta (though I've added context on that situation regardless, the reasoning for which can be found here), which is necessarily constraining accurate reporting, as all of these elements are heavily interlinked. I'd appreciate any assistance or insight that anyone could provide on how to improve upon this. Perhaps moving the page to a different namesake to ease constraints on its subject matter? Regardless, I'm unfortunately not in a particularly good position to be researching and reporting on this topic entirely on my own. Any help that others of similar academic interest could provide would be greatly appreciated. A quick review of grammar/wordiness would also be appreciated. I'll look forward to seeing your edits on the page!
Thanks in advance, CSGinger14 (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- @CSGinger14 While Wikipedia:WikiProject Mali is defunct, one of the people on the list is the evil genius known as @Dr. Blofeld:. Maybe you can convince them to collaborate, if you tell them it is a devious scheme that leads to world domination. But be careful, they are dangerously insane and insanely dangerous! Polygnotus (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Requesting a soft review of draft article
editHello, I would appreciate a quick “soft review” of Draft:Gerald P. Curatola before I resubmit it at AfC.
The draft has been revised to ensure neutral tone, all claims are cited to independent sources (Forbes, Miami Herald, Vogue, New York Post, Purist, Yahoo), and institutional recognition is supported with NYU Nexus PDFs and the ICD directory.
Does the sourcing and style now look sufficient to meet AfC standards? Thank you for your guidance.
GCNYdentist (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- The draft needs all of its claims sourced if it is to be accepedt at AfC. Sushidude21! (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @GCNYdentist,
- After a quick review of the article, I have several thoughts. Firstly, you need to be able to cite material within the article itself, not simply provide a section that essentially serves as a way of justifying the page's creation. Information must be taken from the articles and referenced within the content of the page. Information on how to go about this can be found here. Additionally, though it requires far more investment and effort to explore the consensus reached by the site's users on matters of reliable sourcing, I would not imagine that many of the references used here would meet most editors definition of reputability. Vogue, Southhampton Press, Forbes, and the Miami Herald certainly do, but most others did not inspire confidence in me after a quick google search. Goop sits in the middle, but I suspect many editors would view it in a similar manner to the reputability of publications such as The Daily Mail.
- The mere fact of keeping the article balanced and encyclopedic doesn't discount the fact that it may not qualify under the English Wikipedia's notability guidelines, see Notability in the English Wikipedia for more details on this. A good (but, importantly, incomprehensive) rule of thumb is that if the source you're citing doesn't have a Wikipedia page of its own, it would not generally qualify as a reliable source. This might not necessarily apply in the case of highly esoteric journals or industry specific releases, but I'm not sure that this can really be said of several of the websites you've cited within the article. This is obviously made harder by the fact that there's a serious conflict of interest present. Without going into much further detail in an effort to respect WP:OPCAD, I imagine that it is harder for you to view criticism of the subject's appearance in various publications from a neutral perspective; please see WP:PROUD for further explanation of this point. I've left several biographies of various persons in the medical field (both living and dead) to assist you in understanding how best to go about writing in a style more suitable to Wikipedia and its protocols. I wish you all the best, but I suspect you may want to consider whether or not it's best to publish the page at this point in time.
- Jessica Rickert / Ambroise Paré / Philipp Bozzini
- All the best, CSGinger14 (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like LLM, which is inappropriate. -- NotCharizard 🗨 08:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Wait for AfC or recreate in mainspace?
editHi! I recently started an article Draft:Commonwealth v Yunupingu before realising that autoconfirmed users have permission to start articles in mainspace without using the AfC process. Should I recreate my article in mainspace and then ask for my draft to be deleted? This would make it live now plus be one less article in the AfC queue!
Thanks:) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- @SnowyRiver28 It’s actually the same process if your draft is accepted at AfC it will automatically be moved from draft space into article mainspace. If it’s declined, it stays in draft until it’s improved and resubmitted. So there’s no need to recreate it in mainspace yourself just let the process finish and it will end up in mainspace if accepted. ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 09:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have copyedited and accepted your draft. Theroadislong (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Had you not submitted your draft for review, you could have moved it into main space, preserving the editing history, rather than recreating it there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Incorrect data in tables, but where is the table data stored?
editHi folks! I've been doing some citation clean-up, but in doing that I found that on Santa Catalina, Negros Oriental the table of barangay population figures contains an error: the population figures listed for 2024 are in fact those for 2020 (confirmed looking at spreadsheets available from the Philippine statistical service). Editing the page I see "PH brgy table lite|top" etc and can find the corresponding template, but not where the underlying data are. How can I correct the table header and/or data? Thanks! Millerdl (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Millerdl I think that population is at Santa Catalina - Wikidata. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Help with a new submission
editHi, I submitted a new article on V K Palanisamy Gounder (Draft:V. K. Palanisamy Gounder) but it was rejected. The two references I submitted are well researched. Murugavelms (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Murugavelms Your Draft:V. K. Palanisamy Gounder had only two sources, so large part of the content, including his philanthropy and his date of death, had nothing to allow readers to WP:verify what was written. You would need to fix this and attend to the comments of the reviewer before the draft could be accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- There's certainly far too much detail about the dam in an article about Gounder, @Murugavelms. The way the section on the Dam is laid out is one reason for me thinking that this is LLM generated. ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Search visual
editIs there a way for the letters to go from black to grey when searching? For example, putting "Wi" in the search bar would make "Wikipedia", but grey. I've looked through Preferences but can't find anything. dom 11:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Autocomplete: that happens for me (in the form of a drop-down list), in the desktop view on my laptop. Are you using mobile web, or an app? What device? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)