I’m making an article called the Siege of Jerusalem (1967) but I wanna add redirects,And no I'm Not talking about the “{{Redirect serveral|Siege of Jerusalem)” I want to add like a Redirect like “Redirect to:Siege of Jerusalem” Here’s the name of the Article Draft:Siege of Jerusalem (1967) Noam Elyada (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noam Elyada, welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Siege of Jerusalem (1967) starts with "Draft:". That means it's in draftspace which is not part of the encyclopedia. We don't make redirects or links to drafts in the encyclopedia. They are also excluded from searches by default. It's a deliberate decision to hide drafts from our readers. Draft:Siege of Jerusalem might point out your draft but I guess that's not what you want. If somebody happens to find their way to the non-existing article Siege of Jerusalem (1967) then we have a feature which automatically shows there is a draft by that name but that's all. It's not meant for readers but for editors who might be planning to create the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but when I publish it how can make a redirect Noam Elyada (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noam Elyada: Wikipedia:Redirect has general help but I wouldn't spend time on it now. You can do that if it's actually published. The opening sentence alone ("the third war forced upon Israel") may turn off many reviewers. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :] Noam Elyada (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"stuff" in this case being "(version x)" redirects, like olivia harrison (version 2)

in cases like that one, where a redirect evidently exists as an unfinished or botched move and has little to no substantive history, would opening an rm as an uncontroversial technical request be the better option, or should it be tagged for g6 or something instead? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 17:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Consarn I don't entirely understand what you're asking. G6 would seem to apply to the redirect, but I don't see why you'd want to move the redirect page, via an RM or by other means. Are you referring to moving a page without leaving a redirect? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the latter seems to be the more common result, though it doesn't actually seem to matter a lot. for example, this redirect was deleted, while this one was moved without a redirect

though considering how inconsequential this is, i wouldn't be surprised if the answer to "which is the correct option?" was "yes" consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd ask the RMT regulars if they can complete the pageswap. In your first example, you can tell them the pageswap of Olivia Trinidad Arias and Olivia Harrison was incomplete, leaving behind page history and a confusing redirect at (version 2) instead of the Trinidad Arias title. Rotideypoc41352public (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like something to just take to page movers and/or admins' talk pages, then. thanks consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the "official websites" of various subjects in the infobox, typically at the bottom, of various BLPs. I am currently engaged in a talk page discussion about Ross Ulbricht and what seems to evidently be "the official website" for the subject is freeross.org. Images have been used from the website by reliable sources before too, but there is no secondary source that I can find that clearly says in exact language that, "the official website of Ross Ulbricht is freeross.org." Is that really necessary to that degree of precise language? Does every BLP with their own personal website on it have to have a secondary source saying exactly "this XYZ.com is the official website of XYZ person."? That seems to be a high bar for just including a website on an infobox of a BLP when freeross.org appears to be the official website both by its own clear declaration, as well as its use by a reliable source as a source for a clear image as cited above. I only take this comment here and beyond the talk page discussion happening here because I was not sure of the policy in this case and wanted some added uninvolved minds to take a look. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: The official Twitter account of Ross Ulbricht, linked this website, that’s a signal that they are associated with this website. GrabUp - Talk 19:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from the talk discussion! There may not be any official policy governing this specific guideline so it may just be up to editor consensus. I would prefer it not be in the infobox, and I've left it in the External Links section as a compromise of sorts. Template: Infobox Person does say it should be an official website, and of course Wikipedia-wide guidelines like WP:BIO and WP:V still apply. But at this point it might just be editor preference. For what it's worth I'd prefer it not be there, and I've probably broken WP:1RR enforcing that, but if someone else wants to re-add it at this point, I won't put up a fight. guninvalid (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guninvalid: We have guidelines about this. Read WP:ELOFFICIAL. GrabUp - Talk 20:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and inclusion as the first link in external links and the infobox is supported by policy, "The official website should be included in infoboxes such as infobox company, and by convention are listed first in the External links section.", not mere preference, which if we were going by anyway, I would prefer that it is listed in the infobox as it had been as the stable version for well over a year or more prior to removal by editor Guninvalid. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GrabUp, there is ongoing discussion about this at the talk page of the subject matter. There does seem to be some confusion still with some editors calling for, "...a RS indicating that Ulbricht has full control of the website"...and that without this then supposedly, "...it should not be included in the infobox."

I think this is setting a different standard for this particular BLP than we use for other BLPs and "official websites" to be included in the infobox. Am I mistaken here? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new here. What's a BLP? Sierkejd (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sierkejd: Biography of a living person, which fall under special rules and stricter sourcing requirements. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sierkejd (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm a new wikipedia user. I'm currently working on a draft for a rowing club. The article is in the drafts section because I started it before I was an autoconfirmed user, but now I am. My problem is I uploaded the clubs emblem, and I was informed by a patroller that non-free images not used on published articles are on the list for speedy deletion and will be purged after seven days.

My question is if I am allowed to move my article from the draft space to the main space (once it's actually ready, which will hopefully be soon), because I'm autoconfirmed now, and am able to start an article without having to go through the drafting process? Sorry if what I'm saying sounds silly I'm still a little confused on the terminology and I'm still learning, feel free to correct me. Pixzzl (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pixzzl, it depends if you have a conflict of interest with the organization. If you are, for example, affiliated with it, you should instead use articles for creation instead of moving it to mainspace yourself, so that an editor without a COI can review it. You of course always can use that process, and I highly recommend it for new editors even if they have no COI—it will still get a review from a substantially more experienced editor, and if the article has problems, you'll just get advice rather than seeing it up for deletion. That said, the article contains a lot of inappropriate and rather promotional material, and that's probably due to a fundamental problem—it relies mostly on sources from the organization itself. An article should primarily focus on what reliable and independent sources say a subject, not what they say about themself. If there is not a substantial quantity of such reference material about a subject available at all, the subject is not notable and it would not be appropriate for there to be an article about it. Currently, the sources cited in the article do not show notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the border as to whether or not to declare COI in the talk-page because I am from the same township, however I'm into rowing independent of the club. I will declare one now.

Is the promotional material you reference the blob of italicized text in the founding section? If so, that's just there for citation. I also have a some sources I haven't added but have used, and I've stored the links in a comment. Those sources are my proof of notability, it's a couple articles on the club that I've found. I also believe the club is notable enough to be moved to the mainspace as last spring, the club had their men's varsity eight place 8th place in the USRowing Youth Nationals. Alongside that they had a women's U16 varsity boat place 12th. The clubs they raced against all contain wikipedia pages, like Oakland Strokes & Gillin Boat Club/St. Joes Prep.

Thank you so much for your help! Pixzzl (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are certainly better. Try to work those into the article (editors won't really look for sources in hidden comments; I know I certainly didn't think of that!), and cite those, sticking mainly to what they said. Definitely that long pull quote needs removed, everything except the initial mention of the organization's name should have bolding removed, and probably the motto being in both the infobox and article is a bit much. Unless any independent sources have commented on the importance of their board and coaches, then that, too, is probably excess detail and a bit too reminiscent of the organization's own site. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the motto from the article and keep it in the infobox because it's a part of the standard Template:Infobox rowing club. I was told that I should just cut the lists of coaches and board members, as it will require frequent updates, so I'll just have it be a description of the positions of the board and the head coach(es). I'm really grateful for all your help! Pixzzl (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as to the image—don't sweat it if that gets deleted or get in a rush because of it. If the article goes into mainspace eventually, it can just be reuploaded at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. This is good to know. I will keep the article in the draft space for now as I work on writing it. Pixzzl (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend deleting the list of coaches and the table of board members. Otherwise that information would need to be updated freqently. Readers of the article can be directed to the club's website instead, via an External link. David notMD (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll probably remove the lists and just have the board members section without the names, and rewrite the coaches section to have the girls and boys head coach only, similar to Oakland Strokes page. Pixzzl (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put a comment on a talk page that got erased and I got warned just like Talk pages were Article pages. Jidanni (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are for discussion related to changing the article. Encouraging people to use Google to find out information about the topic isn't related to changing the article, unless it is in some way that isn't clear. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jidanni, the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss specific actionable proposals to improve the article. It is not to spout off about a Google search you conducted without even mentioning any reliable sources that you discovered that could actually be used to improve the article in the context of suggesting specific changes. Cullen328 (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jidanni, even if your objective is to alert people to the dangers of sucralose (not what a talk page is for), you can do better than that. Give a link to an article in a reputable publication. The findings of a Google search can depend on the reader's search history, the location of their IP address, and maybe other things. Maproom (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is I'll take Sucralose#Possible health effects with a grain of sucralose, sure beats the health effects of salt. I'll stick to Wikipedia for my sources. Jidanni (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Late to this discussion, but IMO the feedback above may be a bit harsh! What I'd recommend is instead of posting to Google it as you did, you take a few of the links you found on Google and paste them in the talk page, to see if they might be relevant or if more reliable sources could be used to expand the article. I do think the topic of health effects of Sucralose looks like something that we could use a bit more in-depth coverage of here. Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last year I created a page for Serenity Cox a well known Canadian performer. After 6 months it was flagged for her not being notable enough, and after a debate (with many agreeing she was) it was deleted. 9 months later there has been much more press coverage and award wins and I would love to revamp a page about her. Unfortunately it is currently locked and require an administrator to unlock it. Can anyone help me out on how to navigate getting this unlocked? Here is a recent article dedicated to her for a noteworthy source: https://avn.com/news/video/night-shift-real-life-hotwife-serenity-cox-goes-pro-with-vmg-178673 SanDiegoDan (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SanDiegoDan: You can create it in Draftspace, then submit for review. You'll need WP:AW. If the article is accepted at AfC, then someone, normally the reviewer, will ask for the WP:SALT to be removed. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SanDiegoDan I think you can use deletion review for this. in WP:DRVPURPOSE, it states "Deletion review may be used (...) if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" which this seems to fall under. I'd suggest creating a draft that meets Wikipedia's policies, ready to move, so an administrator can reasonably unsalt the page and move the draft into article space. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 20:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

are you guys here on Wikipedia for a Job or just fun, or Help with building encyclopedia, or Desire of editing, or interested on Wikipedia??. just a question 👐. KPopMachine (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @KPopMachine. It can Depends on the person, they maybe can do this for fun or just to volunteer. Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 21:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KPopMachine, please see Wikipedia community#Motivation. -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get its a living person but why do BLPs have such strict guidelines and requirements for NPOV, no original research, and verifiability? I really don't understand the need that "wikipedia has to get every thing about a living person right" mindset. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because living people can be harmed by false information being spread about them on one of the most visited sites on the internet. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: See Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident for the origin of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleSubCubicGraph, at first glance your question looks innocent; but coming on top of this thread and this one, your participation threatens to be a net drain on other editors' time. If you still don't understand BLP policy or don't agree with it, please avoid editing such articles, and instead work to improve some of the very many articles here that are not about living people. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary I am not trying to drain anyones time, a huge portion of WP articles are contentious topics, BLPs, and pages that require ECP. I legitimately, inside my brain do not understand why BLP is so strict. I want to learn how and why Wikipedia policies are what they are today so I can make good edits. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple solution, SimpleSubCubicGraph: Edit articles that aren't BLPs. -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleSubCubicGraph, MrOllie's reply above is accurate, but not the full story. Living persons can sue Wikipedia if we make defamatory claims without substantial evidence. Maproom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleSubCubicGraph, the premise of your question is misleading. Please be aware that Verifiability and No original research and the Neutral point of view are our three core content policies and they apply to all 6,948,107 articles on Wikipedia. Those policies are enforced more rapidly and stringently on biographies of living people but they apply everywhere. Cullen328 (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs are often tainted by information from the subjects themselves - including interviews and press releases - also from paid agents and unpaid associates and celebrity fans. Such bias can also include removing content seen as negative to their reputations (or adding negative content that is false). Hence, strict standards. Medical/health articles are also held to a strict standard (see WP:MEDRS) because misinformation can potentially harm people. David notMD (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just answered an edit request made by an editor with a conflict of interest and I'm not confident that I have complied with the WP:COIRESPONSE guideline, particularly: "Make sure nothing important is missing. Responding editors should do their own search for independent sources. Do not rely on the sources offered by the paid editor." I have searched for reliable sources on the topic other than the ones provided by the COI editor, and I am unable to fully assess the reliability of the sources. I am also unsure of the reliability of the sources provided by the editor because of various issues. If someone can assist me with assessing my response to the edit request, it would be highly appreciated. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 22:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Talk:Trendyol § History ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkle & Fade, looking at the edit request that you answered, it looks like you did due diligence at checking the information and gave a reasonable response to the request. I think you did a good job there. Anytime that you're uncomfortable with an edit request or your ability to evaluate the sources, just leave it for someone else to do. Schazjmd (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

The Greek Genocide article faces a neutrality concern from me. The existing version of this article displays a Greek nationalist viewpoint together with a Western media tradition that favors the autochthonous Greek nationalism instead of following Wikipedia's fundamental neutrality mandate. These are the article’s specific problems supported by evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide

Attribution and Terminology: The article currently supports Turkish nationalist figures as the direct perpetrators behind the genocide through its comparison of the Turkish Nationalist Government to a “Kemalist” regime which implies a system of command from one central authority. Research conducted by Stanford J. Shaw in his book History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey and Edward Erickson in his studies demonstrates that state-directed involvement in violence did not occur during this period as most operations emerged from local irregular militias and warlords. Using Kemalist as an official label to describe the governing body distorts Turkey's democratic development by presenting it as a totalitarian dictatorship although the country was forming its government in the aftermath of Ottoman decline.

Selective Sourcing: The present article heavily relies on supportive sources for its one-sided viewpoint while insufficiently showing neutral perspectives. The existing narrative of Turkish guilt from Western and Greek sources finds documented evidence in British archives alongside studies from the International Association of Genocide Scholars that present diversified information about communal warfare during that chaotic period.

Violation of Neutrality: Wikipedia's NPOV policy collides with the biased selection of sources and the application of emotional language which results in historical factual misrepresentation. For a neutral article to meet its standards the present scholarly disputes about responsibility should be noted and major perspectives must receive proportional representation based on their scholarly prominence.

This article's neutrality should be examined because I want to work on content revision with others. All statements require proper backing from balanced reliable sources together with the use of strict language neutrality. Ludusian (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ludusian. The proper place to discuss this matter is Talk:Greek genocide where editors with interest and expertise in the topic can respond. The Teahouse is not the place to iron out content disputes but rather a place to ask and answer questions about editing Wikipedia, and about its policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you I will take the discussion to proper place Ludusian (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings ! I have doubts about putting interlinks to Wikipedias others than "Wikipedia in English" concerning articles being lists of first names.

I am thinking for example of the "List of Irish-language given names".
I would like to do that but I don't know if it's an acceptable behavior. We are talking about articles being lists. Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt about the relevance to what of such interlinks, Anatole-berthe? And, if we put Breton aside for a moment, why not link (via Wikidata, of course) from List of Irish-language given names to fr:Liste de prénoms irlandais? (How might doing so not be acceptable behavior?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about putting interlinks to Wikipedia in others languages than English for the "names" themselves in an article that is a "list of names".

Fictious example : There are an article about the given name "Séadna" in "Irish" but not in English.

Can I add an interlink to the entry about this name in the article "List of Irish-language given names" ?

This example is fictious because there are not an article about this given name in any language version of Wikipedia even if there are an entry on Wikidata. Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly what you're asking, you may find the answer at Help:Interlanguage links. Deb (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I am currently writing a draft about Shamate, and I would like to know if you think the article is good structure-wise because I'm still not very confident about my abilities. Obviously there's no content yet, but fret not, I will soon start actually adding content to the article, because I first edit it off-wiki.

Thanks, QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 08:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. by off-wiki I mean I edit it on a markdown file on my computer. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 09:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QuickQuokka, it's hard to judge the structure when there's almost no content. Also, the lead should summarise the content - and therefore be written once the body of the article is almost complete. Maproom (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please advise on how to apply disambiguation edits (or page) for my new article on Warren Brandt the artist vs Warren W. Brandt the university president. Thank you! Remando (talk) Remando (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC) PS I see I also broke that article's Categories :( Remando (talk)[reply]

Hello, Remando. I believe that the artist is probably the primary topic and that disambiguation can by handled by hatnotes. Cullen328 (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes are amazing! 🤯 Thank you, @Cullen328! ~~ Remando (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more question, if I may? When I type "Warren Brandt" into the main Search Wikipedia bar, only the first article, Warren W. Brandt previews. Is there another adjustment I can make so that both articles preview? Remando (talk)

Remando, that search term is controlled by a redirect page. Since you and I agree that the artist is the primary topic, I just edited the redirect page so that it now leads to the artist not the university president. If another editor disagrees, it can be discussed then. Another option is to remove the (artist) disambiguator and have the biography of the artist just be titled "Warren Brandt", and let the hat note help readers looking for the university president. Cullen328 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you! I'm happy to leave as you've edited it -- OR remove the (artist) disambiguator -- whichever you think is appropriate. ~~~ Remando (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It's a crazy coincidence but both Warren Brandts worked at SIU Carbondale. No family relation that I am aware of, but the artist was there as art dept chairman from '59-'61 while the other was president there from '74 to '79. This coincidence does not define them, but I suspect it confuses some who are researching SIU Carbondale history. I have wished the artist had a middle name as well, to help differentiate, but in my research on him, he does not have one. ~~~ Remando (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I'm trying to cite this article by Veronica Wang Jingyi, but I don't know what to put for the |last= and |first= parameter, because I think that "Wang" is the surname of the author.

So do I format it like |last= Wang |first= Veronica Jingyi like so:

or do I simply use the |author= parameter like so:

Thanks, and sorry, because I am really not accustomed to Chinese naming conventions... QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QuickQuokka. You might want to try asking about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China because most likely it's something that someone else has brought up before. Perhaps even check that talk page's archive because there could be something there about it. There's also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) which provides some guidance that might be helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That sounds about right. Don't cross the streams.[1] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:SPI-puppeteer-note

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fine. Are these templates atleast good?

Template:Uw-typo1

Template:Uw-typo2

Template:Uw-typo3

Template:Uw-typo4

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

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

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

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

This is your colleague Mustafa with other served account.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now that I have all data written and displayed.

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

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

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

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

Hello Hoary

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

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

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

• use a combined footer text instead of separate captions.

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

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

Movie prop for Pixels in downtown Toronto

Prop for NY Subway entrance has no stairs.

you can change it to this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because Taoiseach has made it into English[2], while the President still uses President[3]. CMD (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

•  Courtesy link: Draft:Lewis Nitikman

Hello, everyone. Please, delete this draft. See discussion: [4] СтасС (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your answer !

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

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

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

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

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

The talk page [5] is very long, and lots of discussions are ~15 yrs old. Should I archive the discussions which have no recent comments? BennBluee (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:uw-typo1

Template:uw-typo2

Template:uw-typo3

Template:uw-typo4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello @ColinFine

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

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

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

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

Thanks again for your time and advice!

Best regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello @Tenryuu

Thank you very much for your advice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all, I'm trying to create my first page, and it seems I'm having some trouble getting it done. Can someone please help?

This page: Draft:Nima Bagheri Jessica plutman (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica plutman Hello and welcome. I reformatted your link, the whole url is not needed. First, have you seen the advice left by reviewers? 331dot (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i did and i replied, got nothing back from them Jessica plutman (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be patient. Wait for a few days, and check. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 01:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jessica plutman. Welcome to the teahouse! First, listen to the reviewers. And I suggest you add reliable sources, read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 23:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined five times, which is not the same as Rejected. Of the nine refs, six are used to confirm he spoke at a conference. That sentence and refs do not contribute to establishing his notability. See WP:42 for what references need to be. David notMD (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote a book about Satoshi Nakamoto, and he has a publisher, so it's not self-published Jessica plutman (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did read those articles, and i have done a lot of research about him, he was mentioned on many independent Cyber security websites Jessica plutman (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessica plutman What are these websites ? My question is about your message dated from "FEB/08/2025" at "00:53 UTC". Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessica plutman I've had three books published but that does not make me Wikipedia notable because no one has written about me. As for mentioned on websites, unless any of those are at-length about hime versus just a name mention, not enough. David notMD (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but he has been featured on many cybersecurity websites, such as the following: welivesecurity.com, thehackernews.com, security.nl, securityaffairs.com Jessica plutman (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're cybersecurity websites that cover his work. Jessica plutman (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In creating an article, I've gotten a message about a hidden maintenance message. I've started to create a css page.

1. What is the difference between common.css and skin.css?

2. In creating a common.css page, I've inserted the appropriate text in the editing area, and need to save it. Is "save" the same as "publish"? Johsebb (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johsebb. Yes, in this context, "save" is the same as "publish". Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Two questions:

1. Having created User:Johsebb/common.js, how do I use it to reveal hidden messages?

2. Next to the header is "Cannot install" (and then "Manage user scripts", a link). Does this indicate that the creation was unsuccessful?

Of course, (2) would answer (1). Johsebb (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you have created User:Johsebb/common.css instead of User:Johsebb/common.js.

• User:Johsebb/common.js is where you import scripts that help you complete tasks that would otherwise be tedious. You can read more about user scripts here.
• Wikipedia:User scripts/List - Here you will find a list of scripts that can be installed in your User:Johsebb/common.js by clicking the install button.
• "how do I use it to reveal hidden messages?" - I am not really sure what you mean by revealing hidden messages. If you are referring to invisible comments inside articles, you can read more about them in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text.
• On User:Johsebb/common.js, Manage user scripts option makes it easy for you to see which scripts you are using. It also helps you uninstall, disable or enable scripts. Otherwise, you would have to manually edit the page to remove or disable scripts.

If you need further help regarding this, it is better to ask your questions at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where other editors who are more familiar with this area can help. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also to be precise, it should be created at User:Johsebb/common.css, not at common.css. Whatever you create/code in your User:Johsebb/common.css will apply only to you across all Wiki pages you visit. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have further questions, and will reply to Cullen328. Johsebb (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johsebb: See Wikipedia:Customisation for some general help. Don't create a page called skin.css. It doesn't do anything as a page. User:Johsebb/skin.css automatically redirects to the CSS page for your current skin selection at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. CSS at User:Johsebb/common.css runs in all skins in addition to any skin-specific CSS page. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I simply followed what I understood to be the instructions at Help:CS1_errors#Error_and_maintenance_messages. Perhaps that page needs to be updated or corrected. I'm afraid this whole issue is rather mysterious to those of us who are not experts. Johsebb (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johsebb: You haven't created a "skin.css" page so there is no problem. I merely said you shouldn't do it since it sounded like you were considering it and I have seen other users doing it after misunderstanding something. It wouldn't do harm but just be ignored. Help:CS1 errors#Error and maintenance messages says "skin.css" which links to Special:MyPage/skin.css which should redirect to another page (probably User:Johsebb/vector-2022.css). You could add CSS rules there if you only want something to apply to your current skin setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and not if you change skin later. But most CSS is placed in common.css which is used in all skins. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do listicles need each item to have a reference if the items themselves have corresponding Wikipedia articles? I assume the references are in the articles themselves. I'm asking because, while going through the cleanup page of the WikiProject Germany, I saw that the article List of German musicians got tagged as unreferenced. Thank you in advance! Paprikaiser (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paprikaiser, Generally lists contain only established content, as whoever has wikipedia article. in this manner it doesn't need any specific reference. The Unreferenced tag was included on 31 January 2025 only through this edit.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 03:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll keep that in mind. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paprikaiser, I'm late but that list doesn't have any content that requires citations according to the guideline at WP:SOURCELIST. If it was a contentious category (say war criminals instead of musicians) then citations would be needed. Thanks for bringing it up here, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering! Paprikaiser (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello teahouse friends! I have a draft article that I feel is close to submitting for review. I cannot comprehend how I must enter the dates of birth and death for it to appear correctly. I've tried out various ways, and nothing works. Can someone fix this for me (or tell me how to do it?) Please and big thank you! Draft:Derek Pratt (watchmaker)

In addition, I have a callout at the top that states I have no citations, but I do...

In fact, two of the citations require help with the publication dates. I entered everything correctly, per the book. I would greatly appreciate guidance with this, too. The book I'm referencing is this one: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Derek_Pratt_FBHI_Watchmaker/qt6kmwEACAAJ?hl=en

Huge thanks in advance! Louisetarp (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "unsourced" tag, which was placed before sources were added. I also fixed the infobox. I also cleaned up the date problems in the refs. Schazjmd (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

bless you, Schazjmd! That was so quick! Many many thanks!! Louisetarp (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have dozens of paragraphs that are not referenced. David notMD (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few hyperlinks in the body of the article that need to be removed - perhaps those can become references instead? Also, the Notable works content appears to list watches that are described in detail elsewhere. David notMD (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David notMD, can you be more specific about your callouts? 1. dozens of paragraphs not referenced: are you saying there is too much unverified text? 2. which hyperlinks? 3. Notable works: I was thinking of this as a summary of the above, details at a glance kind of thing.. Is that not done? Thanks a million!! Really appreciate your input. Louisetarp (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, yes, content needs to be verified. This can be done with multiple uses of the same references. The Oval, Exhibitions and elsewhere have numbered hyperlinks. Wikipedia does not do summaries or conclusions. David notMD (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Louisetarp We do do summaries, as that's what the WP:LEAD of all articles is supposed to provide. The lead is not required to contain citations, since these can be inferred from citations in the main body of the article, but everything in the main article should be cited to sources which the reader can use to verify the content. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @Michael D. Turnbull can you show me an example of a good summary example?

Also, it's unclear to me if my Draft is already in the Articles for creation section? Or do I need to put it there? Or do I click the "Submit the draft for review" button? Louisetarp (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Louisetarp I hoped to find a WP:GOOD or WP:FEATURED article in the Category:English watchmakers (people) but even John Harrison has not been assessed as high as that, which is where you would normally look for a good lead section. So, instead you could look at today's featured article (see main page). Your draft is in the correct place as an "article for creation" but you need to click the big blue button at the top, when you are ready, and that will submit it for review/formal feedback. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull you're being very generous! Thank you. Ha, if even John Harrison doesn't have a good lead section... I actually got the idea of having a "Notable Works" section that @David notMD was saying is no good from the Ettore Sottsass page. It also seems convenient to see things at a glance, with bullet points, after the wordier stuff at the top. Shall I leave it and see what the formal feedback will be once I submit it, or is it wiser for me to just get rid of it prior to submitting? I'm really grateful for everyone chiming in and helping me! It's fun to be part of the Wiki community. Louisetarp (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Louisetarp I think that what David was getting at is that notability is in the eye of the beholder. In Wikipedia, we assume that something is notable if there is already an article here about it (which should be wikilinked if so) or should have a specific citation to verify that someone independent has noted it in a reliable source. So while tourbillon and remontoire have articles, they don't specifically mention Pratt's watches. For that reason, you should ideally add citations to sources that do. However, at this point your draft is already extensive, so if I were you I'd submit it and await informed feedback from a reviewer. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredibly helpful advice, @Michael D. Turnbull, and very diplomatically phrased. Thank you so much. I will tinker with it a bit more and then press the Submit button. Louisetarp (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better check the (many) details, Louisetarp. This one jumped out at me: "His favorite [bicycle] was a Dursley Pedersen, an early 19^th century bicycle known for its hammock-style saddle" (unreferenced). It's a bit of a stretch to call any contraption from earlier than the 1860s a "bicycle". And you'd have to pay me to ride something from earlier than the 1880s, even for the shortest distance. The Dursley Pedersen dates from the very late 19th (not, please, "19^th") century. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more clear - I meant not summaries at the end. David notMD (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @David notMD Louisetarp (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

got it, thank you so much @Hoary! Keep the comments coming, please :) Really appreciate the eagle eye. Louisetarp (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to ask other wikipedia content writers to improve this draft article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Significance_of_numbers_in_Hinduism Alangar Manickam (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem pointed out to you, Alangar Manickam, is that, in its current state, Draft:Significance of numbers in Hinduism "is not adequately supported by reliable sources". You're hoping that other editors will show which reliable sources support which of the many assertions in what you've already written. As a humdrum example: "Six enemies or impurities of mind are Lust, Anger, Greed, Pride, Delusion and Envy." Now, I can enter Hinduism Lust Anger Greed Pride Delusion Envy at Google, and perhaps find it, and if so then write a reference for it, but then you too can do all that. One good reason why you should do it rather than me is that I have little interest in your subject. (I've nothing against it; but I prefer to spend my time on other matters, matters that are unlikely to interest you.) Ditto for other Wikipedia editors. So you should tackle it. (Avoid "bare URLs". And you're likely to find named references a big help.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alangar Manickam: I added {{WikiProject Hinduism}} to the draft talk page. Maybe someone from that project would be willing to help you. GoingBatty (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help. Have a great day, much appreciated. Alangar Manickam (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm currently watching the English and Bangla pages for Kazi Nazrul Islam and have noticed several points of information present in the Bangla page missing from the English page. Is there any protocol I should be following to make the English page mirror the Bangla page more so they match? I'm a native Bangla speaker so can translate the information myself, but would that be following protocol or is there a process I should adhere to? I'm editing in visual editor XZY5 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XZY5. Start by reading WP:Translation. Be aware that each language version of Wikipedia sets its own content guidelines, so something that may OK in another language may be inappropriate on the English Wikipedia. For example, there is a very high expectation of Verifiability here. Cullen328 (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware that this is a vital article, a Good article and a former Featured article, so it has had an unusual level of scrutiny and peer review over the years. Please read the article talk page carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XZY5 When you translate an article.

Never forget to make the necessary changes like remove sources (For the version in English. So , don't copy all sources from the article in another language version of Wikipedia) that aren't considered "reliable" in the eyes of "Wikipedia in English".

Translate an article from another language version of Wikipedia is more than a translation. This is an adaptation. Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is: Most Wikipedia articles aren't worth translation (even in part). Treat the Bengali-language article as a potential font of new ideas (good or bad). Where an ingredient seems worthwhile and is lacking in the English-language articlee, look at the sources that it cites. If these sources seem reliable, summarize what they say, bypassing the Bengali-language article. (I hope I needn't add: if there are no sources, or if the sources don't seem to be reliable, then stop and move on to something else.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see in Japan Wikipedia there is a lot of stuff is there about the Islam related pages such as jihad, islamism, Islamic fundamentalism, which are written in a Biased way I want to request investigation or fact check in their Wikipedia but not know how to do it 獅眠洞 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't tell you how the Japanese Wikipedia operates; it is a separate project with its own editors and policies. I assume that the overall structure is similar, and that each article there has its own article talk page, you should first express your concerns there. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx u😇 獅眠洞 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I contribute to Feature Picture Candidates sometimes and in the last couple of months there's been a user, ArionStar, who has already been banned on Commons for sockpuppetry (to the point they're now blocked from editing their own Commons talk page), has ignored a number of warnings about how many nominations one can have on FPC at one time, and is alternately antagonizing other users and asking them to do work for them. At what point does annoyance tip over the edge into bannable behavior? Moonreach (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moonreach. Each Wikimedia project is separate and largely autonomous, so a block on another project has no direct effect on the English Wikipedia. However, if the same behavioral problems that led to a block there are also occurring here, that could lead to a block here. Cullen328 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonreach, if you think what they're doing here is so seriously bad that they should be blocked, you can start a thread at WP:ANI. It looks like they were first blocked on commons for making careless featured picture nominations. I've only done a quick look through their recent history but it does look to me like they might be doing the same thing here, which could indeed be a problem, especially if they're also driving people crazy for additional reasons. Make sure you report it more like "here are the behavioural problems of this editor, by the way, they also have a significant block log on Commons for the same issue and sockpuppetry" and not like "here's a banned commons user who is also annoying over here" so you are less likely to be dismissed for the reason Cullen mentioned. -- asilvering (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a credible archive of the billboard charts going back to at least the 70s? Trying to find and add citations to certain music pages.

The words are unavailable (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, The words are unavailable! The Billboard chart histories are available on Billboard's website under the URL format, billboard(dot)com/artist/artist-name/chart-history (replacing 'artist-name' with the name of the artist, hyphenating between each word; Chappell Roan's chart history for example). You should be able to find a drop-down menu of charts on which the artist's music has appeared. Hope that helps, Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I should be asking this here, or on VPT or on mw:, but I recently raised an issue on Keyoxide's Codeberg page regarding adding identity proofs for Wikipedia/MediaWiki.

Basically what Keyoxide does, is it takes advantage of the fact you can add comments to GPG keys, and uses it basically to confirm your other online identities.

So I raised this issue about adding proofs to Wikipedia/MediaWiki. Is this issue correct on a technical level? I'm not very confident in myself... QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 22:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka: your idea seems to be similar to the already existing {{Committed identity}}. MKFI (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MKFI: I think that's a bit different. What I'm trying to do is basically add a comment (notation) to my GPG key linking to my Wikipedia userpage, and for my userpage to contain the fingerprint of the key (or another identity proof that's accepted by Keyoxide), thereby proving my identity. I don't really know how to explain it well so here's the official documentation, and here's an example profile. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might find more knowledgeable eyes over at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), or even at the idea lab in the same vicinity. Lectonar (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actually any website out there that we consider RS that gives its own separate ratings of source reliability? Or is RSN all just based on the fact-checking (or whatever criteria) the editors do themselves? I know we use Snopes and they do fact-checking, but that's just on an article-by-article basis. By the way, it's kind of funny that there's a template on this page that says "Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse." 😂 Manuductive (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Manuductive, what we consider a reliable source is based on the WP:RS guideline and discussion at WP:RSN not any external website (other than the source itself and anything disproving it). There's a list of commonly discussed and used sources at WP:RSP. Ultraodan (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i was changing an article name as the information had been updated but it wont allow me Faisalisonline (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Faisalisonline, you are autoconfirmed so you should be able to. However some pages are protected so only extended confirmed editors (500+ edits) or just administrators can move it. What page are you trying to move? Ultraodan (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be about Romford–Upminster line. @Faisalisonline: you triggered an edit filter, "Filter description: Pagemove throttle for new users". I also see that your edits to the article have been reverted. It may be best to start a WP:Move request. MKFI (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Faisalisonline Please see the messages (and helpful links) on your talk page and stop trying to move article titles without consensus. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page warned me that it is semi-protected and thus only autoconfirmed users can edit it.

I was told to ask here on the Teahouse of how to possibly make this addition?

[to the page in question- specifically looking at the 'Artistic Portrayals' subsection]

Rythulian18 (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to make an edit request on the talk page; you may use the edit request wizard to facilitate that. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rythulian18, there is already an edit request on that talk page. What is required is a link to a reliable, independent source that discusses this information. Cullen328 (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right ok. Could you possibly direct me to the relevant edit request / talk page so I can provide a link, and perhaps make the addition? Rythulian18 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Harriet Tubman. -- Hoary (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rythulian18: You can make an edit request at Talk:Harriet Tubman. If you use "edit request wizard" linked to above by 331dot, the software should take care of the formatting and other things for you. You can also use the template {{Edit protected}} if you want to avoid using the wizard; there are instructions on how to do so given on the template's documentation page. You're not required to use the wizard or template for an edit request, but it helps keep things formated properly and does add the request to a queue of other similar requests so that it's easier for others to know about. In this case, though, the article "Harriet Tubman" is a WP:FA and is also indefinitely protected due to being heavily vandalized over the years; so, there might be a quite a lot of people watching it. Finally, for articles like this, it's probably better for even auto-confirmed editors to be bit WP:CAUTIOUS when editing them since anything too WP:BOLD might get reverted. In addition. be prepared to explain how adding this content to the article isn't trivial since some might see it as such. Citing reliable sources which discuss how adding a character for Tubman is significant to not only the game but also in other ways (e.g. it's the first time ever she's been depicted in such an videogame or computer game) instead of just linking to something that just lists or otherwise briefly mentions Tubman as one of the characters, might improve the chances of the content being added. Even if added, someone could still remove it and ask that a consensus for inclusion be sought on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rythulian18, you'd be repeating the gist of "Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2025". That request wasn't implemented, because of the lack of provision of either a reliable source or an indication of precisely what should replace precisely what. Be sure to provide both. -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

So there is a website, Marxists.org (aka, the Marxist Internet Archive, which Wikipedia describes as a "non profit encyclopedia") that has statements, transcribed speeches, articles, and books authored by various figures associated with Marxism.

I want to edit information in an article pertaining to a historical figure's political views (for what it's worth, Fred Hampton). His political views, discussed in speeches he gave, can be readily found as transcribed articles on Marxists.org. Here are the articles I wanted to cite specifically: here, here. Am I able to cite these articles when making edits to the page? I am worried these are primary sources though I do not entirely know if they would be. Wikipedious1 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedious1, citing Hampton's speeches to support claims about Hampton's political views is fine. It won't help to establish that Hampton is notable – but that's fine, there's ample other evidence that he's notable. Maproom (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate the response Wikipedious1 (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, yes, those are primary sources. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedious1, I happen to be the main author of List of members of the Black Panther Party and have read extensively about that organization and its leaders for over 55 years. In my view, for Wikipedia's purposes, the best sources for the political views of Fred Hampton or any political figure of the past are not the person's own writings or speeches which are primary sources, but rather in the descriptions of their views published by experts after the fact. Hampton may well have expressed his opinions on hundreds of topics and it is perilous for a volunteer Wikipedia editor to pick and choose which of the things that he said deserve to be included in Wikipedia or especially how his views may have developed and evolved in the roughly 3-1/2 years that he was politically active. That is the job of biographers and historians instead, and the work that they publish are the secondary sources that Wikipedia editors are supposed to neutrally summarize. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cullen328, if you can find secondary sources, you should prefer those. Maproom (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my most recent edit on Bruno Mars has been reverted because of the new sources I added, despite being nothing wrong with the sources, the person who reverted my edits did not explain why he removed the other things I wrote and practically added back most of my edit but without some detailed parts I wrote.

Can someone please tell me if my edit was correct and justified or should it stay reverted? Rynoip (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone here would like to take up this invitation of yours, it would be better if they did so at Talk:Bruno Mars#How_about_a_little_trimming?. -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, however I didn’t get any reply despite me @ the person who reverted my edit. Rynoip (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if i cant, thats okay. T00Bad213 (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, T00Bad213. Yes, you can include images on your userpage. I have several on mine. However, any image you add must be either freely licensed in a proper way, or in the public domain. The images must be uploaded and hosted here on the English Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how do you add the images? do you add the link in the user page? T00Bad213 (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind i now know T00Bad213 (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Black logo
• 
  White logo

Hello!

I recently uploaded two Dragon Age logos to Commons, and added one of them in the infobox on Dragon Age, because it's a more up-to-date logo.

However, once I enabled dark mode, I noticed that the dark logo doesn't contrast well.

My question is whether its possible to have two different images for light and dark mode, and whether there is a template for this.

If not, it could possibly be done by using TemplateStyles and adding rules for the .skin-theme-clientpref-night class. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 09:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Made a template called {{light dark}} based off of fr:Modèle:Contenu clair sombre. Haven't tested it yet but will do so when the opportunity arrises. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a test with just text for now: You're on

light

dark

mode! QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK so maybe it doesn't really work well on text but it's not meant for that... It works well as a picture in an infobox though (see my sandbox) QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka We fix similar issues in chemistry infoboxes {{chembox}} by using the parameter |image_class = skin-invert-image but at present the infobox at Dragon Age doesn't support that parameter. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Huh, didn't know this exists!

But chemistry diagrams don't have precise color definitions, but logos can, so I think it may be better to use a template like the one I just made in this instance. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 15:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have an alternative account, which I created once to request Wikibreak enforcer removal I installed on my commons.js, on WP:IAN. Do I need to get it verified/approved or something, because I was just informed to sign alt account's userpage with my main account on WP:IAN, and use it once in a while. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 12:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ExclusiveEditor Alternative accounts are fine, provided you follow the guidance at WP:VALIDALT, which does include, in most cases, declaring that an account is an alternative of your main one with the template {{Altaccount}}. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if the title is confusing. Basically, I received a message from someone asking if I could improve the neutrality of an article that they couldn't do themselves, as they have a Conflict of Interest with the subject. However, they also requested that I put specific things, basically just typing for them. Although I think I remember seeing somewhere that this is not allowed, I'd just like to confirm. Thank you! Ali Beary _(talk!) 12:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ali Beary This relates to an edit request at Talk:Leena_Nair. As long as you are happy with the tone and referencing I don't see why you shouldn't make the requested edits, but you would need to take responsibility for the precise wording. The article as a whole doesn't appear overly promotionall to me. I don't think most of the proposed edits actually improve the tone, but number 4 about the awards would be a sensible edit. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was experimenting in my sandbox in info box but I failed to site a source so please help me to solve this issue of mine 獅眠洞 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@獅眠洞 Welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have used the syntax <ref name="State Gov"/>, for example, in the infobox. That's what we call a named reference but won't work unless you define the reference "State Gov" somewhere else on the page. See the named reference link and general help on referencing at Help:Referencing for beginners. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Ive come across the You Tube channel of Edie Saccone Joly's family. I enjoy it a lot which is besides the question but related to it. I just got curious and see she has a lot of fans and all, but there are only two reliable sources covering her, this {https://news.sky.com/story/i-dont-want-to-grow-facial-hair-transgender-girl-eight-has-sleepless-nights-about-growing-up-as-a-boy-12586845] this [6] and this [7], possibly this [8] and possibly this [9].

Given that my recent article about You Tuber Samantha Lux was sent to draft, and also my article about world title challenger boxer Antonio Amaya was also sent to draft (despite him clearly passing the wikipedia boxing notability bar as a WBA and WBC world title challenger) I want to know, are the sources above enough at least for a small stub about Edie? Thanks and God bless you! Jeanette Spaced out Trans Woman Martin (heere} 16:08 10 February, 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @JeanetteMartin. I'm not answering your main question (I haven't looked at those sources), but I want to point out that "sources ... enough ... for a small stub" is incoherent. Either a subject is notable, in which case a stub is acceptable, but why not write an article; or the sources are inadequate, in which case an article is not acceptable, whether a stub or more. ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JeanetteMartin Your two Sky sources are reliable but they, like the other less reliable ones, are heavily based on interviews with the subject family. Given they are trying to drive clicks to their channel and hence make money, I don't think this is enough to show wikinotability. You would need some sources that are truly independent, preferable meeting all of the golden rules. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! And thanks for responding in a civilized manner, unlike some others I've run into recently! Jeanette Pretty Girl Nelson Martin (heere} 03:50 11 February, 2025 (UTC)

Good morning

Yesterday I submitted the page I am creating for review

Draft:Gianni Lora Lamia

But it was declined telling me to make some corrections before submitting it for review again.

I am a new editor and I kindly ask if you can help me correct this page

Thank you very Much Phx-Racing (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell what specific help you are seeking? 331dot (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what I have to do to correct the page, what are the things I should correct or modify

Thank you very much again Phx-Racing (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Phx-Racing. Most of your citations are bare URLs. These are unsatisactory, because they make it harder for reviewers to evaluate the reliability and independence of the sources. Your citation should include title, author (if available), publisher, date, and page number, at the very least.

I haven't looked closely at your draft, but it looks to me as if far too much of it is not about Lamia. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about the subject (in this case Lamia) and very little else. ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phx-Racing I ran citation bot on the draft, which helped a bit but there's still a lot of work to be done. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have a few sentences/paragraphs without sources. In a biography, every piece of information needs to be sourced. I think you could probably slim down each section too, they're all quite wordy in prose. Try and be concise. qcne (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I've also filled in most of the bare references for you.) qcne (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phx-Racing, the infobox for your draft says that Gianni Lora Lamia was born in 1965 in the Kingdom of Italy but that kingdom did not exist in 1965 because it was abolished by a vote of the Italian people in 1946. You need to do a much better job with accuracy. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources must be reliable sources. Whatever shows up as the first result on google (which you have referenced) is not a reliable source. Ultraodan (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phx-Racing, the section "Range Rover No Stop Record 1989" has no stops (periods, ".") until its very end. It would benefit from more stops. It mentions "the fearsome Sahara desert"; why is the reader being told that it's "fearsome"? ¶ That section isn't unusual. Consider this single sentence: After only three stages he found himself 16th overall fighting for the top ten until halfway through the race where in the stage that reaches Niamey in Niger for the rest day, an electrical problem sent him far back in the general classification, after, the rest day the race is somewhat disturbed by terrorist threats and the organizers, anxious to ensure the safety of the competitors, decide following information received from the French Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defence, a huge airlift is taking place to transport hundreds of drivers and vehicles of the Dakar rally across the desert between Niamey and Sabha in Libya, after reports of a planned rebel attack. And why is the reader told that an airlift of hundreds of drivers and vehicles is "huge"? ¶ Also, the photo captions are most puzzling: I don't know how to start to parse Gianni Lora Lamia and Emilio Giletti Technical Cars Check Paris Dakar Cairo 2000 Paris Parc floral du bois de Vincennes. -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi there!

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

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

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

Hi CreatorTheWikipedian2009. Click "prev" to see the changes in an edit. A null edit is a single edit which makes no changes in the wikitext and is not registered in page histories or user contributions. The edits [10][11] were not null edits. The first changed 2003 to 2001 and the second changed it back. The first edit said "Tag: Reverted". That does not mean the edit was a revert. It means the edit was later reverted by a different edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This a popular local news site in Norfolk Virginia which claims to have high editorial standards and also has relationship with BBC News please read the about page help me verify the site as reliqble . Amandachapin (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amandachapin: Where is the site's About us page? Or the page on their editorial policy? We're not going to accept a source based on its tagline; we need to see proof of that in the form of a staff listing (we're looking for a specific position) or a written-down policy regarding fact-checking and editorial practices. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This https://legitnews.gilect.net/about-us/ Amandachapin (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the about us, it looks like they're mirroring BBC News content? If that's the case, then you're better off citing the originals. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note not all the articles are bbc news articles but has news articles edited by thier news staffs so the site is partially reliable Amandachapin (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How would one say this is a "popular local news site?" It seems to have started publishing...Sunday. Basically all the articles look like they're directly taken from the BBC, and in a couple of the pieces, the BBC article has been just had a couple sentences copied and listed as "by Legit Report," listing BBC employees in the bylines. I'd be shocked if the site's claimed "strong relationship with BBC News," had even the tiniest grain of truth. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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