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

Writing about emerging artists[edit]

I am writing about emerging artists who have done pretty well in their fields. any suggestions! Anuaurora (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anuaurora, welcome to the Teahouse! A few points.
Writing a WP-article that "sticks" without any previous WP-experience is hard. Consider just editing some topics that interest you for a while, and check WP:TUTORIAL. Learning how to add references properly is essential, especially if you write about living people, WP has rules about these things. As an example, Oscar Ukonu is an article I wrote. It's pretty basic, but not glaringly WP-awful. Note how sources are used, depending on what they are and say. Your task as a Wikipedian is not to sell your subject, it is to summarize what independent sources (WP:RS) say.
If you have a subject in mind, check WP:BASIC. If you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem!", move on to WP:BLP and WP:YFA. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anuaurora If you mean visial or performing contemporary artists, then List of contemporary artists has plenty of examples of articles. David notMD (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anuaurora It's a fine line--if an artist is too emerging, it will be harder to find reliable, independent coverage that shows how they are notable. But it's possible. Good luck. (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing an article in return for undisclosed payments[edit]

I am not an editor of Wikipedia. I sought editorial help from Wikipedia editors in editing and publishing an article about my life, which I believe satisfies the applicable notability requirement. The article was published on the main Wikipedia pages and after about three months was removed to draft status, republished and removed again to draft status with the lead comment that the article "may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" and that "the author has been sanctioned for failing to disclose paid contributions". I was unaware of any noncompliance with Wikipedia policies by the editor and would like to resubmit this article (and cure an additonal comment that the article may have been promotional) with the help of an editor who will comply with applicable disclosure rules and policies. Can you please advise now to proceed and identify one or more editors who will provide proper editorial assistance and comply with applicable rules and policies, so that the article has a fair chance of being and remaining published. 2603:8001:A401:EB00:4D5C:A4B1:D65D:A793 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Without knowing which draft you're talking about, there's not much any other editor can do to help you. The editor that you communicated most likely ran afoul of neglecting Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which is a recurring problem Wikipedia has, and is something that is strongly looked down upon. While you're waiting to see if any interested editor is willing to help you, I encourage you to read the essay An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what was said by the IP, the draft in question seems to be Jack Samet (or maybe Anita Gupta, but that seems less likely). Unfortunately both have been rejected and two of the editors who submitted them have been blocked for COI violations, among other things (a third has simply gone inactive). (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:GenomeBon for information about the block of the editor who submitted the draft about Jack Samet. Cullen328 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is correct. The draft I am talking about is the one about Jack Samet. I did read the article you site, as well as Wikipedia notability requirements and I still believe, (although I well understand my belief is not controlling) that disregarding the vioation of the the editor (which I had no part in knowing or committing) that fairly considered, the article merits publication on the main pages. As to notability, there are relevant citations supporting factual statements in the Draft to 38 independent reliable published statements including those in the New York Times, New York Daily Mirror (now defunct), Columbia Daily Spectator, San Francisco Herald Examiner, Los Angeles Daily Journal, The Business Lawyer, United States Supreme Court official reports, UCLA Daily Bruin Prime Magazine, San Diego Union, Los Angeles Times, San Diego Daily Transcript, among others. Most of these are more than incidental and go into detail about a specific activity I was involved in and at least two, the Prime Magazine and the Forest Hills High School Beacon review my life in some detail. I appreciate the comment that the Draft may be promotional and I desire editorial assistance in removing and editing those aspects of the article. All I am asking is for a fair review of the Draft, editorially revised to eliminate possible promotional aspects, and free of the taint of actions by editors not of my making. Is this possible, and if so, please advise as to how I should proceed? 2603:8001:A401:EB00:2488:B44C:8FCD:621D (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the draft article about your life was Declined there is a chance it can be improved and published. However, if it has been Rejected then it is a lost cause, and the project needs to be abandoned. I don’t know what article you are concerned about, so I don’t know the status of it.
Have you read Notability and Referencing for beginners? It isn’t enough for a potential Wikipedia encyclopedia article to prove that you exist, it must also show that your life story meets the notability standards established by Wikipedia. And the way to prove that notability is by finding at least 3 good published references that don’t just mention you in passing, but discuss your life in depth. These references have to be independent of you or anyone working to promote your life. No press releases, information from personal websites, or interviews of you.
The vast majority of Wikipedia editors are volunteers who work on projects they are interested it, and I have no idea how to find an actual experienced Wikipedia editor willing to help write your autobiography. But while you are waiting to find someone to assist you I would suggest you start gathering up as many good references as you can find, so that you can give them to the person who becomes interested in writing your life story. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You (unregistered editor) have been given good advice. My advice is to reconsider whether to pay anyone to write a Wikipedia article for you. Paid editors will almost always assure you of their skill in Wikipedia, but they usually do not have the skill that they claim. Some paid editors ask a lot of stupid questions. Other paid editors get into a lot of stupid arguments with the Wikipedia community. Many of them think that, because they are being paid, they know what they are doing, but they often don't. If you want to publicize your life, it might be better to hire someone to improve your personal or corporate web site, which you do have control of. Paid editors often cannot deliver what they promise. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Draft article has been both declined and rejected, but I believe in each action, due to the violations of Wikipedia policies re disclosure of payments, of which I had no knowledge. I have read the article you refer to above, on Notability and Referencing for Beginners (See my response above to Cullen328) and I do not believe the Draft:Jack Samet, considered without regard to the prior editorial violations, is precluded from publication on the Main Pages of Wikipedia by a fair interpretation of any of the contents of that article. I have gathered good references, as you suggest, and the 38 citations are contained in the Draft in its current condition. How can I present the Draft to Wikipedia editors so that they can evaluate whether they think it merits publication and would be interested in editing a Draft which is already largely complete? It was published on the Main Pages of Wikipedia in October, 2021 and was not removed until late January 2022. 2603:8001:A401:EB00:2488:B44C:8FCD:621D (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, my replies to Karenthewriter and Robert McLenon have been conflated, which demonstrates unintentionally, my clear need for editorial assistance and guidance in dealing with the Wikipedia world. Hopefully, Karen and Robert will each read both replies, and what was intended to respond to each of them will be evident. I agree with Robert's advice regarding paid editors and I certainly have learned my lesson. I do not have a website, and so have no interest in publicizing my life for the purpose of growing business as I am retired. My hope was to make a legacy statement, so that those interested in the activities in which I took part, will have an additional vehicle for obtaining knowledge about them. 2603:8001:A401:EB00:2488:B44C:8FCD:621D (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor/Mr Samet, I'm going to try to address all your various questions/concerns in one post.
Writing a good article is hard; writing a bad article and moving it to mainspace (what you called "publishing" it) is easy. Many people do the latter every day, rather than going through our review process (Articles for Creation). We have a corps of overworked reviewers who go around and assess such articles to see what needs to be done with them. It took several months in the case of this article, but it was finally deemed wanting and moved back to draft. This is a common occurrence.
About the list of potential sources you posted above - only two of those, the student publications, seem to be about you rather than something you did, so those are the only ones which can be used to determine notability. The high school paper is unlikely to be reliable by our standards. The Daily Bruin is pretty highly regarded and may work as a source, but it will entirely depend on the content of the article. If it's non-independent - for instance, if it's an interview with you - it will not qualify. Assuming it does qualify, that's only one source, which is usually not enough (typically reviewers look for three).
Everyone here is a volunteer who works on stuff they're interested in. Trying to find a stranger who will take enough interest in your life and career to write an acceptable article about you will be difficult, perhaps impossible. We do have a place where you can request that an article be written - it's here - but no one may ever pick up the suggestion.
Finally, what to do about the rejected draft. I can't find any firm guidance to quote you on this, but the best thing would probably be starting over again from scratch, following carefully the guidance at Your First Article, especially the part about gathering good sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject - without those, it's all wasted effort. (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to know why my article is regarded as promoting a company or instituion[edit]

Hey Guys, i'm new here, just wondering why my article is regarded as promoting a company or instituion? Since the data resource i provided is coming from a concret and solit media resource, i choose the topic i like to contribute in WikiPedia but still get denied and rejected by directly deleting my contribution withour letting me know where the issue is at, i sincerely ask for help if anyone can guide me on this, Thank you for reading and replying, stay safe. 010e0e (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, 010e0e. I cannot see the article that was deleted after that discussion, but I assume it is similar to Draft:ThunderCore. Some advice has been posted to your talk page, the most important of which being

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

As far as I can tell, the current draft is sourced mostly to press releases and other sources closely associated to ThunderCore, which are therefore not independent. The only source approaching something of the quality we are looking for is Coindesk, but there is consensus that it should not be used because of conflict of interest issues.
I do not really think the draft has issues of promotional tone, but the "qualification for a Wikipedia article" part (called "notability" here) is a big issue. If you cannot find good sources (e.g. mainstream newspaper sources) then you should stop working on the draft altogether because it will never be accepted. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advices! I will check on this closely: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) 010e0e (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An important thing to remember, 010e0e, is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to ThunderCore being deleted, the draft you moved to article about Chris Wang (ThunderCore CEO) is at AfD and likely to be deleted. You have not yet replied to a query on your Talk page asking whether you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) or are paid or otherwise compensated (WP:PAID) for your attempts to create articles about ThunderCore and Wang. David notMD (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse hosts: I do a lot of copyedits, but is there any reason to copyedit an article that is up for deletion? I would guess the answer is No, but in that article about Chris Wang of ThunderCore, the phrase "Chris borned in Taiwan" just cries out to be fixed.
010e0e created ths article, then commented that "This page is a solid article content" in an edit summary; Praxidicae and TheRoadIsLong both draftified it at different times. I'm trying to resist making copyedits... (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who coordinates at the Guild of Copy Editors, I would recommend refraining from copyediting unstable articles (whether in edits or namespaces), as there's a decent chance that they may end up being deleted and your efforts wasted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Tenryuu, I was leaning in that direction. You have convinced me. (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing unpublished manuscripts[edit]

I was wondering how does one cite an unpublished diary that resides at a state library such as the following? Robbiegibbons (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robbiegibbons Near the bottom of that search result there is a "Link to online item" which opens a page that has the full details to build a citation. The {{Cite archive}} template may be useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cluebot NG[edit]

Hi, I know I'm not relatively new here, but I'm still new enough to use the teahouse. I just have a question on Cluebot NG and that is, is Cluebot a software that I or any RC Patroller can use, or is it a bot that is run by some random dude. thanks Msaskiw (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Msaskiw, welcome to the Teahouse. ClueBot NG is a bot account. Also, if you’d like to learn more about how it works, feel free to check out its user page. Face-smile.svg Helen(💬📖) 02:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Msaskiw Or maybe a "random female"; not everyone here is a "dude". (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helps clear it up. Msaskiw (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in AfD[edit]

Is it appropriate to vote for "Keep" for an article nominated for deletion that is originally created by yourself? Insight 3 (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Insight 3. I don't think there's anything improper with the creator of an article nominated for deletion voting "keep", but keep in mind that the result of the discussion will still be determined through consensus-building. What I mean is that if you just post something like "keep because I created the article", then you’re not likely going to convince others to agree with you. You might want to take a look at WP:AFDEQ and WP:ATA for some insight into how to participate in an AfD discussion. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! got it. Insight 3 (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to know what about voting "delete" by the same nominator. Is it countable ? Onmyway22 talk 03:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Onmyway22. It's going to be assumed that someone nominating an article for deletion is casting a vote in favor of such an outcome even though they might not explicitly state as much in their nomination; so, it's not really necessary for them to "vote" again per se, except perhaps in some cases where an alternative to deletion has be proposed by someone else in the discussion. Each participant is only supposed to vote once; a participant may change or amend their vote, but there's a correct way to do so that doesn't require casting a second vote. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Onmyway22, administrators who close AfDs know to ignore duplicate "votes". For what it's worth, I am an administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aparna Rajeev , an attack or suspected sockpuppetry.[edit]

I have been watching this nomination page. The nomination seems an attack to delete the article with multiple accounts, the nominator is a novice (with contributions) and (experienced with activity), and the user only nominated that article and he voted in the same as delete. which is the only nomination and delete vote from the user, see AfD Statistics for User:Zinjan32 User:Slowvansz (nominator). When I see the nomination page, there was another delete vote from another novice account user:Aoyoigian. The participant Ayogian got blocked for paid edit and sockpuppet. Both the nominator and the participant do not even create their user page.

After the block of User:Aoyoigian again another novice account named User:Zinjan32 came up with a delete vote. with the same nature of edits. The only contribution of this account is voting delete for the nomination. See the contributions and see the AfD stats. The account only contested only in this nomination as delete. All these three accounts having same nature of edits. So I strongly suspect these two contestants are the sockpuppets of the nominator. Onmyway22 talk 03:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Onmyway22 and welcome to the teahouse! sockpuppet reports should go to Sockpuppet investigations, follow the instructions over there to see how to report a case. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 06:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Onmyway22: I took the liberty of correcting the text of your link to Slowvansz’s AfD contributions. As said above, accusations of misconduct, especially sockpuppetry, should be done in an appropriate forum with relevant evidence. That is to avoid snide attacks like "I think X is a sockpuppet, just saying" which poison the atmosphere. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with first page[edit]

Hi, I’ve been editing for a few months but trying to publish a few pages with no luck. My current draft:ForagerFunds is the closest I have to getting a page to work. I have followed a few others in the same industry to match the quality of sources and right tone. In this case I am referring to Magellan Financial Group and Australian Ethical. I can’t work out why the Forager Funds page isn’t allowed compared to the others. Any tips? (And yes I’m kinda into investing so I like editing this type of content). TrueStay (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Forager Funds 💜  melecie  talk - 06:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TrueStay. The other two articles you mentioned, Magellan Financial Group and Australian Ethical Investment are start class articles with significant problems that are quite obvious to experienced editors. But we have over 6.5 million articles and millions of them are mediocre or poor. Editors work to improve such articles or delete such articles 24/7/365 but it is a daunting task. Your argument that you have found two mediocre articles so we should accept your mediocre draft is not very persuasive. When I look at your list of references and click on a few of them, I am unimpressed. The bibliographic information is incomplete. Several are behind paywalls but you can always include a brief, substantive quotation from the source so that reviews know that it is not a passing mention. Please explain how this business meets WP:NCORP when the vast majority of companies don't. In the end, it is all about the quality of the significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing else matters nearly as much. Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate accepting my first article ‘Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing’. However, while moving it to the Draft, a reviewer / editor changed the name of the article to ‘Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College’ The article is now approved with the wrong name. How can I rectify this ? I'm a beginner and need a bit of help in getting around here, Thanks for your patience[edit] RathishN (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RathishN, I've retitled ("moved") the article. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Hoary , much appreciated RathishN (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

first article deleted[edit]

my first article is deleted . i don't know why it's deleted. can anyone tell me whether my topic is notable. details available in talk page of me. Baruah ranuj (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Baruah ranuj. This seems to be concerning a person named "Nituparna Rajbongshi". Articles with this title have been deleted four times and the title itself has now been protected so that only highly experienced editors can create a fifth version. I happen to be an administrator so I took a look at the deleted fourth version. Vast swathes of that article were unreferenced which is highly problematic. There were only two references, neither of which were independent, and neither of which established the notability of this person. What is required is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This article lacked any such references and was therefore unacceptable. Please read and study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
cannot i create the fifth version ? Baruah ranuj (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Baruah ranuj, first you should find appropriate sources. If such sources do not exist, any work on a fifth version is futile, because the article will not be accepted in Wikipedia. Appropriate sources are those that are all at once (1) independent of the subject (→ no interviews, press releases etc.), (2) reliable (→ no random blogs, social media, etc.) and (3) deal with the subject in-depth (→ no phone book entry, company listings, routine newspaper entries about recurring events, etc.).
If you can find a few such sources, bring them here and we will tell them if they’re ok. Make sure to select the best three or four rather than drowning us under thousand bad sources. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i have just submitted draft article with the title Draft:Nituparna Rajbongshi. Please review it and help me to work in wikipedia and to learn more . Baruah ranuj (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Baruah ranuj, considering the current sources in the article, you do not seem to have read the advice I gave regarding what sources are needed ([1] is the only one that is even close to meeting the standards). If you had said that you are confident the new sources are sufficient, that would have been one thing, but I just feel you did not care. I am therefore not inclined to "help you to work in Wikipedia and learn more". TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glass production 10-years-old bug report[edit]

Glass production doesn't actually say at any point what the raw materials are. This was reported in March 2011 and is still an issue today. A candidate for {{technical}}? (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that information in the glass article. Shantavira|feed me 08:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new entry to Deaths in 2022[edit]

How do I add a new entry to the list of Deaths May 2022? Is May 2022 closed for missed notable deaths? Where can I find guidance on this particular issue? Andymcteddybear (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May has its own article Deaths in May 2022. Make sure that it's a notable person and remember to add a reliable source. The criteria are at the top of the article - X201 (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2022 FIBA Under-16 Women's Asian Championship[edit]


I was able to do updates on the above-mentioned article as I forgot to add a reference link upon creating it. Can you please assist to check if this article can now be moved to article space?

Thanks for help! Alexander marshall 07 (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to save a partial draft without publishing[edit]

I think I have finally cracked the fortress wall and figured out how to get a page started in my sandbox. but it is far from finished. How can I save my work but not "publish" it for review yet? I have extensive sources and links to fill in still. I'm using the visual editor, but I suspect the command line at the top was created automatically because I loaded some information from a Word doc into which I'd originally copied another Wikipedia page to use as a template (which seemed easier at the time, when I couldn't figure out how to find one on Wikipedia). It reads {{subst:AfC submission/draftnew}}. It also could have been created when I clicked through the "let's get started" sections. Either way, I don't know if that's the command I want in order to save the work I've done so far but not submit it for review yet. Right now, the only apparent way for me to save the work I've done is to hit "publish page." I did see a mention somewhere saying it won't actually publish, but I've also seen info that says "ready to have your work reviewed? Click the blue "publish" button." So which is it?

Color me confused — and frustrated that I keep clicking on "help" links, instructions, live chat links, etc., and cannot for the life of me get this answer. The live chat link won't even work, for some reason. I've tried to get in by entering my user name in the box instead of the one that appears under the name "Nick" (no idea who that is), and tried it with the ghost name in the box under "Nick" and my password. It won't work either way. I have a screenshot if you'd like to see it.

I've put a lot of work into this entry, so I'd like to see it get posted, if possible.

Thanks for any insight you can offer!

"~~~~" TexasEditor1 (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TexasEditor1, There's no saving without it being visible on wiki. That is why button the button is labeled "publish". However, articles in your sandbox can be worked on without any worry that they will be deleted and have minimal visibility. Slywriter (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. TexasEditor1 (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are exceptions to Sandbox content not being deleted. A major one is having copy/pasted content that is copyright protected. Another is being unabashedly promotional. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1 if you are concerned about hitting "publish" to save your work-in-progress you can do the majority of work off-line, before transferring it to Wikipedia. I have written and published several Wikipedia articles, and I'm just more comfortable doing my work in a couple of off-line documents so that I know that everything stays under my control until I've completed my work. I have a Mac laptop so use TextEdit files – one for collecting all of my notes and references, and one for the actual writing and formatting. Once I believe my draft manuscript is complete I copy and paste it into my sandbox to see if I've made reference formatting mistakes, or if any sentences seem awkward or confusing. This is just a suggestion of what works for me.
Also, even though I'd done a small amount of freelance writing before discovering Wikipedia, I still limited myself to editing for 3 years before I felt experienced enough to try and create a new online article. And then I read Your first article so many times I practically had it memorized! I understood that the process was rather complicated for beginners in the "Wiki writing world" so I took it slow, read a half-dozen similar Wikipedia articles for examples, double and triple-checked everything I did to make sure I wasn't making any noticeable errors, and submitted my work for review. More than a decade later I'm still learning, but very much appreciate being able to publish articles that I believe will of help and interest to others.
Best wishes on your Wikipedia volunteer work. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice! I did create this offline, but there are so many footnotes, external links and Wikipedia links, I thought I would try to get the numbering straightened out in my sandbox. I've been trying for quite a long time to figure out how to get this posted, and I'd finally gotten to the point where I thought I could create a sandbox draft and store it till I finished (I couldn't finish it all at once because there a lot of links and I wanted to make sure they still work, etc. and get footnotes right, and check to make sure I am following protocols and instructions as carefully as possible. I know this page is legit; I just want to make sure I've done it right and conform to specs before I actually ask for a review. And this one is a big job. Y'all are being very helpful and I appreciate it!
I think part of my confusion is that everywhere I tried to turn for more info or help, it seemed to get more complicated, with coding complexities I was hoping to avoid by using Visual Editor. And when I got into that, I saw all kinds of caveats that made it sound as if it probably wouldn't work. I decided to try anyway, because I have a huge table that would be horrid to have to rebuild on the actual page. I haven't figured out how to manipulate column widths yet (it doesn't appear that dragging them works, as it does on my Mac), but I don't really need to and will research if I decide I do. TexasEditor1 (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TexasEditor1 I hope you're able to get everything figured out in time. I've never attempted a table of any kind, so I won't attempt to give suggestions on creating them. The only advice my non-technical brain can say is that when I feel overwhelmed with trying to figure out what's going wrong with an article I set the project aside for a couple of days. When I come back with rested eyes and mind it's often easier to see the mistake that's causing the "log jam" in my data formatting. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! TexasEditor1 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article improved with proper reference[edit]

Previous discussion : #first article deleted

my first article was deleted due to lack of proper references ,told by an admin.

So I have re-written the article with proper references to prove / show the notability of the article.

So, I request a Review of my draft article . Baruah ranuj (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baruah ranuj Your Draft:Nituparna Rajbongshi has been submitted, and is waiting for a Reviewer. Teahouse hosts advise, but are not necessarily also Reviewers. Asking here is not a short cut to a faster review. As noted a few queries back, articles with this title have been deleted four times in the past, so unless this new effort is significantly improved, expect the same result. David notMD (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I've just joined wikipedia and my IP address is partially blocked.I've followed the links to "ping the administrator" or email them using the links provided, but I just land on instructional pages. I've never contributed to wikipedia in any way and would just like to understand how to go about removing this block, because I am unable to even sign in... Thanks in advance for the advice. (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you could edit this page, you are not blocked. It may help you to create an account(or request one at WP:ACC) if sometimes the IP you use is blocked and sometimes it isn't. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot They're p-rangeblocked from the User- and User talk namespace. @IP you can requests an account at WP:ACC. In theory one could also attempt to appeal the block, using the {{unblock}} template but since you're most likely not the intended block target and want to sign in anyway, ACC will be faster. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits Revision[edit]

My edits are being revised and deleted on this page Cedric Henderson (basketball, born 1975) which is a biography of a living person. My attempts to revise are positive in nature and attempts to delete harmful information posted by @wikiamazing75. If you look at this user's history, they contribute contentious information and pictures that are harmful to the living person. Elitebasketball23 (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removing sourced information without so much as a policy based explanation as to why. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain why, I said it was harmful to the living person. Elitebasketball23 (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being "harmful to the living person" is not a valid reason. WP:NPOV says that information about the subject that is negative should be included in the article, provided it is reliably sourced. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elitebasketball23 The information seems to be well sourced; if those sources are not being summarized accurately, please tell how on the article talk page. If the sources are summarized accurately, there is not much we can do. Do you have a connection to this person? 331dot (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but their information is one-sided and the specific user continues to delete my edits in my attempts to protect the living person. I am making edits at the request of the living person. Elitebasketball23 (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could we enable page protection? Elitebasketball23 (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elitebasketball23: From Wikipedia's perspective, we may need to, as we appear have a paid editor, or at the least an editor with a conflict of interest, sterilizing the article and removing negative information. —C.Fred (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the page history. My posts are attempts to revise harmful information posted by @Wikimazing75. Look at their contributions to the page and you will see. Again, my posts are the request of the living person (not paid) Elitebasketball23 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elitebasketball23 Please read about conflict of interest. The onus is on you to explain on the article talk page why sourced information should be removed. I don't agree it is one sided, it contains a quote from him. It's doubtful page protection will be granted, but you may be blocked should you persist in edit warring. Please go to the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See extended discussion on your Talk page for why the photo you wanted to add is not yours to add (you did not take the photo). David notMD (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to switch to visual editing?[edit]

Hey there,

How do I switch to visual from source editing?

Thanks, AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AdmiralAckbar1977, when you are editing in the source mode, there should be a button on the top right corner where you can switch. See this image Kpddg (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does the Wiki Library work?[edit]

Just got eligible and need to know what this is all about before I give away personal data..., also, do experienced editors even use it? Fijipedia (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, experienced editors use the Wikipedia Library all the time - I personally use the ProQuest Historical New York Times and the access pretty much everyday. AFAIK the only data you automatically share is your Wikipedia account, which is just to confirm that you're eligible. It'll automatically give you access to something like 50 different research databases, and you can apply for access to others. When I applied for access, it just linked it to my existing account there. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 17:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think The Wikipedia Library (TWL) is absolutely fantastic. I'm very privacy-conscious but haven't had any concerns about using it. Your use case will vary depending on what type of topics you work on, but it's worth signing up and giving it a spin next time you're looking for sources. — Bilorv (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fijipedia I signed up for and use it constantly. It did take a while to get my subscription started, I kept seeing it was pending, and when I decided to check and see what it would cost to pay for the subscription myself I discovered I'd been given access but hadn't been told that, so it takes a bit of work to get everything sorted out. Then a year later my subscription expired and I had to reapply for a renewal. Some may consider it a lot of bother, but I'm low income and willing to do a bit of work to get a subscription that's allowed me to improve countless Wikipedia articles. I really appreciate the free subscription. Karenthewriter (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should 'Taxa named by <zoologist>' added as a category for the zoologist?[edit]

Lately I've been adding species to categories based on who named them. I noticed two different styles regarding the categories and the zoologists. In some cases, the zoologist is added to the taxa named by them category, for example René Léon Bourret. In other cases they're not in the category, for example Arthur Adams (zoologist) & Category:Taxa named by Arthur Adams (zoologist). Sometimes the category is added to a "see also" section of the zoologist, for example Jacques Daget. Which style should be followed? Rusentaja (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusentaja, you could try asking at WikiProject Animals if there's any agreed-upon standard, since those are likely the folks who'd be drafting any such standard. It's possible there simply isn't one. (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lost 90% of Wiki article progress after computer updated? Most recent version not in draft history, can someone please help?[edit]

Draft: ILENE I have been on assignment working on the page Draft: ILENE for the past 3 days, which included a large amount of sourced information from numerous sources. My computer installed an overnight update, but upon restarting, 90% of information was lost, reverting the article back to an early version that is not acceptable and will not be used. Is there any possible way to recover all of the lost information, or the last version of this article which should be dated either June 23, or June 24, 2022? Please help. At my wits end. Thank you. 247ice (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@247ice: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you didn't click on the Publish changes button to save the draft, there is unfortunately no way to recover the text. Sometimes the browser may save it locally, but this doesn't seem to be the case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. It does unfortunately appear to be lost. I will redraft , thanks again. 247ice (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Publish changes means save. It's called "Publish" because it can be seen by others, although not found by searches. David notMD (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@247ice Please, who has made this assignment that you are on? (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may just be in over my head...[edit]

I have been looking over and throughout Wikipedia and still have the slightest idea of what I am truly supposed to be doing next. I need help with this one move and I should hopefully see the gist of what's needed and/or expected from me. Thank you all. Have a wonderful day! Pocohontas77 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pocohontas77: Welcome to the Teahouse. You're not obliged to do anything if you have an account. There was a long gap between my first edit and account creation. If you would like to contribute, new users should have a homepage on their profile (the link should take you to yours) where the Suggested edits panel may give you some ideas. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pocohontas77 my Wikipedia work is based entirely on what interests me. I'll begin thinking of an old movie I liked, a favorite author, or a historical event, and decide to see what Wikipedia has on the subject. Sometimes the article I read has few or no references, I think that one section may have errors, or I'm annoyed that the article is just a stub. That article becomes my next project. I look for references through (I do enough volunteer work to qualify for a free subscription) through research books I own or can find at local libraries, and I check Google Books to see if there are short "previews" that provide me with a few useful details. I improve the article, leave an edit summary and hit "Publish changes." On occasion I'll research and write a new encyclopedia article on a notable subject that fascinates me enough to put in all the required work, but mostly I just intend to do a quick read of a subject that interests me, and then discover I'm not satisfied with the current state of the article. I hope this helps. Karenthewriter (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm going to be starting big edits on Harrowgate, County Durham, when I came across something which could be confusing to readers and editors.

The article begins with "Harrowgate is an area, or township, of north Darlington". The part that confused me the most was "Harrowgate is an area, or township". According to the township article, The term "township" isn't in use in London for official purposes. What should I do? Thanks. Dinoz1 (chat?) 18:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinoz1, the township article also says that some councils in the north of England have revived the term. However, what's really important is what the sources call it - do either of the sources in the article (or any of the sources you'll use for your big edits) use the term? (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World War 11[edit]

Not sure what best to do about it but someone has added a silly political satire to the World War 11 article: World War 11

I am inclined to delete this article entirely but if not the satire probably needs to go. It has been added and reverted then rereverted so I think it perhaos needs to be protected to avoid an edit war.

MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarylandGeoffrey: Welcome to the Teahouse. I've re-reverted the silliness, and warned the editor who re-added it. There's no reason to delete the pre-vandalism disambiguation page, and the restrictions against edit-warring do not apply when it comes to reverting obvious vandalism like that. That said, protection would not be warranted unless the vandalism persists. Thanks for calling it to our attention, and happy editing! --Finngall talk 19:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit Conflict] Hi MarylandGeoffrey. The 'article' is a useful disambiguation page, so should not be deleted. So far there have only been two insertions and revisions, so it may be that the contributor involved (a new account with only one other, serious, contribution) knows not to make a third attempt amounting to 'declaration of edit war.' Two different editors made the reversions, so evidently the page (or the contributor) is well-watched. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with this. (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the user is obviously vandalizing (which he is) you have the right to bypass the 3 revert rule and edit war as you please until an administrator steps in. There's no reason to delete a page because of a troll. Fijipedia (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a new article to go live[edit]


Though I've been editing for a few years, whenever I create an article, I do it via a red link to an existing name in other articles. However, I have just created a new one (, but I'm not sure how to get it out of my sandbox and onto Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

Beryl reid fan (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beryl reid fan: Welcome to the Teahouse. As an extended confirmed user, you can click "Move" in the More dropdown menu at the top of the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ),

Thanks for your help. However, following your suggestion I have succeeded only in creating the page 'User:Karen Lloyd' ( Can anyone else offer any help, please?

Beryl reid fan (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


No worries, have sorted this now (by googling it).

Beryl reid fan (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beryl reid fan, for future non-Googling reference: Help:MOVE. (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I nominated the accidental userpage for speedy deletion (CSD U2). Urban Versis 32KB(talk | contribs) 23:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Urban Versis 32KB(talk | contribs)

Beryl reid fan (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdare Urban District Council Elections[edit]

This series of pages talks about the elections for the Aberdare Urban District Council. I have corrected the summary to show that the Council remained in place after 1910 (previously it was shown as being abolished in 1910). The Council remained in place until 1974 (with the last election for the Council being in 1972. I have the records of these elections and want to add the results from 1910 to 1972. However the only records I have been able to use are manuscript records, in some cases backed by microfiche records of newspaper articles. Can I enter these as sources? - the manuscript records are held at Aberdare Central Library and within the 'W W Price Collection' and are backed by a record kept for about 50 years by a local Councillor which is in my possession. I have shown a link to the 1910 record which is here: 1910 Aberdare Urban District Council election. Thanks in advance for your help and advice. Alunwms (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alunwms. Reading a microfiche record of a newspaper article is completely equivalent to reading the original paper version. It is nice when a reliable source is available online, and if it is, a link should be provided. But there is no requirement that sources be available online. Include as much bibliographic information as you can. For a newspaper article that you read by microfiche, that would be the name of the newspaper (wikilinked if there is an article about the newspaper), the date of publication, the precise title of the article, the authors name(s), and the page number. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help Alunwms (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography table[edit]

Hello there, I wanted to ask something regarding filmography tables. So, I have noticed that usually in most artists, actors, etc.—people who are involved in entertainment, film, television, and such - the rowspan of years in their filmography is merged if there's more than one film release in a specific year, and roles as well, if a role has been portrayed consecutively. However, in some articles, despite of the artist portraying a role in succession as in follow ups (2-3 times, for instance), the role is not merged as one row spanning over the required cells, and likewise happens with year count in some articles. There weren't any invisible comments there or remarks in the talk pages of those articles. Hence, I would like to know what's the reason behind it, I mean besides - wouldn't a merged row be much cleaner and less confusing as well? Thank you in advance, and have a good day. Sam (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam0006, in the end it comes down to the person creating the table (I assume you mean table, not infobox). They may either not want or not know how to merge cells. It can be daunting, especially to newcomers and especially in the source editor - I hear it's somewhat easier in the visual editor. As far as I know, there's no rule that says they must or must not be merged; if you think Wikipedia is improved by merging them, have at it (using a really good one like List of Tom Hanks performances as a guide is usually helpful). But if someone doesn't like the change and reverts you, remember to have a discussion or - perhaps - just move on. (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Sam (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious account, if there's an admin, please investigate[edit]

I made an edit to the page History of Transylvania and user Aishik Rehman reverted my edit, instantly, by instantly I mean not even 1 minute has passed. So I was okay, I reverted it back and asked him "could you explain me why you undid the edit?", he literally did the same, instant revert, no explaination given and not even 1 minute passed. I said it must be a bot account so I reverted again, the undoed my edit again for the 3rd time, without explaining why again, and then again I reverted and asked him if he could explain why
He then stopped:
Kind of weird, so I went on his profile page.
Looks normal:
Then I went to his contribution pages: it's insane. From 19:35 to 20:19 he made 50 edits, all of them removing content. And all of them to very unrelated pages. One is a Korean singer, one is a religious page, one is the history of England, one is a German school for girls, and one was my edit with the History of Transylvania.
I'm 99.9% it's a bot. Hard to believe a human can make 50 edits in 40 minutes on greatly unrelated topics. Not sure if bots are allowed or any stuff like that so I just wanted to bring this to attention. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLastOfTheGiants, they seem to be doing some sort of anti-vandalism patrol, in which case it's quite possible for a non-bot to make such edits. They recently responded to a post on their talk page - you could bring up the issue there. (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This account doesn't look like a bot. I've seen non-bots revert vandal edits in seconds, and stuff being reverted in less than a minute is normal. I would consider taking this to their user talk page or ANI if all else fails. (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TheLastOfTheGiants. Bots are allowed and your 99.9% confidence level was incorrect. This is a human being editing rapidly. Bot accounts must be approved at the end of a stringent review process and all bot account names end with the three characters "bot". Bots do enormously important work here. Antivandalism bots are highly effective and getting better all the time. Many bots do repetitive maintenance and housekeeping tasks. Properly programmed bots are essential to this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheLastOfTheGiants. This isn't a bot account, but the account is likely using a special script or tool to help in make lots of similar edits quickly. (You can tell this by look at the edit summaries they're leaving.) Editors who use such things are responsible for how they use them and for the most part many do use them correctly. In some cases, however, an editor with the best of intentions may actually go a little over board based on some misunderstanding of a relevant Wikipedia policy and guideline and not realize they're making a mistake. If you think that's the case here, you should try to avoid anything that could be perceived as edit warring on your part and instead either (1) ask the other editor about it directly on their user talk page or (2) start a discussion about the matter on the article talk page. What you try to do was discuss things via edit summaries as explained in WP:REVTALK, and such an approach is usually not productive. Moreover, if you were actually dealing with a bot, then a bot is not going to respond to you via an edit summary: a bot is only going to continue doing what it was tasked to do no matter how wrong you think the bot may be. FWIW, its possible for human users to quickly make lots of consecutive similar edits without using scripts or tools, but once again they're responsible for their edits just the same as anyone else. In some cases, an editor might be warned about such a thing if they're making the same mistake over and over again, but there's usually seems to need to be an established pattern of WP:MEATBOT behavior before any administrator will step in and take action. So, before starting any discussion about this at WP:ANI and before calling another editor "dubious", I would first be cognizant of WP:BOOMERANG and WP:ANIADVICE and try to resolve this like you would any other content dispute in accordance with WP:DR. It's only when it clearly has become a behavior issue that you should go to ANI. You need to remember that the WP:ONUS is still on you when trying to make changes to an article and sometimes this could mean being a little more WP:CAUTIOUS than WP:BOLD. Major changes made to articles often end up being noticed by bots or user using scripts/tools more for the size of the change than the quality of the change, and in some cases they might end up being reverted without a close examination. This, of course, isn't idea in a way since quality obviously matters more than quantity, but it's something that can happen. So, keep this in mind if something similar happens to you again because simply reverting back and forth usually will make things worse. It's best for you to stop and seek assistance since the change can always be restored after discussing it and establishing a consensus for it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft review[edit]

i have submitted a draft article.

I request a review of the article.

Thank you Baruah ranuj (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Dimpu Baruah
Hi, Baruah ranuj, and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like the draft was already reviewed and declined. You can improve the draft by adding more reliable sources that establish notability. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Baruah ranuj: I don't think its a bot. Don't engage in an edit war. There is a reply at User_talk:Aishik_Rehman. Continue the discussion there. RudolfRed (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed, I assume this was meant to be a reply to TheLastOfTheGiants (pinging so they'll see it). (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry for the misplaced post. RudolfRed (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Baruah ranuj, submitting a draft article is a request for a review. Asking again at the Teahouse can be seen as an attempt to jump the queue - please be patient. (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How and where do I put a quote in my signature?[edit]

I'm trying to add a couple of words to the end of my signature yet I have no clue where to even go. Thanks for helping. Fijipedia (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fijipedia, go to Special:Preferences and scroll down until you reach the "Signature" section. Make sure the "Treat the above as wiki markup." option is selected, and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Signature tutorial. Urban Versis 32KB(talk | contribs) 02:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing my article[edit]

I need help fixing my article. Whenever I save a change for fixing my footnotes on my article, it reverses it back, no matter how hard i try to fix it. Can you help me fix my article? @Dormiojrkiller (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please be aware nobody owns any article. However, you are welcome to discuss problems on the talk page. Such as Draft talk:Miranda Doll (fictional character). weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 02:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is obvious junk, and I have rejected it accordingly. As for its illustration, see this deletion request. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Show all my sandbox subpages in my sandbox main page[edit]

I want to see all my sandbox subpages in my sandbox main page. I think this is what I'm looking for, but it does not seem to work. Could anybody see my sandbox and tell me what went wrong? Regpath (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Regpath. I am not an expert programmer but I just recommend that you create a clean wikilink from one page to another. Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Cullen328. Thank you for your suggestion. W←]hat I want to do, however, is to show all my subapages automatically, without including wikilinks every time I create a sandbox subpage. Regpath (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Regpath. Why do you want to view all of your subpages when you can already view all of your contributions? What matters here on Wikipedia are edits that actually improve the encyclopedia. Everything else is far less relevant. Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of reasons somebody might want quick access to subpages - In this case, it looks like Regpath has seven different drafts/workspaces for specific pages. They almost certainly just want to be able to get to them quickly. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 07:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Regpath, probably this is not exactly the solution you're looking for, but by putting

{{ucb|Regpath}} on your userpage or your sandbox, it will create this:

Neat and handy... --Maresa63 Talk 07:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware you can either simply place a link to all subpages on your main sandbox. Otherwise, this should work too:
(Note: Not all special pages can be embeded via this way, and not all parameters are supported) Hope this helps, Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jacobi: why disambiguated?[edit]

The mathematician is pretty obviously the primary topic. (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are detailed and well referenced and about the same length, so the primary topic is not at all obvious to me, but you are welcome to make your case on the appropriate talk page. Shantavira|feed me 10:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, was not familiar with the mathematician (before reading this thread) but was familiar with the horror/fantasy writer, so what to you is obvious isn't obvious to me. It seems to me that someone searching for "Carl Jacobi" is about equally likely to want either of the articles. Deor (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mathematician gets 34 times as many page views [2] so he does look primary. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for the location of death of a subject[edit]

Please advise - I have provided a source in a citation, a website with the necessary information but it is only accessible if someone is registered on the site (no subscription or payment required). Since I cannot expect an editor to do this I would like to upload a screenshot/jpeg of the relevant information. Is this possible and acceptable? I am a new editor and am having some trouble navigating on the system. Thanks very much. Rwarsager (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rwarsager Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not necessary to do that; there is no requirement that a source be able to be accessed without registering, or even that it be without payment(see WP:PAYWALL). A source need not be easy or free to access. It doesn't even have to be online. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of whether or not its possible, but it's not required in any way - See WP:PAYWALL. That said, there's consensus that FamilySearch is usually unreliable because of how much of its content is user-generated - Unless you're linking directly to an obituary or death certificate it should not be used. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 12:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should also change the "title" field to the name of the page/document you're linking too instead of the URL, otherwise it doesn't render properly. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 12:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thaddeus, many thanks for your reply. It's very helpful. I did not realize that about FamilySearch or that it is considered unreliable so I will try to get a death certificate from the official source in England. I hope that in the meantime it is satisfactory to list the UK death location. And thank you for the tip on the 'title' field. I appreciate your guidance! Best regards. Randy Warsager Rwarsager (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Just to clarify, if you're linking to a document that's hosted on FamilySearch, like a scan of a certificate or something like that, it would be fine. It just can't be "this user on FamilySearch said this." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 12:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


So usual on pages there is a references section that is acting like one block, for example under the references section on Cochrane, Alberta. I can never figure out how to edit them when it acts like a big block like that. Please help. Msaskiw (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, let me ad to this, when you are in the edit mode it acts like one big block. Msaskiw (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Msaskiw: Each reference is actually in the article text, following the material it supports; the "References" section just displays them all together. If you click on the ^ at the beginning of a reference, you will jump to its place in the text, and it can be edited there. Deor (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deor, well I added a citation which lead to a news article, which is in the article text, I do not see it in the references? or is that not a reference. Msaskiw (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Msaskiw: If you're referring to the Canada Day reference you added, I see that as number 40 in the list of references. (There seems to be two Canada Day items in the bulleted list under "Arts and culture"; probably only one is needed.) Deor (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


How do you create a new article on Wikipedia? I have tried searching for info about a company but an article about it did not appear. Thank you (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Check out WP:YFA for instructions, but keep in mind that creating a new article from scratch is one of the hardest things you can do on Wikipedia. I recommend trying out some other smaller tasks first to get the hang of things around here; take a look at the task center for that. Happy editing! Bsoyka (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP has advice specific to articles about companies. Be aware that there are articles about organizations and companies that do not meet current standards for referencing or neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), so modeling after other articles is not a guarantee of success. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
other reading material I suggest you check out include notability for companies, which outlines what criteria companies have to meet in order to have an article (and may explain why the company you're looking for doesn't), and reliable sources, which outlines what you can use to prove the points you made in the article you're writing, especially regarding the notability criteria. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manga photo[edit]

Hello. Can someone tell me why when putting manga cover images, for most you chose first volume cover like "Golgo 13", "Dragon ball" or "naruto", but for some you chose others like "One piece" which is 61, "detective conan" which is 36 or "Oishinbo" which is 102? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talkcontribs) 17:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfp5 The answer could very well be "someone thought it was a good idea and noone has changed it", but try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga, the editors who hang out there may know something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfp5 You might be thinking that the same person created and named all of these -- that is not the case. There is no single "you" who is doing this, but rather, many different "yous" who each have their own ideas as Gråbergs Gråa Sång says. And yes, please ask at the talk page. Hope this helps. (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Divided columns... {{div col}}[edit]

Is there any MOS guidance on when and when not to make a column into two or more divided columns? I often times do this for aesthetic reasons if the lists (especially "Notable people" lists in various towns are cities) are over 20 entries in depth. Otherwise, if the list/column is pretty short, I'll leave it be. I just wanted to see though if there is some MOS "standard" that one might operate by here for purposes of both readability and consistency. Thanks wiki-world! Th78blue (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Th78blue Remember that some readers are reading on a narrow cell phone, so if the entries are wide, the result might not look good if you force two columns. I don't know how to use markup to say "use 2 columns if the screen is wide enough" but I think there's a way. (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

policy on trans language?[edit]

Hi! I'm wondering what the policy is on using identity terms (like transgender, nonbinary, etc) when discussing individuals who died before those terms came into use. For example, in the article on the history of crossdressing: "Harry Allen (1888-1922), born female under the name Nell Pickerell in the Pacific Northwest, was categorized as a ‘male impersonator’ who cross-dressed, rather than as a transgender male which is how he identified." From a practical perspective I understand why the term is used here; it's the best shorthand we have for someone who was assigned female but lived as a man. However, it feels inaccurate to say that he identified as a transgender male when the term transgender was created decades after his death (although early versions of it existed towards the end of his life); it seems that, if the term is being used as shorthand for how he lived his life, a qualifier is needed to clarify that he never explicitly called himself transgender. What is the policy on this? Trashheel (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trashheel: Welcome to the Teahouse! I took a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Resources and didn't notice any mention of this situation. You may want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is probably what you're looking for. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!! I'll definitely ask over there :) Trashheel (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That doesn't quite answer what I'm looking for in terms of applying modern terms to historical figures, but very helpful as a resource as I learn how to edit articles. Trashheel (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
THis may not help for the specific issue, but it is well worth reading. Wikipedia:Gender identity. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That is a great read. Trashheel (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Does WIkipedia provide a list of approved, paid -for-editing wikipedia editors? Steve K. Sgkukolich (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies, but some of them fail to disclose their paid editing and are blocked (or even banned). weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgkukolich: Also, I wouldn't recommend paying someone to edit for you because:
  • The paid editor has to disclose who is paying them.
  • Paid editors, no matter how they advertise their "page protection services" (hint: they can't), no Wikipedian can control the outcome of anything for sure.
  • Also, stuff written on Wikipedia must be neutral. Articles created by paid public relations firms are often speedily deleted.
And I don't think Wikipedia approves specific editors, although Wikipedia:List_of_paid_editing_companies#Never_blocked may give you some ideas. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 23:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of the consequences paid editing without disclosure, see Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia. One company even got a cease and desist letter for undisclosed paid editing once. Hope this helps. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 23:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spell Wars[edit]

I could not find any reference to this book! I suspect that the article should therefore be deleted...GrahamHardy (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @GrahamHardy and welcome to the teahouse! you could tag the article with proposed deletion, see that page for more, and if nobody objects in a week's time the article can be deleted. otherwise, you could try out Articles for deletion, see that page for instructions, where you can start a discussion with others on whether the page should be deleted. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to update history information to add the following to - SCAN began enrollment in Alameda County on January 1, 2022. 2601:644:8E7F:9F0:2C07:1159:2A7A:510D (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi ip user! feel free to edit the page, but please back it up with a reliable source first - check that page to see how you can find one and what kinds of sources count as reliable. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to rewrite head sentence[edit]

This is a question about how to rewrite the head sentence of "Comfort Woman" article. It is a well-known fact that "comfort women" have two opinions: "licensed prostitutes" and "sex slaves." However, in the current article, the first paragraph says "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army… and editor is eliminating the "licensed prostitutes" claim on this basis. This clearly violates 5P1 and 5P2. To maintain neutrality, this paragraph should be changed to, for example, "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls to provide sexual services to the Imperial Japanese Army.... The discussion on both sides regarding this rewrite has been exhausted on Talk. Please let me know what procedures are required for this rewrite. Eyagi (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eyagi's question might instead be stated, "How can I take control of a page in which talk page consensus is solidly against me". Eyagi misrepresents the topic here, creating a false balance between two points of view, one generally held by topic scholars and the other held by nationalist Japanese revisionists. One of those views is definitive, while the other is a minor viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the Teahouse is not set up to handle content disputes or behavioral issues. @Eyagi, if you believe talk page discussion has not resolved the issue, you should pursue mediation or one of the options listed here. (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I post to the neutral point of view notice board. Eyagi (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eyagi, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Its articles are about subjects, not words or phrases. The opening sentence of Comfort women makes it clear what its subject is. Maproom (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there 2 different images with the same Address?[edit]

I recently uploaded a bunch of images through Wiki Commons and decided it would be a good idea to use one. But when I typed in the address for the image another image (not mine) that appeared to have the same address. I'm very confused and will want some advice soon. Image Address: [[File:Llanite.jpg|thumb]] Texas Lane (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Texas Lane and welcome to the teahouse! it seems like there's a file named Llanite.jpg both the English Wikipedia and Commons. since the other Llanite.jpg is also due to be moved to Commons at some point, what you could do is rename your image in Commons to a different (ideally more specific) name so that it doesn't conflict with the existing one in Wikipedia, then use that name instead in adding your image. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Melecie, thanks for the advice but I have had no experience renaming an image's name before or even how to. Texas Lane (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Texas Lane, you could check out File renaming to see how renaming works in Commons, then press More > Move and fill out the details to request a rename. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does Major League Hacking meet WP:NCORP?[edit]

Maybe this isn't the right venue. Was perusing articles and found Major League Hacking. It has passing mentions like [3], [4], [5] (not independent), and one source with any depth [6], but I'm not experienced actually looking for sources or understanding the threshold for corporations. Ovinus (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovinus I marked it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major League Hacking after confirming none of the sources in article, and a WP:BEFORE check provided anything reliable either. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that it has been an article since 2014 and not challenged earlier. David notMD (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit a page's preview?[edit]

I'm referring to the page preview you get when you mouse over a blue link. Is this function locked behind admin status? I tried but couldn't find any answers about this. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The preview should be just the first few sentences of the article's lede, assuming we're talking popups. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Oh, sorry, I meant which image shows up in the preview. Had a few articles where either no image shows in the preview or an image other than the one in the infobox is used in the preview.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scary user page messages[edit]


I created a user name and, I thought, page, on Wikipedia in approximately 2016; it was dormant for a while, but I've since done enough editing to qualify to create an entry. I'm creating my draft in my sandbox, which is where I thought it was supposed to go while still in drafting phase, but I've encountered notices that claim Wikipedia does not have a user page with my name. When I signed on, I opted not to fill in any details till I knew my way around. I also thought I began my wiki article on a subpage in my sandbox, using the visual editor. How could I get to a sandbox without having a user page, much less a subpage? I'm now getting a rather glaring notice in a pink box that informs me "Please do not draft new articles here — to do that, create a userspace draft." Underneath it is the earlier notice that says Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. But the top of my page says "User:TexasEditor1." That's me!

I'm trying very hard to be respectful and learn — and follow — the rules. I've already put so much work into verifying and adding links and references and making sure my writing is factual and neutral. What do I need to do to make sure I'm creating it where and how I'm supposed to be? I'm afraid I'll lose what I have if I create a user page and it tries to tell me that user already exists. TexasEditor1 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TexasEditor1: I'm kinda confused by what you're describing. It sounds like it'd be easiest to see if you could post up screenshots of what you're seeing, say, in imgur and give us the links.
In the meantime, though, the best way to make sure you don't lose progress is to switch to "source editor" (it's a pencil icon in the top right corner, to the left of "Publish" if you're using visual editor). Once you've got the source code stuff, just select everything, copy it, and paste it in a notepad on your computer. Save that notepad file so that even if you lose internet connection or something else happens, it'll still be saved on your computer.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From your Contributions, looks as if your draft is now at Draft:Mark Addison. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, "Publish changes" means save. You also have an empty Sandbox at User:TexasEditor1/sandbox/Mark Addison which you can ignore or delete, as you have successfully moved your content to the draft. David notMD (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To get a page[edit]

Please tell me the procedures to get an article done on my books and me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divya Hariharan (Kasi) (talkcontribs)

Are there multiple in-depth, non-routine, independent news articles or book reviews about you and your work that are written by identifiable authors and published in outlets that have competent editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori
If you feel that these guiidelines are met, read WP:YFA. Additionally, you need to declare that you have a conflict of interest. Kpddg (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia recommends not attempting autobiography (see WP:AUTO), but does not forbid. The great majority of attempts fail. The problem is that what you know about yourself needs to be verified by independent references. David notMD (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the Changhe CoolCar draft[edit]

Recently, I have been unable to find reliable sources for the Changhe CoolCar draft page. The 3 unreliable sources in the draft are all I could find, but I’m sure there might be still some reliable sources for the draft. Which sources that I could find online about the Changhe CoolCar are reliable? I really need help on this one. MegaMack02 (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COURTESY: Draft:Changhe CoolCar. David notMD (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just joined[edit]

I have just joined this greatest amazing group who are tirelessly into storing nurturing and expanding human knowledge. Can some one tell me how I can be of help in this amazing work and start contributing positively. Suman250690 (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Suman250690, welcome to Wikipedia! The welcome message I left on your talk page should help you in getting started. Kpddg (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gaining experience by improving existing articles is strongly recommeded over attempting to create new articles. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to use[edit]

I would post this on Wikiquote but I don’t expect to get a quick answer there.

Could someone please explain:

1) What it is

2) How it works

3) How to use it

Ilovemydoodle (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no lol, (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ilovemydoodle. The Teahouse is for discussing how to contribute to Wikipedia, not for asking questions about how to participate on unrelated websites. Search that website for advice. Cullen328 (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Wikipedia was linked to libera chat. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] is an IRC network. There are official channels on it, yes, but those channels are technically off-wiki and any conversations held on it cannot be used to influence on-wiki consensus-building. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 08:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but could I please have some basic information on how to use it? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ilovemydoodle, Welcome to the Teahouse, while the teahouse isn’t for asking about off-wiki topics, however, I will point you towards the IRC info page. I would give you basic info, but I don’t know anything about IRC and I don’t actually use it, but the page should have some useful information that may help you. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 11:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zippybonzo: Thank you for helping! Face-smile.svgIlovemydoodle (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected article[edit]

I just tried to make my first edit to a semi-protected article, an addition to the short description, and I ran into trouble. First, I'm not an anonymous editor and I'm not newly registered (I just qualified for Wikipedia Library priviileges). The edit didn't show up in the preview, or on the page after I published the change. However, the edit showed up just fine in my list of contributions, and in the arti79.155.36.178cle's revision history. The edit is still there on the edit page. The article is The Batman (film) (I justified my edit in the edit summary). Pete Best Beatles (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pete Best Beatles. That article is not semi-protected. It is Extended confirmed protected, which is a more stringent form of protection. As for your edit, you are trying to change the short description to 2022 American neo-noir superhero film by Matt Reeves. That description is way too detailed and it should be much more concise. Per Wikipedia:Short description, Editors should bear in mind that short descriptions are not intended to define the subject of the article. Rather, they provide a very brief indication of the field that is covered. You have jammed six different things into the "short" description. Be extremely concise. Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I was just trying to add "neo-noir" to the existing description. Does "extended confirmed protected" mean I won't be able to make my addition (or that anyone will be able to take your advice either)? "Semi-protected" is what it says in the template on the edit page, that's why I said that. I think it's weird that my edit shows as legitimate on my list of contributions and in the article's revision history, since it didn't take. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Pete Best Beatles: If you look at the edit history of the article, you'll see that your edit "took" for a few hours, until SirDot removed it with an edit summary of "Only the primary genre". Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

New comments: While contemplating @Cullen328: and @SirDot:'s rules for short description inclusion (extreme conciseness and "only the primary genre" respectively), I looked up the short descriptions for several prominent neo-noir movies. Here's what I found:

According to the logic of the two rules above, some trimming needs to be done: they're not extremely concise and they don't have only the primary genre. But why should "neo-noir" automatically go? Who decides what the primary genre is? The genres in the short descriptions aren't referenced. Actually, not true. Interestingly, although none of the other genres are referenced, five of the above have "neo-noir" referenced. Four of those (examples 4, 5, 7 and 8) reference Alain Silver's Film Noir: An Encyclopedic Reference. None of the references to this book list page numbers, so I looked up every reference to each movie, and the story's the same. For The Grifters, Red Rock West, and Miller's Crossing, the status of these movies as neo-noirs may be established, but none of the references say anything about the hierarchy of genres in these movies; heck, they don't say anything about any other genres at all. (Although Mulholland Drive references Silver's book, I could not find it in the index. Maybe a different edition? Nevertheless, I assume the situation would be the same.) The Long Goodbye's short description's "neo-noir" uses three different references. The first reference, #2, establishes the movie as a neo-noir but doesn't address the other genres that are in the short description (four additional!). (The second reference, #3 doesn't contain the word neo-noir, and the third reference, #4 only asks a question: "maybe it's neo-noir", so those two might be stricken from the article). Regarding Mulholland Drive's reference to "neo-noir" in the short description, besides the non-existent reference to Silver's book, the article references a book entitled The Philosophy of TV Noir, which does categorize the movie as neo-noir but once again doesn't address the issue of other genres.

So, let's throw this open to discussion. Why do the two rules listed above apply only to The Batman, and not any other movies? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete Best Beatles. For future reference, please don't "unarchive" Teahouse questions that have already been archived like you did here. Your original question had already been archived as Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1156#Semi-protected article; so, if you want to ask something else about it or want to make reference to it in a new discussion, simply providing a link to the archived location is generally sufficient. If you're not sure how to provide a link, you can simply mention that the discussion has already been archived for reference. Next, unless you're truly Pete Best who was once a member of The Beatles, you're just as anonymous as any IP account posting on Wikipedia; in fact, in some ways you're more anonymous than an IP account because your IP address is not publically visible.
As for your question about genre, the advice Cullen328 gave you in his response was based on best practice and his long experience as an editor, but it's not usual that you would find examples that might show things done differently by other editors. Often on Wikipedia, you'll find examples of WP:OTHERCONTENT when it comes to things like this because not users are the same and not all users have the same experience.
For general guidance with respect to something like this, the first thing to do (in my opinion) is look at a page like Wikipedia:Short description or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Lead section to try and figure out what the best practice is supposed to be. If things are still unclear after that, then perhaps the next thing to do would be WP:BOLD and make the change you think needs to be made. If you're BOLD and are subsequently WP:REVERTed by another editor (which seems to be the case here), the next thing to do would be to start an article talk page discussion to try and sort things out. Ultimately, the WP:ONUS is going to fall upon you to establish a WP:CONSENSUS for the change you want to make, and you'll have a much better chance of doing that if your position is strongly rooted in some policy or guideline. You can cite other examples in other articles which are similar to what you're trying to do, but this in and of itself is usually not seen as a sufficient justification: it could be those other articles have done it incorrectly and nobody has noticed yet.
FWIW, disagreements over genre happen all the time on Wikipedia; so much so that someone actually created the Wikipedia essay Wikipedia:Genre warrior about it. If you want to discuss the genre of a particular film, then the best place to do that would be on the corresponding article talk page for the film like you've done at Talk:The Batman (film)#The Batman and noir. If you want to discuss the genre of films in general, then the best place would probably be on the talk page of a WikiProject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. It's quite possible that the questions you have were once asked by someone else and have already sorted out at the WikiProject level. The Teahouse isn't really set up for an in-depth discussion about something such as this; Teahouse hosts can try and give you a quick, easy and hopefully helpful answer, but sometimes you need to seek out others on article talk pages or WikiProject talk pages for more detailed discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Thanks for your response. I didn't know the discussion had been archived, I didn't recciev a notice like I usually do, so I assumed I had somehow deleated it. (And why was it archived after just a few days? Every other time my questions were archived it was after some length of time of no activity, another reason I didn't perceive the archivization.) And you're right, I wouldn't know how to link to something like that. My user name isn't Pete Best, it's Pete Best Beatles as in the Pete Best Beatles and there's a disclaimer on my user page, placed there because of the concerns of another editor (or admin.), who said that would be sufficient to ally any fears about the name. I guess I'll try to get something about neo-added to the body of the lead. I tried once and got reverted. I put all the noir-related phrases that reliable sources had used to describe the movie: neo-noir, film noir, emo noir and pop noir. I just strongly feel that there ought to be something about noir somewhere in the article, its such and overwhelming aspect of the movie. I found so many articles about the noir aspects, and it wasn't just passing mentions, it was the subject of the articles. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should continue to discuss this on the article's talk page and see if you can establish a consensus in favor of the changes you want to make. Feeling strongly about something doesn't mean others will feel the same way, but if you can establish that a preponderance of reliable sources also consider the film to be as such, then that may be more persuasive. Finally, my comment about your choice of username wasn't meant to imply that I though you were that "Pete Best" of "Beatles"; only that registering for an account doesn't make you "not anonymous" or any less anonymous than an IP editor, unless you register under your WP:REALNAME and post other personally identifying information on your user page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I want to create an article about this new song called "Talk About Me." (There are reliable sources.)

However, a page called Talk About Me already exists. It's a redirect page to Justin Caruso because that artist apparently has a 2017 song with the same name.

What should I do in a situation like this? Castlepalace 09:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Castlepalace. Presuming that the proposed article topic meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, one or both article names will need disambiguating. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Can you give me some guidance on how exactly I should disambiguate these pages? This is where my problem is. Like exactly what these articles should be called. Castlepalace 09:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Castlepalace I have to disagree with @Cordless Larry here. In your place, I'd write the article at Draft:Talk About Me, and then WP:MOVE it to the redirect Talk About Me. If you can't move it yourself for some reason, ask an admin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think that's what I will do! Thanks. Castlepalace 10:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Castlepalace Welcome to Teahouse! I checked, virtually nothing links to Talk About Me right now except this Teahost page, see: which leaves the question of what to do with it. The page exists already, and you could just start filling it in. Or you could create Talk About Me (album) or whatever it is, and then request a switch of redirects, so that you get credit for creating the article and then request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for someone to move your page over the redirect. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Castlepalace 10:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using books by author as source for BLP[edit]

Dear wiki-editors,

could you please point me to information about whether or not it is okay to cite books authored by the subject of BLP, to expand on the content of his/her teachings?

Thank you! Netanya9 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can find something in WP:BLPSELFPUB. Ruslik_Zero 12:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Netanya9 Generally not, see WP:ABOUTSELF. The default WP-attitude is "If no independent WP:RS bothered to write about his teachings, we shouldn't either." It's probably ok include a list of his MOS:WORKS, or a list of his noted works if there's a lot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]