Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Which citation template to use for a German state law?[edit]

There is a template for {{tl:Cite German law}} (How do I write the correct link to that template?), but this only applies to federal law and refers to the corresponding web site of federal Ministry of Justice. The individual German states each have their own online portals. What template should I use for a law from an individual state (in my case, Berlin)? Loris Bennett (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Loris Bennett. Template:Cite act is more generic and may meet your needs better than Template: Cite German law. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I have gone with this. Loris Bennett (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Loris Bennett: you can use {{t|Cite German law}} to produce {{Cite German law}} which links to a template. RudolfRed (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
As I wrote, {{Cite German law}} is only for federal law and links to a web site which has only federal laws, whereas the law I need to refer to is a Berlin state law. However, {{Cite act}} seems to be OK. Loris Bennett (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
👍 Like -- YavBav09 (talk)Smile.gif 11:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing[edit]

I was wondering about how many people edit things on wikipedia a day? Mtbuser name (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps checking out Wikipedia:Statistics could answer your question. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I found this [1] which has a collection of differents stats for the English Wikipedia. I could find-per day averages, but last month there were 43000 different editors who made at least 5 edits. RudolfRed (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Follow up question: does anyone know if "active editor" count is only humans or if it includes bots? There is a another chart that shows total human user edits, but it is not clear to me what is included in "active editor" counts. RudolfRed (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: When I go to the link you provided, then click on the title "Edits", then click "Active editors" and click "More info about this metric", I get to meta:Research:Wikistats_metrics/Active_editors, which defines it as "The count of registered, non-bot editors with five or more edits in a given month, including on redirect pages." GoingBatty (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! RudolfRed (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Creation of Article in Japanese[edit]

Hi Wikipedians!! So, I am here today for a quick question. Is there any possibilities of People Helping me Translating an Article in English to Japanese? I have Messaged many Translators, but there is no reply from them. Also, I would like to know that Can I use the same Account across all Wikipedia's? Like Can I use my Account in Japanese Wikipedia too? Thanks in Advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: I think you’d be better off asking this question at the Japanese Wikipedia. You’re much more likely to find somebody who is bilingual in English and Japanese there than here. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 03:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jocelin Andrea: And yes, you can use your same account on any Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jocelin Andrea:, your question fascinates me. Which article, and why would you want it translated into Japanese? -- Hoary (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Hoary, Sorry for the late reply, had some work yesterday. So, nothing serious, I know to read Japanese and when I came across random articles in Chinese, thought that it would be good if they are in English too. The reason is needed a Translator was to Translate a bit more efficient Draft as I am neither Bilingual or Native to Japanese. I would like to know if you wish to help. Thanks, Jocelin Andrea (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Jocelin Andrea, now I wonder if you even meant English-to-Japanese translation. Perhaps you meant Japanese-to-English translation. The whole affair is mysterious (not least the matter of random articles in Chinese). -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyright Violations[edit]

I believe the article Karel Balcar includes copyright violations from the 1999 edition of Art Today, with much of the content found in "Work" being a complete or partial transposition. Unfortunately, I have been unable to access the 1999 edition to confirm this, and so am unsure of how to proceed; can anyone advise, and if they have access to the 1999 edition, compare the content? BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, BilledMammal. You might ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request; someone there should be able to help you. -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

i think i want out.[edit]

Dear Wikipedia, how do I delete my account? Admins are attacking me with harsh rules maybe to back their private opinionated interpretations. I am new here and want to help, but this interface is very complex, some fake and smear stuff is locked, while the interface is too cryptic and proclamation driven, and i think i want out. EditorOnTruth (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@EditorOnTruth: Welcome to the Teahouse. Accounts can't be deleted as edits have to be attributed to them (you could try and ask for a courtesy vanishing to scramble the username). You can abandon it and refrain from editing Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Tenryuu, all this seems quite saddening particularly on World Refugee Day. (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

As you have made a total of just four edits aside to those you have made in this section of this page, please don't ask for "courtesy vanishing". If you don't like to edit Wikipedia (for any reason), simply stop editing Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@EditorOnTruth: I'm sorry to hear this. I don't see where you have been "attacked with harsh rules"; one editor brought up what seems to be copyright violations, which we must take seriously for legal reasons. Looking at your username, and your statement "some fake and smear stuff is locked", you may not realize that Wikipedia does not deal in truth, as what is "true" is in the eye of the beholder; Wikipedia deals in what can be verified, see WP:TRUTH. If you are only interested in telling what you percieve to be the truth here, it will indeed be difficult for you, as Wikipedia is a collaboratie environment where people of all different backgrounds and views work together to arrive at a consensus as to what articles should say, based on summarizing what independent reliable sources say. If a Wikipedia article does not summarize the given sources accurately, or there are sources missing and the article is protected("locked"), please make an edit request on the article talk page detailing the nature of the errors. If the sources are summarized accurately, but you just don't like what the sources say, you will need to take that up with the sources. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

How to Edit a Name[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders: Making the Team

On the Wiki sight for DCC, they have a young lady listed as Chandi McCright (an actress) when it should be Chandi Dayle. How can that be corrected? 2603:8081:7301:A78D:4D87:4A30:9328:6AB4 (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've fixed it. The next time you see something wrong in an article, be bold and fix it yourself. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing box border thickness[edit]

The red border line for the historic site designation box "National Historic Site of Canada" appears rather thick. Being red, it dominates every Infobox it appears in, and is akin to a warning button. It draws the eye away from even the main title. Is there a way to make the line thinner, so it's not as urgent-looking? The one that appears on the Template Talk page for "Designation" looks better. You will notice, there, that I have asked this question several times over the past four YEARS, with no reply:

If the line can be made thinner, how can I do that? Thanks. Yoho2001 (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Yoho2001: The border line can be made thinner or thicker through some source editing. It's simple, just increase or decrease the number in border:__px (fill the number you want to get the req thickness, the thickness you need is number 2). See below for examples.
National Historic Site of Canada
National Historic Site of Canada
National Historic Site of Canada
            and so on...
I think there is no problem in the template you said. It's ok to be red and thick enough. Happy editing. 08:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Yoho2001: Oops! Problem in signing.Siddartha897 (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, @Siddartha897:. How can I find the source code to make a change (after consensus)? I have only found the template link, but not where the code is written. And if I want to insert such a box using the code you provide, here, how can I align it below a photo on the right side of a page (without an infobox)? Thanks again. Yoho2001 (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Yoho2001: I replied it on your talkpage.Siddartha897 (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Yoho2001: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would say that the best course of action is to start a discussion at the template's talk page, notify some of the people who have edited the template (R'n'B, Kevlar67, Aleksandr Grigoryev, Moxy, Zzyzx11, Plastikspork, MSGJ, WOSlinker and Frietjes would be good picks), and see whether there is consensus for the change. If there is, make an edit request at the template's talk page. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Good idea, though I started a conversation about this in 2017 on the template page. Yoho2001 (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

adding pictures[edit]

How can I edit a picture of my choice to a article, upload a picture? Arno Jacobs (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Arno Jacobs: To use pictures here in wikipedia first you have to upload them in commons( through upload wizard( Be careful with licenses (See, only free images are allowed here.Siddartha897 (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Arno Jacobs: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I actually have to disagree with Siddartha897 in a few points here. Yes, evidently freely licensed images should go to our sister project Wikimedia Commons, which will allow them to be used not only on the english Wikipedia, but for example also in the german Wikipedia, without needing to upload it seperately. Wikimedia Commons only allows freely licensed media. If the image is explicitely not publlished under a free license or there is no evidence for a free license, we as the english Wikipedia might be able to have the image, if and only if it meets all of the non-free content criteria. Please use our upload wizard. And last but not least, if you are unsure about the licensing of an image, feel free to ask here at the Teahouse or at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: Thanks for the correction.Siddartha897 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Notable Alumni in Universities[edit]

Hello, I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I was editing the Ateneo de Manila University article until another user removed a ton of content in the introduction and Alumni section as it was deemed WP:PROMO. The article is currently in dispute and discussions have yet to be made but edits are currently being done. I want to clarify on what falls under WP:PROMO as I was writing and editing Notable Alumni on the article as I based the format from other universities such as Harvard University, Georgetown University, Yale University, etc. where they provided a concise list of alumni in the introduction and a detailed discussion of it in their respective Alumni sections. I want to clarify what the rule is for here. I edited the Harvard University on the basis of WP:PROMO and I was told that I can't edit it out as it was important to the article. Why is it that bigger articles are allowed to discuss about their Notable Alumni while smaller articles are being flagged for it? Moving forward, I would like to ask how the Alumni Section of university articles should then be written if highlighting notable alumni is considered WP:PROMO. Thank you in advance! Codayoda (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I had a quick look. I am an outsider to this, so this is an outside view. I think you over-egged the pudding and made it sound too much like promotional material. For example, the fact that six billionaires have attended the university can only have one effect on the reader: to make them think "ooh, what a great place", so it's promotional but otherwise irrelevant. On the other hand, the fact that Juan Araneta attended is a simple historical fact, relating a notable institution to a notable person, so that would have been safe. But in this case it would also have been unnecessary because the page is already linked to a comprehensive list of specific alumni. It would make more sense to restrict mention of alumni on the University's main WP article to those who've had an enormous influence on the University itself, and its history (for example those who founded a department, or those who remained deeply associated with the University in the public mind). Now, you're right that the Harvard article does exactly what I've said it shouldn't, and includes a load of stuff about how many living billionaires have gone there. But two wrongs don't make a right; it's best not to retaliate by editing other pages to conform to what you've been forced to do on another page. Harvard is in any case a special case. It is already so well-known that it doesn't need promotion, and doesn't have to claim lots of billionaires in order to boost its reputation, so one could argue that its number of billionaires is a simple (but in my view rather boring) statistical fact, of no other relevance (and therefore neutral). So yes, you're right: articles on better-known Universities can, unfortunately, get away with stuff that looks bad in articles on lesser-known Universities, no matter how unfair this seems. Elemimele (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Codayoda! What you're witnessing here is that, while we have widely accepted policies and guidelines that influence our editing, how they apply to a particular situation is often a matter of interpretation, and experienced Wikipedians can and often do disagree. Personally, as someone who edits about higher education a fair amount, I think that the number of billionaires who attended an institution is a very good piece of information to include on its page (so long as it's sourced). It's an objective data point, not a subjective opinion; it's easily comparable between institutions; and it helps keep writing concise by avoiding undue focus on any one person (and individual alumni are very rarely significant enough in the context of an institution as a whole to warrant mention). But since another editor disagrees, you should discuss with Patrick Cristiano (probably at Talk:Ateneo de Manila University) to work out a solution. When crafting your argument, it doesn't actually make sense to focus much on comparisons to Harvard, since while it's a great institution, it's not actually a great Wikipedia page (I made the exact same mistake when I was a new editor). Instead, I'd look to our general guideline on college and university pages, or to one of the showcase articles for WikiProject Higher education. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

How could I upload this patent?[edit]

Hello! I am planning to write an article on a Cold War tank destroyer project called TAA. The vehicle was never produced and only existed in drawings. Thus, the only way to graphically represent it in an article would be using its drawings.

There are no official blueprints of it on the internet; instead, its patent, that is based on them, does exist. It can be found here (some better quality versions also exist on other websites). Is there a way to upload the patent on Wikimedia Commons? What license should be used? Many thanks, and please ping if you reply. Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lupishor: There is no need to upload the patent. It is freely available in the usual sources such as[2] However, the patent does not have a "family", as far as that repository mentions, only the Romanian patent RO93506. The copyright status of patent contents in some territories, including the US is that they may be freely copied (see Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution). However, I have no idea whether this is the case for Romanian patents. Your more serious problem in writing an article to Wikipedia's standards will be to meet the notability guidelines. There seem to be few reliable sources that have discussed this vehicle and you must avoid any original research you personally have done. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: Thanks for the reply. The vehicle has an article on ro.wikipedia, citing some sources, so I don't think that's a problem. From what I've been told, patents are public in Romania; I haven't been able to find anything on the matter online, unfortunately, but since the patent we're talking about is freely available on, I suppose it's also okay to use it here. My question is what license and permission requirements I should use if I upload the patent files on Commons. Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Lupishor: If you want to be sure, a good place to ask about the copyright status of Romanian patents might be ro:Wikipedia:Întrebări privind drepturile de autor, which appears to be the ro.wp counterpart to en.wp's Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. (I'm not watching this page – please use {{reply to|Rummskartoffel}} on reply) – Rummskartoffel 18:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Rummskartoffel: Seems like the last serious use of that page was in 2014, but I'm going to try. Thanks for your help, best wishes :) Lupishor (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Lupishor: I've taken a look a the Romanian article and I'm afraid that its sources don't suggest to me that it would pass English Wikipedia's notability criteria: none are WP:Secondary, which isn't surprising given that the project to make the vehicle was abandoned. I think that the best you will be able to do is to add the drawing to the Romanian article. You can crop out the image for upload to Commons as being from a public domain patent if that is indeed their status in Romania, as it would be in the US. There is absolutely no need to upload the whole document. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: Thanks again. The only secondary source I've found, which somewhat analyses the vehicle instead of only telling raw facts about it, is this article from Not sure if Wikipedia would consider it reliable enough to be used as an article's sole secondary source, but knowing some people who work for that site, I can confirm they definitely know their stuff when it comes to tanks; it's not just a fan forum or anything like that. Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

How do I mention a rumour about the subject?[edit]

Please see this page KALI (electron accelerator)#Overview The subject is rumoured to be a directed energy weapon but there aren't any sources I could find that cover this. The previous reference was a badly written blogesque website. Some Indian news websites have articles on this but they look like they just copied all of their article from that blog and the previous version of this page itself! Infact, the blog even attributes some lines in it to wikipedia. My question is should I add add references from these websites or look for something else? Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Lone Warrior 007 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. None of what you describe here would be suitable as reliable sources. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources as they usually lack editorial control and fact checking; Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for other Wikipedia articles (even if it is a third party doing so). 331dot (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Rumours in general are almost never acceptable. If a source copies or references information from a blog or Wikipedia then it is not reliable. Wikipedia is for hard facts (and significant opinions) and including rumours lowers our reputation and reliability. — Bilorv (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
331dot So, should I remove all of this directed energy weapon stuff? Also, the other reference (1) isn't opening and most pages on KALI on the (government) BARC website have the same issue, if I remove all the things which don't have a proper reference, the whole applications section would need to be deleted so I was unsure if I should do this.
Lone Warrior 007 Yes, if the information is poorly sourced, it should be removed. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
331dot Oh, okay, will do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lone Warrior 007 (talkcontribs) 14:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Listing published works[edit]

Hi, I am keen to complete the list of published work on this page:

It is incomplete (missing titles, missing or incorrect publisher names, missing author role, i.e., some titles the person is the editor or co-editor, not sole author). Is this acceptable, if I follow the format?

Many thanks for your help. --Always Think First (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Always Think First (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't fully understand. (Follow what format?) Anyway, yes, the list seems worthwhile; and yes, the list could and I think should be improved. I'd not heard of Spender; but in my guesstimation her books would be an important part of her noteworthiness. If so, then I'd suggest something like the article Morris Bishop, in which descriptions and reviews of the books are worked into the main text, and all the tiresome yet sometimes helpful publication details (ISBNs and the rest) go in a list similar to the one that's already in the Spender article. -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary, appreciate you taking the time. Will read the article by Morris Bishop. Always Think First (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg[edit]

Could you please remove the word Draft: from the Draft: Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg page. Wname1 (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Wname1, Draft:Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg in its current state is not acceptable as an article. Its most serious problem is that it cites no sources (though it does list some). Maproom (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Wname1 I've added the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft for a review by another editor who has experience in draft reviews. However, as Maproom correctly notes, it would not be accepted if you were to submit it now. Please read Your First Article to learn more about what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Foreign-language sources on the English-language wikipedia[edit]

Should there be an article in the English-language wikipedia if all the sources indicating that the importance criteria are met are written in another language? VeekaO (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

VeekaO Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources do not need to be in English per policy(please read). It helps, but it is not required. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

so, what is this all about?[edit]

what types of question can we ask and why will we ask questions here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ヤサース (talkcontribs)

ヤサース Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place for new or inexperienced users to ask questions about using Wikipedia, and it is meant to be a friendly and welcoming place. Questions may also be asked at the Help Desk, though that is intended for all users of all experience levels. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


Hello Community, I would like to bring your attention to some difficulties I am facing. The award schemes Vodafone Ghana Music Awards and 3Music Awards are two major award ceremonies held annually in Ghana. Nominees and winners of these awards per criteria 8 of WP:MUSIC qualify to have an article on Wikipedia per the rules. This misunderstanding by community members has led to the deletion of several articles written by dedicated contributors including Ghanaian music icon Stay Jay. My recent contribution is on creating a page for Nanky is also an award winner (refer to ) but it was deleted for not been notable. Please lets address this, its becoming a major problem --Richloveburner (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Richloveburner Please note that the policy you linked states that "the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources, and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed." (my bolding)--Shantavira|feed me 16:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Richloveburner, note that the article on Stay Jay was not deleted for notability concerns but rather because the article was unambiguously promotional. (See criterion G11 for speedy deletion) To avoid such problems, I suggest that you first write draft articles for these artists where you can take the time to properly source the articles. Pichpich (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Shantavira Kindly note that I am not basing my facts on just that, there are other reliable sources that confirms notablity.


Richloveburner (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

About administrators[edit]

I want to ask that, what should we editors do when a Wikipedia:Administrators is not following the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view policy, and when someone correct that edit he revert it and threat editor of blocking? and also when Wikipedia:Administrators add something unnecessary to page and we try to remove it, they revert our edits then what should we editors do? Achhainsaan (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up that the above comment is from a 'new' account that has been reverting (and making odd claims of 'Non constructive edits') on an article that is one of several Indian election articles that have recently been the focus of sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. The message is quite similar to this one from a now-blocked editor. Cheers, Number 57 16:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I have blocked the obvious sockpuppet. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the connection! I totally forgot about the earlier editor! @Cullen328 Would you also mind protecting the page? Some of the Indian election articles are protected from Atharv Bakshi socks. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
DaxServer, this sockpuppet had edited about five articles. If you think any of them need to be protected, please ask at Requests for page protection. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Info box[edit]

I would like to add the same “info box” as their is on the Arctic Council wiki to the right. How do I do that? PolarRegion (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@PolarRegion: Could you give us a link to the article that has an infobox, a link to the article where you want it, and (if you know) whether or not you're using VisualEditor? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, PolarRegion. Please see Template:Infobox organization. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

create article[edit]

How do I create an article? JustAUser201468 (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@JustAUser201468: See this guide. But please be aware that creating a new article is a hard task. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: yes but not a draft
@JustAUser201468: If it is your first article you should go through Help:Your first article, Wikipedia:Article wizard and also Help:Userspace draft, Wikipedia:Drafts. Hope it helps.Siddartha897 (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
JustAUser201468. Creating a draft is easy in the same way as writing a book is easy. You just open a file (or a notebook) and start writing words. Creating a draft that won't just be a waste of your time and effort is difficult. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
User created the draft Draft:Minecraft (). This is unsourced, mistitled, and would be a duplicate of Minecraft. If it were ever moved to article space it would be an immediate WP:A10, so I have listed it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Minecraft (). Meters (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

How should I mark this phrase?[edit]

What is the best way to mark a phrase such as, “over the past ten years” to note that the reader really needs to know when that time period was? That is, was it said in 1720, 1920 or 2020? Carptrash (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Carptrash This falls foul of MOS:RELTIME, so instead of tagging it, please determine the specific years and substitute those.--Shantavira|feed me 17:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Carptrash, Shantavira's answer is the best one, but if you don't have the time or resources to do that, you can tag it with {{when}}. --ColinFine (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I realized that this was not good, but it is used in the lede and is not referenced so determining when it was from could be tough. I'll poke around and see if I can come up with some date (when the edit was done?) and failing than go the when route. Thanks all, Carptrash (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate Wikipedia entry? - An old toy company[edit]

Should this become a wikipedia entry? Question from a Wikipedia newbie. I worked for a company in the 1970s. They were established sometime in the 1950s and closed sometime in the 1970s. From personal experience and also from web searches, I know quite a bit about the company.

Some of their products still exist on ebay and other sellers. Some of their advertisements still exist in internet archives. But it was a relatively small company, never bigger than 20 employees. This company was never controversial or political. They were basically a toy maker.

Would it be appropriate for me to create a wikipedia entry for this company? Would it be appropriate for me to include my first-hand knowledge that can't be verified anywhere else?

If I don't, I fear that their history will be forever lost. There may not be any social or technical value in their history, so it is not clear that this is a concern for anyone.

Thank you for your help. 2601:18D:8700:3A9:18CF:8A2D:53BE:DAD3 (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

In theory, you could create an article about the company, if and only if the company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company, even if you have what we call a conflict of interest. However, adding "first-hand knowledge" that can't be verified is strictly forbidden. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's not possible to know for sure whether or not the company would warrant a page based on the info you've given above. The main consideration is how much press coverage the company received, not its age or size or products. The relevant guideline is at WP:NORG; if you find enough coverage (maybe at, you could try creating the entry via the WP:Article Wizard (you'd want to disclose your conflict of interest if you do so, since you worked there). However, Wikipedia doesn't allow you to include personal knowledge that can't be referenced to reliable third-party sources, as that is considered original research and is not possible for us to verify. If you don't find substantial news coverage, you'll probably want to share your research elsewhere. If you publish it in a reliable source, it's possible it'll make its way back onto Wikipedia at some point. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, IP editor, welcome to Wikipedia! You forgot to mention the name of the company you were talking about. Howver, based on what you wrote, such an article would not be appropriate for Wikipedia because:
  1. Subjects of Wikipedia articles should be notable. In this case, the most appropraite requirements are described in Notability (organizations and companies). Company which was "never bigger than 20 employees" might not be notable by Wikipedia standards, as others suggested.
  2. Articles should be written or reviewed by non-affiliated people, because past employees might have conflict of interest. You would need to disclose COI and wait for article reviews. As a point of reference, new article drafts can await reviews for multiple months.
  3. Your "first-hand knowledge that can't be verified anywhere else" is not suitable for Wikipedia article.
  4. Wikipedia articles are by definition ammendable so once you write an article on Wikipedia, the article you authored no longer belongs to you. All unverified content is subject to be questioned and (eventually) removed. Article tone can change significantly as other editors find other reliable sources and contribute to the article.
Please consider writing down and publishing this information somewhere else. If you want this information to be accessible online, there is plenty of hosting providers for personal websites and blogs. Wikipedia is not a personal blog. If you need tips on where else to publish your work, I could suggest a place based on your needs. Places that come to mind are: Blogger (service), Medium (website), GitHub Pages. Anton.bersh (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Because you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest albeit an antique one, the correct route to consider creating such an article would be to draft it using the wizard at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. This means it can be reviewed by experienced editors to seek to ensure that it meets out standards.
I think, though, I would look at the discouragement that you have received. This defunct company has to be really special to warrant an article FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@2601:18D:8700:3A9:18CF:8A2D:53BE:DAD3: what was the name of the company? --- Possibly 03:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

create an article[edit]

Hi, i am a representative of a golf club. We would like to create a page to present the history of our club. Do we have to create an account? Does it cost anything? How do we get started. Thank you. Elaine (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to tell the world about the history of your club, you should do so on social media or a website owned and operated by the club. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state about organizations, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia has no interest in what an organization wants to say about itself. Please read conflict of interest.
That said, Wikipedia does not charge editors to create articles. There are third parties that offer Wikipedia editing services, of varying reputability and quality, but these are not endorsed by Wikipedia. Paid representatives must declare who is paying them. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello Elaine. This is possible in theory, but maybe not in practice. I'm going to throw some links at you, and recommend you take the time to read them.

Finding the correct {{tl}}[edit]

What is the correct {{tl}} for {{subst:iusc|1={{FULLPAGENAME}}}}? ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 21:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: I think you're looking for {{tlx}}. I tried testing this code (there are nowiki tags wrapped around FULLPAGENAME, but they render weirdly when nesting nowiki): {{tlx|iusc|1{{=}}{{FULLPAGENAME}}|subst=on}}, and it appears like this: {{subst:iusc|1={{FULLPAGENAME}}}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Jeremy Irons Article[edit]

The wikipedia article located at does not include his 2013 film Beautiful Creatures. Can you please correct/edit this article to reflect the necessary information on it? the wikipedia article located at shows on the right side him listed as a cast member. can you please correct the necessary article about Jeremy Irons to show the change?

Welcome to the Teahouse. Jeremy Irons is not protected, so you can make the change yourself. Otherwise, you can ask on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Beautiful Creatures is listed in Jeremy Irons on stage and screen. It's an editorial decision whether the role is significant enough for his main biography. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


I believe this person is vandalizing multiple pages. They are constantly adding red links to the word “ Socialist philosophy”., for example this edit or this one. I’m new here and not quite sure where to put this. Thanks. ѕтєℓℓα♥ Talk to me ♥ 22:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not consider that activity vandalism. The IP editor clearly believes that an article "Socialist philosophy" should exist. However, I agree that creating red Wikilinks for multiple uses of those words is not a means to get such an article created. I left a note on the IP's Talk page, suggesting that the proper path is to first create an article by this name. Or, alternatively, Wikilink to Socialism but have it read as "socialist philosophy" in those articles. David notMD (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Use of google webcache for archive links[edit]

I have come across some citations (in somewhere around 600 articles) in which a Google "webcache" url is used in the "archive-url" parameter. I'm under the impression that the Google webcache pages should not be treated as persistent (though under some conditions, they may "persist" for several years), and thus should not be used with the "archive-url" parameter.

(For an example, see Jackie Chan.)

OTOH, a webcache url could be used with the "url" parameter, preferably in conjunction with an "archive-url" parameter specifying a persistent link. Do I have this right? Fabrickator (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: I wouldn't use google webcache urls's for the |archive-url= parameter at all, because they are highely dynamic, and might disappear at any time when the original page gets deleted or renamed, which is not the Point of an archive. They can't be used in |url= either, because they just are another server hosting the content. Just use the original URL with an actual archive link, perhaps to the Wayback machine or another archive listed here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: I wasn't necessarily recommending the use of webcache urls, just suggesting that existing uses in |url= weren't necessarily problematic. I agree that it seems kind of strange to use a webcache url for this purpose, but if I come across an existing use of it, it's not necessarily more likely to stop working than the original url would be. Fabrickator (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
It turns out that in some cases, at least, the webcache urls work around the "blocker popups" (popups that prevent viewers from viewing the requested content) on some sites. In this case, an archived copy of the webcache page may be used for |archive-url= and set |url-status= to "unfit". I would probably also add {{cbignore}} because this is probably not compatible with what the bots are expecting. Fabrickator (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with template positioning[edit]

Hello, I'm new to using templates. I was trying to use the Historical populations template to display the population history of Neustadt an der Donau, and even though I edited the source of the population section specifically the chart appeared at the bottom of the page below the external links section. How do I make sure the templates I use appear where I want them to? Thanks Normal Name (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Normal Name. Different things can push down content. It didn't happen because it was a template. I have used {{Stack}}.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-free References[edit]

I was curious what Wikipedia's guidelines are concerning non-free sources. I know that physical newspapers are allowed, but I'm unsure how to edit an article or even determine an article's notability if I can't access the source anywhere online. I understand that books are allowed if they are easily accessible at libraries, but what about books that aren't at most libraries (what determines whether it's "easily accessible" at most libraries) and what about content behind a paywall? TipsyElephant (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TipsyElephant! WP:SOURCEACCESS may be helpful to you. You should probably have access to the source if you're adding information from it, but it doesn't need to be easily accessible to everyone. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 01:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi TipsyElephant. You should be able to read a source if you want to cite it in article, but others don't need to be able to read the source you cite. As long as the source is reliable, used in proper context and is published and accessable by someone, then it should be OK to use. Of course, it would be great if a cited source is easily accessible to anyone who wants to see it whenever they want to see it (i.e. available online), but that's not always the case and that doesn't make the source any less reliable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

What should I do with editor that keep overciting?[edit]

I have warned the editor previously on multiple occassion for constantly overciting, however editor doesn't seem to bother and keep adding back unnecessary repeating source which are reporting the same thing. In addition, to using boilerplate warning, I have communicated using custom message on the editor talk page of which editor only replied once and ignored further message. Which venue is the correct place, I should bring this up on?  Paper9oll (🔔📝) 04:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: Welcome to the Teahouse. Since you've warned this user on multiple occasions, it is possible to take it to the administrator's noticeboard for incidents and ask for admin intervention. Just be sure to notify the editor in question on their talk page that a report has been filed on them at the ANI (the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template is generally used), and provide the relevant diffs for admin evaluation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Hi Tenryuu, understood. Thanks you for the instructions. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 06:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Page about your own account[edit]

Is it legal to make a page about your own account? If it's illegal, what are the consequences? H0MARUP (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@H0MARUP: Very strongly discouraged. See WP:AUTO. RudolfRed (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi H0MARUP. I'm not sure what you mean by page about your own account. Do you want to create a user page about yourself? Do you want to create a Wikipedia article about yourself? If you want to create a user page, please look at this. If you want to create an article, please look as this. It's not so much a question of whether doing either is "legal" in the sense that you'll end up in jail if you try, but any Wikipedia page that you create will need to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and the page most likely will end up deleted if it's not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm a foreigner so sorry for my bad expression.RudolfRed

Actually, I saw someone actually make a user page about themselves. I'm just curious because I didn't see Wikipedia as a social network to talk about your living, that's why I feel strange for someone to do that. Marchjuly — Preceding unsigned comment added by H0MARUP (talkcontribs)

"Wrong" uses of User pages, such as website host or self-article, or draft, exist until brought to attention of an Administrator who will then delete. If you see such, you can also leave a note on the Talk pages of the offenders, with the hope that they will sell-correct. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: Death Threat[edit]

Jacinda received death threats on May 27th and 28th 2021 [1]. A 34-year-old male was charged in relation to these threats as well as failing to provide access to his cellphone on June 4th when requested to do so [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canty2005 (talkcontribs) 04:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


Hi Canty2005 If you would like to make an edit request to the article Jacinda Ardern, then the place to do that would be at Talk:Jacinda Ardern. We cannot act on any such request here at the Teahouse. If you do decide to make a request, please make sure to carefully read through the instructions on at Wikipedia:Edit request and Template:Request edit to ensure that you're request in properly formatted, etc. It's also helpful if you explain how whatever you're requesting should be incorporated into the article. If you want to add new content, state what you want to add and where you want to add it. If you want to remove existing content, state what you want to remove and why. If you want to modify existing content, state what you want to modify and why. If your request is too vague (even if you provide some links to websites), then it's likely going to be declined because the reviewer is not going to try and guess what you want done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly am a new wikieditor and did read the Wiki edit request and template request as the page is semi-protected. To be honest I also tried to find the right place in talk to suggest the edit and it was not clear and did a lot of searching trying to find the appropriate process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canty2005 (talkcontribs) 05:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
That's OK Canty2005. Everyone makes mistakes. The template you were trying to use only works on talk pages, and the best place to use it will be at Talk:Jacinda Ardern. So, review the pages I linked to above, and try to sort out what you want to request. When you're ready to make your request, go to Talk:Jacinda Ardern and click on "New section" near the top of the page; this will open a new window where you can make your request. Follow the instructions on the templates page and make sure you WP:SIGN your post. When you think everything is ready, click on "Show preview" to check. If everything looks good, click on "Publish changes".
Here are some other things that can help make edit requests easier to answer. If you want to add links to your request in support, you don't really need to format them as references; you can format them as explained here. Try not to request that the entire article be changed in one big request because edit requests that ask for too much to be done often are passed over or declined outright. Try to be as clear as possible with your request; don't just say "add this to the article", but say exactly where it should be added. Make sure you request is properly supported with links to reliable sources; don't expect the editor reviewing your request to go searching the Internet to verify what you want changed. Be patient because there are almost always a lot more requests than there are editors reviewing them; your request will be added to a queue and someone will eventually get to it, but it may just take time. So, don't continue to pepper the talk page with the same request over and over again thinking that will increase the chances of someone responding sooner. Similarly, if your request is declined, don't just keep making it over and over again in the hope that someone may accept it ust to get you to go away. Those last two things won't get your request answered, but they might end up getting you a warning and even possibly a block from a Wikipedia administrator. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Reference of Ancestry tree[edit]

If I make a person's ancestry tree using informations from wikipedia itself, then what reference should I mention and how? Mehenaz Tabassoom (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tabassoom: You generally don’t want to use Wikipedia as a source for itself, but if you think about it, what you’re really doing is using the sources for Wikipedia articles as sources. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Mehenaz Tabassoom. You cannot use one Wikipedia article as a reference in another Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:Verifiability is the relevant policy and WP:CIRCULAR is the shortcut to the specific policy language. However, that first Wikipedia article may help you find appropriate references, but you must read them in order to cite them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Uploading non-free images[edit]

Several images of mine have just been deleted on commons. I have seen The Burning Giraffe, (which is in the same museum as the other images), actually has an image on Wikipedia, so I thought I could upload them as well. Now I noticed that The burning giraffe is only uploaded on wikipedia, but not commons. I would like to be sure that if I upload them again, I won't cause disruption to the project. The images in question were used on the 1967 Basel Picasso paintings purchase referendum article and the images have either been bought with tax money released through a majority vote of the citizen of Basel, or have been donated by Pablo Picasso specifically to the youth of Basel which manifested in the streets of Basel for the purchase of the paintings. Is this enough to qualify for the fair use criteria or not? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Paradise Chronicle. Copyright can be very complicated but I will try to give you some general guidelines. Works such as paintings over 95 years old are very rarely protected by copyright and are usually in the public domain. So, high resolution images of those paintings can be uploaded to Commons for use anywhere by anyone. Picasso's early works exhibited in 1925 or before are in that category. Burning Giraffe, on the other hand, was painted by Dali in 1937 and so images of it are not yet in the public domain. Because it is a notable painting and there is a Wikipedia article about it that contains critical commentary, we can use a low resolution image of it in that article only, under WP:NFCI if all the conditions are met. The fact that the people of Basel voted to spend money to buy the paintings or that Picasso donated a painting are of no relevance. When an artist sells or donates a physical painting, in most cases, they are not selling the copyright to that painting, which they retain. The most common exception is illustration art or commercial art for advertising purposes, which is considered "work for hire", and the artist often assigns the copyright to some business in writing in exchange for money. So, unless Picasso formally sold or gave away his copyright in writing, his estate retains the copyright to his post-1925 work. His 1926 work enters the public domain next January 1. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, its is complicated apparently. I'll focus on the older images in the future.:)Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Is this Non-Admin-Closure correct?[edit]

Hi Everyone, Can you please check this afd? Is it correctly closed?

Note: I want to disclose that i don't have any personal issue with the subject or its creator. I take this conversation here as this afd is closed by a non-admin. And there are few Keep Votes either from ip address or newly created accounts. GermanKity (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, GermanKity. Opinions from IP editors or new accounts are perfectly valid if they are grounded in policies and guidelines. So that is not a reason to object to the close. On the other hand, the relevant guideline says "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." So, this is kind of a borderline case. I do not think that the close should be challenged but I would advise the editor to let administrators close this kind of AfD discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cullen328, Thank You for your well explanation. GermanKity (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Moving my Draft to mainspace[edit]

Hello, everyone!

So, I wrote an article, and it's in my draftspace. How do I move it to the mainspace? Do I just pick the option to move it? Because yesterday another user moved my article back to the draftspace and now I am lost. He said I needed more citations, but I have used all the sources I found regarding the subject matter. I need directions, and I hope someone here can answer me.

Thank you! Rizky Novalini (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rizky Novalini: Welcome to the Teahouse, I believe you're referring to this draft Draft:Michelle Edgina Axille. I have added the submission template at the top, once you're ready, click the "Submit draft for review" button. Draft reviewing process would take 1 day to 5 months or longer. We don't have control on how fast the draft get reviewed. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 07:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Rizky Novalini, in addition to referencing, there's plenty of other work to be done here. Quote: Michelle Edgina Axille (born May 29, 2006) is an Indonesian Figure Skater, known for her extraordinary talents [...]. Her Figure Skating journey began in 2006, and has gone through a series of seasons. She has experienced training under world renowned coaches such as Michael Hopfes and Julian Yee. "Her figure skating journey began in [year]" looks to me like a flowery way of saying that she started figure skating in [year]; but if this is what it means, then she started figure skating in her first year of life, which would indeed show a truly extraordinary talent. But we don't say that people are known for their extraordinary talents, unless perhaps we can cite reliable, independent, published sources saying that these talents are extraordinary. Also, we don't say that people are renowned, even if they are renowned. -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


Hi! I hope I can make a request having an entry for Vance Larena. he belongs to the same management with Kelvin Miranda and Jane De Leon. Thanks! Beautyscars (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Beautyscars Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A subject merits an article if they receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It doesn't matter if others in their field or even in their same group/team merit articles- it depends on the sources.
You can make a request at Requested Articles, but the backlog there is so severe any request you make might not be acted on for a long time, if ever. The best way to see an article created is to do it yourself- but be advised that successfully creating a new article is the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's good to gain experience editing existing article first, as well as using the new user tutorial, before attempting it. Experience editing existing articles will help you get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. If you dive right in to creating articles, you could experience disappointment and other hurt feelings as your work is mercilessly edited and even deleted by others while you don't fully understand what is happening. Please take the time to learn more first. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Protecting a Page[edit]

Will anyone please (on behalf of me) lock the pages Deewana (1992 film) and Divya Bharti filmography to protect them from vandalism?

Sahajitbro (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

hi Sahajitbro and welcome to the teahouse! unfortunately, pages shan't be protected unless active vandalism is going on, as this prevents possibly good IP or newly registered users from helping out with the article. if vandalism has occured and may still be occuring, a semi protection may be necessary to only allow auto/confirmed and up. if that does occur, please report it in Requests for page protection (search bar shortcut WP:RFPP) so admins may lock the page to prevent vandalism.   melecie   t 10:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The proper place to request protection is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. You will need to show any recent disruptive edits that happened on those articles—pages are protected only when other measures such as blocks failed to prevent disruption, and not because they might possibly get vandalized in some distant future. If you feel possessive about the text you have contributed to those articles, you may instead add them to your watchlist and revert nonconstructive edits as needed. Kleinpecan (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Sahajitbro. Please read ownership of articles carefully. Wikipedia - all of Wikipedia - is a collaborative project, and articles will not be locked to the way one person wants them to be. --ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk page content deletion[edit]

Can i delete the content on my talk section. I have done what the people told me to do so can i erase them all? Can i delete all the things in my talk page so it looks clean? Badassboy 63637 (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is better to archive old messages instead of deleting them, but that is not necessary. There are some things that you should not delete from your talk page—they are listed at Wikipedia:User pages § Removal of comments, notices, and warnings. Kleinpecan (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Badassboy 63637, If you check the talk pages of experienced editors, you won't find any that look "clean". I'm not sure why you would desire such a look — if anything it sends the impression that this is a newbie. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sharon Smith-Akinsanya Page rejected due to insufficient resources - please advise[edit]

Hello, my draft page Draft:Sharon Smith-Akinsanya was rejected, but I added all resources. Were sources cited incorrectly or were the sources not complete enough?

Thanks, CarmellaGlover2 (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

CarmellaGlover2 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft was declined, not rejected. Declined means that it is theoretically possible it can be improved. Your draft is almost entirely sourced to press releases. Those are not acceptable for establishing notability, because they are almost always put out by the subject themselves or someone associated with them. Wikipedia articles should do more than merely tell about a person and what they do, they should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Press releases, brief mentions, routine announcements, and interviews do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article for more information. My suggestion would be that you gather three independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to give this person significant coverage and start over, just summarizing what they say about her that makes her meet the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing Canadian people...[edit]

Hello! I'm trying to make a major edit to Canadian people by adding Dominican Canadians to the list. There's already a Dominican Canadian community in Montreal and Toronto and I just created a Dominican Canadian page right here on Wikipedia. I checked every stat on the 2016 Canadian Census to make sure it was a fact and I also made sure to link the newly created Dominican Canadian page to the Dominican diaspora page. I just need permission to be able to add the Dominican Canadian link to the Dominican Canadian page. Thank you! PhiladelphiaWanderer34 (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PhiladelphiaWanderer34. I'm not sure I understand your question. Since there is now an article Dominican Canadians, you can create links to it on any other page you like where it would be relevant, such as within People of the Dominican Republic. Permission is not needed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I note that the article Canadians is semi-protected but as you have an account with > 10 edits you will be able to edit it immediately. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


Would it be considered sockpuppetry (or breaking any other rule) if I made test accounts like "autoconfirmed" and "extended confirmed" with the appropriate permissions? AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You should probably be more concerned that that someone suspects you of socking right now, rather an some point in the future! ——Serial 13:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean? AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I suggest your ignore the comment as a 'drive-by' by an editor who may for other reasons be having a bad day, but from looking at past editing history, rarely shows up at Teahouse. However, a GOOD rule of thumb, is one person, one account. Even with one account, names that imply faux authority are a BAD idea. David notMD (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
There are sometimes legitimate reasons for having more than one account. My other account is Mjroots2 which I use when away from my own computer or on my mobile phone. This is to protect my main account, which holds administrative privileges. Having a second account means I never have to log in with my admin account where I'm not confident that the system is secure. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Having two accounts is not considered sockpuppetry if for entirely different uses, and never on same article. For example, an editor may have one for articles, and another as a Teahouse host or draft reviewer. David notMD (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I also, technically speaking, have multiple accounts. They don't edit, and exist only to prevent impersonation. (The passwords for them are long and completely random "rolled my face on the keyboard" strings anyway that I couldn't memorise even had I wanted to get access to them.) The point is, you generally don't need multiple accounts unless you have a legitimate reason to make them; testing permissions is not a good reason, especially those two (which are granted at certain time+edit thresholds). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

thank you for replying, now i understand the purpose of this page, but now that it was been i while, i have started to know Wikipedia quite a lot. But still im a newbie so can you tell me how can i join more talking pages and forums and also what the f-, hell is this sandbox thing on my top right corner. pls explain me the use of this. ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by ヤサース (talkcontribs) 13:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

hi @ヤサース! the sandbox button in the upper toolbar redirects to your personal sandbox which allows you to draft articles & practice wikicode without them being cleared after a while like in the main sandbox. happy editing!   melecie   t 13:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
There are no forums. Talk pages are for editor-to-editor communication, i.e., not chat-like. I use my Sandbox to develop content (and check my references) before copying that into articles. As noted above, some people develop draft articles in their Sandbox. Do NOT consider it as private space, as other editors can go to your User page, click on View history, and then on Contributions, to get to everything you have ever written. Also, no pasting copyright protected content into your Sandbox. David notMD (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Note, the OP has been blocked for trying to evade a previous ban. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Create English version of already-existing page in an other language[edit]

If a page already exists in another language, how can an editor get approval for the creation of the English page? Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you need approval, I think you can just do a translation. Help is available Wikipedia:Translation. I hope it's Okay to do it, because I've just done one without asking! You must, however, put an acknowledgement on the edit summary when you create the page, and you must also tag the talk page that it covers a translation. There are instructions on how to do this in the page I've linked. Elemimele (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm actually going through that right now... one path is to create a draft stub, take it as far as you can, then tag it for translation using the Template:Expand language template, and solicit native speakers to bring as much over as possible, before you propose it for creation. EVhotrodder (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
But please be aware, Heartmusci678, that each Wikipedia has its own rules an policies. The existence of an article in another edition of Wikipedia does not guarantee that a translation of that article will be accepted in English Wikipedia. If its References are inadequate you will need to find better ones; and if there are not enough sources to establish notability then your translation will not be accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Heartmusci678, let's say that I find a subject about which there's a long article in Japanese-language Wikipedia (which I can read, if I can be bothered), and in Korean-language Wikipedia (which I can't), and a short one within Arabic-language Wikipedia (which again I can't). The mere existence of these articles tells us nothing about the notability of the subject. If the Korean-language version comes with an array of references, this in itself means nothing to me, as I am not qualified to evaluate the references. The Japanese-language article wouldn't be at all unusual if none of its references were to reliable sources. As for use of the "Expand language" templates, I've frequently seen Template:Expand Japanese attached to Japan-related articles for which the Japanese-language versions were what I, as an experienced editor, would term crap. (I don't know whether the person who attached the template (A) has no idea how bad the nominated source material is, or (B) doesn't care how bad it is.) If a subject merits an article, then let it be created by somebody who's capable of writing a worthwhile article on the subject (or something approximating this). Creating a mere stub and expecting that others will then augment it may be a way to boost one's list of "articles created" but in my humble/haughty opinion it's lazy and rather arrogant. -- Hoary (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Citing foreign-language news sources in English-language Wikipedia[edit]

What's the policy on citations to foreign-language press? I've been working on improving an article, and it's an international organization, so a significant portion of the relevant news is in foreign-language press outlets... It's no problem to translate them into English, but I wonder if there's relevant policy I should be aware of... Like for instance if only English-language original sources can be cited for English-language articles, or something. Thanks!  EVhotrodder (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

While English sources are preferred here, the policy allows foreign ones too. See WP:NONENG for the details, EVhotrodder. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@EVhotrodder: Welcome to the Teahouse! There is no requirement that sources must be in English (in fact, there's a sub-policy on that); they just have to be a reliable source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The most common way of saying the guidelines is: if there's sources in English, they're preferred to similar sources in another language (e.g. if the BBC printed something in English and L'Équipe printed the same thing in French, then BBC source would be preferred). If only foreign-language sources exist for something, then it's perfectly fine to use them. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks very much to you, @Michael D. Turnbull:, @Tenryuu: and @Joseph2302:, I appreciate the guidance! EVhotrodder (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Problem with Article creation[edit]

I wrote this article not published yet what's wrong my article What can i do ? Asadheydar1998 (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Asadheydar1998: Welcome to the Teahouse. For one thing, your draft has no references to reliable sources, which is the foundation for articles. You may also want to read Your first article for more information on creating articles, and read good and featured articles to get an idea of what high-quality articles look like. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Asadheydar1998: Firstly You have written an Article in your userpage it is not a place writing articles. There is a definite process for making articles. I think you have to know many things before writing a Article. To learn basics I recommend you to go through Help:Your first article, Wikipedia:Article wizard and also Help:Userspace draft, Wikipedia:Drafts. Hope it helps.Siddartha897 (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Consider adding to the existing article Culture of Somalia with appropriate references rather than trying to create a separate article. David notMD (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of video game-specific terms[edit]


I was wondering what the standard or guideline is for capitalization of certain terms that are particular to a specific video game—terms that are not ordinarily capitalized. I am currently progressively making changes to the wiki of a childhood game I used to play that is fairly underdeveloped. The game itself capitalizes certain actions, unit types, and structures that aren't ordinarily capitalized, like Worker, Mage, Courthouse, Research, Battle Cry, and Disguised. When referencing these terms in the wiki, should I keep that capitalization, or should I spell things as they normally would be (worker, research, disguised, etc.)?

Thank you very much for any and all information and advice. Katastrophecy (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the game, but I suggest sticking to the Wikipedia Manual of Style rather than the ideosyncracies of the style used in the game, and use lower case. If there is any disagreement, discuss it on the article talk page.--Shantavira|feed me 19:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I would not capitalize them either, except in quotes. There might be a discussion to be had if there's discussion of how those terms are used idiosyncratically (I'll give an example in a second), but if their meanings are straightforward, then I'd stick with the MOS, as Shantavira said.
Example of what I meant above: Let's say there two kinds of magic-using character classes; Sorcerers and Wizards. They have different strengths and weaknesses, and the two are part of some specific tactic that's notable enough to write a subsection about (like the zerg rush).
I could see where an argument could be made that capitalization is helpful in that case, but it really depends. If the article is throwing around terms like "magic-user," "mage", "wizard," "enchanter" and "sorcerer" willy nilly to refer to classes that use magic as a whole, then it might be worth doing. But that seems likely to be a rare situation. If I'm right, and the game you're working on is War Wind, then I'd just stick with the normal MOS capitalization. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Another thought: can you find a good Wikipedia page on another game in the same general genre? You could use it as an example, or you could look who's been editing it and who's discussing it on the Talk page and see if they have any useful input to make. Elemimele (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Katastrophecy, I agree with the previous advice, except that a brand-new editor may not be familiar with how to find good articles. It tuns out we have a decent list of video games that have met the qualifications here: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Video_games S Philbrick(Talk) 20:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Tic Taw (Video Franchise)[edit]

Hi, I made an article Draft:Tic Taw (Video Franchise) but I cannot find any reliable sources (only Internet Archive, Blogger, and IMDB). I have no idea how to find another. I know this is real, as otherwise there would be no photos or links or anything. Jambalaya Hut (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jambalaya Hut: Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. If there are no RS, then it is not notable, and does not belong in Wikipedia. Not everything that is "real" is notable. RudolfRed (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Help making a page[edit]

Could I get assistance writing a wiki page for Marquee Insurance Group? Marqueeig (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Status: Draft:Marquee Insurance Group Declined three times, and User:Marqueeig blocked until effects a name change. Marqueeig also acknowledged paid, so will need to declare that on User page of the renamed account. David notMD (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

archive box[edit]

Hello teahouse hosts. I've tried to archive my Talk page. You can see what I did HERE. When I click on the the dates for archived articles, I am not getting my archived articles. So, I'm totally stumped. Might someone assist with some further direction and let me know where I've gone wrong? Kind regards to all,Hu Nhu (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Hu Nhu (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hu Nhu: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your archive link goes to Help_talk:Archiving_a_talk_page/Archive_1, which I'm pretty sure is not what you want. You're going to have to change it to whatever your archive page is titled. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Hu Nhu: All you did so far is to create an archive box. This will not make an archive bot archive your talkpage, however. If you want to ask a bot to archive your talkpage, you have to include the specific bot's archive template, for example User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis if you want your talkpage to be archived by ClueBot III. Most of the bot templates have some params that need to be filled, check their documentation for details. If you tell me us how your archive should be configured (numbered archives/ archives by year/month/day etc.;minimum threads to archive in one go etc) we might also configure the bot for you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: and @Tenryuu: Thanks very much for your very kind response. As I read them, I realized that I suppose I am not really so interested in saving the material on the talk page. It is just that I've seen archived talk pages on other users' pages and thought this was Wikipedia required protocol. Is there any stigma or sanctions I would face with simply deleting the posts that are at this point so many? If not, I'll simply delete the clutter. Most kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Hu Nhu: You're not required to preserve messages (even warnings) on your user talk page (save for a few as described in the following link). You may delete them; note, however, that by doing so you are considered to have read and be aware of their contents. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed my link above Victor Schmidt (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tenryuu and Victor Schmidt: Thanks very much for you comments and links to further information. I think I do like the archive box idea, and I will follow the links and comments you've provided to see if I can noodle through the process--I kind of like the problem solving aspect of matters like this. But if I can't figure this out, at some point I'll probably return for some help. I really appreciate the Teahouse hosts. Each time I've been here they, like you, are very helpful and responsive. Kind regards to all.Hu Nhu (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome, and best of luck! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Does this article have a problem?[edit]

Does this article have a problem? Bandamax ItsJustdancefan (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ItsJustdancefan. Yes, that article has major problems. It is unreferenced so readers have no way of verifying that the information is accurate, or that the network is actually notable. The article is only three sentences long and lacks lots of information about this network. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The Spanish version is a bit longer, but just as unsourced.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Using NFL cards / stamps as images[edit]

Hi, another image question. I'm looking to potentially buy some NFL cards off Ebay and upload them to Wikimedia, but want to know whether any or all of them would be allowed before I make a purchase.

Type 1. Sunoco stamps (1972). They appear to have no copyrighting on either side.

Type 2. San Diego Chargers Police Cards (1987). Described on the back as being sponsored by Oscar Meyer and the San Diego Chargers.

Type 3. San Diego Chargers Police Cards (1988 and later). The logos of the Chargers(TM) and Louis Rich(R) are featured on the backs of the cards.

Thanks, Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Harper J. Cole, They are all covered by copyright. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Harper J. Cole, It's a common misconception that the absence of a copyright symbol means that the text is not subject to copyright. That was true at some time but hasn't been true for decades. All signatories to the Berne Convention, which includes the US, agree that any works created are automatically covered by copyright, with some exceptions such as works of federal employees. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, S Philbrick. Regrettable, but it can't be helped.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Renaming "Japanese Breakfast" to "Michelle Zauner" and Leaving a Redirect[edit]

A discussion on Talk:Japanese Breakfast about whether or not to merge with Draft:Michelle Zauner came to the consensus to merge the page and rename it from Japanese Breakfast to Michelle Zauner. This is due to the article's subject now being both a well-known author and director outside of the musical project Japanese Breakfast, expanding the scope of the page to be more specifically about Zauner than Japanese Breakfast.

The page should be moved from Japanese Breakfast to Michelle Zauner, and leave a redirect from Japanese Breakfast to the newly renamed page. I'm not quite sure how to do this due to the existing redirect. Memories of (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Memories of: Welcome to the Teahouse. Since this is a uncontroversial move, you can leave a request at WP:RM#TR for a page mover to look at. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Writing a non-free use rationale[edit]

Dear Teahouse, I want to write a rationale for File:CBC Testcard 2006.png to save the file from being deleted. Can the Teahouse give me some tips for writing one? Thanks, (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, 49.176, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read the non-free content criteria carefully. No. 8 says "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I cannot see how that can reasonably justify the use of file in the article Sign-on and sign-off. So unless you can come up with an existing article (criterion 7) for which 8 would apply, there is no rationale for allowing that file in Wikipedia. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


Is signing important when you reply to a question? If it is, then why Wikipedia doesn't automatically sign when you answer a question? I'm so confused. H0MARUP (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)H0MARUP H0MARUP (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@H0MARUP: There are tools that help editors sign comments (like the Discussion Tool beta feature and Enterprisey's reply-link.js). There are times where a signature isn't wanted at the end, which is why by default it is expected to be manually inserted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@H0MARUP: Yes, signatures are important when communicating on talk pages such as this. For more information, see Wikipedia:Signatures. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Itatic title[edit]

Please move the title of Namaste Trump to italics (like Namaste Trump), as I don't know how to do that. Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 03:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Peter Ormond, for future reference, you're going to want to use {{italic title}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Someone made a Wiki page for me and it is not correct.[edit]

Can it be taken down so that I can create my own with accurate information? (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. We have no idea who you are, so this is a rather ambiguous request. As far as recreating the article goes, it's frowned upon for editors to write about themselves, and any information you add must be reliably sourced and verifiable, which means you can't just rely on your own experiences. If you do manage to find reliable sources, the least drama-filled path would be to submit an edit request on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, 24.158. As Tenryuu says, we have no idea who you are; but please read WP:Autobiography#Problems in an article about you. --ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

How to know when to remove banners[edit]

Hi! I'm super new to Wikipedia and I was hoping for some guidance. I began editing a page that has warning banners saying it is written like an advertisement and a press release/news article. The page is Venturing.

I do unfortunately come from a place of bias, as I am involved with the organization that this page is about. Is there anyone who would be willing to let me know if my edits adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines? I want to remove the banners if possible, but only if I have really fixed the problem.

If nobody is willing to review the page, can anyone give me some pointers in removing all bias from the page?

Thanks! HNAUser (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, HNAUser. That article is in very poor condition and you should not remove those tags. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources that are completely independent of the topic say about the topic. The current version of the article is based entirely on things published by the Boy Scouts of America. That is the wrong way to write an article, so your task should be to find reliable sources completely independent of the Boy Scouts that devote significant coverage to Venturing, and summarize what those sources say. Remove all the stuff cited only to the Boy Scouts. If those independent sources do not exist, then the article should be deleted. I recommend that you disclose your conflict of interest at Talk:Venturing and on your own user page, which you have not yet created. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand why this is an issue. This article is not reporting on the quality of the program, only the content that is being delivered. Nobody else but the Boy Scouts themselves would write about the requirements or structure of the program they deliver. I would have a easier time understanding if this was an issue of reporting on scandals are accusations levied against the program, but that is not mentioned insofar. I'd also like to point that the main page for the Boy Scouts of America cites BSA resources. Help me to understand the difference, please. - HNAUser — Preceding unsigned comment added by HNAUser (talkcontribs) 04:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
HNAUser, it is a major issue because the General notability guideline says A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that guideline goes on to say, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. An acceptable Wikipedia article does not recapitulate what an organization says about itself and its own pet projects, because the organization has its own website and social media presence to say whatever it wants to say about itself. This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for organizations to promote the programs that they think are important, but no independent published reliable sources think are important. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification!

I was able to find a couple of brief mentions of Venturing in articles about the lawsuit that the Girl Scouts filed against the Boy Scouts for recruiting girls. But those sources did not discuss Venturing in detail, and only mentioned it in passing. As for the references in the BSA article, I haven't examined that issue and maybe that article needs to be improved too. But there is no doubt that the BSA is notable, because many reliable sources devote significant coverage to it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Measurement uncertainty[edit]

What's the correct way on Wikipedia to express uncertainty in a measured quantity? I had a look in MOS:MEASUREMENT and it doesn't mention the subject at all.

For context, I want to edit the displayed value of the hyperfine transition of hydrogen in the “Hydrogen line” article.

MeasureWell (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@MeasureWell: Is this what you're looking for? --DB1729 (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Opening several noticeboards? Talk:Amhara people[edit]

Hello for several issue's on the same subject i want it to the noticeboard for fringe, misattributions of quotes, npov concern and admins conduct. Do i have to choose one, when it's about the same subject or can place it in several? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Dawit S Gondaria! Chose one place for the actual discussion, maybe you already have. Then you can "advertise" it in more places, like "There is a discussion about X going on here (link), your input is welcome." See guidance at WP:APPNOTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello @(talk) thank your for your response. I added the discussion to the [[4]] but the header/title is mad long ;) how do i make it so, that it when i notify that there's a discussion that it directly goes to this the section >>> Amhara people Nature of Amhara ethnicity section was added to affect NPOV of the article, by including fringe statements and deliberate misattributions to give false perception of broader support. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Changing an image to a more recent one[edit]

What are the rules involved in changing an image to a more recent one? I know I need to own the copyright of the image, have permission to use it, or use a creative commons image, but is that all?

If I have those things is it OK to change an image to a better more recent one, even if the existing photo isn't technically inaccurate? Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If the image isn't already at Wikimedia Commons (WC), then (other than in very unusual circumstances) if you want to use it on Wikipedia you have to upload it to WC. WC is not Creative Commons (CC). If an image has one among a number of kinds of CC license, it can be uploaded to WC. A very small percentage of the images you'll find on the web have such a CC license. If you took the photograph, then the copyright to it will normally be yours. If it is indeed yours, then you're free to release it with a CC license that expressly permits reuse, even for commercial purposes. (Yes, when you upload a photo of yours to WC, you're allowing me to make money off it elsewhere, without passing any of that money to you.) Now, once there are two or more rival images at WC of a particular subject, then the best image for a given purpose is the one that should be used on Wikipedia for that purpose. Replacing a photo that isn't actually "wrong" with a better photo is standard procedure at Wikipedia. (Just make sure that you don't give the impression that your purpose is to advertise your own photographic prowess.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


How are you taking the vaccine? (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi anon, welcome to the teahouse, the teahouse is for answering questions about editing Wikipedia, maybe searching with your preferred search engine is a better way to answer your question. Justiyaya (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
We don't give medical advice here, you would need to check information supplied by your local health authority or government on vaccine rollouts in your country. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

publishing a draft[edit]

hello, we have created 4 pages for 4 filmmakers who have their first films published already on wikipedia. We made a draft and would like now to publish it. Could you please let us know how to proceed. Here are the 4 pages :

thank you for your help. Alpha Violet (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alpha Violet, welcome to the teahouse, the non redirect drafts contains no citations, add citations before submitting them for review or moving them into mainspace. Check if the subjects meet WP:GNG before continuing work on the draft. Justiyaya (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia accounts are for individuals. What does your use of "we" imply? What is your personal connection to these four people? Also, each draft has a photo which you claim as your own work. Is this true? David notMD (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

how to cite[edit]

 Seunayomi007 (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Seunayomi007, try these guides/links: User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners, Help:Introduction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


Darveshpur Sri Krishna Gaushala this is article now showing on browser--GoshalaDarveshpur (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC) GoshalaDarveshpur (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

GoshalaDarveshpur, which article is now showing on your browser, and what question do you have about it? -- Hoary (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Is it about Draft:Darveshpur Sri Krishna Gaushala? This is a draft. Promotion to article status was declined, as the draft uses Wikipedia for referencing. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There are other problems too. Notably, almost everything in the draft is about gaushala/goshala in general; and this is quite unnecessary as there is an article, Goshala that explains. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Why does a true information doesn't get accepted?[edit]

Recently, I've added some extra information in Blackpink. Although these pieces of information were true, why do they stills get reverted? H0MARUP (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@H0MARUP: You added main/lead/sub term to vocalist, dancer or rapper as per this diff. You also added visual and face of the group, both of this are considered WP:FANCRUFT. As per consensus on WT:KO, such information (main, lead, sub, visual, face of the group, maknae and similar terms) should not be included.
@Kleinpecan: Answered. Thanks you. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 12:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Paper9oll: Oh, I understood. But what a shame! I always wanted to help my idols once. Welp, at least I tried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H0MARUP (talkcontribs) 14:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@H0MARUP: No problem, at least now you're aware of it. Thanks you and happy editing! Paper9oll (🔔📝) 14:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest change[edit]

Please can someone help me with a conflict of interest change on ?

I have added the change requests and supporting documents to the Talk section Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Leemour Pelli article[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Leemour Pelli

Hi, I'd love to get some feedback on this article. It was declined but I've edited on the Work section and I'd like to know if this meets the conditions for approval. Thank you!

[Leemour PelliWoodholder (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox conversion to Draft Article[edit]

I am trying to see if I can transfer my sandbox article over to the draft article so I can submit it for review. PeixuanGuo (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@PeixuanGuo: I see that SamStrongTalks kindly moved your sandbox article to Draft:Single Pore Sensing for you, and added the template to allow you to submit it for review. Before submitting the article, I suggest you update your draft based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout (e.g. add a lead section, don't use bold or numbering in section headers) and MOS:DATEFORMAT (e.g. change date formats from 2000-3 to March 2000). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Why does coke go with the left wing woke movement? A left wing socialist movement.[edit]

 2601:804:200:9F50:A93B:4244:F167:A1EA (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! This page is for asking questions about Wikipedia. If the Wikipedia article about The Coca-Cola Company does not answer your question, then I suggest you contact the company directly. GoingBatty (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Unblocking/unlocking a term[edit]

Hello. I have a question about unblocking a term. I wanted to create an article for Eargasm, a 1976 Johnnie Taylor album that was a Top 5 hit, contains a No. 1 song, and has sold more than a million copies. The term "Eargasm" is blocked from creation due to it also being a title for articles about subjects that were found to be non-notable--and which have nothing to do with the JT album. Sandstein was the admin who blocked the term in 2008. I asked Sandstein to merely unblock the term; he asked for WP:THREE. I instead gave a more detailed response, and he declined to unblock the term. Had the term not been blocked, I would have just created the article.

This would seem to be problematic. It's censorious, silly, and as I wrote to Sandstein, childish. It seems to be more a case of doing something solely because he can, not basing a decision on merit or logic. Again, this article would be about a platinum album, which has nothing to do with the previous articles bearing the same name. Thank you for any assistance. Caro7200 (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Caro7200,
Sandstein asked for the 3 best sources; you simply linked the name of many sources that you could find. I recommend finding the 3 best, highest quality and most reliable source, and link them on Sandstein's talk. If this fails, you can ask another admin to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level, they will likely check over the conversation you had on Sandstein's talk. WP:SALT has more information. — Berrely • TalkContribs 16:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, thanks. Well, this seems to contradict both editorial courtesy and assuming good faith; it's bad policy. What's the worst that could happen in this scenario? A deceptive editor asks for a term--again, a term--to be unblocked, they recreate a previously deleted page, the page is then immediately deleted again, and the editor is immediately sanctioned? I realize that Sandstein asked for Three--my point is that this gatekeeping shouldn't even happen if I have stated that I am going to write an article about a completely different topic that simply shares the same title. But it's fine, there are other articles to write, and I'll expend my efforts doing that rather than trying to argue for what should be standard, and courteous, practice. Caro7200 (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, you're not particularly extending good faith to Sandstein, either--they asked you a straightforward question, you didn't answer it, they thus declined to accept your request, and your conclusion is that they're "deeply childish", "silly", "censorious", and in so many words, on a power trip. Anyway, if you're actually looking for solutions, and not just complain about those who disagree with you, you could also just write your article in a user sandbox or as a draft and then, when it's done, ask an admin to move it over the page protection for you. Writ Keeper  16:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
This will be my last comment, as I don't want to keep litigating the issue--as Writ Keeper hints at, there are few things worse on Wikipedia than complaint after complaint. My point is that this should have been a fairly simple thing to resolve, involving good faith. In the worst case scenarios, either I'm deceptive, recreate the same article, and am punished, or I write an article that the community finds is not notable on its own merits. I do think this is silly, childish, censorious, and an unfortunate case of administrative gatekeeping, but I will move on. My opinion is that the heart and soul of Wikipedia is that anyone can write an article, publish it, and have the community weigh in. And while not to further toss in something, this is a platinum album by a Black artist without a single album article to his name. I hope my edit history indicates my seriousness and passion for the project. Take care. Caro7200 (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I will apologize to Sandstein. Caro7200 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Caro7200. There is no point in preemptively unsalting the title. If you think that that an acceptable article can now be written on that topic, go ahead and create the draft. If a reveiwer accepts the draft, then they will override the salting. In other words, if you use theWP:AFC process, then the salting becomes irrelevant. --ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Creating an author page[edit]

I'm a published author and wish to create an author page and separate book page with cross references to historical figures and book genres. How do I avoid 'conflict of interest' Thanks to those who have responded. Really helpful.  ? Anna M Holmes (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Anna M Holmes, Welcome to Wikipedia! Although it is discouraged that a subject writes about themself on Wikipedia, perhaps WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, and WP:RS can help you here. Lightbluerain (Talk | contribs) 16:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Anna M Holmes: Welcome to the Teahouse. There's more information at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, but if you're thinking about writing about yourself, that is strongly discouraged. In general, information should be taken and summarised from reliable sources, and conclusions should not be drawn here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Anna M Holmes:, Welcome to Wikipedia! Authors are strongly discouraged from editing articles about themselves and their work on Wikipedia because that constitutes conflict of interest. Unfortunatelly, as of now, I'm not certain you or your work would qualify for dedicated Wikipedia articles as per WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK. Based on information I could find I recommend you do the following:
  1. Declare your conflict of interest at least on your own page. This shows to other users that you are not trying to be sneaky and subvert Wikipedia rules.
  2. Find relevant reliable sources on the subject before writing any articles. I looked throught a few review quotes about your most recent book and all sources I could find come from blog websites or even Facebook groups which are not considered reliable by Wikipedia. (Most of these websites are hosted on Blogspot and Wordpress domains; if authors of said blogs can't even be bothered to procure a dedicated domain name, I can't imagine that they have any content moderation/review process.)
  3. Pay attention to other editors' work. So far, you made 6 content edits and all of them were reverted.
  4. Also keep in mind that an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Once you succeed in publishing any content on Wikipedia, you effectively loose control over it. Anyone can edit it to remove unsupported content, add more info supported by reliable sources, republish and reuse it (with attribution to Wikipedia contributors collectively and not to you personally), etc.
Anton.bersh (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Small Doubt on Notification[edit]

Why don't I get a notification when I ping someone in their talkpage. Do they get notified separately.  Siddartha897 (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Siddartha897: Why would you want to get a notification for pinging someone else? Can you clarify your question? RudolfRed (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: I mean a notification like (Your mention of someone was sent).Siddartha897 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I had no idea such a thing existed. Thank you @Siddartha897: and @Tenryuu: for teaching me something new today. RudolfRed (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Siddartha897: If I'm understanding this correctly, you want to have an alert for when you successfully ping someone? You can do that at Preferences → Notifications → Successful mention → check Web. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Thanks, That's what i wanted. Damn I got 4 edit conflicts consecutively while replying to this thread. Siddartha897 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Oh! wait. That's not what i'm asking. The alert was already on checkY, I'm getting mentions from so long. But see my question carefully I mean When I mention someone in their talkpage. Siddartha897 (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Siddartha897: I just tested it on your user talk page and it seems to be suppressed. The folks over at WP:VPT might be able to answer your quandary better. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Elmer G. Cato[edit]

Hello everyone, this is my dilemma. I started to contribute to Wikipedia last month and made a username that was ambiguous and implied that I was affiliated with an advertising agency. In fact I am not. I just liked the anonymity of using that username but it complicated my submission more. So I tried to follow the suggestions of the hosts/editors of Wikipedia. I tried to change my username but I had difficulty doing it. Also, I can disclose my personal details just to share that I want to become a contributor and that my article is in good faith. The person I am writing about is someone who has helped a lot of Filipinos in Iraq and Libya. I was hoping to add up this information in Wikipedia as fact.

One of the things that was suggested while I was trying to expedite the approval of the article I wrote was to make a new username and submit the article.

However, if this is not the right way to do it. Can someone help me how to do it properly? I would really appreciate your assistance so that I can have my article approved.

My old username was StratCom1080. How can I change it into a new username that won't imply I am working or in any way affiliated with a marketing agency or whatsoever.

I work as a Virtual Assistant for a Trucking Company and Procurement Staff for and for a Trading Company. How can I disclose that I don't have conflict of interest on the article that I am writing about.

Sincerely yours,

Maria Ahriam Almonte80 (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ahriam Almonte80: It looks like you already created a new username. You can add a note to your new user page that you previously edited under the old name. You can also add a note that you are not affiliated with the subject of the article you are creating. RudolfRed (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Your draft Draft:Elmer Cato exists. Address the reviewer's comments. David notMD (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

YouTube notability[edit]

I have a question? Can just be a youtuber with many subscribers equals that he is notable? For example this guy, Dhruv Rathee. He just has 5 million subscribers on youtube and he has a wikipedia page. But a guy called Gaurav taneja,(Flying beast) also has more than 5 million subscribers but he does not have a wikipedia page. He is notable too. So shoudn't this guy's wikipedia page be deleted as i think so having more subscribers doesn't mean he is notable. A guy called Vivek bindra has 16 Million subs but still he does not have a wikipedia page? So shouldn't his page should be deleted as well? Badassboy 63637 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Badassboy 63637. Just because someone has a lot of subscribers does not automatically make them notable. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

So shouldn't it should be considered for nomination for deletion as per wikipedia rules. Will you nominate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badassboy 63637 (talkcontribs) 17:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Badassboy 63637: If a YouTuber, or any other subject, meets the Wikipedia guidelines for an article, the article shouldn't be nominated for deletion. I think the article you linked meets WP:GNG and shouldn't be nominated for deletion. Justiyaya (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Badassboy 63637, if, after careful consideration, you believe that Wikipedia policy dictates that a certain article should be deleted, then you are free to nominate the article for deletion. Here's how. Make sure that your nomination rationale is policy-based, persuasive, lucid, and as concise as possible. Avoid rhetorical questions. Avoid question marks on what are not questions. -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with notability[edit]

Hey peeps, I have written Draft:Vyla Rollins and am looking for help with notability, the below is a conversation I have had with someone that reviewed the article and I am looking for further assistance.

FYI – The following boxed content can be found at User talk:Nomadicghumakkad#Decline of Draft: Vyla Robbins. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't offer any advice, but I can offer sympathy: WPs definitions of notability are what they are, so we have to work within them. Someone had to draw a line in the sand, and it's just unfortunate that wherever it's drawn, there will be people who don't seem to be the right side of it. When I am more experienced, I may feel able to grumble on the talk-page of wherever the policy is - maybe you will too. It seems to me that our policy's emphasis on being elected to a learned society is a rather naive and misguided emphasis; some of those societies verge on being old-boys(and girls) clubs, where election is simply a matter of being old friends with everyone else who's been elected. Incidentally, Charles Babbage had a massive bust-up with the Royal Society almost 200 years ago over very similar concerns, so I feel I'm in good company. Similarly a lot of distinguished professors aren't really all that distinguished when you look more closely, and any university that needed a bit of cash will have plenty of named chairs... But it's no better in sports-world either. I console myself with the knowledge that the truly great always do get remembered, eventually. Elemimele (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

History/Africa countries[edit]

East,west north african countries.

}} (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Did you intend to ask a question? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A beginner's question about editing suspicious claim supported by footnotes[edit]

Is there a forum where I can pose a question about editing a particular Wikipedia page, or does the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team serve that purpose?

1. The page in question is

2. The claim is this “The case is often cited as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in modern times.”

3. The references are:

• [3] The referenced article does not mention “Kelo v. City of New London”.

• [4] The case is mentioned in the referenced article.

• [5] The referenced article does not mention “Kelo v. City of New London”. The referenced article is in fact excerpts from another article, and the link to the full article is dead.

• [6] Links to a YouTube video by what appears to be a legal “shock-jock”, a lawyer whose “specialty” is automobile lemon laws.

4. My questions are 1) should a Wikipedia contributor add qualifiers to statements such as this to acknowledge the breadth of opinion on the subject, 2) is researching then adding those qualifiers the responsibility of someone editing the page, or can the statement simply be deleted and the original author must amend, and 3) should references be deleted because of a subjective opinion about their gravitas?

FYI - I don't know enough to know whether I need a reply specific to mobile view or Visual Editor. Rwhtx (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rwhtx: Thanks for bringing this to our attention; I've ripped out the sentence entirely because of the poor sourcing you pointed out (the one where the case is in the source is a blog, which is not reliable as well). Wikipedia generally avoids making statements of "best" or "worst", especially in the introduction, and the only time we would actually say that is if there are multiple reliable sources that say this explicitly. Criticism sections further down are fine but are subject to the same sourcing requirements, and oftentimes needs in-text attribution. The responsibility to provide references belongs to the person that added the text, but it's good practice to do a quick Google search to see if you can improve the sourcing. If you encounter one "in the wild", you may go to the talk page and discuss it with other editors, or just be bold and remove it yourself (bearing in mind WP:BRD). Let me know if you have any more questions.  Ganbaruby! (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Rwhtx, welcome to the teahouse. Another editor, probably a teahouse host, already reverted the edit in the article you mentioned, here's the answers to your questions.
  1. No, opinions are not allowed on Wikipedia, unless it's someone's else's opinion (WP:NPOV). I can say, "(a notable or related random human/thing) commented that (a random thing) is good." but not "I think this (random thing) is good" or "this (random thing) is good"
  2. Adding citations, making sure the information added is correct and making sure the edit is free from NPOV issues is always the responsibility of the editor. If the edit made is not neutral, makes questionable claims without citing anything or is otherwise nonconstructive (for a variety of reasons), you can simply revert the edit (going to the edit history and clicking undo). Notify/warn the editor using templates if you think their edits are not made in good faith. (I suggest using Twinkle or Redwarn for that)
  3. If the references are biased and are not reliable sources, such as some biased news agency's opinion on contested things, and the contested opinion is not portrayed as opinions themselves, just delete the references and the section/sentence they support. If they are just bad references but the section is perfectly fine (which is unlikely), see if you can find better citations that support the fact and replace the biased ones.
If you have any more questions, please reply to this but ping me by using {{Ping|Justiyaya}} -- Justiyaya (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

How to suggest an article for lengthening?[edit]


I'm particularly interested in improving and lengthening the Wikipedia pages of women and their work in order to properly reflect their contributions to society. I have found an article that I would like to ask for help in lengthening because it's extremely sparse. Is there a group I could find to suggest this and/or find other articles on women to improve?

Thanks very much! Greyflamingo Greyflamingo (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Greyflamingo: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women seems to be somewhat active according to their talk page, so you may be able to find some assistance there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Greyflamingo: I would also urge you to drop by WikiProject Women in red. that is their exact core focus.---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 19:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Greyflamingo: Ditto that advice: the talk page for WikiProject Women in red is full of people with the same interest. --- Possibly 23:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

First article[edit]


I was wondering regarding publishing my first article, will I be able to do that? I made some minor edits and contributions these past few days and my page is over 4 days old. But apparently I have to wait on Afc? Or is that for other users? I'm confused! Boozlebam (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Boozlebam, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. You're right that there is a technical limitation (to reduce vandalism) whereby very new accounts cannot create articles directly. However, even when you are able to technically, I would very very very strongly advise you not to jump in and create an article directly in main space, but to use the articles for creation process to create a draft, that you can work on, and get advice on, and eventually submit for review. My personal recommendation would be that you do not even try that yet, but spend a few months making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before you do so: generally, editors who try the difficult task of creating a new article before they have the necessary understanding tend to have a frustrating and disappointing experience. I liken it to somebody who has just had their first piano lesson, and tries to play a concert; or somebody who has had their first Chinese lesson and tries to submit an article to a Chinese magazine. Please see your first article, and the community portal. --ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Aah ok! Thank you for your advice. I welcome you to look at my article as well, and I'll keep on testing the waters!--Boozlebam (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

For the curious, the draft in question is Draft:A boy named ROSA. Submitted to AfC today. One question to get out of the way is what is your connection to this performer? David notMD (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

A sort of rant[edit]

Greetings dear Teahouse hosts and guests,

so I'm a bit annoyed by what about half of the people here are: Their draft not being accepted.

However, I am not half as concerned about establishing notability, finding sources or getting rejected as I am about actually getting reviewed. I have now returned from my second wikibreak this year, only to find my draft still in the queue. I submitted back in January, and have thus now patiently waited for five months, as threatened. Maybe I should have waited one more day; but I get the impression that I am either really unlucky or there's a technical problem.

In any case where this is not a technical error, however, I feel like something is really broken with the AfC process. I am not a new editor, I have published articles before (even without AfC before I knew that existed). I intentionally chose to go via AfC here because this is an article about a company, and I wanted to make sure it gets through in the best state possible. I have no CoI, but simply took an interest in the subject after the company in accordance with our rules requested the article to be created. But, here we are, both company representative and volunteer editor without an article to show for. In the meantime, numerous article have sprung up by avoiding AfC which are of really bad quality, and of which probably 50% will be pruned later anyway, and the rest improved until they are in a state where they would have passed AfC. But these articles are up now, which is good news for the companies involved! This is ludicrous, considering we are effectively punishing those who abide by the rules and wait patiently.

Now, I get that I can't force things. We are all volunteers here, and reviews are tedious. I have actually considered joining AfC review to help out – but how could I possibly do that while my own article is still waiting? I'd be biased because I want to see it get approved.

So, yeah... I'd really appreciate if someone could review this draft: Draft:Polymateria. The wait is really draining a bit of my motivation to tackle the other projects I want to do here.

/End of rant. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Remember that it is not a queue. Volunteer reviewers choose what they want to review and when. Additionally, there are a large number of drafts and few number of reviewers. Just be patient, and work on other things until the draft is reviewed. RudolfRed (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existance of some other company articles (in good or bad shape) does not justify any other article being created. This is an encyclopedia not a venue for promotion. RudolfRed (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: I know, I know. I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I didn't mean to use that as a point to prove that my article should get accepted. I meant to use it as a point that dodging AfC can work, and NPP will sometimes not catch some bad ones. And if you read my post, I actually stated that I was considering joining the AfC review team, but decided against it because I would be in a biased state (not to mention without any clue about whether I have to correct understanding of how a company article should look like).
I'm not blaming anyone. My point is: I could just publish the article. Personally, I feel that – apart from some minor points – it would definitely stay up and exist. Waiting for it to get reviewed via AfC is what I feel is morally the right thing to do, but the problem is that no one is getting anything out of it. I get annoyed, AfC reviewers gets stressed when I bother them, you teahouse hosts feel obliged to reply to yet another rant. I just feel that this encourages to cheat the system by avoiding AfC. And that feels wrong. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@LordPeterII: I can really hear and understand your frustrations, and sadly cannot offer you much solace, I'm afraid. But maybe I could just point out a couple of possible reasons for the long delay. Firstly, because we see Wikipedia constantly being used and abused by attempts to promote businesses and entrepreneurs here, our volunteer reviewers may tend to opt for more interesting work than assessing notability for companies. Secondly, when I see a huge amount of sources used in an article (you currently have 35) I know it will take a vast amount of my time to assess that notability. And whether you're connected or you're not (and I know you've made clear that you're not), it's not unreasonable for some reviewers to wonder if this is yet another case of paid editor pushing a company on Wikipedia. Let me be clear: this is not an accusation - just the reality as I see it. Yes, it would be easy for someone to move their draft directly into mainspace, and you've done the right thing by not doing so - thank you. What you could do, is add a new section to its talk page or to the top of the article entitled Note to reviewers or something similar, and pop in the four most important sources that you thing establish notability per WP:NCORP. A brief explanation of those links could well help the helpers and might go a long way in making things proceed more smoothly. Although I'm not an AfC reviewer, my own personal interests would have swayed me well away from both living people (unless they're scientists) and from all forms of businesses and celebrities, so I'm afraid I wouldn't be rushing to review it for that very reason (though the topic that the company deals in does interest me greatly - so I might suggest there's some mileage in finding an appropriate article on biodegradable plastics and add a line or two there). Hope you find this reply at least somewhat helpful. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is my wikipedia page keep getting deleted?[edit]

I created an unbiased company page for my business with proper citations and conflict of interest in the profile, yet my page is keep getting deleted. It is completely unbiased with citations from major news websites. mrblaze111 21:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrblaze111 (talkcontribs)

@Mrblaze111: Welcome to the Teahouse. As someone who's creating a page for [your] business, your disclosure needs to be explicitly stated on your user page (User:Mrblaze111); you may use the {{paid}} template to do so. Your page (Draft:OtakuKart) hasn't been deleted, but is being considered for speedy deletion. LinkedIn is not a reliable source that establishes notability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much @Tenryuu:; I have made many changes right now, would you be able to check it out and give some suggestions if possible? Draft:OtakuKart
Apologies for the other. mrblaze111 22:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Mrblaze111: I'm not an AfC reviewer, but you should resubmit when you're ready. Just make sure that the sources you're using give it significant coverage. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.)Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @Tenryuu, I have added all of the citations. Appreciate your help in this!
~~~~ MrBlaze111 (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Actually, if you go into the page log, you can see that this page has been deleted several times in the past as a stale draft. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't check that far. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Submitted Draft for Review by Mistake[edit]

I submitted a draft from my sandbox for review but then I realized that the review process is only for new articles. My work is only additional material for an already existing article. How do I withdraw the draft? Attu43 (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Attu43: Welcome to the Teahouse! Ganbaruby kindly removed the AfC template from User:Attu43/sandbox for you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Attu43: I've taken out the AfC template. As for adding it into the article, editors may just be bold and edit the article directly, or discuss additions on the talk page if they're not sure. However, after reading what's in your sandbox, you need to find a way to condense all that extraneous information and avoid puffery. Wording like "Bright and diligent, Farris was a good student", "Emory had a good academic reputation", Always a disciplined person, and Farris and Julia had a deep, loving relationship are problematic. While some of the information may be true, it's too much detail and makes him sound like a saint.  Ganbaruby! (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I agree and will make additional edits. @Ganbaruby:Attu43 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Visibility of caption for photo[edit]

Hi, someone please tell why the caption specified for the photo of the Queen of Nanaimo in Victoria Machinery Depot#Ships built is invisible. Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Huh it says "Queen of Nanaimo" in the desktop version. In the mobile version (which I assume you're using) it doesn't. I'm sure someone familiar with that bug will come by soon. Herostratus (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
It has just been fixed by another editor. Something to do with the File syntax. RudolfRed (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Tasked with creating company Wikipedia[edit]

Hi there, I'm interning at a company and they've tasked me with looking into creating a Wikipedia page. The company is FISPAN. I've read through Help:Your first article and a couple of other pages, but I'm having trouble verifying if we have enough notability to meet the requirements. There are three sources below that I think meet the requirements, please let me know what you think.

If anyone has the time to do a search for other sources that would work (I'm not expecting this) then thank you. I really appreciate the help. Fispan (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

First, stop using this account, because your account name is the same as the company. Start a new account. Could be as simple as BobAtFisplan (or whatever your first name is). Second, on your User page, declare that you are being paid to create/edit an article about Fispan. David notMD (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Fispan: You are required to post a WP:PAID notice on your user page. The links look like interviews or press releases which will not help you. Please let your boss know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a venue for promoting the company. You have been given an impossible task. RudolfRed (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Point them to WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and WP:Corporations and the Community. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


WP:WEBCRIT says "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article." but what's supposed to happen with articles like The Signal (podcast)? The only coverage available is awards and as far as I can tell the podcast has been inactive for quite some time. Is it okay to have a really short and practically useless article that will never generate new coverage? The podcast could just as easily be on a list at one of the award pages or one of the hosts pages. Would it be okay to suggest merging it into one of those? TipsyElephant (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking at WEBCRIT, the language is uses is "may be notable", not the more normal "presumed to be notable", which reads as a higher standard. So I'm not fully sure that The Signal is in fact notable. If you've done a WP:BEFORE, you could certainly try AfDing it and seeing where it goes. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding English article[edit]

hello, I want to add an enhlish version of existing article, but it is possible only by draft, who can help?. Fozera (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

hii, I need help. I want to add an english version of existing article. But it let me only by draft. How can I proceed??? Fozera (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fozera: You should proceed by creating a draft for review. WP:YFA will walk you through the process. WP:TRANSLATE will also have some good info. Note that each Wikipedia has its own rules and standards for articles, so what may be acceptable on one may not be acceptable here. RudolfRed (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)