From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Need help in getting the draft approved[edit] Can anyone tell me what else needs to be changed in the above link?

One of the award mentioned has reference link of dhammawiki, hence is a renowned award. Reference links for few awards are given too.

TIA. 2406:7400:73:F1D7:0:0:0:101 (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plenty needs to be changed. The section "Early life" has no references. The next section, "Buddhist Temple", has no reference after the first sentence. But the first sentence, or anyway much of it, appears to be referenced. I quote: "In 2007, Master Sobhana built a Buddhist Temple, Sri Dharma Bodhi Temple". And the reference for this assertion? A map, which of course provides no evidence whatever for anyone having built the temple. As a reference, this is worthless. -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another link has more details on it. All of it is on paper, how do I reference it here online?! 2406:7400:73:96A1:0:0:0:100 (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can reference paper sources just like online sources, given they are reliable. Be sure to include enough information like author, title, publisher, date, etc. to locate and verify the source. Madeline (part of me) 17:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor, phrases like "learning the ropes to the hairdressing trade", "ventured into the electronic manufacturing industry", "booming", "passion", "step into Fashion field in India", "wore the same timeless outfit", "walked the ramp" ... these are not written in an encyclopedic style.
From Wikipedia:TONE: "Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category. Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner." David10244 (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any online Live support in Wikipedia, where I can work hand in hand and get this edit done? Pl help. Thanks. 2406:7400:73:96A1:0:0:0:100 (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, there is no live support. There is no hurry, and there are no deadlines. What is your association with the subject of that draft? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have closely witnessed the subject of the draft. There are references and awards in papers and not many have links online. How do I get the proof up for this draft, when there is no online reference, and the subject deserves to be mentioned in wiki. Is there a way, please let me know. 2406:7400:73:8BE1:0:0:0:101 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
References do not need to be online - you can use and cite offline sources. {{citenews}} is usually used for offline newspapers, for example. (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor, you said "One of the award mentioned has reference link of dhammawiki". Other wikis ars not usable as sources for referencing, since the material is generally user-generated, and anyone can write whatever they want. David10244 (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If other wiki page is visible to public, I guess it must have been verified by editors before its approval and its references are verified too as how my draft is being verified every time. Pl correct me if I am wrong. 2406:7400:73:8BE1:0:0:0:101 (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor, I don't know how dhammawiki works - perhaps they have the review process you describe. Most wikis, however, do not, not even Wikipedia. (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, plus our reliable sources info at wp:RS mentions "most wikis and other collaboratively created websites" and says these sources are "generally unacceptable". As user 199 implies, you would need to research the policies of that wiki and try to get consensus before using it. David10244 (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When can I know that an article is accepted on Wikipedia (and can relax) ?[edit]

I have recently rewritten and taken out of draft an article and am not 100% sure about at what point will I know that it is accepted and will not be deleted, or if there is anything else I need to do ? Advice welcome. JSKutcher (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a deletion discussion happening here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yitzhak Suknik, the results of that discussion will decide whether the article remains. Esolo5002 (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) JSKutcher The general answer is that you never know, because even 20-year-old articles regularly get deleted.
The particular answer in the case of that article is that I have sent it to AfD again (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yitzhak_Suknik). Sorry, but taking it upon yourself to move the article into mainspace again was not wise, after it was deleted following clear consensus at a well-attended discussion.
In theory, the previous deletion means that it has been decided that there are not enough good sources about the subject of the article to show that it passes WP:GNG. If such a conclusion was correct, no article would be acceptable, no matter how well-written, and any more time you spend polishing the article is a waste of time. (If you do not understand what GNG is after reading the link, do ask, we will be happy to explain.) In fact, we even have a speedy deletion criterion that allows to delete recreation of articles deleted at AfD, which could arguably be used here.
In practice, it often happens that the quality of the draft influences the evaluation at AFD. (See WP:HEY.) I can see that the references have been substantially improved (though in my opinion not to the level required by a significant margin, hence the trip back to AfD).
If the new AfD discussion ends in a keep, then the article is probably safe from deletion for the time being. (If not, well... Please don’t try again unless you have read and understood the policies about notability.) Although it would still be subject to the normal editing process, and you have no control about its content, in practice articles about minor historical figures rarely undergo substantial edits. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Tigraan. Thank you for your speedy response.
I have spent some months on reworking this article adding a number of new sources with help from people who are experts in this area of history which I had hoped clearly shown his 'notability' within one of the greatest acts of defiance against the Nazi program of annihilation of the Jews in Europe, know as the 'Warsaw Ghetto Uprising'. Two particular items cover his importance - one in the first ever attack against the Germans on January 18th and the other being his central role in arms manufacturing against all odds.
I have never got a clear answer on what is 'notable enough' for Wikipedia and I find it difficult to understand how a judgement can be made without knowing the context of the story. I would very much appreciate it if you could read it again and reconsider the deletion recommendation.
This event (which come up to its 80th anniversary next year) and the participants are not very well covered on Wikipedia and I wonder whether there is a general view that actually it was not that important an event and any further details or information are not deemed important enough?
There are a couple of other articles on the Warsaw Ghetto on Wikipedia which may assist you. JSKutcher (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JSKutcher, notability is determined purely based on what other people have written about someone, not on what they've done. They may have done many extremely important things, but if no one else has noticed and decided they were important/interesting/unusual enough to write about, they have not achieved notability. Context is not important here; only the existence of reliable sources available for us to summarize. (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Understood. When you say on what other people have written this is exactly what I have been working on, and this is the frustrating point because there appears to be no precise criteria of what would be sufficient citations or sources, and I have seen so many pages with less on Wikipedia (and I know this is not accepted as an argument ... but it needs to be said). All the sources are reliable and written from first hand experience of the event or known experts in the field. How many more are needed to have 'noticed' Yitzhak ? JSKutcher (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JSKutcher, there are, indeed, many poor articles on Wikipedia, for many reasons, and this often misleads people. It's a problem for which a solution has yet to be found; a solution may not even be possible without altering some of Wikipedia's fundamental principles.
I can give you the general advice handed out to folks writing articles, though I'm sure you've probably already received it. Reviewers like to see three sources that meet every one of the requirements: reliable, independent, published, secondary, and containing significant coverage. Your article seems to be teetering on the edge of success (apparently the sources are a bit hard to evaluate). It may survive the AfD; it may not. You rolled the dice by moving it to mainspace instead of going through AfC, and now it's time to see where they fall. You can always try improving the sourcing in the meantime, if possible. (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest I had no idea about the AfC procedure. This is only my second article in ~ 10 years. Can I move it there now or is it too late ? If so how do I do this ? I am happy going through the correct procedure if needed. JSKutcher (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JSKutcher: see WP:AFC (articles for creation) for the next time. AfC gives feedback in a less confrontational manner than an AfD discussion; in particular, declining a draft (meaning "not good enough yet but maybe you can improve it") is a common outcome, whereas AfD is more often a binary yes-or-no (the alternative of "draftify" is seldom used, usually when someone credibly promises to work on the draft before resubmitting it). It is too late for AfC this time - the criterion for passing AfC is "more likely than not to survive an AfD", so whatever result the AfD reaches trumps any AfC decision.
Now, for some explanation of the various processes... The fundamental problem is that there are lots of people who want to use Wikipedia for promotion of various kind ("promotion" understood here on a wide spectrum from "a company paid me to promote their product" to "my great-grandmother was an interesting gal"). Once upon a time, everybody could create anything in mainspace. Stuff could get deleted at AfD, but that is a default-yes process: as long as nobody notices the article it will stay in mainspace, and making a case at AfD is hard (you’re supposed to try to salvage the article first). There are "speedy deletion" criteria intended as shortcuts, but they are only for clear-cut cases, so even a moderately smart spammer / dedicated great-grandmother admirer can get around them.
Nowadays, new accounts cannot create articles directly in the mainspace, they must go through AfC. AfC has evolved into a fairly streamlined process etc. but the reason it was introduced was to protect the mainspace with a default-no setting: as long as no reviewer has said yes to a draft, it does not go to mainspace.
I do not have stats, but I wager the vast majority of AfC drafts stop being edited after the first decline. I also wager that of those, a very large fraction is written by people who had no idea that Wikipedia had thresholds for inclusion ("notability") to start with. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the time you have taken to give a fuller explanation of the process. JSKutcher (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tigraan I think you are absolutely right, and a great insight about thresholds for inclusion. Many first-time draft creators seem to think that anyone can post anything here. The help desks do spend a lot of ink explaining this... David10244 (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JSKutcher You can always relax... David10244 (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


my friend is on a whitelist with family link that doesn't allow google. how can i help him get to his sites normaly (on chromebook) Allaoi (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure this is the right place for that sort of question, the teahouse relates to questions about editing Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia does have a Family Link article if you'd like to learn more about the application! AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
look im the one with the whitelist, and this is the only way i can contact people on the internet if you or anyone else knows how to get around it please tell me Allaoi (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Allaoi: You can try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. I don't even know what the question means but maybe they do. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Allaoi Are you trying to circumvent the software that enforces the browser going only to sites that are on the whitelist? I'm not sure that even the Reference Desk will, or should, help you with that -- depending on who set up the Family List software, and whether your friend should be circumventing that. Having said all that, I am against censorship in general... David10244 (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
im the one with the whitelist and it doesnt allow google please help also my mom set it up without my permission Allaoi (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OP indef blocked per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR.
Asparagusus (interaction) 23:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asparagusus If the user is bound by a whitelist that blocks search engines, I think they would have a hard time contributing meaningfully to this project anyway. Apparently WP is on the whitelist, though. David10244 (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does your mom need your permission? David10244 (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Allaoi Also, first you said it was your friend, then you said it was you. Hmmmmm. David10244 (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two Questions.[edit]

  • What's going on with the channel URLs in the infobox in Draft:Ryan George? If somebody can fix this, it would be greatly appreciated.
  • Why does Wikipedia have administrators, but not content moderators?[a]

Thanks, — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 07:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not an authority, but for your second question (if I understand it correctly), see Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED סשס Grimmchild 08:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixing the link: WP:NOTCENSORED David10244 (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Vortex, and welcome to the Teahouse.Please look at Template:Infobox YouTuber, where under the paramter channel_url it says use for channels only, enter ONLY what comes after However, I tried editing it, and it came out with "Ryan George Ryan", so I think you might need to play with channel_display_name as well. ColinFine (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. ^ I came here from FANDOM.

— VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 07:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vortex3427: Hi. I am not sure what exactly can a "content moderator" do on fandom, but here we have new page reviewers, and like ColinFine said above — Wikipedia is not censored. But if some information needs to be removed (deleted in a sense, but keeping the rest of the page), then admins can use revision deletion. I think rest of the technical stuff is a lot similar on fandom, and Wikipedia as both of them mediawiki engine, but the policies are different obviously. I have not edited the fandom, so dont know much about it though. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citing the existence of something[edit]

Hi Teahouse, I would like to state in an article that something exists, specifically this postage stamp. Curiously, I can't find anything written about it, but I can see it on the page of what appears to be a popular stamp collecting website called Colnect. Is this WP:OBV? Or do I need to find something written. Thank you! (I will also apply any advice I get here to a related query about a banknote.) GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 09:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't necessarily need something written, but you need a reliable source. From what I can see, that site looks user generated, and so not reliable, but I may be wrong. (The image of a stamp certainly exists, on that site, but how confident can we be that it is an image of a real stamp?) ColinFine (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ColinFine Thank you! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 10:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GuineaPigC77 The URL you provided has a Stanley Gibbons catalogue number. If you can find it in their catalogues, many of which are now online, that would be a reliable source, in my opinion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you checked the links given in Postage stamps and postal history of Colombia § External links? -- Verbarson  talkedits 15:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also pictured on Markenliste ( (cross-referenced to Wikipedia), though my German is not up to evaluating the reliability of the source. -- Verbarson  talkedits 16:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, the item depicted is not, strictly, "a postage stamp." It is a souvenir sheet aka miniature sheet, which incorporates one or more (in this case two) postage stamps within a larger design. To use the stamps on a piece of mail, one could remove them from the surrounding portion, but no-one would be likely to do this because such sheets are bought almost exclusively by collectors, and would likely have been sold for somewhat more than the mere total face value of the stamps included.
[Disclosure: a former professional designer/researcher/editor for a Philatelic agent. (What! No article?) {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks y'all for your clarification about how to cite, and also for these leads - I will be doing some digging today. I'll update if I find something I think qualifies (including possibly the Markenliste if I can evaluate it properly). GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 19:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it! The souvenir sheet (thank you @ is listed in the Scott catalogue (2016 edition), volume 2, p. 508. I didn't see anything about citing a catalog under Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Other so I suppose I'll use Template:Cite book?
(Btw I pursued the Stanley Gibbons number, and also tried the other catalogue numbers to no avail (either couldn't find it or behind paywall). Searched for additional catalogs in the Wikipedia Library and local library. Finally reached out to an old friend with an interest in stamps, and they easily found it in their purchased copy of the Scott catalogue and gave me a screenshot.)
This is, delightfully, how I spent part of today. Thank you Teahouse for upholding high standards of sourcing, and for y'all's suggestions. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 05:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to hear that. The Muisca raft looks sensational; I'm surprised I've not come across it before this thread. Thank you for your work on that article.
Don't forget to include the Scott catalog number in your cite; it may be on a different page in other editions. -- Verbarson  talkedits 07:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Verbarson! And good call - I've added that now. Yep this is a really cool artifact and it has such interesting context too! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 14:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can i edit lebron james[edit]

add topic can i edit lebron james (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. As an anonymous editor, you cannot directly edit Wikipedia's article LeBron James because it has been semiprotected after disruptive edits by unregistered editors. However, you are welcome to make an edit request (see that link for details) on the article's talk page Talk:LeBron James. Note that any information you wish to add must be supported by a citation to a reliable source.
However, if the edit you want to make is of the same quality as the last few you have made from this IP address, please don't bother. ColinFine (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi IP The article LeBron James was page protected by a Wikipedia administrator because of repeated violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and other Wikipedia:Vandalism; so, IP accounts such as yours aren't permitted to edit it. The article can, however, be edited by WP:AUTOCONFIRMED editors, but you will need to first register for a WP:ACCOUNT and then wait until you meet the criteria for "autoconfirmed". If you don't want to do that, you can request an edit be made on at Talk:LeBron James. If it's in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, an autoconfirmed user will most likely make the edit on your behalf. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few notes about articles about very famous people: often, editors with an interest in the topic have chosen to 'watch' the article, meaning that whenever they log in, they will get a notification that someone edited the article. Second, the article is current rated a Good article. Third, on the Talk page, there are archives of past discussions aoubt what does or does not belong in the article; your intent to add or subtract something may have already been discussed and decided upon. David notMD (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly I agree with ColinFine above -- all edits from this ip address look like nonsense and have been reverted, even the two from 2007. David10244 (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

article publish[edit]

Draft:Commander Agro Niaz.ahmad222 (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Niaz.ahmad222 Your draft has been declined because so far it just shows this company is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, doing nothing worthy of note that set it apart from other similar companies. To meet the requirements for notability in the sense Wikipedia uses that word you will need much better sources and detail of reliable coverage (see links in the decline notice). Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Niaz.ahmad222 "In 2020, the company will launch..." 2020 is pretty far in the past now. David10244 (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please suggest me topics to create wikipedia pages. I want to be a wikipedia editor and page creator. Niaz.ahmad222 (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Niaz.ahmad222, maybe you'll find something in our Requested Articles pages - the list of topics starts here. Just pick a topic you're interested in, read through the list of requests to find one that looks good, and start researching. (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Niaz.ahmad222 You don't have to create a single article to be a good contributor. Wikipedia has over 6 million articles, a large number of which need work. You may find it helpful to edit existing articles to gain experience that you can use to create a new article. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reversing Edits[edit]

Hi Teahouse! I just wanted to ask who has the power to undo other user's edits, and what reasoning is needed to do so. I noticed a edit made by an unregistered IP at that seems to be removing a significant amount of information. The IP has only made edits to this article today, and has made no other contributions to wikipedia. Thanks - UpdateWindows (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nevermind, someone beat me to it haha UpdateWindows (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone can revert an edit if they disagree with the changes, though you usually should discuss rather than revert repeatedly (obvious vandalism and some other things are excluded, see WP:3RRNO). Madeline (part of me) 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @UpdateWindows, welcome to the Teahouse. Everyone who is able to edit an article has the power to undo other users' edits. There can be lots of reasons - acceptable ones are some variation of "this did not improve the encyclopedia", perhaps with a link to an appropriate policy. A reason of "I don't like it!" is obviously not going to fly. (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, UpdateWindows. I'm surprised that nobody has pointed you at WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much everyone. Someone else reverted the edit i was wondering about, but thank you for filling me in on how to revert next time if something comes up again. UpdateWindows (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiding certain images[edit]

Hi. I need help hiding certain images. I didn't want to ask this type of question on the Teahouse as it sounds odd. I tried it myself, but I don't get the coding. Cwater1 (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Cwater1. I gather you're trying to install badimages.js? First you'd need to determine which skin you're using (by going to Special:Preferences -> Appearance tab -> "Skin"). Then you would need to create the appropriate js page depending on which skin you use (common.js, monobook.js, etc.) and add the code shown here. What happens when you try it? (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Cwater. Please read Help:Options to hide an image for additional options. Cullen328 (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current setting is Vector legacy 2010. Cwater1 (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cwater1, then clicking this link should take you to your skin's js page: Special:MyPage/vector.js. Edit it and add the code mentioned above. If you want the code to apply across all skins you may ever use, apparently you can create Special:MyPage/common.js instead and add the code there. Try either one and see what happens. (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went on Special:MyPage/common.js and used the code. This came up: Error: Expected a string and instead saw {. Cwater1 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: Tried using "importScript", "mw.loader.load", and "iusc" and even tried a :. It still says error on bottom in edit box Cwater1 (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hopefully someone who's more familiar with JavaScript will come along and be able to explain what all that means (if you're that person, see longer error string here). If no one does, @Cwater1, the best place to ask would be WP:VPT, where the tech experts hang out; if you post there, including a link to this Teahouse thread would probably be helpful. (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sent a message. Thank you for your attempt at helping me. Cwater1 (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328 @ I don't think it worked. Oh, well. Cwater1 (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cwater1, you could try improving your error report by following the steps here, but since the creator of the script is apparently no longer editing Wikipedia, there may not be much else you can do. I have no idea what you meant above by "Tried using "importScript", "mw.loader.load", and "iusc" and even tried a :." - none of those things should be necessary, just a simple copy/paste of {{subst:lusc|User:Mr.Z-man/badimages.js}}. Unfortunately, as an IP editor, I can't just try it myself to see what happens. (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried it just now. Cwater1 (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cwater1, cool. Follow the instructions to bypass your cache, and then... well... hopefully it works, I suppose. I'm not sure how you'd check. (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought all you do is copy and paste to the code then you're done. That is what I did. Cwater1 (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleting a redirect after moving[edit]

I am so sorry I'm back again. Can I delete or redirect or do something with Bee Branch Creek. Currently it links to Bee Branch Creek (California) because I moved the page to avoid confusion with Bee Branch Creek (Iowa). Currently the Iowa article is larger and appears to be more notable than the California one (of whom is an orphan article). Marshmallo3535 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Marshmallo3535, welcome to the Teahouse! You can change the redirect link in Bee Branch Creek to Bee Branch (disambiguation). See Help:Redirect for help. Regards. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 03:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've gone ahead and changed the redirect's target to the dab page Bee Branch. Deor (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Mitch199811 (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving a page from draft[edit]

I'm trying to move a page from "draft" to "article." I tried to do it myself but it says I can't because the page name already exists. I'm not sure what that means. I think the same title is currently a redirect, but I want that redirect to be stopped and just have this page be the only page. Can someone help? This is the page:

Thanks! Davescribe22 (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Davescribe22: Welcome to the Teahouse.. I suggest adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page when you're absolutely sure that it is ready for articlespace; a reviewer will take care of things if it's adequate. That being said, a quick glance at the references used doesn't use many independent, reliable sources, so it's very likely that it will be declined if it is submitted as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have several citations, and while a few of them are from the source itself, 1. that's the only place that info is, and 2. I have at least three independent sources linked to, and I believe I only need one or two.
To be honest, almost every single Wikipedia page I look at follows the same format and citations that I have. I can give you examples if you'd like. I'm not sure why my citations aren't being accepted but others are. Davescribe22 (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Davescribe22. I agree with Tenryuu. Your draft does not include any references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to Sassone as a person. Without such references, an acceptable Wikipedia article cannot be written. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quick example from another page I'm trying to add to ( On his list of albums I've added his most recent, 467 Surf and Gun Club. Every time I add it someone deletes it because there's no source/citation. But look at the other albums above that. They're not sourced either! How is the album I want to add different? (And the one album that does have a link links to Wikipedia, which I'm told I can't do!) Davescribe22 (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Davescribe22: It can be frustrating, but rules are being followed now. There are 6.5 million articles on Wikipedia, and not enough time to go through and remove unsourced statements from all of them that were submitted before there was proper attention on sourcing. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Davescribe22, Wikipedia has over 6.5 million articles and my guess is that at least two million of them have significant problems. Wikipedia editors should be correcting problems, instead of creating new problems. As for Orrall, I see significant coverage in the Washington Post . Cullen328 (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, Orrall has plenty of coverage. He's a well-known guy. My specific question was why is the latest album I added (467 Surf and Gun Club) consistently deleted when it has the same exact format/sourcing as the dozen albums above it? If the album I'm trying to add should be deleted, shouldn't they all be deleted? (And by the way, in the Late 1990s and 2000s section I DO link to a source about the album). Davescribe22 (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is frustrating, to the point of not really being worth it. There's too much inconsistency, and I've already spent way too much time on that Sassone article, it's practically a part-time job, heh. I think it's sourced fine, with three independent sources (interview, articles, organizations), links to his official site, and links to other sites he has written for, etc. The same as many other sites I see.
It's unfortunate because I like Wikipedia. I'll still read it but there's no point to continuing to try to add to the community anymore. Oh well. Davescribe22 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Davescribe22. Interviews are not independent and therefore do not help to establish notability. Listings in organizations that he is affiliated with are not independent and therefore do not help to establish notability. Articles or books that the subject has written are clearly not independent and obviously do not help to establish notability. His official site is worthless in establishing notability. Links to other sites he has written for are worthless in establishing notability. Notability is established by one thing and one thing only: The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are completely independent of the topic. It is a three part test: significant, reliable and independent. If you truly and deeply understand notability, you can write as many articles as you want that will never be deleted. I speak from experience. I have written over 100 articles and not one of them has been deleted. That is because I make sure that the topic is notable before I start writing. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cullen328 I'm not sure why you used the Edit Source screen to reply to my comment instead of just hitting reply, but whatever. I'll do that too because it won't let me just reply for some reason, hope this looks OK. I guess my definition of "notable" is different than Wikipedia's. A notable writer to me is someone who is generally well-known and someone who has written for many publications for 30 years, with plenty of resources on the web to back that up (which I've linked to). You (and Wikipedia) can say that interviews aren't independent and reliable and organizations he belongs too aren' independent and reliable and places he has written for aren't independent and reliable, but taken as a whole? All of those things combined with citations and links (plus a dash of common sense) should be enough to prove who he is and what he has done (he's even mentioned on Wikipedia already - if you type in his name it redirects to one of the places he wrote for). But as I said, I've already spent enough time on this. If people want to contribute to that page to make it "better, " that's fantastic. If Wikipedia wants to delete it, I can't do anything about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davescribe22 (talkcontribs) 02:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Davescribe22, if you want to dissent from the policies and guidelines that made this website a top ten website worldwide for many years, you are of course entirely free to do so. You can start your own website where every published journalist is automatically presumed eligible for an article, or maybe you can call it a "profile" like countless social media websites with no inclusion criteria do. But if you want to write Wikipedia articles, you need to roll like Wikipedia rolls, and comply with its policies and guidelines. Once you take the time to understand the policies and guidelines. contributing here can be extremely gratifying, and not at all that difficult. Cullen328 (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for using "edit source" to reply to your comment, that is the way that I have edited for 13 years. Editing the source code is the method that gives the most consistent and accurate results for anyone willing to spend half an hour or so to learn basic Wikicode. Why should I switch to the substandard "Visual editor" just to respond to you? Cullen328 (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"You need to roll like Wikipedia rolls." That's kind of my point. It doesn't roll in any consistent way. There are a gazillion pieces of information like the ones I've put in the article on the site and they're approved.
Not quite sure why you're using that tone. I'm just a new guy trying to learn how to do this. I don't have to be given a lecture on the history of Wikipedia or why the visual editor is "substandard." I mean, come on. Davescribe22 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Davescribe22, I'm not sure what you mean by "approved" - most stuff posted on Wikipedia doesn't need to be approved by anyone, which is one reason why things are so inconsistent. Another reason is that standards have changed over the years; what was okay ten years ago is no longer okay today, but very few people are interested in going around and doing clean-up. This is a volunteer project, and most volunteers are only interested in their tiny part of it - much like you are. We all know Wikipedia isn't perfect. It's never going to be perfect. Most of us are just trying to leave it a little better than we found it. (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is part of the point I'm making right here. You know darn well what I mean by "approved," even if I'm new here and I'm not using the exact Wikipedia terminology. I mean deleted, edited, not accepted. I don't get why some people here have to be so argumentative.
But I get your point about this being done by volunteers, and I appreciate them and the fact that Wikipedia exists. It's just frustrating to see the inconsistency. Davescribe22 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Davescribe22 No, we don't know what you mean by "approved". We can only see text on a screen, which does not convey emotion, context, etc. If you want to help address inconsistency in the over six million articles that we have, we would greatly appreciate you diving in to learn policies and guidelines, and then doing the work to apply them to articles. That's the only way things get done around here- is when people step up to do it in their free time. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um, I explained it in my message you replied to. Davescribe22 (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Davescribe22, I apologize, I wasn't trying to come across as argumentative. People do come to the Teahouse thinking that every single thing on Wikipedia has been approved by someone, and there are indeed some things that need approval by other editors. It's a word that often causes confusion and needs clarification.
Believe me, we're all frustrated by the inconsistency, but we all have limited amounts of spare time and have to decide where it's best applied. (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Davescribe22 As was mentioned, several years ago, unreferenced info (and other poor stuff) could be added to Wikipedia. It would not have been approved because in the old days, nothing was approved or even reviewed. Once it's in an article, "bad stuff" can stay in place without being deleted, or repaired, if no one notices it. Or at least, no one who is an editor and realizes that some stuff doesn't meet guidelines and might need to be improved. I hope that makes more sense. David10244 (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess my definition of "notable" is different than Wikipedia's.

That is most likely the case; Wikipedia's definition of notability can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that link. And thanks for being so nice and helpful. I appreciate it. Davescribe22 (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a page to view Articles Under Review?[edit]

I've just got a notification to say an article I created has been reviewed.

I'm fairly sure that article had been reviewed already, and now it's been reviewed a second time.

I have no reason to be worried about that article as it has everything that's needed... An infobox, categories, a table of contents, external links, countless references, and a rough description of what it's about (which is one of the main things which puts me off writing more articles, along with deciding which references to put where, as I'll no doubt find better references as I go).

However I'm just wondering why it needed reviewing. Is there a page to view Articles Under Review? Danstarr69 (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you mean unreviewed articles, there is no tracking category, but you can go to Special:NewPagesFeed which gives you an option to show only unreviewed / reviewed articles. Note the process is independent of WP:AFC. Sungodtemple (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Danstarr69, all newly created articles, except articles created by WP:AUTOPATROLLED users, will be 'unreviewed'. A new page reviewer will come along and mark it as reviewed after some time. Sungodtemple (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Danstarr69. Unsurprisingly, there are many types of processes on Wikipedia that can be called "reviews". The Articles for Creation process is the one that gets the most attention here at the Teahouse. But that is just a review to allow a draft to be accepted to the encyclopedia, with the assumption that it would have a greater than 50% chance of surviving a deletion debate. But there are far more rigorous reviews for Good articles and especially for Featured articles, which are detailed and may take weeks or even months to complete. Based on what you wrote, you are probably referring to a review by the New Pages Patrol. This is a cursory review to determine that a new article is not gibberish, or an obvious hoax, or an overt copyright violation, or contains libel or threats of violence. It is a very low hurdle. Cullen328 (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page that exists in one language but not another[edit]

Hi. I noticed a couple of cases where a specific page exists in English but not in Italian. I could translate the page, my question is whether there is a mechanism for creating the new one that is specific for this case, where it is not really a new creation, only one brought over from the English version. Thanks Livmarcob (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll find advice at WP:TRANSLATEUS. David Biddulph (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Livmarcob. Wikipedia:Translate us describes the process for translating English Wikipedia articles into other languages. Correct copyright attribution is important, so please take extra care over that part of the process. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Livmarcob. In addition to what David and Larry said above, please note Wikipedias in different languages are separate projects, which, although founded on the same basis of WP:Five Pillars, may differ in some rules. The difference may appear e.g. in notability criteria. Please verify the destination project's criteria (that is, it:Wikipedia:Enciclopedicità) before you start translation to avoid a possible confusion and loss if a translated article gets rejected at it-wiki. This is part of what the Wikipedia:Translate us#Before you start section talks about. --CiaPan (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, see it:Wikipedia:Traduzioni for guidelines on translating into the Italian Wikipedia. :-) CiaPan (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Livmarcob: English Wikipedia has 6,558,588 articles, and Italian Wikipedia about 1.7 million, so it's inevitable that you will run into many English articles that do not yet exist in Italian. Luckily, there is a tool to find them. Let's say you are interested in the psychology of visual perception. In that case, you can follow this link to find the first 100 of about 300 articles related to the topic in English Wikipedia which have no corresponding article in Italian. Here's a sampling: Abney effect, Bezold effect, Cross-race effect, Face inversion effect. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biography Page[edit]


I am new to wikipedia & want to publish a biography page for my client. Can anyone assist me through the process of a Biography Page Creation. Weblytiks (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Weblytiks. The first thing you should do is carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. The next thing I suggest you do it take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything to get some basic ideas as to what types of subjects are considered OK to create articles about and how they're ecpected to be written. If your client is a company or organization, you should also take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If your client is a person, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people). If you're unable to establish that yoour client meets Wikipedia:Notability, an article about your client is unlikely going to be accepted or survive very long no matter how well it's written or who writes it. Finally, you might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content because Wikipedia articles are written expected to written about subjects and not for or on behalf of subjects, and article subjects has not type of editorial control over what's written. The subject of an article may request changes be made, but they can't really make the changes themselves. As long as article content is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and there's a consensus established for it, the subject can't really get it removed unless there's a really a good policy-based reason for doing so. If your client is a person, then you need to ask them to look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing because there can be a downside to being written about on Wikipedia than many subjects only find out about too late. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weblytiks I would also note that your username seems to be that of what I assume is your company; this is not permitted, usernames must indicate that the account is used by a single person(though you are advised against using your real name). I have placed information on your user talk page as to how you can propose a new username. One that is formatted as "JohnDoe of Weblytiks" would be okay. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for noting that to me, Can i use a different account to make edits?
My Main concern is regarding the Biography Page editing, I want to publish a Biography Page for a client. Weblytiks (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weblytiks As I said, I have placed instructions on your user talk page(User talk:Weblytiks) as to how you can rename your account. You may also create a new account if you are not concerned with preserving your edit history. Whichever it is you do, the next thing you do should be to make a paid editing disclosure, as this is a Terms of Use requirement. I can't add anything else to the excellent advice Marchjuly gives above. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition to the excellent advice above, Weblytiks, I'd say that your sparse list of contributions to Wikipedia (largely consisting of changing "and" to "&") makes it pretty clear that you're not yet ready to embark on a new article on any subject. Better practise improving some articles first. A large percentage have an obvious need for improvement, and I've found that one sure-fire method of finding a pile of articles needing radical copyediting is to search for "the tender age of" (including those quotation marks). -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weblytiks (ec) I would actually add that Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction, and may help the mindset that you have when you approach what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, Thank you for the advice, I would like to learn to edit articles & how to find my favourite topics for a better understanding & elaboration of topics.
I am also facing troubles in finding my topic of interest.
Kindly guide me through this as well. Weblytiks (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Due to WP:COI, you shouldn't create an article for someone you know. Additionally, have you confirmed they're WP:Notable? סשס Grimmchild 09:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In answer to "Can i use a different account to make edits?" While there are a few valid reasons to have more than one account, the general advice is to have only one account, and definitely do not use more than one account to edit the same articles. Given how little you have done to date, I recommend abandoning Weblytiks and starting a new account with a new name. David notMD (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contrary to what Grimmchild wrote, you are allowed to create a draft of an article for a paying client, also for someone you know personally, as long as you comply with WP:PAID or WP:COI. All of the other advice proffered above is valid and useful. David notMD (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help![edit]

Please help me with this question: Does Wikipedia encourage its members in any way? Or does it all happen on a gratuitous and unpaid basis? (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are employees of WMF (the organization behind Wikipedia, among other things) who are paid; outside of that, we're all volunteers. 3mi1y (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. People are sometimes paid to edit Wikipedia, which is mostly against the Terms of Use. However, this is not by the WMF. 12:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC) Asparagusus (interaction) 12:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles or pages?[edit]

What does it mean when Teahouse users say "Wikipedia has articles, not pages"? What's the difference? סשס Grimmchild 09:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In context, it's a reply to a question on this page or elsewhere like "I want to make a page about me/my company/youtuber X, how can I?"
"Article" means something inline with WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and what have you, while "page" just implies a text the questioner wants to wtite about themselves on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, @Grimmchild, and welcome to the Teahouse. Like what the previous editor said, it's usually in response to people on the Teahouse who use the term "page". These people often have a COI of some sort and/or just don't know the guidelines of Wikipedia. We also say this when people call BLPs "bios", which, in the age of the internet that we're on, somewhat implies informal tone and/or autobiographies.
Asparagusus (interaction) 12:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or the dreaded "profile". Someone actually used that as an argument once - "References? But this isn't so much an article as a profile, do I really need those?" (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically, articles are realized as article pages which are a type of page. People want to "have a web page" or maybe something like a Facebook Pages page for themselves or their clients, so regulars here say "article" to emphasize that, as an encyclopedia, we host a particular class of content and style of writing. (C.f. if you were writing on, which has a different scope again, you might say that you are publishing an article or a story or an opinion piece, rather than "creating a page".) ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 19:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Town[edit]

There is not too much information about my village in Wikipedia.Why Changes by me are removed? I know my village well , please let me update it. $hubham Kumar $ah (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

$hubham Kumar $ah Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, we cannot accept information based on your personal knowledge. All information in Wikipedia must be supported with a citation to a published independent reliable source that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WIKI Page Content[edit]

Hello, I am trying to create a page that discusses my businesses. I previously had a page for this which was removed, but my new page keeps getting deleted citing content cannot be autobiographical and is not referenced - yet I have referenced from global publications - please advise? Ingo Ronald Schweder (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ingo Ronald Schweder Welcome to the Teahouse, Ingo. I can see from the deletion logs that you have tried three times to create an article about yourself/your businesses on your User Page and that each time it has been speedily deleted by an admin. There are several bits of advice you need to follow to have any hope of getting a draft autobiography or article about your company accepted. 1) You must create the draft using the WP:AFC process: only a limited number of things, and no draft articles, are allowed on User pages (see WP:UPYES). 2) All drafts must be based on reliable secondary sources which must be cited with inline citations properly formatted: as explained at WP:YFA. New editors like yourself often become frustrated by the hoops they feel they have to go through to get something added to the encyclopaedia but please realise that all our policies and guidelines are in place for the good reason that we wish to create a world-class resource, not social media, and that Wikipedia is not to be used for WP:PROMOTION. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The OP "[has] been blocked indefinitely from editing because [their] account is being used only for advertising or promotion". -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emiway Bantai[edit]

why there is no page for Emiway Bantai? His stor is too much special. He is one of the best commercial rapper and also a celebrity. Although you had mad Wikipedia of many small rappers than bantai but why on him not? $hubham Kumar $ah (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @$hubham Kumar $ah and welcome to Wikipedia editing. The short answer is that no-one has yet put in the work to create an acceptable article. See WP:YFA for the principles behind doing so. A quick Google search shows that there may be suitable sources, for example from Rolling Stone India's recent cover story. Even that is marginal since it appears to be based on an interview with Bantai. Can you cite here about WP:THREE decent sources that could be used for a Draft, bearing in mind they need to be significant coverage of him in reliable publications that are independent of him, so excluding all his own social media and record label? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aarticles about Emiway Bantai have been deleted three times via Articles for Deletion (AfD) review. Despite the topic being 'salted,' there is at present a draft at Draft:Emiway Bantai. However, this is nominated for Speedy deletion for copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Emiway Bantai has been of great interest to a team of sock-puppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roboture/Archive. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem getting biographical page approved[edit]

Hello, we are experiencing problems into getting the following page approved. Any help is utmost appreciated Draft:Alessandro Avataneo (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is "we"? Wikipedia has articles, not pages. The reviewer left you an explanation of the difficulty at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You write In 1998–2000 at the Scuola Holden of Turin he attended the Master in Storytelling and Performing Arts, where he studied with ...... This looks like an attempt to gain notability-by-inheritance (and incidentally is totally uncited). When I attended university there were loads of subsequently notable people in my class. Sadly, I wasn't one of them. Do you see the problem? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Michael, but we don't think that is the case. The sentence was stating who were Avataneo's teacher, pure information, not notability-by-inheritance. In the same way, for example, this page about Harold Bloom: Bloom went to the Bronx High School of Science (where his grades were poor but his standardized-test scores were high), and subsequently received a B.A. degree in Classics from Cornell in 1951, where he was a student of English literary critic M. H. Abrams, etc...
The structure of the sentence was the same. Do you see the difference? what do you think? (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You write His research thesis, Art and International Relations from Alexander the Great to Stanley Kubrick (2004), is a pioneering work on art as an effective democratization tool, peacebuilding, and integration on an international level. It's very rare for a research thesis to garner such high praise. Who so described it, and where? -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mention of thesis removed, same for name-dropping of whom he studied with (does not matter if those were classmates or teachers, naming notable people does not make him more notable). David notMD (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please, note that classmates are never mentioned, since that would be notability-by-inheritance. Only teachers are mentioned. Again, it's not a matter of notability, but legacy. Citing teachers and school of thought can be considered information, such as in the case reported above, about Harold Bloom? How can we write it down in a way that it is understandable? (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The thesis received a special mention by Turin University in 2005. The professors committee assigning the mention was constituted by international relations professor emeritus Luigi Bonanate, international relations professor Fabio Armao and Giuseppe Porro, professor of International Law. This information is on paper in the university archives, not online. How would you suggest to prove this? (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
References do not have to be online, but do have to be published. Printed material in the university archives does not sound published to me. Neither who he was taught by nor an opinion on his thesis establish notability. The focus should be on improving the rest of the draft. David notMD (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much David (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help[edit]

Citation something that same source but preventing it from spamming copy. DaikinInverter789 (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DaikinInverter789 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I cannot determine from your post what it is you are asking. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DaikinInverter789 I have used what are called named references to fix the citation duplication in Stegomyia (subgenus), which I hope solves the problem. You can look at this DIFF to see what I did. See also WP:NAMED for details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong Ukrainian city names in articles[edit]

I've been trying to change incorrect English transliterations of Ukrainian cities' names. But the changes were "irrelevant". How the fck can they be irrelevant? Routeguano (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Routeguano Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can understand you may be frustrated, but we try to keep this board a friendly, civil place, so please avoid using vulgar language here. I would suggest asking the editor who reverted your changes directly as to their reasoning, and explain what it is you are trying to do, to achieve a consensus. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Routeguano By policy explained at WP:COMMONNAME, English Wikipedia uses the names most commonly used in the English sources we cite. You may personally believe that Chernobyl should be transliterated as Chornobyl but here by long-standing convention the latter is a WP:REDIRECT to the main article, where the alternative name appears in the first sentence. Those using the search box for the article will of course be able to find it using either spelling. The same applies to the other names you have attempted to alter. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

How to become a checkuser on the Wikipedia? 2402:3A80:198B:654D:678:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You refrain from that sort of edits, for a start. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 15:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi IP user. You would have great difficulty becoming a checkuser and the first step would be to create an account. The policy is explained at WP:CHK Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright issues found[edit]

Here in 1908-09 Nemzeti Bajnokság II pretty much all of the prose is copied verbatim from external sources. I know I should remove this, but I am not sure if I should leave a message for the user who added the copyvios or something like that. Should I start an AFD? If so, I am not quite comfortable doing that yet. Heeps of Wiki (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Heeps of Wiki, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a bit complicated - the copyvios may extend all the way back to the article's creation (initial version, expanded version after the initial one was turned into a redirect). I don't know if the initial version is a copyvio - it consists mostly of data in tables, which often isn't copyrightable. Perhaps better safe than sorry. I assume you've checked the sources and that they are indeed not compatibly licensed.
At this point, you have two choices - speedy deletion as unambiguous copyright infringement (G12), or, as explained in the G12 section, blanking the offending content, adding the tag mentioned and posting at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Leaving a templated or custom warning for the user would probably also be a good idea. (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the advice, I just needed a little extra confirmation that I would be doing the correct thing. Have a good day. Heeps of Wiki (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding a correct copyright license tag[edit]

hello, I am a new editor, it's good to be here. I would like to ADD a copyright license tag to an image I uploaded in the infobox of this article image the image was created inhouse. I assume it is now freeware. I added the code {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link [1] }} to the image's own page (File:PASTA UND DESIGN3.jpg) with a link to a website. Is that the right way/location to edit? Thanks for your help DfGSDgd% (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, DfGSDgd%, and welcome to the Teahouse.
The first thing is that you got the syntax wrong: you left out the '|' (pipe character) between the template name and its argument. But more seriously, I see no evidence at the site you point to that it has been placed in the public domain (i.e. that the copyright holder has chosen to relinquish all rights to it). Do you personally control the copyright (either because you own it, or because it is owned by a body whose rights you have the legal authority to assign)? If so, then you have the power to place it in the public domain as you have purported to do; but in that case I would suggest that you probably prefer to license it under a licence such as CC-BY-SA. If you do not, then you do not have that power.
In any case, do you really want to permit anybody in the world to alter or reuse your cover freely for any purpose, commercial or not? Publishers usually do not want to. The usual way of handling book covers is to upload them as non-free content, which is permitted if all the criteria are met (see that link for details). See WP:NFCI for more information. ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it, thanks. Just re-uploaded a copy under the automated non-free use / book cover option. DfGSDgd% (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DfGSDgd%: Each use of non-free content must satisfy all ten of the non-free content use criteria listed here. File:Pasta und Design CC.jpg that you uploaded currently fails to meet criterion #7 and criterion #10c. If you fail to address these issues sometime soon, the file will end up being deleted per either speedy deletion criterion F5 or speedy deletion criterion F6. As for the file you uploaded to Commmons as File:PDB G2L 0.jpg, [it seems that you aren't the copyright holder of the book cover imagery and might have misunderstood c:COM:Own work. If that's really the case, then Commons can't keep the file you uploaded without verifying the c:COM:CONSENT of the copyright holder of the book as explained here. So, if you aren't the copyright holder and just made a mistaken in uploading the photo, then that's OK; you should, however, follow the instructions given here and tag the file for speedy deletion using the template c:Template:Db-author yourself before someone else tags it as copyright violation per c:COM:DW. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1998 Collage not appearing[edit]

When I hover my mouse over the year 1998 link on various articles, the photo collage doesn't appear unlike all the other years after it. Any reason for this? The ganymedian (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The ganymedian, welcome back. Do you mean 1998? It appears for me. Perhaps you need to clear your browser's cache? (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. If I hover over the 1998 link while logged out, the Page Preview displays the collage, as IP 199 points out. However, if I do so while logged in (with navigation popups turned on -- I presume @The ganymedian is using this setting as well), I see File:Éder Militão.jpg instead. I'm not sure why the popup is showing that image instead as it's further down the page; perhaps a more technically-minded TH host can assist? –FlyingAce✈hello 04:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

someone is threatening permanent banishment[edit]

This 'editor' ( is employed by a company that we were under the impression could help develop a page to get it published. Once we realized they were frauds, we requested our money back. They did zero work on the draft, I can see they never made one edit on the page. They said they would refund a fraction of what was paid after we completed their "ownership transfer" and then shared an address to a page (, but this is not the address to the draft in question. Now they are threatening to have the page permanently banned now that we have asked the credit card company to refund the amount spent versus trying to settle the matter with them. Can anyone just make a request to have a page permanently banned? Not sure what to do with this company/this claimed wikipedia professional. Any advise? Butopian (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Butopian: It appears you have been scammed. Follow the instructions on that page, but unfortunately your money is gone. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, Kevinbalor hasn't edited in over 5 1/2 years so it's most likely someone impersonating them. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Butopian: The best advice is to not try to force the issue of creating an article(not a "page") and allow an article to be developed organically, when an independent editor takes note of the topic you want to see an article created for, in independent reliable sources. This way you avoid the potential for scams. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I have followed the instructions on that page. I appreciate your help. Butopian (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other thing to understand, Butoplan, is that what the scammers were offering you is probably not possible. Unless your person (presumably William B Elmore?) meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - roughly that several people wholly unconneced with him, and not prompted or fed information by him or his associates, have chosen to publish significant amounts about him in reliable sources - then no article about him will be accepted however it is written and whoever writes it. If he does meet these criteria, then an article is possible, but it will not belong to or be controlled by him. Articles can be deleted, and if they are attempts to write about non-notable subjects, they often are deleted. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The copy on EverybodyWiki by User talk:Clamsroa appears for me in the first results page of a Google search (SERP). I don't see enough independent coverage to of Mr. Elmore to satisfy English Wikipedia policy: this looks like a good example of OTHEROUTLETs actually working. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 19:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as an article being "permanently banned" - subjects can be salted, prevented from creation because an article has been repeatedly deleted and recreated. It's still possible to create those pages, but it's a slightly longer process than usual. I don't see how the company you mention has any power to "salt" the subject William B. Elmore, except by disruptively trying to create the article in mainspace, and if they do that, their accounts will quickly be blocked. (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Butopian, Although User:Kevinbalor claims to have made 10,000 edits, in reality they only made nine edits, all on June 8, 2017, and all to set up their hoax userpage. Cullen328 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your help and advice! Butopian (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Butopian: User:Kevinbalor appears to have no regard for the truth, as shown by their user page. (OK, I am asked by Wikipedia rules to assume goodwill, but in this case I can't manage it.) Their threat to have a page permanently banned is no more credible than anything else they've said. Maproom (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That you, that is my conclusion as well. I just wanted other more experienced opinions before I responded to this most recent threat by him. I appreciate your input! Butopian (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Butopian and Cullen328: in a link at KevinB's User page, they have a page statistics link showing the edits of Jennica (talk · contribs)[noping] who has 77,000 edits, last edit yesterday. Whether this is a random, experienced user they picked as a scam to "substantiate" a large edit history, or a sock or other valid alternate account, I couldn't say without further investigation; although it's suspicious that KevinBalor "only" claims 10,000 if they could've claimed much more. Further suspicion is cast by the fact that KevinB's user page looks like a clone of Jennica's user page, and the claim of 10,000 edits in 2016 for Jennica is believable. Cullen, I'll leave it to you whether to link or inquire further of Jennica, but my suspicion is that they are an innocent bystander, and that KevinB simply trolled around for a suitable experienced editor and cloned their page. Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mathglot, I too took a look at Jennica's connection to this hoax and came to the same conclusion that you did. I am quite confident that Jennica is an innocent victim who does not need to be drawn into this drama. As for the claim of 10,000 edits, maybe this paid editing scammer group lost the password to that account, for one of a variety of plausible reasons, and just used the 2017 version of the userpage under the assumption that their marks would not know how to search a user's edit history to disprove the fraudulent claims. We are not dealing with rocket scientists here. Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can things like this be reported? Butopian (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Butopian, you have reported it here. You are also free to report it to the cybercrimes experts in your local jurisdiction. Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Butopian. All Wikipedia editors (including administrators) are volunteers which means pretty any action that they can take would be limited to Wikipedia. This unfortunately means that any "real-world" ways of seeking redress are beyond the purview of Wikipedia and likely are going to be something you're going to need to figure out yourself. You might try contacting your local police, the Better Business Bureau, or a comsumer advocacy group, but Wikipedia editors aren't really supposed to give you any type of legal advice. You should also be very careful about posting real-world information about others anywhere on Wikipedia as explained here even if you feel you've been wronged by them in someway. You should follow the advice given in WP:PAID#Reporting undisclosed paid editors or WP:COI#Solicitations by paid editors and provide specific details via email instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I did provide specifics through an email earlier today. And I wasn't thinking real world resolve from this forum, we are dealing with it in the real world. Thank you for your input and advice. Butopian (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability of environmental movement[edit]

Hi, I'm considering to write an article on a Swiss environmental movement named Renovate Switzerland. Their actions and the organization have been extensively covered in the Swiss national media (most articles are in French or German). However the movement is less than a year old. Is there a minimum age of existence for notability? Factfox (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Factfox, welcome to the Teahouse. There is no minimum age requirement. All you need is significant coverage in independent, reliable, published sources, which apparently they've got. (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate the quick reply. Factfox (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Factfox. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources before starting. I had a quick look, and you will have to avoid almost all the blogs, social media, and other self-published websites near the top of search results, but anything covered in reliable newspapers, magazines, and other sources should be fine. I had to go deep into the results before finding anything that wasn't about the brief blockage of the Lausanne motorway, and if there's nothing else of note, then that could spell trouble, so try to find more coverage about other things. Another relevant guideline you should read is WP:USEENG; which basically says, please use English sources when you can find them and they are of equal quality; but don't hesitate to use French or German sources when needed. Finally, you might want to start the article as a WP:DRAFT; you can click this red link to do so: Draft:Renovate Switzerland; ping me at my talk page or from the article talk page if you want specific help about the article. mfG / amicalement, Mathglot (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Factfox: After a quick look in the French-speaking press, most of mentions seem to be WP:ROUTINE coverage as Mathglot said, but that article from the Tribune de Genève is probably better. ("Probably", because I do not have access, so I can only read the title.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 11:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mathglot @Tigraan Thank you for your guidance. I am collecting sources (I could get the one from Tribune de Genève, it's indeed a more in depth article about the topic) and preparing the draft. I will ping you when it's ready to share. Factfox (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Submitting an Article for Review[edit]

How do I submit an article for review? Cjmodica (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Cjmodica, welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have created three different versions of an article - one on your user page, one in your sandbox, and one in draft space. Which do you want to submit for review? Also, one of those versions says Written by Joyce Ratcliff Byars, Tommy’s widow, 2022, which raises the question of a conflict of interest (WP:COI). (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lord help me! I don't know what I am doing. I believe it is the one on the draft page, I think the latest with all the sources added. Cjmodica (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cjmodica, I also note that you've uploaded this photo from 1952 and tagged it as "own work". Are you the photographer? I see a ticket has been submitted via VRT, so permission from the copyright holder has been verified, but the question of a COI comes up again. (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I went back forth with that and finally got it approved on Wikimedia. I was trying to upload it to Wikipedia. The photo was given to me by the owner to post on Wikipedia. She is the heir to the person in the photo and the photo was taken by his father in 1952 and has been deceased since 1952. The person in the photo was his heir. Cjmodica (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cjmodica, I would highly recommend reading WP:COI, because it sounds like you're in direct contact with the family of this person, and the conflict of interest guidelines may apply. Your latest edits have been to your user page, User:Cjmodica. Is that what you want to submit for review? Or Draft:Tommy Byars, Professional AMA Racer? (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, User:Cjmodica is what I need to submit for review. Cjmodica (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cjmodica, the following needs to be copy/pasted at the top of your user page: {{subst:AfC draft|username}}. A button will then appear allowing you to submit it for approval. At the moment, the sourcing needs a lot of improvement. (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've done that for them. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you - would've done it myself, but that is Not Allowed for IPs. 😉 (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@331dot, you added it to the draft, not their user page, which is what they actually want to submit. (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know the difference between user page, sandbox and draft pages. Please help. Cjmodica (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cjmodica I will try to explain. Your user page is User:Cjmodica, and it is a place for you to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself as a Wikipedia editor or user. It isn't a place to draft an article. Your sandbox, User:Cjmodica/sandbox is a place to experiment with editing or practice writing. Draft space, where Draft:Tommy Byars, Professional AMA Racer is, is a designated area for any user to draft an article and submit it for a review(via Articles for Creation). 331dot (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OMG; thank you. Now how do I move the article on my user page to my draft page and how do I delete the article on my user page? Cjmodica (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cjmodica You've already removed the content from your user page. If that's the content you want to submit, simply put that content on the Draft page in place of what is there currently(except for the {{AfC submission|t||ts=20221004221545|u=331dot|ns=118|demo=}} at the top which should remain). With regards to your user page(User:Cjmodica), while it is a place for you to tell about yourself, it's not required that you have something there- many users never put anything there. Just FYI. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cjmodica, I've just done the above for you. (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much. Now that I have the article in my draft page, how do I submit it for review? Cjmodica (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cjmodica, just go to Draft:Tommy Byars, Professional AMA Racer and press the blue "Submit for review" button in the grey box at the top. (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you; it's done. YAY Cjmodica (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much. Cjmodica (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cjmodica: Please fill in as much information as you can in the infobox I put in the draft. Also, try to make it easier to verify the citations. If any of them are available online, please provide links. Although you submitted it for review, it far from being in a state of readiness for publication on Wikipedia. There's a large backlog, so please continue improving it while you wait. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the information. I didn't know I could make corrections once submitted. I will explore and try to learn more about Wikipedia. I was becoming frustrated but the Talk page has really helped me. The newspapers that I referenced can be found online at, so I will go back and modify my references to reflect online. I am excited to learn more about submitting articles. Again, thank you so much. Cjmodica (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cjmodica I’m going to give you some homework, and I hope it will help you. If you haven’t already done so, please read Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners.
I know nothing about motorcycle racing, but I glanced at a couple dozen articles about racers, and found four that I thought might be good for a beginner to study. (They seem to be pretty basic, and there are no tags stating there are problems with them.) You may want to read Doug Danger, Don Castro, Wes Cooley (motorcyclist), and Dudley Perkins (motorcyclist). They could guide you on how to make changes to your article draft, and what type of references you can look for. Best wishes on improving your article. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, Karenthewriter, I am the primary author of Dudley Perkins (motorcyclist). I wrote that article ten years ago, and I thank you for mentioning it. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have read your article on Dudley Perkins and it was a wonderful tribute to Dudley. That is what I am trying to do for Tommy Byars. I love your format. Do you mind if I follow your outline layout? Cjmodica (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Cjmodica - well done on your perseverance in getting this far. I would like to note that "a tribute" is emphatically not the purpose of a Wikipedia article. An article should be a neutral summary of what the sources say. This will very often come out favorably towards the subject, but it is important not to hold that as a purpose, but to make sure that if there is adverse material in reliable sources it is not omitted. (That is one reason why editing with a COI is difficult).
As for copying the format of another article: absolutely (as long as you're confident that it is a good model to copy: we have many very poor articles). That's how we try for consistency. ColinFine (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much. I will certainly not use tribute in my article even though it is a tribute to remembering him and preserving his history as a recognized nationally famous racer. Thanks again. Cjmodica (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question: In providing links, should I provide a direct link to the article or the link to the website where it can be found? ie: or Cjmodica (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see WP:referencing for beginners: if you're providing a link, make it as specific as possible, so that it takes the reader straight to the right article. But the link is usually a convenience for the reader, not a crucial part of the citation. It's the author, title, date, publisher that are the important bits. ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Cjmodica (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, what you are saying is that if I reference the website, newspaper, specific date and page number, that is sufficient enough rather than taking it to the specific page link? Cjmodica (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cjmodica, the name of the newspaper, article title, author, and date are the truly important things; a link to the article on a website is helpful as well. Please take a look at Template:Cite news#Usage - the parameters are all listed, they just need to be filled out. Then you put the completed template between ref tags. See Help:Referencing for beginners. (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Georgy Zhukov[edit]

Georgy Zhukov

His D.O.B. is widely quoted as December 1st, yet his plaque in the Kremlin says December 2nd. Can anyone resolve this?

Thanks Robbie (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume you have seen a picture of the plaque, and not the plaque itself; if so, can you provide a link to an authoritative website which shows an image of the plaque? I can tell you that the Russian Wikipedia page about Zhukov lists his birthdate as "19 November (1 December) 1896" ("19 ноября (1 декабря) 1896"; see Жуков, Георгий Константинович. Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our source for the claim in the article on Georgy Zhukov appears to be Geoffrey Roberts' Stalin's General, which explains in an endnote that when Zhukov was born, the Julian calendar was 12 days behind the Gregorian, but when Russia adopted the Gregorian calendar, the difference was 13 days, and Zhukov incorrectly added the 13 days difference rather than the 12 it had been when he was born when converting his birthday to the Gregorian calendar. (Ch. 2 note 1; visible to me on Google Books via the preview.) Hence December 1 is the correct date but December 2 was frequently used by Soviet sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a footnote explaining that would be a good idea. ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Placement of Reflist-talk templates[edit]

Hello, Teahouse Helpers: Can you advise on best practice for use of {{talk reflist}} templates, please? Recently I have been involved in a discussion on a noticeboard. When talk reflists were added, some users continued discussion below the reflist templates. I have always found the layout that results from doing this a little confusing on talk pages, so will often move the template to the bottom of the section.

When I did so in this conversation, another editor moved it to be directly under the comment that added the cite: So, maybe I have the wrong idea on how to use it? In recent times, I have begun to use a screen reader, and having conversations interspersed freely with reflists is a bit awkward. Do other users of assistive tech encounter this problem on talk? Is it okay to combine all the reflists into one, at the end of a section? And move any comments added to the section below the template to be above it? Advice appreciated. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AukusRuckus: To my knowledge, this is covered in Wikipedia:Talk page layout in only one place: § Discussions, which says:
If you include references, add {{reflist-talk}} or {{sources-talk}} after your comment, to keep citations within your thread.
What that basically is saying is: "Don't place {{reflist-talk}} at the bottom of the Talk page, keep it inside the section." But that still leaves open the question of where to place it inside the section or even if more than one of them is acceptable. My preference, is to have one {{Reflist-talk}} per section, and to place it at the bottom of the section. For this, I base it on analogy to MOS:ORDER, where I consider a Talk page discussion topic analogous to an article, and imitating the body layout listed at MOS:ORDER, which is that there is one references section per article, and it is at the bottom. But, you could read it to say, "Place it directly after your comment," without specifying what happens to subsequent comments. (In my opinion, that section is too vague and should be updated, but that's a separate issue.)
Because the template is brief and easy to miss in the wikicode, it's not surprising that editors sometimes don't even see it and inadvertently place other comments after it. Others, as apparently in your example, actively do it that way, perhaps interpreting the guideline the other way than how I see it. What I do sometimes to avoid the "inadvertent" situation where someone comments afterward, especially in Talk discussions that lend themselves easily to subsectioning (such as an Afd with level 3 sections for === Survey === and ===Discussion=== sections), I'll add the Reflist-talk in a level 3 section ===References===. (In this case, to avoid the word 'References' showing up twice, once in the header, and once inside the box, I'll code the Reflist invocation like this: ===References=== and then underneath that: {{Reflist-talk|title=}}.) I hope this helps, and I'm sorry the answer is not more definitive, but I think the current guidance is imprecise on your question. Mathglot (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Mathglot: that's actually very helpful. Just to know I haven't been doing something completely out of order is reassuring. I can certainly see how the guidance could be interpreted in the opposite way: As I am finding, there are nearly as many ways to interpret a guideline as there are people trying to follow it (be there enough room for uncertainty). I like your "level 3 header + |title= [blank]" tip a lot.
Do you mind if I slip in an additional question? On such a discussion at AN/I as linked above, is it okay to notify users that may have some interest in the matter being discussed? I don't think it would be considered canvassing, if I were to say only "you might be interested" (because I know they have dealt with the issue)? I might be wrong though ... AukusRuckus (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi AukusRuckus. You could use hidden text to let other's know to place any new comments about the {{reflist-talk}} template, but some may not understand what that means or might just decide to ignore it. FWIW, you're not required to use WP:Reftags when discussing sources on an article talk page and you could simply just add the link as an external link or using Template:URL; you don't even need to use reftags when discussing how a citation should be formatted since you simply add the syntax to talk page as is without the tags. As for you're question about canvassing, you should try and follow the advise given in WP:APPNOTE. Even adding something as benign as Template:Please see to a user talk page might be seen as "canvassing" if you only added it to user talk pages of people who might be predisposed to agree with you. It would probably be better to first post notifications on WikiProject talk pages before individual user talk pages, unless you're going also going to go out of your way to notify users who might be predisposed to disagree with you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion is looking moribund for now, so I'm thinking I might let it die a natural death. Taking your advice into account, if later I decide to alert extra editors, my inclination is that I will ping them within the discussion, only. I'm afraid I am unaware of any user who is likely to take the opposite view! Thank you so much for your helpful response, Marchjuly.
And, Mathglot, I used your pointer, adding a ===References=== heading over the single reflist-talk template for the entire section. Will see if it sticks. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again AukusRuckus. I missed the part that you were asking about an ANI discussion. In that case, I would recommend doing what you dead by creating a separate references section. It's not horrible, but generally it's better to use bullet points and WP:DIFFs instead of trying to cite edits made to a Wikipedia article or page in a citation format. I also wouldn't suggest you try and contact anyone else and notify them of the discussion unless they are somehow directly involved in what's being discussed. You might WP:PING someone it that case, but ANI discussions often become quite heated and even a minor unintentional faux pas (like unintentional canvassing) can heat them up even more; so, many users simply avoid them whenever possible. Anyway, if you haven't already done so, you might want to take a look at WP:ANIADVICE and WP:BOOMERANG. ANI discussions aren't for really for those who don't like WP:DRAMA and in fact clicking on WP:Dramaboard might reinforce that point. The comments made at ANI are often quite "to the point". Often the best thing to do if you can't avoid going to ANI is to try and make your point as succiently as possible by posting as little as possible, and then simply leave the rest to administrators. Many people go to ANI thinking that they're completely in the right and the other person is totally in the wrong only to find out that others may view things differently, and the situation can often quickly spiral out of control once they figure that their actions are also going to be evaluated as well and they suddenly put on the defensive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, completely agree, Marchjuly. I've been avoiding it like the proverbial ostrich, but it's a running sore. Still, the noticeboard's not really for me, but someone else took it there, and I felt honour-bound to offer some support when I was pinged there. The pings I was considering would only be for people I know have had the same troubles with the specific editor, as already mentioned in the current AN/I posts. The heightened, fraught nature of the board is why I was being really cautious. (I'm hoping cautious enough!) I think I'm unlikely to ping anyone now. Just btw, I wasn't the editor who added diffs as cites: that was another editor. Then one or two other editors added the talk-reflist template in several places, so that the discussion posts became visually disjointed with intervening reflists. I was just tidying up, because I get easily lost in talk page layouts.
Thanks for your friendly replies. I appreciate your help, and your concern to make sure I was fully informed and well-prepared for "the scary place"  :-) Very good advice. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, for this part of the article on the german national anthem, the 2 parts of lyrics aren't aligned. Is there any way to fix this?

Editing Deutschlandlied - Wikipedia Victor939 (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Victor939 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I have fixed it in this edit where I just followed the template shown for the other example below. Jolly1253 (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes but I was wondering if you could direct me to a help page for such help page of pull down boxes? Wikikoolr (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This question has already been asked in its own section below. (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

help, im blocked.[edit]

i want to make an article about a game i like, but i'm blocked. i cant find a way to describe the game in an informational way. how do i get creative?? Joe mama slappy (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to describe the game in an informational way if you want to have it on Wikipedia... Sungodtemple (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WHat i mean is im struggling to find the right words to put it in to. Thanks for the help though, Im gonna call it a night. Joe mama slappy (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Avoid the word "blocked," as that has a special meaning in Wikipedia, as in temporarily or indefinitely blocked from editing for a serious transgression. David notMD (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Joe mama slappy, and welcome to the Teahouse. I may be misunderstanding, but it sounds to me as if you are trying to write from what you know. Perhaps surprisingly, Wikipedia isn't interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows). Wikipedia is only interested in what reliable sources say about a subject: that's all. You should be summarising what the reliable sources that you have found say about it, nothing more. Wikipedia isn't a place for creative writing. (And implicit in that is the idea that writing an article begins with finding the sources. This is like surveying the ground and building the foundations before you build a house: if you start building without doing it, your house will probably fall down). ColinFine (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oh so on wikipedia, "blocked" basically means banned. huh. just like scratch. Joe mama slappy (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joe mama slappy Nope, not exactly the same, at least on Wikipedia. See WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for the difference. Jolly1253 (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ColinFine Ok, thats fair. I may have to chose a different subject for an article then because the only sources i can find are from fandom wiki and thats a no. Joe mama slappy (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's right, I'm afraid. Have you read your first article? It gives a lot of useful information.
The other thing I'll say is that I remember how, when I started editing Wikipedia in about 2005, I was desperately trying to find a new article to write, as I thought that was the way to "make my mark". Now I know that it is not the only, or necessairily the best way, and I have only ever created a dozen articles. In my opinion, a newish editor who improves existing articles (especially by finding missing sources) will be adding thousands of times more value to Wikipedia than if they tried to create a new article before they are equipped to do so. ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok thanks. i def need slow down. i guess i got a little excited lol Joe mama slappy (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple Images?[edit]

How do you add multiple images to an article? Like with Manchester or Doncaster. How does the template work as tried with Grimsby but to no avail? DragonofBatley (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DragonofBatley. Manchester and Doncaster say {{Infobox settlement|...}} so they use {{Infobox settlement}} which has a image_skyline parameter. Grimsby uses {{Infobox UK place}} which has no such parameter so any value of |image_skyline= is ignored. It does have a parameter static_image_name. The documentation says "Use filename only (e.g. name.jpg)" but it would currently also work with the code you tried. I don't know whether it will always work. Future template changes may not be compatible with undocumented behaviour but you wouldn't be the first to use the parameter for this purpose. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article[edit]

2019-22 Irani Cup article should be merged into 2022-23 Irani Cup. Because the 19-22 trophy match is played yesterday in 2022, reliable sources calling it part of 2022-23 Irani cup. I flagged it for for merger but User : Kirubar deleted it before other users can discuss. You can see source and disscus on this here - [1]. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Want to use image uploaded to other language Wikipedia[edit]

There is an image I found uploaded to the Korean language Wikipedia from 2010. Link The copyright is "Creative Commons 3.0 unported". I would like to use it in a page I am creating for English language Wikipedia. What is the procedure for using it within a different language Wiki? Or better yet, is there a way I can send it to Wikimedia so it can be presumably be used by other languages Wikis? Thank you kindly. ₪RicknAsia₪ 08:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Each Wikimedia project can only use media files uploaded to that specific project or to Wikimedia Commons. In order for the file to be used here it would need to be either transferred to Wikimedia Commons, or uploaded locally. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rickinasia, that file is on Wikimedia Commons, so you can use it. It's here. Valereee (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wonderful. Thank you everyone. ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete a reference[edit]

delete a reference Donna omack (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a question? David notMD (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, @Donna omack, and welcome to the Teahouse! This is a place for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question?
Asparagusus (interaction) 13:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: My Draft[edit]

I want to start by thanking all of the helpful and immediate feedback that I received from my last post about this topic. Since my last post regarding Draft:Ancomah, I have sought out more reliable sources on the topic. As I stated previously, much information on this topic has been lost or archived since the mid 2010s. Most sources now have a first and last name connected to them, and many claims have more than one source to back them. Please left me know if there's anything I'm still doing wrong, if not enough significant change was made, or anything else that could help me raise my odds of publishing this article. ParkerHaley2003VersionTwo (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ParkerHaley2003VersionTwo. Atlantipedia is a one person website where Tony O'Connell peddles his personal theories about Atlantis. It is not a reliable source. is a Wikipedia mirror and is not a reliable source. is a promotional clickbait site and is not a reliable source. Ancient Realms is a themed musical playlist website and is not a reliable source. is the website of a fiction writer. It is not a reliable source. You must use indisputably reliable academic quality sources for an article about a fringe topic. Cullen328 (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, it is much appreciated. I think that I’m going to give up on the article because there aren’t enough reliable sources on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkerHaley2003VersionTwo (talkcontribs) 02:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Referring to my old help page[edit]

I said"how do you make a box on your page" when I said that I meant a pull down box not a info box Wikikoolr (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For reference, this post further up the page. @Wikikoolr, what do you mean by "a pull down box"? Can you give an example of an article that has one? (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean a box that has info at the bottom of the page such like on the page "Nintendo switch" at the bottom of the page there is boxes for additional info. Wikikoolr (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's Kinda hard to explain Wikikoolr (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello? Wikikoolr (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikikoolr I think that the boxes you are referring to are the ones that help readers navigate to other related articles. They are inserted using templates, so {{Nintendo Switch}} is an example, in the case of the Nintendo Switch article, with a default of its expanded state, so readers see it without having to click on "show". You could in principle use that same template on your User Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay I think that answers my question and I have one more question about how you should do so. Wikikoolr (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikikoolr, the answer has already been given above - you insert a template (by editing the page and copying the template code into it). The trick is figuring out which template you want. (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By when you said Template:Nintendo switch did you mean "Nintendo Switch " Wikikoolr (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. They were referring to the template {{Nintendo Switch}}. There's a big difference. (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In what? Wikikoolr (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went to that page it did not help Wikikoolr (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikikoolr, Nintendo Switch is an article on the Nintendo Switch. {{Nintendo Switch}} is a template that inserts a navigation box on a page. The navigation box links to many different articles related to the Switch, so folks reading the article can jump to different, related articles easily. (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No that is not what I'm looking for. I am look ing for a drop down box that holds additional info on the article. Wikikoolr (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikikoolr, I'm still not sure what you mean. Is there such a box on Nintendo Switch? Can you explain exactly where it is in the article, or quote some text from it, so we can figure out what you're seeing? You're using a mobile device, so what you see probably isn't going to be the same as what we see. (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I am trying to say is the very bottom of the page there are boxes before the other related articles and after the main text article Wikikoolr (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikikoolr, after the article text, I see, in order: See also section; Notes section; References section (good gods is that long); External links section, with a box on the right hand side that links to Commons; a bunch of navigation templates (purple boxes); portal links; and, finally, categories. Are any of those the thing you're referring to? (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha ha lol yes, references is the type that I am referring to. Wikikoolr (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikikoolr, adding references is easy. Just put something between <ref> and </ref>, then add {{reflist}} to the bottom of your page. For instance: [1]


  1. ^ This is a reference. It will show up in the box below, by MAGIC.
(ugh, indent issues) (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a quote from such drop down article. "Games for the Nintendo Switch can be obtained through either retail channels or digitally through the Nintendo eShop." Wikikoolr (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha ha lol yes the references is the type I'm referring to. Wikikoolr (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the first line in the Games section of the article (Nintendo Switch#Games). It's not in a dropdown box on the desktop version of the site. Maybe the mobile software you're using puts sections of long articles into separate dropdown boxes? As far as I know, that's not something you can do Wikipedia-side, it's part of the mobile software. (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, sorry for the trouble, Just new here and needed help for my page. Wikikoolr (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And maybe My Android go software is being weird? But on other phones on chrome it behaves the same so idk? Wikikoolr (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No idea, @Wikikoolr, I don't even own a mobile phone (yes, there is one of us left in the world!). I do know that you can switch to the desktop version of the site when using a phone, and many editors actually prefer using desktop mode. Have you tried it? (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyways, Have a nice day. Wikikoolr (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, The "References" section is not open on the Android app until you open it. On the Desktop version it's just there, so people who don't use the app will not realise it can open and close. ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name change of institution[edit]

The Brandywine River Museum of Art recently changed its name to The Brandywine Museum of Art. Everything else is the same about this organization. What is the best way to update the wikipedia page?

Astewart69 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Astewart69 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are associated with this museum, please first read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. Regarding the question, Wikipedia does not necessarily use official or legal names as article titles, it uses whatever most sources use as a name(see WP:COMMONNAME). If you think the new name is the most common, you may request a page move at Requested Moves. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improve article help[edit]

Hello, I am working on an article submission. It has been through a few drafts, and I am wondering if I can get help with addressing feedback that indicates there are problems mostly apparently with sources, but also about notability. I have to the best of my ability made the changes that have been suggested. Does anyone see anything to fix or improve before I try to submit it again? The article is Rushistoriia (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I need some help creating an article for a song that I deem should be here; admins can probably see it from the AfC logs. Any tips? Aknip (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Aknip, welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this is about Draft:XO (Eden song)? The first and most obvious problem is an entire lack of references to reliable, independent, published sources with significant coverage of the song, in order to demonstrate notability. Which critics have written about it? Where are the reviews? What did they say? (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I did type that up in a hurry, and again, I had planned on extending that. I would like some help with finding refrences to that aswell.
Aknip (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Aknip, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but like many inexperienced editors who try to create articles, you've gone about it backwards. In house-building terms, you've started building the house without doing any checks on whether the land is fit to build on. Writing an article begins with finding the references, because if you can't find them, you'll know that there is no point in spending any more time on the subject, because no article is possible. Please see WP:your first article. ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)[edit]

Ciao editors! - For your information, I have included a suggested addition to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) on the article's Talk page since it is semi-protected. Would any editors care to assist in the discussion of the proposed addition of an External Media Box to the article or expedite the suggested addition to the article? I've summarized the proposed addition here for your convenience. The (3)Production - (3.3) Music and records paragraph might be amended to include an External Audio Box link to the historical soundtrack recording of Adriana Caselotti singing the song "Whistle While You Work" (as mentioned in the paragraph) from the 1937 film as archived at the University of California- Santa Barbara's Discography of American Historical Recordings page shown in the reference citation below. Also note that additional songs from the original film are also available at this archive site including: "With a Smile and a Song (song)"," "Someday My Prince Will Come" and the duet with Harry Stockwell - "I'm Wishing / One Song". Thanks for your consideration and enjoy the music! (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)GCLReply[reply]

We have such a thing as an "external audio box"? I am skeptical of that, because we cannot embed copyrighted content into Wikipedia articles. According to this government blog article, the earliest any music recording would be in the public domain will be 2047. We can upload fair-use 30-second snippets of a musical piece, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I stand corrected. We actually do have an external media template, as shown in the edit request on Talk:Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film). It doesn't embed media, it just lets you link out to another site. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hungarian Slovak Gypsies in America[edit]

I don't know why they are trying to delete this page, the Smithsonian, Harvard University, Dr. Ian Hancock, Roosevelt University, Oberlin college, Pittsburgh University, Cleveland State University, Professor Steve Balkin, and far too much more to list, but these highest places that recognize The Hungarian Slovak Gypsies in America is not enough for you? How much more do you need. There is a lot more to support this, I don't know how much you need and why. Gypsyviolins (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungarian Slovak Gypsies in the United States and Hungarian Slovak Gypsies in the United States - (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gypsyviolins: articles on wikipedia have to be shown to be notable. you need reliable, independent sources that cover the subject significantly to prove something's notability. generally, at least two sources are needed. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 04:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Create an Article[edit]

hello, I would like help in creating an article for Boni Faas a Universal Music Group artist. Pat.Boniface (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pat.Boniface: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Your first article should give you some pointers and more as to what the encyclopedia expects to be an acceptable article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Attempt at Boni Faas Speedy deleted and Pat.Boniface indef blocked for promotional. David notMD (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

date and time[edit]

hiya, sorry to bother you guys again. how to i change my date and time to my accurate timezone? SkipperJoe (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There should be an option in the dropdown list for the timezone in your Preferences that reads "Fill in from browser". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well, the minutes are right but the hour is wrong. its 21:00 (9pm) SkipperJoe (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joe mama slappy, that setting only changes some of the timestamps you see. Others will always be in UTC. (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok SkipperJoe (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Locked Page[edit]

Hi, I am trying to create a page for MicroEJ, but found that the page has been deleted several times and has a protection. I believe this company is very notable and have already created a draft here Draft:MicroEJ_(software). I would like an admin to review and see if they can allow the creation. And before you ask, no I do not have a conflict of interest. I am just familiar with their software due to the type of work I am in. Lowlifeoutlet (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lowlifeoutlet You should submit it for a review, I've added the information for you to do so; if accepted, the reviewer will handle placing it in the encyclopedia. My cursory glance suggests to me that the sources are not appropriate for establishing notability, as they seem to be mostly announcements of routine business activities. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will need to have addressed the concerns of the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MicroEJ. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: World records for fastest motorcycle ride around Australia - Wikipedia[edit]

Hi The information contained in this article is incorrect My husband, GRAHAM FORLONGE still hold the record for going around Australia on a Kawasaki1000 in under 10 days. This record can never be broker as he was the last one to do it on dirt road across Northern parts of Australia.

Warrick Shuberg never completed the record attempt as he had to withdraw from it in Perth due to illness. Graham and Warrick started off eh attempt together . Graham completed it. These facts are discoverable as they did it to collect money for the Melanoma Foundation and were met at the Sydney Opera house on his return by the media.

See info in his book - In One Lifetime - Graham Forlonge. Can be viewed if Googled Please advise how to correct this as we are not very computer literate. (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please point this out at the foot of Talk:World records for fastest motorcycle ride around Australia. There are already two questions on that page to which, it seems, nobody has paid any attention; and therefore you might reasonably suppose that nobody will pay attention to your message either. But after you've posted your message there, post another to the foot of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian motorsport, not to duplicate it but instead to invite people to see it. Note that you'll need to cite independent evidence. Saying that "facts are discoverable" isn't enough: precisely where are the facts published? (The sources must be independent of the riders.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Getting intervention for incompetent editor[edit]

I’ve run across an editor whose command of English is poor enough that each edit they’ve done is incomprehensible. What’s the best way to get appropriate intervention with minimum drama? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's incomprehensible to you, Rsjaffe, but it might be comprehensible to others. Please (undramatically) identify the writer. -- Hoary (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hoary: Apparently it's User:BLACK NIGHT ARMY. The user page is written in the same incomprehensible English as the edits.
I routinely revert English that is not clear enough for me to correct, or if the words add no value. @Rsjaffe: perhaps a polite suggestion on the user's talk page may be in order, suggesting that they propose changes on the talk page, or focus on a version of Wikipedia in their own native language. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently some kids in a non-US country think WP is a bulletin board or social media. Their English is poor. Their content is low quality junk. Per WP:CIR, I have warned them on their talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formatting on page messed up and sections not appearing[edit]

I'm working in a sandbox creating an article and the formatting has gotten messed up with sections not appearing on the page or not being formatted in the original content. Also in this specific sandbox4 in "Early Life" I can't get the template of songs out of the section and when I try to delete it, it completely messes up the lower section "Billboard Charts". Can you assist me and let me know what I'm doing incorrectly so I can fix it?

Thank you so much for your helpPennyframstad (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)pennyframstadReply[reply]

@Pennyframstad: Headings should be marked up as headings; they are not just text with a style applied. They need to be actual headings so that the automatically-generated table of contents works properly. I have done this for you in your sandbox so you can see how it's done. Also, we don't use title case on Wikipedia. All headings should be sentence case; see MOS:HEADINGS. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Anachronist can you look at the "early life section" and remove the template at the bottom of the section? When I try deleting it deletes the "Billboard singles". Not sure what to do. thank you so much Pennyframstad (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)pennyframstadReply[reply]

@Pennyframstad: You didn't properly close a named citation tag, so the discography section was assumed to be part of a mangled and incomplete citation. I just did it for you, by adding a single character. See this diff to see what I did. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much Anachronist! I have another quick question. When I tried to switch one section to another section and it didn't show in the preview so I didn't make the edit. Can you tell me what happened with that? I've had that happen in the past too and I'm never quite sure what happened. I even moved to the content into another sandbox and it still did it. Thanks your helpPennyframstad (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)pennyframstadReply[reply]

Are you using the visual editor? I use the standard plain source editor, and if I want to see a preview, I click the "preview" button. Honestly, I didn't know there was an automatic preview feature, if that's what you're implying. I would say, if what you do doesn't show up in the automatic preview, it probably couldn't parse what you did, it might be best not to save it. In my opinion the most reliable way to edit is with the source editor, but that admittedly has a learning curve. Wiki-markup isn't hard to learn though. You can learn nearly all you need to know by looking at the source text already in your draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist: The reply tool has an automated preview feature, and AFAIK you can even enable live preview for the source editor via a preference. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Input on a page I am trying to get approved[edit]

Any feedback on this? I was initially told the chief wasn't notable enough to have a page. I tried to beef it up to include more information about his notable accomplishments other than being a police chief. JenniferRose77 (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, JenniferRose77. WP:ONE EVENT specifies that, when notability-qualifying material is published about a subject, and it pertains to a single event (e.g., the murder or George Floyd), then the subject is not Wikipedia-notable. Other than his video advice to cops, Axtell is a fairly typical police chief in a larger city.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. That makes sense, I suppose. (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JenniferRose77: I'll say that you improved it significantly since it was declined. Did you let the previous reviewer know? In addition to the comment above, my concern is that some of the sources appear to be WP:ROUTINE and not independent of the subject (police publications for example). While you wait for someone to review it, you can make further improvements. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. That's helpful. I'll work on improvements. I did let the previous reviewer know. (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JenniferRose77: I'm going to unfortunately have to disagree with @Anachronist:'s assessment of the updated article. You added a Twitter link, an in-line external link to Axtell's web site (see WP:EL), and a YouTube link to a WCCO segment on the local CBS news. Of the three, only the YouTube link contributes to notability since it's indepth coverage of his last day. This is a better source for Todd Axtell Day than Twitter. Nonetheless, I don't think it moves the notability needle enough to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. There needs to be more coverage showing why he's notable, and not just for being a long-serving police chief. Also of concern is that this appears to be a resubmitted draft of Draft:Todd Axtell, which was declined four times. With the WP:SPA nature of the two accounts that created the drafts, I have to ask if you are the same person. I also have to ask if you have a conflict of interest. You've added unsourced info that seems only someone closely connected to the chief would know. Please read WP:COI and make the necessary disclosures. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

foul language[edit]

Is foul language taboo (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are certainly articles that contain content that some readers may find offensive. See WP:NOTCENSORED, but using foul language on Talk pages is generally unacceptable. See WP:ETIQUETTE. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse. It isn't taboo, but gratuitous use of it on here may be seen as inappropriate and removed by way of a policy like Wikipedia:Civility. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When to write quotes in their original language versus English?[edit]

What is the guidance for when quotes should be translated, when they should be given in their original language but also translated, and which should come first? The MOS for quotations doesn't seem to include this and just says that non-English quotations should appear with a translation; doesn't say anything about when to put only English. Specifically, Louis XIV#quotes has it three different ways and Women's March on Versailles#Attack on the palace is a good article but has an untranslated French quote. mossypiglet (talk) Go blue! 00:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mossypiglet, make that Louis XIV#Quotes (it's case-sensitive). I suggest that a quotation should always be in both the original language and in English unless there's a pretty compelling reason to skip the one or the other, for example, that the original can't be translated well without commentary and anyway is so well known that it has an article that can be linked to. (Cf Honi soit qui mal y pense.) As for the order to put them -- non-English and then English, or vice versa -- and whether to relegate one or other to a note, I suggest an effort towards consistency within a given context (though not if consistency would have grotesque results). Too much effort can be put into making MoS more comprehensive: a vast MoS could be laborious to consult and therefore counterproductive. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i am trying to rename my sandbox page but idk how[edit]

i'm new to wikipedia and idk how to rename my sandbox page Technofacts (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming is called "moving". Click on the option to "Move" your sandbox. (Of course, you can't just move it anywhere.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, @Technofacts, and welcome to the Teahouse! Adding onto what the previous answer said, the move option is usually found under the "More" category on the top right of your screen. It depends on the device, though.
Asparagusus (interaction) 01:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Technofacts. Instead of trying to WP:MOVE your primary user sandbox to a new title, it might be better for you to create a sub-sandbox (userspace draft) instead. You can copy-and-paste the content in your user sandbox into your the userspace draft you create and then WP:BLANK your main sandbox for you to work on other things if you want. Finally, based on what you've been working on in User:Technofacts/sandbox, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because none of the content currently in your user sandbox is even close to being OK for Wikipedia. If your intent is to try and create a WP:ARTICLE about a Twitch streamer, then there's still lots of work that needs to be done before it would even be considered viable even as a WP:DRAFT for a possible future Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How can I add references to an article while editing from a mobile? Adibens (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you editing "source", Adibens, or are you using the "visual editor"? If the former, then in the same way that you'd add them when using a computer. If the latter, I have no idea. -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hoary I use source editor and I haven't edited from a computer yet so I've no idea how to add references at all. Adibens (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:TUTORIAL and User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been through WP:TUTORIAL and I understood the format of adding references but my question is how do I add them? Do I just look for them in the web and then add them? Adibens (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not normally, Adibens. (You only do this when you encounter some sloppily unreferenced material, think there are good sources for it, search for these sources, and, if you find them, then add them.) What you normally do is start with good sources, whether on the web or on paper. You condense what you read in those good sources, add it to drafts or articles, and refer to it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

new Greek article[edit]

Does anyone know the Greek Wikipedia page where I can write a new Greek article like in English Wikipedia:How to create a page? Wname1 (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wname1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You might get lucky and find someone familiar with the Greek Wikipedia here- but your best bet is to ask this question on the Greek Wikipedia. I suspect that the process is roughly the same there as it is here, though. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wname1: I don't know Greek Wikipedia policies but if you just mean the technical question of how to create a new page then Wikipedia:How to create a page gives several ways. All of them also work at the Greek Wikipedia except the "Create page" box which would require finding a similar box there. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Use and found now Wikipedia:Help desk on Greek Wikipedia, thanks! Wname1 (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is the article made, not showing on the google search?[edit]

I have made an article and published it... the article is as per requirements of the wikipedia and meets all of the pre-requisites. However, in google search the article doesn't show up even after the article being published 2 months back. Please help BigGenie (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BigGenie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you referring to Manu Kumar Srivastava? Another account created it, are you the operator of that account as well? It takes time for Google to index articles, which only happens once the article is formally patrolled(which this article seems to be). Edits to the article were removed- perhaps that's what you mean? Do you have a particular interest in the article appearing in search results? 331dot (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am following this page and even editing it.. I was not the creator. Oh so the page needs to patrolled before it crawls on google BigGenie (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Expanding on 331dot's answer, new pages in articlespace are indexed by search engines when a new pages patroller reviews it or 90 days have passed, whichever comes first. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BigGenie I was just going by what you said, "I have made an article and published it". But that's okay. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That article has not been patrolled, is still listed at WP:NPP, & is WP:NOINDEXed. David Biddulph (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to approach a lack of sources?[edit]

Hello all! I want to say first off that I'm new here, so any advice is appreciated. Anyways, I am trying my best to translate the de:Gerhard_Gerlich article from the German branch of wikipedia into English. Originally I just wanted to translate the article, but since my draft was rejected for a lack of sources and references I began looking for those, as the original article itself lacked them. My issue then became, however, that the amount of information on this individual was rather sparse in all existing references. What I ended up finding was a biography on the individual commissioned by an independent organization to an independent (but accredited and experienced) biographer, which itself used plenty of official and reputable sources, both government and academic.

My question now is, in trying to expand and rewrite this article with the appropriate citations I've found myself nearly solely citing this singular biography, partially out of convenience but primarily out of necessity. I need to ask, is this poor practice? I looked on the article for how to write my first article, and it mentioned that the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize other quality and reputable articles. I just want to make sure that primarily using this one biography, only sometimes supplemented by others, instead of relying on a variety of sources, won't be frowned upon.Jazzertyy (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jazzertyy Hello and welcome. It would be rare, I think, for an article to be accepted that is only sourced to a single source. In general multiple independent reliable sources are needed(there is no specific number, but usually three is what is looked for). It may be acceptable on the German Wikipedia to use a single source, every language version of Wikipedia has its own policies and editors that decide what is acceptable. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose you mean de:Gerhard Gerlich? As there is no Gerhard Gerling on de-wikipedia... Lectonar (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did yes, I'm on mobile right now so my ability to write properly is a bit inhibited, thank you. Jazzertyy (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I think there is a meaningful enough difference between using only a single source and primarily relying on say, one or two, while supplementing it with additional ones for smaller details. I just didn't know if disproportional citation of one source was bad practice. Jazzertyy (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess it depends on how small the details are. Generally it is expected that an article will cite multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage in order to meet the notability definition. I could certainly see one fantastic source backed up by a few sources for specific details as being acceptable. I don't think it is an inherently bad practice. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually recall the article's initial review already confirming that the subject met notability requirements, so I'll just continue on as I've been and keep looking for other sources, thank you for the advice. Jazzertyy (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the sources in the de-article...quite a few are about the school named after him which was later renamed. The talk-page over there also has some discussion about sources. Looking at your edits and the source you added to the de-article on October 5th (and which haven't been accepted yet), the source being an assessment from the Biografie- und Chronik-Service Dr. Ulrich Erdmann (BCE) which was written on behalf of the Sudetendeutsches Kulturwerk Schleswig-Holstein e.V.....someone with a better knowledge of what constitues a reliable source in cases like these would be needed. Lectonar (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assist on my draft[edit]

Hi, I'd really appreciate some assist on my draft, which keeps getting draftified saying "not ready for mainspace." Can anyone independently review it and move it to mainspace, or point me out the incorrections so that I can rectify them? Thanks a lot. Bangladeshbatelion (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bangladeshbatelion You have submitted it for review(a good thing, I think). Do you want the review process to play out or do you want someone else to just place it in mainspace for you? If you want to try to persuade someone to move it for you without a review, you should reverse your submission for review. Do you have a particular need to see this urgently placed in mainspace? 331dot (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My initial question is, which of the suggested criteria for a likelihood of reliable sources do you claim he meets? 331dot (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bangladeshbatelion: Are you evading a block? It seems that every other editor who has created that draft was a sockpuppet of Mostly shoaib. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you aren't that editor, then that's fine, just say so. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]