Wikipedia:Teahouse
.jpg)
Shantavira, 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:
How can I get more people to join a WikiProject?
editRecently I've been getting more involved with articles about skyscrapers, particularly tallest building lists, on Wikipedia. Most of these articles (especially in non-Western countries) are an absolute mess, and the associated WikiProject, WikiProject Skyscrapers, doesn't appear too active. Besides edits by myself on the project page and its talk page, I saw that both pages have received few edits or interactions. I changed the status from active to semi-active as a result.
While this is possibly a natural result of me having a niche interest that very few other people also share, having more editors involved would definitely make my work easier. All the "tallest building" pages have different standardizations (which is why I updated WP:SKYLIST recently) and any editors who do work on them seem disconnected from any other page, and are probably unaware of the wider WikiProject. I've tried posting to Reddit to boost participation with no result.
What's the best short or long-term way editors have found for reviving a WikiProject? LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Additionally, a couple of editors who do edit these pages somewhat frequently seem unwilling to communicate. One of them is an IP address editor! Their talk pages are full of other editors chiming in but they themselves have never left edit summaries. Editors like User talk:Camiloj747 never leave edit summaries. For some reason seeing editors not interact with the community irks me. LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- You could post on the talk pages of "parent" Wikiprojects; in this case Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture.
- You could look for featured, or new, articles on Skyscrapers, and post on their talk pages, or on the talk pages of the editors who worked on them. You could post on the talk pages of articles or Wikiprojects about cities with Skyscrapers, such as New York.
- For the edit summary issue, you can use {{uw-editsummary}} (for new users) or {{uw-editsummary2}} (for experienced users), on their talk pages (WP:TWINKLE is a handy tool for deploying those, and others). Editors who repeatedly refuse to engage in discussion of disputed edits, to the point of disruption, can be reported at WP:ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, I will try some of those, thanks! LivinAWestLife (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the context is that many or most wikiprojects are semiactive or inactive, so reversing the trend at WikiProject Skyscrapers may not be possible. Even Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture is only semi-active. As Pigsonthewing says, it is possible to communicate without using a wikiproject. TSventon (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do you know if there's a reason why WikiProjects have become less active even if the overall number of edits to Wikipedia hasn't declined? LivinAWestLife (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- It depends: what do you think the purpose of a WikiProject is, in practical terms? Some WikiProjects have detailed guidelines on how to write articles in their subject area, others use their talk page as a sort of central discussion/help page for their topic, while others are more a list of names of people who are interested in a topic and who you could collaborate with. Interest in each of these types of things waxes and wanes over time. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm thinking of WP:WINE, which started out as a very active Wikiproject and is now a task force under Wikiproject food and drink. The project in its heyday had a lot of activity because wine is a huge topic area, there was a lack of wine-related articles on Wikipedia, and the existing articles were poor quality and needed a lot of development. As the amount of good-quality wine-related content grew, content creation gave way to maintenance. Eventually it languished because people moved on, especially since the main driver for the project left Wikipedia to pursue wine-related career goals. Basically the project served its purpose. I think other wikiprojects experience a similar life cycle. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Anachronist:, roughly when was the wine project most active? I have been editing Wikipedia for about seven years so I probably missed the golden age of wikiprojects. Annoyingly, Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia has a gap in word count figures from 2011 to 2017. TSventon (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say the wine project was really active from its beginning around 2006, peaked out over the next couple years and started to taper off around 2009. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Anachronist:, roughly when was the wine project most active? I have been editing Wikipedia for about seven years so I probably missed the golden age of wikiprojects. Annoyingly, Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia has a gap in word count figures from 2011 to 2017. TSventon (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm thinking of WP:WINE, which started out as a very active Wikiproject and is now a task force under Wikiproject food and drink. The project in its heyday had a lot of activity because wine is a huge topic area, there was a lack of wine-related articles on Wikipedia, and the existing articles were poor quality and needed a lot of development. As the amount of good-quality wine-related content grew, content creation gave way to maintenance. Eventually it languished because people moved on, especially since the main driver for the project left Wikipedia to pursue wine-related career goals. Basically the project served its purpose. I think other wikiprojects experience a similar life cycle. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- It depends: what do you think the purpose of a WikiProject is, in practical terms? Some WikiProjects have detailed guidelines on how to write articles in their subject area, others use their talk page as a sort of central discussion/help page for their topic, while others are more a list of names of people who are interested in a topic and who you could collaborate with. Interest in each of these types of things waxes and wanes over time. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do you know if there's a reason why WikiProjects have become less active even if the overall number of edits to Wikipedia hasn't declined? LivinAWestLife (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- @LivinAWestLife, I would love to help out! Is there anything specific that you might need an extra set of hands in? I'm not a very experienced editor but I am quite interested in architecture....3602kiva (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
IABot issues
editHi there, I am trying to use the IABot via the "Fix dead links" link, but when trying to archive live links, it just crashes with a 502 Gateway Error. I was wondering if anyone else is having this issue? Could it be browser-related? Conyo14 (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Conyo14 yep, I agree. I think it’s browser related, i think you’ll have to ask an interface administrator for help. HQIQ talk 07:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't post nonsense replies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- "502 bad gateway" is explained at 502 Bad Gateway and in more detial at [1] It is unlikely to be a browser issue, but could be an issue with your VPN, ISP or corporate network, or the target system. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- So, I have done this on two different systems
- ISP#1, w/ VPN (desktop)
- ISP#2, w/o VPN (desktop)
- Would it be worth a try on a mobile device? Conyo14 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Probably not; by a process of elimination, you have shown that it not the VPN, nor the ISP. Which leaves the target system. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Could you explain what target system refers to? Conyo14 (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- The server or servers at the other end of the request to you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Excellent. How can I fix the server at the other end (if there is anything I can do)? Conyo14 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Try IABot's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Excellent. How can I fix the server at the other end (if there is anything I can do)? Conyo14 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- The server or servers at the other end of the request to you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Could you explain what target system refers to? Conyo14 (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Probably not; by a process of elimination, you have shown that it not the VPN, nor the ISP. Which leaves the target system. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- So, I have done this on two different systems
Requesting review of Draft:DramaBox
editHello, I would like to request a review of my draft article Draft:DramaBox
The draft was previously declined, but I have revised it into a neutral, encyclopedic style and added independent, reliable sources (36Kr Europe, Sensor Tower, Wired, Barchart News).
Could someone please review the draft and let me know if it now meets Wikipedia’s standards for notability, sourcing, and tone? I would greatly appreciate any feedback, as I hope the article can be published soon if it is ready.
Thank you very much! Siqicao47 (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- submitting it to review will give you feedback, please look over the notices on top of your draft for advice.
- also of your 4 references, the only one about dramabox itself is a press release and thus not independent. see WP:42 for more clarity on what is needed. aquarium substratetalk 19:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, I’ve revised and resubmitted my draft on DramaBox.
- This time I expanded the article with new sections (History, Features, Market, Industry Context, Awards), rewrote it in a neutral encyclopedic tone, and added multiple independent sources (SCMP, The Guardian, Business Insider, Sensor Tower, 36Kr Europe, Barchart News).
- Could someone please take another look and let me know if the draft is now ready for acceptance? Thank you very much! Siqicao47 (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- You have submitted it and it is pending. Asking for a review to "jump the line" isn't likely to work. Please be patient. As stated on the draft,."This may take 5 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,786 pending submissions waiting for review." 331dot (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Siqicao47 It doesn't help that your first citation to the Guardian, a reliable source, doesn't mention DramaBox. Did you use a chatbot to write the text? These bots are well known for making up citations. This has already been noted by User:jlwoodwa, the previous Afc reviewer and makes for an immediate "fail". Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- ... and the fifth, which is to the same Guardian article. Maproom (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Password reset
editHello. I am user transatracurium, and need to reset my password. I still have access to the associated email address but no matter what device I try to access the special reset password page it reports my IP is blocked. Can someone please help? Many thanks in advance. 2.103.160.198 (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- This IP is not currently blocked. Try clearing your cookies -- you may be under a cookie block. If it does not say you are globally blocked, try accessing Special:PasswordReset on another WMF wiki where you have an account, such as Commons (this may or may not work, I never tried). You could also try another IP address, such as resetting your router (on dynamic IPs), switching to mobile data if you are using home WiFi (if available), internet cafes, or establishments/institutions that offer free WiFi (if those exist where you live). OutsideNormality (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks indeed; clearing the cookies worked! Alice Jamie (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Trying to add a map to a page
editI'm trying to add a map to this page: Draft:Southern Walnut Creek Trail
The map I would like to add is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3457710#map=13/30.29295/-97.66129
The wikidata entry I made is here: d:Q132830932
Can someone help me understand why this is failing? Fastmole (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- We can't see why it's failing, because you haven't saved the relevant edit. Can you do so (then revert yourself), or otherwise describe what you're doing, in detail?
- See also WP:Maps. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing The OP does have the template
{{maplink|frame=yes|type=line|id=Q132830932}}in the draft's infobox. I don't know why it isn't working as the link in Wikidata does work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)- Ah, I assumed this was a recent issue, not one from back in March.
- The issue was with
|id=Q132830932. The template expects the Wikidata ID of an item that is about the subject (not about an OSM map; now fixed); and expects the equivalent object in OSM to be tagged with the reciprocal Wikidata ID. (as I have now done). - That may fix it (we need to wait for caches to clear), but I'm not sure it works for relations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Update: working now; draft reviewed and published. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing The OP does have the template
Artist biography
editMy name is James Matthew Udofia,I am a gospel music singer and songwriter. Please I want to add my biography to Wikipedia James Matthew Udofia (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @James Matthew Udofia: Have outlets with editorial oversight and no connexion to you written about you at length or otherwise reviewed your work? If no, then we can't even consider an article, and we'd urge you to reconsider seeking a Wikipedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @James Matthew Udofia, and welcome to the Teahouse.
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or social media.
- Writing about yourself in Wikipedia successfully is so difficult that we strongly advise that you don't even try. See autobiography.
- In order to succeed, you would need to find publications where people wholly unconnected with you had chosen to write about you, and base the article almost entirely on what they said about you: what you know or think about yourself is not relevant. Do you think you would find it possible to write in that way, even supposing you found suitable sources?
- If you did succeed in having an article about you accepted, the article would not belong to you, would not be controlled by you, and would not necessarily say what you want it to say. It could be edited by almost anybody in the world except you and your associates - you would be able to request changes, but would not get to decide what changes were actually made.
- In addition to all this, 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 suggest that you either decide you want to contribute to Wikipedia, but give up the idea or writing about yourself; or give up Wikipedia, and use other outlets to promote yourself. You can't successfully to both together. ColinFine (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
What does Guard mean in AfD discussions?
editI've seen it used a few times in discussions, such as here and here, but it's not immediately obvious what the editors are trying to convey, and there's no entry in the glossary. Thanks for your help! Epsilon.Prota talk 18:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Both of those are by the same person, so I've asked on their talk page. DS (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed that - thanks for checking! Epsilon.Prota talk 13:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- It seems analogous to keep where it is used here. Could be a translation. -- Reconrabbit 19:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Edit types and edit warring
edit- Which edit types can count as edit warring and which are exempt? ==
I know that the following reverts are exempt from edit warring/3RR:
- Reverting your own edits, including "accidental edits".
- Reverting edits in your own user space.
- Reverting obvious disruptive edits, such as vandalism.
- Revering edits performed to evade a block or ban.
However, I'm not sure if these types of reverts can count towards edit warring:
- Edit warring with a legitimate alternate account by having two computers side-by-side logged into different accounts and constantly reverting each other's edits (i.e. edit warring with yourself).
- Edit warring in someone else's user space (if the owner gives permission).
- Edit warring in the sandbox, or your own user sandbox.
- Canceling out the fourth revert by reverting the violating edit.
2001:56B:3FFA:3632:9961:B1C6:E784:2F12 (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- What possible reason could you have for any of these behaviours? ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm just curious. I'm not actually going to do these behaviors. 2001:56B:3FFA:3632:9961:B1C6:E784:2F12 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ColinFine, would any of that activity inflate an editor's edit count? David10244 (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, David10244, this would inflate a user's edit count. This is one of several reasons why an edit count is not a very accurate tool for evaluating editor productivity. To the IP editor, edit warring with oneself or on a prearranged basis for amusement is disruptive behavior that can lead to a block. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
looking to see if wikiproject exists
editI was wondering if there's a wikiproject for volunteer artist and such to make (off site) (not on wikipedia or any sister sites) projects/art for the purpose of NON official marketing and also sorry if this is the wrong place to ask Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Skeletons are the axiom.
- Please see WP:NOTWEBHOST.
- There is nowhere on Wikipedia which is appropriate for discussions unrelated to Wikipedia and related projects, or to improving its articles. ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- thank you very much! Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Uninvolved Editor Review Request
editHi! I disclosed a COI on my user page. I drafted an article at User:Dm07891p/sandbox about J&Y Law based entirely on independent sources. Could an uninvolved editor review and, if it meets notability and sourcing, move it to mainspace? Hope I'm doing this right, I'm trying to learn. Any help would be much appreciated! Dm07891p (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Dm07891p. It looks like your sandbox draft duplicates a topic (Draft:J&Y Law) that was already declined multiple times and rejected, also authored by you. Relevant policies and guidelines are linked at the rejected draft for you to look at. Right now, the sources you used do not establish how the law firm is notable. Tarlby (t) (c) 21:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, I'm new to this and still learning. I will continue to work on trying to get notable links and citations. In the future, once I'm ready with notable sources, how would you recommnend I proceed, if you don't mind me asking? Dm07891p (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Considering the draft was rejected and declined numerous times based on notability, it's very unlikely you'll be able to find enough sources to prove notability, so I wouldn't expect much to come in the future. Tarlby (t) (c) 17:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, I'm new to this and still learning. I will continue to work on trying to get notable links and citations. In the future, once I'm ready with notable sources, how would you recommnend I proceed, if you don't mind me asking? Dm07891p (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Andalus Bank
edit
Courtesy link: User:M.marmouri/sandbox
Hello, I’ve recently created a new article on Andalus Bank (an Islamic commercial bank based in Tripoli, Libya).
I’ve added reliable sources, an infobox, inline citations, and a gallery of images (with permissions). I’ve also disclosed that I am editing under contract on behalf of the bank, in line with Wikipedia’s paid editing policy.
I would greatly appreciate if experienced editors could review the article for neutrality, formatting, and compliance with Wikipedia standards, and let me know if there are areas to improve.
Thank you very much! ~~~~ M.marmouri (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @M.marmouri, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for disclosing your status as a paid editor.
- The way to get such a review is to submit the draft for review - I have added a header which allows you to do so.
- However, on a quick look it seems to me that very few of the sources you cite are independent of the Bank. Such sources do not contribute to establishing that the bank meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
- 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.
- I advise you to make sure that most of your sources meet the criteria in WP:42, and discard most of the others.
- More generally, My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. And it's even harder when you have a conflict of interest.
- (I see your account has been here for three years, but with only two edits before you started this draft this month, you are a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @ColinFine,
- Thank you for taking the time to review my draft and for your detailed guidance. I appreciate your advice regarding the importance of independent, reliable sources in establishing notability. I understand that sources directly connected to the Bank carry little weight in that regard.
- I will review the references I have used, remove those that are not independent, and work on adding more coverage from independent, reliable sources that discuss the Bank in depth.
- I also take on board your suggestion to spend more time contributing to existing articles to better understand Wikipedia’s standards and editorial processes. In the meantime, I would still like to continue improving this draft in line with your feedback and resubmit it for review once the sourcing issues are addressed.
- Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction.
- Best regards,
- M.marmouri 81.97.66.75 (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Photo of magazine as a source
editWhat should be done with references tagged with the "Bare URL image" template? (Examples: [2] [3] [4] [5])
Usually there's not enough info to use a cite magazine template. A digital copy on another site is rarely available (although there are come in archive.org). Looking for physical copies could be an option.
Should the cite web template be used?
Thank you. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. References with Bare URL image should be converted to {{cite web}} adding as much info as possible (title, website, publisher, access date). If more detailed sources exist (magazine, archive) include them; otherwise cite the URL with proper attribution....I Fixed all of them. Yo welcome 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 20:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm dubious that photos of magazines should be used at all, certainly not unless there is a clear indication that they are posted legally. No Wikimedia project should ever link to a copyright violation, and in many cases a posted scan of a print publication will be a copyright violation.
- Furthermore, the reliability of the source is only as good as that of the website where it was posted. A scan of an article on a random website is unreliable as well as possibly a copyright violation.
- Having said that, the important bit of a citation is the bibliographic information: title, author, date, publication, publisher, page etc. A URL is in most cases only a convenience to the reader, and not an essential part of the citation. So as long as that information is included, the URL should be removed in most such cases. ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you @ColinFine , your explanation makes sense. I will follow your suggestions. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
citation inexistence and repetitive assertion
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.
While overviewing some articles, I found that some or most of the claims are, to me, nonsensical or outlandish.
Then I started searching for criticism of the assertions or the sources and found, unfortunately none, because while the people who would critique the topic exist and commonly hold this opinion, they're oppressed and don't get many chances to author their ideas in any capacity, subsequently outpaced by the other opinion; given chances to manufacture supporting literature.
Said literature is cited in Wikipedia, handing both more legitimacy, but ignoring the unauthored but existent opinion
Obv this is a pretty philosophical question, How does Wikipedia's reliance on citation mesh with the pre-requisites of said citations' existence? how does an avowed politically and socially neutral entity cope with its inherently political existence and situation?
This is a vague and open question and is more like a dilemma, but I want some insight from people who've gone through the same question and found an answer. MagiTagi (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Other editors who are wondering what MagiTagi is asking about should read Talk:Racism_in_Israel#Edit_request_23_August_2025. Maproom (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- That actually wasn't related to that request, sources are available but not directly linked in the request due to an overthought, and I linked those now in a reply
- I was actually talking about the Three Ds of antisemitism, which seems to prematurely defuse and dismiss the colonial zionism claim and zionist racism claim as anti-semitic, and the third point seems more like a WhatAboutSyriaIsm rather than an actual criteria.
- This detail is periphery, this isn't the only time I've noticed Wikipedia unable to represent a POV because said POV cannot author anything that Wikipedia recognizes as RS, so I was wondering about how some editors cope with this. MagiTagi (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Draft:Argentina_contaminated_fentanyl
editI'm pretty sure the article is notable, as there are dozens if not hundreds of news reports about it (I just cited 3).
I guess my question is regarding how to better structure the article, and what information should I add to it. Uwsi (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- The reason given for the decline was "This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia.", although a singe event of that nature, in which 96 people died, seems notable.
- That said the article has only five short sentences. I suggest you write more, in order to give some indication of the significant nature of the event (statement from a government minister; discussion in parliament; notable victims (if any), fund-raising for the victims, etc.). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
New article draft declined
editHello. I submitted my article draft for review. Ms Rhoda McKenzie is an unacknowledged Windrush era community organizer from Jamaica. I have cited primary sources found in The Daily Gleaner as well as official birth record, parents marriage certificate, obituary and a link to her grave site. I have cited links to her books that are in the Schomburg Center for Black Research. My draft was declined and I'd like to know what steps I can take to improve the article to make sure this heroine doesnt remain unknown Izema33 (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Draft:Rhoda E. MacKenzie Karenthewriter (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- At the top of the draft is the message
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
- The original massage also includes several links to explanatory pages.
- Which three of your sources meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please note that familysearch.org, findagrave.com and Legacy.com are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Izema33, and welcome to the Teahouse.
- I'm sorry, but
make sure this heroine doesnt remain unknown
sounds as if what you are doing is original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia, however good the cause. - A Wikipedia article should be based almost entirely on independent secondary sources, i.e. where people have already published substantial material about the subject. Unless you can find such sources, an article is not possible. ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Making photo available
edit
Courtesy link: Jeanne Socrates
I have a photo suitable for adding to my Wiki page (Jeanne Socrates). How does the photographer go about granting free usage so it can be posted to my page? Or can he simply go to my page and add it directly as the person who took the photo and is happy to grant free use? Seasocks (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Seasocks, the first step would be to upload the image into Wikimedia Commons. The page is relatively straightforward to use, and seeing as the image is yours, there shouldn't be a problem with granting Creative Commons rights. Once uploaded into Wikimedia Commons with a title (and categories), it is just a matter of inserting the image on the page, either using the Visual Editor's image tool or a source code embed.
- I also made a few edits on the aforementioned article as well. 3602kiva (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Seasocks Please take the time to read WP:A picture of you. "I have a photo" doesn't necessarily mean the copyright is yours, like if it's a selfie. In general, the photographer needs to give permission in the right way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Seasocks: please note that if, as you say, you are the subject of this article, then you have an obvious conflict of interest in it, and should not be editing the article directly but should instead make edit requests via the article talk page or by using the wizard at WP:ERW. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Najeeba Arif
edit- Help needed: Drafting article on Prof. Dr. Najeeba Arif (Conflict of Interest declared)
Hello! I am writing articles on Urdu Wikiipedia since 9 years. Now I want to write articles in English. I am working on writing a new article about Prof. Dr. Najeeba Arif, a Pakistani academic, writer, and poet. She is also my friend, so I want to declare a possible conflict of interest. Because of this, I want to be very careful and make sure the article is neutral, well-sourced, and follows Wikipedia rules. I am a bit confused because there are so many detailed instructions. Can anyone please guide me on: How to structure the article (lead, career, works, etc.)? How to properly cite reliable sources? What to avoid so that the article is not considered promotional or a copyvio? Thank you very much for your guidance. یاسمین سکندر (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- یاسمین سکندر, you say that "so many detailed instructions". You're right, there are. There have to be. So I suggest that you just forget about the article Najeeba Arif for a month or longer, while you gain experience with other articles, first making very minor edits and gradually making edits that are more ambitious, always reading up on relevant guidelines. This way, you'll absorb many of the detailed instructions painlessly. Then return to Najeeba Arif. -- Hoary (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- To answer your specific questions, see WP:Your first article, and the pages it links to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Need experience editor for wikipedia
editHi, I am looking for some one -a volunteer to edit the biography for wikipedia. I tried but failed. My tecnical knowledge so limited that I dare not try again. I will be very glad if someone can help me. thanks Suan Smuanthang (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia. It's made up of articles. A CV, which is what you have created, is not an encyclopedia article. Simple advice: Just stop. If you have enabled email for "Smuanthang", it's likely that you will receive offers to produce an article about you, for a price. The people making such offers are incompetent, dishonest, or both. Do not respond. Meanwhile, you can post your CV on LinkedIn or a similar website. -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Removal of names
edit- Wish to have our names removed from your site to protect our privacy
I wish to have my name and my ex husbands name removed from your site as parents of Orren Stephenson. You have breach Privacy Rules in Australia and my personal privacy and security is threatened. 203.185.243.149 (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I see no names of parents at Orren Stephenson, and that article hasn't been edited since May. You might be thinking of something you see on Google, but Google draws on more than WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you see the names on a page here at wikipedia.org then please link it.
Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that this paragraph was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing, Yahoo, and some other search engines. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever the IP is concerned with, it didn't come from our Wikipedia article Orren Stephenson. His parents have never been mentioned in the article, let alone named. Meters (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC) modified per suggestion 08:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Meters: As IP is certainly not fluent in wikilinks, I'd like you to emphasise you meant "it didn't come from the Wikipedia article Orren Stephenson". --CiaPan (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Done Meters (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Meters: As IP is certainly not fluent in wikilinks, I'd like you to emphasise you meant "it didn't come from the Wikipedia article Orren Stephenson". --CiaPan (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Their names are not in our Wikipedia article Disappearance of Samantha Murphy either. Meters (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC) modified per suggestion 08:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever the IP is concerned with, it didn't come from our Wikipedia article Orren Stephenson. His parents have never been mentioned in the article, let alone named. Meters (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC) modified per suggestion 08:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Disambiguation page formatting
editShould there be a period at the end of each entry? Or should it be left out? Jacksonvil (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Jacksonvil, if you're asking which is preferable, (A)
- George E. Allen Jr. (1914–1990), Virginia attorney
- George R. Allen (1838–1901), Wisconsin state assemblyman
- George V. Allen (1903–1970), United States diplomat
- etc, or (B)
- George E. Allen Jr. (1914–1990), Virginia attorney.
- George R. Allen (1838–1901), Wisconsin state assemblyman.
- George V. Allen (1903–1970), United States diplomat.
- etc, then (A) is better. -- Hoary (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Jacksonvil, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Closing punctuation says no no closing punctuation. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Jacksonvil Periods are used (among other things) to terminate sentences. Those are not sentences. Shantavira|feed me 08:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Derivation for a formula
edit- Is it okay to adapt my previous thesis work for a derivation for a formula?
I want to add a derivation of the formula of BHL accretion to said article. I have already written a (well-cited) derivation during my writing of my Bachelor's thesis. Would it be okay to adapt my writing from there to fit in the article or would that be considered (self-)plagiarism? Note that my thesis is unpublished and cannot be considered a WP:RS, so I would maintain the citations to the original derivations. Jcuhfehl (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you own the copyright to your original, and it is unpublished, how would we know? You can use it here (with citations as you note) without fear, subject to all out usual conditions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Standard Insurance
editStandard Insurance is a Philippine non-life insurance company and I wrote an article for review. However, despite my efforts to rewrite it for better notability, make it encyclopedic, etc., my article has been disapproved. May I know how to fix my problem? I do not have experience writing for wikipedia. Here is the link of my article for submission https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AFTamayo&action=edit§ion=1 AFTamayo (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- That link to to edit your talk page. I have deactivated it.
- Did you mean Draft:Standard Insurance? You have re-submitted that page for review, but not changed it since it was declined. I have therefore declined it again. Please do not make a further re-submission, until you have improved it.
- The reasons it was originally declined were:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
- There are links to explanations in the copy of that message on the draft, which you removed before resubmitting it. I have restored the message; please do not remove it again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- and according to GPTZero your draft is 100% AI generated. Please don't use LLM to edit here. Theroadislong (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not my draft. GPTZero is unreliable. I don't use LLM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Clearly I am referring to User:AFTamayo here. Theroadislong (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- And yet your comment is posted as a reply to mine. Please see Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Clearly I am referring to User:AFTamayo here. Theroadislong (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not my draft. GPTZero is unreliable. I don't use LLM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- and according to GPTZero your draft is 100% AI generated. Please don't use LLM to edit here. Theroadislong (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @AFTamayo, A simple explanation is that Wikipedia is against the usage of raw AI generated content because it tends to break multiple policies and guidelines. Any AI content that obviously lacks a human review can and will certainly be deleted. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Draft:Daniel A. Griffith
editThis submission was rejected: This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. How do I revise it for acceptance? Draft:Daniel A. Griffith I would like a reply specific to VisualEditor. Dagriffith-1948 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Dagriffith-1948 Hello and welcome. I'm not sure what the form of editor you use has to do with this- You seem to be writing about yourself- which, though not forbidden, is ill advised, please see the autobiography policy. This is in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves, when Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. Please see the advice left by reviewers on the draft- but in short, all non-neutral language should be removed- like "pioneering work"(unless you can say who deems your work pioneering). 331dot (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @331dot: The edit notice, shown to everyone who starts a new section here, includes the text
"Mention if you'd like a reply specific to mobile view or the VisualEditor."
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)- Thank you, I guess I don't often see people actually do that. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @331dot: The edit notice, shown to everyone who starts a new section here, includes the text
- Did you take the picture of yourself with a remote? It doesn't appear to be a selfie as you are claiming. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Part of the problem seems to be your editorialising, for example
have been recognized by an interdisciplinary set of peers, organizations, and institutions, as evidenced by his election as a fellow of various associations.
. Wikipedia articles just state the facts backed up by reliable sources. Also, you should remove the external links in the main text as we don't use these but some can be converted into citations. See WP:External links. This academic does seem to be notable as we require, so I'd encourage you to continue working on the draft ready for re-submission. If this is an autobiography, you need to mention your COI somewhere (I haven't checked). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Part of the problem seems to be your editorialising, for example
- Hello, @Dagriffith-1948, and welcome to the Teahouse. 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.
- It follows that to successfully write an article about yourself or something close to you, you effectively need to forget everything you know, think, or believe, about yourself, and write a neutral summary of what people wholly unknown to you have chosen to publish about you in reliable publications. That thing you think is important, but none of them mention? Doesn't go in. That thing that you hate, that several of them say about you? Should go in. That thing that they all say that you know is wrong? Should go in (the policy is verifiability, not truth).
- Do you see why this is difficult, and why we strongly discourage it? ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
American English or UK English?
editAs a default, should English in Wikipedia follow American or UK English? Benzekre (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Benzekre Welcone to the Teahouse. Please read MOS:ENGVAR for the policy on this issue. Shantavira|feed me 17:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
|
- Benzekre In short, it can depend on the topic; Charles III would be British English and Donald Trump would be American English. If it's a general topic, it depends on the version initially used. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
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)
Citing an email as a source
editHello. I was wondering about the origin of the name of a major international company, as it has no clear etymology, and so I asked the company by email. They answered me so now I know, but I have no clear way of providing this email, as it is inherently private, as a source if I add the etymology to the company article. Any idea of how I might solve this? GHolm95 (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @GHolm95 E-mails does not count as published around here, even if you were to share it on google drive or some such, because all we'd have is your word that this is what you say it is. But if the company would be willing to mention this on the company website ("Our history" is not uncommon on such sites), you could probably use that as a WP:ABOUTSELF source. If it's a company that's been around for awhile, try digging at https://archive.org/. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Moving episode lists to a seperate article
editHey all, I'm considering making my first huge edit on Wikipedia and I'd like to know the best way to go about it. I want to move the list of episodes below [this section], to another, new article, something such as List of Cherry Magic! Thirty Years of Virginity Can Make You a Wizard?! Episodes. For reference, I've never made an article before. I feel like the massive episode list takes up too much space on the article, and it would be best somewhere else. I've seen this done before for other shows, for example there is List of Attack on Titan episodes. What would be the best way to go about this? Just create the article? Is there a way to make like a sub-article? Any better solutions than what I have in mind? Thanks. BasicallyElvis (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @BasicallyElvis, You could post to Talk:Cherry Magic! Thirty Years of Virginity Can Make You a Wizard?! to see if any contributors want to help out and to check for any objections. Before you start drafting the list, check to make sure you have the sources to meet notability as described at WP:NLIST, so your new article doesn't get deleted. There is documentation about splitting out an article at Wikipedia:Splitting. It wouldn't result in "a sub-article", just a standalone list article. Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Awesome, i'll get to work on it later today. Thanks! BasicallyElvis (talk) 17:34, 25 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)
UK or England?
editHello there. When I'm editing on some articles about British vehicles (such as the Aston Martin DB5 and the AEC Routemaster, I'm always recieving reverts from User:Murgatroyd49 because I am describing the country as United Kingdom on Assembly field (ex. "United Kingdom: Newport Pagnell, England" - the UK is removed by the user), with one only allegation: "Convention is to use the country, not the state" (and links to MOS:GEO). As far as I know, United Kingdom is the official name, while England is a country member of UK (just like Soviet cars use "Soviet Union" instead RSFSR, UkrSSR...), and there's no community discussion about this.
Is that kind of revert valid, or it's just nationalism? Other editors of Automobile Project doesn't revert this, just the mentioned user. Thank you for your reading.
創新劇ゴジ SoshingekiGoji (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- When it comes to international trade..... Things are made in the UK not England despite country of origin.Moxy🍁 19:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
So it's ok to use United Kingdom as the country on Assembly field? Since the consense is to use it on automobile articles (examples of most-edited British cars who use United Kingdom: Mini, Aston Martin DB9, Lotus Esprit, Rolls-Royce Cullinan)... Unsigned comment.
- I would ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport for what the norms are.Moxy🍁 20:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Internal links to Article text
editHi! I've encountered an instance where it would improve clarity to link to specific text in an article, not just the section in which the text occurs, from within the same article. Specifically, in a mathematics article, it will improve clarity to annotate a deviation from a primary source with a link to other text in the article which justifies the deviation, but the other text is not independently referenced and it is far enough removed from the beginning of the section in which it occurs that it would not be helpful to simply link to that section. (I've already posted about this situation in the article's Talk page and volunteered to make the edit.)
Is there a way to mark specific text as a target and then internally link to that target? Thanks! OlyDLG (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- You can use the
{{anchor|target_name}}tag inside (preferably before) the target text, but it would be preferable to link to a section, because most of the time, such anchors end up appearing above the top of the browser window and aren't immediately visible. If there is a logical way to split the section into sub sections, you can do that too. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Page creation
editHello hello, I asked this on a different forum as well, I want to create a page. I think ive written a draft, I have an introduction. Is there anything I need to keep in mind when creating a page? I'm a complete beginner and have almost no idea on whats going on D: Any advice is appreciated!! Birdknowsmoreaboutmikuthanyou (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, read and comprehend WP:BACKWARD and keep it in mind. You don't just start writing an article. You gather your sources first, and those sources must meet all the criteria in WP:Golden Rule. Don't even write a word until you do this. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Birdknowsmoreaboutmikuthanyou, I'd also suggest reading the essay at WP:BACKWARD. If the sources don't exist to establish notability, the article will just end up deleted. The notability policy is somewhat confusing, but that essay is a very clear introduction. Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Birdknowsmoreaboutmikuthanyou, there is a thorough introduction at Help:Your first article. Mathglot (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Can I do this or is it not time yet?
editAfter a month and couple weeks I'm back in action guys!
But getting back: I would like to actually start undo vandalism like I did in my past edits and review unreviewed pages and respond to users who need help, i would like to start entering the area to combat vandalism, get it? I do this and eventually edit and create pages. My rights are autoconfirmed, I await response, please, thank you. PixelWhite (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- You're welcome to patrol recent changes and combat vandalism. There are many tools available to aid you in this process, one such being Twinkle which you already have access to, due to being autoconfirmed. If you feel you need a mentor to teach you the ropes, feel free to check out the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. I recommend reading the linked articles to get started, though you can reply here if you have any questions :) randomdude121 03:37, 25 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)
Map removal
edit- Map removal of Sikh Empire and misinterpretation by editor
I would like to know how long it would take to obtain procedural validation to resolve a fictional content dispute regarding the unauthenticated cartographical map work reinitiated by a recent contributor in the infobox of Sikh Empire. Surprisingly, it is still difficult to understand why no one has taken affirmative countermeasures to preventively address this issue before it spirals out of control. Additionally, please review the introductory paraphrasing of the same article, where the user pointlessly added Sikh Kingdom without any solid clerical attribution or explanatory citational reference, as if they merely sought to satisfy their profaned agenda WP:COI. Sillentbutviolant (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Three are WP:NODEADLINES.
- Please follow our dispute resolution guideline. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Sillentbutviolant, and welcome to the Teahouse.
- New editors often think that, when they have a disagreement with another editor, there is some "authority" they can appeal to, and they come here asking for somebody to give them "procedural validation".
- That is not how Wikipedia works.
- Wikipedia works by consensus. By editors discussing their differences, and doing their best to come to a consensus.
- So, if somebody reverts your edit, it is up to you to engage with that editor: start a discussion, try to understand their position (don't, whatever you do, start from a position of "I am right and you are wrong!") and see if you can reach a consensus that you can both accept. If that does not seem possible, the guideline Andy linked to. See also WP:BRD.
- And, by the way, I strongly advise you not to use tendentious phrases like "fictional", "unauthenticated", "pointlessly", and "profaned agenda" in the discussion. Assume good faith is one of the foundational principles of Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 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)
Request for Guidance on Improving 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)
Request for help on improving Draft: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)
- @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)
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)
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)
Looking to contribute my first article and advice on how to do so.
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)
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)
I'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)