From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Wikipedia Adventure not working?[edit]

I'm pretty new, and a lot of places people will say "oh, go to Wikipedia Adventure. You can learn to edit Wikipedia really quickly!" But, I've tried doing it and it just won't work for me. Can someone please help? Link: The Wikipedia Adventure 五颜六色⩥​ 19:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

五颜六色 what about it doesn't work? Maybe try scrolling down to the place where it lists 'missions' and click on Mission 1. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 19:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wikipedia Adventure screen that is not working
I did... but all it shows is a blank dark blue page with the background illustrations. 五颜六色⩥​ 19:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, 五颜六色. The Wikipedia Adventure only works with the original source editor. if you are using the visual editor, it will not work. Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)8Reply[reply]
How do you get to the original source editor? 五颜六色⩥​ 20:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@五颜六色: Welcome to the Teahouse. Go to Preferences → Editing → Editing mode and see if it's set to "Show me both editor tabs". If that is is enabled then you'll see an "edit source" link at the top of the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did, but the screen still stays the same. The only buttons on the top of the screen are read, view source, view history, add to watchlist and subscribe. Also, when I click view source there's a message saying that I probably shouldn't be there. 五颜六色⩥​ 22:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you clicking the Start the adventure button? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes 五颜六色⩥​ 23:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should bring you to a pop-up, which should send you to another popup. Do you have Javascript enabled for this site? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I checked my settings and it is enabled. However, I have never seen any popups. 五颜六色⩥​ 01:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have popups disabled in your browser? ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think so, but how to check to make sure? 五颜六色⩥​ 14:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My article is getting rejected I need an help![edit]

Ive been trying it for a whole day. They keep rejected my article even though i have added major sources - references. (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft is only declined, not rejected. You need to format the references properly and place them in line with the text they are supporting, please see Referencing for Beginners. You have also written the draft in the style of an essay and not an encyclopedia article. Writing a new article is very challenging; it's usually recommended that your first edit existing articles, to get a feel for what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you seen my article ? What changes should be made ? And do i need to make my article shorter ? (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you help me my article that will be acceptable for wikipedia ? Will appreciate it (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fix for me * (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you read the comments? You have repeatedly re-submitted without addressing the issues. Theroadislong (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Issue isnt about needing more references? I thought they weren't accepting my given references ? (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have dumped all your references at the end of the article it is very difficult for reviwers to work out which content is supported by them. Theroadislong (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah i see. Ill fix them tommorow thanks man. Once im used to it ill have no issues for now being a beginner we keep pushing lol (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Pir Alamah Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi appears to be the draft article referred to. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft does not make it clear what its subject's name was. It does not tell us his nationality. It is not written in neutral language, but is excessively adulatory. And above all, it cites no sources. Maproom (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ill fix that! Thanks. (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heyy. Someone can help me fix article lines ?[edit]

Im having troubling by putting references properly. Someome can look into my article + fix some errors will appreciate seniors (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added some more refferences but needs helps to set them properly in a section of * early life amd education (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I presume you mean Draft:Pir Alamah Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi? - X201 (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YES exactly (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seniors i need assistance. (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone can fix my article citations[edit]

My article Need help to improve its citations

Any senior here please? Will appreciate it truely [

added by

Seems to be about Draft:Pir Alamah Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi if anyone is interested. Already declined 7 times. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need some assistance with fixing some citations.[edit]

Really tired. It took me over 48 hours to write and set things but still i need seniors helps to set some minor settings (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! There are over 100,000 articles with citations that need to be fixed (see Help:CS1 errors). Are you asking for assistance with any specific article? GoingBatty (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Pir Alamah Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you User:SaneFlint? Is there any particular reason you are editing without logging in?
With regards to the article, you need to remove all the unsourced content first or create the article forward instead of creating it backward. See Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles forward and Help:Your first article Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes thats saneflint
Im not logging it in order to recieve replies i get as im writing without username. I may not recieve replies in logged account (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added sources on every article. Just needs help to set some references/ citations. Otherwise every information is there. This is why im seeking to get some assitamce from seniors:) (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I'm not properly able to fit them on lines. Idk but still lesrning and improving over all. (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For example: "He was born in his ancestrial village Pir Jhando near Saeedabad Tehsil, Sindh" has no citation attached to it for the AfC reviewer to verify. Every statement you make should follow with a citation or should include a citation at the end of the paragraph at least. You can also cite the same reference again by using the "Re-use" option in the cite popup. Once you improve the article, ask the last AfC reviewer for his thoughts on the article before submitting it again. Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had posted referenced arrticles which states these information. And before submitting you mean i can write here ? (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please take some time and go through WP:MINREF first. And not here but at the Articles for Creation reviewer's talk page. In this case, it is User:Seawolf35. Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes i find it helpful to ask things here. Still learning (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main purpose of Wikipedia:Teahouse is to help the newcomers. Whether logged in or not, users can expect to receive replies to all their questions. See WP:LOGGEDOUT Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My article is pending I need some seniors assistance[edit]

Seniors told me to make some changes. I need little bit of assistance to make it better SaneFlint (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your draft Draft:Pir Alamah Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi has been declined 10 times for lack of notability, you have re-submitted today. Please be patient. Theroadislong (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, in the starting i faced some issues as being beginner it took me lots of time to improve. There is mentioned that i can submit for review then can make edits to improve while leaving it for submission maybe that's why I had submitted quickly before. But now I'm.good with it or way better :)
Sure, i will wait for the review. Thanks alot. SaneFlint (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had resubmitted earlier in the morning with more proper referencing. Each information has its citations and are easy to understand.++ SaneFlint (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Fam. Looking for some assistance please[edit]

I have wrote an article about a prominent religious scholar of 19 century. Hes very well known in sind. Professors and other government organisations are publishing books on his name in sindhi and urdu. But the issue is with writing an article for English audience. This one is not easy for weatern audience to fully understand i know this.

Now, lets go back to issue.

I was asked that ive wrote praisings for that notability even though i just used them as references which were from some prominent notable sxholars as well. So the issue is how do i turn that praising type reference into netutal tone one? As it's brining troubles for my hard work. I shouldn't write that or just publish book numbers instead of words of other historian's? SaneFlint (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Pir Alamah Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi
The editor readily admits that English is not their first language, and that this may be an obstacle for them in reducing the draft from a paean of praise to a neutral and acceptable draft.
What they would find valuable is a competent editor to go through the draft and help them to précis it and flatten its tone prior to a submission for review of am excellent draft or the simple move to Mainspace once it is seen as ready.
Courtesy ping to @SaneFlint 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats what i am expecting from Teahouse. 🙂 i hope so SaneFlint (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SaneFlint: Hi there! Encyclopedias (even Wikipedia) contain fact-based articles without praising the subject. There may be people who think that this person was a "prominent Islamic scholar", while others might think he was not prominent. However, if you remove the word "prominent", I'm sure you can find a reference that states he was an Islamic scholar. Go through every sentence and remove all the language like "instrumental" and "Embracing the mission with great responsibility" and leave just the facts. Then make sure each fact can be traced to a published reliable source. How will the reviewer confirm facts such as "He studied at Madirsah Dar-ul-Rashad" or "Syed Ehsanullah Shah Rashidi managed the library from 1923 to 1937." I hope this helps you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi.i agree with it. Those sentences you pointed out are replaced with more easy words. Plus reference will tell about his studies in Dar Ul Rashad. Also it tells from which time period he managed library till privy court disputed case etc.
You can review it again thanks. SaneFlint (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moved the above five sections under another Teahouse section on the same draft. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photographing of faceless people[edit]

On the page Billy Woods, a rapper who remains faceless. Though, a picture of him exists on Wikimedia Commons performing at a concert. I added this photo to the article’s infobox, but was removed by another editor, stating: “Billy Woods historically wishes not to have images of his face posted or published. Every official depiction of him is covered or censored in some way, and putting up a photo like this is disrespectful to those wishes.” The photo of Woods remains on Commons, but isn’t wanted on the article itself. What should I do? Roasted (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Roastedbeanz1. I have restored the image based on the policy language found at Wikipedia is not censored. We have an image of Baháʼu'lláh, the founder of a religion that strenuously opposes publication of that portrait. Also applicable is Wikipedia:Ownership of content. This article does not belong to Woods or his fans. It is an article about Woods but he does not control it. Cullen328 (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe you may be in the right here, as Wikipedia is not censored. See also WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Remsense 03:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Roastedbeanz1 Remsense is correct: Wikipedia is not censored, so we don't remove pictures on the wish or whim of a subject or their followers. (Ummm, precedent is clear on that.) The way to proceed is also to discuss the matter at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roastedbeanz1 someone from my city is the same. He always wears a balaclava in public, in videos, and on TV, when he's with his crew. I have no idea why. However just over a year ago, his face could seen for 6 seconds in an episode of web-series by a world famous deejay, as the deejay arrived backstage at a festival, and they met each other. He probably didn't realise they were filming until it was too late.
When I can be bothered adding that web-series and it's 36 episodes so far to IMDB (and maybe Wikipedia in future, although I'll probably leave that to someone else), I'll be making sure I upload at least 1 screenshot of him with a tag to his profile.
He coincidentally looks like a fatter version of someone who made the news yesterday, as they were arrested and PAVA sprayed by the Metropolitan Police for no reason. Danstarr69 (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with a new page for an academic researcher[edit]


I am seeking input on how to improve this page: Draft:Saad Bhamla

It was rejected on the following grounds:


This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Having read the eight academic-specific criteria, it is clear that Prof. Bhamla meets several of these. I have also cited reliable secondary sources (e.g., NSF, NIH, etc.) to support this assertion.

I do need some help on the advertisement vs encyclopedia rejection. Most academic bios are written in the form that I supplied, but any tips on converting it into an encyclopedia-style diction would be appreciated.

Many thanks! Xwallawallax (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At a glance, the subject does not meet WP:NACADEMIC. Please remove any inline external links in the article; those are not permitted per WP:EL. Which NACADEMIC criteria do you think the subject meets? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Prof Bhamla has met criteria 1 and 2.
There are multiple examples for Criteria 1. One notable one is his naming as a major disruptor by Newsweek, a reputed magazine that is known to rank research institutions.
Criteria 2 is also straightforward - the awards I noted in the original draft are highly competitive, national, and prestigious awards.
Thanks for tips of inline external links, did not realize those were against the rules. Xwallawallax (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Newsweek, since 2013, is generally not considered a reliable source due to their deteriorated journalistic practices, including for purposes of establishing notability.
  2. Do any of these awards have articles themselves? I took a look and didn't see them well-covered at a glance to establish their own notability. I hope you understand that this merely feels like it's pushing the issue back a level.
Remsense 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Thanks - I did not know that. Looking into the linked article, it does seem that Newsweek is in the "yellow" category, with this major caveat: "Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis". Here is the article that lists Prof. Bhamla: This is a distinction from the magazine - they select a cohort of 10 prominent researchers each year. It is definitely not clickbait and not pay to play.
  2. I am willing to accept that Newsweek is of dubious reputability (although the distinction from the magazine is still notable), but the US NASEM is not. Here is a news article from them that highlights a major and prestigious award that Prof. Bhamla has won:
Xwallawallax (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not my area of expertise, so I will bow out and let people where it is take over, but I suppose if I had to speak on a personal, gut-feeling level, reading the newsweek article, the headline coupled with its presentation does feel very clickbait to me, but again, I do not feel comfortable deciding one way or the other, so I will abstain as to whether this should be accepted or not. Remsense 04:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for chiming in and helping me understand the process further.
Looking at Wikipedia:NACADEMIC requirements, they note: "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable."
"The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."
I feel that (a) the US NASEM article and the US NASEM as an institution are both reliable sources, (b) the Schmidt Futures award is a highly prestigious academic honor at an international level, according to the wikipedia article on this award: National Academies Communication Award Xwallawallax (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree. The National Academies Communication Award programme ended in 2019, and is not the same as the "Eric and Wendy Schmidt Awards for Excellence in Science Communication", which makes ~48 awards per year. The subject here is not listed as a Top Award winner at [1] and it is difficult to construe this award as highly prestigious. Both awards were national, not international. I don't see any of the other awards as highly prestigious; they appear to be routine and/or local in character. Ref 6, by the way, does not support the assertion made. I'm sure the subject is a very fine academic, but your enthusiasm for him meeting the criteria does not make it so. Hyperbole in the article - "notable projects", "work is recognized by numerous awards including" is unhelpful; promotional writing such as this is always a red flag. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm - I do think that most research-active academics would find this award as highly prestigious.
There are only 24 awards per year (, and only three per category. Prof. Bhamla was one of the three awarded in Research Scientist: Later Career.
At any rate, the combination of Prof. Bhamla's awards (Schmidt Futures Excellence in Sci. Comm., Criterion 2a notable foundation/society), publications in especially prestigious journals (, Criterion 1e, partial), notable and impactful inventions (, Criterion 1b), and his coverage in mainstream media (,,, Criterion 7a) strongly suggests that Prof. Bhamla meets the notability requirements.
I apologize for not including some of these other sources in my original draft and I am interested to know your thoughts on these. Xwallawallax (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xwallawallax: To demonstrate notability, you need to provide multiple independent sources. Articles written by Bhamla, interviews of Bhamla, and videos of Bhamla are not considered independent. GoingBatty (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thoughts are that it is a bit soon to say whether an award first implemented in 2022 is "highly prestigeous". The whirygig thing is interesting, but does it amount to a "notable and impactful invention"? Wired noticed it, but credit it to another researcher. What impact has it had? 1b asks for "In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." PR for the TED talk seems minimal. Butt flicking insects and their superpropulsion do not amount to 7a "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". What impact has it had? So, I really do not think there is an NACADEMIC pass here. Your best shot now is to find sufficient news media to get a WP:GNG pass. You have nothing in the article about butt flicking and there may be some centrifuge press which would show the sort of sustained interest in the subject's work needed for GNG. Or there may not, and it might all be a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xwallawallax: Note that the requirements say "reliable sources", meaning more than one. GoingBatty (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From looking at the notability rule, the article is allowed if he is promote to full professor (tenure) बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with WP:TOOSOON. He is an assistant professor. David notMD (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as to why lesser awards do not contribute. David notMD (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, all, for the feedback - very helpful despite the sometimes condescending tone.
I do think there is a case to be made for Criterion 1 and 7. Here are multiple sources that have covered Prof Bhamla's work:
Worm blobs: ; ;
Insect pee: ; ; + TED talk already discussed (1.3M views)
I do not think the assistant professor designation is sufficient to declare "Too soon" - there are other junior faculty with wikipedia entries that have similar caliber awards as Prof. Bhamla and significantly fewer external sources covering their research.
How do I proceed from here? I am happy to rewrite the article with the new information disclosed in this thread and submit it for re-evaluation - I admit my first draft was very bare bones. Xwallawallax (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Criterion 1 is for the people that everyone in their field cites. We'd expect to see something like a very high h-index, but that isn't the case here.
Criterion 7 is for people who are quoted in the popular media all the time, or who have written bestsellers for a lay audience. A couple of news articles about their work is not what this is about, this is for people who are regularly being asked on to news shows to comment on the science news of the day, even when they didn't have anything to do with the research themselves.
As to How do I proceed from here?, I would suggest you find a new subject who is more clearly notable. Some of the articles on winners of the National Medal of Science are quite short and could use expansion. - MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the additional explanation. I hate to use 'what about-ism' but it is clear that the criterions are not being applied evenly with this candidate vs. others that are already up on Wikipedia.
For instance, can you point to the source in this page that meets one of the criterion? Xwallawallax (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an example of somebody who does meet Criterion 1, for her development of nanoparticles that cross the blood-brain barrier - citations 4 through 9 of the article support that. They consequently also have a high h-index considering the stage of their career, and the individual papers associated with the discovery all have quite high citation counts. MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image from JSTOR[edit]

I want to use an image in JSTOR for a Wikipedia article. It is unclear to me if I am allowed to. The image is here. TwoScars (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like the answer is no - - no commercial use = no use on wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks TwoScars (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TwoScars A better bet might be to contact the Museum that holds the original: this image and these terms. Museums are often helpful in providing images etc. for Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, will do. TwoScars (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. I will contact CMOG to see if I can use it, find a different source, or not have an image. TwoScars (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would just upload a screen shot of it on commons and say it’s your own photo. They usually don’t look very much into uploads, but it you think it’s going to be a problem you could also upload a few of them from different accounts. They won’t be able to find them all. Kojavak (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kojavak: Please stop wading into discussions you are not qualified to participate in. This is dangerously wrong advice: commons:Commons:Licensing and WP:SOCK are both taken seriously.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please cite the policy that prohibits me from participating? Kojavak (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The advice you gave is blatantly wrong. In the case of the teahouse, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Become a host requires that you have at least 500 edits. More generally, the persistent giving of bad or incorrect advice could be construed as disruptive editing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s great, except I never claimed to be a host. So, where is the policy that prohibits me from answering questions? Kojavak (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kojavak: Stop wikilawyering. Consistently giving bad advice, whether intentional or not, is unconstructive and thus disruptive. So is wasting the time of other editors who have to clean up after you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kojavak:, you have advised the OP to break the law, to ignore Wikipedia policy regarding copyright, and to use sockpuppets. You have given blatantly false information about how the people at Commons operate. Thats four pieces os seriously wrong advice in one short reply. I am required to assume good faith, but you make it difficult. Maproom (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maproom: they're already blocked. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating a new page[edit]

How do I create a new page like for instance, if I created a page about clocks, how would I create that? Beebuzz2 (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beebuzz2, technically, all you have to do is go to the desired page title, such as User:Beebuzz2/sandbox or Clock article and create the page.
However, it is very hard to actually create a good article. See the guide on your first article; it is not recommended to create an article until you have a decent knowledge of the many policies and guidelines that exist. Instead, it is recommended to start with easy edits, as recommended by your newcomer homepage, and slowly work your way up to adding references, adding sections, etc. which is great preparation for creating a new article. Happy editing! Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 03:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beebuzz2 For a topic as broad as clocks, you would first have to check that Wikipedia doesn't already have an existing article you could improve: e.g. by looking at Category:Clocks. If you were sure your proposal was new, then this essay gives good advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey, I have seen several people here in Wikipedia with colorful and beautiful signatures.. How can I make one for mine.. Can someone tell me ? TheProEditor11 (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi TheProEditor11. The WP:CUSTOMSIG page tells you the technical details and rules for custom signatures. DMacks (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per that page: "A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. ". Please don't. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to know if posted research is still current or has been debunked?[edit]

Case in point: the Dunning-Kruger effect Follow-up studies (Edward Nuhfer and colleagues, Gilles Gignac and Marcin Zajenkowski have shown that the original work done by Dunning, Kruger was mis-presented (may not have been intentional) and actually caused autocorrelation which presented their hypothesis. How do we notate wiki to indicated that the DKE is NOT true based on proper representation of their study data? Maybe a dedicated wiki section (on each wiki page) to add updated links, scoring, confidence rating. << just some thoughts Bradtech13 (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bradtech13 The Dunning-Kruger effect is rated as a Good article. If you have suggestions for improvement, please make them on its Talk Page at Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect. The article has over 2,000 page watchers, so you should get an informed response there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is possible make a article draft better about How to buy property in Brazil as a foreigner?[edit]

Hi, please I need help for we can help people to avoid scams on Brazilian real estate market.

My draft is : Draft:How to buy Property in Brazil with Tourist Visa?

Thanks :) Imoveisavista (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Imoveisavista: Wikipedia isn't the place for that, per WP:NOTHOWTO.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would add that blogs are not considered reliable sources and so can't be used to support content in any article ­– see WP:BLOGS. Tollens (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bots for Wikipedia[edit]

OP indeffed for NOTHERE

Folly Mox (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Fellow Wikipedians, I was wondering how you can make a bot for Wikipedia? Is that even possible for normal wiki users or do u have to be in the IT department for Wikipedia?

See u later, DieCrewls22 08:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DieCrewls22: Bots are all community-operated! You can certainly develop and run one, but there are stringent requirements and you need some proficiency in software engineering. See Wikipedia:Bots.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DieCrewls22: Yes, it is possible for anyone to create a bot, but for the bot to be permitted to edit outside of its own userspace you would need to submit a request for approval. For the process of creating the bot itself, see WP:CREATEBOT. Tollens (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Guys! DieCrewls22 08:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writing a personal article[edit]


I am Taymia Beldjilali. I am new to Wikipedia, that is why I am asking if you could help me know how to write a new personal article. And I want to write about science. Taymia Beldjilali (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Taymia Beldjilali and welcome to Wikipedia!
Making an acceptable WP-article without having any/very little experience in WP-editing is difficult. It is strongly recommended that you spend some time editing/improving existing articles first, to get an idea how this place works.
On how to make a WP-article. First make sure there isn't an article on the subject already. Then see WP:BACKWARD. If you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem!", move on to Help:Your first article. It is also absolutely essential that you learn how to add references correctly, I can't stress this enough. WP:TUTORIAL has guidance on that. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to add also that if by "personal article" you mean you would like to create an article about yourself, then... don't. For reasons why that's not a good idea, please see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have submitted your draft twice, ( User:Taymia Beldjilali/sandbox) but we already have an article on the topic Cell (biology) and please note that articles are based on what reliable published sources say about a topic, your draft seems to be a personal essay which is not allowed here. Theroadislong (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Заблокирован я ... очевидно, наглыми дебилами ![edit]

+ "При вопросах можете обратиться к участнику Викизавр. — 12:16, 21 ноября 2023 (UTC)" _ уже не могу прямо к нему обратиться. _ Имею диплом инженера технолога по резине, и удивясь слабой здесь статье "ЭЛАСТОМЕР" пытался дополнить её серьёзными сведениями об этом материале, вечно неразлучном с каждым человеком - от игрушек, резинок трусов, шин вело-авто-авиа - транспорта, ... ... и неизменном участнике в агрегатных веществах, например, при пересечения колесом лужи : жидкость, твёрдое тело обода и газа в оболочке из эластомера в основе.

_ Очевидно, я разошёлся с ублюдками в понимании Википедии - энциклопедии, поддерживаемой на современном уровне её УЧАСТНИКАМИ.

_ На главной странице Википедии нужно иметь ОЖИДАНИЕ улучшения и новых статей с безупречным ОБОСНОВАНИЕМ, мгновенно размещаемым, и сопровождаемым укорами в слабом обосновании, что ставит метку "для удаления", если это верно и будет улучшения. Но блокировать дебилам всё равно недопустимо. Виктор Рахман (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Machine translation:
I was blocked... obviously by arrogant morons!
+ “If you have questions, you can contact the Wikisaurus member. - 12:16, November 21, 2023 (UTC)” _ I can no longer contact him directly. _ I have a diploma as a rubber technologist, and, surprised by the weak article “ELASTOMER” here, I tried to supplement it with serious information about this material, always inseparable from every person - from toys, elastic bands of panties, tires for bicycles, cars, air transport, .... .. and an invariable participant in aggregate substances, for example, when a wheel crosses a puddle: liquid, solid body of the rim and gas in an elastomer shell at the base.
_ Obviously, I disagreed with the bastards in their understanding of Wikipedia - an encyclopedia maintained at the modern level by its PARTICIPANTS.
_ On the main page of Wikipedia, you need to have an EXPECTATION for improvement and new articles with an impeccable JUSTIFICATION, instantly posted, and accompanied by reproaches for weak rationale, which puts a mark "for deletion" if this is true and there will be improvements. But blocking morons is still unacceptable. Victor Rakhman Tollens (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Виктор Рахман: You appear to have been blocked at the Russian Wikipedia, a completely different project than the English Wikipedia. None of us are able to help effectively with matters there, you should instead continue to engage with the administrators there. Additionally, please try to communicate in English, or provide a machine translation if you cannot – very few of us speak Russian.
Машинный перевод: Вас, похоже, заблокировали в русской Википедии, совершенно другом проекте, чем английская Википедия. Никто из нас не может эффективно помочь там с делами, вместо этого вам следует продолжать взаимодействовать с тамошними администраторами. Кроме того, постарайтесь общаться на английском языке или, если не можете, предоставьте машинный перевод — очень немногие из нас говорят по-русски. Tollens (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
_ Знаю только родной язык. _ Но мне ине и не требуется помощь от
русских дебилов! _ А им ... никто сможет помочь.
Росvотрите :
----- ```` Виктор Рахман (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Machine translation:
_I only know my native language. _But I don’t even need help from
Russian morons! _And... no one can help them.
(link) Tollens (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
is this about the english wikipedia?
речь идет о английской википедии? ltbdl (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
_ Искал нормального админа на русской, но СВОЛОЛОЧИ меня заблокировали,
так что нашёл я вариант только через Чайхану ... дать информацию ... . Виктор Рахман (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was looking for a normal admin on Russian, but the bastards blocked me, so the only option I found was through Teahouse... to give information ... .

the english wikipedia can't do anything about the russian wikipedia.
английская википедия ничего не может сделать с русской википедией.
i'm using machine translation, by the way.
кстати, я использую машинный перевод. ltbdl (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
К сожалению, мы в английском проекте Википидии не можем помогать тебе на русском проекте. У каждый язычный проект есть автономия в делах администрации. Тебе надо запрашивать помощь на русском проекте, либо Metawiki [2]. signed, Rosguill talk 14:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Спасибо! Помощь не нужна. Виктор Рахман (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edits reverted[edit]

Hello. Recently, i have made a couple edits to make certain articles have a more neutral point of view. Unfortunately, however, they keep getting reverted, with insults and disparaging remarks, and when i seek clarification as to why it has been reverted, i get no response. Please let me know how to fix this issue, and i would like the guidance of an experienced editor who also had to deal with neutrality issues Adenyoyo (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I assume this refers to your edits to The Atlantic. If you want to say in Wikipedia's voice that it is a leftist publication in the lead, you must first establish a consensus to do so on the talk page, and demonstrate that the preponderance of reliable sources describe it that way. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is also in reference to disputed edits at Misogynist terrorism. You are already participating in a discussion on the Talk page of that article and should continue until consensus is reached, or if not, there are other options. Your proposal that other people stop editing the article - including reverting your changes - is not acceptable. David notMD (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should I just merge an article that no one edited recently?[edit]

Wikipedia guidlines say that you should reach consensus, but this article Southwest Transitway (Winnipeg) hasn't been edited since 2021 except for one bot and I think it should be merged into the section about it in Winnipeg RT. I don't think a consensus can be reached anywhere near soon and don't see any good reason anyone would object. Should I just be bold? OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @OrdinaryGiraffe, and welcome to the Teahouse! That nobody has edited it recently doesn't necessarily mean that nobody is interested in discussing whether it should be merged. I'd follow the procedure for proposing a merge, and wait about a week before going through with the merge if nobody objects. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thank you. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. Should I post it on the talk page of Winnipeg RT as well, or just Southwest Transitway (Winnipeg)? OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The usual practice is to discuss on the talk page of the article you want to merge into, and add {{merge from}} and {{merge to}} to the actual articles. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I thought it was the other way around. Thank you. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:MERGEPROP is the process, and indeed the discussion goes on the destination page. DMacks (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How can I change the name of the draft? (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ochurdyap NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 17:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, and welcome! Are you the same person as User:Nightmaretime9999? If so, you can log into your account and move the page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Website on BLP[edit]

I am looking at Taylor Swift's page and it includes her own website of, what is the WP policy regarding having someone's own website within their infobox of their WP page? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Iljhgtn, welcome to the Teahouse! The guideline is at WP:ELOFFICIAL and is permitted. Qcne (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this article ready for submission, if not what could I improve?[edit]

Draft:The Jackson 5 Second National Tour Thealt3786 (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thealt3786: I added three {{unreferenced section}} tags to help you. I also suggest that each reference has (at a minimum) a magazine/publisher/website/work and a title parameter with a name that doesn't duplicate the magazine/publisher/website/work. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paragraph break in lead section[edit]

Hi Wikipedians - I recently edited the Intimate relationship page, and I’m having trouble inserting a paragraph break in the lead section. I have inserted a break while editing, but then when I publish the page it just looks like a big block of text. Is there some code I can input to force a paragraph break? I didn’t have problems creating paragraphs in the rest of the article so I am confused! If anyone else is able to input one, I'm trying to start a new paragraph right before: "The course of an intimate relationship . . . "

Thank you! A.mollusk (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem solved, thank you to a helpful editor :) A.mollusk (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure why, but inserting a newline before the first paragraph fixed it. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modifying an edit summary[edit]

I modified a draft article, and my edit summary left out something important. Is there a way to modify the summary? I'm not seeing one. Johsebb (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome. There is no means to alter an edit summary. If needed, you can edit the draft talk page to provide an explanation, or you may make a "dummy edit"(usually adding a space to the draft) and use that edit summary. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Johsebb (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with article[edit]

Hi Wikipedians - I recently created a painter page and are having trouble finding out where is the inappropriate part. Can you help me identify it? Thank you! Rk9000 (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, the primary issue, much more than the tone issue, which can be easily fixed, is the issue of the images. Wikipedia articles cannot host images if Wikipedia doesn't have the explicit right to do so, and none of those images seem like they have been properly licensed. Do you have any information on the source of each image? If they are not explicitly licensed in a way where they can be used, then copyright law mandates that they are under the exclusive copyright of the original author. Remsense 20:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having so many images also is overwhelming the article. I'm not sure if that is the "tone" issue someone else sees. But it gives a feel of using the article itself as a sort of exhibition. Instead the written text is the main type of content an article should have. Images should mainly be used to help support the words. DMacks (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see User:Tagishsimon has done some image-use cleanup. DMacks (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They were the poster-child for "Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. " per WP:GALLERY. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice double (triple maybe?) ententre with "poster child". DMacks (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ding Rong, if this article makes into mainspace and lots of images are accepted on commons, we'd have a category on commons to collect them and then the enwiki article would automatically link to that cat there. DMacks (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is commons:Category:Rong Ding, to match the draft article-content. Rk9000, I know surname conventions vary among cultures and countries, but it's particularly confusing that "Rong Ding...also known as DING Rong" is at article-title "Ding Rong". WP:ZHNAME has the guideline for the page-name. If the name-order for the category should be switched, feel free to ask me, it's an easy task. DMacks (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a ticket in VRT for them, awaiting handling by the VRT volunteers. DMacks (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting that Rk9000 also today asked the tagger for a more detailed explanation. That's definitely a great approach, and worth waiting a day or two for response. DMacks (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rk9000: Welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at Draft:Ding Rong, I think you could add more information about each photo. Where and when was the photo of Ding Rong taken? Where and when was the exhibition described on the poster? Where and when was the photograph of the exhibition taken? Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copy references for a list?[edit]

Hi there,

I'm making a list: Draft:List of earliest tools and their use. I worked hard to make sure each item either has its own references, or links to another wikipedia page, but not both. I figure the other wikipedia pages have their own references and if I copy them, my list's references will just get out of date while the in-depth wikipedia pages' references get updated over time. But my reviewer rejected my draft for not including its own references for each item. How do you suggest I handle this? Should I just copy the references and never mind the issue of getting out of date? Or is there a better way to link to the in-depth wikipedia pages for a list? Or some other option I haven't thought of?


- Jon Jonrbrix (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @Jonrbrix, and welcome to the Teahouse! The relevant guideline here is WP:LISTVERIFY, according to which lists need to follow the same standards for verifiability as other articles. Consider that even if an article on the list were to be updated, the list would need to be updated separately anyway. Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So yes, do cite sources in lists, too. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Maddy from Celeste!! Will do. Jonrbrix (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Radio call signs[edit]

I'm developing an interest for local radio and television stations. For infoboxes, they have a parameter for call sign meanings. I'm not really sure how people find the meaning of them, and I want to make sure I avoid original research. Thanks, TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 20:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TrademarkedTarantula: Welcome to the Teahouse! Like every other piece of information in the article, the meaning for the call sign should be a published source. You might find it on the station's web site, or in a magazine/newspaper article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For creating a new page[edit]

Hi guys,

I am making a draft: Draft:Leo Li Meng. Did I get rejected because of too little content and unreliable citations? But I choose articles from well-known sites. Can I cite Wikipedia page in other languages? Atobesmile (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure, but looking at the article it might be because you really didn't right anything about him except this one occurrence. To make it more complete, include stuff like his early life, for example. --ISometimesEatBananas (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok, thanks so much!!! Atobesmile (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Atobesmile: Welcome to the Teahouse! The editor who declined your draft (not rejected, which would be worse) left a notice on the top of the draft (and on your user talk page) explaining why they declined your draft. The only English source you provided is a press release, which is not an independent source. It is OK to use non-English sources, but I'm not going to comment on the quality of sources in languages I cannot read. Are your other sources independent? Do they provide significant coverage of Leo Li Meng? You may not use Wikipedia articles in other languages as sources, per WP:CIRCULAR. However, you may choose to incorporate the independent published reliable sources from Wikipedia articles in other languages in your draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your help. I looked up some recognized sources from Wikipedia in other languages and re-edited them. Do you think these are considered independent sources? I have read Wikipedia:Independent sources, but i still have some confused. Thanks!:) Atobesmile (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with a Draft[edit]

I recently submitted an article, Draft:MBTA Kinki Sharyo Type 7, and it got denied due to an inadequate amount of secondary sources. Since the denial, I've added a few sources from what I interpret to be secondary, mainly hailing from the Boston Globe. I was wondering if these sources are actually considered secondary, or if their content pushes them into primary sources? I'd greatly appreciate feedback, thanks in advance! Archangelectra (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archangelectra would have been great if you could name the sources themselves rather than force me to go to page history and look it up. [3] sounds like a blog, and has two sentences on the specific vehicle. [4] is only a name-drop. The Boston Globe ones are paywalled, so I don't know if they contain significant coverage. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 02:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding source 5, that's fair. I'll investigate further but you seem to be right. In source 6, it mentions how type 7 vehicles were auctioned off by the MBTA. And while I am not encouraging it, there are methods to bypass these paywalls, and I've seen several sources that have been paywalled in the past utilized on Wikipedia. Apologies regarding not naming the sources though, that's completely my fault. Apologies. Archangelectra (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Archangelectra. It is perfectly acceptable to cite sources behind paywalls, provided they are reliable and independent (see WP:PAYWALL). However it may mean that particular reviewers have difficulty checking them.
There are resources within Wikipedia to get access to content which is in some way restricted: see WP:RX and The Wikipedia Library. ColinFine (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Total Commitment Del Shannon Album review[edit]

what's book in Billboard is Total Commitment Del Shannon Album review? Samchristie05 (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, Samchristie05, but I cannot parse this question. However, it does seem to be about Del Shannon, or about one of his LPs. It doesn't seem to be about the use of Wikipedia, which is the purpose of this page. You might rephrase your question and ask it at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
alright, but what's need more work on article Total Commitment Del Shannon Album? Samchristie05 (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BuySomeApples, who declined Draft:Total Commitment, might care to comment. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hoary and Samchristie05: thanks for pinging me! I just want to echo what Timtrent said. The overall tone of the article needs to be edited a bit to be more encyclopedic. You can look at other Wikipedia articles and how they describe things to get an idea of how to do this. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Samchristie05: Welcome to the Teahouse! I think you are working on Draft:Total Commitment, and looking for a source published by Billboard Books that reviews the Total Commitment album. I don't know the answer, but you can try the Wikipedia:Reference desk for help finding references. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Samchristie05 Hi, if English is not your first language, you might be more successful contributing to aWikipedia that is in another language. Ca talk to me! 02:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What 3 thing i need to short out[edit]

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Timtrent, What 3 thing i need to short out on Del Shannon Total Commitment? Samchristie05 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timtrent, this appears to be a question for you. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Samchristie05 The tone! Please read and understand the advice you have been given and then implement the solution. We require flat, neutral prose. You have written a magazine article, but not one for an encyclopaedia.
@Cordless Larry Thanks for the ping. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
courtesy ping @Samchristie05. The sections were combined and you may be struggling to find the answers. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i just did i hope it gets approved w/o no violation Samchristie05 (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What defines a "reliable source" on Wikipedia[edit]

Ok, I know what reliable means, but what are some sites that are classified as "reliable", according to Wikipedia? I got rejected for article becuase I didn't have "reliable sources", but what is the fine line between "reliable" and "not reliable"? I am just asking to improve my article.

Oh, and by the way, here is the link to my draft: Draft:Virgin Atlantic Flight 43

Thanks to everyone that can help,

Westwind51000 Westwind51000 (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you'll see on WP:RS, there is intentionally a "spectrum of reliability", you could say. Since the world of information is messy, certain types of sources and certain outlets are deemed reliable for certain purposes depending on context.
Keeping in mind aviation is not my field of expertise:
  • Simple Flying seems like it could be reliable: it has a stated fact checking policy, though I am troubled that it doesn't actually appear to say much about the process itself.
  • However, FlyerTalk seems less likely to be reliable, as it itself describes itself as a 'community' rather than a news outlet, and it doesn't appear to have any posted guarantees regarding the veracity of its information or its own sources. It may even be user-generated, based on how it presents itself, but I'm not sure.
Additionally, these sources could be considered marginally reliable within an article if they were used alongside other, diverse sources that were saying the same thing, but I do not think by themselves they provide adequate sourcing for an article. Try to locate sources from general news outlets, perhaps?
Remsense 02:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Remsense, I'm trying to find new sources right now Westwind51000 (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Westwind51000: See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for commonly discussed sources of varying reliability, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources for a list more specific to your draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you add two different citations from the same site?[edit]

How do you add citations from the same site? For my draft: Draft:Virgin Atlantic Flight 43, I got my registration and investigation from the same site: How do I add the citations for them both with one site without it not making sense?

Thanks to everyone that helps,

Westwind51000 Westwind51000 (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Westwind51000: Welcome to the Teahouse! See WP:NAMEDREF to learn how to use named references more than once in the same article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Westwind51000 It seems that the website in question is a wiki that can be edited by anyone. As such, it is of no use as a source for Wikipedia. For the same reason, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help me get my article posted[edit]

recently I decided to create a page for my favorite ship class, and it continues to get rejected again and again.

It is because of insufficient sources, but in of the sources is holland america itself! Gulf of mind (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gulf of mind: Welcome to the Teahouse! As stated on the top of the draft, you will need to provide multiple independent sources. I don't think the Fincanteri and Fred Olsen Cruise Lines web pages would count as independent sources. GoingBatty (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Gulf of mind. When you write holland america itself!, that indicates that you do not yet understand that acceptable Wikipedia articles mostly summarize what completely independent sources say about the topic. The sort of sources that you mentioned are not independent of the topic, and are therefore of no value in establishing the notability of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Gulf of mind. Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"best known for" in leads of biography[edit]

Is it acceptable to use the phrase X is best known for Y in the lead of a biographical article? Or is it a form of original analysis? The practice is widespread and done on many articles. Even when the sources do not explicitly say "best known for", often a subject's notability is established as a result of what they are "best known" for. It could be seen as an opinion, but also often a self evident opinion. What do editors think? (Edit: given the comment below, clarifying that I asked because I have been reverted for using the term myself here). Zenomonoz (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Zenomonoz. I do not have strong feelings one way or another about this phrase, but you should be aware that there is a person who has been banned from Wikipedia because they created significant disruption for many years about "best known for" wording. This person is totally obsessed with this particular phrase, so I encourage you to proceed with great caution. This abusive person has made it very difficult to have productive conversations about this phrase. Please read Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP until you get bored or tired. Cullen328 (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh. Lol. I came here after a user removed my addition of 'best known for' here. And then said I was doing "synth" for using the phrase. Edit: It looks like they're an established editor though, so I'm guessing it's unrelated. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer not to use "best known for" phrasing, and I've edited articles to remove it in the past. It is sometimes self-evident and sometimes wild speculation, and it's hard for readers unfamiliar with the topic to know the difference without explicit support from sources. We also can presume that our readers will know that we are placing the most important information about our subjects in the lead, especially the first paragraph. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, very helpful. Sounds reasonable. I'll start avoiding using the term myself. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers It's difficult. Virtually everyone in Eric H. Cline's field would say he's best known for his work on the Bronze Age, ie his book 1177 B.C. and his newer book After 1177 B.C. but looking again I guess the only fix is to enlarge the lead to cover some of his works and awards. On the other hand, it's a blue sky statement for those in the field. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I'm having problems with editing Xandersmaster123 (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You edited Languages of Israel to state that German is the first or second language of every Israeli. German was a common language circa 1947, but no longer. Your edits were reverted. If you believe your changes were true (they are not) then you needed to provide references as the same time. As a general principle, once reverted, editors are advised to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article rather than ask here at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Xandersmaster123 You did it again. Stop or you risk being indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Switching user name[edit]

Hey, I've been thinking about switching up my username. I've got something else in mind that I reckon would be way cooler. Any idea how I can make that happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManOnTheMoon92 (talkcontribs) 09:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ManOnTheMoon92:, Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! There are many ways to change your username on Wikipedia. The first, and easiest would be to fill out a simple form! It is the Global Rename request form. From that link, all you need to do is fill out your new username, as well as why you want to change it, and someone will be around to change it soon! You can also check CentralAuth and type the username you would want to see if it is already taken. Happy editing! -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 10:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The easiest way to change your username, ManOnTheMoon92 would be to stop using it, to start using your new username, and then to announce on your new userpage that you were previously "ManOnTheMoon92". This way you'd take up none of anybody else's time. (If you'd already made hundreds or thousands of edits, it would be a different matter, but you've been editing for less than two weeks and have made just 47 edits.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hoary: Quite an unfriendly response. The user is obviously new, as you yourself state. This is a place for learning, which is also obvious. Let's keep the inquisitive spirit alive.
@LemonSlushie: Thank you for such an informative and helpful reply. You are a strong example of what makes a collaborative tool like this so great! -- Brhiba (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can/should new users remove "this article needs work" type template boxes?[edit]

Hello, I'm a new editor who has worked on two existing biography article pages -- Arden Eversmeyer and Susan Schulz -- that had been flagged as needing improvements, expansions, and updates. I've done this work, but because of my new-ness did not feel comfortable removing the "this article needs work" template boxes. In both cases I added a note to the Talk page asking for a more experienced editor to weigh in. Was this the right step for me to take? Or should I have just gone ahead and removed the template boxes? P.S. Susan Schulz's short explainer saying "American magazine editor" doesn't show up when you link to/search her name. Thank you LowellMillGirl (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @LowellMillGirl: there are thousands upon thousands of articles that have these templates, so any help is appreciated. If you think the issues are no longer present, then go ahead and remove the tags. 15:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I'll do that. LowellMillGirl (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A draft was declined[edit]

I submitted Draft:Moa Ilar for review and it was declined, and I really can't understand why. One of the reasons was "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.", there are references to news coverage in mainstream media in the article.

Another reason was "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". It clearly shows that she's won a world cup race, and they are not just "passing mentions".

It's probably a bit academic by now since another user created an article about her, but I'd like to understand the reason. JonasB (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JonasB. I don't see any of the articles that contain significant coverage of Ilar. No 1 is just statistics, and cannot contribute to notability. No 3 is mostly an interview, and cannot contribute to notability. The others could, but, as I say, I don't see them saying very much about her. ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating another article[edit]

So, I have made one article (Until This Shakes Apart), and the got a notice that it was accepted. but in it, it said Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. And that's swell, but I don't wan't to just have the power to make any draft. Can I revoke this? I'd prefer if I can make a draft, but still let others review it, before it is accepted, in case I f*ck something up. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shine on you) (Crazy Diamond) 15:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can upload a draft by affixing [[Draft:]] to the beginning of the title and then making the page there. Explodicator7331 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you!! Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shine on you) (Crazy Diamond) 15:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always create my articles using the Article Wizard [5], which gives you the option of creating a draft to be reviewed, or publishing the article directly – which will then be looked at by a new page patroller. I did some freelance writing before my first Wikipedia article, and I still felt safer having my first few Wikipedia articles submitted for review before being published, because I wanted to make sure I knew exactly what I was doing before trusting that I wouldn't mess up and publish something that wouldn't meet Wiki standards. Best wishes on your future projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Babysharkboss2, the notice says you may create articles directly, not that you must. I've been here for many, many years now, and I've only just had my first article published. You can keep using AFC as long as you like, no one is going to tell you to stop. Madam Fatal (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

recently asked question[edit]

On Nov 17 I asked a question about submitting a draft article for submission from a Word document. I was out of town and just got back to this forum and cannot locate the several helpful replies I got on Nov 17th. How do I find them now? Thank you. Legendt9455 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Legendt9455: Hi there! Posts on this page are archived after several days of inactivity. At the top of the page is a box you can use to search the archives. When I searched for your user name, I found the post in Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1206#created draft new entry. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you! Legendt9455 (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable Sources[edit]

Draft:2024 ADCC World Championship is my article and it has been declined due to "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

As someone who is fairly well-versed in the subject matter, the sources I'm using are the most reliable in the field. Would appreciate advice on what to do here. Spyguy1503 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spyguy1503: Welcome to the Teahouse! Without evaluating any of the sources you provided, I see that the "ADCC 2024 Superfight" section does not have a reference. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Spyguy. I also haven't looked at your sources; but I know that sometimes people are misled by the standard message that Vanderwaalforces used. The sources may be reliable, but are they also independent of the subject, and do they contain significant coverage of the subject? A source must meet all three of those criteria in order to count towards notability. ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks ColinFine, I have reviewed the sources, and have found all of them to be reliable, all but one are independent (which just announces the date for a qualifying event.), and all are solely or almost solely focused entirely on the subject itself.
Thanks for your feedback. Spyguy1503 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

article naming for Harrogate Royal baths[edit]

I am planning to create a new article for Harrogate Turkish Baths. I have read the naming standards for architecture, but I am unsure how best to interpret them. In the Heritage England listing the building is simply named Royal Baths. When built they were called Harrogate Royal Baths. The current operators call it Harrogate Turkish Baths. As Royal Baths is a proper name should it be Title Case capitalised? Should the article just be called “Royal baths” or “Harrogate Royal baths”, or “Royal baths, Harrogate”? TIA (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Forgot to sign in so this is me. Markmclellan (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which is the most commonly used title is debatable. I'd be inclined to go with Royal Baths, Harrogate, per Historic England. It is a proper name - should be capitalised. Royal Baths currently rediects to Łazienki Park ... it can be changed into a disambiguation page. Other titles can be added as redirect pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I can happily go with your inclination. Now to read up about creating disambiguation pages and setting up redirects. Always something new to learn :-) Markmclellan (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biography Sources[edit]

hi! I am having trouble creating a page for the dean of my school of education, Elizabeth Moje. I edited from the original draft and should have 12+ sources, I just added a few more outside sources. How do I get my page posted? Yendys112233 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yendys112233 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you attempted to declare a COI- I fixed it for you- what is the general nature of your COI?
Please heed the advice left by reviewers. You have no independent reliable sources summarized in the draft article(the preferred term, not the broader "page"). Notability is not the issue, but you need independent sources summarized. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really have a COI except that she is the dean of the school I am currently in? I have never interacted with her on any level though, sorry I didn't even know I messed with the COI input! And okay makes sense with the sources, I will keep trying, thank you so much! Yendys112233 (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think you merely being a student at the school is a COI, especially if you don't communicate with her. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


how can I add a new page about some one Hlalvinator (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hlalvinator: Welcome to the Teahouse. You will want to read Your first article, and determine whether or not this person is wikinotable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hlalvinator: Hi there! Expanding on the advice above, creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction, and then spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, declines, and rewrites before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to stop IP users from vandalizing?[edit]

It seems that IP users can revert or edit maliciously. What is a way to stop them? Comintell (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comintell Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Vandals may be reverted and reported to WP:AIV for blocking. If there is a sustained effort against a particular article, protection may be requested at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add that it is generally appropriate to warn the editor in question before reporting them. Templated warnings for most cases can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings. You may also wish to install Twinkle, a script that makes reverting, warning, and reporting vandals easier. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mapping not working[edit]

I was looking through Atlantic University Sport and saw that Memorial University is swimming in it's member map. I tried to shift it over other coordinates on the university itself but it still didn't work. Not a major issue, but is there anyway to fix this. (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to arise out of a 3 September 2023 edit by user:Palaeozoic99 on in which the user shrunk the map, leaving an invisible border around the image, thus screwing up geolocation on the map. I've reverted that edit, but the Atlantic University Sport page is still currently choosing to display the shrunk image rather than the reverted image, which I hope is a caching issue which will sooner or later clear. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, those are the.worst.maps.ever. Who on earth thought it would be a good idea to have three enormous maps in the article. smh. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, fixed, after a fashion. I've shrunk the maps & stuck them in a table. Memorial University is back on land. Someone with more table-fu than me might be able to make the table borders disappear, or otherwise improve the aesthetics. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When a source seems reliable but isn't[edit]

had a source removed from an article for the reasoning "its unreliable" but did not come up in the unreliable sources blacklist.

What are best practices for knowing if a source is reliable or not (if its not clearly obvious?) Should we go by source size, prominence, etc.? Any tools or resources or advice would be great! Comintell (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Comintell. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for an explanation. It starts out saying Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Size, how prominent a source is, etc are independent of reliability. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So basically, if they have not published factual inaccuracies, it's reliable? How is reputation defined? Thanks! Comintell (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Comintell. A reliable publication will have a list of their top editorial staff and an explanation of their editorial policies. The reputation comes from what other reliable sources independent of the publication say about the publication. Do they praise the publication or criticize it? Does the publication regularly publish corrections? Everyone makes mistakes and admitting mistakes is important. Has the publication won notable journalistic awards? These are some of the indicators of reliability. Cullen328 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is very helpful thanks. Comintell (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monterey, California infobox and History wording: would the Bay have been named before the City or vice versa?[edit]

I want to make sure I am not making any edits that would seem like they are in bad faith. I couldn’t decide between the two. As I am not a expert, per se, on the distinction, I’m also considering putting this on a relevant WikiProject’s talk space, but I would appreciate it if I could have some general sentiment here.

Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 22:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mac Henni.The bay was renamed named "Puerto Monterey", which means "Port of Monterey" in 1602. The city was founded in 1770, and so it is clear that the city was named after the bay that it is located on. I am also not an expert but have been there quite a few times. Cullen328 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I reverted my previous change, so it shouldn’t be an issue from this point on! Thanks! Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 23:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit Template:Jcon[edit]

Hello, I noticed that Template:Jcon might need to be slightly altered (it's not linking to Ottawa City Road articles); however it's protected. I am an Extended confirmed user but am still unable to edit it. Is someone able to provide some assistance?

Thank you. MuzikMachine (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MuzikMachine: That template is only semi-protected. I am also extended-confirmed and am able to edit it, so it should not be a problem for you. It looks like all the code is actually in Module:Jcon but that is also only semi-protected. What error are you seeing when you try to edit? RudolfRed (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RudolfRed: There we go, thank you! The error I was going to look at was where Ottawa City Roads link to; Template:Jcon seems to be linking them to 'Ottawa City Road %' (i.e. Ottawa City Road 174 / City Road 174), while the Ottawa numbered road articles are titled 'Ottawa Road %' (i.e. Ottawa Road 174). I was just wanting to look under the hood to see what the best solution might be. MuzikMachine (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Deleted Twice[edit]


After the first deletion, I made extreme edits to make the article acceptable by Wikipedia. But, that version is also slated for speedy deletion. I actually mimicked the biography of a current article (replacing the person with my person) and it is still being flagged/deleted. How do I get it accepted if Wikipedia is no longer accepting an article that mimics a previously approved/published article?

Thanks. Noseallergy (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems you have not engaged with the actual reason for rejection, which is the potential lack of notability. Remsense 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Noseallergy. Please take a look WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more details, but basically the draft you're working on is going to be assessed on its own merit (i.e. as to whether the subject you're trying to create a Wikipedia article is deemed ot be Wikipedia's notable). Mimicking other existing articles doesn't make whatever your trying to write about Wikipedia notable since (1) it's possible those other article should've never been created to begin with and (2) the Wikipedia notability of those other subjects doesn't transfer to the subject you're trying to write about. What you're going to need to establish is that the person you're trying to write about meet Wikipedia:Notability (people).
Finally, if your question is about Draft: Claudia Morales, then that draft was deleted by a Wikipedia administrator named Deepfriedokra for being too promotional for Wikipedia's purposes even as a draft. It also looks as if Deepfriedokra has explained this to you at User talk:Deepfriedokra#Page: Draft: Claudia Morales. Generally, those working on drafts are left alone to work at their own pace, and drafts are very rarely deleted by administrators unless they somehow violate a major Wikipedia policy. Apparently, Deepfriedokra felt that your draft was so promotional that it would need to be totally rewritten to even be acceptable as a draft. Deepfriedokra's assessment was also seconded by another Wikipedia administrator named Drmies. Does this mean that a Wikipedia article about " Claudia Morales" can never be created? That will depend on whether you're able to establish that (1) Morales satisfies one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and (2) such an article can be written in a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Creating a new article can be a difficult process, particulary for new Wikipedians. Perhaps by working on improving existing Wikipedia articles, you become more familiar with Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines, and thus be better equipped to take another shot at creating an article about Morales at some point down the road. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you. yes, I did get the messages from deepfriedokra after the first (deleted) submission. I have since removed all the promotional language that was once there. I was never able to go back to that original submisison page after the deletion to re-read the reason codes in the notice of termination so I wrote to her directly.
Anyway, I will review notability guidelines and neutral point of view. Is the article still in "review" at this point?
Thanks. Noseallergy (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article appears to presently be deleted. You can still get its contents back if you need them by going to WP:Requests for undeletion: it's a painless process, don't worry. Remsense 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the very first paragraph, Noseallergy, of the very last revision, is this: Her educational journey commenced in 1968 at an American school in Darmstadt, Germany, where she attended kindergarten and first grade. Later, her family moved back to Berlin, where she embarked on a transformative academic path at The John F. Kennedy School, a bilingual and bicultural German-American public school. This unique educational environment instilled in her the values of critical thinking, independence, and academic excellence, all while promoting international diversity rooted in mutual respect and cooperation. This manages an attempt at promoting her school even before it gets properly under way in an effort to promote her, with: Her journey in photography began when she received her first camera, a Polaroid, at the tender age of twelve. Over the years, her creative instincts continued to flourish, compelling her to seek a broader, more international approach to her career aspirations. When you write for an encyclopedia, or anyway for this one, you write to inform, not to impress. As pointed out above, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; but if you "actually mimicked the biography of a current article", then the latter must be quite unusually crappy. Which was it? -- Hoary (talk) (whose age is tender), 01:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Entry on William Rimmer (artist).[edit]

I'd like to change the placement of note # 1 to the end of the previous sentence so that it follows the date 1860. I'm having trouble. Also, if possibe, can I add an image? If necessary, it could replace one of the images already there such as his photograph. The new image is in the public domain and is Rimmer's Falling Gladiator. See: It's the initial image. I'd be grateful for any help. Thanks for your attention. WHAM 2004 really halped me already. DEvans2 (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His photo should not be replaced. The article is about him, not his work. I've added an image, and moved the ref. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry Telugu Funerals[edit]

I am Angry for Accidentally Refusing to Post these Questions online Years Ago:

1. Sorry in Reality, after Telugu Husband dies, Is Wife supposed To take Off Red Dot from her Forehead before Funeral etc?

2. Sorry in Reality, after Telugu Husband dies, Is Wife supposed To wear White Clothing before Funeral etc?( (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse (and talk pages) are only for questions related to editing Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. You might want to ask your question somewhere else, or ask another Wikipedia-related question at the Teahouse. ~~2NumForIce (speak|edits) 04:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might also want to see Wikipedia:Reference desk for information about an article's subject (it works like a library's reference desk). Other than that, you should ask non-Wikipedia related questions somewhere else. ~~2NumForIce (speak|edits) 04:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Page declined[edit]


I need a help to live an article page. Wikipedia declined and if anyone can understand what I exactly do to remove the mistakes and resubmit.

Thank you

User:KPSPayyanadam/sandbox KPSPayyanadam (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KPSPayyanadam: Welcome to the Teahouse! There is a lot of good information at the top of your draft, with links you can click on for more details. Two big points are the lack of multiple independent sources and the lack of inline citations. See WP:EASYREFBEGIN for a video on how to add your references properly. GoingBatty (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some clean-up performed. The refs need to be inserted into the text and also need to be not naked UTLs. David notMD (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a biography of a living person, all factual statements must be verified by references. In the draft there are lists plays, but no verification via references that these plays exist. The listed awards (not referenced) appear to be minor/local, and thus do not establish notability. David notMD (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KPSPayyanadam, the draft is about a gentleman named KPS Payyanadam. Either (A) you are KPS Payyanadam and this is an autobiography, or (B) you seem to be an imposter. Neither is at all desirable here in English-language Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my thing got declined can someone help me make it? i have the source[edit]

my thing got declined can someone help me make it? i have the source Khalidthebalidthe calid (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the draft is about to be deleted. ltbdl (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has now been deleted. Quote: Osama Alsayed is a name that has been making waves in the football world. At just 13 years old, this young prodigy has shown immense talent and potential. Khalidthebalidthe calid, I think you are at the wrong website. -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Khalidthebalidthe calid. If the thing you're referring to is Draft:Osama Alsayed, then it's way WP:TOOSOON to be trying to create an Wikipedia article that person. What you're going to need to establish is the Alsayed meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (sports), and it appears that Alsayed has quite a ways to go before you or anyone else is able to do that. Just from reading the draft, it kind of seems that you're mistaking Wikipedia for social media or a personal website. Perhaps you should take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for a general idea as to what kinds of subjects are considered OK to write about on Wikipedia. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for some wesbites which might be better suited to what you're trying to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see the editor was blocked for continually adding unsourced content. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About publishing a new page. How do I get my page posted[edit]

I have written a whole page about someone I know and clicked on "Publish". I have added necessary citations and respective references. How much time it would take to get it on Wikipedia/ how much time it takes to be viewed by everyone.

Adding link of the page below:- Cmfsumeetjain (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is largely a volunteer effort on the ground, so the answer would be 'when someone gets around to it'.
However, it is generally strongly discouraged for you to write or edit articles about people you know, or subjects close to you, for that constitutes a conflict of interest. Undisclosed conflicts of interest are often not allowed, moreover, and you've only incidentally disclosed yours. If you do want to continue editing about subjects close to you, which is discouraged as I've said, it's good form to state your conflict of interest on your user page.
Looking at the article, there still appears to be potential notability problems, as there are a preponderance of primary sources, and almost none of the secondary sources appear to actually be about the subject of the article, or mention them specifically. I would recommend reading the pages I've linked above, as well as this one, on what we consider to be a reliable source. Remsense 09:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cmfsumeetjain Your draft at User:Cmfsumeetjain/sandbox has statements like Ashish Kumar Singh is an accomplished civil servant and public administration expert. Says who? You have not cited a source for this assertion, as is required by our policy on biographies. Make sure you provide inline citations for all your text, or the draft will rapidly be declined. It would be sensible to read this essay and this one for advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sharing academic research on a specific topic that my deceased husband devoted hus academic life too.[edit]

It is called Social Structures of Accumulation, about waves and troughs in the economy over time. 2A01:B340:60:A1A8:5CE9:D42E:92B:FB84 (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you believe that there should be a Wikipedia article about your husband or his area of research you can attempt to do that yourself. However, such a task is extremely difficult for new editors, and you would be required to declare a conflict of interest. If he or his topic are truely notable, in time someone with no connection to him may create such, but there is no useful way of posting a request at Wikipedia for someone to take up the task. David notMD (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor: we have a (poor) article on capital accumulation which sounds as though it is closely related to the topic; or reading that page may suggest to you other Wikipedia articles where your husband's research could be used as citations, assuming they were published in reliable sources. It would be much easier to contribute via existing articles than to create a new one from scratch. Note the template {{edit COI}} (click for details) that you can use on article Talk Pages to make suggestions for additions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article doi:10.1177/0486613403255542 and this book for example, are well-cited reviews. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for sharing this, I am myself touched by this gesture, though I am unfamiliar presently with the subject matter as of yet: this is a wonderful seed to be able to plant in honor of your loved one. The beautiful thing about academia is advances and catalyzation often happens when and where one least expects, so take it to heart that putting his work out there is already a wonderful tribute to his memory and life's work. I hope this finds you well. Remsense 13:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may be interested in Wikpedia's sister project, Wikiversity. Uploading some of his research could potentially get more people interested in it as a field. Potentially you could get a former colleague of his to help you organize his notes for (online) print? Good wishes to you.
Canguild (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Entry on William Rimmer (artist)[edit]

I need help, if possible, with two cross references to Wikipedia articles. See the 6th paragraph in the Rimmer entry, listing the artists: Daniel Chester French, Anne Whitney and John LaFarge. The last two have their own wikipedia entries. French is the most famous of the three but, through oversight, has no Wikipedia entry. Can someone make the cross-references for me? Many thanks. DEvans2 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DEvans2 I don't see any mention of any of the three on William Rimmer (music). Is this the article you are talking about? Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 13:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps William Rimmer? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, this looks like the article in question. Are you asking how to make a link? Just surround the word/name in [[ and ]] braces. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'll do that. DEvans2 (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DEvans2 See Help:Linking, has a more detailed guide. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 14:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: Wm Rimmer (artist)
I began the brackets and that was enough to illuminate the names with apparently a cross link. All three students are on Wikipedia. I guess that's enough. Thanks so much to all of you. DEvans2 (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, Rimmer, the artist. I think someone else is helping. DEvans2 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP blocking[edit]

My account operates with an underlying school IP. Recently there was a 31 hour block on the underlying IP for vandalism (from another student). If this happens again, would I be autoblocked from editing? What should I do if that happens?

Thanks, Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 14:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pear1020: A block on a school IP was probably anon-only, which means that registered users can still log in and edit. You get autoblocks with vandal accounts. An autoblock is possible, though in my experience it's not very common for a school to use a single IP address, and have a vandal account and a good faith editor account on it within the same 24 hour period (see WP:AUTOBLOCK for details). If it happens, which it does sometimes, you can try using the {{unblock-auto}} template, which should be presented to you in the block message that you'll see. Admin response times may vary. If you get autoblocked a lot you could pester a checkuser for IP block exemption (and maybe some extra vandal account blocking on the school IP). -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I checked the block log - looks like there's a 5 year anon-only block I didn't notice so thankfully I probably won't have to worry about it. Thanks for the advice, I'll keep it in mind in case something does come up. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 15:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Server Error[edit]

I just encountered a Wikipedia Server Error and I'm not sure where to report about it. So, I decided to come here. The Screen was blanked and a message saying "503 Service Unavailable" was displayed, with additional text saying "No server is available to handle this request". Tried refreshing the page; but the error returned for a while. After a few minutes while refreshing the page; it redirected to the correct page.

I'm not sure what was the cause of this. It occurred at 14:49 (UTC), 28 November 2023 and stayed for a while. I added a Screenshot of the Error message for reference. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bit confused (as always)[edit]

I had been editing the [[Vesna Goldsworthy]] page. That has been completed. Today I received a link to her talk page: Talk:Vesna Goldsworthy: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia . Certainly I never wrote that I had AIDS, and that seems to have been deleted. Is this what the notice is telling me? Thanks. Oldsilenus (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its just an IP Vandalism on the Talk page. But, it has been reverted by another user; So, no worries. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oldsilenus: You say "I never wrote that I had AIDS". Does that mean you are Vesna Goldsworthy, the subject of the article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't interpret it like that; the claim appeared right below their signature. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks ever so much! for the answer.Oldsilenus (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article to be Posted With no Reply[edit]

I've sent an article for review in May 2023, and I still have no reply if it was accepted or not. Please help to clarify on how long does it take to get a response. Thank you! ChanthyChun (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to your Talk page, Draft:ByDzyne was Declined twice in 2020 and then deleted in 2021 for inactivity. Your contributions show no other activity. What was the title of the article you are asking about? David notMD (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Training, choosing a career[edit]

Not certain if this is where this goes but I wasn't certain where else it would go either.

I've been poking around all the pages, trying to figure out what to sink my teeth into, and it seems there are several 'careers' of sorts (copyeditor, anti-vandalism, etc.) that one can go into. Some (most?) of these specialties seem to have groups of experienced mentors who will train new users in said 'career'. However, in exchange for their time commitment, they want the mentee to make a commitment of their own to being a dedicated member of that 'career'. I do understand, their time is valuable, but I don't want to promise to do something I don't know whether I'll like or even be any good at? And yes, most of them have a 'no absolute newbies' standard which I don't currently meet, but you do have to get to a certain level of skill at something to figure out if you actually dislike it or if you're just bad at doing it so you're constantly frustrated by your own inability to make what you desire reality.

So I guess, TLDR, if you don't want to make promises you can't keep, do you just teach yourself? And for future reference, how long does it generally to take whether you're still not proficient with a skill or whether you just dislike using it?

Canguild (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This would really depend on what you're interested in. If you want to try anti-vandalism work, I'd recommend installing WP:TWINKLE and patrolling Special:RecentChanges. For copyediting, see Category:Articles needing cleanup and try to help out. You can even try to clean up by subject. For article writing, you can try to improve an article about a hobby or area of interest. You can use WP:Teahouse/Suggestions for a list of articles to edit based on your interests. If you tell me what specific task you want to try out, I can help more.
It normally took an hour or two to see if something was interesting for me, but it may differ for you. It takes much longer to be proficient, depending on the activity. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 18:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, I wasn't even entirely certain I'd learned the entire list of all possible career/task paths. If those are the main three, probably the easiest for me would be copyediting, but I definitely have some articles in mind I would like to write in the near(ish) future, so I'd like to leave room to pursue that. Then again, I don't want to not try anti-vandalism out, either, just because it'll always bother me if I never give it a shot. I guess I'll just start puttering away at things whenever I get the nerve.
Thanks for the info! Two hours is really fast, hopefully it goes even half that quickly for me. Canguild (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, those are the main three: writing/developing articles, copyediting articles, and protecting articles from vandalism. There are a variety of other niches (such as coding bots), but most require extensive knowledge of policy, extensive experience, and/or technical knowledge. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 20:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking more generally: my experience has been more casual and less formal than what you've described. Without context, I infer that any "no absolute newbies" guideline can be about commitment, but experienced editors can and do leave, sometimes without warning. In my (perhaps unorthodox) view, the guideline is more about having a good grasp on mentee temperament: I can't tell how well you take constructive criticism or how bold of an editor you if you've just joined and have barely touched any articles.
In that vein: what I've found served me well personally is the ability to listen, accept being wrong, walk away, and follow WP:BRD. That applies whether you're adding content or fixing date formats. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see! That makes sense.
The older I get, the more I find it returns to when you were a toddler: If you find yourself getting too worked-up, a time-out (or even a good nap) may be the only productive solution.
Canguild (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Canguild: In addition to the helpful advice above, I might recommend just being straightforward with the people you're asking for help. You could post on the talkpage of one of those experienced editors saying that you are considering trying out a certain task, but aren't sure yet if you'll like it, and then just ask if they would mind answering questions that arise for you even if you might not be doing this task in the long term. They might say they'd rather not, but my guess is that most people who have volunteered to help new people learn a task would say yes to that question. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Astrophobe Hmm, I see. To be honest it seems a bit nervewracking, but as they say - if you venture nothing you gain nothing. I'd probably be better off making myself look like a more worthwhile candidate for their limited time first, though. Canguild (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Canguild: That's understandable, and certainly nobody can or will make you do it. But this is a collaborative encyclopedia, so I think whatever path you choose here, these kinds of interactions with others will be necessary. The good news is that you are already doing a great job of it here at the teahouse. :-) - Astrophobe (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have pretty diverse interests in terms of what I do on Wikipedia, and at no point have I had a mentor. Then again, I'm the kind of person who from the outset surfed through all the WP:PAG they could find. Point is, if you're willing to do the reading up on your own, you can totally just try something out without having to look for a mentor. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel you there! I'm still browsing at the moment, I keep getting midway through an article and then coming to a term I can't proceed without understanding so I have to open it up in a new tab and then read that entire page, whereupon there is another term-- You get the picture. (Can you tell my ADHD is currently kicking my butt up and down the block?) Thanks for the reply! Canguild (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving draft with review pending to mainspace[edit]

Hi, I recently just created my first article through the AfC process, and now it's been waiting for a review for a couple days. I realised that as an autoconfirmed user I can just move the draft into mainspace and I'm fairly confident that the article is up to standard. Am I allowed to remove the "Review Waiting" tag and move the page? Here is the article draft in question: Draft:College Square (Dublin) LynxesDesmond (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LynxesDesmond: You are, yes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass Change[edit]

Hello, Teahouse. Today my question is as follows: would it be recommended to change (move/reformat) all articles pertaining to the supreme court in one of the United States into this format for consistency: (Supreme Court of XXXX)? I noticed inconsistency within the titles throughout various states and this format would fit all states consistently. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi UnexpectedSmoreInquisition. I think such a mass change would be unwise. The names of the highest courts are set by each state (presumably in each state's constitution). Some of the states' highest courts don't even have the term "supreme court" contained in their name (e.g. New York Court of Appeals, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court). Consistency in related article titles is one of our article title criteria, but getting the names right is more important. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, @Firefangledfeathers. I was under the assumption the names were colloquial, not legal. My mistake. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy to help! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wondering how I should cite this[edit]

Hello! Writing an article and want to cite this article but am unsure how to as automatic citation doesn't work and it doesn't seem to fit the definition of any of the categories for manual citations. Any answers greatly appreciated :D Pothos144 (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure how to teach you to do it, but I would be happy to cite it for you. Could you link the draft? UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draft:Austroniidae here it is! Thank you for your reply~~~~ Pothos144 (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, added the citation for you! You can move it wherever you want if you remove it, it should stay. Best wishes, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable source to use to write an article about a K-pop idol[edit]

Is NME a reliable source that I can use to write an article about a K-pop idol? Sunshine Owl (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the reply! Sunshine Owl (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am a Canadian singer, songwriter with music on all major streaming channels. I am a member of the CCMA and CMA. I have recorded a total 31 songs and released 26 so far. My distributor is Distrokid. I would appreciate If I could be part of the Singer, Songwriter list. Thanks Malcolm Foenander 2001:1970:4BA8:6000:B45A:9F1B:6C9D:FB6 (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's probably not going to happen, Malcolm Foenander. Singer-songwriter features very well known Singer-songwriters. Your career seems to be a couple of years old? [6] Beyond that observation, wikipedia does not take requests for inclusions on lists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List of singer-songwriters includes all who have a page, and no other criteria. If you meet the criteria to have a page, you may be listed, but please note that we recommend people not to write articles about themselves. Mach61 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]