Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cullen328, 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

how do I start a new article?

how do I start a new article? 2A00:23C5:6114:5401:9EC8:E9FF:FE6E:C6C2 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Start with reading WP:BACKWARD and WP:YFA carefully. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Creating an account is not a requirement but is recommended, as that allows better communication between editors. Also, a strong recommendation to put in time (months?) learning how to improve existing articles before attempting to create an article. David notMD (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Most importantly see Help:Referencing for beginners. Maybe see why Wikipedia:Why create an account? or why Wikipedia:Why not create an account?. Cwater1 (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

First AfC Draft declined

I submitted a very basic draft about an author, but it was declined. I used online sources for all of the facts I mentioned, but I got this feedback: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Can someone help me with examples so I can do this right?

The subject is Robert Christiansen, who is an author of multiple books, owner of several businesses, and was a VP of Strategy at Hewlett Packard. I strongly feel his accomplishments and his mission are important enough to warrant an article. Anyone can google him and read tons of things about him. Jpadilla-mfl (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Jpadilla-mfl. I suggest you read WP:42, WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:BIO. Understanding the notability required on Wikipedia can be complicated, especially as a new editor. My advice is to focus on other elements on Wikipedia first before attempting to write an article. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Robert Christiansen has several problems. In addition to the references not meeting the criteria mentioned in the above comment, the refs are URLs. See Help:Referencing for beginners on how to format refs. Per the refs, first is a blog, second his website, third confirms he wrote a book, fourth a webinar, fifth about a presentation he gave, but not about him. None of these qualify for notability. David notMD (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Jpadilla-mfl. I echo what the other replies have said. Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Jpadilla-mfl! Please read Wikipedia:Notability (books),And read Help:Your first article. Making a Article can be hard, So please read these resources. Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nedia020415 Wikipedia:Notability (books) applies to articles about books. It is not relevant here. Perhaps you meant WP:NAUTHOR. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Shantavira. I meant that Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 00:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Interpretation of NOLEGALTHREAT policy

While editing the article on Tushar Rao Gedela I saw it had the off-wiki legal threats reported at Delhi HC slams Wikipedia for its dedicated page on the ongoing lawsuit against it by ANI. On 14 October 2024, a Delhi High Court Bench comprising acting chief justice Manmohan and Gedela criticised Wikipedia for hosting a page titled Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation related to an ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by Asian News International (ANI) against the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). The page claimed that the court had threatened to block Wikipedia in India if certain editor identities were not disclosed, which the court found objectionable. Since this is a clear ongoing legal threat by a foreign Court against Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia itself, should the quoted text be reproduced on Wikipedia ?Ngenazulu (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Ngenazulu. Certainly. If a legal threat against Wikipedia has been reported in reliable sources, it is appropriate to say so in a relevant article.

The point of the policy you refer to is that an editor who has made legal threats towards Wikipedia may not edit Wikipedia while those threats have not been withdrawn. It says nothing about what may be reported from reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I discern this policy as a legal policy to be strictly implemented to protect the Wikipedia itself from actions of its users. Do not post legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself. It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia.. By my interpretation the foreign court has threatened to ban Wikipedia in India for discussing on-wiki the case which is sub-judice before it. They have gone as far as telling Wikipedia that (paraphrased) because you Wikipedia are the party in the litigation you especially should not publish anything about this matter since it is an interference in the judge's functioning, and if you do so again we will block you and hold you in contempt. This is unambiguously an ongoing legal threat against the Wikipedia and its editors if anything about the ongoing case is published on-wiki. So as per my reading of the NOLEGALTHREAT policy (with legal implications) this threat ought not to be uploaded to Wikipedia, irrespective of whether it is reliably sourced or factual or neutral etc. It must also be considered that this is an actual real world ongoing legal threat and not one that can be brushed off as an idle threat which are a dime a dozen for creating chilling effect. Ngenazulu (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Ngenazulu. I think your interpretation is perverse and nonsensical. Nobody can stop people (and courts) making threats. If a court is doing so, it is clearly in the interest of Wikipedia and its editors that that fact be reported - not necessarily in an article, but certainly in talk and discussion pages. Reporting that somebody has raised a legal threat is not the same os posting a legal threat. ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine Ignoring (for the moment) your personal remarks, I find it difficult to take your advice seriously. We both apparently agree that the statements of a court which has the power to direct that Wikipedia be blocked in India is a legal threat. That court had previously directed Wikimedia not to publicly discuss or publish anything related to the case on Wikimedia platforms while the case was sub-judice, and Wikimedia intervened in a rare office action to delete the discussions. Now you advise that Wikipedians can persist in uploading these clear and direct legal threats on this Wikimedia project by disregarding that WP:NLT is an over-riding policy with legal implications mandated by Wikimedia who have themselves kowtowed to that court. You also overlook that these legal threats has been published (you describe it as reporting) in article space on the judges who issued that threat to block Wikipedia, and not in talk space. I also fail to see the distinction you do between reporting (Wikipedia is not WP:NOTNEWS for WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTWHOSWHO) qua posting a legal threat. I think this needs a 3rd opinion. Ngenazulu (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not our job to determine whether the court is making a binding/mandatory "request" or not. All we have to worry about is to edit. The WMF exists to defend itself in court, and if they get a court order they feel they must comply with, they will make any changes/adjustments to articles needed, up to temporarily or permanently removing content.

NLT is about a Wikipedia user making a threat of legal action against another user, or against the WMF. It has no bearing whatsoever on our articles' content. The case is being reported by multiple reliable sources that I've seen over the past couple months, and that means we must cover it with due weight in affected articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@berchanhimez Thanks for your assistance. I see that WP:DUE resolves to WP:NPOV. It is precisely because Wikipedia is a PARTY in the case that the court in question directed (ie. not requested) WMF to remove the earlier discussions (which WMF kowtowed to) and to ensure no future publication as long as matter is sub-judice (which it is). Since the English Wikipedia community is before the court, with 2 or 3 editors also being targeted, through WMF I am unable to see how any NEUTRAL content can be posted on a WMF project when both Wikipedia as well as WMF are parties before the court. Also, I am unable to see anywhere that NLT says that it is limited to users making threats against other users or WMF, while certainly that is one of the use cases. The clear meaning is A legal threat is a statement by a party that it intends to take legal action on another party, generally accompanied by a demand that the other party take an action demanded by the first party or refrain from taking or continuing actions objected to by the demanding party. and here the court is the demanding party and Wikipedia+WMF are the other party. The demand being "don't publish anything about a pending case in which you are a party" which is very different from WP:CENSORSHIP. BTW, it seems you believe that Wikipedia should be blocked in India by this kangaroo court so I'll await opinions of uninvolved editors thank you. Ngenazulu (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

We are not the WMF. Editors do not make decisions based on legal grounds - except those which are enshrined in our policies (such as copyright, BLP, etc). Let me rephrase it this way - NLT does not apply here because we are not posting a threat of legal action against anyone. We are merely posting information about an ongoing legal case. If the WMF feels that they must remove or prohibit such information to comply with a court order, they will step in, trust me. Until they do, there is no policy based reason that said information about the case cannot be posted. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@berchanhimez Yes I knew the distinction between WMF and Wikipedia. At the most basic level my question is this - "Whereas in the USA the sub judice no publication rule is not usually enforced, it is followed extensively in Commonwealth countries putting users from Commonwealth nations at risk of prosecution and contempt, so, would the situation you describe be different if the USA also had a sub judice no publication rule ?" Ngenazulu (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Each user would need to consider their own personal risk, sure. But you can’t stop others from including information on an article. If you think you are legally at risk from you editing an article, simply don’t edit that article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Need to remove issues symbol

Hi, i have contributed to Wikipedia through a page creation. but it is showing multiple warnings. i could not understand. i have replied the messages came from Wikipedia representatives. but still the error symbol is persist. help me to come out of this. The page link is Archana Singh (Indian Actress) M3mediachennai (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, M3mediachennai. I've moved the article to draft space because it appears promotional. Could you please clarify whether you have a connection with the subject of the article? You've uploaded two photos of the subject, marking them as your own work, so I presume you have a business or personal relationship with her. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, She is my well known friend. We worked together Miss. Cordless Larry M3mediachennai (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @M3mediachennai. In that case, you have a conflict of interest - which doesn't prevent you from working on an article about her, but you need to be aware of the advice in that link.

Your user name suggests that you are part of a media agency - presumable M3 Digital Media. There are several problems with this:

1. User names which suggest that you are editing on behalf of an organisation are forbidden. So are usernames which suggest that this is not a personal account but might be shared. You must change your username - or abandon this account and create a new, personal, account - immediately. See Username policy.
2. The fact that you appear to be associated with a media agency creates a very strong impression that you are a paid editor. If this is the case, then you must make a formal declaration of this fact before you do any more editing - see that link for how to do so. If you are not, please clarify what is your relationship to that agency.

Turning to your draft, Draft:Archana Singh (Indian Actress): like most new editors who attempt the challenging task of creating a new article before spending time learning much about Wikipedia, you have created something which is at present entirely unsuitable for Wikiepdia. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

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) 18:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Archana Singh. See Help:Referencing for beginners on how to insert properly formatted refs into text. For a living person, all content needs to be ref'd (education, career, etc.). Listing her films does not contribute to establishing notability. What is required are references about her. David notMD (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging a wikiproject

Hello! I am currently writing a GAR for the Xinjiang People's Anti-Imperialist Association which is listed as a good article currently. A recommended action in the WP:GAR is pinging the wikiprojects relevant to the article. in this case it would be WP:socialism and WP:China. i have looked through two pages in the archive looking for an answer on how to ping a wikiproject since i couldnt really find an explaination on the GAR page, (they same line it recommeneds doing this has a template but as far as i understand this is for GAR navigation rather than WP communication). i appreciate any and all help with this AssanEcho (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @AssanEcho. I've never heard of pinging a WikiProject, and I don't think the notification system can do this. I guess that the word is being loosely, and I would interpret it as meaning "put a notice of the matter on the Talk page of the WikiProject". ColinFine (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

thanks for the quick response @ColinFine! perhaps i did misinterpret the sentence. I'll post the GAR and if another editor adds that there is such a feature, then ill make a quick response to it making the notification. i'll manually notify each of the two major Wikiprojects of the GAR tommorow, as im fairly tired atm. if they dont also explain that there was better way to notify them of this then ill take it as caseclosed that theres no such pinging feature for wikiprojects. thanks again AssanEcho (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Appendix Documents

I’ve been sourcing a lot of history on a region named Mizoram. I have several books on the topic and their appendixes have government documents and letters written by individuals. The books publish these documents in the appendix. Some of these documents are too long to be quoted reasonably in article but I want to know the copyright status of government documentation. As for the letters if they’re published in books (no mention of permissions, plus writer died long ago) does that make it copyable? I want to preserve the documentation and letters on wiki source or would wiki quote be more appropriate? I just wanted some advice, I normally type out the documents and keep them as personal research tools but wanted to know the possibility of publifying it. Mmis325 (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Before going into the other questions you raise, Mmis325, it seems to me that you want to cite primary sources. This surprises me, as I'd have thought that suitable primary sources would have been identified and summarized (and in places quoted) within secondary sources (books, academic papers, etc). Copyright issues aside, are you sure that your proposed use of primary sources would be in accordance with "Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources"? -- Hoary (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The books are secondary sources but they include an appendix of primary sources and I wanted to know the feasibility of publicising them as they are obscure and can provide insight into the political nature at the time. That was my intention. The books using these sources provide their own recounts and perspectives which I’ve cited myself. Mmis325 (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Mmis325, I'll interpret "publicising" as "publicly reproducing". Andy Mabbett has already commented (below) on the legal aspect of publicly reproducing them in some bulk: which is that he doesn't know. (And I don't know either.) I can't imagine that there'd be any copyright barrier to quoting small samples from within them; after all, this is commonplace in Wikipedia even when what's quoted is indisputably copyrighted. But talk of "[preserving] the documentation and letters on wiki source" is another matter. You'd better ask at Wikisource (of which you have more experience than I). If you're asking about, say, a patchily decipherable letter written in 1896 and laboriously deciphered and edited by a much later scholar for her book published in 2003, I wouldn't assume that the letter in its (2003) published form would be in the public domain (even if stripped of editorial annotations): I really don't know. But why not simply cite/quote the book appearance of the letter? What's cite/quoted doesn't have to be available on the web. -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mmis325: "the copyright status of government documentation." This will depend on which country they govern, and possibly then when they were published, and - if known - who wrote them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Linking to other language wikipedias?

Hi,

I was reading an article and saw a blue link, clicked it and was redirected to an article on Swedish Wikipedia. This has never happened to me before, so is this normal/ok or should I remove that link? Ribidag (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

What article was this on? Inter langauge links should normally be well labeled. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 10:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It was in the Sweden section of Punch (drink) : Punch (drink) - Wikipedia (I hope this makes a link, I don't have much experience with this) Ribidag (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, it didn't make a link :I, anyway it's the word "bål" Ribidag (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ribidag The syntax that has been used there is [[:sv:Bål (dryck)|bål]] instead of the more standard interlanguage link using {{ill}}. These sorts of links are better, in my opinion, on Talk Pages than in articles, as they will look like conventional Wikilinks to most readers. There is a large list of such links that can be used: see H:IW. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Ribidag. I have replaced the link with {{ill|bål|sv|Bål (dryck)}}, which shows as bål. That link was inserted in December 2017 and though the "Ill" template had been around for a while, I suspect it wasn't widely known then. ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

John James (businessman and philanthropist)

Can I now remove the COI message at the top of the page? The issue has been addressed, back in November, and can be viewed on my talk page. Jjarchivist (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Jjarchivist! You are not supposed to remove the template, since any person who views your edits on the John James (businessman and philathropist) article will come to your user page and then know that you had a close connection to the subject, which is the reason for the tag on the article TNM101 (chat) 11:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks. Just wondered how it works. Jjarchivist (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem! Feel free to ask if you have any more questions TNM101 (chat) 11:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Have added a link on the "John James may refer to" page but it's come up in purple, not blue. Have I done something wrong? Jjarchivist (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

What you are referring to is Wikipedia's way of letting you know that you have visited that page before. Nothing to be worried about TNM101 (chat) 13:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Jjarchivist (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Um - where did you get that idea, @TNM101? There is no suggestion of that as any part of the function of the template at Template:COI, and in fact it says This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found. ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I just realized what I did. For some reason, I thought Jjarchivist was referring to his own user page, and not the article. Whatever I said was in relation to the user page. @Jjarchivist, apologies, and if you have resolved the problem, you are free to remove the tag. Thanks @ColinFine for pointing it out! (I really need to get whacked for that) TNM101 (chat) 14:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't feel all that bad. Mistakes is how we learn on Wikipedia and in real life. Cwater1 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I somewhat swore

In a new section in User talk:Semsûrî‬, I typed the F-word admitting my own wrongdoings but I replaced the u with an asterisk. I know that if I didn't censor it, I would get a "one last warning before I get blocked" notification. What happens now? I promise I'll never do this again. Underdwarf58 (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You're allowed to say fuck and shit if you want to. WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA aren't about not saying specific words (although I'd refrain from any slurs). So long as you are being civil towards your fellow editors and keeping a collegiate atmosphere, nothing should happen and you can go about your business. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm never doing it again as my religion says that profanity is comparable to malice and slander, should never be repeated, and contradicts blessing. Underdwarf58 (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using either f*ck or even fuck, depending on the context. It's inappropriate when it's used as an attack on someone. It can also be inappropriate if done in an obviously disruptive fashion, like making every other word in a long discussion a swear word. You merely used it to put an exclamation point on your own frustration. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

We can say whatever the fuck we want, mate! Run fucking wild!

Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Indefinitely protect Teahouse

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § Indefinitely protect Teahouse

Made an article in place of an redirect

Hello everyone, I just created an article (Tübingen School), which turns out was created in place of an older redirect. Is there a way to fresh start the article? Best. Xpander (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Xpander1. I'm not quite clear what you are trying to do. Is this an article about a different Tuebingen School, or intended to replace the existing article?

If it is a different school, the articles will need to be disambiguated - and unless there is a WP:DAB#Primary topic, they'll both need to have a qualifier in the name - in that case, you can create the article with the disambiguator, and afterwards move the existing article to its new name. (I am assuming that you have a track record successfully creating articles - if not, I strongly recommend that you go through WP:AFC)

If you are wanting to replace the existing article, it is recommended practice to edit it in place, incrementally; but if you are convinced that that is not practical, you can create the article in your sandbox, or in draft space, and then request it be moved over the existing article - you'll probably want to get agreement on the talk page of the existing article before doing that, though.

In either case, the redirect is not really relevant, as the article(s) should have capital S on "School" - if you end up moving the article, the redirect should be repointed.

Does that answer your question, or have I misunderstood? ColinFine (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine Yes, It does. It was concerning the latter case. Before creating the page, the article was an empty redirect, so if it's edited in place, it doesn't indicate where the edit history really begins. So I'm still not sure what the best practice here is. Thanks. Xpander (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Tübingen School existed, but was a redirect (to various places) until you created an article there a couple of hours ago. I thought you were talking about the redirect Tübingen school.

Apart from the fact that you have no inline citations, and so it is not an acceptable article in English Wikipedia, I don't see the problem. The previous edit history is short and not really significant. ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine I wonder why the community is so hesitant about this, I made a move request but my request was deleted without a response (I can't seem to find the history on the page or any description of why my request was discarded), I also asked @Wikishovel who subsequently moved and edited the page. Perhaps I shouldn't have created the page in the first place. Xpander (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The move request was declined here. You requested that Draft:Tübingen School be moved to the existing article Tübingen School, so User:Sennecaster replied that a merge can be done instead. The new draft is nearly identical to the original article though, so I'm not sure why this new version was created, can you please explain? Wikishovel (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Wikishovel Thanks for locating the diff. This is what @ColinFine suggested above ("create the article in your sandbox, or in draft space, and then request it be moved over the existing article"). I created the page, by translating the page from the German WP, but that doesn't seem to satisfy page creator attribution requirements here? Xpander (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The edit history of Tübingen School shows that first there was a redirect to Ferdinand Christian Baur, and then you expanded that redirect into an article. I and others, such as User:Reconrabbit, User:Utopes, also made some minor improvements to the article. You then copied and pasted the contents of that article, without attribution, to Draft:Tübingen School. Are you saying you want that copy you made of the article to replace Tübingen School? So there are no traces of the edits made by other editors? Wikishovel (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Wikishovel No actually those edits are helpful, I just think it's only fair that the page be attributed to whoever created it. Is there another way to do that? Xpander (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

All the required attribution is there in the edit history of Tübingen School, as far as I can see. Wikishovel (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Wikishovel But the page doesn't appear on my created pages list . Xpander (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I can recreate the page based on my initial edit, and then User:Reconrabbit, User:Utopes And you are welcome to add your edits. Xpander (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Wikishovel If not I will return the article into its original redirect condition. Xpander (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Per our licenses, every significant edit to the page must be preserved, not just the person that started the article. The created pages list is not the only way for users to see what content you have worked on; many users proudly list out what pages they have created, created from a redirect like you have done here, or simply rewritten and taken to our content review processes. Not being the page creator does not negate that you created this article on the English Wikipedia. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sennecaster, Yes it does, it's also not displayed on the Page information. Xpander (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Xpander1: I have no issue seeing that you are the page creator under §Edit history. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Some svg files cannot be displayed

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T384128

Not displaying on my devices

Shows up just fine

This seems to not be a universal problem, but I've found that some svg files are not showing up in articles or when I visit commons.

I've tried looking at it on Firefox and Safari, using a Windows laptop, on an Android phone, and on an iPhone. I also tried clearing my cashe and restarting my computer. My account is using the default Vector (2022) skin responsive mode is enabled and so it limited width mode. I think those are all the defaults, I cannot recall that I changed anything and certainly not in the last few weeks.

The error message when I clicked on the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NuclearReaction.svg from the page Lise Meitner at reaching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner#/media/File:NuclearReaction.svg

"Sorry, the file cannot be displayed There seems to be a technical issue. You can retry if it persists. Error: could not load image from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/NuclearReaction.svg/1024px-NuclearReaction.svg.png".

As with the IUCN svg other svg files on the same page are fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner#/media/File:Lise_Meitner_signature.svg

I initially asked at Tree of Life because I initially thought it was just the one file. One other editor said they were having a similar problem. Asking here because I'm not quite sure where I should ask a question about this and if this is something that might already being worked on or not. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Top one is broken for me too, appears to be an issue with Commons generating the preview images. Not sure if it's a known issue or not, but the best place to ask is probably the Commons technical village pump if nobody else here knows. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I've reported it to the Commons Technical Village Pump for you, there was another user who had commented about a .jpg image doing the same thing. Server gremlins appear to be afoot! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Works fine for me, seems to be a device or browser-specific problem TNM101 (chat) 04:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

From what I can read, it's an issue with only one data center having some corruption (codfw, located in the Dallas Fort Worth area) so it may only be happening for some people depending on what datacenter your computer or internet is pulling from. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah ha! That seems to fit with where I live and that it is broken across a wide range of devices. Thanks for cross posting the information here. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this NPOV?

So im currently working on User:MrFattie/Rise of Kingdoms, and I just finished the lead. Looking for feedback here - does the tone feel too negative? MrFattie (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It feels negative because the sources you've cited say negative things about the game. That's how it should be. (It's odd that you've started with the lead. The lead is meant to summarise the rest of the article. Normal practise is to write the body of the article first, basing it on what's said in the sources it cites; and then to write the lead as a summary, generally without references becasue they're there in the body. If you start with the lead, you're likely to need to rewrite it once the rest of the article exists.) Maproom (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, should I rewrite it to be more balanced? Or leave it? MrFattie (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

One thing I'll suggest is that "which reviewers have deemed excessive" should probably be supported by a source explicitly saying that this is the general opinion of reviewers or that this is the reaction it always gets. If it's a specific reviewer saying this, then the article should clarify that it's that one reviewer's opinion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Collapsible userbox template

Hi, so I’ve finally sorted out how do I sort my templates into 1 template. So I found the template userboxtop, and can someone provide how do I make it collapsible in wikitext? Waited2seconds (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Try to see Template:Collapsible option. Hope it is helpful. Cwater1 (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

on tfa dates

admittedly a question i likely won't be able to make use of before 2028, and even then said use won't be particularly important or consequential, but curiosity exists to be sated, so...

assuming tfa nominations can have any say on the date an article is shown, provided it's nominated ahead of time, is there anything against suggesting dates that would be funny given its topic (i.e. christmas on november 1, garfield on a monday, 9 in july 8 or august 7, and so on)? yes, i know those aren't featured articles at the time of writing this, it's purely hypothetical consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 03:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Today's Featured Article isn't the place for most humor. There are some topics that may merit specific days of the year, such as Back to the Future (franchise) being run on November 5 (the date traveled back to in the first movie), for example. But it is not generally (or primarily) for humor, but instead because it's a relevant date to the topic at hand. I don't think there's an explicit prohibition on recommending purely humorous/joke dates.. but there should at least be some connection between the date selected/requested and the topic at hand other than the joke, imo. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

meaning that, in the case of those thankfully hypothetical scenarios, it's a "probably not" for christmas and 9, and a "maybe" for garfield, which might be worrisome

either way, thanks consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 16:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

PediaPress/Book Creator not working

Hello. I've ordered four books from PediaPress within the past 5 years, with two of them being in 2023. Even though Wikipedia says that the Book Creator "has been withdrawn," it has worked normally for years. Though I haven't ordered many of these Wikipedia Books, I still like making outlines for them. I suppose it's kind of weird but it's just how my brain works.

Today, I went to see how many pages this book I made a few months ago would have. I went to the section that said "Order a printed copy from: PediaPress" and clicked the link. I received an error message I've never seen before that said "There was an error while attempting to render your book." This is the first time I've ever received this error and it confused me because the link worked as recently as December 17th 2024.

I am very confused here. Is the feature glitched? Is it intentionally gone? The PediaPress website is still active but I think the URL is slightly different. Meanwhile the PediaPress page on Wikipedia makes no mention of any new updates. What's happening here? ShadeTheNarwhal (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@ShadeTheNarwhal welcome to Teahouse! It’s a 3rd party service. I did look at their website homepage which state that it’s updating its servers so temporary disruption is expected. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah! I must've missed that when I went to the site. Thanks! ShadeTheNarwhal (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

How to do good referencing?

I'm new to wikipedia and I wanted to make a article about my favorite band. I talked and got some interviews articles and articles by somewhat popular sites from the band I wanted to make the article for. I spent some time adding references and then after some waiting I see my submission got declined and I'm a little unaware what is wrong. I would think the sources I put are good or the placement of the citations are badly put on. The message left with the decline said "submission is about a musician or musical work not yet shown to meet notability guidelines" and I see what help I can get. Draft:Her New Knife GranolaWad (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@GranolaWad: The important thing is the general notability guidelines (or, in this case, the notability guidelines for music). Either can be met. The important thing is that references must be to reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject and are independent of the subject.

• The first - reliable sources - means that the source must have a reputation for reliability. User generated content such as blogs, random webpages, and the like are not permitted. Reputable magazines or news organizations would qualify as reliable sources. Reliable sources should have clear editorial policies, a clear editorial "hierarchy" (i.e. an editor in chief or other person responsible for the material), and should provide a clear mechanism for error reporting and correction - that they actually act on.
• The second - significant coverage - means that it must not just be a sentence or two in a longer article that discusses the subject. There is no hard and fast rule over how much coverage a subject must get in any given article for it to be significant - but it should ideally be at least multiple paragraphs that cover the topic in depth (rather than a passing mention).
• The third - independent of the subject - means that we don't care what the subject has to say about themselves or who they convince to interview them or publish a press release from them. While interviews and talking-about-self works (like their website) may be able to be used to cite specific facts about themselves (ex: if they said in an interview that they're 30 years old, you could use that interview to cite that fact alone)... they do nothing to contribute to notability. Notability is all about what others say about someone.

Ultimately, all but the first of the sources in the draft right now fail the third point - independence. The second and third sources are both interviews - not independent. I am not sure on the first one - it looks like it may be a lesser known/smaller music magazine of some kind - but their contact page does not list an editorial board, or any error reporting mechanism. It only lists a PR contact and an advertising contact. That doesn't rise to the level of a reliable source, in my mind. Ultimately, you'd need to show that the band meets one of the criteria at WP:BAND or you'd need to find multiple (i.e. 3 or more) sources that meet the three criteria above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Well guess it will take a while for the article to get published then. They are still somewhat popular but not enough to get mainstream or bigger publications to talk about them. I did see some but they seem to be shady kinda AI generated responses I seen some people people mention. Thanks for the advice and hope it can get published one day! GranolaWad (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hellom, @GranolaWad, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this is what tends to happen when new users rush into creating articles before they have understood how Wikipedia does things. 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.

(And yes, I see you've had your account for most of a year, but you hardly edited before creating this draft). ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Yea sorry about that. I really wanted to do something and I thought I had some good stuff, which I believe was good for the first source but I ended up not thinking about the second and third one too. Mostly because I thought the interviews were a fine source. I tried to look for other articles but the band is slowly getting more eyes on them (Plus they are a small band so I thought it would be fine for an article). But I thank you and the person above for giving and keeping the info in mind. I'll definitely be making sure to put more effort in and seeing stuff carefully. Not to mention because of the draft I see writing articles fun so I hope to make or help add to some articles. GranolaWad (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment?

Is this proper to comment about something on here? Anyways, it is confusing that there are two Allen DeGraffenreids. I saw it on the Did You Know. Cwater1 (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cwater1: that's kind of why it's a DYK; it's interesting that we have two people sharing the same uncommon name of sufficient notability to merit an article here. In any case, the Allen links in the DYK section on the main page are properly disambiguated. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 04:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I know. Thanks! We learn something new each day. Cwater1 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Complied

I think all are complied to publish now. Farzana Farzana.1970 (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Farzana.1970! Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are talking about Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir, well it's probably not ready at all for inclusion in Wikipedia. Firstly, you have used Wikipedia as the only reference in the whole article. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, according to WP:RSPWP. You'll need sources that are independent and provide significant coverage in order to demonstrate that this topic merits an article. You'll also need to fix the formatting of the article, as presently it has no headings or sections. When you have fixed all of this, then you can consider resubmitting the article TNM101 (chat) 08:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Some external link with sources are quoted other than Wikipedia. I thought Wikipedia will trust more on wilki sources. Will add other sources in citation in next edit.

Farzana Farzana.1970 (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Farzana.1970, and welcome to the Teahouse. Like most new editors who have not spent time learning how Wikipedia works before trying to write an article, you have written your draft BACKWARDS - that is, you have written what you know about the subject and then looked for references. But Wikipedia isn't interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows). Wikipedia is only interested in information which has been published in reliable sources.

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) 21:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

You know, prior to 30 minutes from now I didn't know where should I reply. We all are on learning curve.

Farzana Farzana.1970 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Needed reliable sources for an article

this is for an article called Draft:Daxflame and i don't know where to find some reliable sources according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. it's also hard to find when youtube, know your meme and imdb are not reliable sources and since i mostly use youtube as reliable source. im just so new to make an article. Maxi Ruan (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Maxi Ruan! If you need a list of reliable sources, you can find them at WP:Reliable Sources/Perennial. And as for reliable sources in general, we need independent and secondary sources that are not related to the subject of the article. Your current sources are user generated, and all those youtube videos are made by Daxflame himself. If you are not able to find at least three reliable sources, then the topic is probably not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia TNM101 (chat) 08:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Maxi Ruan You have missed a couple of possible BBC sources and one in Wired (magazine). There is a special Google-based search engine you can used for Wiki-reliable sources. These are the results in this case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Universally agreed facts

Hypothetical: If all 8 billion humans on the planet universally agreed on something, could an opinion that is voiced by all 8 billion on a human matter be presented as objective fact?

Hypothetically, if all 8 billion humans on the planet just woke up one day and said, for example "Genocide is wrong", could a wikipedian then write "Genocide is wrong" on an article and not have it deleted as violating NPOV? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

SimpleSubCubicGraph, there is no value in discussing highly implausible hypotheticals. We do not say in Wikipedia's voice that anything is "wrong". Take a look at Murder, an act almost universally considered by humans as "wrong". But the Wikipedia article does not overtly call it "wrong". Instead, the article neutrally describes the social and legal norms about murder, and the various definitions of murder and its intersection with Manslaughter and the broader concept of Homicide. The same is true of Genocide. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: See WP:BLUE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Paid editors

Where can I see a list of all undisclosed paid editors and people who did not disclose other COI's

Is it possible to do so? Can I have some of the most famous examples of this? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

SimpleSubCubicGraph, since Wikipedians are not infallible detectives, it seems almost certain that some undisclosed paid editors have never been detected. Even more so for conflicts of interest, which almost every editor has to a greater or lesser extent. It is only when a severe conflict of interest prevents neutral editing that a COI becomes a problem. We have several mechanisms to allow positive contributions from COI editors. Among these are the Articles for Creation process and the formal Edit request process. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Undisclosed_paid may be a start. It lists the articles which currently have a UPE template included. "Famous" is in the eye of the beholder but there have been WP:Signpost articles about some cases, for example Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-12-12/Disinformation_report. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Note also that it has not always been mandatory for paid editors to disclose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Is the material WP:Synth and WP:RS compliant?

I have proposed some changes to the contested material here: [[1]] But I want to be sure that it is policy compliant/ that it doesn't get removed in bad faith. The contested text:

Subhash Velingkar, a former member of the Hindu extremist organisation of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has demanded DNA tests of Francis Xavier's relics (corpse) for veracity, they are also attempting to cancel Francis Xavier's patronage of Goa, where his relics are exposed periodically, to replace him with Parshuram, a sage of Hindu mythology.

The sources are here: [[2]]

What do you reckon/ suggest? Nolicamaca (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I think a better one would be: Subhash Velingkar, a politician formerly linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has demanded DNA tests of Francis Xavier's relics (corpse) for veracity. The organization is also attempting to cancel Francis Xavier's patronage of Goa, where his relics are exposed periodically, to replace him with Parshuram, a sage of Hindu mythology.

I will say that you must carefully source these statements; I have done my best here to make it as neutral as possible. I removed the Hindu extremist and Hindu nationalist part since a reader can open the respective articles of the politician and the organization where they can find out what views they hold TNM101 (chat) 13:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User:TNM101 Thanks for the suggestion Nolicamaca (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Emanuele Naboni

Draft:Emanuele Naboni Hi everyone, I recently submitted a draft article about Emanuele Naboni, but it was declined with the reason that the subject does not meet the academic notability criteria. I have included several references to peer-reviewed publications, books, and independent sources from academic journals and conferences. However, the draft was still considered not notable enough. I would greatly appreciate any guidance on: What specific improvements are needed to meet Wikipedia’s academic notability guidelines? Are there additional types of sources or formatting that could strengthen the draft? Would restructuring the content help in emphasizing the subject’s impact better? Thank you for your time and suggestions! EngTechAdvisor (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @EngTechAdvisor: the decline notice contains within it an explanation of the two notability guidelines relevant to this, namely WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Please follow each of the links in the notice, and study the guidance carefully; it is there for exactly that reason. The additional comments provided by the reviewer are also useful to note. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, is the person on the Wikipedia page not well known enough to have one? Google identifies them as a public figure, and I don't understand what doesn't comply with the mentioned guidelines. Could you be more specific? I've read the guidelines, but I'd appreciate some clarity. Thanks for your help. EngTechAdvisor (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NACADEMIC lists eight criteria that may qualify a person with an academic position as article-worthy. Naboni does qualify for any. "Too soon" may apply. David notMD (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your feedback. However, according to Wikipedia's guidelines on academic notability (WP:NACADEMIC), a person does not need to meet all eight criteria; satisfying just one is sufficient to establish notability.

In this case, the subject has authored several books, which can be found in the references provided. This meets the criterion related to significant published works, contributing to their notability in the academic field. EngTechAdvisor (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@EngTechAdvisor: I make no comment on this person's notability, since I haven't reviewed the draft. I'm just saying that the decline reasons are given in the decline notice (and the accompanying comments, if any). Often authors overlook those, thinking that they are just some meaningless boilerplate, whereas they actually give the decline reasons in a succinct manner. I could regurgitate them for you, but chances are I would only be making things less clear. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I appreciate the reminder about carefully reviewing the decline notice and accompanying comments.

Regarding the notability criteria outlined in WP:NACADEMIC, it is important to highlight that it is not necessary to meet all eight criteria—meeting just one is sufficient to establish notability. In this case, the subject has authored several books, which are listed in the provided references, thus fulfilling the criterion related to significant published works.

Additionally, it is possible that the reviewer may not fully grasp the importance of the subject in the field of sustainable engineering and architecture, which is gaining increasing relevance on an international level.

I have carefully reviewed the decline reasons, but I still do not fully understand why the draft was rejected. It would be helpful to receive further details to improve the content in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. EngTechAdvisor (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

EngTechAdvisor, you're correct that a professor only needs to satisfy 1 of the 8 criteria (though some people satisfy several). Based on what you've said above, it sounds like you think he meets Criterion 1. Is that correct? If not, please specify which criterion you think he does meet. Assuming that I was correct, first note that it says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (emphasis added). These links will tell you what Wikipedia means by "independent" and "reliable sources." Second, look at the section elaborating on the specific criteria, specifically at how Criterion 1 is assessed. For example, it's not enough that Naboni has written several books; you'd need to show that these books are widely cited in his field. Does this help? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion Thank you for the clarification. We both agree that it is necessary to meet one or more criteria, but not all eight. However, I believe that Emanuele Naboni meets multiple criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, specifically criteria 1, 2, 4, and 8.

Regenerative Design in Digital Practice - TU/e Research [3]https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/regenerative-design-in-digital-practice-a-handbook-for-the-built-

KGL Akademi – Regenerative Design & Digital Practice [4]https://kglakademi.dk/da/regenerative-design-digital-practice

YouBuild - Ripartiamo dalle città [5]https://www.youbuildweb.it/ripartiamo-dalle-citta/ EngTechAdvisor (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

If you think that he meets multiple criteria, then for each one, you need to look at the Specific criteria notes (the section I directed you to), paying attention to what kind of evidence you need to provide for it. For example, as I said, it's not enough to provide evidence that Naboni has written several books; you'd need to show that these books are widely cited by others in his field. None of your three links above shows that Regenerative Design in Digital Practice is widely cited by others in his field. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion Thank you for your clarification. I understand that demonstrating the impact of Naboni's work requires showing that his publications are widely cited within his field.

I would like to point out that Regenerative Design in Digital Practice has been mentioned on the official website of the Royal Danish Academy, which is a recognized academic institution, and it has been cited 52 times on platforms such as ResearchGate [6]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336121907_Regenerative_Design_In_Digital_Practice_A_Handbook_for_the_Built_Environment, which is widely used by the academic community to share and cite research work.

I find it challenging to understand why citations from well-known and reputable academic databases might not be considered sufficient, especially when I have observed citations from less reliable sources being accepted in other profiles. Could you please clarify what specific types of citations would be considered valid in this case?

I appreciate your guidance on this matter. EngTechAdvisor (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the Royal Danish Academy is a well-established academic institution, but in this context, that webpage is not itself a citation or a review; rather, it's more of a brief overview of the book + access to the book. In many fields, being cited 52 times means that the work has been cited in a typical way rather than being widely cited. (And I have no experience with Naboni's field, so I cannot say whether it's different in his field for some reason.) It is often difficult to show that a work is widely cited; this is discussed a bit here. Many professors do interesting work, work at well-known institutions, and get cited in their fields, but don't meet the standard for being "notable" in Wikipedia's sense. And an argument based on what you see in other articles isn't effective, as discussed here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I see that you have changed the image in the Infobox, but this one also identified as your own work, meaning you personally took this photograph. That is being reviewed at Commons, and may end up being removed at Commons. If you were not the photographer I suggest you remove the image from the now resubmitted draft. Images or lack of are not part of the AfC review consideration. David notMD (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Regarding the first image, I had obtained permission to use it as it was also published elsewhere. However, I later uploaded my own photographs taken during various congresses around the world. Additionally, I have sent an email to Wikipedia declaring that the photo is my property and have also obtained permission from the professor to use it.

I didn't think that dealing with photo usage could be this complicated, but I understand the need to comply with the platform's policies. EngTechAdvisor (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia is EXTREMELY sensitive about copyright infringement. What was needed is confirmation that you took the photograph; the subject's permission is not required. David notMD (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia archiving bot

In the past, I've seen Wiki articles with very neatly archived sources. All references get archived and archival links are put into the references. There is some publicly accessible bot that does that. I've been searching for it for a while now, without finding it. Where do I find that bot? Modular science (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Found it Modular science (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

help with potential BLP violations in an AfD discussion

conversation is now at the BLPN

In response to a BLPN section started by another editor, I asked for guidance there yesterday re: acting on potential BLP violations in this AfD discussion. It's been over a day, and no one has responded at the BLPN. As I noted there, I am hesitant to delete people's comments myself, due to my extensive participation in that AfD discussion, and also because I'm not that experienced an editor (though I'm not a newbie) and have never deleted discussion comments. I did post a note at the bottom of that AfD discussion yesterday, expressing my concerns and suggesting that people review their own comments and remove inappropriate content, but no one has done so. (No one has edited that page at all since my comment, and I don't know whether anyone has seen my comment.) I recognize that BLPN is the most appropriate place for my question; I'm asking here since I didn't get a response there. I'd appreciate some input. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC) You now have got feedback at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ido Kedar. (And when you still hadn't, the best thing to do would have been just to wait.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Hoary, no, there is no response to me there. And my concern about waiting is that the BLP policy is pretty explicit that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Several degrading statements about the BLP subject haven't been removed. Other statements are sourced to blogs, which are not acceptable sources for BLP claims, even outside of article space. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Oolong and Bilby have responded there. If their responses don't satisfy you, then that message thread, not this one, is where you should ask for other responses. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC) You misread the exchange there. The first comment was posted by Bilby, not me. Oolong responded to Bilby, and Bilby then responded to Oolong. I only entered after Bilby's second comment, and then I waited for a day to see if anyone would respond, which no one did. It wasn't a matter of their responses not satisfying me, as no one had responded to me. But Bilby has just responded to me there, a minute after you posted your second response here, so I won't respond further here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC) FactOrOpinion, you're right, I'm wrong, I'm sorry. (Perhaps my brain is frazzled by a slightly earlier, unrelated set of edits.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC) @FactOrOpinion: My advice would be to ignore it. Not because you are right or wrong, but because the conversation is already pretty complicated, and about a very sensitive issue, and the more you get bogged down in meta-conversations the more energy will be wasted. I know thats probably not what you want to hear, but on Wikipedia picking your battles is an incredibly important skill (one at which I suck) and often shrugging and ignoring certain aspects of a situation is a great strategy which helps you achieve your goals. Hope that helps, if not then please ignore me. Polygnotus (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC) By the way Louis Theroux has an interesting documentary about facilitated communication called Tell Them You Love Me. Not an easy watch! Polygnotus (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC) This isn't about facilitated communication, though. That's part of the problem. Apparantly Ido's mother tried it and found that she did not have any confidence that it actually worked. Anyway, the primary concern is that without knowing if he can commuicate or not, statements that it is all faked and he can't possibily communicate have considerable potential to be degrading. - Bilby (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) @Bilby: I still recommend the documentary because I am a big fan of Louis Theroux. Debating if those statements on that talkpage are degrading does not lead to improvements to the encyclopedia. Polygnotus (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Debating if the statements are BLP violations does lead to some sort of improvement, though, at least in the sense of protecting subjects. I find Theroux a mixed bag, but certainly enjoyed some of his work. That one my not really relevant to the disussion, but may well be relevant as a matter of interest. - Bilby (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC) protecting subjects It won't. Further discussion is far more likely to cause a Streisand effect. Polygnotus (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC) I'll have to disagree with you. Determining that something is a BLP violation and removing it seems better than leaving it there and hoping no one notices. - Bilby (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) @Bilby: Publicly talking about it draws attention to it, so if your goal is to protect that BLP subject (who is unlikely to read that AfD) then its best to move on. If you start editing someone elses comment that will draw loads of attention, someone will revert, and then an administrator will have to jump in and it is unlikely that that administrator will agree that those are BLP violations, see WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. But even if they do, which probably won't happen, then all you've done is draw far far more attention to BLP violations than they would've gotten if you ignored them. This is not something you can agree or disagree with, because it is not an opinion but a statement of fact. Polygnotus (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC) I am aware of the difficulties. But I will never be happy working in any environment where degrading comments about another person are simply left in place because we do not want to draw attention to them. If you are happy with such a scenario, then so be it. I am not. - 06:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Bilby (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC) I thought that the goal was protecting the BLP subject, not making you happy. Polygnotus (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC) WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL is very clear: In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Polygnotus (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia:BLPTALK: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate". - Bilby (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Since you won't be able to delete those comments you consider degrading, or at least not for long, your options are to keep drawing attention to them, or to not do that. Polygnotus (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC) No, I have options. The main one is to ask the community for consensus about how to handle them. Which I have done. - Bilby (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Because you are trying to protect a BLP subject or because you are unhappy? Bit confusing tbh. Asking the community about something surely won't draw attention to it. Polygnotus (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC) or because you are unhappy?: See WP:AGF, WP:NPA (Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Is this "The first person who falsely accuses someone else loses the debate"? Should I insert some links to irrelevant behavioural policies and guidelines here? Polygnotus (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Ok. Let's keep any discussion about this to BLPN. The Teahouse is not the place for it. - Bilby (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Agreed. I pointed out that Hydrangeans made a mistake on that other page, but that is no reason to worsen the mood here. Polygnotus (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC) There's no need to say false things about another user either. I described user behavior at the AfD (someone saying that Kedar can't independently communicate, contrary to what reliable and BLP-appropriate sources have said), and then I provided a diff to an example of that behavior. I don't see what the mistake could be. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC) There's no need to say false things about another user then please stop doing that. And please stop trying to export drama to the Teahouse, a place intended for friendly collaboration. I can explain it over at that other page if you don't understand the mistake you made. Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) 'Because users break the rules, we shouldn't bother with the rules' is a pretty uncompeling argument for ignoring the BLP rules. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC) See Strawman. Polygnotus (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

How to unsubmit a page for review?

Can I unsubmit a page that I recently submitted for review? If so, how? If not, can I delete the page? LilyXChloe (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @LilyXChloe:, welcome to Wikipedia! I think you are referring to Draft:Impel. I have unsubmitted the page for you. I visited the HELP:HISTORY page and then I used the WP:UNDO functionality to undo the submission. You can't delete that page, Wikipedia:Administrators can, but if no one is working on it it will automatically be deleted after some time has passed, see Wikipedia:Drafts#Abandoned_drafts. Polygnotus (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Answered on editor's Talk page on how to ask for deletion. David notMD (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! LilyXChloe (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Should I be linking this word?

Editing the page I'm currently working on, Sacred Reich, I'm confused on whether or not I should be linking the word "tempo" on the page. In music, tempo is the speed of piece of music, measured in beats per minute. On the page Metallica—a featured article—it's only linked once in the page very deep in the body despite being mentioned in the lead and other parts of the body but are unlinked. Per MOS:UL, technical terms, jargon or slang expressions or phrases should be linked to their corresponding articles. The question is does tempo qualify as a technical term in this context? Will laypeople reasonably understand what tempo without requiring linking? Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 06:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

As a layperson I understand "tempo". Of course I can't speak for everyone, so you can just do what you prefer, of flip a coin if you have no preference. Polygnotus (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

How To Create Page For This Site IAC News

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I want to create a page for IAC News. Url: iacnews.com. Will you help me? Gaziismail (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gaziismail and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately I can't seem to find WP:COVERAGE in WP:RELIABLE sources, which could mean that iacnews.com is not (yet) WP:NOTABLE. For more information see WP:GNG. If I am wrong, please list some independent reliable sources that have discussed iacnews.com here. Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with Polygnotus, Gaziismail. And even if you succeed in demonstrating that IAC News is notable (as "notability" is defined by and for en:Wikipedia), it will be your job to try your best to create a worthwhile Draft:IAC News. In order to have a significant chance of succeeding, you should first get a lot of practice in improving existing articles. If your Draft:IAC News is already promising, and shows effort, when you ask for help with it, you're likely to get help, but you're unlikely to get much help before then. -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I have some evidence like some profiles and live websites, here I have given the link. Website: IAC News X: IAC News

Crunchbase: IAC News Will this be possible ? Dear Hoary Gaziismail (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Profiles and their own website do not establish notability. You need independent reliable sources that on their own chose to write about IAC news and describe what they see as important/significant/influential about it.

Are you associated with IAC News? 331dot (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article for submission

Hi! Few days back, I created a draft in Afc, Draft:Kappa Ursae Majorids, I havent received any reply. Is there any way to...just have a reviewer to review it? Forgive me if I sounded impatient, Im new here, I dont know all the rules and regulations here, So, a reply would be enough. ---- Warriorglance (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello there. You have to remain patient because drafts will be reviewed by AFC reviewers in a random order so, just like how the draft says it right now, it may take 2 months or more to be reviewed. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 08:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

While you're waiting, Warriorglance, there's more work that you can do by yourself. The ISBN is wrong; what's the correct ISBN? Consider this: "they often receive less attention compared to more prominent meteor showers". It strikes me as pretty much a truism. I mean, I know squat about dog breeds, but I'll hazard a guess that lesser-known dog breeds often receive less attention compared to more prominent dog breeds. And the first sentence: What's singular and what's plural? -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary All right, All right, I will correct those mistakes. But the isbn is correct, you can search that isbn in Google and you will get a result. I don't know what's the problem here. Warriorglance (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Warriorglance, the closest I find at WorldCat is OCLC 958134990; but this has different editors and no ISBN (correct or incorrect) is specified for it. You're right about getting a result from googling: in fact you understate what Google returns. (This in particular should be authoritative.) Well then, Template:Listed Invalid ISBN is for you! As for the identities of the editors, here's a wild guess: Are Jenniskens et al perhaps the authors of a particular piece you're citing within the Proceedings? -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What I meant was this site. You are right, It has different authors. I will correct it. But as you can see, the isbn is same. So, How do you use the above template. Warriorglance (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Normally, Warriorglance, I'd say "Just skip any mention of the dud ISBN." But it appears frequently and conspicuously; so if you skipped it somebody might later add it, with the same ill-effect. And therefore I've fixed the matter for you, and also specified all the authors and the title of the paper you cited. (I'm tempted to add "So now you owe me a beer." But of course soliciting for payment, whether of bucks or booze, is a no-no.) NB the place where a conference is held is not necessarily the place ("location" in Wikipedia-speak) of publication of a volume of the "proceedings" of the conference. Now I see another note, specifying something on pages 355–356 of Meteoroids 2013: Proceedings of the Astronomical Conference. What's the title of the particular piece you're citing, and who wrote it? Please try to add this info yourself; if you get stuck, ask here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Author notability guidelines

My draft article was decline as a result of non notable author. But author clearly passes WP: NAUTHOR, here is the draft.

Ok1616 13:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Okwanite Your first and second references are reviews of one of Afenfia's books but says nothing about him. Hence they don't contribute to his notability, except indirectly. The other two sources are an interview, so are not independent, as required by our notability guidelines. That's why the draft has been declined. If you find further material with sourcing meeting our golden rules you may be able to develop the draft and re-submit it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Author Guidelines

Please I'm here to learn, I don't want to contribute to any article here without knowing the guidelines.

My area of interest is creating article for notable authors.

Please assist me check the if any of these authors meet WP:GNG or WP: Author. Thanks.

1. Bisi Adjapon
2. Ndifreke Ukpong
3. Chukwuebuka Ibeh
4. Nestor Udoh

Ok1616 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Okwanite, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to present your evidence for them meeting the criteria, we'll look at it. But it is unlikely anybody is going to do the research that you want done. ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, ColinFine the evidence could be what?, Please explain it in a way I can understand Ok1616 15:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Check this two Bisi Adjapon and Ndifreke Ukpong Ok1616 15:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Would you start learning to play tennis, and immediately enter a tournament? Or start learning the violin and immediately book a public recital?

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) 16:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Show us how they meet the criteria: what is the evidence? What are the sources that you claim are of adequate quality (check out WP:42}? ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Okwanite (Ok1616)? ... have you discovered and gone through Help:Introduction yet? That's where you can get a good introduction to the guidelines, which you rightly understand you need to know before contributing to articles. The senior editors who staff the Teahouse expect us to know something about those guidelines when we ask questions, not make them "do our homework." Augnablik (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Second the recommendations that you gain experience working to improve existing articles before trying to create an article, and that Teahouse Hosts are here to advise, not to do your 'homework' of researching potential notability for these authors. David notMD (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Your Draft:Michael Afenfia has been declined for lack of valid references. I advise you work on only one draft (MA or another) rather than starting four more. David notMD (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ok1616 18:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

How To Publish This Page IAC News

Sir, I have drafted it here with some information. Is there any problem in updating it later? Draft:IAC News Gaziismail (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I commented on the draft that it was just advertising. I was weirdly called racist for doing so. Theroadislong (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much User:Theroadislong Gaziismail (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gaziismail The whole idea of having drafts is so that editors can work on them until they are ready for submission: see WP:AfC for details. Your draft is not yet suitable for mainspace, since it only cites X (unreliable) and Crunchbase, which is a deprecated source (see the link I supplied about it). Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I remove these links now? Gaziismail (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. What your draft needs is sources/text to show how IAC news is notable in the way Wikipedia defines this. Also, please remove the categories, as we don't categorise drafts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Gaziismail.

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) 16:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Sir, I have removed the bad words, if there are any more bad words, please tell me. Draft:IAC News @Theroadislong Gaziismail (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

As advided above, articles are based on what independent, reliable sources have reported, you have none? Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Gaziismail, you will need to disclose your conflict of interest on your user page, which is at User:Gaziismail. Instructions are at WP:COI.

The article currently has no sources. It is impossible to accept an article that has no sources. We generally need three that represent significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the article subject. You can find more information at WP:RS. Valereee (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

^1]

I found this construction in Jack Teagarden:

Teagarden was born in Vernon, Texas, United States.^1]

It seems to add an extraneous superscript after a reference. I am tempted to remove it, but I'm not sure what it is. There are several throughout the article. Thanks for your advice

References

Ben (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Someone used <sup> to insert those numbers, no idea why. I removed them. Schazjmd (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Littenberg Someone has used the source code <sup>1]</sup>. I'm not sure what they were trying to achieve but perhaps page numbers, although that seems unlikely in the example you gave. There is a template {{rp}} if that's what they wanted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Double-checking process for submitting first article?

I have my first article written and ready to go –– I just want to check a few things?

• There's a little notification that says, "Important, do not remove this line before article has been created." Should I remove it before hitting "publish" (since I've written the article now), or does it mean to wait until the article has been approved by an editor?
• I wrote the article in the Wikipedia wizard. My understanding is that if I hit "publish," it will go to another volunteer editor for review? It won't automatically appear on Wikipedia's home page? The code at the top is subst: AfC submission/draftnew.

Altras&gingerale (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Altras&gingerale, and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to hit "publish" in order to save your draft at all - the name was changed to "publish" some while ago to emphasise that even drafts are public, in that anybody can see them if they go looking. It doesn't mean "Publish to the main encyclopaedia".

Once you have published (i.e. saved) your draft, have a careful look at whether your sources meet WP:42 and the draft establishes that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense. If so, there will be a button that you can pick that says "Submit this draft for review" (or some such language).

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) 16:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I followed your directions and hit published, made a few more edits (added more sources to further establish independence), and then submitted for review, fingers crossed I guess! I appreciate your assistance! Altras&gingerale (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

For the curious, Draft:Tara Dower. And for A&G, the review system is not a queue, so could be days, weeks, or (sadly) months. David notMD (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

References Help

Hello, I have been trying to publish a page on American Film producer and writer Austin Hoyt. I have done everything I can to find sources and cite everything in my draft, but it is still being rejected. Are you able to give me more in-detail reasoning as to why this draft is getting rejected? What about the sources I provided is not correct? My draft is Draft:Austin Hoyt Sophiakutch (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Note that it has only been declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.

You have not summarized independent reliable sources that show how he is a notable creative professional; you've pretty much just listed his work. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What to do about a user mass-removing content sourced from a certain site

Hello. I've come across a user whose contributions all involve removing content from articles that source material from a site called "Brenton Film", and from edit summaries the user appears to have some sort of conflict of interest. I am unsure of what to do, what the Wikipedia guidelines are for this, and if my concern is even valid. Any advice/help would be appreciated. Thanks - Imconfused3456 19:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Imconfused3456, and welcome to the Teahouse. The IP's grounds for objecting to the site don't seem relevant (sources can be biased and reliable), but I doubt whether Brenton Film counts as a WP:Reliable source in the first place. It looks to me like a Blog, or at any rate an WP:SPS. I suggest asking at WP:RSN. ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Subpages (User), remove redirect

Hi, how do you remove redirects from (1) subpages to pages and (2) from subpage to subpage? I have difficulty with this logic as it is now.  

Case 1: Page User:17387349L8764/List of requirements engineering tools points to the lemma List of requirements engineering tools and keeps showing as a "subpage", how to remove/unlink this?

Case 2: Page User:17387349L8764/sandbox points to User:17387349L8764/Lost series, but why when the second page has a dedicated name?

What I intend is to simply create subpages as notes; if one of them has "article qualities", it can be moved to the main page, but will the redirect still be set? How can I undo it? Thanks!

17387349L8764 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

17387349L8764: you have created two subpages of your own user page, both redirects. (I cannot think of any purpose that would be achieved by doing this, which rather hampers me in giving advice.) One of them was to another redirect, and was automatically rerouted by a robot to avoid the double redirect. If you don't want these redirects to exist, you can just blank them - they're your own subpages, and no-one will mind, or even notice. I don't know what you mean by "will the redirect still be set?". If you blank the content of a redirect, it ceases to be a redirect. Maproom (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

To editor 17387349L8764: A page is made into a redirect simply by putting the text #redirect [[WP:Example]] at the top (as the very first text contained in the page, nothing before it). This redirects it to whatever page name is inside the [[ ]]—WP:Example here. That's it! Magic! To make it not-a-redirect anymore, you just edit the page to remove the #redirect thing. Important: this means editing the redirected page itself, not the page it is "pointing at" (redirected to). To edit your user sandbox: follow this link. Remove that #redirect part and voila.

Your "userspace" is considered "yours" and you can do whatever with it (as long as it's "productive" Wikipedia Stuff). If you want any pages in it deleted such as User:17387349L8764/List of requirements engineering tools just add the text {{u1}} at the top of the page and an admin will come along and take care of it. I suggest trying out Twinkle if you haven't as it makes easier this and many other Wikipedia tasks.

For a list of every page in your "userspace" have a look at: Special:PrefixIndex/User:17387349L8764. And to look up info about editing WP and how to do various things try Help:Contents. You're also of course welcome to ask for assistance here or the Help desk, or my talk page, and Help:Contents can direct you to other venues to find assistance as well. I hope you have a good day and if you have more questions ask away! --Slowking Man (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

About My Draft (Draft:Cultural impact of The Shining)

Shall I consider the comment left by User:SafariScribe? When I fix up articles, I only really look at the reason that was provided in the decline box. In this case, it was "This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission." If I fixed up this issue and this issue only, would the page have a higher chance of being accepted? Also, I'm not really sure how to interpret this statement. Are my explanations insufficient? Are they considered hard to properly interpret to the average reader? I also may need some help with the 'Analysis' section because the scholarly analyses I've found on Google Scholar that revolve around the film and its cultural impact are paid. LeGoldenBoots (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@LeGoldenBoots: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, your draft would have a higher chance of being accepted if you fixed that problem. It's not a guarantee though—different reviewers have different opinions. As to how you fix the problem, the best thing to do is to imagine that you've never seen The Shining. I, for instance, have never seen it, and I am a bit confused by the draft. For example, I have no idea why "Here's Johnny!" was said, what scene it was in, why it's repeated so many times, etc. There are some comments you might want to look at on the draft. If you need to access certain paywalled sources, you should be eligible for the Wikipedia Library, which might grant you access to those sources, or you could ask at WP:TREX. Happy editing! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Relativity Alright, I had made some edits here and there to the page; particularly in the "Imagery and phrases" section. I also changed some of the vocabulary I used in sections of the article, courtesy of the comment left by User:Hoary. Would the page be in a good spot to be properly submitted now considering I fixed the issues described in the decline box, thanks to your explanation of what that really meant. (Thanks!), or should that be left for me to decide? LeGoldenBoots (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@LeGoldenBoots: It's still a bit confusing. My suggestion is to have a "Plot" or "Background" section in the beginning, right after the lead, where you briefly describe the plot and the characters of the film. This section doesn't need to be cited, but it could help clear up some of the confusion as to what character does what. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. LeGoldenBoots (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

LeGoldenBoots, I thought I'd clean up a single, very short paragraph, as a demonstration of one kind of the work needed. But I was stumped by "Another similarity is the axe-murdering Salamanca twins, in contrast to the axe-murdered Grady twins." Maybe there's a similarity, maybe there's a contrast, maybe there's even both. But if there are both, then say so directly; don't make the sentence look as if you started it with one idea but reversed yourself less than a dozen words later. Elsewhere in the same section, the draft says that the film Ready Player One "features a plentiful of references" to the film The Shining. I suppose "features" means "has" or "shows", but your use here of "plentiful" is alien to me. (For me, and for Wiktionary, it's an adjective, not a noun.) Perhaps it's just the result of a sleepy and incomplete rewording; but whatever the reason for it, I recommend that you slowly read the draft aloud; and where it sounds strange, rewrite. Best of luck! -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the clarification! LeGoldenBoots (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Empty string

Please copy the following question over for me:

Having a strange interaction at Empty string with an editor who seems not to be able to read or understand guidelines; I don’t really know how to talk to a person who thinks this is mandated by the MOS. Advice (or, even better, weighing in gently somewhere) requested. (Is this bad use of punctuation explicitly ruled out somewhere in MOS? Anything that requires interpretation or reading comprehension seems like it would be hard to convey to them.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

So try, straightforwardly and of course with no hint of sarcasm, on Talk:Empty string. -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Alt accounts

So I know that some users on Wikipedia have alternative accounts. Is there a criteria that someone has to meet in order to legitimately have an alt account? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid: see WP:SOCKLEGIT. There's no specific criteria, but sock accounts not meeting any of those bullets are at best frowned upon. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)