Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

template

Hello, I'm need of some assistance with creating a Wikipedia page about a music artist. Can anyone advise which template to use? RATHOMP (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

look at other Wikipedia pages about music artists ... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. From your question, I suspect that you are focussing on the layout of your proposed article (I'm guessing that that's what you mean by a "template" - we use the word a bit differently here). But while the layout of an article is important, it is MUCH less important than the quality of the sources used. Until you have found adequate sources to establish that the artist meets Wikipedia's criteria for [[WP:notability|}], it's pointless spending any time thinking about the content or the layout. To use a house-building analogy, you may have an idea for what you want your house to look like, and even a plan; but until you've surveyed the site to make sure it's fit to build on, and checked that your plans meet local building regulations, it would be a waste of effort to start building.

More generally, My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there a specific place you're currently working on the article at? I can't seem to find it on your userpage as a subpage. For advice, I'd recommend looking at other music artist articles (specifically various quality articles from The Beatles [FA] to Sepultura [C-class]) for general outlines on how to write it. For infoboxes, use {{infobox musical artist}} and fill out the template using it's template page at Template:Infobox musical artist. For general advice on writing, see Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, I'd recommend WP:Nutshell as a starting point.

Thanks, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 08:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

how can I rigth a article in wikipedia

how can I rigth Daniel Muanga (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article wizard

69.181.17.113 (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

New editors are strongly advised to first gain skills by doing time improving existing articles. References required. David notMD (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

See referencing for beginners. When editing, think twice, preview before publishing (maybe even twice) and take responsibility. Cwater1 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Find a Grave = WP:RS ?

Is Find a Grave = WP:RS ?

69.181.17.113 (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please consult Wikipedia:FINDAGRAVE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The answer is "no" because Find a Grave consists of user generated content, and is specifically mentioned in the WP:USERGENERATED section of the reliable sources guideline as a source that should not be used as a reference on Wikipedia. That does not mean that Find a Grave is of no value to Wikipedia editors. You may be able to find nuggets in those listings that will inform your searches about various people. Some but not all Find a Grave listings include references to reliable sources, and those sources may be useful as Wikipedia references. One thing that Find a Grave can teach editors is that many people down through the years share the same name, and we need to be very careful to avoid including biographical details about one Andrew Wilson in an article about another Andrew Wilson. That's just one of countless examples. I have been working on Andrew Stephen Wilson today, so that's why I chose that example.. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello -- I would like to start helping, but I'm having trouble finding what to do!

I see lots of support for ultra basics, but I know what the concept is, and how to edit, and how to make italics and hyperlinks, and that I should use a neutral voice, etc. I am trying to find some guidance on WHAT to contribute. I found the Typo Team (or at least, this typo team), but I haven't found guidance on interacting with it. (Do I delete entries if I resolve them? Yesterday I found many entries to check, but today none of the articles seem to HAVE the potential typo that was listed, or even a fixed version). I have found this Growth page, but can't get the features working. For example, it says to enable the Help panel in the Editing tab, but I don't see such a thing in the Editing tab. I also can't find "Display newcomer homepage" in my user preferences. Similar with Suggested Edits -- how can I "use Special:NewcomerTasksInfo"? Etc., etc. I must be missing some key piece of advice -- where can I figure out how to get things rolling? SKM (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Skmccormick. As a volunteer project, you're free to do whatever you wanna do best. Want to copyedit a bunch of articles and bring our grammar up to shape? Join the Guild of Copy Editors and go wild. Wanna fight vandalism? Go patrol Special:RecentChanges and stop those dang vandals! Wanna go help out that typo team? Go right ahead. It's your choice. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Skmccormick

• You should find display user homepage at the bottom of Special:Preferences, "User profile" tab.
• If I wanted to interact with the typo team, my first place to try would be Wikipedia talk:Typo Team.
• Have you found WP:TASKS and WP:REQUEST? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! These links are helpful. I found "display user homepage" under User Profile. So maybe a silly question, but: how do I find this user homepage? I don't really go to Wikipedia generically, I usually jump straight to an article. Tasks and Requests seem like what I'm looking for. SKM (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The link should be right at the top of every page when you're logged in, in the same place/menu as the link to your userpage. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Skmccormick, do you have any particular topics that you'd like to edit about? One way to find a lot of articles that need help is to go through our various maintenance backlogs (Gråbergs Gråa Sång has already linked you to WP:TASKS). Some people are content to plug away at a particular backlog chronologically, but if you prefer to edit on things you're generally interested in, it's helpful to filter these by wikiproject. Alternatively, do you have any particular skills or outside knowledge that might be helpful here? There's always demand for multilingual editors, the copyright folks are always backlogged, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I would prefer to get into the groove with smaller contributions before I start throwing any weight around. Sadly, I cannot offer multilingual help; I am American. I'm mostly having trouble navigating the various pages and internal tools like TASKS or RecentChanges (anything labeled "Special:" is still new to me). SKM (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup as a newbie task - not small, exactly, but hey, no time like the present to learn to WP:BEBOLD. You don't (or shouldn't) need to do any research to fix these articles - most of them are here because they are tagged with "lead too short". Find one of those, read the article, then rewrite the lead so it summarizes it accurately. Then remove the tag. All this requires is good English literacy, and since the lead is what most people read and what is used in the google knowledge box etc, it's a high-impact change that requires very little wiki-knowledge. -- asilvering (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Different images for Light/Dark mode

Is there any way to tell Wikipedia to display different images / media for Light vs Dark mode users? Due to transparency, some SVG and PNG images have bad contrast when viewed in Dark mode. CrushedAsian255 (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@CrushedAsian255 This question is likely to have a better audience at WP:VPT. That board has a more technically oriented team than here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Wider vs specific consensus

Can a case-specific consensus triumph a wider topic consensus already established? Not that consensus over wider topic is changed but maybe because that case is viewed from a different perspective. ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 07:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor I doubt it. Were that to be the case we would not have consistency of operation. This question is likely to have a better audience at WP:VPP. That board has a more policy oriented team than here 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @ExclusiveEditor, and welcome to the Teahouse. While I agree with FiddleFaddle's advice, I would also remark that general questions like yours are very frustrating for people who attempt to answer questions here. If you explain the specific issue you want guidance on, you are much more likely to get a useful answer (and also be less likely to be suspected of wikilawyering).

I am aware of the possible irony in my answer, given your question. ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! Being a half-host on Teahouse myself I get you. I was inspired to ask this question by the discussion happening here. The latter part of the discussion specifically focuses on if 'Nobel prize' should be added or not in Jimmy Carter's death blurb on Main page's ITN section. It was initially proposed by the nominator and many supported it (albeit not mentioning specifically the Nobel prize) and it got posted without the mention of the prize. However later there was some more scrambling, this time with more regard to the Nobel prize and so it currently updated to include the prize in the blurb. The opposers are generally arguing that it is editorializing and other things. I may not be very good in summarizing discussions, so I left it in the question. --ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 10:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

How to upload a >100 MB file to Wikipedia?

I've uploaded plenty of files to Commons before, but I've only uploaded a few (non-free) files to WP. I would like to upload a short film that will become public domain in the US at the start of 2025 (won't be PD in its country of origin for a few years, so no uploading it to commons), but the file is over 100 MB, the maximum file size listed on the upload page. I don't want to compress it any more than it already is, so how to I get around this? I've seen several films large than 100 MB on WP already (1, 2), so it must be possible.

Any help with this is greatly appreciated. Thanks. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Toast for Teddy This question is likely to have a better audience at WP:VPT. That board has a more technically oriented team than here 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Toast for Teddy That first file you linked was uploaded with the aid of a userscript discussed at Commons:User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js. I don't pretend to understand the details, but you may ;-) Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if you're uploading "locally", Commons:Upload tools is likely helpful. All the projects use the same MediaWiki software, all that needs adjustment is the destination for the upload. --Slowking Man (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Editing a sandbox, references number is doubling

Hi there! I was editing my sandbox and for some reasons all the different references I am adding are doubling the number of them and the previous ones are not disappeared. I was following your suggestions to add COI edit to my text, eliminating the internal sources and the bold words. Can you help me or it is just a matter of viewing and once I publish the sand box they will all disappear? Andrea Biographer (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Andrea Biographer: it seems that with this edit you've duplicated the contents by pasting an earlier edit into the page, thus embedding a copy of the entire page within the page (if that makes sense). You should undo your most recent edits up to and including that one. Or if you'd like me to do it, let me know. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing, thanks for your prompt answer! I think you made sense, could you check and fix this for me? I don't want to commit any further mistakes in the editing process or in the COI different templates, thanks in advance! Andrea Andrea Biographer (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Theroadislong has already sorted this out. Also, your draft is now located at Draft:Gridspertise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

how to give feedback

i had a question on why an article was written and sent it to info@ wikipedia. they told me that I needed to engage in the "talk" feature and ask the editors, since wikipedia is only a platform. I did that and not only was the answer not given I was ridiculed, because I am not actually sure why. I am not interested in editing wikipedia, I am only interested in engaging with the editors, to understand inconsistencies. How exactly would I do that, if I should not be using the talk feature. thanks Mommer264 (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Discussion about an article usually takes place on its talk page. Discussion with an editor directly can occur on their user talk page.

Note that your only other edit was about the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict, which is a topic area with special rules that I will notify you of on your user talk page. One of those is that you must be an experienced user in order to make edits to any type of page about it. Your account must be 30 days old with 500 edits. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Also answering your query: :You asked a question that is now at Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 21. Talk pages of articles are not for 'open' questions. Instead, the proper method is to propose a specific change of text, as in replace A with B, and include a reference to support your proposal. Given that State of Palestine is a very controversial article, editors who participate there - at both article and talk - can be short on tact. David notMD (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not interested in editing wikipedia If you're not interested in contributing to the project, then you probably ought to go elsewhere. The purpose of Wikipedia is to produce an encyclopedia; notably, talk pages are for constructively discussing the project and its content, not general Internet forums for discussion. There are many many discussion forums elsewhere on the Internet, and Wikipedia can even help direct you to some of them. If you do wish to contribute to the encyclopedia, take a look at WP:Welcome. Thank you and I hope you have a good day. --Slowking Man (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

VisualEditor

I've just changed my Preferences > Editing

Turned on "Enable the visual editor" (which, I think, it's on by default in Wikipedia in Italian language)

But i can not find out how to edit with VisualEditor.

I've looked at Help:VisualEditor and it says (Help:VisualEditor#Opening VisualEditor to click on the "Edit" tab (in the picture I can see a "drop down" menu to choose the editor).

But I've not this choice. My tab is named "Edit source". Centrodiurnomilano (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I've found out, reading Help:VisualEditor#First step: enabling VE (which seems a bit outdated, by the way).

After I've changed my Preferences > Editing > "Enable the visual editor" = ON

and the press "save" button at the bottom.

Only then, a "drop down menu" show up in the same section: "Editing mode", which is setted by default "Remember the last editor". I've changed it to "Show both editor tabs".

It's not easy to find out. Centrodiurnomilano (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I've looked at the settings on Wikipedia in Italian language and "Enable the visual editor" it's enough there (there is no "Editing mode" option at all) Centrodiurnomilano (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia and English Wikipedia run on the same system, MediaWiki, but are two different Wikipedias. So if this is a question about itwiki, then you should go to a help board on itwiki. If this a question about enwiki, you should be able to switch between the source editor and visual editor by pressing the pencil button next to the preview button in the source editor. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

But, @Centrodiurnomilano, do note that you can only use the VisualEditor is some namespaces but not all. You can in mainspace, userspace, draftspace but not in wikispace which is the space with the Wikipedia: prefix. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Cowboygilbert . I've tried in main space and the in user space. Centrodiurnomilano (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Were you able to fix it using the instructions that I put, you should be able to switch between the source editor and visual editor by pressing the pencil button next to the preview button in the source editor.? Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

"No Such Number tone" / "crybaby tone" (type of intercept error)

Hello everyone. This is one of my first times writing a brand-new article, and I'm not sure if this is a notable enough topic for its own page or a subsection in the intercept message.

This technically isn't a message, but before the intercept message was used, a different type of tone could also be returned instead of connecting to an operator. This is known under many different names, such as the "no such number tone" or even the "crybaby tone." This tone would be returned if a caller attempts to dial a number that can't possibly exist according to the numbering plan. The call would not be allowed to go through because some of these numbers could be reserved for private use. The tone itself is continuous, sweeping from 200-400Hz back to 200Hz again over the course of one second.

The issue is that it's almost exclusively used in North America, if not, completely exclusively. It was introduced by the Bell System in 1941, but I've also heard of it in use by the 3CX Asterisk system. However, my intent is to preserve information about this tone, as next to no information seems to exist about it. An excerpt from the Bell Labs Record describes it here. It also seems to be exclusive to crossbar systems.

[1] Bell Labs record

[2] Article about this record

[3] Sample of this sound

What do you think of this? ZetaformGames (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ZetaformGames, welcome to the teahouse and welcome to Wikipedia! I think that this could be a good idea as a subsection in the article for Intercept message or some other related article. I don't think that there is enough for a full article with the sources you've posted but could definitely be an interesting paragraph! Justiyaya 07:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! And thanks for the welcome. I made this account a while ago, but haven't felt confident enough in my editing skills until now to contribute. ZetaformGames (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Maryam Mirzakhani

Can someone fix the error in the Maryam Mirzakhani article?

Mirzakhani solved this counting problem by relating it to the problem of computing volumes in moduli space—a space whose points correspond to different complex structures on a surface genus Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "http://localhost:6011/en.wikipedia.org/v1/":): {\displaystyle g} . In her thesis, Mirzakhani found a volume formula for the moduli space of bordered Riemann surfaces of genus g {\displaystyle g} with n {\displaystyle n} geodesic boundary components. From this formula followed the counting for simple closed geodesics mentioned above, as well as a number of other results. This led her to obtain a new proof for the formula discovered by Edward Witten and Maxim Kontsevich on the intersection numbers of tautological classes on moduli space.

Thanks. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP 76.14.122.5. Generally, the best place to discuss something like this is on the talk page for the article in question, which in this case would be Talk:Maryam Mirzakhani; however, if you truly believe there's an error in the article, you can be WP:BOLD and fix it yourself if you think you can. Please understand though that "fix it" in this context means to correct the article in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the policies/guidelines most likely applicable in this case are going to be Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Ideally, you're going to need to find WP:SECONDARY reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia) to cite in support of the change you want to make; even if you know such changes to be true, you're still going to need to cite reliable sources in support to allow others to verify the changes. If you just make a change without providing any citations to a reliable source in support, there's a good chance the change will be undone by another user. Given that this seems to be related to mathematics, you might argue that "proving" the information to be incorrect based on Mirakhani's academic thesis is more than sufficient in and of itself, but Wikipedia generally requires something more and a thesis is going to be, for the most part, considered a WP:PRIMARY source and could have other issues as explained in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You could also try asking about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics since that's where you're going to have a better chance of finding someone sufficiently versed in mathematics who might be able to help sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC);post edited. -- 22:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Please disregard my reply IP 76.14.122.5. I misunderstood what you were asking about. ColinFine's suggestion below seems to be the best course of action here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. What you are reporting is a problem in the software, the network, or the user interface, and not in the content of the article. Generally, technical problems of this sort are better handled at WP:VPT than here. However, I'm not seeing that problem, either on the browser on my laptop, or on the Android app. Is it repeatable, or might it have been a temporary glitch?

Actually, now I look at it, the URL above appears to be a local proxy, so it may be that whoever manages your local network has not configured the proxy in a way that Wikipedia requires. Again, WP:VPT is a better place to ask about this.

@Marchjuly. The problem that the IP is reporting is obviously a technical one, so your answer is entirely off the point. ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my mistake and pointing the OP in the right direction ColinFine. I've stricken my reply so as to not confuse the OP or anyone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Stuck on Puerto Rico outages notability.

Hi, new to Wikipedia here and probably gonna create a draft on the Puerto Rico power outage crisis but wanted to ask: I’m stuck in the notability of this topic, so, is the Puerto Rico power outage crisis notable enough for Wikipedia? By power outage crisis I mean the beginning of the Puerto Rican outages from Hurricane Maria to now since it has lasted multiple years with sustained media coverage when an outage does occur. Cheers! 66.50.50.222 (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Rather than a new article, you could expand on the outages already documented in Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority and in LUMA Energy. Schazjmd (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

A search within Wikipedia on "Puerto Rico power outage" yields a list of several articles, including Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority and in LUMA Energy David notMD (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Noted. Will expand those articles then instead. Thanks! 66.50.50.222 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

My first impression would be that an article is likely warranted. PR is an island of ~3 million people, in the same neighborhood as Los Angeles. If Los Angeles were having sustained multi-year-long Issues with electrical service, there would be an article about it. Non-English language sources are perfectly acceptable for citing in articles, as long as a little care is observed.

Note, to the anonymous editor: if you create an account you get your own shiny neato userspace to use mostly at your leisure, where for instance you can work on draft articles with no hurry. I have one underway in mine in fact. And thank you again for being interested in contributing to Wikipedia!

(Regarding LA: some may have had come to mind the California energy crisis, but, neat fact, LA actually escaped impact from that because of having its own municipal utility with its own generation capacity!) --Slowking Man (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Note to User:Slowking Man: The userspace is the wrong place to draft an article. Either use your Sandbox or else follow instructions at WP:YFA to create a draft. David notMD (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Is "userspace" not the colloquial term for "your user page and any and all subpages of it"? The "official" user sandbox link is Special:MyPage/sandbox, which takes you to the /sandbox subpage of your user page. --Slowking Man (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, the IP editor (66.xx) here, just created my account, and I mainly refrained from creating an article due to being worried about a potential conflict-of-interest (I live in Puerto Rico myself). I might work on a draft later today and collect sources (as @BusterD suggested), thank you all btw for helping me clear up this question I’ve had for some time now! Atheions (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

On the other hand, User:Slowking Man is correct that an article might be created on this newsworthy subject and that one shouldn't necessarily rely strictly on English-language sources. Looking at the existing material, it certainly seems a sequence of outages could be established from some of the reliable sources already applied to pagespace. I agree with User:David notMD that WP:YFA is a place to consider how to start a new page. I would start collecting sources, online and in print. BusterD (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if jumping the gun or creating a draft too early, but I have created one. Won’t be able to do much progress today but will def collect sources to use. Atheions (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Am I allowed to post something about a game I am making on Wikipedia?

Am i allowed to post somthing about a game i am making? On Wikipedia Aaronfart14 (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Allowed? Yes. Good idea? No. Likely to remain on Wikipedia? No. Writing an article is difficult, particularly for new editors. And since this is about your game, you have a conflict of interest in writing about it. See H:YFA and WP:COI. Simply posting information about your game rather than writing an article would be promotion. See WP:PROMOTION Meters (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Aaronfart14, the relevant content guideline is WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Cullen328 (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If your game goes public, and if it becomes so popular that people are publishing about it, then there is a chance that someone other than you will create an article about it. David notMD (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Writing about Childhood and Early Life

I am writing an article about Andrea Sheridan Ordin, who is already included in two existing wikipedia articles entitled, "List of first women lawyers and judges in California" and "United States District Court for the Central District of California." I am interviewing her personally and have reputable sources about her career notability, but I'm not sure how to write her "early life" section, since there are not many sources describing her childhood aside from her firsthand account. How to I write about her early life without secondary sources? Aharten97 (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aharten97: It's not possible without reliable secondary published sources. For the policies, see WP:V. Personal notes from an interview are neither published nor reliable, and self-published statements are rarely reliable. If it's noteworthy it will have been published somewhere. If not then it isn't. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

https://ethics.lacity.gov/news/murray-and-ordin-re-elected-as-ethics-commission-leaders/ provides some info for an Early life and education section. David notMD (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

What to write on your talk page?

Above question HELSINKI!233 (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi and welcome, @HELSINKI!233. Your talk page is where other editors can leave messages for you or begin conversations with you. You can learn more at the guidelines for user pages. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not for chat, or your thoughts/opinions about stuff. Also, with a few exceptions, you are allowed to delete content from your Talk page, although some people prefer to archive older content instead. David notMD (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Citations about movies

I'm trying to improve The Lincoln Lawyer (film)

1) Is IMDB considered a good citation for the cast list, producer name, etc?

2) How do I add a citation to an existing infobox? (Visual or Source editor)

Many thanks

Ben (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi and welcome, @Littenberg. Imdb is not considered a reliable source because much of its information is user-generated. You can learn how to add citations at Easier Referencing for Beginners. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

If you click on Edit at the top menu it allows you to edit the entire article, including the Infobox. David notMD (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

How do I create a Wikipedia article

How do I create an article on Wikipedia? Красный Октябрь (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, @Красный Октябрь, and welcome to the Teahouse. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you help me learn how to make one? I want to make an article on the Kazan bombing that happened about a 1.5 week ago. Красный Октябрь (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Красный Октябрь, please be aware that the Russo-Ukrainian War is a designated contentious topic. You cannot write new content about that war until your account is Extended confirmed, which means the account is over a month old (it is) and has made over 500 constractive edits (you have a long way to go). Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Then can someone else make an article about it? Красный Октябрь (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts are here to advise, but not to be authors or co-authors. David notMD (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Who do I ask about it? Красный Октябрь (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Красный Октябрь, if you persist in discussing a designated contentious topic such as the Russo-Ukrainian War before you are extended confirmed, you may be blocked. So, please edit other topic areas until then. Cullen328 (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

You could ask on Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War. Normally such talk pages are protected, but that one doesn't seem to be at this time. What might happen is that someone adds a paragraph about the incident to the existing article rather than create a new article.

I'll add that editors who aren't extended-confirmed generally aren't permitted to use the talk pages of such articles either, and I have always disagreed with this, mainly because constructive edit requests end up in WP:RFED, making extra work for administrators. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Why are padlocks not automatically added when an article is protected?

Sorry if this is the wrong place. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Heyaaaaalol Because an administrator needs to add a protection notice (the padlocks) to a page in order to show the padlock on pages. Sometimes the padlocks do not get placed on a page, especially if it's a user page, unless if the protection notice is placed by an administrator. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Heyaaaaalol, I have done some page protection myself. Usually when I apply protection, I wish to see the "padlock" icon applied. Sometimes when I use the protection script, I forget to click the toggle which leaves the padlock icon. In that case, there's a bot which usually fixes that mistake automatically. If you see a protected page without an icon, you might tell someone. Do our answers help? BusterD (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Heyaaaaalol. To actually answer your question: because nobody has implemented that function in the software. I don't know whether there is a technical reason for that, or whether it's just that nobody's got round to it. Questions about the software and user interface are better asked at the Village pump: either WP:VPT or WP:VPR ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Heyaaaaalol: Protecting a page is a log action in the MediaWiki software which powers Wikipedia and thousands of other wikis. It does not make an edit to the page. Logs are separate from edits. Displaying a padlock with a link is a Wikipedia practice. We do it by editing the page and adding special code which places a padlock in the corner instead of the normal text area. Other wikis may use no or other symbols for protected pages, place them in other places, and make no or other links on them. A MediaWiki feature to automatically display a symbol on protected pages was recently added at phab:T12347 but it's disabled by default. I haven't examined how flexible it is but I guess it would be non-trivial for us to convert to using it when we already have a well-functioning system. There is so far only a single Wikimedia wiki which has set wgEnableProtectionIndicators to true in https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Multiple non-free album covers on one page

For the album Breakfast with Girls, there's an associated EP located at the section Brunch. The EP has an infobox but is currently without cover artwork, so I'm wondering if it's appropriate for the article to have another non-free image when one is already in use for the album's artwork. If not within free use, Brunch's artwork (seen here) is mostly text on a black background, so would I be allowed to crop out the non-text part and use that as a public domain text logo image in an infobox? Koopastar (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Koopastar, I do think that another cover would be within fair use. There's also been instances of this in the past like In Rainbows#In Rainbows Disk 2. Happy editing! Justiyaya 06:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

afd

I really like a certain article, but it's afd, if it is deleted, is there a way to still view it 🐢 (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

History checker SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If the article is still "public" currently, you can save a copy for yourself: Download as PDF (maybe see also Help:Export). Otherwise go to: CAT:RESTORE. --Slowking Man (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be about X11 color names, which has been in existance since 2003 and has been edited more than 700 times since then. While it is unlikely that it will be deleted, as noted, you can save a copy to your computer. David notMD (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hypothetically, could it be possible to write a netural autobiography?

Hypothetically, would it be possible for someone on Wikipedia to write a neutral autobiography of themselves? Showing the good and bad and making no favor to either side, providing proof and checking all of the boxes. How would that go and would it be accepted? What if say a Wikipedia administrator that is not really well known becomes for example the president of the US? Can they have oversight over their own article? Are they removed from their position? Can they no longer edit anything involving US politics due to their inherent bias? And finally has there been any real examples of this over the past 20+ years? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, SimpleSubCubicGraph. Hypothetically, what you describe is possible but the president of the US example is implausible because credible candidates for that office would already be the subject of a Wikipedia article. More plausible would be a longtime editor elected to a state or provincial legislature. I see no reason why that person could not submit an autobiography through Articles for Creation with full disclosure, have the article accepted and continue as an editor or even as an administrator. They should certainly recuse from the current legislative affairs of their state or province but otherwise I would not see a broader problem. As for whether anything like that has ever happened, I do not know. Maybe another editor does. Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph welcome to the Teahouse! Interesting questions. I would say that while it is hypothetically possible, guidelines still strongly discourage creations of autobiographies and I haven't seen an instance of it being successful outside of early Wikipedia. This would have to go through articles for creation and the editor should declare their conflict of interest. Subjects do not have oversight of their own article.

I would argue that if someone is elected president of the US they would have a financial relationship with the federal government and should stay away from editing those topics. I think they would have potentially less of a conflict of interest with state governments and historical united states politics. I don't think one would be removed as an administrator because they are elected to a public office here. I don't know of any Wikipedian that has been elected. CongressEdits is probably the closest to an example of this. Justiyaya 06:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Succeeding at autobiography is more likely to occur in an area such as WP:NACADEMIC. A senior professor at a university would have as models articles about other professors at their university. David notMD (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The only time I recall a good autobiography being written was when the CEO of a small business wrote one, submitted it for review, and it was accepted after some minor revisions. So it is possible.

By now I've gained enough experience on Wikipedia that I could probably write a neutral biography about myself, but because I am not notable, there's no point. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

a) It would probably go over reasonably well, presuming they followed the Correct way to do that kind of thing: don't create your own bio article (meaning here the literal "creating a new page in Main namespace") and don't edit it directly but put up stuff on the Talk page for others to evaluate, revise, and put into the article if they decide.

b) No, no one "owns" articles and gets special "powers" over them. Since all Wikipedia content is "free as in freedom" you and anyone else can copy it put it up elsewhere and do whatever with the copies, as long as you credit the original creators.

c) Why would they get adminship removed if they haven't misused it?

d) They probably ought to stay away from US politics content yes, being rather WP:INVOLVED. Also realistically the POTUS is not going to have ample free time to devote to Wikipedia contributing, or to be inclined to devote what little precious free time they get to, doing more work.

e) Have a look at WP:List of Wikipedians with articles. --Slowking Man (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Wiki page written by subject or friend of subject?

Hello, I saw a page on Wikipedia that looks like it was, based on the way it's presented, mostly written by the person who is the subject of the page, or a close friend. What is the standard flag or way to raise this on the page's talk page? Thank you for your help. FireBatV (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @FireBatV! Welcome to the Teahouse. The standard way is to tag the article with the Template:COI on the main article page. Alternatively, you can use Twinkle to tag it as well. TNM101 (chat) 12:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! I've added the {{Template:COI}} to the page in question (Rhett Ayers Butler) and as per the instructions on the template page I am have also added{{Connected contributor}} to the talk page, so editors can take it from there. Thank you again for the help and the friendly welcome, my issue has been resolved. FireBatV (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem! Feel free to reach out if you need any more help TNM101 (chat) 06:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Editing the Wikipedia page of "The crown"

i want to edit the Wikipedia page of "the crown" on netflix why i wont add the seventh season of "the crown" if you cant tell the staff at netflix please add aditional information like the royal wedding of prince william and kate Middleton and the queen involvement in the 2012 summer olympics in london england alongside James bond!!! 89.128.137.159 (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello IP Editor: there was no 7th season of The Crown, so your additions were inappropriate and were removed. Please don't add fake information to Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

False information is vandalism, which if continued can lead to your IP address being blocked and any account your subsequently register being blocked. David notMD (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Look for verified information about future seasons. This isn't forums and speculations. Cwater1 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The show button doesn't work on phone

Hi. Some articles have this dialouge box on top of them. But when we touch the show button on phone (Chrome for Android for me), nothing happens. I don't know about desktop. Aminabzz (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

What is an example of such an article? What happens when you use the Wikipedia app? Does it work then? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Aminabzz, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I agree. If I look at Amathus, I get that box (from template {{expand language}}) at the top, but on a browser on my Android phone, when I pick "Show" it replaces the word "Show" with "Hide", but doesn't expand the box, so I can't see additional information.

However, the box has a "Learn more" button, and if I pick that it shows me a little more, but not the full information that I see on my browser on a computer.

This looks like a bug in the user interface: WP:VPT is a better place to ask/report such things than here, and I suggest you post there. Thank you for pointing it out. ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I note that I cannot find any of these problems when I use the Wikipedia app. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

How to find the full form of abbreviations on phone?

Hi. On Wikipedia, some abbreviation words have dotline underlines. When we hover the mouse cursor on them on PC we can see the full form. For example, TBA reveals to be "to be announced".

But on mobile phones (Chrome for Android for me) there is no mouse so that we hover the cursor on them! So how can we find the full form of abbreviations on these dotline-underlined words in cellphones? Holding the word doesn't work.

Look at this for seeing the dotlines. Aminabzz (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That's one of the limitations of using a smartphone as a browser. There is no notion of "hover". I have seen hovering implemented in some Samsung phones, in which holding your finger near to the screen without touching it is sensed as a hover, but this worked only in certain apps and wasn't a universal experience across all apps on the phone. Unless someone has a better answer, I'd say that features reliant on hovering are generally not accessible on smartphones. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Samsung devices with S Pen support actually support "hover" by well, hovering the S Pen close to the display. The display has an "active digitizer" that can sense the Pen with NFC. Shows a little cursor and pops up stuff and you can hit the Pen's button to do things, very neat actually. ...Buuuut still doesn't work for the abbr stuff in browsers because it's handled differently in the system software (as it's not "really a mouse", it's handled by different code) and so doesn't "pass through" a mouse hover event down to the browser software. Shucks. --Slowking Man (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah this is a known problem for years. Abbr and friends use the standard HTML tags for such things, and browsers don't gaf apparently about making them "work" when there's no pointing device (mouse), and the attitude appears to be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. WP could implement some sort of JavaScript "workaround" that pops up a thing, but, that requires deploying something "globally" site-wide and that is a Big Deal so it needs Official approval: ask around at WP:VPT whether there's any effort in this direction. (FYI templates can't have JavaScript, it needs to be JS to "dynamically" add new page elements and display them)

In the meantime the "workaround" is to hit edit and look at the wikitext. Or you could also view the page HTML source and use the browser's "find" to go to the abbreviation which will show its definition. Also also there might be some userscript someone has made to make it pop up, which you can "install" to use while logged-in. (You could also always plug in a mouse/trackpad/etc or connect a wireless one ) --Slowking Man (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aminabzz, Anachronist, and Slowking Man: I couldn't find any such script, so I made it. JJP_Master (she/they) 05:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this something that needs to be deployed in the Wikipedia software, or is it something that a user can add to vector.js? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Anachronist: The latter. JJP_Master (she/they) 17:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aminabzz: Well, JJP has a solution for you, but it requires that you be logged into Wikipedia to take advantage of it. Me, I use the Wikipedia app for reading Wikipedia on my phone, and I never encountered a "hover" situation in that app. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

GA Spotcheck

Apparently I might've misunderstood what is needed for a source spotcheck in a good article review. Could someone please explain what is needed? History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Appears that at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, date 1/1/25, there has been a question raised about GA nomination reviews conducted by History60432. David notMD (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I am asking. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@History6042, note 2 on the Wikipedia:Good article criteria page explains source checking. If you're concerned that your interpretation isn't in line with the community's, you might find it helpful to discuss with other editors involved with the good article process at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Schazjmd (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

So it means Verifiable with no original research:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

it contains no original research; and

it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism? History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The note says "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources that agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in-text attribution if necessary)." Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay I think i did that but do I just need to like write it down? History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Saying in your review what you checked is helpful. Perhaps read through this discussion on spot checks. You might also find it useful to read through some GA reviews by experienced reviewers, see what they're doing in their written reviews that you can learn from. Schazjmd (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Creating an article heavily lacking sources :/

I've been working on trying create an article (Draft:Millennium Force's effects) but I've run into some issues; including after initial submission. The only sources I can find are mainly from various YouTube videos (not tied to the subject) and very few separate links; so it's no wonder why it wasn't accepted.

So I know what I've written down is true, but I don't have the secondary sources to prove it and that makes my info Original Research. What can I do? I was told I could try another Wiki (ex: Amusement Park Wiki) but is there anything I can do to keep it on Wikipedia? Thanks! Therguy10 (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Therguy10 Welcome to theTeahouse. I'm afraid not. Reliable sources are fundamental to Wikipedia articles. See WP:42. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Therguy10. I agree with Shantavira. Please see also No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Shantavira @ColinFine Thank you both! I do believe that the article has potential in the future, but I also understand it isn't notable enough as of now. With the article being a history of a subject, there is older information that I fear may not be written about. My hope is that the new changes made this year were important enough to spark some kind of interest for a source; I'll have to wait and see. Therguy10 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

well i guess technically the changes were made last year...lol Therguy10 (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources, why not improve the Ride experience section of Millennium Force? Schazjmd (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That was a strong consideration of mine. I certainly won't be able to fit everything inside of the main article but it might not hurt to add a little more than what I already have there. Once again my biggest issue would be collecting sources; this seems more doable. Thanks! Therguy10 (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Therguy10 Draft:Millennium Force's effects is not really notable and an entertainment topic, so please post it at fandom. Ned1a Wanna talk? 02:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

How do i delete a Wikepedia page?

a school has a wikepedia page, (carlisle public schools) i have moved the page to inside the town page (carlisle masssachusetts) so how do i delete the old school page? it is useless (i moveed the page because it contains about only 1 paragraph, so why not make it a section) so yeah, if someone knows how to delete a page, please delete Carlisle Public Schools

how to find page - go to the education part of carlisle, massachusetts, press carlisle public schools, and you will be there. Theawezomefriend12 (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Carlisle Public Schools is an article. If you believe it should be deleted, the process is to nominate it for deletion via the WP:AFD process. What you added to Carlisle, Massachusetts was rightfully deleted because you did not include any references. See Maynard, Massachusetts for an example of a referenced education section. I was going to point you to Acton or Sudbury, but those have unreferenced content. There is also Concord-Carlisle High School, but that has its own problems. David notMD (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks! Theawezomefriend12 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Theawezomefriend12: I'm going to offer some slightly different advice. For a small article in this situation: First copy the relevant text to the target article (the article about the town). If there are no references then be sure to add one or some. See WP:CWW for the correct process, if you are moving any text. Once that has been successfully done, turn the former article (the school district) into a redirect to the town as you did previously. There is no need to actually delete anything: redirects are useful for people trying to find things, such as information about Carlisle Public Schools, and can be safely left behind. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, i will remove the deletion (i dont know if thats possible i am new) and make the page redierect to Carlisle, Massachusetts. Theawezomefriend12 (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Theawezomefriend12: I've helped a bit with the deletion part. The best way to learn is to just do things, so I'll leave you to continue the process (and will probably pop back in a bit). I'll just mention that it appears that the only reason your previous attempt was reverted was because you didn't include any references for the content you were adding/moving to the town article. Sufficient references probably exist in the district article so they can just be copied. If not, I'm sure they won't be difficult to find. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

oh ok, i am propably going to be moving the main description and the new gallery part i added, i probably will not be added refrences and external links. Theawezomefriend12 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! PARIS

Good morning, good afternoon or good evening. Happy new year 2025. Please how to move to the main space the Draft:Hi! PARIS. This research center in AI is now one of the most important in France : https://www.lesechos.fr/tech-medias/intelligence-artificielle/une-dotation-de-70-millions-pour-la-formation-de-lelite-de-lia-en-france-2096150 and https://www.lemondeinformatique.fr/actualites/lire-hec-et-l-institut-polytechnique-remportent-l-appel-a-projets-cluster-ia-93818.html. Many thanks in advance for your help. Have a great day. 2A01:CB00:B48:9900:1C67:231F:4C2F:9933 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

On the AoPS Wiki go to special:move. I don't know bout wikipedia tho 73.31.42.97 (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry its Special:MovePage 73.31.42.97 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Bonsoir, IP user.

73. is right that the technique for moving pages is to use the Move function (though most people do it from their user-interface, rather than going to Special:MovePage.

However, not logged in users do not have access to that function.

I was going to advise you to submit it for review. However, I see that the draft was created in mainspace user BobVillars (since blocked for sockpuppetry) was then moved to Draft space by @Rosguill, was submitted for review by an ipV6 user in the same range as you, then moved to main space again by McSyl, also blocked as a sockpuppet of BobVillars, and moved back to draft space again by @Janhrach.

Neither you nor anybody else has since made any substantial edits to the draft.

I am finding it very difficult to assume good faith. I will ask you directly: are you BobVillars/McSyl? If so, you are evading your block, which is not permitted. ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Colin. Thanks for your answer. I don’t know what you are talking about. I am using 5G access so my Ip range is used by million of users. But if it is too complicated no worries, please cancel my request. This AI cluster is one of the most important in France and one of the biggest in Europe. So soon or later it will be back to mainspace. Have a great day. 2A01:CB06:B064:82B5:2C9D:5034:3AC5:1BD4 (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

AoPS page

Why isn't there a page for Art of Problem Solving? 73.31.42.97 (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP 73.31.42.97. There could be a couple reasons why: (1) nobody thought enough about the book/series to try and create one; or (2) somebody did try to create one, but the subject wasn't deemed to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books) and was either deleted altogether or added to Richard Rusczyk. Art of Problem Solving current WP:REDIRECTs to the "Rusczyk" article and its page history shows that there once was a stand-alone article about the book/series, but it was "redirected" per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art of Problem Solving (2nd nomination). If you feel something has changed since then, you might want to first explain why to the administrator who closed the Articles for Deletion discussion. That administrator's name is Liz. Perhaps by asking at User talk:Liz, Liz can tell you what is needed for the article to be recreated or restored. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Where is Wikipedia year in review for iOS?

I am looking for Wikipedia year in review in iOS where is it? 172.59.25.192 (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP user. This isn't something I'm familiar with, but a Google search yields this link which I hope gives you what you seek: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/New_Engagement_Experiments/PES_1.3.1:_Wikipedia_insights. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

How to find vandalism on Wikipedia?

The closest thing I have found to vandalism is on the page for the number 3, where someone changed references to “3” with “2.” I’m wondering how to find vandalism, so I can revert it. Most of my edits are fixing grammar. Thank you. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Heyaaaaalol Welcome to the Teahouse. If you'd care to read WP:VANDALISM, and especially the section linked from this shortcut: (WP:SPOTVAN), you should have all the answers you need. Monitoring 'Recent Changes' is the best way to spot ongoing vandalism, and you can choose to select only certain types of edits which highlight the most likely problematic edits for you to assess and respond to, and ignore all the honest ones. Thank you for your interest in helping out in this field. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Go to the “recent changes” link and there are filter options you can select. What you’ll want to do is choose “likely bad faith”, “very likely bad faith”, and “latest revision”. Then save that filter as your default. Grimaceshakeohio (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

"Series of small edits"

I find it difficult to follow and review edits for valid constructive contributions when an editor makes a "series of small edits" (example: 1, 2, 3) where several of the edits could, IMHO, easily and conceivably be made in a single edit with a single edit summary encompassing all of what is edited. Is there policy or guidelines about this practice that could help me in a talk page discussion I am currently engaged in? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, there's WP:Cautious, which touches on not making too large edits. There is probably better material than this, but I can't find it.

The point has been discussed on the Help/Teahouse desks before, and various editors have said that more smaller edits are better than one all-encompassing one, because if only one or two of several small edits are objected to, they can be reverted individually, but if they're part of a larger edit the whole thing has to be reverted and then it becomes difficult to sort out which details are accepted and which disputed.

I myself, when reading an article for its content, sometimes make small edits as I go along on noticing typos, misspellings, incorrect grammar, etc. If I were to be deliberately setting out to copyedit the article (I used to be a professional editor) I would likely make them in larger batches, perhaps one per Section or Subsection (basically, as often as [edit] is present in the text), because that makes for a smaller and easier chunk (with all its confusing reference codings) to navigate in the edit box.

In general, I don't think an editor making good-faith edits need think primarily of the convenience of some hypothetical would-be reverter, and I wouldn't criticise anyone for making successive small edits. Were the edits to smell of some deliberate obfustication as a cover for vandalism, or edit-count inflation, it would be another matter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Small or a series isn't the issue really. It is that several of the edits could fall under a single edit summary, and therefore could be made as one. I am curious about this comment though, "Were the edits to smell of some deliberate obfustication as a cover for vandalism, or edit-count inflation, it would be another matter", because that is kind of what I think is the heart of the matter. How can you differentiate between the two if we are not allowed to scrutinize editing behavior which is a mix perhaps of both lots of small, with some more impactful edits laced in there? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The key being the "lots of small" could just as easily be one edit under one edit summary, and then more larger or more substantive edits separately under another. If the "lots of small edits" are all broken into separate edits, for me at least, it makes it harder to check on someone's editing in the first place to determine IF there is in fact a case of real vandalism, deliberate edit-count inflation, or some other intended obfuscation. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You can differentiate because if it is a cover for vandalism, you can point out the vandalism. Edit-count inflation these days is mostly people trying to game their way to extended confirmed status - the edits you point out here are from an editor who already has that status. There's no policy against editing this way - this editor isn't doing anything wrong.

If you want to examine a set of contiguous edits at once, you can get a multi-edit diff by using the radio buttons on the history page of the article in question. MrOllie (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Understood, and no accusation of vandalism has been levied, but if several edits could be made under a single edit summary, is there any policy that they should be? That is really the essence of my question. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There is not. Schazjmd (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for answering my question then. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

How isn't that benign? Is there an issue with the individual edits? My editing tends to match my own writing (on non-Wikipedia, Word, etc.): dump a bunch of text, and make then increasingly granular refining edits. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Political Party Relations

Just like how we have Category:Sign language family tree templates, should we have that for political parties kind of like below but for whole countries? These would be based on the infobox political party preceded by/succeeded by/merger of/merged into. If so would these be their own article or would they be in the many "List of political parties in ___"? I am curious and want to know if these are wanted/needed.

SPD

Spartacus League

KPD

SED

PDS

WASG

Die Linke

BSW

History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi History6042, that's an interesting idea, you might want to pitch this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Justiyaya 03:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that, thanks. History6042😊 (Contact me) 03:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama Inquiries

This is regarding the article Liliget Feast House. The site where the restaurant once stood was torn down 2008, and I wanted to inquire regarding the best way to navigate Fair Use and Freedom of Panorama rules on Wikipedia in order to get photographs of the site on the page. This is probably best asked on Commons, but I'm not familiar with where I might be able to ask on there either. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ornithoptera. I think you can take a picture of the where the restaurant once stood and upload it here, which should be fine under Freedom of panorama#Canada which also allows incidental inclusion of copyrighted, non-architectural work (also commons:COM:FOP Canada). You would still be able to release a photograph that you took of publicly viewable buildings under a free license.

If you are asking about whether an inclusion of a non free file is allowed, I'm not sure but I think that it meets all the criteria seeing that the building was demolished and if a suitable free photo cannot be located. Justiyaya 05:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Justiyaya, thank you so much for your time! Truthfully I'm uncertain about using a photograph of where the restaurant once stood because it would be irrelevant to the content of the article (or at least for the intended use within the infobox). I am more asking about if I am able to use a non free file, yes, is there a venue where I can have a conversation with individuals who are more familiar with the matter? I'm not entirely sure if there is a relevant noticeboard/talk page/etc where I can bring this matter up with, if you or one of the editors here know one do let me know! Ornithoptera (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera I think it would be a good use of an non-free file. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions would be a relevant noticeboard for asking these types of questions. Commons won't be the place to go because they don't deal with non-free stuff. Hope this helps and happy editing! :D Justiyaya 06:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you so much for the assistance Justiyaya, didn't know there was a place like that! I'll go and send them a message hopefully within the week, I hope you have a wonderful day! Ornithoptera (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Why am I blocked from doing stuff on Russian Wikipedia?

According to my global account information I've been indefinitely blocked from doing anything other than viewing the Russian Wikipedia because I'm "using multiple accounts or having others promote me (so what I say is seen more correct)", but I'm not? I don't know anyone else with a Wikipedia account and as far as I know I only have one. It's just on the Russian Wikipedia, none of the others. I haven't really done anything on the Russian Wikipedia anyways. I've only edited my own user page. Why did this happen and how do I fix it?

More information: The exact stated reason was обход блокировки (bypass blocking) and it linked here. It also gave me a link to here. Красный Октябрь (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Красный Октябрь, welcome to the teahouse. English and Russian Wikipedia are moderated differently, so a block there should not affect editing here nor could the community here fix anything there. From what I've been able to see with google translate and all, it appears that you've been checkuser blocked by @Q-bit array without email or talk page access. The administrator appears to monitor cross wiki notifications so hopefully they would respond here. They also appear to monitor meta:User talk:Q-bit array. Usually appeals without talk page access go through WP:UTRS but I can't seem to find a similar system in ru-wiki. Justiyaya 05:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Красный Октябрь, the English Wikipedia and the Russian Wikipedia are entirely separate projects. Each has its own policies and guidelines, and its own separate teams of administrators. Here at the Teahouse, we can do our best to help you with problems you may have on the English Wikipedia. But we have no knowledge, power nor influence over the Russian Wikipedia, which is an autonomous project. Cullen328 (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you know where I can go on the Russian Wikipedia to get it fixed? Красный Октябрь (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, @Красный Октябрь I think the relevant section is ru:ВП:РАЗБЛОК. ColinFine (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I went through the whole section you linked and it gives me instructions to request an unblock but I can't because I can't access my talk page or edit my user page. I can't find other ways to contact the person who blocked me as well. Красный Октябрь (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If there is no off-wiki means of contacting Russian Wikipedia administrators, I think you will need to contact a steward(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards) who may at least be able to advise you better than we can. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Красный Октябрь (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I messaged one of the stewards here. Thank you for helping me find where to ask! Красный Октябрь (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Responding to the "why did this happen" aspect, the most likely explanation is that your IP at the time you edited your userpage is similar to or within a range used by someone evading blocks on ru.wiki around the same time. Either that, or a more random human error on the blocking admin's part. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Notice of geological updates

Hi, in the past few months, I was working on pages regarding the periods, ages and other units of the geological timescale, and noticed a recent update in the ICC Chronostratigraphic Chart (2024/12), compared to the previous version (2023/09), that affects the time boundaries of a lot of ages. I didn't know which talk page or portal I could specifically notify of this change, so I came here to speak about it.

Now, I don't want to linger on a change like this here, since that feels like advertising which I KNOW Wikipedia is not about (see WP:SOAPBOX). But I know a change like this is going to require a lot of edits to catch up with, and I for sure can't do it alone. So does anyone know a good project/portal page I can discuss this more on? — Alex26337 (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex26337, thank you for your question. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology would be the best venue to discuss this. I don't think this is soapbox like if you are advertising on-Wiki collaboration. The policy refers to more so advertising on Wiki things off-wiki. Discussions with other community members that share the same interest is what these Wikiprojects are for :D Justiyaya 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Request to Update Image

I noticed that the current image used at Dadvan Yousuf is from 2021, but there are more recent images from 2024 available on Wikimedia Commons.

I kindly request an extended-confirmed user to review and consider updating the image to "Dadvan Yousuf with Kurdistan Flag.jpg", Image is from recent - i dont recommend the images with the bitcoin flag.

Thanks.. Ayohama (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ayohama, welcome to the teahouse! Although the image File:Dadvan Yousuf with Kurdistan Flag.jpg is more recent, I don't think it provides the same quality and clarity as the image currently in the article. I don't think this change should be made. Justiyaya 07:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the solid feedback! fully understood Ayohama (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ayohama: I'd hold off in trying to use File:Dadvan Yousuf with Kurdistan Flag.jpg or any of the other images of Yousuf uploaded to Commons by Lonely34 until the claims of "own work" can be verified by c:COM:VRT. All the images that were uploaded by Lonely34 can be found being used online on sites like X, Facebook, Instagram, etc, from May 2024 onward prior to their being uploaded to Commons, some even with watermarks. This doesn't necessarily mean they weren't taken by Lonely34, but the general licensing of those sites is too restrictive for Commons per c:COM:L and in such cases copyright holder consent needs to be verified. If the licensing of any or all of those images ends up being verified, you can add them to the body of the Wikipedia article about Yousuf if you want but probably should propose changing the infobox image on the article's talk page to see what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Ayohama, even if the issues that Marchjuly describes can be ironed out, I would oppose the use of the image that you are proposing for the infobox. That is a mountaineering summit style photo, and this person is not a notable mountaineer even if he paid a lot of money to climb the standard tourist route on Mount Everest with the help of Sherpa guides. He is a cryptocurrency investor not a serious mountaineer and it is not appropriate to portray business people with golf clubs or tennis rackets in their hands. Or flags on mountain tops. This is not 1952 and rich people climbing Everest is not a notable accomplishment these days. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

One of the references used to verify the claim about him climbing Everest says (in English translation) I had never climbed a mountain before, Everest was my first. This is not indicative of a serious mountaineer but rather a rich person willing and able to pay actual Sherpa mountaineers to help him get to the top for publicity purposes. Cullen328 (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Although it doesnt seem to be that easy for me to climb everest as it seems for you. I think its still very dangerous and a notable achievement Ayohama (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with you Ayohama (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, i thought the Metadata is correct Ayohama (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ayohama: The uploader or someone else has emailed Commons VRT regarding these files and is currently being processed by VRT. Assuming things check out, the c:Template:Permission received added to each file's page will be changed to c:Template:PermissionTicket by the VRT member reviewing the email. Once this happens, the files will be fine from a copyright standpoint; so, in principle, they're OK to be used. From an encyclopedic standpoint, though, things might still need to be sorted out on the article's talk page, particularly if others feel (like expressed above) that they shouldn't be used in the main infobox. One representative image in the body of the article should, however, be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Was thinking after our conversations, the infobox is not the right place there. MAYBE at Personal life, where context is about Everest is fine. Max Ayohama (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

According to List of Mount Everest summiters by frequency, more than 6,000 people have summited Everest (as of 2022), so agree that if any placement at all, then at Personal life. David notMD (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

And the record for a non-Sherpa (actually an Englishman) is 18 (exceeded by 9 individual Sherpas). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Lonely34 claims of "own work" are now verified by c:COM:VRT. If you want, you can go ahead and place the File:Dadvan Yousuf with Kurdistan Flag.jpg under "Personal Life". I guess the article itself is interesting to work on in the future- the tone is sometimes too promotional and the text layout weird- Reads like a chronology rather then a WP Article. Ayohama (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Help with improving references and notability for Eugene Vollmer draft

Hello! I submitted a draft for Eugene Vollmer but it was declined because the references didn't show significant coverage. Could anyone assist me in finding reliable sources or improving my draft to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? I appreciate any guidance! Sammy Tremlinn (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Sammy Tremlinn, your draft fails to make the case that Vollmer is a truly notable athlete, although it seems that he was once highly ranked in an amateur track and field event in a country of less than a million residents. At first glance, that does not seem to be a plausible claim of notability to me. But I could be wrong. In the end, it is all about whether or not multiple indisputably reliable sources independent of Vollmer have devoted significant coverage to him. Your current sources are not independent of Vollmer and therefore do not meet that threshold. Cullen328 (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, Cullen328. I understand the importance of independent and significant coverage for establishing notability. I will work on finding additional sources that meet these criteria and provide substantial information about Eugene Vollmer's achievements. If you have any suggestions for where I might look or types of sources to prioritize, I’d greatly appreciate it! Sammy Tremlinn (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

List of newspapers in Fiji might be a starting point: many of those entities are likely to be Reliable sources. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

New page

Hello, I was thinking of making a new page about the New Zealand retail company PB Technologies, but I think I'll be going in too far over my head if I start it myself, so I was wondering where I could propose the Idea so that I could join forces with a more experienced Wikipedian to make the page a reality. Sup3rG33k08 (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You can go to Requested articles, but it is backlogged to the point of uselessness, any request you make there will likely not be acted on for some time, if ever. You are wise to be cautious in attempting to create a new article, but if you want to see one created, it likely won't happen unless you do it yourself. You can use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft for review by more experienced editors. You would first need to gather independent reliable sources to summarize in an article, and review the definition of a notable business to see if this business meets it(most do not).

If you are associated with this business, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Articles about companies need to comply with WP:NCORP and call for attention to being neutral point of view, not in any way promotional. Teahouse Hosts are here to advise, not to be coauthors. David notMD (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding unnumbered tracks to an upcoming album

Hello,

This artist has been teasing some track titles (and snippets) from their upcoming album, So Close To What. Some titles are speculated, some were directly teased and are confirmed. How would I go about adding those tracks, assuming I don't know their numbers? The album has a Spotify countdown page, so the two pre-released singles have already been added in track list format. Lashyurn (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Lashyurn, I read that this album "scheduled to be released on February 21, 2025". I suggest that you simply wait until February 21, 2025. -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine. I was just following what I saw was done with SZA's LANA 10 days prior to its release. Thank you! :) Lashyurn (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Lashyurn, in that article, there were reliable sources that reported on the teasers for the singles. If that is the case for this album, I think a mention in the Promotion section could be nice. Things that are not being reported on by reliable, independent sources or are pure speculation are usually not included here, especially if they are self published or original research. Feel free to drop sources here for us to take a look :D Justiyaya 12:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

These are my sources (and titles):

"Dear god" - Played at listening party and posted snippets on TikTok

"Revolving door" - Played at listening party and posted snippets on TikTok

"Moments" - Title posted on her management's Instagram as a collaboration with Spotify on December 13, 2024

"Greenlight" - Played at listening party and title shown in album trailer

"Star child" - Title shown at the beginning of the "It's ok I'm ok" music video

Would these sources be considered reliable? I have links/pictures/videos to each of those Lashyurn (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately none of those are secondary sources, @Lashyurn. What we're looking for is mainstream music journalists who are reporting on the album. qcne (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I could take them from the artist themselves. Thank you! I'll wait until release. Lashyurn (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No, sources from the person that the article is about are considered primary sources. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 22:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest to wait till release too Ayohama (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

English Version of the German Article Judith Kakon

Hello there, I just want to create the same article in english, I already created this article in german, all I want is to have a translated version. Could you please help me? My request was already denied twice. This is the german article: Judith Kakon. Avaa Malula (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Avaa Malula It appears as if German Wikipedia has the same concerns as English Wikipedia; that the article does not sufficiently prove its subject's notability. Please read WP:YFA and WP:42. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Judith Kakon has no references. The content that is now under a description of her approach to art (my wording) comes across as either your or her description. All of this should be deleted unless it can be referenced to published descriptions of her and her work. David notMD (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Avaa Malula

It’s great that you’re interested in contributing to the English Wikipedia by translating an article. However, there are a few things to consider to ensure the article meets the standards required on the English Wikipedia:

1. Improving the Original Article: The German article you created currently has notices indicating issues with missing citations and important information about the subject’s works. These issues suggest that the article may not yet meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards. Before translating the article, it’s a good idea to improve it by:

- Adding reliable and independent sources that demonstrate Judith Kakon's notability.

- Including details about her important works or achievements.

2. Meeting English Wikipedia Standards: The English Wikipedia has specific requirements for biographies. It’s important to:

- Demonstrate notability according to the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG).

- Provide inline citations from reliable sources to back up claims.

- Write in a neutral tone without promotional language.

3. Translation Guidelines: When translating articles, you must include a note on the article’s talk page to credit the original German version. See the Wikipedia:Translation guidelines for details on how to do this properly.

4. Steps to Resubmit: Once you’ve improved the content and addressed the above points:

- Draft the translated article in your sandbox.

- Add sources that meet English Wikipedia’s standards.

- Submit it for review through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process.

If you need help improving the article or drafting it in English, feel free to ask here. Ayohama (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Last aired date in the future

This article revison SAS: Rogue Heroes revison of 02:04, 2 January 2025 has a last aired date for series 2 which is in the future. What is probably meant is that the last episode is scheduled for broadcast on that date, but as it was worded it is factually incorrect. I've seen this on other such articles in the past. Has there been any discussions about wether this is acceptible or not? If so, can you direct me to any official decisions? Dubidub (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

See WP:FUTURE - Specifically, see the section NOTCRYSTALBALL, which states that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles should not speculate on future events unless they are verifiable and sourced. The correct phrasing should reflect that the episode is "scheduled to air" on that date to maintain accuracy and neutrality. Ayohama (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

How do I clean up formatting of tables?

On the Columbia University article, the Rankings section has quite poor formatting; the ranking tables are being displayed fully below the Library and Barnard images on the right side. How would I go about cleaning up table formatting in wikitext to remove the large blank gap? Doawk7 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I solved it by removing those images:) DMacks (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

How to ask ArbCom to lower protection status on Armenia-Azerbaijan

I was going to submit an ArbCom request to lower protection of Armenia-Azerbaijan due to the conflict cooling and amends being made, however I changed my mind and decided to ask here first. How would I get the Arbitration Committee or whoever imposed the sanction on Ar-Az to hear on the matter? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• That's not an ArbCom matter; you can ask for that at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, SimpleSubCubicGraph. Are you asking about Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? You can edit that--after you've made a few more article edits. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Drmies I mean the consensus to make everything Armenia and Azerbaijan, even if its a tragic plane crash extended confirmed protected. I feel like it should be knocked down due to calming geopolitical tensions in the Caucasus. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Also I have 251 edits, that is nowhere near 500. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      • In that case, SimpleSubCubicGraph, you're talking about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and you'd have to appeal that. I just looked over the page and I have no idea how to do that--and I used to be on ArbCom. Read over Wikipedia:Contentious topics, and good luck! Drmies (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Referencing an article on Wikipedia

I am reviewing an article and came across a source that cited another article from Wikipedia. This is the first time I have seen this. This isn’t acceptable is it? BigChrisKenney (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @BigChrisKenney. You are correct. Sources that lead to Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project are unreliable. See WP:CIRCULAR. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Tarlby for the speedy reply and the direction to the exact policy! BigChrisKenney (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You can jsut delete the ref to a Wikipedia article, but a better practice would be to look within that Wikipedia article to find a ref (refs) that support the content, and then copy those refs to the article you have concerns about. If you do this, in your Edit summary consider stating that you copied content from - naming the source article. Wikipedia does allow copying content and refs from Wikipedia articles with attribution. David notMD (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Writer or Screenwriter?

Quick question: creating a stub-starter on Donald Ross: [4] who was a television screenwriter, celebrity game show panelist (with his wife Patti Deutsch) and producer. Since there are other Donald Ross articles, would you accompanying his name with (writer) or (screenwriter) for the published article? He has no distinguishing middle name / initial. Deutsch's article refers to him as "comedy screenwriter and playwright", but Ross never wrote any plays. TIA. Maineartists (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Maineartists, "Donald Ross (writer)" seems OK to me. -- Hoary (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

(writer) seems OK to me too Ayohama (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Great. Thanks all. Maineartists (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

What is the opinion on wikipedia writing services?

How would I detect if an article has been secretly written and paid for? There are services that you can reach just by searching on google and I would like to know if there are any ways to detect them or do something about them. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! If there is an editor who might be paid and performing edits, raise the issue at WP:ANI or WP:COIN noticeboards. If there are any private details you have found about the editor or services, please send an email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org . TNM101 (chat) 05:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, SSCG, did you have any specific articles in mind? I would say that there are heuristics I know of, but there's nothing definitive overall. Heustics I've identified for undisclosed paid/COI include (please do not use any of these to make definitive accusations; these observations are potential starting points, not endpoints):

• The article has an image of an otherwise obscure person which is usually marked as "own work". This image is posed, not candid, indicating that either the subject themself uploaded it or they've given it to somebody else to use as effectively a PR photo on Wikipedia. Some subjects presumably will enthusiastically freely license their image even when they have no part in an article because they're just jazzed to have their own article, but what can be really suspect is when the uploader of the image is the same editor who created and/or has heavily edited the article itself.
• The article was already very long, well-formatted, and essentially complete right out of the gate. For new editors, sometimes articles after going through the draft process can come out looking alright, but these edits skip the draft process altogether yet still seem like they've been written out ahead of time off-site. Whereas I take an incremental approach to my writing, experienced editors very often will pre-write everything out in their sandbox and then transfer their work into the article space once they're happy with it, but in my experience, this is highly uncommon for newer editors who organically create articles about subjects they're interested in.
• The article was created or heavily modified by a WP:SPA, which seemingly has not interacted elsewhere on Wikipedia.
• The editor tries to wikilink this article absolutely everywhere they possibly can once it's created, presumably for a mix of SEO and for drawing as many eyes to that subject as possible on-wiki.
• The article is mostly primary references, and a lot of it is WP:PUFFERY. For companies, a dead giveaway for something like this is when there's an entire section on some stupid PR BS the company did which is only cited to press releases from that company about what a great thing(TM) they did. Basically, consider WP:DUE.
• The article goes into excruciating depth about a subject (sometimes this is just fans being fans, but for example, there was one some years ago about a Lithuanian(?) alt-rock band whose primary editor I thought to be just an overly enthusiastic fan but who I discovered was secretly the band's manager or something to that effect).
• The 'External links' section contains an inordinate amount of links to social media (this one to me generally indicates that it's autobiographical, whereas I assume you specifically want contracted third parties).
• The editor has a username-violating policy which indicates they're part of the subject organization.
• The subject likely doesn't meet the WP:GNG but has been WP:REFBOMBed to give the appearance that it does.
• The subject is a very niche a) product/service/work, b) company/organization, or c) person. Depending on the nature of the organization (e.g. a club), this may not be "paid" as much as it is WP:COI.
• The subject is not written about in a neutral way. If there is negative coverage of the subject in reliable sources, it is strangely absent.

If you strongly suspect that an editor is engaging in undisclosed paid editing, the boards TNM101 suggests are great resources. I would caution too however that if your suspicion isn't that strong, you can start by just asking them at their talk page. Sometimes they're earnestly trying to improve the encyclopedia about something they're very familiar with because they're a part of it, but they've failed out of ignorance of forgetfulness to disclose that on their user page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27@TNM101 I wasn't talking about COIs or paid editing, I already know and have remembered both WP pages. I was just wondering if Wikipedia could take action against those services aka take them to court. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be within our scope, and I am pretty sure that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't take legal action against anyone since it's a non-profit. TNM101 (chat) 07:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't think of a single viable avenue by which Wikipedia could take successful legal action against undisclosed paid editors. If you tried to bring a civil suit, you'd be trying to prove what's called a tort. The WMF would have to prove that 1) the editor had a legal duty to act in a certain way (they didn't; nothing legally says you have to identify an employer when you contribute to a website); 2) that the defendent breached this duty (i.e. if you could somehow prove 1 (not possible), then you would still need to prove in court that your suspicions are more probable than not); and 3) that the WMF suffered injury or loss as a result of this undisclosed paid editing (short of some absolutely enormous conspiracy that blows up and damages the WMF's reputation, this is functionally impossible, because the reality is that any loss is negligible at best). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Deep thanks to User:TheTechnician27 for putting all these undeclared paid flags in one place. If this is not already the subject of an essay, it should be. I do see that Wikipedia:Identifying PR is an existing essay flagging behavior that draws content from press releases. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all the responses, is there anyway I can see of all the times when paid editors or undisclosed COIs were caught in the act? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Improving a page through including my own research

The 'icing the kicker' page can benefit from the following recent addition in regards to the effectiveness of this practice:

"Most recently and extensively, Professor Nadav Goldschmied and Tyler Ratkovich from the University of San Diego and Mike Raphaeli from Nanning Vocational and Technical University (China) found that in 25 NFL seasons (1999-2024) the success for "pressure kicks" (two minutes or less to the end of the game when -3, −2, −1, tied or in overtime) when iced was 74.1% as opposed to 79.8% otherwise which represented a significant decline in performance.

Goldschmied, N., Ratkovich, T*., & Raphaeli, M. (2024) NFL field goal kicking under pressure: An expanded replication of icing the kicker strategy. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology.

Thanks,

Nadav Goldschmied

Ngoldschmied11 (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The place to suggest this, Ngoldschmied11, is Talk:Icing the kicker. (Better, I think: "A study found that in 25 NFL seasons..." Interested readers will identify the authors from the reference.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me! so do I add the modification or is it done by another editor since it is my work?

Thanks,

Nadav Ngoldschmied11 (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ngoldschmied11 pretty sure this falls under WP:No original research SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

SimpleSubCubicGraph Not quite. If the observations on kicking success/failure were unpublished, that would be original research. If published in a reliable source, such as a science journal article, OK to use. However, Wikipedia advises researchers who are also Wikipedia editors to not cite their own work. David notMD (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Ngoldschmied11: in case it's not clear from the other responses: you are discouraged from citing your own work, as that is regarded as a conflict of interest, but you are welcome to suggest an edit which cites your own work, so that another editor decides what to do with your suggestion. If you use the edit request wizard that will guide you. Please make your suggestion as precise as possible (eg "Inset XXX at the end of the paragraph beginning YYY") ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Shortened forms list

Hello. Is there any place I could get the shortened forms of all Wikipedia guidelines and a brief definition (e.g. WP:GNG, WP:NPV)? I usually find it difficult to use the shortened forms when commenting and I just go for the full name. Jõsé^hola 07:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Josedimaria. See WP:WP. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 07:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, how about Wikipedia:Shortcut index or Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines and might be an idea to work out something for Wikipedia:Glossary of shortcuts Ayohama (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Creating a new page

I want to make a new Wikipedia page but the name already exists so what should I do Chetan4u1 (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you tell us the name of the article so we can better understand the situation? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 10:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chetan4u1 Welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need to worry about that at this stage. You can create a draft article by following the process at WP:AfC. If and when it is accepted into the encyclopedia (most draft articles are not), the reviewer will attend to the naming, which might require a disambiguation page, but if you haven't written a Wikipedia article before you'll have plenty of other hoops to jump through before this becomes an issue. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chetan4u1 Your attempt to create an article about Isabel Myers who is an actress has been deleted and a redirect created to Isabel Briggs Myers, a different person. To start over, use WP:YFA to create a draft named Isabel Myers (actress). That said, common advice here is to gain experience improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. David notMD (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Brother but if I make a draft then how can I change the name of the page if it already exists. Chetan4u1 (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chetan4u1 If you're working on a draft on an individual who shares their name with someone who already has an existing article, you're supposed to differentiate/distinguish your draft from the existing article. You cannot 'delete' or 'change the name' of an article that has been reviewed and exists. In your case, name your draft Isabel Myers (actress), since the subject of the existing article, Isabel Briggs Myers, is a writer. Dissoxciate (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dissoxciate, I disagree with you. When creating a draft, you may disambiguate the title, but you don't need to, and you certainly aren't "supposed to". New editors probably don't know our disambiguation rules anyway, so I would not encourage them to try.

For your second point, you can move an existing article to a new title, and that sometimes needs to happen when a new article is created about something with the same name. But I agree that if Chean4u1 is asking how to change the name of an existing article in order to hijack it, they shouldn't. ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Chetan4u1, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The answer to your specific question is that you change the name of an article or other page by moving it; but I suggest you forget about this for the moment because 1) as a new user you don't have access to that tool yet, and 2) at your present stage it is irrelevant to what you want to do.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

When you are ready to create the draft, you can completely ignore the titles of any existing articles. You will be creating Draft:Isabel Myers (which doesn't exist at present, which is why it is in red). After you have developed an acceptable draft for an article (which is much harder than it looks to new editors, and will almost certainly give you frustration and disappointment if you don't take David's and my advice above), you will submit it for review, and if the reviewer accepts it, they will sort out all the issues about naming it. OK? ColinFine (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks I will try my best. Chetan4u1 (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

adding a clarification in response to a user request

Hello, in doing what described in subject, should one delete the request for clarification, or leave it there? 1808Eolo3 (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@1808Eolo3 Welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean resolving a template (with adequate referencing) then you may remove the template. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

What is sandbox and how should I use it?

How can I use sandbox Juamisi25 (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Juamisi25 Welcome to the Teahouse! All should be explained at this help page: basically your personal sandbox is a place for you to experiment with editing without messing anything up in the main encyclopedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Short and simple: follow this link — you can do whatever with it as long as it's productive Wikipedia Stuff, use it to practice edits, put together rough drafts etcetera --Slowking Man (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Error with interlanguage link template

So while editing Guangdong Public Security Department, I added an interlanguage link in the infobox, and for whatever reason in the infobox right after the interlanguage link are two brackets(]]). I entered the interlanguage link properly from both experience and directions, may I ask what I did wrong and how to solve this issue? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Thehistorianisaac. I think this might have something to do with the syntax of Template:Infobox law enforcement agency. If you look at the syntax for the |Secondary governing body= parameter, it appears things are set up to convert whatever is added for that parameter into a Wikilink. If you remove the {{ill}} template for that parameter, it will format it as a WP:REDLINK. You could try asking about this on the template's talk page or at WP:VPT; however, I don't think you can remove the brackets without removing them from the infobox template's syntax, and doing that would affect other articles where the template is being transcluded. You might be just have to hide the parameter for the time being until a fix can be found or just go with the red link. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok thank you Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac:. The documentation for the parameter at Template:Infobox law enforcement agency says "Do not link. The template will link." I looked at the implementation and it doesn't appear possible to add an interlanguage link there. If the link is important then you can add it to the opening paragraph instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac: If you really want to include the interlanguage link, you might replace the linked "provincial government" in the second sentence of the article with the ILL you were using in the infobox. Deor (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Can someone help fix Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War

Hello everyone, Can someone help fix Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War. I am on mobile. All the oblast sections are collapsed by default. In mobile every section has collapse option which helps us navigate through the desired sections easily. Similar thing once happened with an article related to some sporting event. It was fixed when the symbols and flags were removed from it. I believe that it the same issue with this article. Too many flags are there. Many of which I believe don't need to be there neccesarily. Can someone help fix it to make it easy for mobile users to navigate. Right now if someone for example needs to see Zaporizhzhia oblast they have to scroll all the way down. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Write an Extended Confirmed Protection edit request on the talk page or get to 500 edits manually SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph FYI, I'm already an EC user. I have over 6775 edits. So I don't need to place an edit request. This is something technical. I appreciate your readiness to help but please understand the problem before giving suggestions. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 02:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta Get to $1200 manually SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph What exactly is $1200? Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: Please do not respond to Teahouse questions if you don't know the answer to them or if you're giving unproductive responses. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta: Welcome to the Teahouse. If the issue is technical, the folks over at WP:VPT may be better equipped to address it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tenryuu I believe either this is something techincal or too much flags are creating a problem. Thank you so much. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Joseph A. Tunzi

How do I remove the promotional disclaimer at the top of the Wikipedia page for Joseph_A._Tunzi Daryl77 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Daryl77. In the visual editor, you can simply click on the tag and press backspace to remove it (assuming you're on PC).

But I'm wondering, why don't you try to discuss or fix the problem rather than just hiding it away? I don't see any of your edits in the page history or any discussion on the article's talk page of you fixing the actual problem. If there is still promotional content after you remove it, someone will inevitably add the tag again. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Daryl77. The promotional tone that pervades and saturates that article would need to be removed, which would be a massive job. Because you created that article, have made 413 edits to that article and are personally responsible for nearly 80% of the content, it should certainly not be you that removes that tag. Your main goal as a Wikipedia editor for 13 years has been that one article. What, precisely, is your personal connection to Tunzi? Cullen328 (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You don't. Someone else does. I suggest revealing your COI with the article subject, which is REQUIRED before you keep editing. DACartman (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

How do you do that? Daryl77 (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Daryl77 Please see WP:DISCLOSE. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Where do I put the Connected Contributor template at on the page and how should it be filled out? Daryl77 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Use the COI template at your user page, specifically Template:User COI to declare the COI. Put the connected contributor template at the top of the article's talk page. DACartman (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Have I done it correctly? Daryl77 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

What would be considered relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions? Daryl77 (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Have I done it correctly? Daryl77 (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Daryl77, no, you have not done it correctly because you have not explained the precise nature of your conflict of interest. After all these years, it is time for you to be honest about this. Cullen328 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

What do you want to know? I've known of him since around 1995-1996. It was shortly after I'd graduated high school. I became aware of him when I read an article by a guy named Roger Bailey that had appeared in an Elvis Presley fan magazine titled, Elvis International Forum. It was published by a guy out of Thousand Oaks, California named Darwin Lamm. Bailey had a column in the magazine that where he sold books and other merchandise about or featuring Elvis Presley and he'd mentioned that Tunzi had a new book on Elvis Presley's recording sessions titled, Elvis Sessions II: The Recorded Music of Elvis Aron Presley 1953-1977 I'd missed the first volume of his recording sessions book when it came out about two years earlier around 1993. Somewhere I still have a copy of this magazine that I bought at a gas station near where I went to high school. I've assisted Joe and partnered with him on some of his projects. I've never met him face-to-face, as he lives in Chicago and I live in rural Pennsylvania. After reading the article, I didn't want to order the book through Bailey as I didn't really know him at all, so I went to a local book store and they couldn't get the book for me but they did provide me with contact information for Tunzi, who I called and ordered Elvis Sessions II. I've bought all of his books and products since then and went back and bought copies of the ones I'd missed before Elvis Sessions II. I've stayed in contact with him through the years and as I've said, I've helped him on some projects and we've collaborated on a few as well. Daryl77 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

How long does a draft typically take to get reviewed?

I plan to be submitting a lot of drafts between now and extended-confirned privileges, and potentially after, how long does the process usually take? A week? 2 weeks? Maybe even a month? The2gingerman (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, The2gingerman. As the header of a current draft says: This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,744 pending submissions waiting for review. High quality, well-referenced drafts about clearly notable topics are usually accepted fairly quickly. Obviously low quality, poorly referenced or unreferenced drafts about topics that are clearly not notable usually get rejected pretty quickly. Borderline notability cases may take longer. Drafts about highly technical or esoteric topics may take longer. Drafts that heavily rely on sources in languages other than English may take longer. Drafts filled with a large number of references to low quality sources interspersed with a handful of higher quality sources may take longer. Drafts that fail to make a compelling case that the topic is notable in the lead section may take longer. And so on. Cullen328 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @The2gingerman, and welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can see, you have not yet made a single edit to an article, other than to the draft you created - which was declined because, like most new editors, you don't yet have much understanding of Wikipedia's requirements. Would you enter a tennis tournament when you haven't yet ever picked up a tennis racket?

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

In particular, I would urge you to drop utterly the idea of "submitting a lot of drafts",at least until you have had two or three drafts accepted, and so understand what is required. In my opinion, an editor who has made a hundred improvements to existing articles (even if some of them have got reverted) has already added far more value to Wikipedia than almost all editors who try to create new articles before they are ready - in fact, most of those in my view subtract value from Wikipedia, because they take up the time and attention of reviewers who would much rather be reviewing good drafts. ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @ColinFine, I will take your advice. The rejection of my draft was a large reality check for me. I will make sure to avoid making such mistakes in future. The2gingerman (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The2gingerman Mistakes are part of the process. Wikipedia policy WP:BRD advises be bold in your edits, if reverted, discuss on the Talk page. The process of getting a first effort at a draft approved as an article will teach a lot about the next endeavor. Only after a series of new-article successes should you consider by-passing AfD to create articles directly in main space. P.S. those will be subject to New Pages Patrol review (WP:NPP), and so may be kicked pack to draft, nominated for deletion or even Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

adding secondary sources

In exploring the requirements for notable persons and the nature of secondary sources, I am wondering if this qualifies as an example of what is required, or not (sentence structure asides - still working on that!)

Draft:Randolph Charles Kent

In an interview exploring the challenges of futures thinking within the context of humanitarian scenarios, the researcher and futurist Steven Santer identifies in part that the initiative for futures thinking with respect to humanitarianism was born out of Dr. Kent's experiences as a UN Humanitarian Coordinator since 1987.

Thank you Nik9t (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Interviews featuring the person generally are not evidence of notability. They're primary sources, and they're something that the person helps arrange themselves, so it's not an independent third party taking note of them. You'll want to find articles about the person written by independent sources like newspapers. Otherwise, Randolph Charles Kent might not be a notable figure as Wikipedia defines it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, got it - thank you! Nik9t (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hang on, @Thebiguglyalien: @Nik9t described that as an interview with somebody else, which was not what your answer was about. NIk9t, if Santer is wholly unconnected with Kent (not a colleague or associate), then that may well count as secondary. There is also the question of whether the interview was published by a reliable source: if it was published by Kent or his associates, it again would not be independent, and if it was published by Santer or his associates, it would be a self published source. WP:42 has a useful set of criteria for evaluating sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I understood it to be referring to this source: https://futurehumanbydesign.com/2019/09/interview-with-dr-randolph-kent/. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh I see. I assumed from @Nik9t's description above that Santer was being interviewed, rather than that he was interviewing Kent. Thank you for the correction, @Thebiguglyalien. ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, how about referencing book reviews for example - would this be considered too "passing," or significant as a secondary reference?

Sir David Nabarro KCMG CBE suggests of Dr. Kent's most recent publication that 'Dr. Randolph C. Kent’s Humanitarian Futures: Challenges and Opportunities masterfully blends deep intellectual rigour with practical insights, drawing on his unparalleled experience to illuminate future humanitarian crises and challenge current conventions and paradigms. In our world of perpetual crises, this is a vital, visionary work for leaders, policymakers and practitioners alike.' Nik9t (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.routledge.com/Humanitarian-Futures-Challenges-and-Opportunities/Kent/p/book/9781032747996 Nik9t (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why are there specific limitations to VisualEditor

I read through the page for Visual Editor and I saw they had limitations. While they explained what pages are not permitted to use Visual Editing, why are these restrictions in phase? Is there something wrong with visual editor on talk pages? Or editing essays and WP:Policies SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey @SimpleSubCubicGraph

The limitations of VisualEditor exist because it struggles with complex wikitext elements like templates, signatures, and custom formatting used on talk pages, essays, and policies. These pages require precise editing to maintain structure and functionality, which VisualEditor isn't optimized for. Ayohama (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The VE is a later invention, (source editor is the older), and is still developing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Assistance with Page Deletion/Recreation

Happy New Year All! We recently had our Wikipedia page draft deleted, and would like to rewrite/recreate it and submit for consideration again. We are a little confused about the requirements we need to complete before retrying with this page. Do we have to contact those who deleted the page? Can we just start fresh in the sandbox and resubmit? Kinfolx1114 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Kinfolx1114. It's confusing that you use "we"; an account can only be used by a single person. If more than one person is using this account, please have each person create their own account. You can start a new draft in your sandbox or at Draft:Rahsan Thomas, but it must be written in your own words. You cannot copy content verbatim from other sources, as the message on your talk page explains. Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, thank you for your response, much appreciated. (I am the only user of this account, btw). Kinfolx1114 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Kinfolx1114, please be aware that Draft:Rahsan Thomas was deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. Please be aware that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and you must be very careful to avoid violating copyright laws. Please read WP:COPYVIO. Cullen328 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Those websites can be used in the draft as references as long as the information in the text is on your own words (not copied or close paraphrasing). David notMD (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @David notMD. Thank you for that note. Is it ok to reference this website? https://kazoo-cobalt-7yx6.squarespace.com/ . (asking because it looks like a personal website?) Kinfolx1114 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for providing this, @Cullen328. This is very helpful. Kinfolx1114 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

IFfy, as not clear if it is his site (thus, not independent). Suspect because it links to his social media and sells clothing. David notMD (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment @Kinfolx1114: They are articles, not pages. Pages is the internal software name that the WMF uses as part of the Mediawiki software and has nothing to with Wikipedia. They are articles, refer to them as such. scope_creep^Talk 12:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Am I allowed to make a twinkle userbox?

I'm making a userbox that is about preferring twinkle PC over twinkle mobile, am I allowed to do this? ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 19:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Stumbleannnn. I can't think of any reason why you shouldn't. ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes you can, as long as it follows WP guidelines and doesn't violate any policies, such as being offensive or promotional Ayohama (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright thanks! I thought it was a little bit of an admin thing, and that's why I asked. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Please help me get my translation of a French page published

Hi everyone, happy new year! I would like to ask for some help. I just translated the following french wikipedia page to english: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahcen_Ahansal However, as I am new here, I don't have the required authorization level to publish my English translation that you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emilie1111/Lahcen_Ahansal

How do I go about getting it published? Can someone help me with that? Thanks in advance! Emilie Emilie1111 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Emelie1111. Your translation is unreferenced, which violates the two important policies, Verifiability and Biographies of living persons. You must add references to reliable sources verifying the content before it can by added to the English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Emilie111. Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English version tends to be stricter than others. I do see that the French version is referenced- you can certainly place those references in the draft you wrote here, references do not need to be in English. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Emilie1111, another problem is the tone. I have trouble describing exactly what's wrong with In 1991, fortune finally smiled upon him. [...] This marked a turning point in his life. For Lahcen Ahansal, this race would become his own.; but simply, it doesn't simply relate verifiable facts, which is what it should be doing. -- Hoary (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

More info can be found at Help:Translation, especially regarding attribution etc. Lectonar (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Allowed links

What links are allowed in articles? Danny5784 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Danny5784. See WP:LINK. Links should be added when they are relevant and especially helpful to the reader's understanding of the subject. Links shouldn't be added when it can be reasonably assumed it wouldn't help the reader or when it fills up too much of the screen. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

If you are referring to sources, articles must meet the general notability guidelines, which state that articles need to include significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. User-generated sites like CPTDB Wiki are not reliable, since anyone can edit them. If you're going to be writing articles on topics related to NJ Transit, sites like NJTransit.com are allowed, but they cannot be used to show notability since they are not independent of the subject. Only independent, reliable sources with significant coverage (not just a passing mention) like NJ.com can be used to demonstrate notability. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

So, it can be news or a YouTube link? Danny5784 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

News publications, certainly. As for YouTube, see WP:RSPYT. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. JTtheOG (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I founded a YouTube link that contains Westwood's Buses that began operations on September 5, 2022 Danny5784 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Danny5784. I think WP:EL might be more helpful to you. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit Quality "Perfect"?

On the Android app, after selecting Explore in the menu and clicking Edits in the toolbar, I see a page named "Edits" that shows that my "edit quality" is "perfect". What does this mean? Quark7 (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Quark7: So according to, mw:Wikimedia Apps/Android FAQ#Contribution history, You can view your own contribution history by going to the main screen and tapping the "Edits" button at the bottom. This will show you the total number of edits you've made so far, your current edit quality (based on how many of your edits were reverted), among other statistics. To see more details about each of your previous contributions, tap on the statistics card. This will show a full-screen list of each of your edits.. I guess it means that you have an edit count that has little to no reverts. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help. How can I find out how many of my edits were reverted? Quark7 (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Article

My articles always get declined, and im working so hard like can anyone help me it will be very appreciate full :P NovaExplorer37 (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If they get declined, you can help fix it by reading the decline reason. As an alternative, read the comments the reviewer left. If they are no comments, ask at the reviewer's talk page. Since you are now Autoconfirmed you are able to create pages directly, but you can still use the Article Wizard if you want. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @NovaExplorer37, and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at your user talk page, I see several AFC decline notices, with the reason being they fail Wikipedia's notability criteria. For an article to be considered worthy of a Wikipedia article, articles must meet the criteria on notability per above. As a general reference, the general notability guideline (commonly abbreviated as GNG or WP:GNG) states that "articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.". I'd advise seeing Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for more info, or just message me on my talk page or reply to this if you have any questions.

Looking at one of your submissions, Draft:Natrag Na Voz, the two sources provided are a Discogs entry, which is not considered reliable per the WP:RS guideline because it is user generated (See WP:DISCOGS), and a YouTube video, which may or may not be by the publisher or a user. If it is indeed by the publisher of the album, it would not count towards notability because it is not independent of the topic, and if it is by a user it would not count because it is not reliable as it is user generated. Also, please be aware that neither of these sources provide significant coverage of the topic either.

Apologies if this comes off as blunt or hostile, as I am myself a newcomer. If you have any questions regarding these policies, or would like to request assistance on your article(s), please let me know, as I am free to help whenever possible. Thanks, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 01:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

well these are the only sources i can find and i mean some wiki articles include discogs sources. NovaExplorer37 (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If they are the only sources you can find, then the article is likely non-notable, per WP:NEXIST. If you see an article that cites Discogs as a source, especially for something exceptional, then find and replace it with an adequate source or remove it altogether per WP:V.

—Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 03:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Passing by on the way to the forum. Looking at Draft:Sada znam. When you place the cursor on the reference, the tooltip comes up telling the reference is unreliable. When you examine them, Genuis is defined as generally unreliable, Radio Zepa is generally unreliable, Discogs as described above is a user generated site that is never reliable and spotify is a streaming site, which should never be used in any instance. WP:SECONDARY sources are the gold standard. Somebody talking to another person or group about the subject who doesn't know the subject, so it is independent. It also needs to be reliable and in-depth, a suffiently deep source to be worthile. For albums your generally looking for independent reviews, from recognised article sites. WP:MUSICRS tells which music sites are generally considered notable. Google books is a good place to look in as well. If you don't know if the reference is notable, then check at at reliable sources noticeboard, WP:RSN Somebody will tell you. You can do a search there as well. If there is no album reviews, then the album is likely to be non-notable. I would advise you not to create any mainspace articles. They are likely to be sent back to draft or sent to WP:AFD. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 12:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

In general, references that confirm an album exists, the names of the musicians, the list of tracks, etc., are not sufficient to establish Wikipedia-notability without published reviews as references. So not only is it unlikely that Draft:Natrag Na Voz can succeed, but the existing article about the band's second studio album Dodirni mi kolena should be nominated for deletion. Same for Jabuke i vino, a song from the Natrag Na Voz album. David notMD (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I've posted the two articles to the Afd queue. scope_creep^Talk 14:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why am I getting 404 not found messages in references used in articles?

Sometimes I get so many 404 not found errors when I visit refenced URL's in articles. For example if you visit some of the sources used in the article Razor wire (Including source 1 and 4), you are going to encounter a "404 not found' error. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @NicePrettyFlower. Unfortunately, since the average URL has median lifespan of about 1 year (according to WP:Link rot), many URLs end up rotting (link rot) and become dead links. Fortunately, you can repair dead links by using a web archive such as the Wayback Machine or archive.today, and put them in the reference as archive URLs, and provide the archive date. If you are interested, I highly advise you see Wikipedia:Link rot and WP:PLRT for more information. Thanks. —Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 01:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@IcePrettyFlower: I don't believe this is a case of link rot. It might be better described as "born dead". In this "100 Legacies of the Great War" feature that WSJ set up, whether you're accessing a live link or a Wayback archive copy,it displays a page of all the topics (and after a few seconds, some images to go with them), but when you click on any of the topics, it prepares to display something and then hangs.

My wild guess is that they've bypassed some authentication logic (e.g. to determine if you're a subscriber), so if you don't have an account or are otherwise not signed in, it just hangs. Very bad form on WSJ's part.

Having said that, it's very true that many, many links on WP are broken; then again, there are lots of links that don't work unless you have an account. But link rot is a fact; as has been observed for the last couple of decades, the Wayback archive (and other similar facilities) can provide a workaround. I've heard there's a bot that's supposed to go around fixing these things, but I place very little trust in the bots ... they may perhaps work as much as 95% of the time, but nothing really checks whether or not the bot has selected a usable copy. Every time you encounter a broken link (particularly one that's not already marked as {{dead link}}), that's a potential opportunity to improve the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrickator (talk • contribs) 06:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikitext

I am trying to make a userbox and let users put It in their user page. But it will go to wikitext instead of plain text. How to make wikitext go to plain text? and I can't change it to visual because I am editing a Wikipedia page. Ned1a Wanna talk? 02:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nedia020415 I'm not really sure what you mean, but WP:UBXCREATE has instructions for creating new userboxes. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If I understood correct: To display wikitext as plain text in a userbox, use the tags around the code. For example: <nowiki>{{YourUserboxCode}} Ayohama (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User created "mortal sin in Catholic Church" template and added it to dozens of articles

A user created this "mortal sin in the Catholic Church" template, and has added it to dozens of articles including homosexuality, divorce, atheism, tax evasion, kidnapping, hate speech etc: See edit history: Special:Contributions/Oct13

It seems like a needless presence of Catholic doctrine in other articles, but I'm unsure what the guidelines are on user created templates like this. Happy for it to stay if it's suitable. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It's on some unusual articles too, such as the paraphilia article. Having a paraphilia is not deemed a mortal sin by the Catholic Church. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

See WP:TfD's discussion of the template. -- Hoary (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I’ll know to open TfD discussions in future. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Template now deleted. David notMD (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Should I add something

On my draft, Draft:List of Oklahoma tornadoes, I rely a lot on a book by meteorologist and historian Thomas Grazulis. The NWS only has records dating back to 1950 so his book is usually the only good sources about storms that happened before 1950.. Should I add that banner at the top of my draft that says that the article relies excessively on one source, since I cited Grazulis's book for pretty much every event before 1950? Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 12:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Roar with me!!!: How goes it? Generally you don't leave instructions for the reader, or even the reviewer. You could leave something in the talk page, or potentially put a {{efn|The pre-1950....}} tag to show a note at the end of the article with {{notelist}} to inform the reader that it comes from the Grazulis 1993 book. Have you not searched the internet archive, gbooks, refseek, jstor, who else? I would if there wasn't more on each individual tornadoe. The newspaper archive is good, Wikipedia library. You can get access to all these to help put in the odd ref. scope_creep^Talk 12:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Notability of electoral divisions

Somewhere there is a notability policy regarding electoral divisions (specifically how low does it go). Can anyone tell me where it is? TYVM. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Afaik, We do not have something specific, but Wikipedia:Notability (people)/Subnational politicians might give some information about it (e.g.: how far "down" does the lawgiving ability go?) Lectonar (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, it is coming back to me now. What I was thinking of was census enumeration divisions. So a complete red herring, sorry. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Deleting a draft

I created a draft for a page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pinball_FX_(2022_video_game), but it's no longer needed since a page was created for the game in question here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinball_FX_(2023_video_game). How would I go about having the draft deleted since it's no longer necessary?Wikieditor9117 (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Wikieditor9117. For a page that nobody but you has made any substantial edits to, you can paste {{db-author}} (as it appears on the page here, not as the wikicode is) at the top, and an admin will come along and delete it. ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. I put the tag on the page. Did I do it right?Wikieditor9117 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Great thanks for your help!Wikieditor9117 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Paragraph break gets overriden

I am trying to enter a paragraph break in the last paragraph of the Career section of this Wikipedia page by pressing RETURN twice. However, the system won't accept it. The break should come immediately after footnote cue no. 21. What am I doing wrong?

Abram Molarsky DieHoren (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@DieHoren: I think I've added it where you desired it. For some reason the reference at the end of the preceding sentence was breaking something. What exactly was broken, and if there's a better solution, I have no idea. But in cases like this you can simply use the {{pb}} template to add a paragraph break. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Your edit is just what I was trying to do I'll remember the {{pb}} template. DieHoren (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@DieHoren: The problem was blockquotes not on separate lines (see Template:Blockquote#Line breaks) so I made another fix.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at that Template. Still finding my way here. DieHoren (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Problem with disruptive editing and what should I do

Hello, I am terribly sorry if I write this in wrong place, but I really don't know what place. I alreday reprte dthis to noticeboard, but while I am awaiting answers I want to know how to act towrads this person who constantly reverts my editions. Whole situation is this:

I was editing page of Kösem Sultan and I noticed this user: 109.228.104.136 changed phrase in infobox "spouse: Ahmed I" into "consort of: Ahmed I", claiming 'they were never married'. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=K%C3%B6sem_Sultan&oldid=1263148667

Because of this, I added information they were married and sourced this with book (reference of 21 of current edition). This person so far left my paragraph intact but they keep revert to their preffered version of infobox. I asked them on Talk page about providing source. When I pointed that their source does not dispute, they deleted my talk. They did this twice and even claimed I 'vandalized' Kosem's page.

As inexperienced user I was few times into edit warring, as I did not know how exactly rules are there.I try to be careful now to not make disruptions and while there is instruction to undo undsourced informations, I am not sure if I am allowed to undo their - unsourced - edition, as I already did this few times. I would not label changing 'spouse' for 'consort of' as vandalism per say, but I want to protect my edition and I wish this person provided source so we could each consensus. You can see our - now deleted by them - discussion here: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267744138#Kosem_Sultan_was_wife_of_Ahmed_I. 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267749540#Kosem_was_wife_of_Ahmed (I do not know if I linked this correctly, but both shound be find in history of talk page of user with today date)

I hope it can be seen I was willing to discuss things and I even proposed to merge ours versions, if only this person provide scholar source - which they didn't, as Tik Tok video they linked contardicts statement from my book (see details in discussions). I also want to add that blocked user called Cecac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:K%C3%B6sem_Sultan#Marriage used exactly the same argument, as historian in Tik Tok provided by 109.228.104.136. I do not know if 109.228.104.136 and Cecac are the same person, but I think it should be checked. Finally, I do not know how much video made on Tik Tok should be considered as reliable source, so I am not sure how to act in this situation.

Again I apologize if I leave this message in wrong board - there were multiple issues so I decided to list them all. Please notify me if I am allowed edit Kosem's page and brought back informations, as I really want avoid going back-and-forth and do not want to be blocked myself.

I understand that arguing about 'consort of' and 'spouse' seems like semantics, but this person also reverts other informations, like place of Kosem's birth in infobox despite text of article saying otherwise, and I don't know if I am allowed to intervene, as I really don't want to be accused again of another edit warring. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)