Wikipedia:Teahouse

Maproom, 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

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template.

IP Peer Review.

Peer Review Guidelines is not clear on whether IP editors can nominate for PR. Though I won't remember to do it by the time I get home. I know intellectually that its unlikely due to IP editors not being able to create pages however.

I'm going to be checking every few hours while I am at this district.

Specifically looking to ask for a review of Plurality (identity) 24.155.147.109 (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I see nothing to prevent an IP address from requesting a peer review. The only thing that would stop you is a semi-protected talk page. Otherwise, just follow the instructions. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yep, can't create the PR page

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Wikipedia does not have a project page with this exact name.

• You need to log in or create an account to create this page.
• Search for "Peer review/Plurality (identity)/archive1" in existing pages within the Wikipedia namespace.
• Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

24.155.147.109 (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Right, if you have to create a page, that stops an IP editor from proceeding. Do you have an objection to creating an account for yourself? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Technical Errors prevent me from doing so. I would use my account if I was able to. 24.155.147.109 (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Peer review/Plurality (identity)/archive1 for you. Please replace my comment with a statement of your own. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. 24.155.147.109 (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Technical errors? For an existing account? Can you elaborate? At first I was thinking the account may need IP block exemption, but you're already editing from an IP address and clearly not blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

tldr school blocked central auth 24.155.147.109 (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

See this edit, and this talk page 24.155.147.109 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

OK. I don't understand why you can't log into one account from school, and log into another account from home. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

because I can't log in within Georgetown Independent School District at all. The district decided to remove access to central auth early last school year. The only possible way for me to log in is if an WP:ADMIN moved User:IPOfAFlower to a local (enwiki) account. 24.155.147.109 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you asked the school to re-enable it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Help Me See Edit Revert As Good Faith

A one-sentence edit I made last week was reverted. This is the first time a revert has happened to me. Reading WP:RV and WP:ROWN, it did not seem to me that a revert was warranted. I started a discussion on the talk page: Talk:TESCREAL#Considering RfC regarding sentence about the origin Three other editors (not the one who did the revert) have replied, very briefly, to my lengthy explanation of my edit. I am having trouble seeing the revert as having been done in good faith, and these replies have not helped. Can someone please help me see it that way? Perhaps if someone who understands their POV restates it a bit less tersely, I will get it. Aurodea108 (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Aurodea108. As I can't see why you think the edit was in bad faith, I'm not sure that I can help you to not see it that way, but I'll stick my twopennyworth in.

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what the sources say about the subject, not what you (or I, or other editors) know, think, or believe about the subject.

If a source does not directly say anything about the subject (specifically) then it is hard to see why that source should be cited, or what can relevantly go into the article on the basis of that source. If the source does not specifically say that it is about the origin of TESCREAL, then it cannot be used to support a statement about the origin of TESCREAL.

I also suggest that if several editors disagree with you then it's time to drop the stick. ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @ColinFine for taking the time to reply to me extensively. I take it you have already read completely the posts I made in that discussion thread, for which I also thank you.

The source grouped the TESCREAL paper among several earlier papers, which it described as seeing AI in a certain way. If I understand you correctly, in order for the source to be relevant, it would have had to say explicitly something like, "First Kalluri wrote that AI may 'build systems that sanctify the status quo and advance the interests of the powerful', then Birhane and Guest wrote...then...and most recently, Gebru and Torres came up with the acronym TESCREAL to describe the ideologies they see as underpinning AI. These are some of the authors that see ‘AI’ as a way to advance capitalist, kyriarchal, authoritarian and/or white supremacist goals." The source said this succinctly, expecting the reader to be able to follow the references and unpack their clause into something like what I just wrote, rather than explicitly. Hence the source did not explicitly use the word "TESCREAL" and is being seen by you and others as not relevant.

If indeed I am understanding you correctly, then I would respond that the hypothetical passage I just wrote is more like what a good professor might write for their lower-division undergraduate students, and is not to be expected in a research-level academic paper. The unpacking that I just did is almost a mechanical exercise, and should not change the answer to whether the source is relevant or not.

Part of the reason I am wondering about bad faith is what I am seeing as nitpicking about a stylistic choice on the part of the source.

Part of my reason for wondering about bad faith is admittedly due to the history of that page, some of which can be seen at the Talk page (some has been archived). It seems to me that my sentence, which is about a "meta" question (where did the idea of TESCREAL come from?) may have been reverted because other, less "meta", questions (does TESCREAL describe a real phenomenon? should TESCREAL be described on WP?) are contentious.

As for whether to "drop the stick", I will keep your suggestion in mind and give it some time. Aurodea108 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

No, @Aurodea108, I haven't closely read the posts. I (and I think the other editors) are arguing on the basis of Wikipedia policy. If it is not discussed in one of the sources, it should not be discussed in the article. Period. ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I've read through the discussion, and broadly agree with the other editors. I see zero evidence of bad faith in the replies, and I would echo ColinFine's note and argue that it would be a good idea for you to drop the stick. You introduced a source, several others have disagreed about its relevance, and part of functioning in Wikipedia is for one to recognize that consensus will frequently be against their own opinion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Disagreeing with an edit is not a reason to revert it. The OP's edit wasn't in bad faith so it shouldn't have been reverted. Period. If @Avatar317 disagreed with the edit, they could have revised it or just deleted it or started a discussion on the talk page. Reverting isn't just rude - it's confrontational because we know the editor will receive a notification saying their change has been reverted. @Aurodea108 My advice - take on board the feedback that you've since received on the sentence and sources. If you still want to add your amendment, add a revised sentence assuming that instead of reverting, you'd had the discussion first. (ps. I think the 7 sources after "several earlier ones" is a bit much.) MmeMaigret (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't understand how Wikipedia functions. If I remove recently added content (whether I do that operation by simply removing it OR by reverting an edit or series of edits) it APPEARS with the automated summary tag in italics "Reverted." Sure, the other editor doesn't get a notice unless I do the "revert" function, but that editor's addition/contribution is removed, so exactly the same result.

And per WP:BRD that is the way we edit; and when an editor gets Reverted, they get pinged on what others felt was wrong with their edit so they can modify it and re-add; otherwise they might not notice that someone removed their addition, so it can be seen as confrontational (your view) or as a more efficient way of collaboration. (Additionally, a removal can be seen as a bad-faith "stealth revert", so that to me seems worse, I'd rather someone see and understand my issue with their edit(s).)

As noted in my edit summary, I felt that that source does not adequately support the added statement. I can understand how someone could read that source and say to themselves "oh, I see, this author is lumping together multiple papers about AI and one of them is the Gebru/TESCEAL paper." But our policy on WP:SYNTH says: "Do not ... state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." And here the author (van Rooij) never mentions TESCREAL even once in the entire paper. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Press edit, delete the sentence, press save, leave a summary. Not a reversion. What part of that was hard for you to understand? You might also have a re-read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting#When%20to%20revert MmeMaigret (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You linked to an ESSAY, not policy. What part of "a removal can be seen as a bad-faith "stealth revert", so that to me seems worse, I'd rather someone see and understand my issue with their edit(s)" is hard for you to understand? Providing no feedback to someone and fixing their mistakes without their knowledge doesn't help them become a better editor. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, because you clearly missed it "they could have revised it or just deleted it or started a discussion on the talk page".MmeMaigret (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Best practice for size of edits

When an article needs heavy editing, is it better to do several small edits or one big edit? Also if you plan on editing very different parts of a page, such as tables, lists, and text, is it better to focus on only one per edit? I was wondering if small edits make reverting easier, because the good edits don’t have to be reverted along with the bad one. BrightPinkBirb (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

If you are uncertain as to whether your edit needs to be reverted, perhaps you should use the preview function. For an article that is very active, then smaller edits are better to avoid an edit conflict. Also for a controversial article, small edits are better in case of explanation required or disagreement. Also consider if your browser saves your editing. If you do a long big edit and the power goes off, or Wikipedia goes into maintenance mode or something crashes, you don't want to lose your work. Perhaps adding one section or paragraph at a time for inactive articles is a good compromise against losing your work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, if your making huge edits, you may wish to do it in your sandbox, or to put it off-wiki altogether (such as Google Docs or notepad) before implementing it to the article. Google Docs should automatically save your work, provided you have an internet connection. This doesn't really work for articles that currently receive more than several edits per day, such as the Charlie Kirk situation. If there's any disagreement with your changes to the article, the talk page is the way to go, as per the dispute resolution. JuniperChill (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

This is nothing but my opinion: I think it's not the character count but how the material fits together, and if you're in a position to be wondering about this, I think the answer is probably "so that it all belongs together, and anyone reverting it would want to revert all of it together".

I don't think this answer applies to things like going through a badly spelled article and just fixing uncontroversial spelling mistakes. Nobody should want to revert that anyway. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

assistance with writing a wikipedia page

I would like to confirm that a group working though a user group User:HRShami is a legitimate group assisting with the preparation on Wikipedia pages Barry Hart (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, it's not clear what you are suggesting or asking here? Could you be more specific. Theroadislong (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@HRShami Do you want to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying you have hired WP:PAID editors to write about you? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Barry Hart: Your link is broken but I guess you mean User:HRShami with a colon. I don't know HRShami or LustrePR but they have no affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia. Users who try to create articles are often contacted by scammers who make false promises and false claims about who they are. See Wikipedia:Scam warning. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Link fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Barry Hart. On their user page, @HRShami says they "work with", LustrePR, they have certainly successfully created a number of articles (they claim 900, but I haven't checked), and for the one such article I have looked at they have complied with the Terms of Use by declaring (on the article's talk page) who they were paid by to create it.

So, while they are in no way official or endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation, it appears that they comply with the terms of use, and have a track record of successfully creating articles. ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The tool says HRShami created 902 pages, nearly all of them biographies, presumably from paid clients. The deleted user contributions also show many page moves from mainspace to draftspace, for articles they created (possibly accidentally) in mainspace, with a comment about paid editing. Clearly a paid editor although there is no disclosure on the user page. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

You say HRShami is "a user group". Does that mean the username is being used by more than one person? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Barry Hart. I am legitimate in so far as complying with all the Wikipedia policies on paid editing. However, I am not affiliated with Wikimedia or Wikipedia; no paid editor is. HRShami (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Need review or advise

I'm working on a draft about a hacker group called Cyber Jihad Movement. Could someone please review it or advise if it's ready for mainspace? Draft:Cyber Jihad Movement. MrPotatoes01 (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I've replaced your URL with a standard wikilink. You have submitted the draft for review, which is the best way to get feedback. My only comment is that you have included in the WP:LEAD some information and sources not mentioned in the main body of the article. The lead is supposed to summarise the body, not mention information only there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see the kind of sourcing that I like to see in the articles I'm familiar with, but rather than declining it I'll leave it for the next person, who may be a better judge of the sources you cite. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Ion

I want to modify slightly pages ION, CONDUCTIVITY, IONS ASSOCIATION etc by adding recent studies on ionization in non-polar liquids. There are many studies that follow Onsager, Fuoss work showing that addition of amphiphilic substances to non polar liquids creates ions. They are solvated by neutral molecules of solute, not solvent as in water. This is field of non-aqueous electrochemistry that is completely ommited from the said papers. You can reach me (Redacted)AndreiDukhin (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @AndreiDukhin. Please don't share your personal email address: this is a public forum. You are free to edit those articles. You have nearly 1,000 edits already, so I am unsure what specific help you need? qcne (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @AndreiDukhin. As qcne says, you are welcome to edit the articles, but please take note of the following first:

• You should read Verifiability and original research. If you are adding information from reliable sources, please cite those sources - see WP:REFB. (Added: you should only add information from reliable sources)
• If any of the work or the sources that you want to cite is your own work, then that is regarded as a conflict of interest, and you should not edit the articles directly, but should instead raise edit requests on the articles' talk pages, so somebody uninvolved can consider your request.
• I have no idea whether or not the material you want to add might be controversial; but it does often happen that editors disagree about what should be in an article. I suggest you also get familiar with WP:BRD, which explains how we (try to) reach consensus.

ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

page numbers in footnotes

In Samuel Butler (novelist), n.5 appears seven times, as "a" through "g". The quotation in the text attached to "a" is on page 16 of the cited book. The quotation in the text attached to "g" is on pages 6-7 of the cited book. (I will look for "b" through "f" when I have a chance.) How do I enter separate page numbers in the different appearances of n.5? Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Maurice Magnus, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Help:References and page numbers gives various ways to handle this. ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I remembered that I once did this for another article. I looked at that article, thinking that I'd use the technique I'd used in it. It worked for "g". I inserted {{ rp | 6-7 }}.(Ignore the spaces; I added them so that it would not come out as ) But I couldn't use that technique for "a," because "a", being the first appearance of n.5, has a different format, spelling out the whole footnote. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Maurice Magnus, it seems a little strange to worry about page numbers for something described as vaguely as "Clara G. Stillman, Samuel Butler: A Mid-Victorian Modern". Edition (if not the first), "location" (place), publisher, year, ISBN? Add such detail to whichever one of a–g contains any detail beyond "name". Then add Template:Rp in exactly the same way (aside from altering the page number(s), of course) to each of a–g. So you'll have something like <ref name="stillman">[bibliographic detail]</ref>{{Rp|26}} for one and <ref name="stillman" />{{Rp|93–95}} for each of the others. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The details about Stillman's book are listed under "Further reading." Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus It is best to put the full details into the reference section using named references, as discussed above, then remove that book from "Further reading" as it is now part of the main body of the article and doesn't need to be duplicated there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Standardize image size in infobox

Hi, I'm a new editor and I had a question on how I could standard the size of the blade images for the draft I'm working on. I have two blade SVG's I made that are in the infobox, and the men's blade SVG is noticeably smaller than the woman's blade even though I used the same Wikipedia commons SVG as a base for both.

Is there a way to standardize the size for the two images or at least make one match the other? Here is the draft that I'm talking about. Thanks, Pixzzl. Pixzzl (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Would it work to merge the two SVGs into one, so that they're both there but as top and bottom of one picture? TooManyFingers (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I could try to do that, but creating them with Inkscape was hard enough on it's own and I honestly don't know how to merge them. Is there no way to just set the size for them? Pixzzl (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pixzzl According to the documentation at {{Infobox rowing club}}, the image parameter is supposed to be used for a picture of the clubhouse/boathouse, not as a way to force in a second blade image. I suspect that's why your two images are coming out at different default sizes. Maybe the solution would be to place one blade image only in the infobox and put the second one as a thumb image within the main text. If you want to add both as a single blade image, as suggested above, then that should be easy using Inkscape and I'll help if you ask via my talk page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I can do this. Later today if I send a message on your talk page would you be able to help me? Thanks, Pixzzl. Pixzzl (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pixzzl I've done the merged file, which would probably be best if uploaded to Commons by you, as it is based on your originals. You don't seem to have set an email address for your account. If you do that, I'll email the .svg to you. I won't see what your address is unless you reply to my own message. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thank you so much! You can email me [redacted] Pixzzl (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Please set up email in your user preferences; don't post your address here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll do that. Pixzzl (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

why allow paid editing?

hello! I have a question. why is it that wikipedia permits paid editing to occur at all? right now, paid editors have to declare their COI, which is nice, but to me at least it would make more sense to ban paid editing entirely. given all of the scams, and wasted time, and useless questions, and disruptive editors, I think it would be better to make paid editing and COI editing against wikipedia policy. after all, wikimedia doesn't get compensated for paid editing work or anything. of course, I'm not demanding this decades-old policy be changed immediately. I'm just genuinely curious. that's all. thanks! 67.218.119.178 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The consensus of the Wikipedia community has been that if we were to ban paid editing, the paid editors would probably still edit here but would not admit it and thus be more difficult to regulate. MrOllie (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

We highly discourage paid editors from editing articles directly. Some of them have useful suggestions, and as for the rest: I expect that people are more likely to comply with disclosure and editing requirements than to respect a strict ban. And given that our scam warning hasn't kept scammers from promising they can publish and protect articles (or alternatively threaten to delete them, as blackmail), I doubt announcing a strict ban would affect them much either. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't known that we have paid editors. If they are discouraged from editing articles directly, then what do they edit? I'm just curious; I have no interest in being one. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

For existing articles, they can edit talk pages and make edit requests; for new articles, they can create them in draftspace and submit them to Articles for creation. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:COIADVICE. And of course, they can do un-paid editing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, "assistance with writing a wikipedia page" (above) may interest you. -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Not all paid editors are ill-intentioned scammers! For example, it's quite likely that when there's a staff reshuffle at a university, and there's a new vice-chancellor, it will be some random member of faculty, grad student or post-doc who first notices that Wikipedia hasn't caught up. They aren't necessarily employed by the university's comms department, but because they're employed by the university, they're paid editors. They are, however, quite useful. Elemimele (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Some paid editors are very helpful in keeping articles up-to-date. Some I interact with provide relevant photographs and suggest new sources that can be used: all via article talk pages, as required by the COI provisions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Question

Are you allowed to import the source code of Twinkle to bypass the auto/confirmed requirement? I might be reading the situation wrong, is so tell me. [1] --pro-anti-air _{ping me for template replies} 22:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

And while I'm here, can someone fix LegoBot Archive indexing on my page --pro-anti-air _{ping me for template replies} 22:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pro-anti-air: If it is open source you can import and change the code. However using Wikipedia should follow the policies here, and also I hope the user understands what they are doing. Normally you should get more experience with doing things manually before using an automated tool. Otherwise you won't understand what the tool is doing. Auto/confirmed is not a big hurdle. In fact you are an extended confirmed user, so I expect you already have the experience to understand what it does. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

What do u think of this?

Hi, I need to get this page published. I was paid to make it and I told the guy I would. But Idk what the hell I am doing. He has been on the news several times, has articles about him, etc. I used chatgpt to write the code bc I am lazy, but I've been over it a handful of times and I think its good. I might need someone to publish it on my behalf legally. Help me. This is the code: (Redacted) BonkoSupreme (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@BonkoSupreme: DISCLOSE. Until you do so, you are at risk of being blocked. (Also, why would you accept payment for a service you have no idea what to do?) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

i did disclose in the code at the bottom. is there a disclosure format? and tbh im just good with the computer i guess I got complacent thinking if anyone could do it i could. I needed rent paid and this client of mine has me do odd computer jobs. usually video editing. he deserves a wiki though. BonkoSupreme (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@BonkoSupreme: There is a disclosure format, and I see that there is a disclosure on your userpage (which is where it should be). Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

• https://www.cbc.ca/2017/whatsyourstory/in-canada-you-will-get-support-from-other-people-who-have-followed-their-dreams-as-well-1.4221988 doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview.
• We can't use https://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/east-coast-bakery/Location?oid=5391344 (too sparse). Perfunctory restaurant profile.
• https://www.bakersjournal.com/the-bagel-6998/ is borderline, leaning towards acceptable.
• We can't use https://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=415850 (too sparse). Basically a list of names with no details.
• https://ca.news.yahoo.com/quinpool-road-business-association-urged-110000746.html?guccounter=1 is usable, but the information is provides is fairly minimal.
• https://globalnews.ca/news/7391350/halifax-regional-municipality-2020-election/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Just a list of names.

I'm sceptical that this article would go live with the sources provided. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I have aggregated all the relevent sources to my subject. there are 21 of them. I expect some are not academic sources but I certainly think this amount of information should deserve a wiki page. can u help me figure which are acceptable so that I can build a new script around them?

References Section Links

http://www.jewishindependent.ca/halifax-owns-bagel/

http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/east-coast-bakerys-the-toast-of-the-town/

https://www.localxpress.ca/local-news/baker-puts-east-coast-twist-on-montreal-bagels-298639

https://www.bakersjournal.com/the-bagel-6998/

https://discoverhalifaxns.com/listings/eastcoast-bakery/

https://canada.chamberofcommerce.com/business-directory/nova-scotia/halifax/wholesale-bakery/40573-east-coast-bakery

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1015823/journee-nationale-du-bagel-un-boulanger-dhalifax-espere-percer-dans-les-maritimes

http://fusionhalifax.ca/events/business-over-beers-with-east-coast-bakerys-gerry-lonergan/

https://professionelle.ca/5843760431913458679/

https://ca.linkedin.com/company/eastcoastbakery

https://globalnews.ca/video/3488161/eastcoast-bakery/

https://www.cbc.ca/2017/whatsyourstory/in-canada-you-will-get-support-from-other-people-who-have-followed-their-dreams-as-well-1.4221988

UCW Pro Wrestling Infobox

https://www.ucwprowrestling.ca

Filmography

https://vimeo.com/1041177242

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPM2w2jx5RE&feature=youtu.be

Additional Media Appearances

https://vimeo.com/1041177242?share=copy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DyzUibwld0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=shared&v=c8wx3HlI5u4

https://www.cbc.ca/2017/whatsyourstory/in-canada-you-will-get-support-from-other-people-who-have-followed-their-dreams-as-well-1.4221988 (duplicate of #12)

External Links Section

https://eastcoastbakery.ca

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYVd-BSBTDg&feature=youtu.be

https://theajc.ns.ca/history/the-jewish-community-of-halifax

I really appreciate your help, and the fact that you do this all for free. BonkoSupreme (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

"Courtesy link" (the "this" of which we may think): Here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @BonkoSupreme, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I don't wish to appear hostile, but we keep seeing this: people who take money to do a job they do not (yet) have the skills to do, and expect us unpaid volunteers to help them earn their money.

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. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

I would say that this is more important for paid editors than for others. ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

How to add a link

I want to add a link from Eglise Saint-Croix, Brussels to Place_Eugène_Flagey#Early_history, but I am not allowed. A tutorial opens, asking me to do something in my sandbox, which ends here. What am I doing wrong? Does adding a link need a special permission? MelekArı (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @MelekArı, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's not clear what you are trying to do. We don't have an article Eglise Saint-Croix, Brussels.

Are you perhaps trying to create a redirect from that title to the article section you mention?

A redirect is a page, and new accounts cannot create pages in mainspace (this depends on number of edits as well as time). This edit here is your ninth edit: once you have made ten, you will be autoconfirmed, and should be able to create a redirect. Make sure you understand the syntax of a redirect page (the link about will tell you). ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I want just a redirection. That's all. MelekArı (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@MelekArı Now the redirect is in place, you might like to add Eglise Saint-Croix, Brussels to the disambiguation page, Holy Cross Church. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft:All the President's Elephants (Film)

Revisions by Louiskk23 to Draft:All the President's Elephants (Film)

Hi everyone, I am not a regular Wikipedia creator/editor. I drafted this page after being so impressed by this documentary. I'm now concerned about the amount of editing (-10,000, then + 2,000) just done to my draft All the President's Elephants (Film) submission. This below is what I've now written on the Talk Page of this article, and am repeating it here (Not sure which is the right thing to do.) ------ Are there experienced people who can review this please?

14 Sept revisions by Louiskk23 to Draft:All the President's Elephants (Film) [edit source] Thank you for your input Louiskk23. Having read 3 of her elephant memoirs and also watched this documentary several times, I feel like changing the wording here to say that Sharon Pincott simply had a "close" relationship with the elephants doesn't capture just how close a relationship she actually had with them. In the documentary she actually kisses (more than once) a huge wild adult elephant – not hand-raised, not one in fenced areas. Family groups also come to her when she calls to them. I feel that this is much more than simply having a “close” relationship with these elephants. As this article indicated previously, it has been said by numerous world-wide reviewers that she had one of the most remarkable relationships with elephants anywhere in the world. Hence, I do think it’s fair to say her relationship with the elephants was at least “extremely close”. Re the taking out the comparisons to Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall etc I wonder how necessary this is, since it does help to show why the documentary has been so successful, and what an interesting subject she is – although I’ve made no changes to these edits. Does anyone have any comments/suggestions re these last edits? WikiAdd01 (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC) WikiAdd01 (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Something extra - I feel that there is other relevant/interesting information that has also now been removed, shortening the article, and the references, substantially. WikiAdd01 (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you are well. Before stating my point, I would like to say that I have nothing against your article or you personally. On the contrary, I found the subject of the documentary very interesting. Although I agree that my editing was drastic, I modified text that I felt was excessive and contained unnecessary praise. as well as being redundant. What I did was try to make the article more neutral so that the format would better comply with Wikipedia guidelines and thus support its approval. If you look, two experienced editors edited your article after this, one of them removed a large part of the article that, in my opinion, was unnecessary and not very neutral. Furthermore, another editor commented that there is no mention of the documentary in two references you added. Similarly, I promise not to edit that draft anymore, but instead to let the more experienced editors do what they think is best.

I would also like to say that I have been suffering what I consider to be “harassment” from the editor Celjski Grad. At first, I made a mistake and the problem was solved on the librarians' board by clarifying the confusion, but since then I can't make any edits without Celjski Grad harassing me. Even when I corrected simple spelling mistakes, he harassed me and wrote to me. When I make edits in my sandbox, he harasses me. When I improve syntax, he writes to me too. Although I agree that the edit to the documentary was drastic, the other edits were simpler. In fact, I had to write the text and modify it in a Word file instead of in my sandbox because I was afraid that the user Celjski Grad would also complain about me editing in my sandbox, so I thought, “If I do it in a separate notepad and then paste my edit without using my sandbox, the user will probably be calmer.” But even that didn't save me from harassment by this user. I had already made my last edits in a Word file, which is why it seemed like I did them “quickly.” Louiskk23 (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

My edits keep getting reverted

 Courtesy link: Wildlife Justice Commission

I am trying to make edits to the NGO I work at but my edits keep getting reverted and I don't know why. Valentinfenk (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Valentinfenk There are many messages on your talk page explaining the situation. As you say, you are a paid editor and under Wikimedia terms and conditions you must disclose that on your user page and subsequently only edit the article via its talk page so that neutral editors without a conflict of interest can assess them. All edit suggestions must include reliable sources so that readers can verify what is stated. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Valentinfenk. To add to what Mike said: please note 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 exclusively 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.

Also, please read about edit warring, because that is what you have been doing. ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Article tags below or above redirects?

Sasaki Kojirō has both redirects and article issue tags. In this case, the article tags are above the redirects. Is there any documentation about where article tags should go in this case? NicheSports (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@NicheSports The hatnote/redirect templates go first then article issue tags. See WP:ORDER Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 16:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft :Shaheed Shashi Prasad Singh

draft:Shashi Prasad Singh My first article have been declined thrice. The grounds have been changing and i have been consistently improving my work as this is a story about unsung heroes of indian independence covered exponentially but not accessible for general public.

Can anyone help me know what else could be the reason for this decline . Presently it is under review Praj9289 (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Praj9289. Often, a draft will have multiple problems and various reviewers will emphasize different reasons in their decline notices. This is normal and should not be a concern. You should substantively address the comments of each of the reviewers by improving the draft accordingly. The phrase "unsung heroes" that you use raises concerns, as "unsung" can be interpreted as a synonym for "not notable and therefore not eligible for a Wikipedia article". Your references do not make it easy to verify the content. For example, the URL in your reference to the multi-volume Dictionary of Martyrs: India's Freedom Struggle leads to the cover page for volume 4 rather to the pages actually about the subject of your draft. You need to structure your draft in such a way that a reviewer can verify that this person has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of him. His son discussing him in the preface of a book is clearly not an independent source. Another problem are the assertions that he is notable because of his leadership role in various organizations such as the Panchayati Raksha Gram Seva Dal. And yet there is no Wikipedia article about the Panchayati Raksha Gram Seva Dal, and no reference to a reliable source assessing this group. How is the reviewer or any reader able to assess the significance of this group on their own? Was it an influential mass organization active for years, or a small, temporary committee? Or something else. So, I believe that your draft still needs a lot of work. Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a whole government website over gran raksha dal https://dalpatigramrakshadalmahasangh.com/member-new.php

Secondly, the page no for Dictionary of Martyr is mentioned in the reference i cannot create a link to the exact page number althought i have mentioned it in the reference.

His son was the hugher education minister, He held office of public importance hence making his statements more than just a son's statement .

But unsung heroes is said because they are unsung because of their untimely death. Not because the did not get enough coverage or notability Praj9289 (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

also if would be kind of you if you can guide me over the fact that if i am mentioning names of certain people who are of national importance like the first oresident of our country how do i get a link on his name.. or if i am mentioning quit india movement how do i get a link so that people could click on it and directly visit the wikipedia page for that event for ex quit india movement Praj9289 (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

In the source editor, you link to an article (or other Wikipedia page) by putting the exact title in double square brackets; so [[Quit India Movement]] displays as Quit India Movement. I don't know how you do it in the visual editor. See Help:Wikilinks. ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a note, this is not really a government website. It looks to be a private website for a political party Assassin (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Cannot Edit Protected Page

Hello,

I am trying to edit this page but I cannot for some reason even though I am an extended confirmed editor, so why can I not edit this page? Thank you! Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Agnieszka653, can you tell us a bit more about what you're experiencing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Similar to a problem I asked about the other day, I find on some articles I clicking edit but I am simply not able to make any additions or deletions. However I can edit other pages just fine. Could this have anything to do with pending changes? Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Please describe more precisely what you do and what happens. It looks normal when I edit Houthis with VisualEditor. I click before "The Houthis" in the lead, see a vertical blinking bar where I clicked, press "Delete" to remove "T" and type "T" to add it again. What happens for you? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pin for Agnieszka653. Pretty sure PrimeHunter intended to direct his response to you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

coordinating edits across multiple articles

I only recently go into editing and am still somewhat inexperienced with online encyclopedia, but more importantly online fora in general. I had been reading and editing on a small scale for a while, but perhaps got out of my depth when I fixed an issue on a historical topic. I'm sure that any student of history knows that seemingly small and innocous discussions about words can turn out to be longstanding political disputes when looked at more closely.

Please bear with me for the wall of text that follows.

I noticed recently that lots of pages related to Albanian history had the same bizarre mistake. I soon found out why: the page Italian protectorate over Albania was supposed to cover a part of World War I, but after a user changed this earlier this year, it was now a redirect page to Treaties of Tirana, a not unrelated but different topic covering a part of the interwar period. I found out using the "What Links here" feature that ca. 500 pages used the former page to provide further information on WW1, instead providing information on the interwar period for no apparent reason.

(It is at this point that I have to ask whether it breaks etiquette to talk about a user without formally Mentioning them. I don't want to annoy them, as this is about me asking advice and not wanting to criticise them. Their username is Barjimoa.)

After I noticed this, I was unsure what to do. Rolling back the change would have fixed the confusion, but I wanted to see whether there was perhaps a reason for this change, in spite of any unintended harm it did. On the Talk page Talk:Kingdom of Albania in personal union with Italy#Title_2 (on an article covering a part of World War II) I found the user discussing the reason they made this change and justifying their doing so.

Specifically, the issue is the following: Italian relations with Albania during 1914-1945 can be divided into three phases. First, an Italian military expedition during WW1 including an Italian proclamation of Albanian "independence under Italian aegis and protection", Second, an unequal partnership during the Interwar Period, in which Italy gained both formal and informal influence over Albanian institutions, and Third, the Italian invasion and annexation of Albania during WW2. All of these events are sometimes referred to as "protectorates" or "de-facto protectorates" of Italy over Albania, though there is no unanimous consensus on the validity of the term for all three events. This was the topic of discussion on the Talk Page Topic that I found - though initial discussion was about validity of the term for WW2, the user was of the opinion that "protectorate" was not valid for the WW1 period, but that it was valid for the interwar period. This is why they decided unilaterally to redirect Italian protectorate over Albania to Treaties of Tirana (interwar period), when it was previously understood to refer to the WW1 period, creating the confusion I described and seemingly went unnoticed until now.

Here's where I decided to finally step in.

I brought up to the user on the mentioned Talk Page that their change had unintentionally been harmful. After they reaffirmed that they felt the change was justified in spite of the harm it did, instead of pushing further, I decided to evaluate my options. I wanted to fix a mistake, which I had done before, just not on this scale. I wanted the 500 pages to link to a sensible page again (Italian expeditionary corps in Albania (World War I) clearly being the most appropriate), but was anxious about overruling the user. I looked into my options. My idea of the situation was the following: before the harmful change, pages that linked to Italian protectorate over Albania would obviously want to refer to the WW1 period, and now didn't. I figured there must be some pages edited after the change too, wanting to refer to the interwar period after all. I also knew for a fact that there were be pages who wanted to refer not only to the WW1 period, but also speficially to the concept of a "protectorate" during WW1, sometimes described as "Albanian Republic under Italy". Thus, I could not possibly simply revert the harmful edit, because the underlying question of validity of the term would not be solved. I decided that I needed to not just fix a mistake but also lay the groundwork for future changes and clarifications. I needed a page that could, for the moment, act as a redirect page to Italian expeditionary corps in Albania (World War I), but in the future become either: a disambiguation page for Italian action in Albania during WW1, or: be turned into a redirect page to a specific section of an article.

Having decided this, I discovered the existence of Italian Protectorate on southern Albania, an old, nearly unused redirect page to Italian expeditionary corps in Albania (World War I), which I decided would be my workaround page. Using the "What links here" feature, I went through all (ca. 500) pages that linked to Italian protectorate over Albania, and for every page that clearly intended to refer to the WW1 period instead of the interwar period, I replaced the link with Italian Protectorate on southern Albania. This turned out to be every single one and took over an hour. I'm a bit embarassed to say that I did this instead of simply pushing back on the user, or consider if there was perhaps a better alternative before committing to edit so many links. In the end though, things obviously went to plan and I clearly improved things.

The reason I'm posting this here in such great detail is twofold: I want to know on whether I broke any rules or etiquette during all this, and I want advice for the future on how to coordinate (or confirm approval for) things of this nature (edits across multiple pages), or rather where to document the decisions I made for others to easily view, understand, and judge. For example, I first brought up my ideas on that random Talk Page Topic instead of making my own Topic, choosing another Page, or another option I simply don't know about. Tonuka (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Tonuka, Bajimoa, Srnec and you were already discussing this in Talk:Kingdom of Albania in personal union with Italy. Nikkimaria had been too, but seemed to have dropped out -- perhaps simply because they weren't aware that the discussion continued. I don't think that attempting to restart the discussion elsewhere in order to describe your proposed edits would have been helpful. What could have helped would have been to post a revised and abridged version of your proposal there, and invitations elsewhere -- perhaps WT:WikiProject Albania, WT:WikiProject Italy, WT:WikiProject International relations -- to join the discussion. I suggest that you revise any "wall of text" ruthlessly, keeping the revision on your hard drive, revisit one or two days later, revise again, and only then post. Wherever you might post an invitation to join a discussion, be very careful to be concise and to avoid the appearance of canvassing either for your position or against some other position. An invitation should be understandable even to editors who are distracted or half asleep, and must be worded to avoid any risk of starting a parallel discussion. (And don't rush to follow my advice: others here may point out problems with it, or have better advice.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

spanish template

I made a spanish version of a Commons template at c:Template:PD-US-alien property/es and it doesn't come up, what do i do?

can someone help me? ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 20:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

A better place to ask on Commons, would be c:Commons:Village pump/Technical.

But first, please fix your sig, which is currently unreadable pale green on white. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

wdym? i made it yoshi green on purpose ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 20:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ilikeyoshi: What do you mean by "doesn't come up"? Be specific and give an example. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

That in that template it doesn't say español or spanish in the section that says that it's autotranslated with {{Autotranslate}} ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 00:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ilikeyoshi: Provide a link to the page you're asking about. c:Template:PD-US-alien property/es says nothing at all about autotranslation. Are you referring to c:Template:PD-US-alien property#Localization? I see "español" there. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

i recently added those translations manually don't worry about it ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 00:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You still haven't fixed your sig. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Is 2018 android green good now? ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 22:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Better, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Ilikeyoshi, by "unreadable pale green on white", Andy Mabbett is saying that your pale green lettering is unreadable on a white background. The fact that it was you who determined the color combination does not affect its readability. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

i read it and its fine, btw i put it in the (Commons) Technical Village Pump ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 00:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Whether it's fine for you is immaterial; as is whether its current appearance is deliberate. The issue is whether it's readable for other people. See MOS:COLOUR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Citations look weird. Help?

Can someone verify these articles look okay to you? I enjoy contributing to Wiki and these citations look weird to me even though they check out on crossref for me.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1284381/[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC945](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9458805/)

In case you’re interested in my discussion about the difference between assistive devices and Psychotherapy you can find what I’ve written so far here: User talk:Bogwife. 2600:8802:5517:C300:1C43:C86B:BA9E:FC2A (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Whether "these articles look okay" to us in which sense? Whichever Wikipedia article each of these is or might be used on, the Wikipedia article has a talk page; and it's on that talk page that you can ask about the looking-okay-ness of this or that potential source. Though you should be a lot clearer than "[looking] okay to you". Also, be sure to be logged in as Bogwife when you ask, and indeed when you edit in general. -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Certificates look fine. But there’s no WHOIS page for the URLs. Seems like potentially AI-generated and malicious but very subtle? Bogwife (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The first journal looks okay, nothing initially comes up when I look for people discussing it being predatory. In general, I would do that journals as many of them have not been discussed at WP:RSN or WP:RSP. Also, be heavily mindful of WP:MEDRS and note that my strategy is likely not foolproof. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, do note that because of how you formatted the link, the articles are rather awkward to access. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

A single 2013 study on three children doi:10.1901/jaba.2002.35-213, which is the first link above, will not pass our WP:MEDRS requirement for sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

That's pretty much why I only analyzed the journal's credentials as to if it was predatory or not; I do not want to finick with MEDRS as I am relatively unqualified in analyzing a source to that level as my fields (history and earth sciences) do not require such depth. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

When you call it "your discussion", for me that causes a sort of alarm bell. For Wikipedia, it needs to be someone else's discussion. All you can be in the article is a reporter - not a discusser. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Naming draft to not violate BLP

Good day, I am interested in writing an article related to a scandal in Florida involving a sheriff [2]. I am not sure exactly what to name it. I was thinking of Osceola County gambling ring scandal but am unsure of the accuracy of that statement and if it would violate policy and/or convention. If anyone could help, that would be great. Thanks, ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Quxyz, you could ask at WP:BLPN. Be sure to point out that the sheriff hasn't yet been tried, let alone convicted. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be extremely hard to write a halfway decent article about a legal scandal that hasn't even gone to trial yet. I'm sure everyone in Osceola County knows about it already and doesn't need to get their news here, and I'm also sure that the rest of the world would consider it basically a garbage article until there are verdicts or sentences or whatever needs to happen. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Some of my Florida friends suggested it to me. I'll probably stave off for a bit as hurricane season wraps up. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

A bunch of angry Floridians attacking each other over unsettled political business is not most people's idea of a good time. Except for the Floridians. ;) TooManyFingers (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk page for an article

Hello, folks at the Teahouse. I recently created an article, Saji Varghese, but am unable to wrap my head around how its talk page should look/be created. While I have created talk pages for articles in the past, this one seems a bit tricky, especially vis-a-vis the categories, article classification, WikiProjects and everything. Could someone help me out with this? Any help would be appreciated :) Dissoxciate (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey there! Welcome to the Teahouse.

Looks like someone else has set the talk page up with a script that's added everything necessary, but for your knowledge, most talk pages use the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template with a few parameters and other templates. Have a look at the source markup for your talk page to see what's been added there.

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions! Great work starting an article on Wikipedia:) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SnowyRiver28, thank you so much for your response! Yes, @Thilio was kind enough to set up the talk page for the article. Regardless, your insights were clear and very helpful. Thanks for the help :) Dissoxciate (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

No worries! Most of the talk page stuff is added by users at New Page Patrol or other editors using scripts anyway, so it's not a big concern:) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Got it! Dissoxciate (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dissoxciate When I start an article, I like to make a talkpage too. Besides the Template:Talk header, I look at a couple of articles on a similar topic, and copy the wikiprojects they use, checking the wikitext and pretty much copypasting the "code". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixing wrong citation in youtuber infobox

This is a fairly minor issue, but at Jeremy Hambly, I have a list of subscriber and view counts for each channel. However, all are simply referenced to TheQuartering's about page by the infobox. I think that it should be fine to not have a citation, given that there are external links in the same box to satisfy verifiability concerns, so is there a way to remove this citation? Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, welcome to the Teahouse! You can remove citations from an infobox by clicking on it if you're using the Visual Editor, and selecting Edit. This will bring up a menu where you can find the field you're looking to remove the reference from, and then you can go ahead and remove the reference from after the text.

Note that references usually aren't needed in infoboxes if the information is repeated and cited in the article per MOS:INFOBOXREF. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The infobox automatically inserts the citation (see, for example, Trisha Paytas; the source code does not have a citation in the infobox), so the visual editor can't be used to remove it. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

In your article, if you look at the source markup for the infobox in the subscribers field, you'll see the following:

|subscribers =
*TheQuartering: 1.9M<ref name="TheQuarteringChannel">{{cite web |title=TheQuartering |url=https://www.youtube.com/@TheQuartering |website=YouTube}}</ref>
*UnsleevedMedia: 143K<ref name="UnsleevedMediaChannel">{{cite web |title=UnsleevedMedia |url=https://www.youtube.com/@mtgheadquarters |website=YouTube}}</ref>
*ClawStruck: 108K<ref name="ClawStruckChannel">{{cite web |title=ClawStruck |url=https://www.youtube.com/@ClawStruck |website=YouTube}}</ref>

Notice how each of the list items have a <ref> reference after them? If you remove this, it will remove the citation.

Note: These are the first instances of the citations, meaning if you delete them here (if using the source editor)other places on the page using the same citations will break. I'd recommend first moving the full citation (whatever is inside the ref tags) to wherever else in the article they're used to avoid losing them.

I hope this all makes sense, let me know if it doesn't! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you're misunderstanding the question. Right now the infobox sub list looks something like:

TheQuartering: 1.9M[1] UnsleevedMedia: 143K[2] ClawStruck: 108K[3][4]

Notice how the last item has two citations? I did not insert ref [4] there, the infobox did that. I am asking how to remove ref [4]. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Ahh I see, my apologies for misinterpreting your question.

This is a quirk imposed by the {{Infobox YouTube personality}}. Once you add the channel handle in the infobox field, it automatically generates that citation to a YouTube stats website. I've had a look at the page of that template and unfortunately I can't see any way of getting around this. You could ask on the infobox's talk page here, or wait for another editor to respond to you here at the Teahouse. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Based5290, if you look at the template example with the YouTuber Ludwig, it seems that you can avoid the automatically-generated citation by omitting the channel_handle and providing manually-formatted channels.

So instead of

{{Infobox YouTube personality
|channel_handle=example
|channel_name=example
|channel_handle2=example
|...

try

{{Infobox YouTube personality
|channels = {{flatlist|
* [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrPseYLGpNygVi34QpGNqpA Ludwig]
* [https://www.youtube.com/@YoutubeHandle Example]
* [https://www.youtube.com/@ThirdChannel Other Example]
}}
|...

to render the inline list

• Ludwig
• Example
• Other Example

As @SnowyRiver28 mentioned, you can also head to the template's talk page or to WikiProject YouTube. There you could request for someone who's worked on the template to add a more official way to stop the automatic citation, such as a new parameter called |nocite=y.

Blepbob (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

How to deal with personal attacks?

I'd like some advice on how acceptable personal attacks are on Wikipedia. I was led to understand that they're not okay but when I edited what seemed to me to be an incorrect diagram on French battleship Liberté I was reverted by Parsecboy with the comment "go to the talk page, dingdong - you're looking at it wrong". Full disclosure, I barely consider it a personal attack, it's just schoolyard bullying tier taunts but I was my irritated by the spirit of the thing when I was hoping if am indeed wrong someone would provide any counter-argument or evidence without resorting to that sort of immaturity. It's not at all productive for what is apparently a collaborative environment.

Either way, I went to the talkpage (Talk:French_battleship_Liberté#Another_error?) and put further my argument alongside a kind request of 'hey can you not use personal attacks?'. In response Parsecboy gave several points of Parsecboy:

• A actually good argument, I still disagree with it on other metrics but hey, it's something
• Random accusations that the youtuber who made me check the wikipedia page because of the arguments he made was a plagiarist. Honestly, while I like listening to the youtuber, I have nothing in the race if he turns out to be or not (bar disappointment because he's otherwise good), but Parsecboy has provided no evidence of the accusation and regardless I don't see how it is at all relevant (even if someone's a plagiarist or done something wrong, they can still be right on basic logic)
• An argument about my maths. Like the first point, I almost want to engage with this because I don't think it adds up but if I'm not going to be treated in good faith I've not interested
• Justifying the personal attacks by accusing me of "disrupting the article for months" which confused me because this is the first time I've edited it. Looking at the history I found that there have been several IPs previously arguing the same thing, one is also from Canberra so yes, I could kind of see why Parsecboy would lump me with them (but on the other hand there are half a million people in this city and I have a dynamic IP) but the other is from Kansas City in the USA so this comes off as just "you're an IP and therefore a vandal responsible for all other IPs". Also apparently childish personal attacks are okay to use because "I should just get out more".

In summary, while I'm not convinced I'm wrong I'm honestly not interested in trying to help Wikipedia here if I'm just going to be treated to childish insults and accusations of disrupting articles which seem to be purely on the basis of being an IP. I decided I'd ask here after googling what to do when an editor seems to be breaking Wikipedia's guidelines and you are a new user, given from this experience my understanding is "Wikipedia guidelines only apply to interactions with registered users, if it's an IP address then feel free to blame them for what other IPs have done and childishly insult them", especially since Parsecboy is an admin apparently.

Out of courtesy, pinging @Parsecboy: so he doesn't accuse me of going behind is back or anything (yes, maybe I shouldn't assume this, but my sole interaction so far with a wikipedia user has been "use a childish insult and when I actually engage in discussion accuse me of having vandalised the article for months" so at this point I'm half expecting someone will find an excuse for something else) --2001:8003:1C4D:BA00:32DD:7BEB:BE7B:F68 (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, if I was you, I would just do my best to brush it off and move on to a different article, Matthew 10:14-style. But, if you choose to continue editing the same article, I would continue to be as civil as possible, and if Parsec keeps it up, report it to another admin or something; if he leaves you alone, problem solves. Granted, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy, but I hope this helps. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Since I was pinged - all I'll say is that the odds that two people from the same mid-sized city came to the same, obscure article to argue the same, obscure point are approximately 0. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I saw the youtube video, went to the article going "I wonder if wikipedia has solved this", saw it hadn't, then checked the history thinking "hey, maybe someone proved Drach wrong", in hindsight I probably should have just kept my head down. Though I am still wondering why you're ignoring the point I made that the first guy to edit the article and remove the picture is in the USA, as far as I know that's not part of the "same mid-sized city". --2001:8003:1C4D:BA00:32DD:7BEB:BE7B:F68 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

That dingdong comment was uncivil and unnecessary. If @Parsecboy keeps it up, you can create an incident on the noticeboard. My advice is the same as @Commandant Quacks-a-lot's, however. MmeMaigret (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the Teahouse is the venue for allegations of personal attacks, but regardless, I'm going to ask – where is the alleged attack? Coz if it's the "dingdong" bit, then I really don't think there's a case to answer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, if that's how Wikipedia works then I understand. I apologise for assuming that the "no personal attacks" rule covers childish insults that really don't help civil discussion on the article. --2001:8003:1C4D:BA00:32DD:7BEB:BE7B:F68 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It's an understandable response, and you are valid to take it as a personal attack. GGOTCC 18:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Biography

I would like to know the detailed steps for editing each section of a biography page on Wikipedia P Vijaya Lakshmi1 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@P Vijaya Lakshmi1 Welcome to Teahouse! I've sent you some helpful tutorials on your Talkpage check it out, hope that gonna help. Happy editing! Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 12:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Don't mind me, just gonna 'borrow' that template for others! GGOTCC 18:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Duration Required to Review a New Article

How much is the duration required to review a new article on Wikipedia? 188.123.181.31 (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It varies a lot. Some editors are autopatrolled, so it happens as soon as they create an article. In other cases, the New pages patrol need to be involved and as you can see from that link they are often heavily backlogged. Articles not reviewed after 90 days automatically get marked as being OK for search engines to index. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

If you use the AfC process (Articles for Creation), after you submit the article, it should get reviewed by someone (this is different to new pages patrol). But again the process is backlogged and run by volunteers who will do the articles that they feel most qualified to process. There is no fixed time or fixed queue system. If an article that you've written lingers too long unreviewed in AfC you are permitted to bypass the system altogether and move the article to main space yourself. It will then potentially get reviewed by new pages patrol. Alternatively if another editor thinks it's not ready for main space they may nominate it for deletion. This isn't necessarily a disaster, it just means it gets discussed at Articles for Deletion (AfD), a process that usually takes a week or two. Elemimele (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Elemimele My understanding is that if the AfC reviewer is not themselves autopatrolled then articles they accept still have to get a review by the NPP before they may be indexed by search engines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you, I forgot that bit. Elemimele (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

How to find sources?

Where do yall look for sources? Newspapers.com is paid.

Are google and other search engines the only options? 114.79.185.4 (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Mostly, yes, those are the places. If you have access to a library, you may be able to consult offline sources, eg books, and newspapers archives on microfilm.

If you create an account, and make least 500 edits in Wikipedia over a period of six months, you will then have access to The Wikipedia Library, which includes various paid resources. --ColinFine (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I find Google Books to be a nice location for newspapers and periodicals from the 1920s. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

https://archive.org/ can be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, Chronicling America. DS (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Requesting a new article

Hi - There are some reference to the BBC's Caribbean Service on wikipedia but no page describing it (for instance on Sir Trevor MacDonald's page). I was the launch Editor of the new Caribbean Service in 1988 and have many independent links and sources about it but, since I was closely connected to the Service, I feel I should not write the article. What is the best way of encouraging such an article to be written? Could you advise about this? JerryTimmins (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, JerryTimmins, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being open about your connection.

While there is in principle a place to request articles - Requested articles - in practice the chances of any particular request being taken up are low, and you'd do better writing it yourself.

Having said that, writing an article is a challenging task for new editors even (or perhaps especially) for those with experience of other kinds of writing. 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. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

Your potential conflict of interest does not preclude you from writing a draft and submitting it for review, using the articles for creation process.

Be aware that, once you have found the multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the service, you will need to effectively forget everything you know about it, and write a summary of what those sources say - even if you think they are missing something important, possibly even if you think they are wrong: Wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth.

Another approach might be to ask for collaborators on the talk page of WP:WikiProject BBC. --ColinFine (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you - that's most helpful JerryTimmins (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Turkish promo image

How would I go about using this image, which is hosted on Turkish Wikipedia, and is a promotional image (and thus not entirely free-use), on an English Wikipedia page? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot As the person depicted is deceased, en:Wikipedia also allows the image to be used under our WP:NONFREE criteria, provided you follow all the necessary steps as you upload the file here. That includes acknowledging its original source URL, which is linked on the file's page in Turkish. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Locating my sandbox

Hello, I'm logged in as Jim Wilson Crosby. But I can't locate the sandbox or drafts I worked on earlier. Could someone please help me find any pages or dits connected to my account.

Jim Wilson Crosby (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jim Wilson Crosby As the messages on your talk page say, it appears that your only past contributions were deleted under what is called speedy deletion. Under these circumstances, there will be no trace of these edits in your contributions. You may be able to have the pages restored to your userspace by asking the admin who deleted them, depending on the content (which I can't see). Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Howdy, Jim! If you're on a computer, there should be a little silhouette of a person in the top right corner of the screen; Click the arrow next to it, and "Sandbox" should be an option. Click on it, and you should end up in your Sandbox. As for the drafts, I'm not entirely sure. Hope this helps! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that his userpage was deleted for being an attempt at an autobiography. DS (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

If you would like to have your previous work undeleted and moved to your sandbox page, so you can work on it further, ask at WP:REFUND. Note that if it is an autobiography, it can only be published through the process outlined at WP:AFC, and then only after meeting the stringent requirements summarised at WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

On Copyright

So if I upload an image(s) using the Wikipedia:File upload wizard using the button "Upload a non-free file" option on Wikipedia. It would be acceptable and wouldn't violate Wikipedia's rules on copyright. Is this correct? Rager7 (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It depends. If you go to the upload wizard, you'll see that there's a lot of hoops that one must jump through in order to get the file approved, so you can't upload just any old file you want to. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The hoops are most likely there to prevent abuse and misuse of copyright. Rager7 (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Rager7 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes, provided you can justify using a non-free image. In order to load an image as non-free you will be required to provide a justification, which shows that your use meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. Somebody will probably see your upload, and if you have not in fact provided a proper justification, it will get deleted. --ColinFine (talk)

@Rager7: Please fix your signature, to make the colours accessible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, is it more readable now? Rager7 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Much; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Advice on improving draft after cleanup

Hi all,

I’ve been working on cleaning up a draft article about Empower Work, a U.S.-based nonprofit. There had been concerns about promotional tone, so I trimmed it back significantly and tried to bring it closer to a neutral stub with citations.

Here’s the draft: Empower Work

Could you take a look and let me know:

• Are there still parts that feel promotional?
• Does it look closer to meeting Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality standards?
• Any other suggestions to reduce the risk of deletion?

Thanks in advance! Sfoakbay (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I'm no expert. Do you have any personal connections to the organization? (I.e., you work for Empower Work, you were helped by them, or you were paid by them to write the article.) Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

First Article

My first article may be deleted I was wondering if some people can edit and support it to prove its notable, article name The Spawn

Its Lido (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not canvass by asking other editors to take a position in an ongoing consensus-building discussion. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

We can't prove it's notable for you, you need to do that yourself. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Sfn & harv

Hi, friends. I need help because, as always with very "technical or glitchy issues" of references or citations, I do not grasp it fully. I am working on a DYK nomination which I submitted today, and I am a very aesthetic editor, LOL. I think it is great to have books under a different subhead than general references. But I got an error which I don't understand in one of those book citations. Can anybody help me? I've tried myself but I can't decode the error. It's on the article about Lifeboat No. 6 of the Titanic.

Thanks. A lot. Love. CoryGlee (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The source Gracie, Archibald; Thayer, John B. (2014). Titanic A Survivor's Story & the Sinking of the S.S. Titanic. Chicago Review Press. ISBN 9780897336758. is defined twice, once in the History section and once in the Repeated cited sources section. This means that {{sfn}}, when it's looking for the correct citation, sees two "different" books which could match. You should combine the twin citations by replacing the History citation with {{sfn}} instead.

Minor note, but I think Repeated cited sources is typically called Bibliography. Blepbob (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Visual editor - citations - ref name

As you know, visual editor inserts sources with the names ":0", ":1", ":2", ":3" etc.
My question is what's the page for asking for a change to how visual editor processes citations.
Note: I'm not asking for suggestions about what to do instead (eg jumping into source editor to fix).
I only want to know where to suggest a change (in this case, that ref name be added to the available fields if poss)
Thanks MmeMaigret (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret The main portal for the visual editor is at WP:VE. There's a link in the first section to where you can give feedback, which I assume includes asking for changes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

See also WP:Phabricator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Ponzo illusion red links

I was editing Ponzo illusion; there are two red links in the article (perspective hypothesis and framing-effects hypothesis) and I don't know how to resolve them. Could you please suggest a workaround? Thanks.-- Carnby (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The links mean there's no existing page. The options are (i) delete the links, (ii) ignore the links, (iii) create the respective pages. Personally, I would lean towards deleting the links. (Also there's no need for the apostrophes in addition to links - so if you keep the links, suggest delete the apostrophes; if you delete the links, keep the apostrophes.) Hope that helps. MmeMaigret (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I tend to keep redlinks to indicate possible ways of expanding Wikipedia and to preëmptively deorphan an article—that is, make sure other articles link to it upon its creation. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I have found other two red links for related concepts in Context effect (attractiveness effect and similarity effect). Perhaps some Wikidata items for the moment?-- Carnby (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The question is whether the subject ("attractiveness effect" etc.) is likely ever to be an article. If, in your opinion, there are sources and there's a reasonable likelihood an article will one day be written, leave the red wiki-link. If it's a small sideline, with little sourcing, and the chance of anyone writing a stand-alone article is small, I'd de-link it. Elemimele (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Having red links is not a bad thing, and it not an error or mistake. If you don't like it, you can remove it. GGOTCC 18:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Rejected citations

Any advice on rejected citations and tone that isn't objective enough?

 Courtesy link: Draft:Insurance Insider

hi there, I've had multiple submissions for my business page rejected on ground of the citations lacking depth and it sounding like an advertisement. I feel that I can't do much more on the latter - it simply is written in the most factual, objective way possible as far as I can see. For the former, we operate in a niche market and the value we offer is giving information companies can use in a highly competitive market - so people don't exactly want to mention us at length elsewhere. I don't want the wiki to promote - I just want it to validate we exist and what we do so that as we're expanding into new markets that info is available for people to check that we're a genuine company/service. After three failed draft attempts - where can I turn next? CorrenaCunningham (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

First, thank you for disclosing your paid status, many do not do this(either deliberately or otherwise).

You have a fundamental, if common, misunderstanding as to what it is we do here. You have told us what you want the world to know about your company. That is the wrong approach. Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell about itself, its offerings and activities, and what it views as its own history. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with siignificant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, only in what others wholly unconnected with the company choose to say about it in a significant way- not just its activities or offerings, but coverage that goes in depth as to what makes the subject important/significant/influential as the source sees it, not as the company itself might see it(as most companies see what they do as important).

In order for you to succeed at what you are doing(which does not happen often for those in your position) you need to set aside everything you know about your company and all materials it puts out, all brief mentions and reporting of routine business activities, and limit yourself to summarizing what independent sources say. People in your position have great difficulty with that; are you the rare person who can do it? Possibly, but the odds are against it. Please see WP:BOSS and have others at your company read it, too.

If you still want to attempt it, you need to essentially blank the draft and start fresh- if you have at least three independent sources with significant coverage. If you have three such sources, you can tell what they are and we can tell you if this is worth attempting. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CorrenaCunningham. Related to 331dot's response, rather than writing, as you have, that "Insurance Insider's industry awards, such as the Insurance Insider US Honors, receive coverage in trade publications", a better approach would be to use those trade publications as sources, summarise what they say about Insurance Insider, and cite them. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I've revised the page. It did read like a company press release. You might want to check the products and services are correctly described. I'll have a go at finding some more sources, then you might try resubmitting. Also, can you add your COI on the article talk page. MmeMaigret (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Review my advice on my talk page re: primary sources

Hello TH volunteers, would someone mind giving a second opinion regarding the {{primary sources}} tag I've placed at the top of Norman Frederick Astbury. I'm discussing with the author of the AFC draft who does have a COI with the subject. They're looking for guidance on my talk page, you can find the current thread here:  Courtesy link: User talk:Bobby Cohn § Norman Frederick Astbury.

I'll also note previous advice I've given to the editor in my talk page archives at User talk:Bobby Cohn/Archive 9 § Norman Frederick Astbury (NFA): This Article relies excessively on Primary Sources. I appreciate the extra set of eyes! Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it relies too heavily on primary sources (6 out of 22) but I'm not sure I've identified all.

Also suggest look at the May Kidson page to see one way to deal with them. MmeMaigret (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

If you need a third opinion in a discussion, we have a resource for that: Wikipedia:Third opinion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Images on Wikipedia?

Hey is anybody able to help me find the option on mobile chrome browser where i can add images to articles without using coding or pc? The app keeps crashing on my phone recently

I found this free to use image online and i uploaded to commons here - File:B Major in Studio.jpg

Which i would like to add to the Wikipedia article of the subject i created, but i seem to be struggling with it. If you can do it for me that would be great but aldo an explaination as it would go a long way for future contributions. I tried doing desktop mode on my celluar device but it is still in mobile mode?? I give up i need someone with experience to explain to me what is the simplest way?

my PC died and i'm waiting till month end to fix it

I like contributing im just a bit slow with this technology and things so any help would be grateful.. My mentor doesn't seem to reply to talk page messengers.. LordOfTheReverts (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Image added to B Major (producer); and to d:Q110281105—though we already had a higher-resolution version, at File:BMajor.jpg.

You can change your mentor if you wish. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, i'm still trying to access the desktop mode on mobile but will eventually get it im hopeful.

And yes thank you i would like to change mentors if that is ok?

Or if i have a question i could just post it here maybe? The reply rate here is much faster, as there are many user active here i see. LordOfTheReverts (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is fine to post here. That's what the Teahouse is for and using your mentor is entirely optional. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

If the desktop view isn't showing for you after you have asked the browser on your mobile device to show the desktop version, check you don't have m.wikipedia at the start of the page's URL, and if you do delete m. and fetch the page again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

That totally worked!! Thank you so much, when i switch to desktop mode it still had the m.wikipedia but when i removed the m. And reload page it shows desktop mode. Great stuff! Thank you @Pigsonthewing LordOfTheReverts (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@LordOfTheReverts Your upload has been marked on Commons for speedy deletion, as it is a duplicate of the earlier file. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I saw yes i uploaded both images, i screenshoted the image and then realized i can download images by holding on them with my finger. Some websites dont us allow to download images like that. Great shortcut for anybody trying to download free to use images for free instead of online downloaders which i been using a lot lately LordOfTheReverts (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

New editor, question about WP:NPOV

Hi All,

I was reviewing this article and I came across this passage:

"Students of Nalanda College have consistently participated in national-level examinations, with some achieving high grades in Ordinary Level and Advanced Level exams, as well as in various sports competitions." This passage feels extremely out of place to me, however it has tons of citations on it. There is also an "Awards" section immediately below this that seems address this idea with objective facts.

So do we think this is an appropriate passage? As a new editor, how do I know when a passage is in violation of WP:NPOV if it has citations as well?

TIA,

LuredFreezer LuredFreezer (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

As long as the sources are well-referenced, and the references actually back up the information, it seems good to me. It's written in a somewhat braggadocious-seeming way, but it's pretty much just statistics. If you think it could be written in a more encyclopedic way, I invite you to Be Bold and correct it in a manner that you feel is appropriate.

Happy editing!

Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I think maybe NPOV (in its Wikipedia sense) is not exactly the problem, even though neutrality is certainly involved. The issue (if there is one) seems more like WP:COI or WP:Puff, if you think the article is misusing Wikipedia as a promotional tool. (I too would tend to classify this kind of thing as inappropriate promotional material.) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to both, this is helpful. I'll noodle on it for a bit and see if I can reword it in a way that feels more fitting for Wikipedia. LuredFreezer (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It's also possible to delete material if it's not appropriate; rewording is not the only way. Many times, something is true but (for reasons other than truth) doesn't belong in an article. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Getting Page Approved

I'm working on an article and I am having trouble getting it approved. I read the articles they provide and I believe I am following the guidelines, but I am being told they are not convinced by my article.

I am writing factually, I have lots of sources, and the company is getting more coverage.

Draft:Sparkrock - Wikipedia OpenKey2195 (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@OpenKey2195 In my opinion, the main problem is that the sources you have used are not independent of the company. Please read our advice about the type of sources that are required and see if you can identify three that meet these criteria. If you can, base your draft solely on these. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@OpenKey2195 As an AfC approver, another issue is that many of the sentences are uncited. While everything in a paragraph can be supported by one citation at the end, the article consists of many uncited stand-alone sentences. Adding wikilinks would also be helpful. GGOTCC 18:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@OpenKey2195 I would go as far as to recommend that you combine many of your standalone sentences into larger paragraphs. In addition, some of your subsections could probably be combined. As is, I'll admit that it does look like an advertisement. But most of the content within looks pretty good and appears to be in a Neutral point of view. And, as @Michael D. Turnbull and @GGOTCC, be sure to work on your sources. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Removing a maintenance template

Should I remove the maintenance template in Pandukabhaya article ? TeenX808 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think i would just yet, as there are still a few unreferenced paragraphs, but it loos like you're doing some great work on the article! Keep it up! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot: can you point them out, all most all of them go by the refs.Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, ofc! The first and second paragraphs in the "Early Life" section are unreferenced, as is the first paragraph in "Battles with his uncles," and points 1,2,4,and 6 in the "services section. Speaking of point six, I would recommend you specify what the hospital was called, or something along those lines. After that, it seems good, but don't be afraid to look for more possible places you can put one. Great work, @TeenX808!

Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot: all of them go by the final refs, the reason I only included on the final lines of a section refs due to over referencing. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Wiki-style references with EndNote

Like many other wiki-editors, I use EndNote to generate a list of references. Wikipedia has it own hypertext (html) formatting style called wiki-text markup: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting

Currently EndNote does not provide such output style. It would be useful for many wiki-editors (especially, those in academia, who have EndNote license via their institutions) to have an option to easily produce wiki-styled references.

I contacted EndNote techsupport, and they told me- someone from Wikipedia have to place a formal request with endnote.com, and they can release this new wiki-format for free. Do you know, who can place such as official request? In case of scientific journals, EndNote accepts requests from editorial or publishing offices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApoieRacional (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do so. Where? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Goibniu, dwarf planet candidate

My planet is Homlos Can I add Goibniu's density? I found a source that calculated its density by its rotation period. The source:https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2008/41/aa09615-08.pdf

And the source said that Goibniu's density is around 1.16±0.03 g/cm³. If I added it Will it be vandalism or just fine. I'm honestly too scared to touch Wikipedia without asking here in Teahouse (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Goibniu was called 2004 GV before My planet is Homlos (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you're asking about 90568 Goibniu. If so, then the place where you'd ask about adding material to it is Talk:90568 Goibniu. If you do add material, then the reference you provide for it should not be a "bare URL". -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @My planet is Homlos, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Vandalism is editing which is intended to damage Wikipedia. If you genuinely think an edit you want to make is an improvement to the article in question, it is never vandalism.

Howevert, editors can disagree about what will be best for an article, and that is normal and healthy. So it might be that you make an edit in good faith and somebody disagrees, and reverts your edit: you can then open a discussion with them. Or if you sense that your edit might be controversial, you may choose to start the discussion before trying to make the edit. See WP:BRD for how this works in practice.

Astronomy & Astrophysics appears to be a respected journal, so the paper is almost certainly a reliable source and you can cite information from it - but, as Hoary says, give the full bibliographic information in your citation so that a reader can easily see the journal, authors, date etc. (see WP:REFB for how to cite). ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I now feel like every edit I do is controversial even if I provided a reliable source. But now I'll try to give the full bibliographic information in my citation. Not like https://... My planet is Homlos (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

What to hyperlink

Should I hyperlink the same thing twice? e.g. if an article mentions France like 3 times, do I hyperlink it all 3 times or just the first time it appears? SomePersonInAHouse (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@SomePersonInAHouse The first time it appears in a section. See MOS:OL. In fact, you don't even need to link "France" because it's a well-knwon country. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Citation help

How you can add a citation needed template to sentences that do not have a citation? ReaderAlvarez (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Does Help:VisualEditor § Editing templates help? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@ReaderAlvarez In wikitext, you type {{cn}} where you want it. In VE, you can start typing {{, and a new window will open. There you can type cn and pick it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Non-English words query

While editing a page, I came across non-English word that was hyperlinked, so should it be italicized as well? Can I get some guidance around this? ReaderAlvarez (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It might depend on the word; some non-English words have become sufficiently well used in English that they are no longer considered to need italicisation.

That aside, I agree it would be consistent, so I suggest you be Bold and go ahead,: the worst that can happen is that someone disagrees and Reverts your edit, wheupon you can both Discuss the matter on the Talk page – this is the Wikipedia:BRD cycle that is normal procedure in Wikipedia.

As with my bolding of that link, the italics markers go outside the double brackets (which you may already have known). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@ReaderAlvarez Some guidance at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Non–English_language_terms. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Genre for this singer?

Hey, I just wanna ask what else I can put in this singer's genre infobox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colet_(singer)
The source I have (an article recently published by Latest Chika) mentions that Colet, the singer, sings ballads in her solo work. However, I've been told multiple times that ballad isn't considered a genre on Wikipedia. But it does tell you a lot about what kind of music she sings (in her solo work, not as a member of the girl group that she's in): slow, emotional, with a lot of belting. AKA ballads. Hoping for some advice. Bloomagiliw (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bloomagiliw: A genre is a type of music. A ballad is a musical form. There are rock ballads, country ballads, folk ballads, etc. and the genres would be rock, country, and folk, respectively. There are some musicians like Yoko Kanno whose work spans all sorts of genres, and if you look at her infobox you'll see many genres listed. Based on Colet's article, it looks like her genres may be rap and pop. I'm not familiar with her music, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

There are two main things about genres. First, people pretty much 100% agree what you mean when you say them. If I said I was starting a new genre, nobody would pay any attention to me, and they'd be right to ignore my little fantasy. Second, genres group stuff that is the same. We have to start by admitting nobody is so unique. So figure out who she's basically the same as in her music, and use those genres. Trying to pretend everyone's music is super unique and different and supposedly doesn't fit the genres is just a silly game. (She really could be combining some genres, but make sure they're genres that are already recognized.) TooManyFingers (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

She's a member of Bini; their genres are P-pop bubblegum pop, EDM, funk, pop rock, teen pop. It also says she's a rapper.

MmeMaigret (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It's her solo page, so it's mentioned in the infobox hidden text that we should list the genres for her solo work. This article (which again is published by Latest Chika, which is under the major newspaper The Philippine Star and is thus considered reliable) mentions that Colet's solo work sounds different from Bini's upbeat and fast songs: https://latestchika.com/just-in/2025/09/18/117807/bini-colet24th-birthday/

The article mentions that she writes songs with her acoustic guitar. It also calls her a balladeer at heart. I don't think the group's genres should be listed on her solo page, as an article from a major media outlet has written that her solo work sounds very different. Bloomagiliw (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The most important thing to keep in mind about mentioning musical genres in a Wikipedia article is that adding a reference to a reliable source verifying the genre is mandatory. Countless editors have been blocked or sanctioned for persistently adding unsourced genres. Please read WP:GENREWARRIOR for the gory details. Cullen328 (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. So should I just leave it blank for now? As solo pages should reflect solo work. Again, the article does mention acoustic and ballad. Can I mention acoustic music in the infobox? Bloomagiliw (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

DYK gets temporarily obsessed with topics

(Tongue in cheek) I think it's time to combine various obsessions of the DYK crew. Such as "Did you know there is an abortion law that applies only to people who are standing on statistically-unlikely prefectural borders in Japan?" TooManyFingers (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

DYK works with what people write and nominate. Many of those people only write on one topic and are very regular nominators. There is the option to do a multi article nomination, but your hook has to be true, verifiable, verified and in the article(s). Joke DYKs are more likely to show up on 1 April. So find your strange fact, even if in someone else's new/expanded articles and you too can nominate for WP:DYK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Citation without Author Name

I tried to cite this Google Books page But when I tried to insert it in the Balayan page at line 4 (see the last line of the Introduction paragraph, about Bagoong), it added the links and other details but did not add the Author's name. As can be seen on the Google Books page, the author's name is available.

Is this an issue with the Automatic Citation creator? If yes, I think this should be instantly reported and taken care of. Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Kingsacrificer, the Google Books page names the author as "J. Dagoon". But where does Dagoon's name appear in the book? ¶ Assuming for a moment that Dagoon verifiably is the (sole) author, then "manually" correct the tool's guesswork, for: {{Cite book |url=https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Agriculture_Fishery_Technology_Iii_2000/7-JV7snXSzkC?hl=en | first=J. | last=Dagoon | title=Agriculture & Fishery Technology III | year=2000 |location=Manila |publisher=Rex Bookstore |isbn=978-971-23-2822-0 | via=Google Books}} Resulting in: Dagoon, J. (2000). Agriculture & Fishery Technology III. Manila: Rex Bookstore. ISBN 978-971-23-2822-0 – via Google Books. Plus the page number(s), of course. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Change my name

Hye can anyone tell me how to change my name SharikMalik (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@SharikMalik Hello! Follow the instructions and advice at Wikipedia:Changing username. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username; that should give you enough information for starters. Lectonar (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

🙏thanks SharikMalik (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Feedback Request for Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo

Hello, I have created a draft article for Sam Bayat Makoo (Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo) about a Quebec-licensed attorney and author specializing in immigration law and citizenship by investment programs. The draft uses independent, reliable sources such as Gulf News, Caribbean News Global, The Corporate Immigration Review, and Le Barreau du Québec to establish notability per WP:NBIO. No self-published sources (e.g., LinkedIn or Bayat Group website) are used. I am seeking feedback on the draft’s content, sourcing, and neutrality to improve it before submitting to Articles for Creation. Please advise if additional sources, clarifications, or changes are needed to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo InsightAdventurer (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

my article

hi..so i made an article about a family that is a side branch of the de sousa / souca family which is already on https://en.wikipedia-on-ipfs.org/wiki/Sousa_(surname) i came acros sthem during my genealogy studies of colonial families but i cant upload papers from church records etc as a source :(

also, yes i fed ai with my data as i m not a native speaker of englich and needed help...so i wrote it as a draft and asked ai to shape it up and make the grammar and mistakes better or rather undo them

id reallu would like to publish this artikel here ...isnt it enough that the main family already is on wikipedia?

thank you for your help

tina Historyheroine1 (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)