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

My first entry. Could someone please take a look?[edit]

Hello Wikipedians! I am a newbie and have drafted my first entry. I don't know if this is the proper way to get started, but could I ask if someone could take a look at my sandbox draft and tell me what I need to do to take it live? It is at:

Many thanks! Wormpicker62 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Wormpicker62

Hi, Wormpicker62, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'd like to start with the positives but then address one thing that may keep this from being accepted at Articles for Creation (AfC) in its current state. The quality of the prose is quite fantastic. There are a couple trivial formatting issues insofar as the section 'L. Andrew Staehelin' should just be the lead section without any header and inline references should come after puncutation, but the formatting is otherwise excellent both in the main prose and in the references. Wikilinks are very well-utilized. In my opinion, it does not go into extraneous detail, and it is not written in a promotional tone – I would consider it to be of the perfect length. That said, the underlying issue with the article in its current state is that it relies almost exclusively on primary sources. Inclusion of a biography like this would be determined based on three standards: the general notability guideline, the biography notability criteria, and the academic notability criteria. I'll ping David notMD, who would have a better grasp on the last one, but the first two require substantial information published about the subject in reliable, independent sources, which this draft does not demonstrate exist. Were it to pass on academic criteria, it would still be highly preferable to have more reliable, independent citations, as per our policy on primary sources, we're not supposed to "base an entire article on primary sources", and we should "be cautious about basing large passages on them." Hope this helped! I'm sure DnMD will be able to give you a more comprehensive answer about academic notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind and encouraging words and thoughtful advice, ! TheTechnician27! I hope I'm formatting this reply correctly. I will work on getting more secondary independent sources for citations. I'd be grateful if you would continue to follow my progress. Thanks again. Wormpicker62 (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Wormpicker62

Simply put, referencing a few of his journal articles will give sense of his research focus, but contributes nothing toward establishing is notability. Essential to add references to content that is about him but has no connection to him, as in other than from the university he worked for. David notMD (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
If you can find someone else writing about the contributions his work made to the general field, it would definitely help. This can be hard, even for subjects who have changed the course of scientific history, because their colleagues tend to look forwards, rather than write about the past. That's why the notability criteria for academics are a bit flexible. Some of his awards, fellowships and memberships will help. Was he by any chance chief editor of a major journal at any time? If so, put this in; it's another thing that counts towards notability of academics. Elemimele (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wormpicker62 I've looked at your article, and it looks great. Another thing you could do is add an infobox template about the person, maybe something like this:

{{Infobox person
| name               = Lucas Staehelin
| birth_date         = February 10, 1939 (81 years old)
| citizenship        = Switzerland-America
| years_active       = 1970-unknown
| known_for          = Cell Biology

Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 wanna chat? 02:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wormpicker62 and CertifiedAmazing2: I took the liberty of adding {{Infobox academic}} (instead of {{Infobox person}}) to the draft, since infoboxes do not display well in this section due to the Teahouse table of contents. Note that I used {{birth date and age}} so his age will be calculated automatically and you don't have to manually change it after every birthday. I added a few extra fields too. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Need feedback on creating a new page for an organization[edit]

I'm a novice Wikepedia contributor and need some help and feedback on creating a new page for a non-profit organization. The draft is here:

I had tried to create a page for this group last year but it was rejected (too much 'advertising', no references). The current version hopefully addresses the problems that were identified with the first version. I no longer have any official ties to this organization but I have a big COI as its founder, which I have clearly stated on my user page. Not sure how to indicate the COI on the draft? Also not sure if drafts like this automatically get reviewed or how one designates them for review. Thanks for any advice !

Mark Graber MLGraber (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MLGraber. Your draft is nowhere near ready to be submitted. Convert your references to the inline format, which you can learn by reading Referencing for beginners. You should also read Your first article. Then, submit the draft to Articles for creation. Cullen328 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Admittedly not having looked at the "page for the organization," may I suggest another possible issue. Wikipedia does not have "pages for organizations"; it might have an article about an organization. Such an article would be written independently of that organization (and preferably by people who have not connection to the organization), based on other things that have been reliably published, independently of that organization, and the article might or might not be to the organization's liking. The place for a "page for an organization" might be the organization's own website, or (maybe) LinkedIn or (I'm loathe to say it because I despise it and its founder) Facebook. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Mikemorrell49 (talk)Hi MLGraber, as a relative newbie here (who initiated a Wiki page for an organization that I was associated with), I just want to add my perspective to MLGraber's comment. He's absolutely right! But I also accept that the initiative to create a Wiki page about an organization is sometimes taken by someone who is associated with the organization. In the sense that they believe that the organization is 'notable' to the wider community in some way. The first step is to research the actual 'notability' by finding out which reliable and independent sources demonstrate that the organization is sufficiently 'notable' in the wider community. The actual 'notability' (the attention paid by independent media and other sources) might be far less than the organization imagines! A second point is to include references to these reliable and independent sources in any Wikipedia article. A third point is to describe the organization in neutral terms, based soley on the content of the referenced reliable, independent sources. A fourth point is (on the article's 'talk page') to openly declare any 'conflict of interest' you might have through an association with this organization and any steps you have taken to mitigate the effects of this possible conflict. In my case, I deliberately invited 3 independent Wikipedians (and my Wikipedia coach) to review my 'Draft Page' before submitting it for publication. The submitted version was very different from my 'Draft' version

One of the main concerns for new Wikipedia pages about organizations is that they may be 'promotional'. I suggest spending some time learning about the purpose of Wikipedia and how this translates into criteria for Wikipedia pages. As a complete newbie, it took me a while to learn about Wikipedia and how to add valuable pages (for the community) while respecting the purpose of and guidelines for Wikipedia pages. Mikemorrell49 (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Will people modify my article if it's poorly written?[edit]

I found this company called AXIS BATS, and there isn't a wiki article about it. I want to create a article, but I have little writing knowledge about writing a article on the Wikipedia. If I simply write a article with low writing criteria stating it's a stub, will people try and volunteer and add more better described information? Torrent1703 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Does the company satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? (Note that such notability is independent of the integrity of the company or the quality of its products.) When you say that you "found" the company, do you mean that you came across some mention of it, or that you founded the company? -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Symbol watching blue lashes.svg Courtesy ping: Torrent1703Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
For a stub article to be approved requires valid, reliable source references. If no references exist, do not waste your time or that of a Reviewer, who will decline the draft. David notMD (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I met the guy who owned it, it was a family owned Business. I noticed it didn't have a wiki and only had it's own website. I found the place when I was sent to community service. If you want more proof that the place exist, (Redacted). Torrent1703 — Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Existence is not our notability criteria, significant coverage in news outlets unconnected to the subject is. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a Discord or a gmail to chat somewhere else? This Wikipedia chatting system is very uncomfortable Torrent1703 — Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Torrent1703: Unless there's something that shouldn't be made public on Wikipedia (such as sensitive information), most conversations stay on Wikipedia pages for transparency. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Dude, I am not using this stupid chatting system, it's retarded and cheap how you have to edit a article just to chat to someone. Torrent1703
There is IRC. Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help RudolfRed (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Torrent1703: Patience and an ability to work well with others is a good skill for editing articles. Axis Bats appears to be somewhat well known - I did a quick search and found this [1], but it'll need more sources to pass the notability threshold. You could start by adding them to List of baseball bat manufacturers, with a single reference. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, heres the edit — Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: I strongly disagree with your suggestion that Axis Bats be added to that listicle, and moreover, I believe most if not all of the ones that are redlinked should be removed. It's actually been substantially trimmed down from what it once was. As an example, one of the edit summaries pre-cleanup literally reads: "Added my Company to the list. Brew City Wood Bat Company. Jay Vernon, Owner". You can see what the cleaned-up article looked like here. However, immediately afterward, people clearly connected to baseball bat manufacturers started adding redlinks again; as an example, the edit immediately proceeding this cleanup added: "* [[Birdman Bats]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Birdman Bats young but growing fast in reputation one swing at a time. Hear the pop. ref>< {{Cite web|url= Bats MLB|title=Birbman Bats|}}</ref> #PutSomeWingsOnIt</ref>". I'll be agreeing with Sphilbrick's argument on the article's talk page and cleaning it up again. There's no reason we should be listing clearly non-notable bat manufacturers in "a list of notable baseball bat manufacturers", as it's solely a form of advertisement for their companies and has no encyclopedic merit. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Torrent1703: There's also Wikipedia:Discord. GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: I agree that providing a company's web site at List of baseball bat manufacturers doesn't seem to demonstrate that it's a notable company. GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
TheTechnician27, thank you for making that list article very much less terrible. (But it's still terrible.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The link I posted above was to an article about the company. They provided bats to Red Sox slugger David Ortiz, among others, and the coverage says they are well-known. That was worth a red link in my mind. It’s not a DAB page. If the consensus is to only include companies with articles as being notable, rather than those that are potential article subjects, that’s fine, but it should be in the hidden text to alert future editors. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 14:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
While everything remains questionable if the company can be notable, ill will talk a lot more about it on Discord. However, I do have a working idea for the information of the company on my Sandbox page. Torrent1703 — Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


In Nadeo the logo in the infobox is outdated. Am I allowed to change it to the current logo? (The image is already on commons) ZaiIsZai (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ZaiIsZai. Both versions are simple text logos and therefore are not protected by copyright. Go to the old logo's file information page at Commons and upload the new version. It will change automatically wherever it appears on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328 But the new logo already exists on commons, so it would be a duplicate ZaiIsZai talk | contribs 01:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
(sorry for the different signature) ZaiIsZai talk | contribs 01:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

article declined (draft:charles williams). stated reason was lack of reliable sources.[edit]

article declined for lack of reliable sources. following is the Original References list but recommended to list only a few applicable references. Could use help in completing this article. when asked about inadequate references for reliability purposes seemed adequate when compared to similar wikipedia articles e.g. lucian niemeyer

Could use help when asked about inadequate references for reliability purposes.

1. ↑ "Charles Williams, United States Navy, Biography". America's Navy. 1. Southeast Missouri State University graduate college newspaper article ( 2. Charles Williams presidential nomination( 3. Charles Williams ( 4. Charles Williams ( 6. Trump announces pick for top Navy energy, environment post.pdf ( 7. Charles Williams ( 8. Charles Williams ( 9. Liberty University ( 10. Charles Williams ( 11. Charles Williams Hall of Fame 1968 ( 12. Charles Williams USS St. Louis Commissioning speaker ( 13. Interview for PBS special 14. Defense minister, embassy and Omani Admiral in Chief RNO commander receives US official - Oman Observer RNO Commander meets with US Navy official - Oman Observer 15. Assistant Secretary Williams visits U.S. installations in the U.S., Central Command, Europe and Africa. 16. Charles Williams Installation Annual Report ( 17.Trump Taps Missouri Vet to Lead Navy ... - Defense Communities ( 18. Charles Williams livid over housing 19. Charles Williams ( 20. Charles Williams 21. Charles Williams Senate Confirmation hearing ( 22. Charles Williams Senate hearing congressional record (pdf) 23. Charles Williams Armed Services hearing January 16,2020 ( 24. Charles Williams Senate Event Schedule Flagship1 (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Charles Arthur Williams @Flagship1: I helped out with this in October, but guess it stalled. There need to be more sources written about him rather than primary sources. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Navy documents and press releases are primary sources.TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

follow up to Templeton[edit]

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

3rd party references were suggested to be added. Flagship1 (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

references include 2 college articles on the subject (liberty and southeast missouri) and 1 high school article ritenour). 3 television reports local and national (cspan, pbs). 4 newspaper articles.

believe these to be 3rd party. are more needed than this?

Might add the position held was previously held by Teddy Roosevelt (pres mckinley appointment) and Franklin Rooselvelt (pres Wilson appointment)

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagship1 (talkcontribs) 20:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Flagship1. We can't tell from that brief description whether or not those sources qualify. For each source, you need to answer the following three questions:
  1. Is it a reliable source? i.e., was it published by somebody with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. The televaision and newspaper articles, probably (but not necessarily); official publications by college, but probably not student newspapers or the like; probably not high school publications (I've no idea what "ritenour" means)
  2. Is it independent of him? Almost nothing published or written by any colleagues, employers, or institutions he was affiliated to (includi8ng his colleges, and the navy) would qualify. Newspaper and TV articles may, if they were written by journalists from their own research, but not if they were interviews with him or his colleagues, or based on press releases.
  3. Does it contain significant coverage of him? More than just a mention, a single sentence, or an entry in a directory.
If you can find several sources that meet those criteria, then you can establish notability, and write the article, based almost entirely on those sources. Note that who else held his position is completely irrelevant: notability for Wikipedia's purposes isn't about what a person has been or done, but about what has been written about them in appropriate contexts. --ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I also advised in October. Posting a 'wall' of posible refs here (and on the Talk page of the editor who declined the submission) is not helpful. Better to decide which of all those possible refs represent significant coverage about him, add those, and resubmit. David notMD (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about why page was deleted[edit]


I am curious to know why Plivo's Wikipedia page was deleted Would you be able to provide some help? Thank you, Erik EW 21:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikgwagner (talkcontribs)

Hello Erikgwagner and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that article was deleted as the result of a decision based on this AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plivo (2nd nomination). --ARoseWolf 21:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
There were not a lot of comments at either AfD, but for both, an Administrator made a judgement call to delete. You could query the Admin who did the second AfD. David notMD (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Assessing own artilces[edit]

I did search this before asking, but could not find the answer.

Are we allowed to assess articles that we created ourselves with regards to the quality scales? To date, I have not done so, I tag the relevant WikiProjects and wait for someone to assess them. By now I feel confident that I can assess articles. I'm talking about stub/start/C, I would not feel confident assessing anything as B and obvioulsy grading A and FA is a whole different process. Is that encouraged/discouraged/helpful/bad? What's the normal thing to do? CT55555 (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555 I asked a similar question earlier, and someone told me that I could assess my own articles up to C quality. However, I wait until I'm informed my new article has been reviewed, and then check the status. If someone else has graded it a stub and I'm sure it qualifies for start class I change it up to that. But you would need to use your own judgement as to what seems correct for your new articles. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@CT5555: Karenthewriter is correct: it's best to either wait for somebody else to make a first assessment or to be somewhat conservative with how you assess your own article. Note that the written criteria for these classes have remained unchanged or basically unchanged since mid-2008 when C-class was introduced. However, because these were written at the very tail end of what I would call the "wild west era" of Wikipedia and a couple years past the start of what I would call the "reform era", implicit standards for article assessment, I would argue, have changed and gotten somewhat more strict. I was going to write a lengthy, tangential ramble here explaining myself, but I actually think I'm going to create an essay about it instead. The bottom line is that it's totally normal to review it yourself or to wait for a new page patroller to do that, but I think it's best to always err toward conservatism when choosing how to assess one's own articles. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
This is all very helpful, thanks. Karenthewriter User:TheTechnician27 I'll wait for others to review, let them go first, and be conservative and humble. I only forsee doing this for some old stubs that are clearly start or C class. CT55555 (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Many articles are unassessed or have out-of-date assessments. It's fine to assess articles you create (up to C class). ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Sandboxes of indefinitely blocked users[edit]

Hello. I came across a user sandbox page for a banned [blocked] user. I wanted to nominate it for speedy deletion, but did not find it in CSD. I tried searching policy and guidelines, but came up empty. Surely, it doesn't have to go through a full WP:MFD, does it? For specifics, it is this page: User:Ugochukwu75/sandbox. The user was officially banned [blocked] for sockpuppetry but has also admitted to undeclared paid editing. Cheers, SVTCobra 23:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Correction: This editor was indefinitely blocked, but was not banned. Individual administrators can block editors. Banning is a community process, or can be imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Blocking and banning are not exactly the same thing. Cullen328 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I apologize for the inappropriate terminology. I have struck and replaced the words above. Thanks for pointing it out. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
As User:Ugochukwu75/sandbox was not created until after the sockmaster User:Ugochukwu75 had been blocked, you can't use WP:CSD#G5. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I know there are no WP:CSD that seem to fit, but that is my question: Should User:Ugochukwu75/sandbox sit there forever or is a WP:MFD necessary? Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Would it be improper to move to a draft page? Someone may find it, otherwise 6 months from now it would be procedurally deleted.Slywriter (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know. Hence the question. And are you saying it will be PROD'ed in six months if left in the sandbox or only if it is moved to draftspace? --SVTCobra 04:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Drafts are deleted after 6 months of no activity. Or more precisely are queued for Admin attention, which usually results in deletion.Slywriter (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Drafts that remain unedited for six months are eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G13. There's no point in moving the page to the draft namespace if you have no intention in trying to improve it yourself. There's also no point in moving the page to the draft namespace if you just are hoping that someone may find it and adopt it. If the sandbox doesn't have any major issues (e.g. WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP), then there seems to be no harm in simply leaving it alone; perhaps someday the creator will be unblocked and decide to resume work on it. If you really feel it needs to be deleted, then you'll probably need to bring it to WP:MFD. However, before doing that you might want to ask about it at some relevant WikiProjects (e.g. WP:ITALY, WP:WPBIOA&E, WP:FASHION) to see if anybody there feels the subject is notable and wants to work on the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you @Marchjuly:. Cheers, --SVTCobra 10:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

How to change signature?[edit]

Hi again, I've seen a lot of users with pretty cool signatures, but I want to learn how I can do it myself. I mean, I already know some stuff about this, but it's too confusing. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) CertifiedAmazing2

Hi CertifiedAmazing2. You can find out more about this kind of thing at WP:CUSTOMSIG; however, please understand that people are going to assess you as an editor based on the quality of your edits and not based on how cool your signature is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay. Just know I was just trying to give a compliment to those with custom signatures, rather than trying to say that's the only thing that matters. Either way, thanks for your help. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
My aplogies if my reply seemed harsh. I wasn't trying to imply that you were criticizing editors with customized signatures; I think customized signatures can be cool sometimes. However, you seem to be a new editor and many times new editors focus are things (e.g. user boxes, custom signatures) which are nice, but aren't really related to Wikipedia editing. If you do decide to customize your signature, just make such to follow the guidelines given in WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Update: I changed my previous response just in case you were confused by it. I never thought your reply was harsh. Also, I tried adding one but it didn't work, and now I'm stuck with this...signature (if you can even call it that). What do I do? Sincerely, #bodyContent a[title="CertifiedAmazing2"] { background-color: #ffa500; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; } (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Try reverting back to your original signature and then experimenting in your user sandbox. It looks like did WP:SIG#Customizing how you see your signature, when you seem to want to do WP:SIG#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
If you'd like, Levi_OP could help you make a signature. They were actually the one who created my current signature. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Levi_OP repinging since I don't think my previous ping worked. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: I've left a message on their talk page and will try to help them if they want it. Also, the first ping did work. Where it is in the message doesn't matter, if that's why you thought it might not have worked. ― Levi_OPTalk 15:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah ok. Wasn't sure if it worked after I fixed it and resigned since it didn't give me the notification of a successful. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: Yeah, sometimes it just doesn't send a notification, and I don't know why. You can be assured that if there is a link to someone's userpage added in a edit, a notification will be sent to that person. ― Levi_OPTalk 16:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, I got my own. What do you think? Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 wanna chat? 22:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Why does a signature have a limit of 255 characters? It's kind of annoying to work around and takes away the endless possibilities part of signature creating. Also, my signature is too big to add the "Sincerely" I put in my messages, which is yet another setback and now I have to manually add it each time I send a message.

@CertifiedAmazing2: This so as not to give undue weight to comments - 255 characters is plenty. (I think my signature is just over 255 currently, with the dash.) ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Saint-Mihiel[edit]

I was just reading letters from my great uncle, Roy M Evans, who was an aide, a cartographer, for General Pershing in WWI. He has information on this battle from a personal experience that I would like to add to the article already in place, but not sure how to do it, or where in the article. I was thinking the short portion near the bottom, 'Aftermath', might be a good fit. I could copy and paste this here and let someone more experienced do it, if you'd like.Suzisuzanne (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Suzisuzanne (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, personal experience is not acceptable as a source in Wikipedia, and such an edit would be regarded as original research. Wikipedia edits need to be verifiable by references to published independent reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Suzisuzanne. Unfortunately, it sounds like you're referring to something that Wikipedia refers to as "original research" and such types of information is generally not deemed appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Please understand that this is meant as no disrespect to your great uncle and the things experienced. Now, this is only just a first assessment of things based upon the description you've given so far. You might want to ask about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history because that's where you're going to find editors who might more familiar with the Battle of Saint-Mihiel and be better able to assess the information you've found in your uncle's letters. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but original research (i.e. personal experiences) is not allowed on Wikipedia articles. However, you could possibly add it if there's an online source that's able to be cited, rather than your great uncle that's giving the information. My apologies if that was confusing. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 wanna chat? 22:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

New user[edit]

I created a new account yesterday, and I want to create a new page article. Unfortunately, I am unable to find out how to create one. please I need your help in that regard. My username is Hadeel Market, and I want to create a page named Market Equity. Hadeel Market (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating a new article is one of the more difficult tasks in Wikipedia, so you ought to gain experience in editing existing articles first. When you have done so, you can then find advice at WP:Your first article, but the most important point is to satisfy yourself that the subject meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Hadeel Market: Welcome to the Teahouse! To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
UPDATE: Hadeel Market blocked until making name change, and Sandbox Speedy deleted for promotional intent. David notMD (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What are the rules surrounding subjects that have already been written about in other wikis?[edit]

Hello, this is a purely theoretical question I'm asking to satisfy my own curiosity as I read up more about Wikipedia rules. There are so many wikis around today, with more specialised areas--e.g. fandom wikis, computer game wikis, etc. What are the ground rules surrounding subjects that may be already covered in another wiki, which someone may think about transferring to Wikipedia? Are there content duplication rules that forbid acceptance of particular kinds of content if they have already been written about substantially in another source (and could an editor point me to the guidelines if a page exists on this topic? Can't seem to find it myself)? E.g. say for example, a new Star Wars character that's already been given a treatment on a Star Wars wiki, and which someone may want to write about in Wikipedia. On the assumption that the basic requirement to paraphrase instead of lifting is met, is that okay? Talamioros (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikis are not reliable sources, so it would be a non-starter. All articles must be based on reliable sources--Shantavira|feed me 09:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Talamioros, See WP:COPYPASTE, WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:USERG. What may be useful on other wikis are the sources they use, if any. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I would note that in certain (not all) situations, it may be legal to copy an entire article from another wiki, if that wiki's copyright license is compatible with Wikipedia's. See WP:Compatible license for details about that. However, in most cases, it would not be appropriate to copy an entire article from that other wiki, since the other wiki's standards for notability and verifiability may not match ours. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Interwiki Links[edit]

How can I get an internal link for a different language of wikipedia? For example, how can I get a internal link to may be Russian language Wikibooks, or maybe Italian language Wikivoyage. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 09:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Itcouldbepossible. I always use the template {{ill}} for this; but see WP:ILL for all the possibilities. --ColinFine (talk)
Thanks for you help Colin ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Itcouldbepossible ColinFine The {{ill}} template only links to other language Wikipedias. For instructions on intra-wiki projects (and languages) see this non Wikipedia link (Wikimedia Meta-Wiki) at meta:Help:Interwiki linking (which was also linked on WP:ILL). If you have further questions, happy to help ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Shushugah Can I link russian language wikibooks also? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, please read the link I sent you and inspect in editor mode what I did, so you can do something similar. See the following example b:ru:Сборка кубика Рубика 3x3x3 which you can visually change with a | separator like on English Wikipedia which results in Сборка кубика Рубика 3x3x3| ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Shushugah Thanks, thanks a lot for such a comprehensive answer. I really like it. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 07:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Alan Singh[edit]

Help me to make this.[1] -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Karsan Chanda. Could you kindly specify your query? Do you want help to make an article on tribals or on a topic from the shared link? Please specify so that we can answer your query. Thank You. Kpddg (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
If the page in question is Alan_Singh, the reasons for its decline have been mentioned at the top of the page. Kpddg (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Karsan Chanda. If you want to create an article on Alan Singh, your absolutely first starting point (ideally before writing a single word) is to find three or four sources which talk at length about Singh himself - not just about his campaigns, or his tribe, or places associated with him. The sources do not need to be in English, or online (though it is helpful if they are); but they do need to have been published by publishers with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. The book you have just cited looks as if it might be a reliable source; but why are you citing it? If it is for an article about the Mina, see our existing article Meena - you may want to make additions to that. --ColinFine (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Tribal Cultures and Change".
From the start of this draft last September, Karsan Chanda has been composing more about Amber Fort and the massacre of the Chandra dynasty (Meena) by Kachhwaha than about Alan Singh. If this is to succeed, focus on referenced content about Alan Singh. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Pictures deleted from draft[edit]

Hello, all the pictures that I had added to my draft were deleted and I do not have any notification. I have the copyright. Noeliagarone (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Noeliagarone. It looks like the files you added to Draft:Dawn After Dark were ones that you uploaded to Commons. Commons and Wikipedia are members of the same family so to speak, but they are different projects with their own policies and guidelines. A notification about one of the files the problems it had was posted at c:User talk:Noeliagarone and it and the other files were deleted by a Commons administrator named EugeneZelenko. If you want more information as to what the problems with the other files were, you can ask EugeneZelenko about them at c:User talk:EugeneZelenko. Before you do that though, you might want to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:Own work and c: Commons:But it's my own work! for reference because copyright rules can be tricky and its easy to make a mistake. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse @Noeliagarone it seems the pictures were deleted (as given in the edit summery) because they were promo pictures. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 15:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Noeliagarone Files aren't typically deleted from Commons simply because they are promotional photos; however, promotional photos that appear to be professionally taken are often uploaded under questionable or unverifiable licensing, or claims of "own work" and such photos may be deleted for those reasons. Commons administrators are given quite a bit of discretion when it comes to such files and can delete them without warning or discussion; so, if you feel a mistake was made, the best thing to do would be to first ask for clarification from EugeneZelenko. Explain why you feel a mistake was made and he will advise you on what to do next. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggest a change to the interface[edit]

How, and where can I suggest a change to the Wikipedia interface? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 13:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Itcouldbepossible. Suggestions for improvement can be made in the appropriate section at Wikipedia:Village pump. Thank you. Kpddg (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Kpddg Thanks for the reply. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Welcome :) Kpddg (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Pages created by me[edit]

In Xtools it is showing that I have created 5 pages, but I have only created one page and developed an existing draft. But, I did not create the rest of the pages. Why is it showing like that? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

My guess is it's because you moved those pages from mainspace to draftspace. Although I'm not sure why it would count this as a page creation. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Itcouldbepossible it looks like you moved them to draftspace as not ready, but then someone else has then written the article in article space later on (when they really should have just moved the draft back to article space when ready). So in the page history, your move (article --> draftspace) is the first edit that Wiki sees in the history, so it counts you as the "creator". Which is the case for [2] and [3]. Which seems wrong, but probably difficult to fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talkcontribs) 14:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Joseph2302@Joseph2302 Thanks for the help. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf@Joseph2302 But, now it is showing that I have created only 2, and the rest 3 are gone. I don't understand what is going on. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

highlights mess up url when clicking a wikipedia article through google search results?[edit]

it adds a load of nonsense to the url in order to highlight a random part of the page eg:,of%20krill%20and%20other%20crustaceans. rather than: why? its annoying. its done it for atleast a year now. i dont like it. briefly, it would go away when you clicked the page. that was better i enjoy collecting many many wikipedia pages in my bookmarks and it has significantly decreased productivity. change it pls or ill cry :'¬( big love x (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I've never seen this, probably because I hardly ever use Google. I think you need to complain to Google: there is nothing that Wikipedia can do about how Google treats its links to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
It's not nonsense, IP editor, but the link to the exact part of the article which says The capelin or caplin (Mallotus villosus) is a small forage fish of the smelt family...., which it highlights in purple when you click on the link. If you use instead Google's knowledge panel on the right of the search page, you'll get the simpler URL instead. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a new (as of last year) Chrome feature. Aside from switching to another browser, you could try installing this extension. I'm on Firefox so I can't vouch for it, but it looks like it has a number of good reviews. Rusalkii (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Tips for improvement[edit]

Hi, I am interested not only on earthquakes, but also on articles about places or cities. Any tips for making or improving articles of those topics? Filipinohere (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Separating sections ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Filipinohere Welcome to Teahouse! Check out this WikiProject dedicated to cities! Join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and ask for suggestions or see whatever interests you there! Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

About Return YouTube Dislike again[edit]

After thinking for a bit, i think this should just be a redirect to It sucks for having my first artictle deleting after hours of research but i dont really care. TzarN64 (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@TzarN64: Hi there! It appears your thought matches those at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Return YouTube Dislike. You might want to share your thought there as well. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a draft[edit]

This page has been marked as a draft, but it isn't a draft, and it was published over a month ago. How do I revert it from draft status? PetSematary182 (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182

PetSematary182 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It must be submitted for a review, I've added the information required to do so. Most of the sources do not seem appropriate; they must be reliable sources with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The article was moved to draft status this morning, the sources are "Goodreads" which is a primary source for this topic so confers zero notability on the subject, sources need to be independent. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, PetSematary182, and welcome to the Teahouse. SVTCobra moved the article to draft space, with the comment "This does not appear ready"; they might have nominated it for deletion, but this indicates that they though it could be rescued as an article, but needed work. On a quick look, only two of your sources are regarded as reliable: The Verge and Vox; but neither of those two meantions Goodreads or "NOT A BOOK". In other words, your draft has not one single reliable source that covers the topic, and does nothing whatever to establish that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
PetSematary182 You might be better off paring the content down and adding it with a redirect to Goodreads#Features. I doubt anyone is going to look up NOT A BOOK without going to the Goodreads article first. It's all about user friendliness. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

All I am trying to do is retrieve my account[edit]

(I reposted this from a misplaced quest for help [4] at MediaWiki talk:Signature. I didn't know where else this person might find the help they are looking for.)

I did not request any developer tools or apps or any other functions on my phone laptop or any of my accounts I have been trying to get this resolved for the longest time and still I keep getting these errors and redirects. Some of y'all don't seem to understand that this person is a very violent man that has harmed me in the past and all I am trying to do is retrieve my account so I can get back to my normal life 2600:1700:9D90:FF0:DC68:388F:EE35:B3B3 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Reposted by Willondon (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

To the IP user, if your personal safety is in danger, you should contact your local authorities. I'm not sure what tools or apps have to do with this, are you being impersonated? 331dot (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry for your predicament, but (speaking for myself), I haven't the faintest idea who you are, or what you are asking for. My guess is that this is absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia or MediaWiki, and you came to MediaWiki by mistake; but I may be wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


Can someone tell me what is going on? See diff 1 and diff 2. It always adds these weird blocks of code (<templatestyles src="Module:Infobox/styles.css"> and so on). But I didn't add it. It adds them automatically. Is this a visual editor bug or what? Renat 16:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

RenatUK, it looks to me as if it's expanded the template in the article, but I've no idea why. WP:VPT is the place to ask about problems with the Wikipedia user interface. --ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I see it now: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Templatestyles_edits. Renat 17:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Multiple "consensus results", what do we do with the History of Dell page?[edit]

Copied from the Dell Talkpage

Oi... okay. So this is becoming an albatross around my neck. I'm going to put all the events as I see it here and ask for someone who is not myself, anyone involved in the original AFD, or the ultimate merge to make a decision on this.

1. The page History of Dell was woefully out-of-date, and I PRODed it.

2. Another user dePRODed as they saw value in the page.

3. Correspondingly, I opened an AFD. This AFD was improperly closed.

4. I began work on following consensus, and posted a notice (see above section).

5. The deletion review recognized this, but the Admin closed it with what appears to be another wrong reason, stating consensus as Merge to Dell. I believe the discussion pretty clearly shows consensus was to split the History section from this article into the History of Dell article to make it up to date.

6. Another user, unaware of the rather tumultuous happenings, came by and understandably merged it.

To lay out the reasons I saw from others and understand as consensus:

  • We agreed that the page had relevant information that should not be removed from Wikipedia here
  • We agreed that merging into Dell was problematic as well, because that makes this article WP:TOOBIG here, see comment chain starting with Peterkingiron.
  • Keeping the separate article matches other articles like History of IBM and History of Microsoft

As a result, it seemed to me like we had settled on updating the original history article and keeping it in place. I really don't know what to do at this point. Help? SpuriousCorrelation 17:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

For your own sanity, and from a human perspective, I'd suggest just walking away and letting someone else sort out the mess. You shouldn't have to carry the albatross. If the merged Dell article is too long, someone will notice, sooner or later, and suggest splitting it. They may even end up acknowledging your attempts. If you're worried that useful information will go missing during the merge process, you could put the article on your watch-list to make sure the merge is done properly, and to make sure no one deals with the excessive size by complaining it's unbalanced and deleting great chunks - basically provided the information isn't lost, the merge/split question can be dealt with another day, and the damage caused by this fiasco isn't actually all that serious (I'm fundamentally lazy!). Elemimele (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
An offline wikifriend sent me the essay Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline, which tracks with your advice. Thanks :) SpuriousCorrelation 03:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Odd infobox duplication while using visual editor[edit]

Experiencing an issue where my edits, while using the visual editor, are quasi-duplicating the infobox (see my contributions). I first noticed this type of edit to Chris Sununu, where it appeared to be some weird edit. Well, it happened to me a few times to me, didn't know if this was something that other folks were experiencing. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@PerpetuityGrat: Welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like the same issue as described in the #Mohammed Shami section above, and the #Bug? section above has the link to the Village Pump discussion. Hope it's resolved soon! GoingBatty (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with external souces[edit]

 – Templates not showing (and being invoked) in original post, resulting in confusing display. (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I was going to add two external sources to an article, Turner Classic Movies and the American Film Institute. I looked at another article to get the formats, and they were {{AFI film|xxxx}} and {{TCMDb title|xxxxx}} where the x's were numbers. In a different format for the same sources there were called id numbers. What are they and were do I get them for my film? I didn't see anything on those sites pages. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You say "my film", so please remember to disclose any conflict of interest you have before editing articles related to your film(s). As for your request, it's a bit confusing, but are you simply trying to add a source for something in an article? If so, check out this page for help on how to do that generally. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Pete Best Beatles, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, please could you be more specific as to what you really want? Can you be be a little more precise and concise? Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Please see the documentation for the templates {{AFI film}} and {{TCMDb title}}. (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Committed identity topicon[edit]

Please see original request at User talk:CJDOS#Template:Committed identity topicon, where I was redirected here by Primefac after I used the {{Help me}} tag. In brief, a discussion is taking place at Template talk:Committed identity topicon#RfC 8 January 2022. I've come to the Teahouse:

  • To request an univolved editor to conduct the discussion, and revert non-consensual changes to the template's image.
  • To ask for assistance in getting more opinions at the discussion.
  • To inquire if template protection of some kind be considered in order to promote edit discussions.

This is not a closure request. I'm asking for more involvement, and someone not involved to take over the task of officiating the discussion.  — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC) (revised 10:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC))

New article moved before Did You Know review[edit]

Hi folks. I just submitted my first DYK nomination, so I'm a bit fuzzy on the nuts and bolts. The issue is that after I submitted the nomination, another editor moved the article. I AGREE with the move (they added a hyphen), but now the DYK nomination is wrong, and I can't figure out how to update it in a way that doesn't just break stuff. The article is here: Courant–Snyder parameters. (note the en dash) Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"[T]hey added a hyphen [...] note the en dash." Um, PianoDan, I need another coffee. Anyway, yes, it's currently "Courant–Snyder parameters", with an en dash. You can of course edit the article in any way that you wish. As for editing the nomination stuff, I too am mystified by DYK. (I've occasionally participated, but with such long intervals separating these short bouts of interest that I forget everything and have to relearn it.) Why not add to Template talk:Did you know#Courant Snyder parameters a comment such as "I see that LaundryPizza03 has moved the article from 'Courant Snyder parameters' to 'Courant–Snyder parameters'. I agree with the move, but is any change needed to this nomination?" (Change "No ping" to "U".) Then people familiar with DYK are likely to notice and respond. -- Hoary (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes well - colloquial typography vs. explicit. My wife still makes fun of me for putting two spaces after a period. In all seriousness, it seems that editing Template talk:Did you know directly isn't right. Rather, it looks like I needed to edit the template itself, and then the comments get transcluded back to that page. The template edit page is just so complicated that I was second and third guessing myself as to where I was supposed to edit. I've at least figured out where to ASK the question, even if I've still no idea what the answer is. Thanks for your help! PianoDan (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked User's Sandbox[edit]

Hi, I just was asking about a blocked user that I found out about, and I wanted to ask: should their sandbox be deleted? I just nominated it for deletion, so please let me know if this is the right thing. Here is their page:  Sincerely,CertifiedAmazing2 wanna chat? 23:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't qualify for WP:G5 if it was created before the block. And it looks like the page was basically blank before you added the CSD, so what's the point? RudolfRed (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Its deleted now, so I guess I misread G5. RudolfRed (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with expanding articles[edit]

I need help with adding sources to articles, expanding articles and creating infoboxes for articles as I have my hands full with editing. Can anyone please help me with this? I would be very thankful to get any help. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to offer help. One thing at a time, though. Could you provide a more specific request for help? Do you want instructions on how to do these things, or are you hoping for extra editors to help on certain articles because you don't have time? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Davidgoodheart has over a 100k edits, so I am curious what specific assistance he needs and if it something new editors looking for a task can be directed to. Slywriter (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I read it as DGH wants an intern. David notMD (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Women's last name after marriage[edit]

If you are creating a Wikipedia page for a woman who is known by her maiden name although she is married, which last name should be used as the title for the wikipedia page? Weissepedia (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The article title should be the name by which she is most commonly known, see WP:COMMONNAME, but if she is also known by another name then a redirect can be provided from that alternative. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Uh, that makes no sense at all. Why would you use a name she is not known by? Or is this some culture where women but not men are legally obliged to change their surname when they marry? --bonadea contributions talk 00:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Bonadea, I don't see above any advocacy of the use of names that people aren't known by. (Am I missing something?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
No, I did not mean to imply there was advocacy involved – I was genuinely confused by the question. The only way I could interpret it to make sense to me was if "she is married" meant "she is required by law to have the same last name as her husband". (Which has been true in many European and anglophone countries in the past, and possibly still is in some parts of the world.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
It's true in Japan, for one. (Successive governments -- all of the same one party -- have claimed that it's not sexist because the couple can plump for either one of the two surnames. Uh-huh.) If a Japanese person marries a foreigner, each can keep their surname; and there may be other minor exceptions. Anyway, if you are creating a Wikipedia article for a woman who is most commonly known by a certain name, then you title the article with that name. And ditto for an article about a man. -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft Titles[edit]

Is it possible to attempt to rename a draft article you did not make or do you have to to wait until it potentially gets published? Is it possible to start a discussion on name changes for drafts? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft titles are at best provisional. If a page is accepted it'll be moved to an appropriate title. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Can always leave a note on the talk page of your suggestion.Slywriter (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Article acceptance permisson[edit]

I would like to know who has the power to accept drafts and make them articles? Is there a special role needed? Thanks in advance. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gandalf the Groovy. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants for the requirements to be a reviewer of drafts formally submitted to the Articles for creation process. Please be aware that Articles for creation is voluntary and optional for most editors. If a draft has not been submitted to AFC, any autoconfirmed editor acting in good faith can move a draft to the encyclopedia main space. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, further to Cullen328's point, Gandalf the Groovy, I think if you create an article in main space, or move one there, unless you are "autopatrolled" it remains hidden from Google and other search engines for 6 months, unless a new article patroller finds it and deems it okay. There is no reason why you shouldn't move an article into main space if it's ready, but if it's not, it might get draftified again, and if you move a lot of articles into main space when they're not ready, people will get grumpy about it. Elemimele (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Small correction, Elemimele, as per WP:INDEXING, new articles remain hidden form search engines for at most 90 days (a bit less than three months). Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
sorry, All! I don't know where I got that 6 from. Thanks, Victor Schmidt Elemimele (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How to move a TOC back to its original spot after re-writing lede[edit]

So I just copyedited an article, including its lede which I re-wrote in another document and copy-pasted back into the article. After publishing that and the rest of my edits I realized that deleting and copy-pasting my new lede into the article caused the contents bar to move up before the lede starts. Ive tried everything on the internet on how to get it to its original spot, and I really dont want to redo everything else I wrote, so can anybody help me here? NSNW (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone fixed it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I just noticed that, its good that I don't have to worry about that anymore. Thank you anyway. NSNW (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The TOC automatically appears after the lede. It can be moved with __TOC__, and hidden with __NOTOC__. ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you copy French original voice cast information to French and Quebec animated series from French Wikipedia?[edit]

It's true that on the English Wikipedia many editors here often add the original English voice cast to French and Quebecois animated series to the articles I used to edit before, but there is a problem, it turns out that when I changed the original voice cast from english to french to infoboxes (these two revisions for example[5][6]) have taken care to revert my edits without leaving summaries as a reason indicating now that only my edits appear as vandalism or non-constructive to it, the same thing happened with Angel's Friends (which is an Italian animated series) I was about to remove the cast of voices to the infobox knowing that international voices do not fit here but even so[7], both the bot and two users who have had several incidents [here reverted it again and the question for me is can some information be copied from the original voice cast from French Wikipedia and paste it here? Well here are the web sources as proof: (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! In general, information can be copied from another language Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia if you provide a reliable source and give proper attribution per WP:TRANSLATION. In these cases, per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you may post on the article's talk pages so you can discuss the benefits of adding this information, and you can work with other editors to develop a consensus. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello there, the biggest reason why your edits might be called unconstructive and have been reverted is because this is the English Wikipedia and not the French. Also it seems the sources you have given are unreliable sources and information on Wikipedia must be backed by reliable sources. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


I'm going to upload a number of screenshots from the following link. I want to confirm whether it allows reuse in reality. I have already asked it and now asking again just for reassurance. Please cooperate.

Thank you. Michri michri (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1138#Image. Can you point to evidence that this video either is in the public domain (according to the legal definition of this term) or is copyright according to a copyleft license acceptable for Wikimedia. If you can, please say which of the two it is, and exactly where you find the evidence. If you cannot, then no, you may not upload anything from the video. -- Hoary (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hoary, the video states 'reuse allowed' through CC licenseMichri michri (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Michri michri: May you describe which exact scenes or photos are you seeking to capture? Looking at the following video, I noticed that it was published under a Creative Commons licence (CC-BY), so that means you're allowed to reuse the author's original content provided that you give attribution to the creator. Though per this prior discussion, you may wanna recall that you have to ask permission from the copyright holders of any images used in that video whose authorship cannot be attributed to the group behind the YouTube channel. If your screenshots include the types of images I just described, best to err with caution and proceed not to upload them in Commons, as they are likely not published under a free licence. Thanks! 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ 💬reach out to me!・📝see my work! 12:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ , I want to take screenshots of Mohammed Shami from the video.Michri michri (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Michri michri: Are you collecting these screenshots to supplement the information in his article? If so, I am a little confused because I think that article, as it is, has enough pictures of the man. 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ 💬reach out to me!・📝see my work! 13:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Michri michri: You've asked about this before and people answered your question. Whether you can use screenshots from a YouTube video depends on how the video is licensed on YouTube and whether the content is 100% original content created by the YouTube channel holder. If someone uploads their own 100% original video to YouTube and decides to release them under a free that Wikipedia accepts, then a screenshot from that video can most likely be uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons as explained in c:Commons:Screenshots. However, if someone uploads a video to YouTube that contains copyrighted content created by others (e.g. video footage or photos from a televised sporting event), then you probably can't upload a screenshot of that particular part of the video even if it's released under a free license for the reasons given in Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works, c:Commons:Derivative works and c:Commons:Video#Videos and copyright. The YouTube video you asked about here seems to be for some kind of sports talk program about cricket. If you want to use a screenshot of the four people discussing cricket on the left side of the screen, the CricketNext logo at the end of the video or any original content created by CricketNext throughout the video, then you probably can. If, however, you want to create screenshots of the photos of cricket players on the right side of the screen, then you probably can't unless you can clearly show that those images were created by CricketNext and that CricketNext didn't get them from somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
All are thanked from my heart for looking into the matter. Gracias Michri michri (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

AI writing Wikipedia article[edit]

I am writing a Wikipedia bot that will write articles at 3000 - 4000 per day. Are there any rate limits that will get triggered? Can I pay to get outside of these limits? (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, that sounds like a really bad idea that will most likely end up with most if not all of the articles the bot creates being tagged or nominated for deletion, perhaps quite quickly. I also don't see how such a bot would ever be approved for use on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Bots. If you're truly serious about this, then I would suggest you discuss your plan over at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard first to see what others may think before you try to do anything like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe it'll be a bad idea, maybe good. IP editor, can you show us a couple of alpha-test versions of its output? Maproom (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll personally think this is most likely wasted effort, as the bar for new articles is quite high, and any bot creating articles should not cause unnesesary work for others by posting substandard articles into mainspace (see also WP:MASSCREATE). With regards to ratelimits, there are multiple ones that might apply. Amongst others, Wikipedia:Bot policy $ Performance, the API Etiquette and the User agent policy as well as the API ratelimits(note: these might be different for bots). Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
If you think about this logically, we don't even permit machine translations from other Wikipedias; machine translation is something that has been developed by very large numbers of people backed with enormous amounts of cash, and machines still translate so badly that we don't trust them to meet the quality of a WP article - and a machine translation of another WP is starting with something that's already quite likely to be in the correct writing-style and format for a WP article, so the task is about as small as it can get. Meanwhile, copyright laws severely limit the lifting of chunks of text from other sites, so if a bot is going to write an article based on sources, it can't just cut and paste, it has to understand and paraphrase/re-write, as well as assess sources, which ironically often means making sense of poor machine translations! And look how far behind our new article reviewers are! They're a good and hard-working bunch and nevertheless, writers of new articles can wait weeks, even months, before their article gets patrolled. Just imagine the backlog if you add 3000 - 4000 articles per day. The articles would have to be so, so good that the bot could be given autopatrol rights, or the whole system would collapse. you're going to have an up-hill task persuading people of this, and you definitely need to talk to the Bot experts and demonstrate that your system produces top-notch articles. Elemimele (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
User contributions for this IP show this Teahouse query, and three article edits back in 2020. That's all. Do you have a hidden, vast store of article creation that gives you confidence that you can create an article writing bot of any caliber, let alone such a massive output? David notMD (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I don’t get the pay comment. Wikipedia is always free to edit. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Query was about posible to pay Wikipedia for the permission to create more articles per day than (an imagined) limit. David notMD (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Please note that the operation of an unauthorized bot is prohibited on the English Wikipedia. If you want to do something like this, you will, at minimum, have to receive approval from the Bot Approvals Group, and they will likely require a wider discussion than that to authorize any kind of automated content creation. Please don't do this unless you have received approval from the community. Writ Keeper  17:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
There's a history of bot-created articles here on Wikipedia, and it's not a good one. There once was a bot that created articles on villages and towns, but pretty much all content it wrote had to be deleted because the lot of it was terrible. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Account of Jaden0912[edit]

CAn you help him plz. Greenpickles987 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Greenpickles987: No such user account. Please be more specific. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems as though there is a global account with that name according to Wikimedia. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Greenpickles987 That account was globally blocked back in 2019, and there was evident sockpuppetry associated from those interacting with that account. As you appear to only have made 8 edits from your account here, plus some categorisations on commons, why are you asking that question? (Please also remove the YouTube link from your sandbox - it is not appropriate for you to use Wikipedia to promote personal video channels without good reason.) Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how I’m doing?[edit]

Hi all! During the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown a did a lot of reading about Scottish History and decided to do a wiki article about some of what I became interested in. My first attempt was moved from drafts to prime time, fairly quickly, but then got moved out because an editor thought I needed to do better with my references. I have done that and submitted it for review again. I am hoping that when it gets moved again, it will stay out as a wiki article and can be developed as a wiki article. Can someone review my article to see if my references look like they should. Am I missing anything else? Grnhrnt35 (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Grnhrnt35: Welcome! It might be helpful to include the specific web page where the info can be found in a source. Your first links to a general homepage. Is there a link available that goes to the actual charter document? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper: Thank you so much for taking the time to look and to provide me feedback and help. The issue is that the record is not digitised, so I linked to the source. There is a section that talks about where the records could be seen in person. Also, I was able to copy them and have images, as they are public records. Should I remove the hot link, link to the description of how to search them in person, leave it as is, or upload the pictures and link to them? There are 8 pages and therefore 8 pictures. If that is your advice, where would you upload public documents to that I could hot link to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grnhrnt35 (talkcontribs)

@Grnhrnt35: Welcome to the Teahouse! Unless you're planning to write a paragraph about each baron, you could reduce all those sections to a single table and move the pictures into a gallery. Sometimes you use "MacDuff" and other times you use "Macduff", so please check the capitalization. Image captions should not be bolded. Please fix the |last=/|first= parameters in reference #6. Should it be something like |last1=Duff|first1=James|first2=Henrietta|last2=Tayler|first3=Alistair Norwich|last3=Tayler instead? Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: thank you so much for your time. I appreciate your taking the time to go thorough my article so thoroughly. I’m not sure my plan was to expand on each Baron. I wanted to create the page so that it could be edited and added onto once in the main space. Is that an ok strategy, or should I format it differently if it’s not my plan to elaborate on each of the Barons? Regarding “MacDuff” capitalisation, the Barony is spelled “MacDuff” and the town is called “Macduff”. I think you will find it is consistent through that lens. I have removed the bold print on images. I didn’t know that wasn’t just a preference. I THINK the number 6 reference is actually correct. The author of the letters is an author, and lived in the date range I placed there. The book was written in the early 1900’s buy the other two authors. I looked up the format to do that before I put it out there. I admittedly looked it up though. I’m no expert. Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grnhrnt35 (talkcontribs) 03:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Grnhrnt35: I'll leave most of your questions to the editor who will review your article. Reference #6 isn't correct, as the date range does not belong in the |last= field. Without seeing the book, I'm not sure how to properly credit both the author of the letters and the authors of the book. GoingBatty (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

User kindly let me know he thinks my entry may be denied. Can someone take a look and help?[edit]

Hi all! This community is so helpful--I really appreciate it. I have submitted 3 entries with no COI on three very different topics and am waiting to see about approval. A helpful user let me know he believes one of the entries will be denied. Can someone take a look for me and let me know how to eradicate the problem? I have already deleted it once and fixed errors. The user believes it won't be approved because too many of the references are directly connected to him (i.e. his personal website and two of his company's pages). If that's the case, as I was using these as secondary forms of information, I can easily delete them and leave the 8 other sources of information. Isn't it allowed at certain times to use company websites as secondary forms of information however? I asked this question last week before submitting this page. Please let me know if it's better to just delete them and any related information. There is enough international and national coverage of the subject that I am able to delete. Draft here:

Again, thank you all so much for your help. I really appreciate how nice this community has been while helping me move from a regular editor to a creator the past few weeks. It is hard!MediaExpert1979 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC) MediaExpert1979 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@MediaExpert1979: On Draft:Christopher N. Harding, which references are independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Harding (not just a passing mention)? GoingBatty (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Vocabulary: Wikipedia defines content connected to the topic (websites, press releases, interviews) as "primary" and references completely independent of the subject at hand as "secondary." The former does not contribute to confirming notability. Examples include albums released by a musician and science journal articles authored by a scientist. Including information of this nature is useful, but not as far as notability. It is even possible for a person to own a business that is Wikipedia-notable without the person being notable. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

STATUS: Draft:Christopher N Harding declined. Draft:Organic by John Patrick waiting for a reviewer. No evidence in ME's Contributions of a third article. David notMD (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


#REDIRECT [[Target page name]] FkpCascais (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: Hi there! If you go to Special:Preferences, the "User Profile" tab has a section called "Email options" which has your email address. Your password may be stored in your browser's settings. Hope this helps, and good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Maintenance templates[edit]

Hello! I was wondering if I could get more clarity on when to remove tags/tags in general. Based on what I’ve read, it seems that for some tags if the problem is addressed then the tag can be removed with an edit summary while other tags may require a talk page discussion. For an article that has the tag “needs additional citations for verification,” is there a general rule of thumb as to how many citations need to be added before the tag can be removed? Thank you! Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Eucalyptusmint, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, your question is a little nebulous, but no worries I would explain to you in the best manner I can, some tags can be removed by the article creator and sometimes, the article creator is not allowed to remove the tag. Take this analogy, if I tag an article you created with the {{unreferenced}} tag, it means the article in question has absolutely no sources, if you add a source you are within your rights to remove the tag, however if I tag the article with a {{COI}}, it wouldn’t be a good move for the article creator to remove the tag. There are other things I haven’t discussed, but you can see WP:MTR for a detailed explanation. Celestina007 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Eucalyptusmint, Furthermore as noted below, Ruslik0 is very much correct. if you encounter the tag {{citation needed}} or {{cn}} the full meaning is “Citation Needed” This references or points to a particular part of a given article, that indicates a source/citation for verifiability purposes is needed. Now, what you want to do is address this by injecting a reliable source, see WP:RS then proceed to remove the tag. Feel free to ask more questions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
At least you should address all "citation needed" tags. Ruslik_Zero 20:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
That's very helpful, thank you so much. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Eucalyptusmint: Before removing the {{More citations needed}} template from Rajaji National Park, I suggest each paragraph should have some references. I disagree with Ruslik0, as the {{citation needed}} tags don't also need the {{More citations needed}} template. GoingBatty (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Got it! Thank you for the clarification.Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

incorrect death death for Eric Salzman[edit]

How can I correct Wikipedia incorrect death date for my husband? It is Nov. 12, 2017, not Nov. 13. (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Please go the talk page of the article and suggest there, the edits you want to see added to the article. Do not do do yourself due to a conflict of interest, furthermore see WP:V. Celestina007 (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
At Eric Salzman, I changed the date to Nov 12, and changed the ref to the NY Times obituary, that had the correct date. David notMD (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! Since you have a conflict of interest (COI), you should not be editing the Eric Salzman directly. As Celestina007 mentioned, you may post your suggestions at Talk:Eric Salzman with the {{edit request}} template to ask another editor to help you, or you may use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Your edits to other articles where you don't have a COI are appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Should there be an art gallery section on wikipedia?[edit]

The 'should there be an art gallery section on Wikipedia?' Question which I have come up with while drawing some Ediacaran art on a paper towel is referring to how there should be a section featuring art, drawings, animations,3D models and uploads that have been uploaded by users on Wikimedia or Wikipedia.

This idea seems like a pretty good idea to me , as people might look at the images uploaded to the gallery tab and get some inspiration without having to go on Wikimedia and try to find images by searching for the name of the image because the image their looking for has a name similar to other files uploaded on Wikimedia and would result in that person getting confused and having to scroll down more and more if there are WAY too many images with the same file name that they're looking for.

And yes, I do know that it would basically work like the "featured image" edit on certain images, but trying to find a featured image is often frustrating as there can be multiple uploads of that feature image , as well as people copying the "featured image" script onto their newly uploaded , NOT featured image, to Wikimedia. When a image gets into the gallery tab (the one I'm talking about) it shows the image that WAS actually featured and not re-uploads of the same image with the same "featured image" script. For example , lets imagine a scenario where a person gets their image turned into a featured image on Wikipedia, then , malicious people see that image being featured so they steal it , upload it to Wikimedia and put the "featured image" edit onto the stolen image. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, a space where editors ask questions pertaining to editing here and how to edit better, I’m afraid your question comes off as a statement as opposed to a question. To help be of aid to you, could you expressly ask a precise question? Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus If I understand you correctly, you are asking if there is somewhere that people who have done drawings of notable topics can display their work. If that's what you meant, the answer is 'Definitely not'. This is an encyclopaedia, and not only the text, but also the images used in articles must be based upon reliable sources and not personal inspiration or guesswork. Anything else would be out-of-scope for this project and thus liable to be removed. Try Flickr for that.
I sort of understand what you might be getting at regarding difficulty of searching for images. That's why utilising Categories - both when searching for images and adding the best ones after uploading them - is really quite important.
I'm afraid I don't understand your last comment about 'Featured images'. Uploaded content is licenced and can be freely used or reused by others, provided it is credited to the original source in accordance with the Creative commons licence. Uploading a copy of an original file and claiming it as one's own is against policy. Both these and pure duplicates would be deleted. Almost all image licencing issues and image management are dealt with over at Wikimedia Commons, not here. We can simply advise. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Roger de Clifford (died 1285?)[edit]

Can someone please help me remove the "invalid year" error in the infobox. Ficaia (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia: Welcome to the Teahouse! I removed the {{marriage}} parameter to remove the error. You can also start a discussion on Template talk:Marriage to request a change to the template syntax. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

New Article[edit]

Hi! We've edited quite a bit, but I would like to ask if making character lists that do not already exist be premature without help? -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything: Hi there! It might depend on the amount of information and reliable sources available. I suggest you start a new topic on the talk page of article that discusses the character. (e.g. Before creating Characters of Mean Girls, I suggest you discuss on Talk:Mean Girls). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@GoingBatty, we've made major edits to the linked article already, so I believe that that would be an important separate article. However, for other edits we've made, there is almost no actual information on characters. The list I have in mind is a List of Heathers Characters or List of Encanto Characters. I'm not sure if it would be frowned upon considering we don't have as much knowledge on the editing capabilities of Wikipedia. -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
ping:GoingBatty RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating an article[edit]

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Already posted something like this; we want to make a few character lists that don't yet exist. Would it be premature to make this article without much prior experience to making an article? We aren't sure how to use all the perks Wikipedia has yet. -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything: Hi again! You don't need to create a new section to continue the conversation. Another thing you can do is go to Help:Your first article and use the article wizard to create a draft. This will allow you to work on your list over a period of time without worrying if it's going to be deleted. You can also post at Talk:Heathers or Talk:Encanto (film) to have editors look at your draft and make suggestions. When you finish the draft, you can submit it for review to become an article. GoingBatty (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@RemusSandersRegretsEverything Welcome to the Teahouse. I fear you are rather in danger of being blocked for breaching one of our policies that bans 'shared use' whereby only one person may operate one Wikipedia account, and not two or more. If your use of 'we' as a personal pronoun is purely a preference or affectation, and is one not relating to more than one person accessing this account, please would you be extremely explicit and clear about this fact on your userpage? Without such additional clarification, I fear someone like myself might come along and block you per WP:SHARED, and that this could happen repeatedly if you use the 'we' form. As it stands, I'm afraid I can make no sense of what you're saying on your account's userpage, so both clarity and brevity is essential.
To try to address your intitial quesiont: it is always best not to dive in straight away to do the most difficult thing here - creating new articles or list articles. Better to learn the why's and wherefore's of basic editing first. All 'List' articles must list only 'notable' topics - i.e. the page must already exist elsewhere before you collate names into one article. See WP:LIST and WP:Stand-alone lists. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, copying RemusSandersRegretsEverything. See dissociative identity disorder. The User name Remus... represents a human with multiple personalities who has chosen to use the pronoun "we." David notMD (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: See also User:RemusSandersRegretsEverything/pronouns. GoingBatty (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes You clearly didn't check our userpage before posting this, seeing as we have an essay linked about our pronouns as well as a slideshow of our alters that explicitly states that we are the Skeleton System.
@GoingBatty I tried to ping you in the previous one, but it hadn't seemed to work. Thank you!
@David notMD Thank you for helping! -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
also @Nick Moyes, we have made clarity a large part of our activity on Wikipedia. We have expanded on, fixed major parts of, and generally edited many articles, so thank you. -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@RemusSandersRegretsEverything Please don’t take offence, as none was intended, I can assure you. No, I admit to not seeing your essay. It was 3am local time when I responded to you, so that may explain why I missed it, and perhaps my sharpness. The point I would like to get across to you is more one of suggesting how you can find a way to give quicker, easier understanding to admins like me who are intolerant of shared use accounts, and inevitably have to make quick decisions whether to block such accounts, or not. To distinguish you from those who ‘’are’’ editing against policy, might I suggest a better or at least more succinct form of wording to place right at the top of your user page that we can see? The actual wording is up to you, of course, but how does this sound?:
“Note to admins: This is not a shared account! - this user invites you to read [link] to understand how personal pronouns are deployed by this editor.”
I hope you do not feel disrespected by my, admittedly, terse initial response to you, and that this suggestion might be a helpful way of ensuring quick and clear understanding by other admins and users without the need to do a lot of additional reading. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes Okay, thank you. I am also sorry for the way I reacted, today's circumstances affected my moods when replying, and I admit that. I will work on doing better in the future. -Jae/Trix RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


Does Wikipedia generally use the Oxford comma? Aythya affinis (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! No, Wikipedia does not frown upon the serial comma, seeing as it prevents words and hard to read sentences. -Gretchen RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Aythya affinis: Our guideline is here. Generally, editors are free to use the Oxford comma or not use it, at their preference, as long as the usage is consistent within each article, and the usage does not result in ambiguity. CodeTalker (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both! Aythya affinis (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsure how to proceed on a citation[edit]

Hi all, I'm still new to editing and have so far fixed simple things like broken redirects or number errors, but I've come across a particularly bizarre wall. Using Citation Hunt this uncited line from Discord's page was brought to my attention

  • "Discord allows users to connect various external platforms to their account, including Steam, Reddit, Twitch, Twitter, and more. These accounts can optionally be shown on the user's profile."

Having used Discord, I know this is certainly a feature that exists within the software. but original research is a no go so I went hunting for some documentation to prove that the feature existed and found only two support articles: This one, mentioning Spotify intergration and This one, targeting Xbox Live integration, I don't exactly know how to proceed, as these two articles demonstrate the existence of components of the system described, but not of the system itself. The way I'm thinking about it in my head is "Am I allowed to say cheese exists if I only have sources for cheddar and mozzarella?"

I appreciate any insight, AGuyNamedSquid (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@AGuyNamedSquid Welcome to the Teahouse. Regarding Cheese, you are certainly able to say that cheese exists if you only have sources to say that cheddar and mozzarella exist. But probably not that cheddar and mozarrella are types of cheeses if you cannot demonstrate that as a fact! Now, I'm not a very technical person, but if statement about the feature you refer to in Discord is not contentious, then I feel it would be OK to leave it there uncited, even if the tag remains. Obviously, another editor could feel it was contentious and might expect a citation sometime soon, or they would feel able to remove it. But if this was a very obvious feature that we'd be expected to know, then maybe it remaining there unsupported without a citation would be acceptable to most editor (rather like uncited 'Plot' descriptions in film and TV articles). Either way, I would delete "...and more" which is quite unnecessary and somewhat tautological. This issue is perhaps something to raise at Talk:Discord. I hope this short reply is of some help. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
AGuyNamedSquid, see if this helps [8] from CNN.Slywriter (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

David Ochoa and Julian Araujo are no longer eligible for the USA national team, people keep adding to the team when they are no longer eligible[edit] I edited the team and took them off, but some stupid person keeps adding them back! 03:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Msantiking0309 (talkMsantiking0309 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems Keskkonnakaitse, who is an experienced editor, reverted your edits saying in the edit summary that your wrong, but part of what you said was true. If the information you know is true than back it up with a reliable source. And please refrain from calling other Wikipedians stupid. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 03:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
And please read WP:MINOR. Restoring a contest4ed edit is certainly not a minor edit. Meters (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Msantiking0309: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I suggest you start a new section at Talk:United States men's national soccer team where you discuss the change you would like to make to the article and provide the reliable source, and work with Keskkonnakaitse and others to build consensus. Thanks for your efforts to make Wikipedia better, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the "cabal" on humorous essays real?[edit]

Some pages (such as this one) have this template at the top:

Decree.png This is a decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW). It expresses opinions and ideas that are absolutely and irrefutably true whether you like them or not. Changes to it must reflect the wishes of the Supreme Cabal. When in doubt, please ignore the talk page and just keep reverting.

Is this cabal actually real? (This is YOUR page) (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC) It may have been when the essay was created in 2007, but it's unlikely that it's still "active". GoingBatty (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
So it existed back then, but doesn't anymore? (This is YOUR page) (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
It may have existed back then, but it's unlikely that it exists any more. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
It never actually existed. The circus got closed down due to poor reviews in any event, and so pages intentionally meant to just be humourous aren't a thing anymore. (That's not to say incidental comedy is a lost art on Wikipedia - just look at List of whale species.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano: - okay, I give up. I looked through List of whale species pretty carefully, and I must have missed the incidental comedy. Can you at least give me a hint where it is?--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Picture column, everything that lacks an image. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Jéské Couriano that made my day. Thank you so much for drawing our attention to that! Elemimele (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Jéské Couriano LOL! I had to scroll down almost to the end of the article, but it was well worth it! It is so nice to see that a sense of humour has not been completely banished by the WP Fun Police! Thank you. Smile.gif --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

How do I delete my account from this Trash Fire of a thing called Wikipedia[edit]

How do I delete my account from this Trash Fire of a thing called Wikipedia. The admin I've encountered are bossy grouches who just show up, jump to conclusions and criticize when I've been trying to do my best for a long time. When you calmly explain they made a mistake, they follow with another dig. Then when you say one thing on the page is important to you they ignore you like you don't matter and tell you to stop being negative or they'll make you! Ugh! In two days I've learned to hate Wikipedia. Some of your admin think they can treat people as rudely as they want, when this place wouldn't exist without amateur volunteers. It's not worth volunteering for something where the admin treat you like crap.  Daltonsatom (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You can't. Just stop using your account. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Stupid website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talkcontribs) 07:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure. Bye. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, thanks for your help. :) Don't like limbo accounts.Daltonsatom (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
It appears that this is about the article Intellivision Amico. -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Retiring for a means of creating a RETIRED banner atop User page, and I suppose Talk page. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Daltonsatom: Sorry you had a bad experience here. Per Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts, "It is not possible to delete user accounts, as all contributions must be assigned to some identifier". GoingBatty (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

First or last names in plot summaries?[edit]

I've always assumed that in plot summaries in film articles, after the first listing of a character's full, subsequent references to that character should use their last name only, instead of their first name, but I just realized I can't find this convention in WP:FILMPLOT. Which is it? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Pete Best Beatles I think MOS:SURNAME applies here.--Shantavira|feed me 09:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The last sentence of MOS:SURNAME says "For fictional entities, use common names. For example, Jason, Luigi, and Wesker". I think this applies to plot summaries; use the name that is most commonly used in the film, or most commonly used in reviews of the film or sources about the film. It is quite possible in a film to have someone referred to only by their given name throughout the film, and yet whose surname is known, for example from a brief glimpse of an ID badge in some scene. It would be very unhelpful in such a case to use their surname. Where a character has a full name, given and surname, and both are used in a realistic manner, then it makes sense to use WP's normal rules for real life. For example, DI Humphrey Goodman in Death_in_Paradise_(TV_series) is called DI Goodman in professional situations, and Humphrey to his friends and family. In our article, he is initially referred to by his whole name, then "He" a couple of times, before "Goodman's replacement on St Marie is...", a very natural style for Wikipedia, and easily followed by our readers. Elemimele (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Why can page movers edit editnotices?[edit]

It seems like the least related permission there is in the group. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism by a particular un-logged IP[edit]

There is an un-logged IP user who makes clear vandal edits after every few days with different IPs. I have got about 10 different IPs and all have the same kind of vandal edits in Indian constituency pages, making it pretty obvious that it's the same person. By the time these edits are discovered and reverted, the IP user starts making similar changes on other Indian constituency pages a few days later with a different IP.

The last couple of IPs from where vandalism has happened are - 1 2 3 4 5

Is there any way to permanently block this vandalism from this particular user?. Thanks. Dhruv edits (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dhruv edits Yes, you can report the vandalism to an admin but I do not see enough evidence to say that all those ip addresses could all be one user. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 09:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

John Pelham (died 1429)[edit]

Can someone please show me how to make a note (labelled "a") from the end of the first paragraph in this article, after footnote "2". I want to include a short quotation in the note. Ficaia (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

To make a note, you must use this template {{efn|put what you want here}}. Then you must make a section called notes right above the references section and put the template {{notes}} in there so it will list out all the notes. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 09:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Cheers :) Ficaia (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Biography of a scientist rejected[edit]

Dear Wikipedians, I am a first-time editor, and I am trying to create a page for Jannis Panagiotidis, a German historian who is a prominent migration scholar, world-famous in his field (history of Russia Germans). My submission has been declined because apparently it does not qualify for a Wikipedia article — does no not show significant coverage. Could someone please help me to understand what "significant coverage" means specifically in the case of a living person/a scientist? For example, there are interviews with him in large newspapers such as the German Die Zeit, which I have linked in the draft - doesn't this qualify as "significant coverage"? What specific type of content would qualify as "significant coverage" in this case? THANK YOU for your help! Iravienna (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iravienna: Notability is determined when the article has significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Interviews are not independent of the subject. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 14:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Reading is key. The notice says a lot more than what you mentioned. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 14:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't give up. He looks a 1000 times more relevant than half of the existing enWiki articles, and you've done an excellent work in putting together the material. But you'll be stopped from posting it if you don't come up with more RS, reliable sources, which I am sure you can find: with his number of publications on such a topical issue, there's no way he's not quoted by at least half a dozen colleagues in books and peer-reviewed journals. Admins love those. Die Zeit is a perfect recommendation for me, but some are setting the formal threshold higher. Please ping me once you've managed, I'm interested in the article. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden He sure is quoted in many publications by other scholars! But those are all strictly scientific books and articles. I did not think Wikipedia is the right place for such quotes, but now I will try. Thanks for advice! Iravienna (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I edited the references to be more aligned with Wikipedia format. I also completely changed the description of his involvement with the Ambivalences ref, as all I saw in the ref was that he led a discussion at a conference. What I removed was "He is also the principle investigator in the project on post-Soviet immigrant communities in Germany." If that is true, it needs a better ref. In general, I agree that more references ABOUT him are needed. David notMD (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft of redirect page[edit]

How to work on draft of a redirect page? Mukesh.kfc (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mukesh.kfc, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking. If you mean you want to create a draft, but the name of your proposed article is already in use as a redirect, then go ahead and create the draft anyway: when a reviewer accepts your draft into the encyclopaedia, they will sort out what happens to the existing redirect. If you mean something else, then please explain more clearly. --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mukesh.kfc — Per ColinFine, feel free to just create the draft. Simply enter your article name and insert the draft prefix (Draft:(insert title here)). You’ll notice that when using the template {{draft article}}, it’ll say: “The page (insert title here) in the mainspace currently is a redirect to (target page here)”. When you submit your draft, if it’s accepted, then your draft will either A: be copy-paste moved, or B: the redirect will be deleted under CSD G6, and the draft will be moved to take its place. Hopefully this helps. — 3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS — 21:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Create table of contents when less than 4 headings[edit]

A TOC can be useful for DAB and talk-pages, even when they don't have the required 4 headings. Talk-pages for instance can have discussions that go on forever, a TOC can help with jumping over the "mammoths". By using the "TOC right" tag one can always create a TOC, but on the right side, where I don't find it as user-friendly. Any solution for a regular TOC on the left? Thanks! Arminden (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Arminden! You'll probably kick yourself. :) Use Template:TOC left. Hope this is of help! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Dong... Can you hear it? That's me kicking myself. Thing is, I had tried once with <nowiki>{{tocleft}} and remembered that it didn't work. Now I see that does create a TOC, but it's not above the first paragraphs, it pushes into it and squeezes it to the side. But it's there. Thanks! :))
Done, sorted, can be archived (unless you know how to fix that too, but it's not really important). Arminden (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Arminden! No worries, so many templates. :) I'm happy to have helped. You can fix the spacing issue with {{clear left}} placed right next to the TOC left. That will make it nice & tidy just like a normally placed TOC. There's an example on my User Talk page. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
It looks great! I'll put on a turtle-neck in your honour. NOW. Thank you!! Arminden (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Essay-like Tone? How long before my article is ready?[edit]

Hi! I'm working on the article Draft:Envelope Encryption. It got rejected a few days ago in the AfC queue because the tone was too essay-like, and I got a few comments about citation style. I fixed what I thought/was told was essay-like tone and the citations, but I'm not sure I covered everything. It seems like I haven't fully absorbed what the Wikipedian definition of "essay-like" is yet, so I would really like help with this. I am auto-confirmed, but I submitted to the AfC queue because I wanted feedback. Here are some questions I'd like help with:

1: Could somebody look at my fixed article and say if they think there are still essay-like parts of the tone? Some specific pointers would be nice!

2: I theoretically have permission to move my article out of drafts, since I am auto-confirmed. How many rounds of feedback should my article go through before moving it out of drafts? Do you think it's ready?


 A40585 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@A40585: Welcome to the Teahouse! The topic of your draft isn't in my area of expertise, but I wonder if you're overcapitalizing. For example, should we use "Key Management Systems" or "key management systems". The key management article leads me to believe that lower case is correct. Good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Thanks for the warm welcome! Great catch! That's a mistake I make pretty often in technical writing. I fixed it. A40585 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Bumping a question[edit]

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I got my question from a few hours ago partially answered (thanks to GoingBatty!), but I'd like a bit more feedback and opinions about when I can ship the article. For reference, it's this one: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Essay-like_Tone?_How_long_before_my_article_is_ready?. Thanks, and please tell me if bumping is bad etiquette! A40585 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@A40585 Welcome back, and thanks for asking. Don't take it the wrong way, but because all posts here get archived after just 2-3 days of inactivity, bumping isn't really needed or appropriate. If a discussion gets continued input from editors over a week or two, then the post will end up at the top of Teahouse list until that activity ceases. Only then will it be archived. You should then get an automated message on your talk page saying it's been archived. So, if you still don't feel you've had your question fully addressed, that would then be the time to come back and ask again, ideally linking in to the now-archived thread that has been closed (there'll be a link in that automated message).
I'm not sure I can add much to what GoingBatty said, as it is very technical. I suggest your second sentence is used as the lead sentence. It makes more sense to a dolt like me. I would, however, strongly advise any new editor not to move an article they care about directly into mainspace. Once there, it stands a much greater risk of being deleted as inappropriate, whereas by going theough Articles for Creation drafts don't get rejected without good reason, and then you get a chance to take on board the feedback you're given. The downside is that it can take a long time to be processed - perhaps up to 2 or 3 months. Your own uncertainty tends to confirm that getting reviewer feedback would be helpful. Another route is to post at WP:WikiProject Computing and ask the technogeeks there to take a look. All that being said, it does look like it's potentially notable. I found this intro gave me a better understanding, and could also be used to confirm notability. If you're really unsure, you could always search related articles and see if what you want to add could actually be inserted into one of them. I hope this helps - and well done on getting this far. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes Thanks so much for your feedback! :-) I'll try those things too, since it looks like going through a WikiProject will be the best way to get a reviewer with a domain knowledge. I didn't realize you could do that. I'll try to take some inspiration from that intro too, but sadly the source itself is user-editable wiki style documentation :(. Thanks again, and I'll keep working on my draft this week! A40585 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to follow specific Wikipedia projects[edit]

I want to somehow specifically follow the Wikiprojects theology and LGBT studies. Is there a way I can do this? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@MaitreyaVaruna: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can go to the WP:WikiProject Theology and WP:WikiProject LGBT studies pages and click the star icon to add them to your watchlist, so you can see when discussion is happening. Is that what you meant by "follow the Wikiprojects"? Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Yes that is what I wanted to do. Thank you MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Once you have a Watchlist, you can add or remove article titles. You can also choose to watch individual editors. Which should not descend into stalking. David notMD (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Trying to fix references[edit]

Hi! My submission ( ) got declined and I'm trying to fix the references and reliable sources. Could someone take a look at help me with what I'm doing wrong? Thanks much. Profjrhodes (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)profjrhodes

Remove all hyperlinks from the body of the article. I suspect that none of the awards are Wikipedia-significant, and thus the awards section should be deleted, but I defer to editors with knowledge of LGBTQ scholarship and Wikipedia's guidelines on awards. IMBd is not an accepted ref, as anyone can edit it. David notMD (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Profjrhodes: Welcome to the Teahouse! IMDb can be used in the "External links" section. I suggest you expand each reference to include a |work= or |publisher= parameter, and also a |year= or |date= parameter. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

What would be sufficient indication of Astolfo's notability[edit]

I recently made an article Draft:Astolfo (Fate/stay night) for a character who is definitely notable culturally relative to other characters such as Byleth (Fire Emblem) who have full articles. What kind of coverage should I include in the article to establish the notability? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MaitreyaVaruna. I notice that your draft has only three references while the Byleth article has 22 references. Try to find coverage similar to those 22 for your draft. Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
One thing to note, though, is that notability isn't about the number of references so much as their quality. What you're looking for is works that come from a reliable source (one with a strong reputation for fact checking), that have detailed coverage focusing on that character in particular (not just incidental mentions of them as part of coverage of the wider series), and that are unaffiliated with Type-Moon. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

What part of Wikipedia needs the most help?[edit]

I have been an occasional contributor to Wikipedia since 2016 who has so far stuck mostly to topics I was particularly passionate about at the time. My most notable contribution by far has been the creation of the List of mass shootings in the United States article.

But I would like to contribute to Wikipedia more regularly and graduate from being a WikiTeen. I'm not particularly confident in my ability to write new articles or completely transform existing ones because I'm not a subject-area expert, more a jack of all trades.

What area of Wikipedia needs the most help? Categorization? Spelling/grammar errors? A particular subject? OttoKaneko (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, OttoKaneko. I suggest that you check out Wikipedia:Community portal, where you can find many lists of tasks that need to be worked on. Cullen328 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Cool, thank you. Not sure how I missed that. OttoKaneko (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@OttoKaneko, the Task Center has a bunch of options. One particular place that you can look is Articles for Improvement, which targets important but low-quality articles. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Awesome, this looks even better. Thanks! OttoKaneko (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Overzealous deletion[edit]

I am having an issue with another Wikipedian. They seem set on deleting anything I add--and it appears from their talk page that they have done this to many others.

First they deleted notables that I added to city and high school pages, indicating that these people were not notable because they are not in Wikipedia. While I would have preferred it if this person had taken the time to review my citations, rather than assuming I was wrong, this is why there is a talk page. Next they deleted my addition of a notable who has a Wikipedia article, saying "they only went to school there." I maintain that going to elementary, junior high and high school in a town means a person is from a community and grew up there, matching the very definition of a related notable. At the same time, this Wikipedian did nothing to the other existing notables whose articles don't even mention a relationship to the city (something I plan on fixing, rather than deleting). To me, this shows malice toward me personally, rather than a sincere desire to follow the guidelines.

This has been going back and forth on two articles, and has escalated. Yesterday, I spent about 5 hours finding sources for data without citations, correcting incorrect facts, and adding content to the history section for the city. Ny change were +4,274‎. I used many sources, including a UNC press book, newspaper articles and the NCpedia (State Library/NC Dept of Cultural Resources), museums, and a credible e-newspaper. This person reverted all my work, saying that I used a blog as a source. Even if I did use a blog for one reference, why would any reasonable person delete other content that was unrelated to the blog? But I did not use a blog--I have a masters in library science and a masters in history, and know what an appropriate source is.

In the past, my activity as an editor has been adding sources and updating content. I rarely make bigger changes. I recently decided to try to be more active because I am currently not working (recovering from surgery) and the American Library Association has encouraged librarians (and women) to get involved. I want to do this, but I getting really frustrated and feeling bullied by this person. Today, I left them a message on their talk page making my case and asking them to revert my content and let me fix the source they are concerned with. However, based on the comments others have left, I am not expecting a response. If I don't hear back, what is my next step. How do I get someone to adjudicate this dispute? Is this normal? Rublamb (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)