Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1248

Hello!

I am currently writing an article about Shamate, and this is what I have for the lede section:

Shamate^[a] or SMART is a youth subculture and fashion movement originating from factory workers in 2000s South China. It is characterized by eccentric makeup, hairstyles and clothing.

Is 12 back-to-back citations too many? Is there any guideline against having so many citations next to each other? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, 12 is too many! Quality over quantity. Use just a few in the Lead. The others can be used in the body of the article if those provide different views or detailed information on this youth subculture. David notMD (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of a citation is usually to provide verification for one or more claims in the preceding sentence or paragaph: nothing else. (I've put "usually" in for caution: I can't think of any exceptions).

It follows that putting more than one citation at the end of a passage is justified only when the passage contains more than one claim, and the claims are not all verifiable in a single source. ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka Yes there is, WP:OVERCITE. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

How would I go about creating a task force? I had the idea for a one revolving around Stephen King under WikiProject Horror, but I'm not sure how to start. Help? LeGoldenBoots (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@LeGoldenBoots I assume that the editors who might be interested in joining such a task force will already be watching the talk pages of WikiProject Horror, so that's where I suggest you post your idea, giving enough detail about what the TF would actually do. Then you can subsequently begin the work and see if anyone joins in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

So I've read over Wikipedia's policy on legitimate alt accounts, but one thing I'm not clear on is whether or not I would be allowed, say, to have an alt account to edit articles I don't want to edit on my main. For example, I am understandably uncomfortable editing articles that are, shall we say, NSFW/fall under WP:NOTCENSORED. Would creating an alt account solely for editing...such pages be a legitimate reason? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

You cannot have an unannounced alt account, I think. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 19:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I know that, but I am asking if what I listed in the last two sentences in my original message would count as a valid reason to create an alt account. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 20:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, RedactedHumanoid! The following is my interpretation of policy only and I don’t claim to speak for all users in what I say. With that disclaimer in mind, I think such an account, though not explicitly allowed by policy, would not fall afoul of policy as long as you are very careful not to use it for any inappropriate uses. For instance, I would especially stay away from contributing to the same discussions with both accounts at all just to be safe even if you’re not hiding your dual-account status – though that’s less likely to be an issue if they handle completely separate topic matters.

Unless you really need to avoid it, I would suggest disclosing as normal in some manner. Policy states Individuals operating undisclosed alternative accounts do so at their own risk and against the recommended operating processes of this project; it does also state Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, unless where doing so would defeat the point of the account, but I don’t think an account like you’re asking about is as likely to fall under that category.

It would probably be best to wait and see if other experienced editors have other thoughts, but I think the main issue is to avoid any illegitimate uses. I don’t think editing other articles is, on its own, an illegitimate use, though.

Hope this helps! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Yeah I've been skeptical of creating an alt account for such purposes because the guidelines for legit alt accounts don't talk about the reason's I'm specifying. I think I'll wait to see what other editors might have to say as you suggested. Thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd roughly agree with that assessment. The whole policy is not so much about legitimate alt accounts, but illegitimate ones. Understanding the inappropriate uses is the key to understanding the policy. With a 'privacy' account, which is what this appears to be, obviously stating the owner may go against that purpose, but it still may be useful to state that it's an alt. Keep your edits strictly segregated, and just don't do anything controversial (in the Wikipedia sense). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

By strictly segregated I assume you mean only edit articles that the alt account is intended to edit, and not articles that I would normally edit here on my main account? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Don't cross the streams. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

zzuuzz's point is never use more than one account to edit the same article or Talk page. David notMD (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so on the Heron page, there is a map purportedly showing the worldwide distribution of herons. Clicking on the image, it is "own work" based on a book, which is a lot more intanglible than a newspaper source with a numbered link. However, the map is wrong. Just heading over to the article Grey heron one can see its distribution map, showing it a breeding bird or resident of areas not on the first map.

Now, it seems like I should raise this point on the article talk page instead, but my main question is not about the herons really. Its more about the WP:BOLD thing. My bold response would be to just delete the image, but that seems a bit extreme. Ribidag (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ribidag The map is copied on Commons and very widely used in other-language Wikis as File:Heron_range.png, so I think you should take your concerns to Commons. The original uploader is now long retired. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I brought it up at the map section of their village pump, thanks for directing me there. Ribidag (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

let's say i'm using a source on something. say then, that it's written in some weird fictional language, and says

"O trabalho de Pedro Pepeca, por mais engraçado que seja, sofre de uma falta de variedade. (...) Se tu viu um, tu viu tudo."

transl. "Pedro Pepeca's work, as funny as it is, suffers from a lack of variety. (...) If you've seen one, you've seen it all."

in such cases, if i want to quote it, is it fine to use a literal translation, or is it better to just not directly quote it at all? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Consarn. WP:NONENG says "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations". ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

in the specific case this is about (this review of tattoo asssassins, which keen eyes will notice is written in spanish), it seems the extent of my knowledge of spanish (which admittedly begins and ends at knowing portuguese) would be enough to translate "grotescamente planos" (used to describe that game's stages) as "grotesquely flat", which is so unambiguous that machine translators defaulted to that being portuguese

thanks consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:SPI-puppeteer-note

Template:SPI-discussion-note ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 19:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Why do we need such template if we already have {{uw-socksuspect}}? ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 03:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

They have both cases. A sock warning, and a warning for the puppeteer. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 03:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated both on WP:TFD as similar template exists.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 03:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I literally already knew that. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 05:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Stumbleannnn Duplicate templates are often viewed as a maintenance burden. I pretty frequently come across templates where the original author hasn't been active for a decade or more, and so bugs get reported on the talk pages but never fixed. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Fine. Are these templates atleast good?

Template:Uw-typo1

Template:Uw-typo2

Template:Uw-typo3

Template:Uw-typo4

Template:Uw-typo4im ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 21:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Stumbleannnn, It would be better if you ask that on talk page of User warnings wikiproject.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 01:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'll also note that the one time I did a template of this type, I did get some solid feedback from an experienced editor over there, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse community of Wikipedia, hope you are spending quality and academical times as always!

This is your colleague Mustafa with other served account.

Today I have a question of making an article viewed on Wikipedia, how can i quicken the review process, thanks?

Here is the link of the edited article pending: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MustafaAldahabi/sandbox MustafaAldahabi (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @MustafaAldahabi. Your draft has been reviewed, and declined, probably because most of it is unreferenced.

Where did you get the information from? If from a reliable published source, wholly independent of Hani, then cite it. If not, then it probably doesn't belong in the article.

More importantly, you need sources sufficient to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which your draft certainly does not at present.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Colin for sharing those useful thoughts and contribution tips with me.

Now that I have all data written and displayed.

The problem is with citing and indicating external link only, or using extra paragraphic by mentioning reference notions 'notions found related with other Wikipedia articles and such?

Thanks! MustafaAldahabi (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The phrasing of this draft, MustafaAldahabi, is promotional. It reads like a press release. Do not attempt to impress readers. Instead, try your hardest to inform readers. -- Hoary (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

And more, MustafaAldahabi. The draft has three references. Each of the three is to something with a specific title, in English. Yet each is linked to the top page of a website. One of these three turns out to be in Arabic. The other two are offline. -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Hoary

So if I enhanced it to be informing instead of promoting and highlighting each citations carefully and show that third party links are a proof of identity and achievement claimer to the the Athlete"Ahmad Bani Hani" then the frame of the article will look better and more reading effecient, right? MustafaAldahabi (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Your Instagram post congratulates Ahmad Bani Hani as your cousin, and directs others to view his self-promotional web site. This makes this Wikepedia article seem like an attempt to promote (not inform), as well as a conflict of interest. I'm not doxxing anyone, the name listed in your userpage self-promotional material is easily searchable. Put your name and the article subject's name in a web search, and your relationship is there. Just Al (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I am in the process of making Pixels (2015 film) a good Article but one of the requests on the review page was:

• use a combined footer text instead of separate captions.

This is what is being addressed (and I do not know how to "use a combined footer text" so if anyone could show me how that would be great thanks): {{multiple image | width = 250 | align = left | image1 = Pixels - NY Subway Entrance - Side View.JPG | caption1 = Movie prop for ''Pixels'' in [[downtown Toronto]] | image2 = Pixels - NY Subway Entrance - End View.JPG | caption2 = Prop for NY Subway entrance has no stairs. }} 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

To editor Yovt: If this is what you've currently got:

Movie prop for Pixels in downtown Toronto

Prop for NY Subway entrance has no stairs.

you can change it to this:

Movie prop for Pixels in downtown Toronto for a New York subway entrance.

Cremastra (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Yovt, building on the suggestion above, you can also swap "width = 250" for "total_width = 500", to make the images the same height:

Movie prop for Pixels in downtown Toronto for a New York subway entrance.

The documentation for Template:Multiple image is pretty confusing (perhaps because it can do so much?). I think the "captionx" parameters are really only used to identify images; any kind of description or explanation is usually placed in the overall "footer". Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I wrote and submitted an article for creation in December - Draft:Ancora Holdings Group But I cannot find it on the AfC list of articles pending approval. Did I do something wrong in posting for approval? How can I find out if I posted it correctly? Or if I have to do it again? Thanks. Benetsee (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Benetsee: I might be missing something, but it doesn't look like you ever submitted your draft for review. Did you create your draft using Wikipedia:Articles for creation or did you just create a page in the draft namespace yourself? If you did the latter, you would've needed to manually add the template {{AfC submission/draft}} to the top of the page, and then click the blue "Submit" button when you're ready for it to be reviewed. Do you remember doing any of that? If not, then you might've mistakenly assumed that any draft you created would automatically be submitted for review. FWIW, if you look at the page history for the draft, you'll see that an editor named Justiyaya is currently "reviewing" it; so, perhaps you'll know more in a little while once they've finished. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks; I don't really remember what I did - it was in December, but it's all working now. I'll remember next time. Benetsee (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Benetsee Hiya, I moved it to mainspace. I don't think the draft was submitted. Most of your sources looks good, I've removed some that wasn't good enough and fixed some tonal issues. Good work! Justiyaya 02:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. Sometimes I think Wikipedia is like a bar exam - just when you're comfortable, there's more to learn. Appreciate the work you did to assist me. Benetsee (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I submitted this article, Printables, to the Articles for Creation, got a response, but don't know where to start. I'm trying to find reliable sources and add credible information, but I just can't see enough of it out there. What can I do now? MrGumballs (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I have searched a little about that company but i found zero information on reliable and credible ground. maybe that company is not a notable one.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 03:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Would it just be better to almost just forget about the article until it becomes notable enough to find credible sources? MrGumballs (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like it may be too soon. You're going to want to find more secondary sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll wait it out. I'm mainly waiting for one giant milestone in the website's history. MrGumballs (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @MrGumballs. Writing an article without first finding adequate sources to establish notability, is like building a house without first surveying the plot to make sure it is fit to build on, or building foundations. Even if you do decide it is fit to build on, you're probably going to have to go back and underpin.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. It's the same idea as making a stance on an argument or point of view before evern having any prior knowledge on it. Except on Wikipedia it's more of a neutral point of view. Thank You! MrGumballs (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I made an edit on United States DOGE Service wherein I replaced a link to an executive order on the whitehouse.gov page to one in the federal register, as the latter is a more reliable source etc. The only problem is I am quite unfamiliar with citing US legal sources on Wikipedia, so I just plugged a bunch of values into cite:journal and went with whatever came out (its citation 1). If I'm honest I'm not very happy with winging it with sources and just going with whatever looks right, so I was interested if someone could help me answer the following questions: 1. is it preferable to use a PDF or website link? In my citation I linked a PDF of the EO published in the federal register, and I'm not sure if this is better or worse than using a web page version of it 2. Is this style of citation acceptable on Wikipedia, or should I seek to use the templates in Template:United States legal citation templates for uniformity? 3. Other than those templates, is there anywhere else where I can find information on citing legal sources on wikipedia? Its always seemed like a bit of a struggle to know whether youre citing something correctly or not

Sorry for the long post, these issues are just bothering me, and sorry if the questions are dumb. notadev (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The questions are legitimate and I can see where you're coming from. I would say, with the format you have, a PDF compared to a website link wouldn't matter, unless one of the sources contained more information than the other, in which you'd use that one. Also, if you would like to go through the hastle of finding a template, it would be neater, garnering more reliability in the article. If you're looking for citing sources help, I'd recommend reading through this page thoroughly for a deeper more directed analysis on citiations. MrGumballs (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I guess my question about web page vs PDF was more concerned with preventing link rot, but I think since they’re both US federal government links it should be alright in that regard? I think using the proper templates would be better, but I feel like I come across them so little that they seem more like a novelty… that my might my prejudiced view though notadev (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

NotADev, there are many ways to properly format a reference. The specific technique is secondary. What is most important is how the reference displays to readers. The whole point is to present the fullest and most accurate bibliographic information to the reader. That includes the title of the work linked to a URL when available, the author(s), the publisher, the date of publication, the page number if relevant, the ISBN number if it is a book, the name of the publication if it is a newspaper, magazine, journal or reliable website, and in select cases, a brief quotation. Personally, I take great pleasure in crafting accurate, well-formatted references and when I do my final proofread on one, I feel good about it. All that being said, it is best practice to follow the established citation style on decent quality articles if you can do so. Cullen328 (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@NotADev, this is unrelated to the citation formatting question, but readers are more likely to click the links in a citation if they are PDF links. No idea why, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

It's easier for people to open PDF's than websites. Also, take a look between a PDF and a website. Often, I find that naturally I'm inclined to open a PDF because it naturally looks more credible. This doesn't mean it is more credible though at all. MrGumballs (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm amazed at this. For me, having to open a PDF or other file is a definite turn-off, compared to just going to a website. Personal view. --ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

+1 Schazjmd (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I have previously submitted a COI request on the Tencent Cloud Talk page, using the COI template as advised but have not received any assistance so far. As a follow-up, I wonder if any voluntary editor would be interested to review our request there? Greatly appreciate the help. TencentCommsYeran (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi TencentCommsYeran. It looks like when you originally posted your request you used the {{Help me}} template instead of the {{Edit COI}} template, which is probably why you've not received a reply yet. Even though you tried to remedy this after the fact, your request still seems a bit malformed and more of a discussion than a request. Perhaps the best thing for you to do might just be to start again with a new request. This time I suggest you follow the guidance in Wikipedia:Edit requests and keep your request a simple as possible. The users who help answer such requests are volunteers just like everyone else who edits Wikipedia, and they might pass over requests with lots of moving parts that seem like they might be time consuming to sort out. You might get a faster response if you break your request up so that you're only asking one thing per request instead of trying to do a major rewrite of the article in one fell swoop. There are instructions on how to use the "Edit COI" template on its documentation page; so, just follow the instructions there. You could also try asking about this at WP:COIN, but again trying to request too much at once might lead to your request being passed over by those not willing to try and sort through everything. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Marchjuly for this detailed instruction. Will have a try! TencentCommsYeran (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, do you know the reason why on Wikipedia the page of the Prime Minister of Ireland kept the Irish name (Taoiseach) but the page of the President of Ireland has the English name (sorry English is not my native language !) We are having a discussion on WP:FR about the renaming of Taoiseach. Thank you for your help, best regards, Pierrette13 (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Because Taoiseach has made it into English, while the President still uses President. CMD (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Pierrette13 You can see a previous discussion at Talk:Taoiseach#Just_call_it_Prime_Minister_in_the_Title. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

how to move draft page to article Jagirani110 (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Jagirani110, are you asking about Draft:Jagirani? For a standalone article the threshold on Wikipedia is explained at Wikipedia:Notability. This is a higher bar than having sources to show the information can be verified. As the summary at the top of the page says, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

yes asking jagirani draft Jagirani110 (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Jagirani has a submit for review 'button'. This will submit it for a reviewer to make a approved or declined decision. There is a constant backlog of drafts submitted for review. The system is not a queue, so it can be as fast as a day or as long as months before a reviewer makes a decision. If declined for a stated reason, the draft can be improved and submitted again. David notMD (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Do not submit until you have added more text.David notMD (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Courtesy link: Draft:Lewis Nitikman

Hello, everyone. Please, delete this draft. See discussion: СтасС (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.--СтасС (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, please assist with pointing me in the right direction where the citations of my draft are concerned. On of the reasons the draft was declined was due to submission being improperly sourced. I have gone through the list of citations to ensure that they were extracted from reliable sources (ie: News organisations, Notable publishers, Official Government websites, reputably recognised websites etc). I am not sure which of the citations are considered unreliable. I would greatly appreciate any guidance. I am in the process of reviewing neutral encyclopedic tone. Thanks in advance.

Draft: Tsitsi Masiyiwa Substantiator (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Substantiator There is unreferenced content. I did some copyediting to align the draft with Wikipedia guidelines. David notMD (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@David notMD Thank you kindly Substantiator (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll cut to the chase: If an existing Wikipedia user has to create an additional Wikipedia account, one affiliated with an educational institution/university for training, Wiki-drive, etc., using their name and ID/enrollment number, and they wish not to disclose that on Wikipedia for anonymity (albeit they do not have an issue just specifying the existence of that good faith account), how are they supposed to go about the process? Are there any disclosure rules or guidelines for such a scenario? Thanks, Dissoxciate (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dissoxciate. This kind of thing is covered in WP:SOCKLEGIT. If someone is using alternative accounts in a way that keeps each account separate and distinct from the other, they might go unnoticed; most people, however, exhibit a tell when they edit, and it's possible someone might notice a similarity between two accounts even though the accounts might be being used for entirely different areas of Wikipedia. It's important to understand that Wikipedia is pretty much a honor system; so, the more transparent someone is about any alternative accounts they're using, the less likely they'll find themselves perhaps being accussed by others of doing something inappropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Marchjuly! I understand the case of tell and tone, and how it's advisable to be as transparent as possible about owning multiple accounts. I went through the information provided under WP:SOCKLEGIT. My final question, however, is, so long as the user mentions or discloses the existence of an alternative Wikipedia account within the lines of Sockpuppetry policy on their userpage, without explicitly disclosing the name of said account, there shouldn't be an issue vis-a-vis having multiple accounts, right? Dissoxciate (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

​ (Non-administrator comment) You might be better off asking this question at WT:SOCK, WP:AN or maybe via WP:IRC than here if you're looking for someone to sign off on such a thing and say it's OK to do; however, my personal feeling is that not disclosing the name of an alternative account kind of defeats the purpose of being transparent and could potentially lead to problems, i.e. others (including some outside of Wikipedia) trying to figure out what the other accounts are if they suspect they might be being used inappropriately or maybe even just because they want to. WP:OUTING is taken quite seriously and nobody is required to out themselves on Wikipedia (registering for an account isn't even required to edit most pages and do most things); so, one can try to keep their WP:REALWORLD life as private as possible. In principle, someone should be able to create an alternative account without revealing any or as little personal information about themselves as possible and then just make sure to keep their accounts as separate and distinct as possible. As long as none of the accounts are used to do anything inappropriate or there's no serious overlapping of pages edited, most experienced Wikipedians probably won't go looking for them just for the sake of doing so. A techinical connection between accounts might be detected by some types of users like a WP:CHECKUSER when there's just cause to look for it, but such users aren't really supposed their ability to do so except when justified in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies. Anyway, once a person starts posting on Wikipedia, though, the threat of doxing either within or outside of Wikipedia is always present, but such a thing pretty much seems to apply to any type of online presence. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey I've been creating new mainspace articles mostly on floods and other disaster, examples of articles I created are --- Floods in Algeria, Floods in Angola, Floods in Niger etc, this time I'm focusing on to create for botswana My doubt is Droughts are more common there so shall I create an article including all the events, though I'm not sure for the clarity as of my knowledge it would change the path of readers and topic, Need guidance!! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Droughts are a bit harder to define than floods (see Drought and the list link), and where do you stop? Floods in..., Droughts in..., Fires in..., Earthquakes in... Tornados in..., Hurricanes in..., etc.? David notMD (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Should the general articles be just changed to Natural Disasters in... for conformity and formality. Or would this just mean that people would have a harder time to find the answer to questions on Wikipedia? MrGumballs (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Given how short a lot of these articles are, it might be useful to make an article titled "Floods in Africa by country", and then put each country in a section. You could redirect the smaller flood pages to that one, and it might make it easier to cross reference. Alternatively another idea might be to do "Floods by country" unless that article gets too large.

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what your question is. If you want to make an article with all the droughts in Botswana, you'll need to make sure it meets the list notability policy, which can be satisfied most clearly by finding multiple reliable sources discussing "droughts in botswana" as a group. If you have an article of around the quality of the flood articles you might be able to add the actual list of droughts as extra helpful information, and then you wouldn't need to justify the notability of the article based on the list. If each drought is notable and you can find sources that thoroughly discuss them, then a list would also definitely be warranted, I think. There's a lot of ways you could do it as long as you make sure whatever article you do make meets the notability policy. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

How can I make an edit to a semi-protected page that requires an autoconfirmed user? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism Eliswinterabend (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Eliswinterabend. You can make an edit request here. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

You are auto-confirmed (4 days, 10 edits), so you should be able to edit the article directly. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello there, I was looking at the article for El Ballestero, and I noticed that Hannibal's name formatted with just his first name, and not as Hannibal Barca. I noticed that this is true also on Hannibal's page. Help would be appreciated. VibGans (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about the name of the article ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @VibGans, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that WP:COMMONNAME gives most of the answer. ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@VibGans I think @ColinFine wrote the better answer you can expect if you was talking about the name of the article. Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

VibGans, reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to this Carthaginian general as just "Hannibal", and therefore, Wikipedia will as well. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

~@Cullen328 I agree with you. Do you have a particular source in mind ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Anatole-berthe, this is not a matter of a specific source. It is a matter of the preponderance of the sources. Just go to Google Books and Google Scholar and search for "Hannibal Barca". You will see many reliable sources that mention once that was his full name although some may say "Hannibal of the Barca clan". But after that brief mention, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to him as just Hannibal, time after time after hundreds of times. In classical antiquity, today's given name-surname structure was unknown, although the Romans developed a version of it over time. Figures like Socrates, Alexander, Plato, Moses, Ptolemy, Hammurabi, Cleopatra and Cyrus were known only by a single name, although other descriptives were often appended as their fame grew. So, "Barca" was the name of his clan and means "thunderbolt" or "lightning" but is not a modern surname, and he was commonly known as "Hannibal" then and now. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! VibGans (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

We agree on the fact the overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to him as just Hannibal.

I thought you had maybe a specific source in mind. Your answer made me realise I was wrong.

Thanks for your answer !

PS : I knew already facts exposed by yourself about "surnames" in classical antiquity.

I hope it will be useful for those who didn't knew. Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Greetings everyone, HC226 here. I have noticed that there is no page for the fitness clothing brand YoungLA. I will create the page if needed but was wondering whether or not it fits notability criteria. It seems to be well-known and has many famous athletes on their roster. However, information about them is minimal and it hasn't been thoroughly covered in the press. HC226 (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@HC226 Welcome to the Teahouse. If information about it is minimal then it is unlikely to qualify for an article here. Please see WP:42 for the mimnimum requirements. Being well known and supplying famous athletes is not relevant. Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, just thought it was an unusual situation since they are prominent in the fitness industry but don't seem to have attracted news outlets or other mainstream media. HC226 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The talk page is very long, and lots of discussions are ~15 yrs old. Should I archive the discussions which have no recent comments? BennBluee (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

In my knowledge , there are no policy about managing archives on the "Talk page" of an "User". But I can be wrong.

I think you can act like you want about archives. Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Friedmann equations isn't a user talk page, Anatole-berthe.

BennBluee, it would be worth setting up automatic archiving for that page, I think. See Help:Archiving a talk page for the options. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes , it is not an "user talk page" , I was wrong. Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! BennBluee (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:uw-typo1

Template:uw-typo2

Template:uw-typo3

Template:uw-typo4

Template:uw-typo4im ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 21:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Nicely designed, but oddly specific. While I've seen this kind of vandalism before, generic templates are perfectly good. Cremastra (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the specificity of these are not needed. David notMD (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The very nature of typographical errors is that it is almost impossible to call them "purposeful" with any degree of accuracy. A large majority of such errors are accidental. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

It's only used in cases where it's very apparent it was on purpose. (E.g: someone adds a typo to a perfect sentence.) ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 07:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I can think of like 3 times a vandal made this type of typo-making edit.

Something like this: "The sky is blue" ---> "The sky is ble" Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be a needlessly-specific type of the well-used {{uw-disruptive1}} series, that includes so many possibilites of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, etc. That template-set allows appending custom text (also supported by TW), if you feel like being more specific. The problem is that it's disruptive; level 1 presumes it's an accident or good-faith. How can an intentional typo be a good-faith edit? DMacks (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Fixed the wording for template:uw-typo1 ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 21:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Also fixed template:uw-typo2 because I accidentally left the "vandalism" part, changed it to "disrupt", and also changed up the wording to sound more correct. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 21:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Still, nope. David notMD (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I would like to create an article for Global Manga, so I moved the disambiguation page to Global Manga (disambiguation), thinking this would allow me to start the article. However, Global Manga is still a redirect, and I’m not sure how to proceed from here. Could someone kindly guide me on how to fix this so I can create the article properly? I really appreciate any help. Thank you so much! VelvetQuill (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Given your newness as an editor, I would very very very strongly advise you not to attempt to create an article directly, but to create a draft using the Articles for Creation process, and submit it for review.

But in fact, I will go further: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @ColinFine

Thank you very much for your thoughtful response and for taking the time to guide new editors. I truly appreciate your advice.

I actually have a few months of experience editing and translating Wikipedia in other languages, so I have a reasonable understanding of how it works, including policies on verifiability, neutrality, and reliable sources. That said, I always welcome guidance and constructive feedback!

My article is already in my sandbox, and I was considering submitting it for review. However, my concern is that the existence of the disambiguation page prevents the title from appearing as a red link, which means I wouldn't be able to properly connect my draft. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this clearly, but I believe this could be an issue.

Would you happen to know the best way to handle this? I want to follow the correct procedures and make sure the article is properly linked once it’s ready.

Thanks again for your time and advice!

Best regards,

@VelvetQuill VelvetQuill (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, @VelvetQuill. One of the advantages of going through the submission process is that when a reviewer accepts your draft, they will sort out any issues of disambiguation, existing redirects etc.

I see that you have added several references, whose titles suggest they might be valuable; but without an indication of the publisher, a reviewer is going to have difficulty evaluating their reliability and independence. While URLs are by no means required (they are a convenience to the reader and reviewer, rather than an essential part of the citation, and sources do not even need to be online) I predict that if you don't provide URLs, publishers, or page numbers, your draft will sit awaiting a review for a long time, because most reviewers will glance at it and say, "The author has left me too much work to do in tracking down the sources, so I will leave it and review something not so challenging" - or else they'll decline it with the message "Citations not properly formatted". It's not even clear what kinds of works these are: are they books, articles, papers? ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look at my draft and for your detailed feedback @ColinFine

The sources I included are books that I have in print. I thought that only the title and author were strictly required, but if adding more details like ISBN is recommended, I will certainly update the citations to include that information.

Thanks again for your help! I'll make those improvements right away.

Best regards, VelvetQuill (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@VelvetQuill, for book sources, please include the page numbers as well. Schazjmd (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I think everything should be ok now. VelvetQuill (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@VelvetQuill: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1248. If you really want to pursue this, I strongly recommend that you go through the Articles for Creation process. Looking at your sandbox where your content is stored, the (one) reference that you have will most likely be insufficient in establishing wikinotability, which means a new pages patroller is almost certainly going to ask for its deletion if it is published in articlespace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Tenryuu

Thank you very much for your advice.

I understand your concern regarding notability, and in fact, I was still in the process of completing the article. Since your message, I have already added many more references to strengthen its reliability. That said, if you notice any other issues, I’d be very grateful if you could point them out!

I do believe that Global Manga deserves to have an article rather than just a disambiguation page, even if some adjustments are needed. If necessary, I can also shorten the content, but I think it’s important to at least establish the topic.

Thanks again for your time and guidance! VelvetQuill (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft is at User:VelvetQuill/sandbox David notMD (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

yes, thank you. VelvetQuill (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

In the end I did submitted it for review...Let's hope for the best!

Thank you everyone! @ColinFine@David notMD@Schazjmd@Tenryuu VelvetQuill (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

can I have a small conversation or is it just helping build an article? $HADOW08 (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, $HADOW08, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm assuming you're talking about talk pages. Article talk pages are intended just for helping to improve articles on Wikipedia; conversations about the article topics are best left for somewhere else. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, $HADOW08. WP:What Wikipedia is not should have some answers for you. You can certainly have a "small conversation" about building the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned above, talk page discussions must be tied to making changes to the article. I see you've edited the some Legend of Zelda talk pages, so to put it in context you may understand:

Acceptable - "Hey everyone, they announced new sales figures for Echoes of Wisdom. I think it's impressive and worth mentioning. Is this a good source for adding it to the article?"

Unacceptable - "Hey everyone, I loved Echoes of Wisdom. What did you think? I hope it sells 20 million copies!"

Hopefully that makes sense. Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I want to make my page more livley other than user boxes, what other templates can be used for my wikipedia profile? IdkWiki700 (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

IdkWiki700, your (short) list of contributions to Wikipedia suggests that you have a lot more interest in your own user page than in the total of encyclopedia articles. Please make policy-compliant improvements to encyclopedia articles, and put aside your user page. -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@IdkWiki700 Wikipedia:User page design guide might have something you find interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Your User page is a confusing mess. I recommend deleting all and starting over. Per WP:UP, User pages are not meant to be 'profiles.' David notMD (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@IdkWiki700, there are few hard rules on user pages. Can I ask what the "nowiki" and "references" tags are meant to do there? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Blanking it and starting over was a good response to these comments. David notMD (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I had the idea to try and reorganize Red Bull GmbH but I've turned it into a jumbled mess. Can someone else please make an attempt at it? Electricmemory (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

If you made a jumbled mess, just Revert it and try to redo the edit without turning it into a jumbled mess JustSomeoneNo (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

You made a massive change to two articles, moving content from Red Bull to Red Bull GmbH. Your changes may get reverted at both. If so, start discussions on the relevant Talk pages. Personally, I agree with your concept, that the first should be about the product, and all the sports and arts and other promotional related content fits better at the company article. Others may disagree. David notMD (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Electricmemory Interestingly, at the Red Bull Talk page, back in 2015 (see Archive 1) people were debating whether to merge the product and company articles, or else move all the promotional/sports content to the company article. I am (slightly curious, as a non-user of the product or follower of the events) as to whether your radical changes remain intact. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Obviously I know how to actually edit the article, but the edit requests article says to " change the |answered=no parameter to "yes"" which means absolutely nothing to me, and I can't find anything regarding it. Aston305 (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured it out, don't mind me Aston305 (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Aston305 For anyone else who sees this, an edit request will have a {{edit request}} template. This will appear in the source editor as either {{edit request}} or {{edit request|answered=no}}. To mark it as answered and stop it appearing at CAT:ER, this needs to be changed to {{edit request|answered=yes}}. Ultraodan (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey there! I was in the process of adding logos to different high school pages, however I had a question.

For some schools, there are multiple variations of the logo. For example, Kealekehe High School has a version with text, without text, and there are schools with no text on their logo but rather on the side.

Is there a consensus on which logo should be used? I was thinking about using the ones without text, as that is most popularly used. Theadventurer64 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Theadventurer64. I recommend that you use the version that appears on the homepage of the school's own website, as that can be considered the most official and most current. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

How can I upload the official movie poster for Vikaasa Parva to Wikipedia without violating copyright? Is it permissible to download the official poster from sources like IMDb or Instagram? If yes, what information should I include while uploading it? If not, what are the alternative ways to upload the official movie poster? Thank you. Vikashcv (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Vikashcv:, I use WP:File upload wizard for this. You'll need to fill out a lot of specific details including the specific Wikipedia page it will be used on, who owns the image/copyright, what link you got the image from, and select the option for "official poster or cover art" or similar which indicates fair use. A bot will come in within a couple of days and automatically reduce the resolution, so a normal resolution image should be fine. I do notice that Vikaasa Parva already has a film poster though so I'm not sure if this already got completed. Let me know if that helps! Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

thanks for your time and guidance.. Vikashcv (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems that without bothering to wait for an answer here, Vikashcv uploaded the file, in an impermissibly large size (1000×1500 pixels). I got GIMP to reduce it, and deleted the original. (Now it will look as if I was the original uploader; I was not.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Noted. I'll be mindful in the future. Thanks for adjusting it. Vikashcv (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not completely sure if this is the right place to ask. But recently I have been editing some language articles and I noticed inconsistency in template use. There is a template {{Australian Aboriginal languages}} used for navigation between articles for Aboriginal languages, but only some of the articles have it. I was wondering if there was some way to mass add it to the articles without it, or if it would have to be done manually - or maybe its use isn't appropriate considering it isn't on many articles (I'm not sure). Thanks for any help. Ngarrtjapiri (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Ngarrtjapiri, welcome to the Teahouse! Whether or not the navigational template needs to be added is covered by the editing guideline on navigation templates:

Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional.

The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

You could ask for opinions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia or Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics, but please don't do it simultaneously at both places. To avoid discussion forks, you can start the discussion at one place and put invitation to join the discussion on the other.

If there is consensus to add the navigational boxes to all pages, it can be done with semi-automatic tools. Such a request can be placed at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very helpful. Ngarrtjapiri (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Ngarrtjapiri, I've modified your question a bit to display the name of a template. Hope you like it, but feel free to revert if you don't. --CiaPan (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Just saw here that some IP user made 2 edits, that claimed to be reverts. These are actually "null edits". They were made after I edited the bus color scheme section, which didn't seem to update since at least 2014. Is that normal? Or will it require some remedy? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

One possibility, CreatorTheWikipedian2009, is that the IP first thought that one year was a mistake for a different year, and a little later realized that no it wasn't. Remedy? Yes, of course: According to a reliable source to which you have access, which year is correct? Specify that year, and use a reference to cite a source for the year. -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi CreatorTheWikipedian2009. Click "prev" to see the changes in an edit. A null edit is a single edit which makes no changes in the wikitext and is not registered in page histories or user contributions. The edits were not null edits. The first changed 2003 to 2001 and the second changed it back. The first edit said "Tag: Reverted". That does not mean the edit was a revert. It means the edit was later reverted by a different edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

What? How these edits were reverts? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

To clarify:

1. First edit made at 20:39, changed the year for model "O345 Conecto" from 2003 to 2001. This edit was reverted.
2. Second edit made at 20:40, a minute later, is the revert. It reverted the first edit. It changed the year for the same model from 2001 back to the original 2003.

I hope this helps. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand. Was confused over 2 different years of the bus production. What an oblivious person I am... CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, a question is stumbling me, how I can request protection for arbitration enforcement (e.g. general sanctions)? Please give me some tips about ArbCom protection. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi there!

You can post a request at Requests for Page Protection and an administrator will take a look at it, but can you post what the article in question is here to see if arbitration enforcement is applicable? Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Politics of Russia. I need to find out if any arbitration enforcement, like, general sanctions, allpy to this article. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

apply, not "allpy", sorry for my typo. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

You can search for the article on the arbitration enforcement log, as well as any article you want to see, however if you are still unsure you can put a request a requests for page protection and let an administrator decide. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

How I can put arbitration enforcement into my protection request? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Just type arbitration enforcement in your reason. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Which arbitration enforcement? General sanctions? Or anything else? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I have checked and the page is not eligible for enforcement. See the log here. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

But it was semi-protected for one year, why it is still unprotected? Some "politics of" articles may suspect contentious topics. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The arbitration remedy was in 2022 and protected it for one year. As it is now 2025, the protection has expired. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 15:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, let's just leave the protection for now. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

is this source reliable https://zenodo.org/ Amandachapin (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

best to check here - WP:RSN aquarium substrate^talk 17:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Amandachapin Zenodo is not of itself a source but rather an archive of other sources, rather like the internet archive. So you have to judge the material in the archive on its own merits. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Need a hint! Previously, a topic was created in which I ask for a hint whether the sources in the article were chosen correctly. But the topic was archived, and the question was never answered.

I need your help. Xarina17 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Xarina17 Looking at the topic that you linked to, the three sources you identified are all "official portal of". Such sources are almost always primary sources, and do not contribute at all to establishing notability.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey there! I was working on adding logos for the article Pahoa High School and I found that there were two logos: one with words on the side of the logo and one without words completely. Because most places seem to use the one without words, I was wondering if I could use a logo without words for the main image and a wordmark for the words on the side of the logo, similar to how universities work. However, when Googled, I cannot find any official wordmark, but only the logo with the words on the side, linked above. In this case, would a custom wordmark be able to be created for the article, or should it be omitted completely?

To create the custom wordmark, I would either just crop out the logo (if that's allowed) or find the custom font used by the school, and use an editor to rewrite the words under Free Use. Theadventurer64 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Theadventurer64 I see newsletters used the old logo bug 'P' by itself up until 2022. The new logo is listed as just the 'P' on the athletic store ordering site. There are a lot of versions that have different fonts for the text of the school name. Not sure any one of them could be called the official logo. If the organization uses that format on its web site, you might screen grab it from there. Definitely don't try to reproduce the logo and pass it off as official.

[ Not an expert, but familiar with the specification process. As a designer in a former life, if the logotype is specified, then it's part of the logo. If it's not spec'd, then there is no logotype. Sadly, this means that every project will add their own interpretaion of a font and layout because there isn't a spec. That's my 2 cents. I've worked from spec identity manuals from organizations as large as MetLife with Snoopy graphics, Pacific Bell, Salvation Army, and contributed to and created corporate identity myself. ] Just Al (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you for the advice! Theadventurer64 (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello good morning from Indonesia. Basically I've registered for Wikipedia since 2015 but only contributed for several edits on several articles and just started my new article 2 days ago as a draft in English Wikipedia. I've created a draft for Draft:Winston Utomo and just declined with reason "This submission is not adequately supported by "reliable sources"". Honestly I've got several references on the draft but maybe I'm not fully understanding yet which one more or the most reliable one (example, https://www.fortuneidn.com/tag/winston-utomo ). Can anyone here help and give me some advices? Rachael Adrino (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rachael Adrino: Since Utomo is still alive, the stricter standards of WP:Biographies of living persons applies, which means you need to have a cite for every claim the article makes. Putting a source at the end of the paragraph is not enough; it's more likely you will need one at the end of each sentence, and possibly some in the middle of sentences. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright thank you, so I need to put the references (both I've added and the new one) in every sentences as possible as I can right, since I've created the article about living person?

And will you help me for checking the draft after I do several edits based on your suggestion next? Rachael Adrino (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rachael Adrino: You'll want to cite the references (Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once is helpful here) at the claims they can directly support, yes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll read & do my best for my first draft here. Rachael Adrino (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Good luck, Rachael! Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rachael Adrino: He may not be Wikipedia-notable, meaning that no amount of improving referencing will succeed. Documenting company funding does not contribute to a founder's notability, nor does documenting what are considered not Wikipedia-significant awards and honors. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Then what is the best solution regarding this? should it be maintained with the existing references or should it not be included in the article? Please provide me some advices. Rachael Adrino (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Which three or more references - English or other - meet the criteria of WP:42? The financial deals content and non-famous awards content can stay, but the draft has to have references that are at some length - not just name mention - about him. David notMD (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

What about these sources:

• https://www.idntimes.com/news/indonesia/syifa-putri-naomi/inspiratif-kegigihan-winston-utomo-di-balik-kesuksesan-idn-media
• https://biz.kompas.com/read/2024/11/22/151520328/pendiri-idn-winston-dan-william-utomo-dinobatkan-sebagai-ey-eoy-2024
• https://east.vc/id/berita/ev-dci-id/from-news-platform-to-a-complete-media-ecosystem-idn-medias-dream-of-democratizing-information/

I think they were meet the requirements, but if they were not, please explain to me then wisely. Rachael Adrino (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I have drafted an article about Taxila Business School and submitted it, but it was declined. I have since made improvements based on the feedback and added reliable sources.

Could an experienced editor please review my draft and provide suggestions for further improvement?

Here’s the link: Draft:Taxila Business School

Any feedback or guidance would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you! Jdesuza (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Jdesuza. Apart from the paragraph on the legal case, the article is merely telling run-of-the-mill information about the college - the sort of thing that would appear in its prospectus.

That's not what a Wikipedia article should do. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

And even the legal case hardly seems significant. What is it about the school that meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability? Unless you can answer that, there is no chance of the article's being accepted.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. (I see your account has been around for a couple of months, but you created this draft on your third edit, and most of your 52 edits have been to this draft). ColinFine (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine Thank you for your detailed feedback and for taking the time to review my draft. I understand your concerns regarding the notability and sourcing of the article. I now realize that Wikipedia prioritizes significant independent coverage rather than promotional or routine information.

I appreciate your guidance on improving my understanding of Wikipedia’s core policies before attempting to create an article. I will take a step back and focus on contributing to existing articles to familiarize myself with the principles of verifiability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing.

Regarding the legal case, I see your point about assessing its significance carefully. I will also re-evaluate the sources used and work towards ensuring that any future edits are based on substantial, independent coverage.

Thanks again for your constructive input. I’ll refine my approach and continue learning to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. Jdesuza (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jdesuza I took a brief look at the book citations #11 and #12, since I thought that if the school had been written about in books, that would be good evidence of wikinotability. Apart from the fact that you haven't provided page numbers, which a full citation would do, I discovered that each book has less than a sentence about Taxila, which is hardly significant coverage. I therefore conclude that your draft is unlikely to pass muster. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you for reviewing my draft and for your insights regarding the book citations. I understand that for Wikipedia, significant and in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources is essential for establishing notability.

I appreciate your feedback on the citations and will work on improving them by providing full references, including page numbers. Additionally, I will re-evaluate the sources to ensure they meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability and provide substantial coverage of the subject.

Your guidance is valuable as I refine my approach to editing on Wikipedia. If you have any further suggestions on strengthening the article’s sourcing, I would be grateful for your insights. Jdesuza (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Not a comment on sourcing but please do not use large language models to create articles or talk page comments. We want to interact with people, not AI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'm working on pages of 2025 Asian Winter Games which will end in two days. I'm archiving sources from official website but I'm afraid that these information might disappear after the Games is over and that I might not have enough time to archive all these sources before they disappear. So I'm wondering how to automatically archive sources instead of archiving them mannually? Qby (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Qby, I don't know if this is what you are looking for but check the InternetArchiveBot. This will let you run it on the specific page. Goodluck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I need help making a wiki page for Comic Studio

Pls help... Wiki Fan49346824908 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Fan49346824908, it doesn't look as if you've started. Before you start, please read Help:Your first article and think hard about what it says. -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts are here to advise on specific queries, not co-author. David notMD (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Wiki Fan49346824908. Read Help:Your first article. And submit thru Article wizard. Thank you and welcome to Wikipedia! Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 01:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't look to me like it would be a notable enough website to warrant an article. I wouldn't put time into it. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I found this ip making some good faith edits here and . I reverted these edits due to the user not supplying a edit summary and removing content. Shortly after, the user readded the information, now with a edit summary . I decided the edits were fine, but I want to know if any more interventions are needed. Should I revert these users edits again or should I leave them be? Justjourney (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No further action is needed. They've adapted their behaviour and provided an explanation. If you disagree with specific content edits, you can follow WP:BRD process with them. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't realize someone already warned this user User talk:89.24.58.116. Should I revert my warning or leave it be? Justjourney (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Did the IP in question make any edits in between the time they were first warned and the time that you warned them at? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems like they are blocked now. Justjourney (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd say just leave the warning, not a big deal tbh. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I've come to notice that on the Galaxy S25 and the Galaxy Tab S10 articles, there are the names of unreleased devices in the Successor field in the infobox (The Galaxy S26 and Tab S11, respectively). Should it be there, or should the reference be removed? Hinothi1 (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hinothi1. Have you checked to the article's talk page to see whether there's already been some discussion regarding this? If there hasn't, maybe try asking at for input at one or more of the WikiProject listed at the top of each article's talk page. My first assessment is that such content might be OK to possibly mention somewhere in the article as long as it's reliably sourced and makes sense encyclopedically, but perhaps not just let in the infobox. This type of article isn't one I'm too familiar with and there's really only a general description of the |successor= parameter found at Template:Infobox mobile phone. The edit made to Samsung Galaxy S25 was by an IP; most likely they meant well, but probably just aren't too familiar with Wikipedia. Lots of time, people see or read something about a subject and just want to add it asap to the relevant Wikipedia article (if one exists) thinking that anything goes and don't really worry about WP:V. WP:REDLINKs are, in principle, OK for articles when they meant the conditions of WP:REDYES, but I don't know enough about Samsung mobile phones to say whether that's the case here. Perhaps, if Samsung has officially announced these as being successors, simply adding citations verifying as much to each infobox is all that's needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note Hinothi1, the "talk" link in your WP:SIGNATURE is to User talk:UserBob. Why have you done that? The "talk" link in a Wikipedia account's signature should, in principle, be to their user talk page and not someone else's. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:What Happens Next (webcomic)
I'm trying hard to find sources for this webcomic draft to bring it to mainspace, but I'm having a very hard time finding anything using Google and its subengines (mostly Google News), the reliable source engine, and other sources listed at Wikipedia:Advanced source searching (with the query ""What Happens Next" +webcomic"). If anyone else can provide more ideas for web searching, it would be appreciated. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 04:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle & Fade I looked at archive.org and WP:LIBRARY, but for this subject, I got nothing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle & Fade I'm a big fan of Max Graves' work, but it might be WP:TOOSOON - a lot of webcomics can take a while to be notable. A webcomic that's only been around since the end of 2021 simply might need a while longer to be discussed by media- I wouldn't be surprised if the subject matter is also a balking point for more 'mainstream' comic media/reviews since it centers on queer/trans characters. I would be totally willing to help out with sources/the draft itself, feel free to reach out on my talk page. Sarsenet (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Can I please have feedback on this reversion and the accompanying message I left on the user's talk page? Sircheezball (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist about "policy of Wikipedia" and "guidelines" but I think your feedback on reversion was done in a civil way. Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Sircheezball! I believe as long as any reversion is based on reliable sources, and that you notify the user whose changes you reverted, it's perfectly okay! TNM101 (chat) 15:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

i think i need a more experienced editor to review my translation Draft:Embassy of Russia, Helsinki in order to get it published. but i don't really know what i should do in practice. how can i get my draft approved? Draft:Embassy of Russia, Helsinki Warpfrz (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Warpfrz: I've placed the AfC template on the draft, that way whenever you feel you're ready you can send it to be reviewed by clicking that blue 'submit' button. A reviewer will then run the proverbial ruler over it at some point, and publish if it's publishable, or else give you feedback on what needs improving. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Warpfrz I don't see any major issues but you could use the infobox {{Infobox diplomatic mission}} and fill it out much like the Embassy of the United States, Helsinki. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Or get it accepted first, then the Infobox. Having an Infobox does not contribute to being accepted. David notMD (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

And if yes - isnt this a bit discriminatory - i wrote an article about a bulgarian event, providing bulggarian media sources, that happen to be well respected and long standing, but gor the generic "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources". So, can i rely on someone that has a bit of knowledge aboutthe media landscape in bulgaria give a review or is it too much to ask? Dontoblerone (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dontoblerone I'm not sure that I'd infer that the sources were unreliable. It's possible there were only passing mentions, not significant coverage. I don't know the particulars, just looking at the message you said was used. Just Al (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Well they were all articles dedicated exclusively on the subject, so definitely not a passing mention. Dontoblerone (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@DontobleroneNo, you can not rely on that, since people knowledgeable on Bulgaria are probably pretty few on en-WP. That said, per WP:NOENG, Bulgarian WP:RS can be used here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Dontoblerone, sources in other languages are just fine, as long as they are reliable. In order to establish notability, the sources must also be independent of the topic and devote significant coverage to the topic. When I use Google Translate, your sources show all the telltale signs of being generated by press releases or other promotional activity by the film festival organizers, and therefore not independent. That is the problem as I see it, not that they are in Bulgarian. A secondary factor is that your references lack full bibliographic details such as the name of the publication, the author, the date of publication and the original title in Bulgarian. This information is useful both to readers and reviewers, and omitting it makes volunteer reviewers less willing to evaluate your draft because those references just look sketchy. Cullen328 (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328

They are different media - 2 different newspapers, a radio and online site, i can not tell if it's press release or not, but the text is different each time, still for me independent means not directly connected to the subject of the article, i have no idea how they are writtem.

For me it's a discriminatory treatment in the sense that most articles have the same or less refrences, you may not be willing to adimit it or it can be subconscious for you, but it's pretty clear.

anyway, good job wikipedia, stay anglocentric. Dontoblerone (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

No, your draft was not rejected because the sources are not in English, but because they're mostly routine coverage in the form of announcements of a schedule, and a program. Dege31 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dege31, so what type of newsmaterial is needed for a festival event? they happen and people publish news about their schedule, aim and so on. I mean, i just checked several other festival pages and they have the same or less sources, but apparently there is not a problem. For me it's clearly a form of discriminatory treatment. of course i cant tell if it's based on language/region but it's my best guess.

just a small example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lund_International_Fantastic_Film_Festival

1 source - the site of the festival

2 references - aggain the site of the festival -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haapsalu_Horror_and_Fantasy_Film_Festival Dontoblerone (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Dontoblerone, that article you linked to is tagged at the very beginning as having obvious problems with sourcing. I hope that your goal is to write a problem free article, not one tagged for obvious problems. Cullen328 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer.

My goal is to comply with the rules, but as the rules sometimes are not clear i try to interpret them by checking what is allowed on wikipedia in similar situations. Dontoblerone (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Dontoblerone, English Wikipedia currently has 6,953,786 articles of vastly different quality. When you talk about what is "allowed" you are implying that all of those articles have gone through the type of scrutiny and assistance that Articles for Creation and the Teahouse offer. That is not true. As for Lund International Fantastic Film Festival, that article was written in 2012 when standards were much lower. The editor who created it had only six edits in total and did not submit it to Articles for Creation. The Teahouse was only a month old and just getting started. Back then, editors were allowed to create new articles immediately. Scrutiny of new articles was much lower. That editor just wrote the new article in the main space of the encyclopedia with their very first edit, made a handful of other edits, and then disappeared. Wikipedia gets tens of billions of page views each month, and that article gets 40 to 100 views a month. Please be aware that hundreds of poorly written articles get deleted every day, and your goal should be to write a much better article than that because both search engines and readers prefer Wikipedia articles that are not tagged for quality problems. Cullen328 (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Could someone perhaps share the sources in question? Because, backing up what others have said, no, sources do not have to be in English but, yes, the non-English sources must be reliable and must establish notability per the appropriate guidelines. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The sources are

1) this article in "Capital" newspaper - https://www.capital.bg/light/neshta/2023/10/30/4543082_purvi_bulgarski_horur_festival/

It's pretty long - it includes short history of bulgarian horror cinema and then presents the festival that article is about. the paper itself is 33 years old and there is a wiki article about it.

2) this article in "Sega" newspaper - https://www.segabg.com/category-culture/bulgariya-veche-ima-svoy-festival-na-uzhasite

describing the second edition of the festival. this newspaper is 27 years old one of the more respectable ones in the country and there are wiki articles about in 3 languages, not in english for some reason, maybe i can try and write one, but should i bother?

3) this discussion about the festival on the bigest non state owned radio in bulgaria - darik

https://darik.bg/kakvo-da-ochakvame-ot-festivala-posveten-na-horar-filmite

4) two articles in bulgarian cinema specific sites - operationkino.net and kinobox-bg.com. one of the editors argued that they are blogs, i dont know how that to tell what is what, but they have section with description and editors board.

https://kinobox-bg.com/final-na-vtoroto-izdanie-na-its-alive-horror-film-festival/ Dontoblerone (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The Sega coverage looks solid; based on your description, the Capital coverage also helps build a case for meeting WP:GNG (although most of the relevant content appears to be behind a paywall, and one that is easily mistaken for being the end of the page if you're not expecting it and not fluent in Bulgarian, so I don't blame a reviewer much for missing it). Audio sources, while not strictly forbidden per se, are much less useful than text sources for verification purposes, as even when one is fluent with the language they're hard to search for specific information (and they're essentially impossible for a non-fluent editor to access). The Kinobox source, however, is not useful, as they say themselves Организаторите изказват благодарност на всички свои съмишленици и партньори, включително...на KinoBox България за незаменимото медийно партньорство--this is not an independent source. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This is "other stuff exists". Dege31 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dege31 do you read the links that you post? to quote "Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted, these may be effective arguments". So it's case by case.

I find your answers condescendening and a bit biased. Can it be because you are from the other part of the balkans? Dontoblerone (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Please avoid personalizing content disputes. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Dontoblerone, ethnonationalist personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Assume good faith is an important behavioral guideline. Be very cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328

i agree entirely - the ethnicity of someone should not be used as a measure of judgement for the merit of an aricle. That's my case here - i am asking if something is deemed important or not important based on the country of origin. Dontoblerone (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Dontoblerone, it is clear that it is easier for English Wikipedia editors to write about topics well-covered by English language sources than sources in other languages, and that the problem is exacerbated when a language such as Bulgarian has only about 8 million speakers. But if you are implying that Wikipedia as a whole is biased in favor of Estonian and Swedish topics and biased against Bulgarian topics, then I think that is a dubious notion presented without evidence. Bulgaria, after all, is a Featured article of very high quality that has gone through a comprehensive peer review and summarizes nearly 400 reliable sources. We also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Bulgaria where dozens of editors work to improve articles on Bulgarian topics. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328

Thanks for the reply. btw i picked a random article about another festival, actually 2 articles - one swedish and one estonian, just as an illustration of the different standards used, but you have covered that, so thank you again. it could have been other articles, because there are tens of them. I decided to create an article following the guidances on the site, but apparently i'm failing. Dontoblerone (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

OK but let's summarize the advice you've received:

• The newspaper sources are likely reliable.
• En-Wp does not express any prejudice against non-English sources.
• Go to WP:RS/N to determine if the "maybe blogs" count as SPS.
• Don't engage in nationalist off-topic arguments.

You actually *are* getting what you hoped to get; we're just asking you to be nice too. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

For the cinema website question I'd suggest opening a question about their reliability in WP:RS/N. The first two sources look like WP:RS to me. Simonm223 (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Please can I ask a question about a small problem I have run into.

I was doing some updates to the Bridgwater_United_W.F.C. article, because it is somewhat out of date. I noticed that the Bridgwater_United_F.C. used the club Crest of a Robin, so I copied that from the men's team page, to the women's team page, which seemed harmless enough.

However, the logo has been backed-out by a bot for not having a valid free use rational. I have spent a long time reading about this, but have ended up feeling somewhat overwhelmed by the information I have read and not any further forward in what to do about this problem.

It really is not urgent and not the end of the world if it were not added, but it is the first time I have come across this problem since joining wikipedia.

Have you come across this before and can you help offer some pointers as to what I need to do to re-add it please? It may help if I run into this problem again.

Many Thank CherryDolphin (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @CherryDolphin. I assume you've read WP:FUR already, so I won't go too deep into explaining how to use fair use images. But basically, the bot reverted your edit because you didn't create a second fair use rationale for the new article you added the image to. Fair use rationales are used for each page the image is used for, not just the image itself. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tarlby Thanks for the reply.

I had read that, but still was not clear on how to create the fair use rational or where exactly to add it to? Is it added into the page, or the image? I cannot see a fair use rational on the Bridgwater_United_F.C. page that I copied the image from, where did they add it? Is there a simple example of someone else doing what I need to do that I could copy? Apologies if these are stupid questions. CherryDolphin (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

CherryDolphin, please see the "Summary" within File:Bridgwater Town FC logo.png. You'll see the existing fair-use rationale ("FUR") there. You can copy the FUR, paste a copy of it, edit this copy where appropriate, and save the result. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@CherryDolphin: You should make sure that the logo used by the men's team is clearly the same primary logo being used by the women's team; don't just add the logo to the women's team's article because it looks nice or because it's used by the men't team. Many women's teams have their own seperate branding from their men's team counterparts and you should used the logo the women team uses for their branding. In addition, in previous discussions about this type of non-free use, they're have been many arguments made stating that [such logos should only be used in the article of parent entities of sports organizations/teams and not necessarily in articles about child entities of such organizations/teams (see item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI for more details). Wikipedia's non-free content use policy tells us to minimize are use of non-free content as much as possible because even a single use is considered quite the exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files; this means addition uses of the same file (even in different articles) can be much harder to justify, and a consensus has emerged over the years that such additional uses aren't automatically compliant and that no image at all is an acceptable alternative. So, logos used for women's teams, youth teams, B-teams, minor-league teams, reserve teams, etc. should be as team-specific as possible and not necessarily be the same logo as the parent club, which in many cases is the men's team. This might seem unfair in a sense, but it's the way Wikipedia's non-free content use has been applied for many years. Adding the missing rationale for the use in the women's team's article to the files page should stop the bot from removing the file again, but someone could still challenge that particular non-free use of the file if they feel it's not policy compliant. Finally, if this and this are the same Bridgwater United W.F.C., then it seems the women's team might indeed be branding itself differently from men's team; therefore, the branding specific to the women's team should be used instead of the branding for the men's team. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Marchjuly and @Tarlby

It has been interesting to to learn more about the fair use of images.

The twitter and facebook pages are indeed the correct ones for the team. I tried to find out more information about the branding, but could only find this Actually this was a match I attended in person and is what prompted me to do the updates to their page. It does confirm that the branding for the women's team may be different from the men's team, so I have decided it is best to not to add the club crest/image after all.

The only change I have made is to remove some of their squad members who I know for certain now no longer play for them. (They now play for AFC Bournemouth Women). I have also sent an email to the contact address on the Bridgwater United website asking for an up to date teamsheet. I will do any other squad updates, if I hear back from them.

Thanks again for your help. CherryDolphin (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

On my user talk page, I just set up archiving. I have a notice at the top of my talk page. Is there a way I can keep that notice automatically once the bot archives the talk page? Justjourney (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney According to the documentation at User:ClueBot III, you can use the parameter |headerlevel= to control that. I think that your talk page is already set up to leave the notice unarchived but you can check once the bot first runs. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Justjourney (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I wrote a page on a non-profit organisation I am involved in (The Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA)) that was rejected firstly for lack of references. I added many book and article references to the organisation as well as a lot of cross references to related legislation, organisations and subjects. However, I have now been rejected again because the draft was considered not to be:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject

Its really strange to me that a page on this organisation that is 50 years old and is the main maritime archaeology body in Australasia, mentioned in many books and papers, shouldn't meet these criteria. I thought I had added a lot of material that meets all the criteria in the second response. Until the page is published its hard to get others to add material and I can't even add the logo to a draft page.

I'd appreciate any advice on what the threshold is mean to be for these things. They seem pretty subjective but I'd like to know where to direct my effort and avoid too many more drafts as the process is much slower than I remember from years ago

Draft:The Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA) Lordjaysus (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I should point out that almost all the book and article references I added are reliable, secondary and strictly independent of the organisation, being written by leading scholars of the discipline and published by major publishing houses, so that's a big part of why I find this feedback confusing - it seems to be asking for what I have already done Lordjaysus (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

hi @Lordjaysus and welcome to Wikipedia! I haven't read your provided sources yet (and they seem to be actual books, which is valid but may be harder to access for other editors), but each of the terms in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent have specific meanings in Wikipedia:

• in-depth basically just says, "does this source focus on the subject of the article or just briefly mention it?" for example, a news article on Person XYZ doing some accomplishment is in-depth coverage for XYZ, while one on Organization ABC doing D thing, where Person XYZ just so happens to be a member isn't in-depth coverage of XYZ (but is for ABC).
• reliable (source) means, "is the source actually reliable or trustworthy?" in the sciences, that would be published peer-reviewed papers and such, while in news, you should verify their reputation, if they are well-known for fact-checking and accuracy.
• secondary just means secondary sources, one step removed from and analyzes and interprets a primary source. for example, a book talking about research done by researchers A, B et al is secondary because it interprets and reviews this research, while the research paper A, B et al is the primary source here.
• independent means that your sources do not originate from or are in any way related to your subject except for reporting on it. for example, press releases and interviews with the subject are not considered secondary because they are directly related to the subject (the subject publishes the press release, they are part of the interview).

not all sources have to follow all of these (you can use some primary sources as long as you are careful with their use and at least reliable for what they are reporting), but to prove a subject's notability in Wikipedia terms, you need at least a few sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lordjaysus Just an editor like you, but noticed that the draft reads like a promotional brochure, not an encyclopedia article. A question for citation might be: If something is 'pivotal', who said it, and why? Also, the first source Staniforth, who was the president of the AIMA, who also writes newsletter articles and training materials for them, might not be an independent source of information about the organisation. You might want to ask those questions on the talk page for the article, which currently does not have any discussion. Just Al (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The draft has been Declined twice, not Rejected. The later decision is more severe, meaning that the reviewer so no potential for the draft to succeed without deleting everything and starting over (or not even that).

Per the Comments on the draft, remove all hyperlinks (some may be suitable as refs or External links). Section and subsection text requires references. If refs are books, include the page numbers that are relevant. David notMD (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

you know how in fandom there is a trivia part? here's an exemple: https://woohoo.fandom.com/wiki/Flora#Trivia why doesnt Wikipedia have the same? i would be cool! Douglas15amor (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Douglas15amor - please see MOS:TRIVIA - Arjayay (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Douglas15amor: The general advice is not put any trivia in any fandom article. It is a bane on Wikipedia and there has a years long effort to remove reams of it. Any information that goes into the article, should be specific to the article subject. If its not specific to the subject, then it needs to either go into another suitable article, assuming there is reliable sources to support it or left out. scope_creep^Talk 05:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm a new editor learning best practices for citing facts in articles and want to learn more about citing patents. I read that patents are to be used with caution as self-published primary sources and that oftentimes the same information is available in a different non-self-published source.  I edit in technology and science so most of the relevant patents are applied for and self-published by major non-profit/for-profit organizations on behalf of inventors who are subject matter experts. Is it advisable to include patent citations that support facts better than other sources?  Is the filing or licensing of patents by major organizations relevant to notability? How can I balance citing a freely accessible patent versus similar information in a source that is behind a paywall? ProfessorBioTech (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@ProfessorBioTech On the point of a WP:PAYWALLed WP:RS vs a WP:SPS (?) patent, go paywall (or even WP:OFFLINE). No, filing of patents do not contribute to notability, but if independent WP:RS notice and bother to write about it, such coverage might contribute to WP:GNG. I don't know if you found WP:PATENTS, but if not, there's the link. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi ProfessorBioTech. You could perhaps cite a particular patent just in support of basic uncontentious factual information about it (if such information is encyclopedically relevant to readers), but you probably need to be careful trying to cite it for any interpretations or claims about whatever the patent is for and instead use WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT sources for such things. In a way, citing a patent is sort of like citing a tweet or other type of social media post made by the subject of an article; it's probably OK for non-contentious information about the patent or the patent holder, (date, name, number, filer's name, etc.) but not OK for any kind of exceptional claim or interpretation (e.g this is the best invention ever). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@ProfessorBioTech: As they tend to be WP:PRIMARY sources, even if there is good reliable secondary sources on them, e.g. they are world-changing, then citing them correctly tends to be quite difficult to do it in a neutral i.e on WP:NPOV and in a non-promotional i.e. WP:PROMO manner. I've seen many laudable editors with the best intentions, drifting slowly into promotion of the subject, particularly in academic WP:BLP's that become higly subjective over time. It starts well enough. Unless they're absolutely world-changing, well known and well covered by WP:SECONDARY coverage, I would avoid like the plague. Is the filing or licensing of patents by major organizations relevant to notability? No. scope_creep^Talk 06:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

What measures can one take in the event that one is being hounded by other editors? What kind of evidence is needed to prove this? As always, I will gratefully receive and any advice and insight. Thank you. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: Nobody can really say how you should feel, but if this is related to either Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Symphony No. 2 (Walton) or Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Walton)#Citation style, you probably should keep all relevant discussion there. You might also want to take a look at WP:CAUTIOUS because sometimes it's more productive to discuss major changes to an article before making them; Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD for sure, but when someone else is just as WP:BOLD in reverting the changes we made, the WP:ONUS then generally falls upon us to seek consensus for them (absent any very serious-policy based concern that requires they be made asap). As for HOUND, you might want to take a look at WP:AOHA and WP:HARASS#NOT for reference. If you still feel that you're being single out unfairly (I'm assuming that's what you mean by HOUND), then the please to discuss such things is WP:ANI; before for doing, though, you probably should take a look at WP:ANIADVICE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello all, I started a draft article Draft:Josephine Semmes several months ago. Then my life got very busy and I paused it. While my life is still very busy, I would like to know when is the deadline for submission. I seem to recall that the draft will automatically be deleted at some point? How do I find this date? Thank you very much for your help. Aurodea108 (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Aurodea108. There is no deadline for submission. If a draft has not been edited in six months, it will be deleted; but you can ask for it to be restored: see undeletion. Alternatively, if you make a minor edit in it as the six month point is approaching, it will reset the clock. ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Aurodea108 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Eh, folks. Can anyone help me to resolve this issue ? Basically the sources have indistinguishable date and last name therefore it couldn't target to the specific sources. – Garuda ^Talk! 14:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Garudam. There are instructions on how to handle this at Help:Shortened footnotes#Linking. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Aight, thanks. – Garuda ^Talk! 16:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am working on Draft:Finiteness, and was recently informed by a reviewer that the article is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The reason I started working on the article is because two other editors suggested that it might be a good idea, on the Finite talk page. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

IT may be a good idea, but not what you have created, now declined several times and then rejected. I recommend you ask that the draft be deleted by putting Db-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top. David notMD (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

You also agree that it may be a good idea to have a finiteness article. If it is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I request that the rejection be withdrawn. Kevincook13 (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Kevincook13 I did not mean to convey that I personally thought it was a good idea. Given the Rejection, your path going forward is to ask that the current draft be deleted, and start over. Having written that, the editor who rejected it has provided lengthy comments on why it was rejected. Please do not try again unnless you can address all the shortfalls of your draft. David notMD (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

That rejection is ridiculous, and it is possible for an article to be written. However it probably does need to start again from scratch. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The main problem you're running into is Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- Wikipedia is supposed to be about specific concepts/things, not words. What you've done at the Draft:Finiteness page is describe a bunch of different meanings of finiteness (how human life is finite; how numbers are finite; how races are finite) without really talking much about the concept of finiteness. You probably need to choose a specific concept of finiteness (i.e. finiteness in math) and talk about that. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I am working on a draft of an article titled List of Minecraft mobs. Currently it is only half done. Should i delete the empty rows (the ones with placeholders) or keep them? Mast303 (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks like this has been submitted to Articles for Creation. If you would like this to be moved into the encyclopedia (to mainspace) now, I would remove the placeholder rows. However, I suggest that you finish the list first, before asking that it be moved to mainspace. Toadspike [Talk] 16:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair warning: A very similar list was recently deleted (see this discussion), so it is possible that your AfC submission is declined, or if you move it to mainspace, the list may get deleted. Toadspike [Talk] 16:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This is probably going to be very hard to get in via AFC -- it's controversial whether it's notable or not at all and reviewer are probably going to lean on the side of not letting it in. It probably meets the list notability guideline in that people have discussed the set of Minecraft mobs as a group. But also, it's worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Inappropriate_content, which includes list of ingame concepts -- there are a lot of people who will be, essentially, "This seems like Minecraft wiki content, we can't have it" regardless of policy. The best way to get it through would probably be to focus on commentary of secondary sources on the mobs, rather than the mobs themselves. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I have created a draft for a taxonomy section for the Vespidae page as it did not already have one, is there any functionality to submit drafts of page sections for review outside of asking on the talk pages for those articles/associated project pages? Errantsorbus (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You submitted User:Errantsorbus/vespidae taxonomy draft as a stand-alone article and it was Declined. The reviewer stated that you should be incorporating this content as a section in Vespidae instead. In general, Wikipedia recommends BRD, as in being Bold in your edits, but if Reverted, start a Discussion on the Talk page of the article in an attempt to reach consensus. David notMD (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

ok, thank you. Errantsorbus (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

I currently want to vectorize the Severance logo, and to do that I find the font. I know Apple's favorite font is San Francisco, and I thought it looked similar, so I compared SF Pro Display Semi-Bold with it, and it was very similar, but not an exact match. Perhaps it's a bespoke variant.

Does anybody know where I can go to identify this font? I know WikiProject Typography exists, but it's only semi-active... Should I ask there? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 15:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Wait, I think I found it's more similar to SF Pro text, however it's still different... QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 15:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka To vectorize it I don't think you need to identify the font; for simple text a bitmap trace should be easy to do. I'll do it. Cremastra (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Wait. Let me provide you with an HQ version of it. Its copyright is PD text + trademark. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Cremastra. Forgot to ping you! QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hm, I think that version will be harder because it's white. Is File:Severance logo.svg okay, or is it too small? Cremastra (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cremastra: I think I can do it too... I will use Inkscape's bitmap tracing. I'll create 2 paths, one with smoothing and one without, and basically Frankenstein them together to get a cleaner result. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cremastra (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

It's a custom-made font, not one. From one of the creators: "I drew a custom font inspired by Helvetica and Akzidenz and the dozens – hundreds? – of neo-grotesques that have been released in the decades since they appeared, but with its own slightly odd combination of details and characteristics." https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/severance/ Just Al (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Just Al: So it is a bespoke font! Anyways, as you can see in the image, it bears a striking resemblance to the San Francisco typeface. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I've reached out to Apple, CHIPS, and Teddy Blanks asking whether they could provide me with official vectorized versions of the logo. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

I've noticed that recently, I've been getting notifications when people reply to me even when they don't {{ping}} me. What changed in MediaWiki to enable this? I really like this change, because sometimes I forget to ping people too!

Thanks, QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 17:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi QuickQuokka. Please always include an example. Maybe they did ping you according to the notification rules which require a user page link (my post is an example) but not any template like {{ping}}. You might also have subscribed to the section. Then it should be listed at Special:TopicSubscriptions. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Ahh, that's what that is! Got it! QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 19:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I came across an article for a publication titled PinkNews (left-wing news publication that largely covers LGBTQ+ issues and British parliamentary politics). The introductory paragraphs discussing the subject of the article are full of weird formatting, including a large chunk of italicized text that doesn't seem to have a reason to be like this (I think it was intended to be a direct quote, possibly...??), and a "</ref>" tag visible to non-editors in the text of the published article. I haven't read the rest of the article so I don't know if this occurs throughout the article or just in the introductory paragraphs, looks like maybe the wagging tail of a citation that got lost. I'm still a bit of a novice so I wanted to ask some more seasoned editors - is the text supposed to look this way, or does it need fixed? To be honest I'm reluctant to make edits because the topic of the article is currently the subject of controversy due to a scandal that I won't get into, but if the text is supposed to be formatted differently, I would like to help improve the readability. I just want to be absolutely sure first. I have no desire to add or remove anything from the article, I only want to fix the text display if it should be fixed. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. It looks like these issues were introduced in a string of edits today . I'll take a look. Perception312 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

So I've kinda burned myself out. I don't know what articles I want to make and drafts that I've put my time into simply don't have enough coverage online for me to research and put into the article. Any ideas of how to enjoy editing again? Vestrix (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Vestrix. You can always take a break from editing at any time and come back when the burn-out is gone. See WP:WIKIBREAK for templates that alert editors to your wikibreak. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Vestrix (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

How do I get an article assessed, specifically Leon O. Morgan, among others? Sushidude21! (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

hi @Sushidude21! and welcome to the Teahouse! you can request for an assessment of an article to A, B, C, Start- or Stub- class in Requesting an assessment. FA or GA assessments are located over at Featured article candidates or Good article nominations respectively. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Sushidude21! If by "assessed" you mean improved, you and other editors are free to continue to work on the article. In time, an editor other than you may decide that the tags at the top can be removed as no longer applied. Not a requirement, but I suggest that you change Publications to Selected publications and limit the list to no more than ten (Wikipedia articles are not CVs). David notMD (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

How would I go about picking these 10? Sushidude21! (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Syriac Orthodox Church § Jurisdiction of the patriarchate

Hi Teahouse, I am in a little bit of a conundrum. I and @Warriorglance have been improving the article to hopefully reach GA. The above linked section is a mess. This is the best we have come up with. If we table all of the (arch)dioceses and vicariates it will take up a significant amount of space. What would be the best solution? Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

CF-501 Falcon, very likely I'm even less than averagely informed about or interested in religions, but for whatever reason I don't even understand the heading "Jurisdiction of the patriarchate". I imagine that a quarter of an hour of reading around would educate me, but even then I probably wouldn't know what about it was significant and what wasn't. My guess is that few other editors of the Teahouse would be much better informed than I am. The article's talk page lists at the top the "WikiProjects" to which the article is thought to be relevant. I suggest that you look at the talk page of each of these, and post the question above to the one talk page among these that looks the liveliest (or the least moribund). Feel free to link from the other WikiProjects' talk pages to your newly posted question, but avoid doing so in any way that risks setting off a discussion in a third place (if we count this thread as the first). -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary, Thank you. "Jurisdiction of the patriarchate" means the area and people that the church’s leader, the Patriarch, is responsible for. It covers all the churches, communities, and regions (both historical and new ones formed by migration) that fall under his authority.

I have posted at the WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. I will wait and see if anybody responds there or here (3 threads would get messy). Again, Thank you. Have a great day! CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 23:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I often log in and log out each and every time that I choose to do some editing, but I see there is an option to "Keep me logged in for up to one year". I am just curious, but why would anyone choose this option? Or conversely, why would anyone not choose this option? Why is it limited to "one year" and not simply "Keep me logged in until I sign out" then if its truly just a long-term option?

Curious how many of you choose this or are even aware of it? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Keeping logged in saves time and effort, and may also log the user in to the partner projects (eg Wikiversity). I suppose if someone else could be using that computer, you should log out every time. A cookie is supplied to last a year. But on occasion everyone is logged out because of some security issue, so logging in happens more than once a year in reality. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I've heard other websites use a similar function. In my opinion, I'm pretty sure it's to prevent accounts being hacked into when the owner can no longer keep it in check. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I live alone and no one else uses my computer, so I stay logged into everything that isn't related to financial matters. Most days I check my Watchlist to see if any articles I have a special interest in have been edited, plus I check to see what's being asked at the Teahouse. I like the ease of simply bringing up Wikipedia and clicking a few tabs to get to what I want to see.Karenthewriter (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Right so why limit it to a year in that case? It should be changed to "Keep me logged in until I log out." Iljhgtn (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: Eventually expiring logins is a cybersecurity best practice, to lessen scenarios like, someone forgetting they're logged in on a device which they then transfer to someone else who they've now unintentionally given access to their account. Note, expirations for logins on websites are actually "kept on your end" rather than that of the website you're accessing, by setting an expiration date in the login Web cookie in your browser. You can change the expiry if you want by using a browser extension that lets you modify cookies and setting the cookie to expire whenever you wish (including "never"), though for "better safe than sorry" reasons I don't recommend it. (In any case, sooner or later though it may take some years, some software change on Wikipedia's end is likely to "forcibly" expire past logins and require logging in afresh.) --Slowking Man (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I think your questions are outside of the purview of the Teahouse, as we are here to talk about more easier questions than to talk about technical questions. You could as somewhere else like WP:VP/T or at MediaWiki. But, Slowking Man's answer is probably best. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 05:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I had created an article about the first episode of the 1990 Flash television series, and submitted it on Wikipedia, but was declined because the submission was not adequately supported by reliable sources. Why was my article declined? Chance997 (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Because the draft has zero citations. Please add citations to increase your chances of the draft being accepted. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

So, I have to add some citations into the draft so that the article could be accepted? Chance997 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the draft will definitely have a better chance of being accepted. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Writing a draft without first finding suitable sources (which meet all the criteria of WP:42) is like building a house without first building the foundations or even surveying the site to check that it is suitable to build on. You will inevitably have to go back and cite sources, and probably rebuild much of your draft, because if information in your draft cannot be verified from a reliable published source, the information must be removed; and for the bulk of the information, the source must be wholly independent of the subject of the article. See backwards. ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how to add citations into the draft. Is there like any instructions that come along with them? Chance997 (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chance997 See Help:Referencing for beginners. But in a nutshell, you can click the cite button on the top-right corner of the toolbar if you are using the Visual Editor TNM101 (chat) 05:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add a disambiguation page to Nine Circles mainly because Zobros created a song called "Nine Circles". Srihan123 (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no article titled "Zobros", Srihan123. Are you intending to create an article about it/them? -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello.I am unable to create a citation. Gamerboykarl (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Gamerboykarl, how to cite? Please go to Help:Introduction and click on either the link to "Referencing" under "Source editor", or the link to "Referencing" under "Visual editor", depending of course on which of the two you use. (If you use the "Wikipedia app", I have no idea, sorry. But from what little I've heard about it, I suggest that you instead use either the "source" or the "visual" editor.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

ok bro. thanks for help, though it is pretty confusing Gamerboykarl (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

At any article, click on Edit at the top. This will show how references are formatted. You could copy a section with a few references into your Sandbox, then replace the content with your refs content. David notMD (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Gamerboykarl, let's look at the article Nine Circles (as it's mentioned in the thread immediately above). The sourcing is rather feeble, but for what each reference is worth, it's formatted more or less competently. Sample:

...met Lidia Fiala, who already wrote poems and lyrics since she was 15 years old.<ref name=biography>{{cite web|url=http://home.arcor.de/nine.circles/biography.htm |title=Nine Circles Biography|publisher=Nine Circles |accessdate=2013-10-06}}</ref>

(Within that, "publisher" had better be "website", I think. The far greater problem is that so much about Nine Circles in their Wikipedia article depends on what was said by Nine Circles themselves. This of course isn't at all an independent source, and thus (i) may be promotional rather than straightforwardly informative, and (ii) doesn't help to show the notability of Nine Circles.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

This article (Allan Kardec) has been taken almost word for word from https://www.discoverypublisher.com/authors/allan-kardec/. How do I fix this? I pressed the edit button but I just don't know how to deal with copyright violations like this. Do I just start paraphrasing everything? BadEditor93 (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@BadEditor93 Looking at the age of the additions, the large majority of the article was made prior to the creation of that site (estimated as November 2019), as such it's more the site copied Wikipedia and called it a day. Content not listed as copyright on that page (such as a small portion of the lead) come from yesterday. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, WP:WHOWROTETHAT is a really good tool for sussing this sort of thing out. High copyright levels are generally attributed to a single editor over maybe one or two edits, whereas in this case WHOWROTETHAT showed that many editors added over the course of many years. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I did not notice that! Thank you for all the helpful replies. So, should I remove the article from the category and ask the site who took the information to also put it under the same copyright licence as any other information from Wikipedia? BadEditor93 (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@BadEditor93 I wouldn't bother in the latter, the chances of them responding are low and I'm equally as cynical of them noting anywhere that a decent amount of the info is copied from Wikipedia. As to the prior, I personally removed the WP:CLOP tag earlier. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 18:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. BadEditor93 (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:CP is where copyvios can be listed when you're not sure how to clean them up. Cremastra (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I was adding redirects for certain Wikipedia pages, but then I realized I made an accidental redirect for the wrong page. How do I fix this? Any help is appreciated. Thanks! AyoWth (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I've tagged Dona Ana County, Texas with a speedy deletion WP:G6 for you. Meters (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You could also have just blanked it, or tagged it as WP:G7. Meters (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hmm... if what you meant to do was instead create a redirect from Dona Ana County, New Mexico to Doña Ana County, New Mexico, that redirect already exists. Next time please link to the article or edit in question. See H:WIKILINK and WP:D&L Meters (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

 Courtesy link: Ish Kevin
I've been working on this article for a bit now and I've noticed an emerging problem with the article largely relying on a single source, The New Times. It does meet WP:GNG with significant coverage from The Native and Pan African Music and also WP:NMUSICBIO under criteria 7, as he is cited as the leader of the Kinyatrap movement (a local rap scene in Rwanda), but nearly all news articles about Ish Kevin come from The New Times, specifically the author Emmanuel Gatera. The article has become overly reliant one it for career information, and I'm concerned it may destabilize one of the content policies such as verifiability or neutral point of view. Can someone offer me advice on this? If so, it would be highly appreciated. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 07:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Sparkle & Fade. Although Gatera is cited repeatedly in that article, I also see four other authors cited. I am not familiar with the topic area, but it seems to me that notability is established by citing five different music writers, and it is not surprising that in a relatively small country like Rwanda, Gatera would be, in effect, the "world's foremost authority" on Kevin. Cullen328 (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey, need checkusers help, i see some suspicious activities associated with this user -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JesusisGreat7, The edits seems to be copyrighted and incidents of Sockpuppetry have been noticed! Christthesaviour (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Why then, Christthesaviour, post specifics of these "suspicious activities associated with this user" to WP:ANI. But expect scrutiny of your own (meagre and strange) list of contributions. -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Your attempt to start a sock puppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JesusisGreat7 reads that you are accusing your account of being a sock of JesusisGreat7. David notMD (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

the account associated to be a sockpuppet of is User:Whatif222 Christthesaviour (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Whatif222 was indefinitely blocked on 30 November 2024 and User:JesusisGreat7 started editing on the same date. Is there other evidence such as both accounts having edited the same articles, that raises a suspicion of a block evasion? David notMD (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

John Cameron Lowrie, I found the incident where both the suspected accounts have edited the article, seems like a block evasion, how can both the users get the same article for editing?? Christthesaviour (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The SPI was closed with a finding of insufficient evidence of sock puppet or block evasion. David notMD (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

First of all, not entirely sure if this is a question I should be asking here on the talk page for Family of Donald Trump, but why doesn't Wikipedia have an article about Barron Trump, when we have articles about all of Trump's other kids? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. Barron needs to be notable on his own. There is Draft:Barron Trump. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot about WP:NOTINHERITED, thanks for reminding me. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You may also find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (3rd nomination) (most recent one from last June which closed as redirect) useful for reference. Skynxnex (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I made a page(More like Draft) named Most Viewed NCS Songs and submitted it for review but it was declined. I don't really know what to do since I am new here . PathHigh (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Most Viewed NCS Songs is wgatr tgus is aboyut. David notMD (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @PathHigh, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In order to write an article about "Most viewed" anything you will need to start with several reliable published sources each of which discusses the topic of "most viewed" whatever. Simply listing the items and numbers is original research, even if your sources were reliable, and few or none of yours are. (Specifically, Wikis such as fandom - and Wikipedia - are almost never acceptable as sources because they are user-generated. And most YouTube videos are not reliable - see WP:YOUTUBE.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

FYI: NCS stands for NoCopyrightSounds, a British record label that releases royalty-free electronic dance music. As CF states, your making a list ranked by views and likes is original research, and your 'references' to YouTubes of the music do not confirm any ranking. I strongly recommend you request the draft be deleted by putting Db-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top. David notMD (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, in the “Guard Brigades” section of the HVO, there are 4 links to pages that don’t exist on English Wikipedia, but do on Croatian Wikipedia. These links are: https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/4._gardijska_brigada_%22Sinovi_Posavine%22 4th Guard Brigade “Sons of Posavina”, https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/3._gardijska_brigada_Jastrebovi 3rd Guard Brigade “Hawks”, https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/2._gardijska_brigada_HVO 2nd Guard Brigade “Snakelike”, and https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/1._gardijska_brigada_Ante_Bruno_Bu%C5%A1i%C4%87 1st Guard Brigade “Ante Bruno Bušić”

If someone could link these links to the Guard Brigades section, I’d really appreciate it.

OSHAViolation (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@OSHAViolation: It looks like an IP account tried to link to the corresponding Croatian Wikipedia articles for those subject, but did so incorrectly; another editor seems to have misunderstood what the IP wanted to do and reverted the IP. You can re-add the links yourself by following the guidance given in WP:ILL and using the template {{ill}}. The basic syntax is {{ill|English Wikipedia name|two-letter language code|Croatian Wikipedia article name}}. For reference, the two-letter language code for Croation Wikipedia is "hr". If an article with the same English Wikipedia name already exists, you will need to disambiguate the English Wikipedia article name you want to use and then use the parameter |lt= (this is explained on the "ill" template's documentation page) for the English Wikipedia link name you want readers to see; if you don't do this, the link will go to the existing Wikipedia article with the same name and not the corresponding Croatian Wikipedia article.-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dieter Lloyd Wexler: Just for reference, the edits you reverted here weren't really vandalism; they appear to be a good-faith attempt at trying to cross wiki-link to corresponding articles of another language Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I started working on my first article here, Draft: Josephine Semmes, last summer. I had to suspend work on it and only just got back to it within the last couple of days. (I've just resubmitted it.) I see that in the meantime, one of the "verified editors" at wikitia.com, User:MatthewSchwab, copied my draft wholesale (replete with TODOs) and published it as an article there. Besides the lack of credit to the actual editor (in this case, myself), the whole edit history is missing. The claim that the article is by a "verified editor" there is also meaningless. Is this kind of thing the usual practice of that website? What do Wikipedia editors do in such cases? Aurodea108 (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Aurodea108, there's a guide on how to contact people who have used Wikipedia's content without proper attribution. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neos • talk • edits) 00:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEclipse Thank you for your response. I had overlooked the following text at a smaller size at the bottom of the page:

"This article "Josephine Semmes" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical. Articles taken from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be accessed on Wikipedia's Draft Namespace."

In the footer of the page it says "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. Some of Wikitia's pages are sourced from Wikipedia.org's Mainspace and Draftspace. Wikitia is not affiliated to Wikimedia Foundation, unless otherwise noted."

It appears then that perhaps I was too hasty, and that publication is in compliance. Aurodea108 (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. I wasn't familiar with the website you were talking about, but all is good. They attributed your work. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neos • talk • edits) 02:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Aurodea108 There are over 700 current mirrors and forks of Wikipedia, as explained at that link. Some don't follow the rules of our creative commons license but many do. There were even sites like deletionpedia which deliberately copied material that we deleted as unsuitable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Ah yes, now I understand. Thank you both. Aurodea108 (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I am thinking about redirecting the title Administrative geography of the Isles of Scilly to a section in the article Isles of Scilly. I have looked over 3 sections that I could redirect this title to, including to another Wikipedia page.

One of the three is the Local government section of Isles of Scilly. The reason is because it links to administrative geography and talks about governance.

Another is the Administration section of Isles of Scilly, which I made myself. The reason is because it talks about the administration and the status and council. That section is not very long, I do not expect people to expand it to consider this redirect, but this is just a suggestion.

Another is the Council of the Isles of Scilly article. The reason is because the entire article is based on the administrative geography of the Isles of Scilly.

These are all sections and articles that are worth redirecting this title. I await your opinion. FeistyRooster (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@FeistyRooster: Thanks for your question. It is up to you, but my recommendation is to redirect to Isles of Scilly#Government. Looking through this section of the article, I can see that multiple subsections within this section have information that could be judged as relating to administrative geography. This is just my suggestion though, totally fine if you think differently. Redtree21 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Redtree21: Thank you for your suggestion. I do not mind any of the three choices so I will go ahead and propose a redirect. Thank you once again. FeistyRooster (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@FeistyRooster: No problems at all, very happy to help. Redtree21 (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:King Group Hospitality

I am trying to get this live but it was rejected. wanted to understand why and if anyone can help me figure Kenjal93 (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I've responded to this user on IRC; the draft is promotional in tone and the sourcing is terrible, with the lion's share of it failing WP:CORPDEPTH. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Actualy, declined (twice) which is not as severe as rejected, but the draft is so peppered with promotional wording that it has no potential to succeed. Examples: specializes, authentic, traditional, rich, buttery, delicacies, fresh take, both flavor and heartiness, creamy, redefining perceptions, best of Chinese and Indian cuisine, unique fusion, spicy, flavorful, favorite, appreciate bold and savory flavors. None of this is neutral point of view. Rather, it is all restaurant-review speak. David notMD (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Editors, I am reaching out to seek guidance on how to improve my contributions to the Terren Peizer article so that they align with Wikipedia’s standards. My previous edits were removed due to concerns regarding copyright violations, close paraphrasing, and non-compliance with Wikipedia’s policies. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort that Wikipedia editors dedicate to maintaining the integrity of articles, and I want to ensure that my contributions are compliant, neutral, and verifiable. Understanding and Addressing the Issues I have carefully reviewed Wikipedia’s guidelines on: ✅ Neutral Point of View (NPOV) – Ensuring the content is fact-based and free of promotional language. ✅ Verifiability (V) – Only including information that is backed by reliable, third-party sources. ✅ Copyright and Plagiarism Policies – Avoiding direct copying or close paraphrasing from external sources. ✅ Proper Citations – Formatting sources using inline citations with <ref> tags and Wikipedia’s {{cite web}} and {{cite press release}} templates. To address these concerns, I have completely rewritten the content using original wording while maintaining factual accuracy. I have also removed self-published sources and replaced them with independent, authoritative references such as SEC filings, DOJ reports, and reputable news organizations. Request for Advice Before resubmitting my edits, I would greatly appreciate any guidance on the following: Does the new version meet Wikipedia’s standards? If not, what additional improvements are needed? Are there any specific formatting or structuring issues that need to be addressed before submitting? Would it be better to add information in smaller sections first (e.g., starting with "Early Life and Education") rather than submitting all at once? My goal is to ensure that Terren Peizer’s Wikipedia article remains accurate, well-sourced, and aligned with Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines. I genuinely value your expertise and would appreciate any feedback on how to properly contribute without causing issues. Thank you for your time and assistance! I look forward to your guidance. Best regards, Wikipedia Username: Jameschurch001000 Jameschurch001000 (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jameschurch001000: We do not entertain requests made via chatbot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not a bot. Can you help Jameschurch001000 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

At Terren Peizer I reverted your most recent contribution because it included bolding of scores of words. The only content that should be bold is the first use of his name. You may have meant to Wikilink, which is done with double brackets [[ ]]. You added a section titled "Business Leadership and Investments" with no references, that to some degree repeated existing content. Try again, and in smaller chunks, so that all is not reverted when some is not correct. David notMD (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

You're the first person on here that makes sense and actually helped. I'll try again. Jameschurch001000 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jameschurch001000 Looking at the edit history on this article, I'm wondering, why do your edits repeatedly delete or de-emphasize the criminal charges and sentencing in the lead? It seems like you're deleting the references to crime, and burying the changes with a volume of other edits as a distraction. Do you have a WP:conflict of interest here? Are you being compensated for these edits? Just Al (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Added sources from AP News and the Justice Department. Hopefully, that will end the questionable justifications for the deletion. Just Al (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

You have been asked here and elsewhere if you have a COI. Please reply before doing any more editing. If yes, you are restricted to proposing changes at the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't delete any information. I just add. It that a problem. NO COI. However the fact that I can't add data make me think that the user Tacyary is being paid to keep the current data and not allowing other to add. Thoughts Jameschurch001000 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Jameschurch001000, when we look at this edit of yours, the summary you provided for it, and your description (immediately above) of your edits, what should we infer? -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Several experienced editors have reverted the list-of-companes content you have added. Take that as a sign that there is a problem with what you want to add. If you insist, post your proposed changes on the Talk page and seek consensus. David notMD (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you all employees of Wikimedia???? Jameschurch001000 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No. Please do not cast aspersions. Employees of Wikimedia who edit in their capacity as employees do so with usernames including the text "(WMF)". Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you help? Or Not Jameschurch001000 (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jameschurch001000: Wikipedia is a collaborative project whose participants are all WP:VOLUNTEERs. Some employees of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) may also be participants, but their status doesn't give them any special privileges; they are expected to edit in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines just like everyone else. Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD in trying to improve articles, but in cases where others feel we've been too bold, they can try to improve on what we've started or simply just undo it altogether. Unless what they're doing is something that's clearly contrary to some relevant policy/guideline (usually this is mentioned in a edit summary), it's advisable to assume good faith and try to resolve any disagreements in accordance WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION.

So, if you made a change to Terren Peizer that was WP:REVERTed by another, particularly more than once by different editors, the WP:ONUS falls upon you to seek a WP:CONSENSUS for the change on the article's talk page. If you're able to convince others that making the change is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, this shouldn't too hard to do. You don't need to convince everyone, just enough so that a consensus to make the change is established. If, on the other hand, you try to justify the change for reasons not really related to Wikipedia, you'll find convincing others to be difficult and the change is unlikely to be made. For reference, WP:NOTEVERYTHING that can be reliable sourced about a subject warrants inclusion in an article; it's often the case where what's included is a matter of editorial discretion, and this can be subjective; this is why consensus-building through discussion is important when they're are disagreements over what to leave in and what to leave out.

Anyway, the best place for you to discuss all of these things is at Talk:Terren Peizer because that's were those interested in the subject matter are likely to be found. It's also where any record of such discussion should be kept for future reference. Most people should be more than happy to answer your questions in more detail as long as they are questions about how to make the concerned article better in terms of relevant policies and guidelines, and not just random musings about Peizer in general.

Finally, please keep in mind that when dealing with articles or article content about living people, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (BLP) is the primary policy that is applied, and it applies to content about all living people (not just those mentioned in a article) and all Wikipedia pages (not just articles). -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello,@Jameschurch001000. We cannot help you, if you can't follow Wikimedia's terms of service. Please put that you have a COI in your userpage. And, if you do not have a COI, do not remove information from articles. Such as in here. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 19:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

If I want to respond to talk page discussions with words like "Keep" or "Delete" in discussion places like WP:RFD, do I use the simple three single quotes ('''TEXTHERE'''), or do I use the {{Strong}} template as referred to at MOS:BOLD? Justjourney (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Whichever. In this context, it will make no difference. -- Hoary (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary: Not strictly true. The three-quotes method encloses the text in non-semantic HTML "bold" tags (<b>); whereas {{strong}} encloses the text in semantic HTML "strong" tags (<strong>). The former is for visual presentation only; the latter assigns semantic meaning to the enclosed text, which may be printed, displayed, sounded or otherwise presented differently to surrounding text. See HTML element § Inline elements.

The established use of "bold" rather than "strong" in this particular instance is not ideal (why is it being used?), but as a long-term bad habit may be difficult to change. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Bazza 7, you are right. {{strong}} would be better, for the very reason you give. But using this anomalously (while easily >95% of one's fellow "¬voters" use triple apostrophes and thereby <b>...</b>) doesn't strike me as likely to have any beneficial effect. This is regrettable, but at least triple apostrophes aren't so very widely used and don't risk misinterpretation. Contrast that with double apostrophes (used many times within many articles): These are converted to <i>...</i>: which has not only the defects of <b>...</b> but also ambiguity between emphasis (better specified with <em>...</em>) and book title or similar (better specified with <cite>...</cite>). -- Hoary (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I just click the "A" symbol > Bold. That's what I do, and it works fine. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 13:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

When I try to access my global contributions, it shows me an error on the top. Retrying doesn't do much to fix this issue. How can I fix this? Justjourney (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

What is the error that's shown? -- Hoary (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney When I go to your contributions page and click on the "global contributions" link at the foot I get this, which is what I would expect. Does the link here work for you? If not, we need to know the precise error message and other information such as your device, operating system and browser. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

It's when I go to Special:Contributions/Justjourney, then click on the "global contributions" link in the line "Results for Justjourney". I get "Error loading data from some wikis. These results are incomplete. It may help to try again." Direct link: meta:Special:GlobalContributions/Justjourney. Justjourney (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I get the same error using the direct meta link on my own username, while the toolforge link to my global contributions works fine. So it seems to be a problem with the meta link, rather than us. If you want to report the bug, WP:VPT may be the place to do so (I'm not sure if they deal with problems on meta). Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

They have the bug report on Phabricator https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T384717. Asking the discord server got me this link. Justjourney (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T384717 Justjourney (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

this one actually: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T385377 Justjourney (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The article Þorgerður Ingólfsdóttir, a BLP for an Icelandic choral conductor has had a set of confusing moves and PROD, and I don't know how to sort this out. Ingólfsdóttir is notable, though the article could benefit from some editing. However, लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक sent the page to draftspace Draft:Þorgerður Ingólfsdóttir and left behind a PROD. Any thoughts on next steps? Thanks for any help. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

As it's in the draft space I would probably leave it alone for now. If it gets moved to mainspace and it's still not ready you can send it to articles for deletion and let the community decide what to do with it. Also anyone can edit a draft so feel free to improve yourself if you have the time and interest. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 23:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I actually think it belongs in the mainspace, so I will edit it to address the concerns about puffery and NPOV. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Please do, DaffodilOcean. There are other problems too. The first reference I looked at was rather improbably cited for unrelated medals from two distinct nations and turned out to be a source for only one of the pair. I've partially fixed this particular problem but I wonder how many other (apparent) references might crumble under inspection. Plus there's all the material that doesn't even look as if it's referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I have done the editing I can do, though I had to rely on Google Translate for all the Icelandic media coverage. I submitted the page back to AfC. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

It's now an article again, and deservedly so. Props to DaffodilOcean for fast work on this. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I've recently been using Twinkle to nominate a lot of poor Japanese footballer articles. I was wondering how many is too many to nominate at once? I did 9 yesterday and that feels like quite a lot for now. RossEvans19 (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@RossEvans19: I don't think there's a brightline number per se; if, however, you're asking "how many is too much", then perhaps you should slow down and wait to see what happens with the ones you've already nominated. AfD isn't really a race where speed matter; so, nominating lots of articles (particularly lots of the same type an article) within a short span of time might give others the impression that you're not properly doing a thorough WP:BEFORE. AfD discussions can sometimes get contentious, and this is especially so when others think nominations are frivilous or otherwise not well-thought out. You need to remember that things like "Twinkle" can make repetitive tasks quite easy to do, but you're also responsible for any edit you make using them. If, by chance, it turns out the one or more of the articles you already nominated end up being kept, then perhaps you were moving too fast. Just a suggestion, but maybe it would be a good idea to discuss any articles who feel should be deleted first at WT:FOOTY or WT:JAPAN because maybe the members of those WikiProjects can help with BEFORE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

That's a good point - this is a situation where I need to slow down and be patient, which I'm not great at xD - I'll keep that in mind for future nominations, as I came across a few articles I was unsure if they should be kept or not. Thanks for the advice! :)) RossEvans19 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

​Please remember that Wikipedia notability isn't temporary and doesn't go away over time; in addition, the lack of sourcing in an article doesn't automatically mean something isn't Wikipedia notable. Some Japanese footballers might have been covered in reliable sources in languages other than English; so, it's probably a good idea to check on such things before nominating any articles for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I've checked on the Japanese wikipedia during my searching, along with other areas, and the ones I've nominated are poor articles of players who've played less than 10 games years ago - I do struggle with "offline searching" - I'm not entirely sure how to search for that. RossEvans19 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

You can't really, unless you happen to have books/articles on it laying around, I would suggest that you look at the Internet Archive as they may have some stuff that you could use. It maybe difficult though, unless you know Japanese (which you may if you are checking the Japanese WP.). Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 06:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just a moments before I created an article on this church -- Budden Memorial Church (Almora), I am facing doubts regarding the categories that need to be added, Need Help pls check JesusisGreat7 (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Added a few to get you started, I would consider installing Hotcat as it makes searching for them a lot easier. Cheers!

Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 13:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, the Syrian civil war map has been updated, but I do not see this on my end. Is there some kind of glitch, do I just need to wait until the changes have been updated in, or is it something else entirely? LordOfWalruses (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@LordOfWalruses This is often due to a browser problem your end. If so, you need to WP:Bypass your cache. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I created Fault Lines in the Faith, and it is already Patrolled by an editor, but it is not available on the Google Search, is there any issue? I'm facing this issue for the first time since I'm editing Wikipedia. Someone help. Taabii (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Taabii: Google caches its search results for performance reasons. It'll show up once Google refreshes the cache. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano Okay, Thankyou. :) Taabii (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The results in "Google Search" is not under the responsibility of Wikipedia.

@Taabii explained you it'll show up once Google refreshes the cache.

I think it will be updated this week. Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Taabii, I learn that "The book has been reviewed by [A], [B], [C] , [D]" (the abbreviations are mine). Did each of these four say anything that's worth summarizing? If so, summarize it. If not, why even mention the review? -- Hoary (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary I'll do that. Taabii (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Taabii It was accepted by the new pages patrol on February 14th. In my experience, it needs an edit after that date so that search engines will catch up. It now has a minor edit made today and, as I would predict, google.co.uk already has it now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

What official policies or guidelines guide IP/unregistered editor conduct and specifically govern how registered users are supposed to interact with such IP/unregistered editors? Is there any difference in terms of how their edits are to be viewed or interacted with? If, for example, an IP makes an edit that has no edit summary, could that be summarily reverted? Especially if the edit does not appear to be constructive? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Iljhgtn and welcome to the Teahouse. Unregistered editors must be treated the same as those with an account. There are some restrictions on them such as never getting autoconfirmed. If an edit by anyone is unconstructive it can be reverted and then discussed (within edit warring policies) but a lack of an edit summary is not a reason for this. Since many IP editors are new to the project WP:NOBITING would also apply. Ultraodan (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

How do IPs put edits places like on Talk: Main Page then, which has protection yet also has comments from IPs? Nebman227 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

What IP edits are you referring to on that talk page? I don't see any in the last 250 edits. -- Avocado (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah and I just checked the past 500 and saw none. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nebman227, They can make a request at WP:RFED. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 05:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

In my contributions, I've added some code boxes to some pages that have wikitext code. Do you approve of these edits? I'm just wondering. Justjourney (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney Do you mean in the essay WP:Avoiding linkseas? That's fine but the essay itself was written in 2013 and has not been altered (or, I suspect, quoted) much since then. It is very similar to the oft-quoted WP:SEAOFBLUE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull For example, , I've edited a talk page guideline with code boxes. Justjourney (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. Others would revert your addition to these pages if they didn't like them, just as they would if you had edited articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I have asked for some simple changes to a page and have been accused of bludgeoning. I think if anyone reads through my previous posts they will find that I have been as respectful and polite as I can. Perhaps an independent reviewer could look at my recent posts? Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 16:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You don't even have 50 edits in the 17 days you've had your account, and almost all of them have been to Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis or related to it. Per WP:BLUDGEON, "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view." It doesn't necessarily mean you are trying to be rude, but you're appearing pushy. It's best to comment only when necessary; not every reply needs a reply. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Sorry I didnt realize that was a rule.

In my defense, part of my extensive comments have been about previous comments that were not implemented a few weeks ago or about referencing previous posts that the editors did not see.

And quite frankly, I am having to describe a scientific theory to an editor, which requires extensive typing, because he doesn't understand the theory!

Additionally, the editor was constantly "moving the goal post" for me and changing the argument, so I had to explain additional information and he did not respond to my previous posts. Again, if you have the time please review.

My comments are here. I would be interested in your comments. I am user Tdkelley1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 17:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Let's say someone is working on a draft article (Draft: namespace). Can I help with the draft, or do I have to just leave them be? Justjourney (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Technically, you could step in and help. In practise, however, most drafters tend to get annoyed at the least if someone else jumps in to help with their draft. I would ask them first on their user talk page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano For example, if 2025 New Delhi railway station stampede gets "draftifyed", as it is nominated for deletion, can I still get with the draft? Justjourney (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You can edit the article right now and !vote to keep it, pointing out that you have tackled some of the issues that led to it being nominated for deletion. If it is indeed still draftified as the AfD outcome, then continuing to work on it would be acceptable as the editor who mainly wrote it already knows what is going on. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The AfD was withdrawn by the nominator by the way. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 18:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sophisticatedevening What does withdrawn mean exactly? Justjourney (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

So when someone nominates an article for deletion, at any time the person who nominated can put a comment saying they withdraw their nomination, and the discussion is closed as Speedy keep. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 18:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I nominated Renato (footballer, born 1992) for deletion but per sources found by Svarter, I would like to close the deletion request as a speedy keep, but I',m not sure how to do that. Would anybody be able to either do it for me or show me how? Thanks :)) RossEvans19 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You can put a comment in bold saying "Withdrawn by nominator" right below your reason at the top and someone will come along and close it. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 18:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

See this one as an example if you need it Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 18:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the example, that was helpful :)) RossEvans19 (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

No problem! Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 18:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The word Caucasian properly refers to things relating to the Caucasus. In the US, however, (and apparently Canada and Singapore, going by Wiktionary) it can also refer to White people or Europeans or "Westerners" in general. Should I use this word on Wikipedia? If many sources use it, should I repeat the word or replace it with a synonym (are there any good synonyms to it?). Can it be easily mixed-up with Caucasian proper? I mean, they basically always can, right? It's a highly racial word, but then again, so is White, Black, African-American, "Western", and maybe even European.

Help would be greatly appreciated, cheers.

P.S. I do find it funny that when asking this question I was met with "Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse." Aspets (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Aspets: I can't answer your question about the term "Caucasian", but the current semi-protection is due to a relentless vandal who has nothing better to do with their life, making life harder for everybody else for no reason. Sorry for being so rude, it's just that I can't stand watching the Teahouse being restricted due to some random bored person. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 17:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I take no offense. Thank you for the explanation. I guessed as much. It was a little funny seeing it, like an example of recursion. Aspets (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Aspets The term Caucasian has multiple meanings, which is why it is a disambiguation page. I see no reason why it shouldn't be used as long as the meaning is unambiguous. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Aspets (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

If reliable sources use it, then use the term used by said sources, if and when the information is relevant, and cite those sources. You will rarely go wrong in editing if you keep in the forefront of your mind that Wikipedia is supposed to summarize what reputable sources say about a topic. And, refrain from bringing up biographical details when they're not contextually relevant: see MOS:ETHNICITY. WP:Race and ethnicity is an essay containing further thoughts from some editors on the general subject. --Slowking Man (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the link to MOS:Ethnicity, I haven't seen that before. I've read the essay but was mainly concerned with that specific word's polysemy and some sources sometimes being unclear (at least for me, not a native English speaker) in their usage. My previous experience editing has exposed my tendency to stick too closely to a source, basically plagiarizing it. Refraining from that involves summarizing what a source meant with their words, instead of reproducing them. So I will simply try to understand the occurences in their context. Cheers! Aspets (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)