Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

GreenMeansGo, 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? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk 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

• To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
• About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250

Should we make a page on the game Iron Meat I mean it has gained a lot of attention and many know it’s lore and bosses Lordofcallofduty (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you think the game is notable ?

Do you think there are reliable sources about this game ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The company Retroware made the game and it’s on steam and others sites as I know of I haven’t checked if it does or not Lordofcallofduty (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

By reliable sources we mean are their published news reports or other stories about the development of the game, or professional reviews of the game? 331dot (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I doubt there's much for the latter; Metacritic doesn't have a rating for the game as there's a lack of professional reviews. (It requires at least 4 professional reviews; there's only three.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The game updated recently adding some new achievements like Why??? When you break the engines on the sky level and another the game is still fairly recent so I can’t blame metacritic for not doing it yet Lordofcallofduty (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I have checked metacritic currently it has 9 reviews and is set at 9.0 Lordofcallofduty (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lordofcallofduty: User reviews do not count as far as we're concerned (as that's user-generated); we'd be looking at the aggregated average for professional reviews (such as from Kotaku and the like). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Lordofcallofduty. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

If there are few or no such sources, then there is nothing which can be put in an article, and it is not permitted to create it. That is (mostly) what our requirement of notability comes down to. ColinFine (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

the game appears to be going well for a game rated 9.0 because I checked metacritic on the game and don’t correct me on this it currently has 9 reviews and I just reviewed it a 10 because I have played and finished it and correct me on this Lordofcallofduty (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lordofcallofduty, the fact that you yourself were able to submit a review is an indication that such reviews are not a reliable source. Content that anybody can submit is user-generated content and such content is not suitable for use as a source. There is a section at WP:RSP about Metacritic, which says that, although its review aggregation is generally reliable, "There is consensus that user reviews on Metacritic are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources.". So the user ratings are irrelevant; we will need to wait until metacritic aggregates critic reviews and publishes a metascore before that particular source can be used. Furthermore, the actual rating is also irrelevant; a game with a 1.0 rating could have an article here if there are sufficient reliable sources that have written about it. CodeTalker (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

And how long do you think it would take I know it took retroware months and maybe years to make Iron Meat and it didn’t go to waste at least making a Wikipedia article about it would at least be a gift to them that their game got recognized and not left in the dark by other popular games Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

This is going nowhere clearly my efforts to get the game popular and do a good deed by supporting a game isn’t working guess it won’t happen and I will stop trying Iron Meat really shouldn’t be known even if people want to know the lore Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually I’m not backing down and here’s some info on it if you want Iron Meat is a contra styled game with a thing of meat from another world takes on humans on earth and player plays as Vadim the man the myth the soon to be legend Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lordofcallofduty: Lots of things exist in the world. Wikipedia only has articles on subjects that are wikinotable, which is demonstrated through the use of sources that meet the golden rule. Many people with long political careers exist, but they don't always get an article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The basic issue is that all of this is against the very purpose of Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia, not a publicity platform for deserving individuals or companies. The Wikipedia project doesn't intend to confer notability, but to recognize it; if Iron Meat were to become notable, Wikipedia ought to be the last place to recognize this, not the first. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I get that but the game released fully in 2024 last year technically I felt like we missed it there was a demo and all I never found a trailer though Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It isn't notable, stop. For future reference read WP:NOT Mgjertson (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You really want me to forget a game that took a company months to do and leave to rot like any other game this site forgot they also deserve a mention instead of popular games you all keep mentioning those I really don’t care what call of duty does Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm a gamedev, I know how hard it is to make a game. Just because something took a lot of effort doesn't mean it has enough material to make a Wikipedia article. If it did, I'd gladly help make it but it simply isn't notable enough yet mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 13:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

What is the game because I may have time to play it the worst game I have played was and hate me for saying this but the worst one was Universe Sandbox Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I haven't released anything yet but that's not the point, I was trying to make it clear to you that putting effort into something doesn't make it notable. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 13:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Yknow I was working on something but I can’t do code but I had the idea but anyway Iron Meat definetly took the devs months to do Lordofcallofduty (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Cool. Do you understand the point though? mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Here’s one thing MANY OTHER SITES HAVE DONE IT FIRST!!

Wikipedia ain’t the first this game surely isn’t big like Iron Lung for a prime example but iron lung only became popular when several idiots used an unstable submarine and iron meat is a game with no related tragities it’s perfect in my opinion so shut up Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Iron Meat isn’t like Iron Lung it has a storyline unlike iron lung Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lordofcallofduty: Cool it with the personal attacks.

Have you considered starting a wiki for this game on Fandom? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Fandom is for people who know nothing about games Lordofcallofduty (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

In any case, the subject does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, so it will not survive any scrutiny on this site. Find an alternative outlet that is okay with documenting this game. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Avoid Ad hominem. Guylaen (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lordofcallofduty: Hello! Usually, video games get articles on Wikipedia when they have been reviewed in professional publications, like IGN or PC Gamer, so that the game meets the notability guideline. The critic reviews of the game on Metacritic include articles on TheXboxHub, Video Chums and ZTGD. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources has a list of generally reliable and unreliable sources, along with situational ones. TheXboxHub and ZTGD are described as generally unreliable on that list, so to prove notability, you'd have to dig in for more reviews on reliable game outlets - even if Video Chums is reliable, more reliable coverage is needed so that the article can cite it. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Then how haven’t they known iron meat existed yet huh? Can you answer that? Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for everything that exists - reliable sources provide information on whatever topic the authors want. Without reliable sources, a Wikipedia article would fail verifiability. ObserveOwl (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Because it's one of the hundreds of indie games that release on steam weekly. There is nothing particularly notable about it and their advertising budget seems to have gone to recruiting someone to bitch about it on wikipedia, they have no reason to know it exists. Please go contribute something meaningful to the encyclopedia before you run the risk of being WP:NOTHEREd mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I checked for hours no single vote on the game I will keep checking Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Normally when its better to do so, I just put the contents of lists into tables by hand, but this is impractical if the list is really long. Bloopityboop (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bloopityboop: If you are doing source mode editing, you can copy and paste your code into text editor. Then do a find and replace with regular expressions. Syntax may vary a bit, but on Geany I can covert list items to rows by searching for "\*\s" and replacing with "\|-\n\|" or for row headers "\|-\n\!". You can try out regex find and replace online at http://regex101.com/r/kUW4Ug/ . Then just add "{| class="wikitable" to the start and "|} to the end.

If you want to add columns and rows once your list, you can flip into the VisualEditor, add them, and then flip back to source editing. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

And there is a tool on Wikipedia called "Regex editor", so you don't actually have to copy to another editor.

Also it is possible to write a javascript add-on that would do that too. I have one that adds the bullets to the beginning of each line: function(editor) { editor.replaceSelection(function(selected) { return selected.replace(/^\n/gm,"").replace(/^/gm,"*").replace(/^\*/gm,"* ").replace(/^\* */gm,"* "); }); }

So if you replaced the "* " with "\|-\n\|" it would do what Bloopityboop said. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett, can you replace a character with a new line using the "Regex editor" in the tools menu? And if so, how? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you use the \n in the replacement field which means new line. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett I wonder if there are multiple regex editors like there are multiple dark modes. I can search for and replace newlines with "\n", but trying to replace literally replaces with that characters "\n" rather than a newline. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Graeme Bartlett/monobook.js where it uses mw.loader.load('//tools-static.wmflabs.org/meta/scripts/pathoschild.templatescript.js'); Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

There's a useful trick here. If you capture a new line, you can re-use it. So instead of replacing "* " with "\|-\n\|" replace "(\n)\* " with "$1\|-$1\|". One other quick point, many bulleted (or numbered) lists either don't have spaces after the * (or #) consistently, or at all. So a better replacement is "(\n)\* *" with "$1\|-$1\|". The means the number of spaces after the * can be zero or more. You can even improve on that with "(\n)\*[ \t]*" which catches any tab characters or "(\n)\*s*" which catches any "white space" characters. (There is of course yet more layers of what can be whitespace characters in wiki-markup or Unicode, but you are unlikely to need it in these cases.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC).

Oh, gotcha. And a ping for the original commneter: Bloopityboop Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks guys, I'll give your suggestions a try the next time I'm doing this Bloopityboop (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

What happens if a user keeps on not using edit summaries when editing an article? Let's take user Axl7Rose as an example (I'm not here to report anything though). If you check most of his recent contributions, a good majority of his edits don't have edit summaries. If that happens to a user, will he/she be permanently banned from Wikipedia? If not, what will happen? Underdwarf58 (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The user has received a temporary block for ignoring final warnings and requests for edit summaries. While not using edit summaries in edits would probably not receive a permanent ban by itself, failure to WP:COMMUNICATE as shown by that user could result in a permanent ban. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

So that means if the user still doesn't use edit summaries after the 2-day block expires, he/she will get a permanent ban as he/she would probably not read warnings in the talk page? Underdwarf58 (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably not permanent, it depends on if their editing is useful or just causing trouble. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, it depends if their edits are constructive or not. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Would this be an example of one of his more recent edits that caused trouble? Underdwarf58 (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Just as an illustrative example, that edit removes an entry from a table. I would expect an edit summary, explaining why. If the edit fixed some spelling issue, for example, no edit summary would be needed to understand the edit. (It's fairly common to type "sp" in such a case, though.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC).

Noted. Thanks a lot Underdwarf58 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I first noticed an issue in the WP:BLP article on Zhao Liying, where a 2019 edit by Huangdan2060 cited a source claiming to be a book published in 2019 titled 那些草根出身的明星 (Stars who came up from Nothing). However, no such book exists. The ISBN provided (978-7-229-09693-9) corresponds to a different book published in 2015 titled English Street entrance 6th edition, Series June 2015 TEENS SPACE. Since the cited book does not exist and this concerns a BLP article, I removed the content.

This raised concerns about Huangdan2060’s citations, so I further investigated the edits. In the recently created article Longxing Temple (Yanling County) by this editor, there’s a cited book with ISBN 9787535728746. Despite thorough searches, I found no record of this book online—except for Huangdan2060’s own citations on the Chinese and Japanese Wikipedias. I then checked the China PDC Database (where all officially published Chinese books are listed), but neither the ISBN nor the cited book title appeared. This makes me think that this cited book is either unpublished or does not exist..

As this is my first encounter with such a situation, I would like to seek guidance (I have no idea on how to deal with this). Thank you. EleniXDD※Talk 16:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I have further investigated and there are two more questionable edits (I'm not sure whether these four total examples suffice to initiate a talk page discussion). For this edit by Huangdan2060, I cannot find the cited book titled 中国共产党历届湖南省委书记 in both Worldcat and the database I mentioned. Other online search doesn't provide me with this book, which makes me question of its existence. The other one is in the article Gu Jinchi created by Huangdan2060. The cited book is said to be titled 中华人民共和国年鉴 1998 [Yearbook of the People's Republic of China 1998], published in year 1999 with ISBN 7-80056-903-9. Yet with this isbn, both database I mentioned and Worldcat give a book (also published in 1999) titled 《中华人民共和国会计法全书》(I try to translate this Chinese title, The Complete Book of Accounting Law of the People's Republic of China). While this time, the cited book title seems to be this, but I am not sure. For the first three sources, I question their existence entirely. As for this one, while the book might exist, the title does not match the provided ISBN. EleniXDD※Talk 04:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Huangdan2060: It would be great if you could explain the above 4 edits. Thank you. EleniXDD※Talk 15:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Assuming most, if not all, of his cites are to these nonexistent books, it sounds to me like we may need to block Huangdan2060 here for rampant source fraud. Once is an innocent mistake; anything beyond that is a wilful attempt to deceive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The first step should be to ask Huangdan2060 if they can explain their edits and/or resolve the issue on the article talk page (or on their user talk page if it affects multiple pages). If they can't provide a satisfactory answer in due time, then you should file a case at WP:ANI, providing the WP:DIFFs of the exact edits where they appear to have gone wrong. I do agree with Jeske that the outline of the problem you're highlighting here does appear to be quite serious and will likely result in a block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Should I take a look on more articles created/edited by Huangdan2060 first, or ask about the above two edits? There're actually quite a number of articles created by this editor, and I am not sure if this goes like the most cases, as its 2-4 edits among 25329 edits. EleniXDD※Talk 16:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd look at a few more edits, at least. If those are likewise poorly-sourced (read: citing non-existent sources) then AN/I would be the next stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I will look at more isbn edits. EleniXDD※Talk 16:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I’ve identified two additional questionable edits (I can continue investigating further if needed). Is this sufficient, or should I proceed with more checks? Additionally, I noticed that Maineartists invited Huangdan2060 to this discussion on Huangdan2060's talk page. Should I re-address the issue on Huangdan2060’s talk page, or document the two new edits directly here? EleniXDD※Talk 03:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm far to be a well experienced user even if I made more than 500 edits on "Wikipedia in English".

If only some edits are problematic among more than "25 000". This is certainly a mistake in good faith of the user.

I think the others editors gave you right advices. Happy editing ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

No, this is absolutely the wrong take. Source fraud is a direct attack on the accuracy and reliability of our articles, and people have been blocked for citing non-existent sources or citing a source that says the complete opposite of the claim it's cited for. We have to treat it with very minimal tolerance. Again, one bad cite can be chalked up to a mistake. Multiple bad cites grievously strains any sort of good faith. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Wow. Easy there. Source fraud? I would be very careful before slinging accusations of this kind around without proper evidence. First of all, I take issue when any editor at WP uses the term: "our" articles. This is a community. There is no "us" against "them". No one owns anything. This is the Teahouse. For the first example, I would assume WP:GF in this instant. While one editor is looking for a definitive book based only on an ISBN; it may just be a simple error in template choice. Rather, the contributing editor should have used a template for the magazine TEEN SPACE. I have seen in other instances where inexperienced editors (assuming good faith) have entered an erroneous ISBN to complete templates for books when a magazine is being cited. I cannot imagine that the contributing editor made up an entire quote in this instant; when it seems there actually is a magazine issue: English Street entrance 6th edition, Series June 2015 TEENS SPACE, in their language. In defense of the contributing editor, if they are editing from a non-English speaking country (which I believe they are), this may also be a factor. I would strongly advise approaching the editor first. Blocking seems a bit in haste. They honestly may not know what they are doing is wrong. That's what "good faith" is about. Maineartists (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

As well, the second example: Bai Li (柏立); Gong Shaoshi (龚绍石) (2000-01-01). 丰富的文化遗存 [Rich Cultural Relics]. 《怀化市初中乡土教材：历史》 [Junior High School Local Textbook of Huaihua: History] (in Chinese). Changsha, Hunan: Hunan People's Publishing House - A Chinese textbook from a local Junior High School? It may not have an ISBN. I would also assume good faith for this one. The editor may just need to understand that they do not need to fill in the ISBN, or may use a different template, or does not need one at all to cite. I honestly do not believe with 25,000+ edits, that this editor is going around fabricating content with such detailed references. Maineartists (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

They also couldn't find it via its title, Maine. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Find what? This isn't the magazine? [1] Maineartists (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

From above, in re Longxing Temple: In the recently created article Longxing Temple (Yanling County) by this editor, there’s a cited book... I... checked the China PDC Database (where all officially published Chinese books are listed), but neither the ISBN nor the cited book title appeared. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

What is your point? The first one is a magazine (which the above editor keeps calling a "book"). The second is a "Chinese textbook from a local Junior High School". Do you really believe either one of these have ISBNs? Once again, assuming good faith would err on the side that these do not fall within the norm for English WP templates and that the editor most probably entered erroneous ISBNs to satisfy the criteria citation. I'm not saying it was right; but probable. These are only two examples that need an explanation from the contributing editor; and more likely a warning for correction moving forward. Not an immediate block without outreach. BTW, EleniXDD, just what exactly is the: China PDC Database? I have been searching and have come up with nothing except several resources related to China's global activities. Can you provide a link? Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

For the China PDC database (i hope i provide a good translation name?) Its 国家版本数据中心, a database provided by 中国国家版本馆 china national archives of publications and culture. EleniXDD※Talk 01:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

For the first one, (my fault for calling it generally as a book, I will be more specific next time) at first I do thought it maybe a translation error. Yet, the part concerns me is that both the cited publication year and the Chinese and English titles do not match with the exact magazine. Its cited to be a 2019 magazine 那些草根出身的明星 (Stars who came up from Nothing), which do not match with the exact 2015 magazine English Street entrance 6th edition, Series June 2015 TEENS SPACE - 英语街高考版第6辑 2015年6月 TEENS SPACE. Btw, in the database, it also showed the same result to be a 2015 magazine (with the latter title), content is focus on gaokao, suggested by the title. For the quote (in Chinese), I can only find it on mubi, not sure whether its reliable enough for blp. Also, China has strict laws on isbn. I have checked, restricting one isbn per book (see item 28) （so it definitely refers to the 2015 one)EleniXDD※Talk 00:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

As for the second one, before searching it on database, I also searched about its textbook name titled 怀化市初中乡土教材：历史 on online (textbook) selling platforms, such as taobao and pinduoduo, no relevant book result appears, which is a very weird case. Regarding isbn, China has laws on the published book, requiring a shuhao（isbn）for all legally published books(shuhao in china after 1986 is isbn. Before 1986, its another one called 統一書號 So if the book is (legally) published in China, it must have a identified number (which can be traced). But I can't trace it both in the database I mentioned, and WorldCat.EleniXDD※Talk 01:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

If it's as you say, "entered erroneous ISBNs to satisfy the criteria citation", that's substantially worse than an honest mistake (transcription error from a website or bibliographic database). How is that not as bad as wholely making up any other piece of the bibliographic information? Even assuming good faith does not make the behavior acceptable. DMacks (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Who said it was "acceptable behavior"? I surely didn't. That would imply that once it was brought to the attention of the editor, they were allowed to keep doing it. I was simply offering probable suggestions as to the "why". Not condoning the behavior. That's all. This discussion hasn't even heard from the editor. As I wrote below, I cannot find evidence of initial questioning regarding the edits; let alone any warnings or direction toward WP policy. Their TALK PAGE looks quite commendable with BARNSTARS and recognitions. 2 edits out of 25,000 is a bit assuming at this point to threaten blocking, ANI, etc ("It is serious enough that you could be blocked from editing as a result. I recommend you respond to explain yourself") before even having heard from the editor in question. That's all. Maineartists (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I can think of several possible explanations they might give for their edits and/or lack of talkpage response, but I'm not going to put words in their mouth or make this a multiple-choice for them to just say what I say they should say. Given they have clearly made many edits timestamped well after you alerted them, we are easily into WP:ANI territory. Has even one of the edits they made after you alerted them had a problematic ISBN or other detail? DMacks (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

So yeah, I forgot it's now March. Their most recent edit was a month ago (February 14). Their most recent edits anywhere on WMF appears to be March 11 (on commons). So I would give some time for them to respond. ANI is still a possibility, but only because it's chronic and it needs more eyes to help be sure of what is happening, not because it's urgent. DMacks (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, let's wait for the response. EleniXDD※Talk 05:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The current most recent edit anywhere on WMF appears to be March 15 (yesterday on commons), not sure whether common notifies wikipedia. Any idea to stop this discussion being archived by bot before the reply? I am worried the discussion get archived before their reply. EleniXDD※Talk 05:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I have left an invitation on the editor's TALK PAGE: [2]. I am having difficulty in finding evidence where another editor has "warned" them or "brought to their attention" these problematic issues; or where they have made continuous edits after the outreach. The editor in question Huangdan2060 has not even been pinged at this discussion. I cannot find discussions on the articles' TALK PAGES either: [3], [4]. But I have been known to miss things before; so if someone could bring them here, that would be helpful. Many are lighting torches for the trek over to ANI and I see no trail of outreach, warning or continued violations after the fact as have been alluded to above. Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I saw your invitation and thought the discussion would be better held here after the notification, as it concerns quite a few articles. Originally I planned to write a whole paragraph in talk page. Thanks for your reminder, I have pinged. EleniXDD※Talk 15:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

What "notification" did you give them? Could you please provide a link to that? Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I mean they shall be notified by your talk page invitation. EleniXDD※Talk 16:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I had already pinged them. BTW, you mentioned a book by a title: 怀化市初中乡土教材：历史 in your second set of claims. Could you please translate so we at this WP know exactly what book you are referring to. In Google translate, the book renders: Huaihua City Junior Middle School Local Textbooks. Haven't you already addressed this in your first claim? It seems much is being "lost in translation" here. Do you have other examples where Junior Middle School Local Textbooks can be found online via their ISBN? Also, have any questions been raised on the Chinese WP regarding this editor? I could not find other listings at ABEBOOKS for the exact issue of TEEN SPACE (2019). I suspect the editor was linking this listing to prove the magazine exists. If they had simply entered the information without a template with the correct information: magazine, issue, date, page; we may not be having this discussion. Last, the translation for the title of the magazine that you provided renders: Those Grassroots Stars. How exactly do we know the precise title? Maineartists (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I am going to bed soon, so I shall respond briefly first. For the title those grassroots stars, I think you might misunderstand, it's the translated title provided by Huangdan2060 in the 2019 edit I mentioned earlier (which a book with such title doesn't exist). That's the problem that initiates my investigations, the magazine with that isbn is a 2015 magazine, yet the cited book by Huangdan2060 is a 2019 non-existent one. I think I have mentioned clearly that by China law, one isbn per book, so the 2015 one has taken that isbn. The cited 2019 one doesn't exist. For the textbook example you'd like, I will provide you tomorrow. But I think I had make it clear that all legally published book in China should have a isbn/shuhao, making it traceable. The problem now is the isbn cannot be traced/mismatched EleniXDD※Talk 16:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

For example, this 2015 published junior middle school math textbook, can be traced in the database by isbn 978-7223046855. EleniXDD※Talk 00:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the information entered, I see a magazine issue trying to be fitted into a "book" cite template: cite book |language=en, zh|author= |trans-title=Stars who came up from Nothing |script-title=zh:那些草根出身的明星们 |journal=TEENS'SPACE |volume=6 |year=2019 |publisher=Chongqing Publishing House |location=Chongqing |pages=12-15. The "Journal" is titled TEENS SPACE. I assumed the "script-title" that the editor put in: 那些草根出身的明星们 (tr: Those grassroot stars) was merely a poor translation entered into "trans-title": Stars who came up from Nothing. Have you actually tried to search for the MAGAZINE with the criteria: TEENS SPACE, Volume 6, 2019, Chongqing Publishing House, pg 12-15? Rather than solely focusing on the ISBN and trying to match it? I translated the entered quote provided by the editor in the template: 我出生在农村，但就是这样的农村生活经历，磨炼了我坚强的生活意志，也造就了我坚忍顽强的个性。正是这些经历，成就了今天的我。所以我认为：英雄的出处是来自内心的强大，来自对梦想的执著追求和对你所从事职业的坚持与踏实，以及面对浮躁浮华的淡定和定力. I also placed the Chinese quote into Google and it brought up several hits for: Zhao Liying saying these very same words (sometimes verbatim) in other interviews: [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. This particular article: [9] is titled: "Is Zhao Liying a grassroots star?" (Zhao Liying was born in the countryside ... etc) I find nothing out of the ordinary within the entry except the ISBN. If that had been left out, and Template:Cite magazine was used, it would be a perfectly acceptable citation entry. I would suggest, since you have more resources at your disposable, to search for the magazine with the information provided. Having the quote continually validated and attached to the BLP in other interviews seems to validate the entry (just not the ISBN). As for the textbook, the editor has (as well) given this information: Bai Li, Gong Shaoshi, (2000-01-01), Rich Cultural Relics, Junior High School Local Textbook of Huaihua: History, Changsha, Hunan: Hunan People's Publishing House. Have you tried to search for this book based on this given information within your resources instead of focusing only on the ISBN? Just a thought. Maineartists (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem of this quote from other sources you provided is that they are blogs or unreliable sources (user-generated content on platforms like sohu) and do not meet the blp source standard. (I have listed the mubi one above too, I hope you saw my yesterday reply. Its the only one among these that may fit, yet it has the possibility of user-generated too, so making it not adequate enough for a blp entry) As for the 2019 book, at first I searched the titles (both in English and Chinese), which gave no result as well. Thats why afterwards, I searched its isbn, and it resulted another magazine. I hope you understand that I actually first entered and searched all entries, including publishers and titles. After all these gave me no result, I took isbn as my last resort. EleniXDD※Talk 02:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not saying that those other sources are RS. I am only saying that when I entered the given editor's quote, several hits came up with the same quote for the BLP, giving merit to the quote. Meaning, the editor didn't simply make this quote up out of thin air. You keep saying that the ISBN for the "magazine" doesn't exist and that it: "resulted another magazine". No, it actually didn't. It only resulted a different "issue". The ISBN provided links to this [10], which is the same magazine, just a different date. Meaning, the editor could have been in the same situation as you: couldn't find the exact publication online, so they wanted to at least prove that the magazine "itself" existed. If you can't find the exact issue that the editor is citing, how do you expect them to? As well, for the second entry, the only reason you found the textbook is because someone listed it as a used copy on Amazon. There is no history of its title or ISBN online anywhere else; even though you wrote: "I think I had make it clear that all legally published book in China should have a isbn/shuhao, making it traceable." If that is true, where is the proof other than an Amazon listing? Having an ISBN and finding it online are two separate things all together. Unless a magazine is listed online (in any manner), the ISBN is useless. So, once again, if you are having trouble finding these titles physically on line, then perhaps (just perhaps) the editor - in good faith - did as well, and was trying to provide as much information as possible in a template that required everything. When in reality, they could have simply line cited it without a template and it would have been fine without challenge. BTW, here is an issue of TEENS SPACE 2019: [11]. I can't read Chinese so I do not know what issue it is. It is the only one I can find online from that entire year; only because someone listed it on eBay. Maineartists (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I really hope you understand that, as I mentioned, by Chinese law, it requires legally published book to have an isbn (and I have cited that exact law for you earlier). So it’s not ‘if that is true’, but rather a fact. And Wikipedia requires a published book as reliable source, while a published book in China must have isbn by law. Having isbn means the cited source is traceable. I have provided you the textbook example you want, and it can be searched in the database I mentioned (not Amazon alone).

I think both of us shall not continue to guess and give Huangdan2060 the chance to explain the four edits, cause we will never know their explanation or reasons behind etc. Right now I still have doubts about those edits. EleniXDD※Talk 11:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Back to the point, I think wiki has a high standard on the source cited, for accuracy and reliability. My belief is that if an editor wish to add in content supported by source that can’t be accurately cited or found, then they shall not add in such content, especially in Wp:blp. One who add in a source should have the responsibility, making sure it can be checked later on. EleniXDD※Talk 11:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

ISBNs are a very simple idea, but in the real world they are complicated.

1. Magazines should not have an ISBN, they should have an ISSN. However it may be applicable to apply an ISBN to a bound volume.
2. People sometimes abuse the system by re-using ISBNs, making them up, or just copying them form other publishers.
3. People make mistakes.
   1. When we audited the WP ISBNS a decade ago, we found some that were printed wrongly on the books.
   2. We also found many that were entered incorrectly.
   3. We found special cases where multiple ISBNs were used, for example dual publishers used the same block for both hard and soft back, giving four ISBNS.
   4. Sometimes two books share an ISBN, a book and its answer book (for example).
   5. Sometimes a multivolume work has one for the whole work and one for each volume.

Having said this I think the editor in question should explain to the best of their ability what is going on here. We may need to check all their edits, and if there is a simple explanation we can perhaps avoid having to do a lot of unnecessary work.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC).

Thanks for the detailed explanation, I have invited the editor in question to explain. Right now, I am worried that this discussion will be archived by bot before they can explain. Is there any method available to stop the discussion being archived before their explanation? EleniXDD※Talk 16:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
16:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Bring it to the article TALK PAGE in question (which is perhaps what should have happened in the first place). If the editor explains what happened there, then most likely it can be applied to the others; as well as moving forward. I would start with Talk:Zhao Liying and address the magazine citation. A trail can just as easily be started and followed via TALK PAGES as a thread here at the Teahouse. Maineartists (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Since this situation/pattern affects quite a few articles, maybe I shall rewrite and ask that in the editor in question's talk page tomorrow. This should be easier for an explanation (explain at once). EleniXDD※Talk 17:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Originally I did not know how to handle the situation, so I didn't leave talk page messages (at the first page). Now, I have left them a talk page message. EleniXDD※Talk 12:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi all,

I've recently come across an editor that, while well-intentioned, has a seemingly rather poor grasp of English, which often necessitates substantial cleanup and copyediting of their contributions. On one hand, their contribs clearly show a genuine desire to help the project - they're very much not WP:NOTHERE. On the other, though, the frequent and substantial grammatical errors throughout said contribs suggest that a better handle of English is needed to contribute effectively - I don't enjoy referencing WP:CIR, but as it states, A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up.

I've wanted to address them on this, but I know CIR:

1. is not to be used lightly, and

2. can often come off as insulting to editors it's used towards.

How should I politely address this editor about their problematic grasp of the language, without coming off as insulting/demeaning? The Kip ^(contribs) 19:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, The Kip. You are right that this is a sensitive subject. I think there is a continuum here. Consider an editor "A" whose English prose is clumsy and awkward with some grammatical errors, but is easily comprehensible. The editor accurately if ineptly summarizes reliable sources. Then consider editor "B" whose prose is so mangled that many readers genuinely cannot understand what they are trying to say. The editor either uses unreliable sources or fails to accurately summarize reliable sources, or both. Editor "A" types should be encouraged and gently supported with copyediting help and grammar tips. I have seen several editor "A" types improve gradually over a period of months. Editor "B" types need to be monitored, given escalating warnings and blocked if necessary. Finding the "sweet spot" is difficult and requires careful consideration. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thanks for the response. I definitely think they fall more into A than B - their prose is somewhat mangled, but I can usually mostly tell what they're trying to say, and it's almost always genuinely rooted in the source provided. I'll try to come at it from a more genial approach - hopefully it works. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The Kip, articles can be a mess for a lot of reasons: non-neutral, and unsourced or poorly sourced, questionable content in a biography of a living person, written primarily by a COI editor, being some of the main ones. I rate 'poor English' way down the scale, as long as it is clear what they are saying, no matter how poorly they say it. If that is the situation, then try to steer them towards articles that have a decent number of watchers that can fix up the quality of the English. A couple of other things occur to me:

• If we know what their native language is, you could ping some translators or bilinguals or notify a related country- or language-WikiProject on their Talk page to help out.
• If there is a maintenance template for poor English, tag the articles, and maybe we can get the Growth team to add a newcomer task to copyedit an article for better English. That would be a big, win-win in my book, and give newcomers a great starting point, without having to have any special knowledge about Wikipedia. Adding Trizek (WMF). The templates listed at Wikipedia:Template index/Translation are kind of close, but don't seem to quite capture your situation. If we need a new template for this, I can write one for you; just figure out what you would like it to say, and write me on my Talk page, or some central location.

Bottom line: encourage them to keep editing, but in areas where there are sufficient editors around to deal with the inevitable cleanup. Cleanup is a big part of what we do, there's no reason that their efforts need be perfect, when we don't apply that standard to others with POV, Verifiability, and other problems. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot I'll try to think of a message for a possible template - thanks for the suggestion! The user's already editing some articles that're high-vis, so a good amount of their issues do get cleaned up somewhat quickly, but the issue's moreso just the tediousness of having to clean them up in the first place (ex. the "good faith mess" principle invoked above). The Kip ^(contribs) 08:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The Kip, how about this: Draft:Cleanup English? I think the newcomer task idea will relieve the veteran editors of the tedium, while simultaneously giving eager newcomers something they can excel at while starting out. Hope Trizek agrees. Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That works for me! My only suggestions would be:

• Change "reworked" to rewritten, and/or add copyedited (ex. This article may need to be rewritten and/or copyedited...)
• Might want to have it be a yellow tag rather than orange, considering many of the current copyediting-related tags.

The Kip ^(contribs) 08:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The Kip, how's this? Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Although, that makes it pretty close to {Cleanup rewrite}, so maybe they should be merged. On the other hand, if we add it as a newcomer task, a complete rewrite seems like a stretch, so, maybe we shouldn't mention 'rewrite'. I dunno which way to go with it. Mathglot (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot As for the difference between the two/merging, I think it can be delineated that Cleanup English is solely for fixing English grammar/style issues, while Cleanup rewrite is for fixing broader violations of the MoS as a whole. Perhaps "copyediting" is the better term? It's also somewhat close to Template:Cleanup-copyedit, but that one doesn't specify English issues. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The Kip, I agree about the goal as you stated it, I just want to make sure that the goal is clear in the wording the template produces, as well as in the /doc page, and is sufficiently different from the other templates, otherwise there will be pressure to merge it, and then we would lose the possible benefit of having a newcomer task assigned to it. The template and the /doc page are not restricted; feel free to try your hand at editing them. Don't worry about breaking something: 1) it's only a Draft, and 2) the 'undo' link is always available. (P.S., I am subscribed, meaning you never have to {ping} me here. What about you?) Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe get some ideas from the wording at {Rough translation}, or others listed at WP:Template index/Translation. Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Mathglot for the ping.

You can add any template that fits under the Homepage's copyedit task through community configuration. Then, articles that use this templates will be highlighted to newcomers. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The Kip, this discussion is likely to get archived soon. If there is still a need and/or you want to keep discussing it, pick a venue, probably Wikipedia talk:Template index/Cleanup or maybe Wikipedia talk:Cleanup or some other central location, or it will just fade away. (See {discussion moved to} and {discussion moved from} if so.) Mathglot (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot I'm good either way, if you want to bring the template to mainspace I'd support it. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been looking through Twinkle and I can't find any template to warn a user for violating WP:NOTHERE. How should I do this? Is there a warning? Thanks, loserhead (contribs) 15:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like gaming the system? Knitsey (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• There isn't really a warning for it per se because WP:NOTHERE sort of encompasses the motivation behind a wide range of conduct rather than the conduct itself. The thing to do is instead to identify the more specific conduct they're doing wrong (which makes you suspect they're not here to build an encyclopedia) and warn them about that. If they're intransigent, then you might conclude that they're NOTHERE and take them to ANI or the like over it; but it's more something that you conclude based on more specific individual problems, like gaming the rules or stonewalling or bludgeoning, and those problems are the ones you'd warn for. Like, what would a NOTHERE warning even look like? "It looks like you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Have you tried, instead, being here to build an encyclopedia?" --Aquillion (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explaination. I will warn them and see where it goes from there. loserhead (contribs) 17:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think Special:Diff/1280448040 at User talk:TWC YMCA3TWC#Hello is a bit overkill. Newbie was not even disruptive in WP:mainspace; this was the first warning (or welcome, for that matter). Blocks for only editing userpages—absent other disruptive actions like ignoring warnings against repeatedly creating speedily deleted promotional content on said userpage—are rare, and does not seem to be happening here besides. I would've just used {subst:welcome-no-edits} (intended for new users who have created their user page, but have not yet contributed elsewhere) or {subst:welcometest}. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Rotideypoc41352 Oh, I didn't mean to bite them, I was just trying to tell them what could happen. Should I remove my message? loserhead (contribs) 18:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  What's done is done. Just make a note for next time. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  Loserhead4512, I disagree; it's bitey, and they haven't replied, and may not have seen it, so yes, definitely, I would just remove it. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  Far far too early. You have to let folk develop confidence. I've removed it as unsuitable. Its not impacting the corpus. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry for a late reply, but thank you everyone for your replies and advice. I didn't mean to be rude at the time I wrote the message, but after re-reading it it's definitely biting. I will learn from this mistake, and do better next time loserhead (contribs) 13:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  It's kind of odd that a three-week old account feels it has the experience to apply such a warning, or indeed to know that NOTHERE is even a thing. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1250#Not sure what to title this Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, so they've already confessed. Thanks, Rotideypoc41352. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

In a nutshell, there was a user I was helping via Discord DMs to improve an article. The (now deleted) article in question was Mercury Ai, and the user in question has since been blocked. Now, both the blocked user and a person claiming to be the CEO of the company that runs Mercury Ai have DMed me asking me to remake the article and make another article about the company, join their Discord, etc. I don't know what to do so the first thing that came to mind was to come here and consult the Teahouse. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I would advise against taking either of them up on the offer. One is similar enough to meatpuppetry to be (at least in my opinion) not a good idea. The other also would violate WP:COI mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I told them what Wikipedia guidelines and such they should follow (NPOV, sources, etc), and then left and blocked them (on Discord) after they asked me to write the article for them in return for a payment. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @RedactedHumanoid, WP:SCAM comes to mind. It says to email paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. That might help. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for bringing WP:SCAM to my attention. However, I've looked over WP:SCAM and related pages...I kind of don't have any images, etc, of the conversation that occurred in the Discord server (I left and blocked the people). RedactedHumanoid (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

If you felt motivated to write the article and believed there were enough sources to meet WP:NORG, you would not be breaking any rules by accepting payment, provided you followed all the policy advice at WP:PAID. You would point out to your client that there was no guarantee your draft article would be accepted and that you and they would not own it once it was. How you would ensure you got paid, I don't know! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It was just the first thing that came to mind. If you know the company name, it may still be useful to email it. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull @CF-501 Falcon @Mgjertson Thanks for the advice and help, I've decided not to go through with this whole thing and just forget it ever happened since I don't want to get involved in a whole thing. Again, thanks for the help. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone help to improve this draft: Draft:Pranic Healing. User:Velella suggested to add more in-depth citations. I am unable to find any good reference on Google. Can anyone help? I also want to invite the users who have knowledge about this topic can contribute here. Interdel (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Interdel, if I had knowledge of the topic [I do not], then I'd have to put this aside and depend on published, reliable sources, independent of "Pranic Healing". I imagine that if these sources exist, Google would find them; and I suppose that you can use Google as well as I could. What kind of material, irretrievable by Google, do you think exists? -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, Thank you for your suggestions. I have added few journals and other citations related to 'Pranic healing', Please check. Interdel (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Interdel There are over 1000 hits on Google scholar for the phrase "pranic healing". Your task is to summarize the main points into a decent draft, much more extensive than the one you have created so far, citing some of these sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mike Turnbull, Thank you for your suggestions. I have added few journals and other citations related to 'Pranic healing', Please check. Interdel (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Interdel I forgot to say that this is a medical topic, so you need to read and understand the guidance for sourcing explained at WP:MEDRS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mike Turnbull, Thank you for your response. I read WP:MEDRS and found the way what should be the best citations. Interdel (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Velella, please check now. Interdel (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Interdel - I will respond and continue this thread on the Draft Talk page.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it normal for a draft to be dependent on an initial reviewer re-engaging with it, even after other reviewers have looked it over ?

Draft:Mary Beth Goodman was rejected last June by a reviewer. On their talk page, I asked the reviewer for feedback, to clarify what they found objectionable, and they agreed to provide it. They never did. In November, I resubmitted after making some changes. The next reviewer didn’t find the issues the first reviewer had identified, yet wanted to consult with the first reviewer before advancing the draft. It’s now been another five months: the first reviewer has never returned to the draft. Is it normal for a later reviewer to insist an earlier reviewer take another look?

The article has been in limbo waiting for the first reviewer to reengage. How do I unstick it? If it needs more work, I’ll gladly do it. I just want to get eyes on this page I drafted a year ago. Lfdigests (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Lfdigests It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,480 pending submissions waiting for review." 9 months is on the longer side, but not an impossibility. This is a volunteer process, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It's only been four months since you last submitted it; you resubmitted just today. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Lfdigests: the first concern of any reviewer will be "does this article establish that the subject is notable?". To do this, they'll go through the sources cited, looking for independent sources with extensive discussion of her. When they've found that there's nothing useful in the first few, and there's another hundred to check, they're likely to give up in despair, throw your draft back in the queue heap, and find a better use for their time. It's no wonder that it's taking a long time to get reviewed. Maproom (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lfdigests, what we're looking for initially is the best three and only three sources that support a claim to notability. 104 sources to sift through is daunting. If you can tell us which three sources meet all three of the following criteria:

1. significant coverage
2. in reliable sources
3. that are independent of the subject,

that will make the job look like a TON less work for a reviewer. Other objections can be dealt with after we decide she's actually notable, but no one will put that work in until we confirm notability. Valereee (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Some significant editing down of this article would certainly help. Many of the sources are primary and a large percentage of those primary sources don't even mention the subject, and it seems like every passing mention of Goodman's name is cited, even simply a listing of an advertised panel with her name on it, and no additional information.

There are many facts quoted here that cite something that makes no support whatsoever to the claimed fact. For example, you can't support the assertion of someone's contribution to an agreement between two countries by simply citing the agreement itself. If someone wrote "CoffeeCrumbs wrote Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address," a reader should see a citation support that fact, not simply a link to a PDF of the Gettysburg Address.

I suspect that there's a reasonable chance there's a notable person someone here, but it's hard to say with so much résumé cruft on top of it all. I'd strongly recommend saving your work on your own end, and as Valereee suggests, pick out the sources that support notability, that are reliable, independent of Goodman, and provide significant coverage about Goodman, not merely a mention of her existence or a quote from her. Then write an article based on those sources and only those sources. If/when Goodman's notability is clearly established, that would be the time to start introducing additional career highlights, if supported by reliable sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Will my user page on Meta still be transcluded here if I add this local description? Least Action (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Least Action, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you refer to an option you see at User:Least Action (it can also be seen on file pages). You can click it without saving anything. Then it should say: "This page currently displays a user page from another wiki. If you create a new page here, it will no longer display the other wiki's page." Your user page on Meta will not be transcluded if you save something. It will create a user page for the English Wikipedia which replaces the Meta page. If you create it then you can request deletion later with {db-u1} and the Meta page will be displayed again. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

How do I reduce the image size for File:Del. Rozia Henson Official Photo.PNG ? When updating the image on Rozia Henson it takes over the page Bippityboppityboo1913 (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Bippityboppityboo1913, I've used the filename you give above in the article's infobox, and it seems to me to work as it should. Maproom (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bippityboppityboo1913 This seems to be your first and only contribution to WP. Just a little heads up: currently this image has been placed for deletion (Saturday, 22 March 2025) due to "no source information" and "no copyright status" provided. You will have to supply this information in order for it to remain. WP:UPIMAGE Maineartists (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I own the rights to the photo since its mine. Not sure what else to say Bippityboppityboo1913 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bippityboppityboo1913: You still need to provide evidence that you took the photo or that it is under a free license. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online for guidance. ObserveOwl (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bippityboppityboo1913 A quick image search renders that this photo has been uploaded to the BLP's Facebook account [12], X (Twitter) [13]. Are you saying you "own the rights to the photo since its mine" because you are the photographer? or because you are the subject (BLP) of the article? Maineartists (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I’m the BLP Bippityboppityboo1913 (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bippityboppityboo1913: Is the image a self-portrait? If not, you do not own the copyright to the image, the photographer does. You will need their permission for the image. If you want, you could alternatively take a self-portrait/selfie - not taken by any other person - and upload it here. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, it might behoove you to read WP:CONFLICT before making future edits to the page. At the very least, disclosing that you are the BLP on the article TALK PAGE page would be helpful. Maineartists (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I have been working on a Wikipedia draft article about Arun Chockalingam, and I want to make sure it meets Wikipedia's guidelines before submitting it for review. Could someone please review my draft and help me:

1. If the article is ready for submission.
2. Whether the citations I added are correct and reliable.
3. Any improvements I need to make to ensure it meets wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards.

Here is the link to my draft: Draft:Arun Chockalingam

I would really appreciate any guidance from experienced editors.

Thank you in advance! BioEditss (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

BioEditss, I have left you a message on your Talk page entitled, § Do you know Arun Chockalingam?. Please respond there, on your Talk page, first. Your question here can be answered afterward. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, I have responded on my talk page as requested. Please let me know if anything else is needed. Thanks for your time! BioEditss (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I've skipped your three requests above, BioEditss; perhaps some other editor will comment. But I've posted three questions for you. -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @BioEditss. Your questions above amount to "how can I get my draft reviewed without submitting it for review?" The answer is that if you want it reviewed, you should submit it for review. ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine, Actually, before submitting for the review I want to make sure the article is read or I have to make any changes. Thank you for your guidance! BioEditss (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are not necessarily draft reviewers. David notMD (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

 – QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm writing an article and need some advice on how to format the following :

They are also often described as being part of the "left-behind generation" (simplified Chinese: 留守儿童; traditional Chinese: 留守兒童; pinyin: Liúshǒu értóng)

I have two questions:

1. Should the hyperlink be placed inside the quotation marks, outside of them, or should I remove the quotes entirely?
2. Should I include the transliteration if it is not the main focus of the article?

Thanks, QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 07:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

1. Inside the quotation marks: "left-behind generation". 2. I think it's helpful in this case, but it could be omitted, since it's present in the linked article Left-behind children in China. Deor (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Deor: Thanks! QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Need urgent help consolidating Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati pages. Multiple duplicates, one speedy deletion, and declined drafts. Focusing on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avimukteshwaranand_Saraswati.

Confirm deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadguru_Shankaracharya_Avimukteshwaranandah_Saraswatee,

or create redirect if needed. Ignore drafts. Please advise MH-wiki2025 (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @MH-wiki2025! The duplicate page will get eventually deleted by an admin if he finds that it meets the criteria. You do not need to worry about it TNM101 (chat) 10:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

What parameter should I use to indicate that this article is from the 2021-08-14 edition "China's attack on tech"? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @QuickQuokka, You can use an additional |edition= parameter like below:

{cite news |date=2021-08-14 |title=How Chinese factory-workers express their views on life |work=[[The Economist]] |url=https://www.economist.com/china/2021/08/12/how-chinese-factory-workers-express-their-views-on-life |access-date=2025-03-16 |url-access=subscription |issn=0013-0613 |edition=China's attack on tech}

It would produce:
"How Chinese factory-workers express their views on life". The Economist (China's attack on tech ed.). 2021-08-14. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2025-03-16.
Hope that helps. However, if any issue appears saying that it's not an acceptable input for |edition=, you can put your input between two brackets like this |edition=((value)). With regards––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that most articles on Wikipedia have a small text below the heading that describes the article when searching for it. For example, Bandel has the text 'City in West Bengal, India' when searching for it. But I created a new article called Bandel - Howrah Local and it does not appear. How do I make it appear? Or is it time-related ? Babin Mew (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Babin Mew, please see WP:Short description for how to insert such text - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Like in Jiedushi, there are plenty of Chinese historical material to use. Am I required to provide a translation? or cite them directly? -- Least Action (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Least Action Foreign-language sources are acceptable, although English ones are preferred if available here on en:Wikipedia: see WP:NONENG. Most citation templates such as {cite book} have parameters for translations of the titles and quotes, which it is good to do for the convenience of readers. That particular article has very few sources at present, so if you can add others with some translations, that would be very worthwhile. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

You can! English language sources are preferred though, so if there's a translation it might be better to cite that instead. Additionally, there is Chinese wikipedia if you want to edit there mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Would anybody be interested in reviewing an article draft I've created for Lyttle v. United States? I would greatly appreciate it if somebody could take a peek.

Here's the Introduction if anybody wants to see what it's about:

Thanks a milion! Theedecemberblues (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It might sound good, but I'm afraid, that it's just a description of a case, and nothing else. As such, your draft can be considered WP:NOTNEWS, and rejected. You might want to rework it a little. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello CreatorTheWikipedian2009! Thanks for responding, below are the reasons why I think this article demonstrates Wikipedia's notability guidelines:

• 1 This case has significant coverage in reliable sources. It has been extensively covered by major publications including The New Yorker, NPR, The Atlantic, and multiple newspapers. These sources provide in-depth, independent coverage rather than just brief mentions.
• 2 Its legal significance. The case resulted in a federal court ruling and a $175,000 settlement, setting precedents for handling immigration cases involving U.S. citizens and mentally disabled individuals. The outcome influenced subsequent Justice Department policies regarding legal representation in deportation cases.
• 3 The policy impact. The case directly influenced immigration policy reforms, including being referenced in the Gang of Eight's immigration reform bill and contributing to the 2013 Justice Department policy change regarding legal representation for mentally disabled defendants in deportation cases.
• 4 Academic study. The case has been the subject of scholarly analysis, particularly in Professor Jacqueline Stevens' research at Northwestern University examining wrongful deportations of U.S. citizens.
• 5 Lasting impact. The case continues to be cited in legal and policy discussions about immigration enforcement, as evidenced by ongoing coverage and references from 2008 through 2024.

Additionally, as per WP:SIGCOV guidelines, the coverage is sustained over time (not just immediate news reports), comes from multiple independent sources, and focuses on the case itself rather than just mentioning it in passing.

The sources used are reliable and independent, including major national publications, academic research, and legal documentation. This meets the core requirement of Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG) requiring "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Hope this helps explain why this article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria! Let me know if have any opinions, but this is why I think it is notable.

Thanks for the reply/input! Theedecemberblues (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

CreatorTheWikipedian2009, applying WP:NOTNEWS to a legal case that goes back to 2008 is not appropriate, especially when the case has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources over the years. Please read the actual text of NOTNEWS carefully. It does not mean what you think it means. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I want to create a template, that counts every edit of an article of each protection level. For example, 392 edits, which is 247 edits on unprotected articles, 118 edits on semi-protected articles, and 27 edits on pending changes protected articles. Each of the protection level is taken up by an userbox, in other words, one protection level is the userbox. I want to create 9 variants of this template (1 default, 8 protections (pending changes, semi, extended confirmed, full, template, interface, cascade, and office)). Anyone can give me help?

Note: This idea appeared after I made my first edit on a semi-protected page.

CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Nice to heard that, If you could provide link to that specific edit area or sandbox where you are working with your templates, that would be helpful.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

My user page. I want to be sure that my contributions were sorted by protection level. To do that, my template is going to have variants. That's how it's intended according to my idea. Anyway, this is my sandbox where I'll start working on my template. It doesn't exist, but there will be content. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@CreatorTheWikipedian2009 Your project seem interesting.

I hope it will be a success. Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

We'll, here it is. There's just one problem, the "edit" and "page" need to be singular. How I can do that? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm really not good at this sort of thing, but Template:Pluralize from text looks promising. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 23:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@CreatorTheWikipedian2009, Go on to Conditional expressions, use the #if or similar expressions to get your result.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 23:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Great! I have done the template. There's still one issue, though. A/an article might be needed for userbox to be written correctly.

For every protection level, a correct article needs to be. This applies only when an user has mady only one edit. Two or more are considered plural, so there's no need.

Here's a table of them. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Unprotected = an

Pending changes = a

Semi = a

Extended confirmed = an

Template = a

Full(protected) = a

Interface = an

Cascade = a

Office = an

Couldn't make an actual table CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Unprotected || #FFFFFF (text:#000000)

Pending changes || #EEEEEE (text:#000000)

Semi || #777777

Extended confirmed || #02aaf7

Full || #e8e805 (text:#000000)

Template || #ff2eee

Cascade || #16c45e

Interface || #A00000

Office || #000000

These are colors for a template. I'm going to test now. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I am, like, done with the templates. They're ready to be published. We just need someone to review them. Also, we need to get a name for these userboxes. Any ideas? My idea is "Template:Protected article edit counter" CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@CreatorTheWikipedian2009 I read your message from "MARCH/18/2025" at "14:18 UTC".

You want someone to review them. Which kind of review ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

A new template reviewer. Do you know any? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@CreatorTheWikipedian2009 I'm not certain that I understood your request.

What do you want to say with the term "Template reviewer" ? You want someone to review your template but which kind of review do you want ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe, I assume that CreatorTheWikipedian2009 is not aware of certain things on wikipedia yet, they might assume that there is someone as template reviewer just like someone have user right as New page reviewer (patroller).––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'll create the template tomorrow, then we'll see CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@KEmel49 I think @CreatorTheWikipedian2009 will explain to us his request. Anatole-berthe (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@CreatorTheWikipedian2009, Happy for your progress, would be great if you go on to your talk page for briefing project info time to time rather than having yourself engaged in answered teahouse discussion.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 15:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Can talk page entries by bot accounts titled "External links modified" be deleted after a certain amount of time? Or should they be archived? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It depends on users choice, there is no force regulation about that.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 22:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, just making sure there is nothing wrong with deleting them if they are old. I think it's preferrable to archiving them as I had been doing, as they aren't very useful.

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Was using not done for now {(subst:ESp|nfn} correct here? I think Android 16 will release eventually. Should I have just used "not done"? This was the first edit reqeust I answered. Justjourney (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I even welcomed the user. Justjourney (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Go on, that's something nice, and your answer to the request too.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 23:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

How can you tell if a user is topic banned on something? Where would it show that? How would it be enforced etc? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

You can find a list of editors who has editing restrictions such as topic bans at this page: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. If an editor breaks this restriction, an admin can place a wp:block at their discretion, or for non-admins, post at one of the conduct noticeboards like WP:ANI. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

So other editors would need to keep track of it essentially? If someone were to break it even just once, is that sufficient to then be blocked indefinitely beyond the topic? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Other editors can warn or report topic ban violations if they come across one. The decision to apply indefinite blocks depends on the egregiousness and quantity of the violation. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Government of India, Government of Rajasthan has published their history but still wiki doesn't allow it. I have attached other sources such as Books and other articles which have their information.but still awaiting for page to be accepted. Draft:Vaidhya Magharam Yuvraj2045 (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Vaidhya Magharam hasn't been rejected even once, Yuvraj2045. It has been declined. There's a difference. Well, you can improve it. There's no rush. What you should rush to do is sort out the copyright status, and the description of that status, of File:Photo of Shri Vaidhya Magharam.jpg, a photograph of the man that you claim is your work, done this year -- over half a century after his death. Are you really the person who took this photograph, in 1969 or earlier? -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

sir, he was my great grand parent and photo I took is hanging on wall at my home. Yuvraj2045 (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It's advised that you don't write articles on people related to you, he might have been a very important man but that doesn't mean that your edits are without bias and that bias can occasionally lead to people believing a person is more notable than they might actually be. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The version awaiting review now appears much longer than the version previously declined. I'm not an expert in the topic, so I can't say whether it is now acceptable but one of your edits is marked as using a deprecated source. You'll need to be patient as there are over 2500 articles awaiting review and your draft was last looked at only yesterday. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Yuvraj2045 (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Yuvraj2045, you cannot claim a photo as your "own work" unless you actually took the photo yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, a photo that you took of an existing old photo is not your own work. It is a derivative work. The original copyright still applies. Cullen328 (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Yuvraj2045, you should also hurry on the matter of c:File:Shri Vaidhya Magharam.jpg. I'll guess: You own the copyright neither of the photograph that constitutes most of c:File:Photo of Shri Vaidhya Magharam.jpg nor of the portrait that constitutes most of c:File:Shri Vaidhya Magharam.jpg. If this is so, then your description of both as your own work is factually wrong. Can you provide evidence that both are in the public domain? (That is, the "public domain" in the legal sense of the term.) If you can, then please amend each file description at Commons accordingly. If you cannot, then please request their deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I have created Sikh Heritage Month but this page hasn't been reviewed and doesn't even appear in a simple Google Search. This was created 6 months ago and have 0 luck with any progress getting a review on this.

Please can I get help ! Jattlife121 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jattlife121 I'm not sure why you think it isn't reviewed. The logs show this was done on 20 January. Quite often, Google doesn't index the page until another edit is done after that date. If you make a minor edit now, I'm sure it will appear very soon thereafter in search engines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

But Basics of Sikhi hasn't also been reviewed per the log, this was made in October 2024 ? Jattlife121 (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

There's a wikipedia article on the West Fork Trail and alltrails lets you export info on that trail to the GeoJSON format if you're logged in and visit https://www.alltrails.com/trail/us/arizona/west-fork-trail . My question is... is alltrails trail data copyrighted or is it public domain? Like could I add it to commons.wikimedia.org?

The wikipedia article on Bright Angel Trail had a map added to it with this change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bright_Angel_Trail&diff=prev&oldid=982330866

But it is unclear where that editor got the trail map from. TerraFrost (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

https://www.alltrails.com/terms says it is under copyright. You should assume everything is under copyright if you don't see a prominent notice to the contrary. MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed I have a few deleted edits on my xtools page, and I was wondering how I can view those just to see which edits were deleted? When I click the link there, it says I need to be an admin to view those. I just want to know what is and isn't deleted so I can learn from those :) Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Alexthegod5: Deleted edits can only be viewed by administrators. It's usually just edits to a page which was later deleted. This turns all page edits into deleted edits. It doesn't imply your own edits were bad. You mainly have deleted edits to Battle of Ujala, Apostolos (Kourounis) and Benjamin Peterson (entrepreneur). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunterohh that makes sense, yeah I remember those pages and why they were deleted. Thank you! Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I proposed deleting an article that was similar in content to another article. (Poorhouse to Almshouse) I was advised that "the article can be redirected by deletion first." I don't understand. Can I remove the entire content of the first article (Poorhouse) and create a redirect on the page to Almshouse, a better sourced and written article?. Is that how a redirect of an existing article works? MauraWen (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@MauraWen. No. A poorhouse is completely different from an almshouse, at least in the UK. Please continue to discuss this at Talk:Poorhouse, which is the proper place for further discussion. Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

My question here pertains to how a redirect works with any article. I should not have used the Poorhouse as an example. Can you delete the content of a redirected article when you create a redirect? MauraWen (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

MauraWen, some of the issue here may be semantic. Wikipedians tend to understand the word delete as being related to deletion policy, meaning to remove an article from the encyclopedia, including all its content, the Talk page, and all history of the page; poof, gone. The word unfortunately does double duty, with some talking about 'deleting' content (i.e, shortening the article by removing some words, without deleting the page). To avoid problems, you can talk about 'removing' content, 'blanking' a section (or blanking the entire article, which does not delete the article, just leaves it completely empty). So now, back to your question. Yes, you can delete blank all the content of an article, and add a redirection link in its place when creating a redirect. Does this help? Sometimes, the Wikipedia:Glossary can be helpful for issues of terminology or jargon. Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thank you! That completely answers my question. MauraWen (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

i know not everybody has access to it but its very difficult to complete an article without any assistance. How do you get people to work on your draft with you. Booksandarticles (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

What assistance are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Depending on what the article is, it most likely has a WikiProject associated which it. You could post a message on the project's talk page asking for assistance. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Booksandarticles I would advise reading Help:Your first article and trying to find reliable sources discussing Edgemead High School to ensure it is notable. And if you would like to follow up on History6042's suggestion the best place for that would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, two related pages (2025 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship qualification and 2025 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship were moved to new article titles before the discussions on the moves, on the associated talk pages Talk:2025 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship qualification and Talk:2025 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship, were necessarily complete. And while I'm pleased that to some degree my proposed alternative move titles were incorporated into the eventual move, it doesn't seem as though the final moves are based on a clear resolution of the discussion. The moves were done by the original proposer of the changes, @Rey1996ss, and I think they are being made in good faith, but they use terminology (such as "first round") that is different from what the sources provide ("Round One"). I'm not entirely sure how to proceed, but I would appreciate someone heretofore uninvolved taking a look. Thank you. Coining (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Coining, see Wikipedia:Move review to contest the move. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. If anything, I will try to resolve the issue with the mover to start. Coining (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Dr. Rasha Alawieh I created an article for Dr. Rasha Alawieh, who has just been unlawfully detained and deported this past weekend. A page for "The Detention of Mahmoud Khalil" went up very quickly and I think a page for Alawieh should be up as well as these are absolutely historic cases.Can anyone help me to get my article reviewed and approved faster since it records recently occurring events? How do articles on timely matters get approved quickly? Thank you Jdftba (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Jdftba Hello and welcome. There is no means of getting a speedy review. Reviews are conducted by volunteers doing what they can, when they have time to do it. Wikipedia has no deadlines and cannot accommodate the deadlines of editors.

You are capable of moving the draft into the encyclopedia yourself, if you desire, but without a review you run the risk it could be nominated for deletion. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Jdftba, the policy language found at Subjects notable only for one event is likely to be an obstacle to your effort. It may be better to reframe your draft as "Deportation of Rasha Alawieh". We do not use professional titles like "Dr." in article titles. Cullen328 (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft has been moved to mainspace without AfC approval (!). I've opened a RM. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

_{Worth noting, the AfC process is optional for autoconfirmed users - I advised @Jdftba in #wikipedia-en-help that they could move it to mainspace themselves as an autoconfirmed user, if they felt it met all our policies.} qcne (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne: I'm aware of autoconfirmed users not having to rely on the AfC process. I was unaware that Jdftba was autoconfirmed, though. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 23:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Reading WP:THREATEN, no threats. But {uw-vandalism4}, it says "you may be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize wikipedia." That sounds like something from WP:THREATEN. I need some clarification. Justjourney (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Justjourney, it looks like WP:THREATEN is specific to edit wars, and it's only an advice essay as opposed to one of Wikipedia's policies. That warning is for when people are engaging in a pattern of obviously inappropriate editing for an extended period of time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I was reading an article and saw one in particular seemed very loaded. Although the sources all are verifiable, I can't help but feel that the content is somewhat loaded. It is a rather touchy subject, so I was wondering how I could get a neutral party review of an article? The article's talk page doesn't have much to it, but it seems there have been a number of edits back and forth on some minute details. Alexthegod5 (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Alexthegod5! If you have specific concerns, you can make a new post on the article's talk page describing them. Or you could be WP:BOLD and fix them yourself, as long as you're willing to participate in the bold, revert, discuss process. If there's a disagreement about the article's neutrality, you can make a post at the neutral point of view noticeboard for further opinions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Thebiguglyalien; I'll give it a shot myself and then once I'm done with my edits I'll post it over there to get a second perspective Alexthegod5 (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I need to create a Wikipedia page for a non-profit , Kritagyata Trust. for reference please visit www.kritagyata.org www.vidyaranya.org (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

How is it that you need to create it, Naveensrikantaiah? And how are you related to the Kritagyata Trust? -- Hoary (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Its being non-profit is irrelevant. Instead it must be WP:Notable to qualify for an article. See WP:Your first article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I would also note that it would not be a "Wikipedia page for" the organization, but an article about it. Wikipedia articles are not for the benefit of the subject in any way, and are not exclusively controlled by the subject. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Naveensrikantaiah:

• Do you have a conflict of interest (i.e. related to and/or paid by the organization) in any way, shape or form? If so, please read this guide on managing your conflict of interest.
• Has the organization been covered in depth by reputable sources with no involvement from the organization (i.e no sponsored/paid articles)? If not, it might not be eligible for a Wikipedia article.

— 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 09:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Naveensrikantaiah. I may be jumping to conclusions, but I suspect that you would find it valuable to read WP:BOSS. ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

You have made drafts for this page a few times over the years, with them being denied do to excessive promotional material and lack of reliable sourcing. It also seems you have had several problems understanding what Wikipedia is and what it's not. Maybe your time would best be spent editing other areas of the encyclopedia, as I find it highly unlikely attempting to write this article would end any differently mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Naveensrikantaiah: Please get rid of the web address from your signature. What is your connexion to Kritagyata Trust? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello - I found this page randomly. While the heading is Mother - 2011 film, the article refers to a film of a slightly different name and different year. The short description and categories also refer to 2002. I'm not sure what to do about this, so I've come here to ask the helpful Teahouse folk. Thanks. Blackballnz (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The article was created by Haldir Marchwarden -- who, thanks to issues discussed here, can't contribute to this discussion. It doesn't specify the Chinese title of this Chinese film, and there's no link via Wikidata to an article (in Chinese or any other language) about the film. Possibly it had one title for one English-language market and another title for another. Or possibly one English-language title is how the film was marketed in English and the other is not but is a more faithful translation of the Chinese title. And there could be other explanations besides. The best thing to do is to find out which title is the more appropriate one for en:WP purposes, and only then to adjust the article (whether its title or its content) accordingly. (But I wonder if the film is even notable -- whether it merits an article here, however titled.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello please could someone who is able check the above article. Is there any better way to display the 3 audio files  ? Thank you Moribundum (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Moribundum: {listen} allows for embedding multiple audio files in a box. ObserveOwl (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@ObserveOwl Yes, that's perfect. Thank you, Moribundum (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

How can I edit the title of a page that contains lowercase letters where there should be uppercase? The body of the paage is fine but the title has errors Steverhard (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Steverhard I have moved your draft to Draft:Edwin Olson to make it concise. Usually you can rename ('move') pages using the Move link in the toolbar at the side of the screen. Yeshivish613 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

hello teahouse, so, Sunny bunnies is an article I've been diligently improving and I think the article is almost ripe enough for a GA. However I have a question. Criteria 4 for quick failure says the article must not be unstable via edit warring. My problem is not about edit warring, but since the article is about a perfectly healthy cartoon show, episodes get released every so often. So is the article unstable in this context? Like someone decided to review it, then a new episode dropped, what am I supposed to do?

And no, I do not yet think the article is 'ready' for GA, the tone for some of the plot summaries is not encyclopedic and doing a lil research, found out the release dates of season 5 is a bit messed up. But with some weeks or so, it should be ready for GA. Though if someone wants, they can give a cursory glance at the page and suggest some improvements, it will greatly help. I'm still really new to this whole good article nomination process. Thanks! Yelps :) talk 15:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yelps adding a new episode is not considered edit warring, as there is no dispute over what the content should be, so this shouldn't be a problem. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

no, like, if someone were reviewing it and a new episode dropped, what would happen? That's basically my entire question in the tiniest nutshell. Yelps :) talk 16:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Yelps meaning that you can just add the new episode during the review and the article would still be stable. Yeshivish613 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

oh, that was... weirdly simple... Why didn't it just click onto my head before?... Yelps :) talk 16:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi I've submitted a page "Chezile" and it was rejected for reliable sources (despite pointing to a Rolling Stones article) but shortly thereafter I received email requests to pay wiki editors to get the page approved. Can someone help provide clarity on whats needed here or is the model shifting to a more pay to play editing? It's been a while since I've edited. Mrfloyd12 (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This is an attempt to scam you, see WP:SCAM. People monitor Wikipedia for declined drafts in order to take the editor's money. Do not give anyone money. If you still have the email, please forward it as instructed at WP:SCAM. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

thank you! Mrfloyd12 (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I see that you've started the page Draft:Chezile (musician). I would recommend that you instead keep working on Draft:Chezile, since it can still be re-submitted and will lead to less confusion from reviewers who see two drafts with similar information. The trouble is that one of the references used there is from a blacklisted website (NewsBreak), another is a dead link (Hits Daily Double), and another is an interview (UPROXX). The rest are profiles on management websites. We will need to see better sources that discuss the artist independent of his input. Reconrabbit 16:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

cool I pulled news break and the dead link was previously working.

UPROXX was referred as a reliable source by an another editor so I need some clarity and consistency on that front. added Rolling Stones Mrfloyd12 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

UPROXX is a reliable source, and very useful for the facts of the article. The trouble is that as an interview, it holds less weight for determining Chezile's notability as it has his direct involvement. Reconrabbit 16:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I am a Linux user (not expert)living in Spain: I have have been looking for a basic OS to play with. I found these two are covered ates:Vanilla OS (an Italian distro) and es:Big Linux (a Portuguese distro). Both support English language versions. Is there a reason - (notability, perhaps?) they are absent from :en:? Is it worth proposing a draft? Doing some work in progress on BigLinux at User:Timpo/sandbox I would like some brickbats on this please! Timpo (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

If these OS are "notable" and if there are "reliables sources" on these.

Why not create articles about these ? Why not create articles from the spanish version ?

I can't say you why there are absent from :en:. This is certainly because no one did created articles on these topics on "Wikipedia in English". Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I might work on a Vanilla OS article, it seems notable enough. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mgjertson Good editing ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of problems, trying to log in into the Wikipedia app. Everytime I try to set up the account there, I keep getting kicked out of the app. What should I do? Roko03634 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Roko03634, Welcome to Teahouse. For any issue regarding wikipedia mobile app, you should report that to mobile app related portal, See more at WP:MOBILE.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I am a new editor in a wikipedia course and have published the above page, Major Food Group. I am looking for some help editing and polishing up my article. The biggest problem I had been having is removing promotional content and making sure I keep a neutral point of view. I feel like I have made progress with this but was hoping for some feedback from more experienced editors, thank you all in advance! SpressNEU (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I read a bit of the article. I can't found a source inside the article that seems "reliable" and indicating "notability" of "Major Food Group. Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@SpressNEU: A good place to start would be ensuring that the content in the article is directly supported by the cited source. There seem to be a whole lot of instance where you include one or two facts that are in the source, and then layer on a bunch of extra content that comes from...presumably somewhere else.

Just taking the section on Parm as an example, nowhere in the source is it referred to as casual dining. The source doesn't seem to talk about comfort food. There's nothing there about having Parm locations in Vegas or Boston. That's just doing a quick overview of one small piece. But you really can't use a source to support some detail in an article, and make space to insert a lot of other stuff on top of it. GMG^talk 19:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @SpressNEU, and welcome to the Teahouse. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, and very little else. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello ! I need to know where I can report a potential mistake with an interwiki link regarding a category.

Is it better to discuss it on "Wikidata" or one of the relevant Wikipedias ?

This concerns the English speaking Wikipedia "Category:French Foreign Legion in popular culture" and the French speaking Wikipedia "Catégorie:Tradition de la Légion étrangère." Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Anatole-berthe. Interlanguage links are rarely discussed. People usually just make the wanted edits. If fr:Catégorie:Légion étrangère dans les arts looks like a better match to Category:French Foreign Legion in popular culture then just click "Wikidata item" at the latter (may be in a "Tools" menu depending on your skin) and change the French entry (somebody already did [14]). PrimeHunter (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Thanks ! The problem is now resolved. Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am working on improving the David Hynam article and have added recent awards he received in the Recognition and Awards section. He has received significant media coverage and has been recognized by multiple LGBTQ+ awards. Could someone review the additions and let me know if they improve the article? Are there other areas that could be strengthened?

Additionally, I came across the page for Evelyn Bourke, who has a similar background and profile. Any insights on how to further develop Hynam’s article to meet Wikipedia’s standards would be appreciated.

Thank you! KP070707 (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to give my opinion in an RFC discussion (and/or the general issue) of the Gaza genocide article, but I can't do so in the standard method as I am not an extended-protected user. I was going to make an edit request to raise my concern, though a part of the "what can I do" section raised some problems with this. The part in question reads as follows:

• If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple, non-controversial change, please check the talk pagefirst in case the issue is already being discussed. If the issue has not been discussed yet, you can submit an edit request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. Make sure to clearly describe which page your request is about, and which change exactly you are requesting.

Not only is the RFC discussion surrounding a controversial issue, but obviously the discussion means that the issue has already been discussed. Is there anything I can do to voice my thoughts, or do I just have to sit it out? LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@LordOfWalruses: It's unlikely you'll be allowed to participate in the discussion regardless, since the General Sanctions apply to the Arab-Iraeli conflict topic area writ large. You'd only be able to request specific edits to the article; edits that involve content currently being debated thru an RfC will be summarily declined due to the ongoing discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the info. LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

One follow-up question that I must ask: does this apply to non-RFC issues? LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to search all of Wikipedia, or all of a certain category or segment of the encyclopedia by a source? For example, could you search all article that cite The New York Times, Time magazine, or Fox News? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Iljhgtn: and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question, type insource:"INSERT WEBSITE URL HERE". For example, to search for all uses of The New York Times, enter insource:"nytimes.com" (see here for a completed example). Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi!

I was wondering if the musician Janine Ling Carr should have an Article. I have several sources and news articles to access, and thought it would be a good idea. She is a beatboxer, who placed in the top 10 in the 2018 Female Beatbox world championships. As well as that, she is briefly mentioned on the page for Applications of 3D printing, for creating the first 3D printed (emotions)?

Thanks, I have several sources and articles giving useful information. 23r2 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Her mention can be found here 23r2 (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Here

23r2 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

How can we judge her level of "notability" and if the sources are "reliable" if we haven't the sources ?

Please , can you give sources you're mentionning ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah! Ok, I didn't realise it was sourced to a social media account. I'm sure the gallery will have some news on it, otherwise I have other articles about her beatboxing career, from BEATBOX UK and other official sources under the topic. If you did want to do some research, her stage name is J9 Beatbox.

Thanks, 23r2 (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that OP tried to create a hoax (Wikipedia:Teahouse#Ainu Baluchi), I am pleasantly surprised Janine Carr is indeed mentioned at Applications of 3D printing. That said, it is one mention sourced to her own social media account. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest you do as @Anatole-berthe, has said and provide all of the citations that you think are "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

If you are intending to write it as a musician's bio see WP:BAND if otherwise see Wikipedia:BIO. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to expand a page topic (it currently covers only gen 1 of a smartphone, but i have information & sources on later versions/ "pro" variation of that phone, but i dont think they warrant their own pages individually). Can I change the page title and expand to cover the whole phone series or else what is the procedure? Tioseafj (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Which article do you want to expand ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Tioseafj. The best thing to do in such circumstances is to open a discussion on the article's talk page. It might also be helpful to put a note on the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects pointing to the discussion on the talk page. (Relevant WikiProjects are usually linked at the top of the article's talk page). ColinFine (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi in december i have published a wikipedia page which got declined first beacuse of less refrences. After adding more information and relavent refrences i resubmitted again in Jan but it still under review. So, i wanted to know how much more time will it take to get published.

here is the link:- Draft:Mielle Organics

Thanks, Chirag232 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chirag232 your answer is at the top of the draft page: Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,386 pending submissions waiting for review. Yeshivish613 (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello all. I a newbie and seek help regarding citing an information. I have been reading a page on Theriogenology, when I suddenly realized that there exists a prominent journal on this subject. There is no mention of this in the page and I thought it was worth adding this information. However I simply do not know how to cite it. The information pages, which confirm the existence of this journal are (1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/421510 (2)https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/theriogenology. Can someone please advise? Can we use the parameters for a regular website? Or is there some other parameter for scientific sites like the ones I am citing? Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Welcome! If there is a specific text you would like to cite from the journal, use Template:Cite journal ({cite journal}). I believe you cannot just cite the journal exists, it has to be text that the journal published. Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The article has an External link to the Society, and at that website, at the top, there is a link to Clinical Theriogenology. I suppose you could add another external link if the journal you mention is not the same one. David notMD (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks David notMD. I did visit that just now [after the hint given be you]. Actually - and quite interestingly - this is another journal, though similar sounding. The exact NLM link is here - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/101681552. But yes, this is a good lead. Actually coming to think of it, I could mention both journals at the original site. Mentioning the journal as an external link [as you indicate] is one thing, and you would agree, mentioning it within the article is yet another. But a good lead. Thanks. I would anyway want to know how to cite the NLM journal site. Neotaruntius (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Thanks. That exactly is my problem. I am indeed aware of the "Cite journal" template. But it was a bit tricky to cite just the National Library of Medicine site. That is why I was wondering if I could just use a "cite web" template. However NLM is not an ordinary website, and hence the query. Thanks anyway. Neotaruntius (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the unclear explanation. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have just used the "revert" function to revert vandalism by an IP address editor on 2 articles. On a third article, the IP had made two consecutive edits - I had to manually undo those edits. I have noticed other edit summaries where it seemed editors had the ability to revert multiple edits at the same time. How can I accomplish this easily? Oliver Phile (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you mention which edits seem to be a part of a multiple revert ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The user was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.101.255.126. The place where I reverted two edits was Julián Alvarez. Oliver Phile (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Oliver Phile I was talking of the edits that seem to be a multiple revert at the same time.

I saw only yours reverts. Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I did not explain clearly what I am trying to accomplish. One example of edits that revert multiple edits would be here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joy_Behar&diff=1050412251&oldid=1050411378

It appears that 3 edits were reverted simultaneously. I think "rollback rights" is how that was accomplished. Oliver Phile (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Rollback rights aren't the only way to do that. Twinkle provides a similar functionality, and doesn't require any special user rights. JJP_Master (she/they) 12:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I have just installed the Twinkle gadget now. Oliver Phile (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I have also researched the topic - I believe "Requesting rollback rights" is the place I should go. Is that correct? Oliver Phile (talk)

Oliver Phile, using the "history" of the article, find the most recent non-vandalized version. Opt to edit it. You'll get a message warning you that you've opted to edit an old version. "Publish" (save) it (without actually making any changes to it), with an informative edit summary. It's as simple as this. (No, you do not need "rollback" rights.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Oliver Phile (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to be asking this question. So, maybe someone can tell me where if not (and sorry for the length of this). Over two weeks ago, I tried to add an edit to the Kieran Culkin page after his Oscar speech about the speech and public response (which was extraordinarily well-covered in the media).

I'll admit that I wasn't quite sure the best way to phrase it, and best parts to keep. So, I even put in my edit summary "Not sure the best way to talk about/phrase everything everyone is saying about his speech, but I feel like it should be mentioned as it has been extremely well-covered" And someone just reverted it completely, saying it was trivia. So, I re-put it in, saying in my summary "It's fine if you want to shorten the paragraph/not include the speech, but I don't think the entire thing should be deleted as this is not WP:TRIVIA. It's not a "disorganized and unselective collection of facts or examples." It is also "supported by reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact."

Then it got reverted again, by DiaMali, with absolutely no explanation as to why. So, I took it to the talk page, so as not to engage in edit warring. I let my message on the talk page sit there for two weeks with no one arguing on the talk page against it being included. So, then I added it back to the page, saying "Added more about his Oscar speech. Before this, there was only *one* line about his award show speeches. There's no reason not to add more detail. Just b/c we don't want overly detailed e.g. what someone ate for breakfast doesn't mean skip relevant extraordinarily well-covered details. WP: FACTCHECK says consider each fact as potentially precious. Initially, this was reverted, so I took to the talk pg (avoid edit war) 2 weeks ago & not one opposing comment. So pls don't revert w/o convo. Thanks!"

DiaMali then reverted it again saying, "Adding an entire speech, word-for-word, is very unnecessary."

First off, there's more than just the quoted part of the speech. I also say some reactions from various well-known publications. But secondly, I put in my summary, "It's actually not his whole speech. His *entire* speech was longer. This was the part directed at his wife - the part that was reproduced in the *secondary* source cited. As when I originally added it, I said if anyone wants to shorten it, or put it in a quote box, etc., obv this is a collaborative environment where we can make it better. But there's *no* need to *completely revert* my edit. There *do* deserve to be at least *some* more details of something so overly-well covered"

And someone else now has reverted and said I'm being disruptive, but I feel I'm following all protocols correctly? I brought it up on the talk page and let it sit for two weeks? I cited wikipedia policies for my reasoning? I'm not married to my *exact* words being used. (I don't think I'm like the arbiter of good writing or the owner of a page (when no one owns a wikipedia page), so I'm not trying to like get my exact way or whatever. I'm just trying to add some info in however people best want to present it.)

I think it would be reasonable to either put part of the speech in a quote box, or say something shorter, like, "When accepting the Best Supporting Actor Academy Award in 2025, Culkin went viral for using his speech to ask his wife for more children, saying he'd really like to have four and ending with, "I just have to say to you, Jazz, love of my life, ye of little faith -- no pressure. I love you. I'm really sorry I did this again. And let's get cracking on those kids. What do you say? I love you. I love. I love you." When talking about the speech, Slate Magazine to called him "the best part of this Oscar season." Esquire said Culkin "saved his best victory speech for last [of awards season]."" (obv with inline references that I did already add when trying to edit the article.)

But I feel like I can't even add something like that now when now I'm being called "disruptive." I'm not trying to add something completely trivial like what he ate for breakfast this morning). I'm not trying to add anything with a slanted POV. I'm not trying to add something from gossip sites. (His speech was talked about in depth on CNN, Today Show, ABC, NBC, Town & Country, Slate, Huffington Post, Esquire, Entertainment Weekly, People, British GQ, The Economic Times, and numerous more.)

Currently the *only* line I can find in his article about his speeches is "His acceptance speeches during various awards ceremonies have been praised for its humorous and self-deprecating nature." That's it. His *Oscar* speech (not just any speech from "various ceremonies" but very specifically his Oscar (arguably the biggest American acting award) speech was extraordinarily well covered in several reputable publications and I'm being disruptive because I don't want my edit *wholly reverted*? (Again, I don't mind if people want to change it around, or make it shorter, but I'm being shut down from saying *anything* about it?)

This article is currently just labeled a C-class article, which makes sense. It really doesn't have a ton of detail, especially for an Oscar winner who's so exceedingly well-covered in the media. But I don't know how we're ever going to make it a better article if we can't add well-sourced details?

Anyway, do I have any more options here and/or is anyone willing/able to give this a second look and see if they can offer any solutions to this dispute or add an edit that these couple of reverters would find palatable? Thanks very much Wikipedian339 (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Wikipedian339: Hello! Have you tried to notify the users disputing the content to take part on the discussion, like by mentioning/pinging them on the talk page? ObserveOwl (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and I have been discovering templates, such as the "ongoing" one. On pages about ongoing events, like the M23 Campaign or the Sudanese civil war, it is not used. Is there a specific reason why ? Should I add this template to similar articles or not ? HalikhSovar78 (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

HalikhSovar78 according to Template:Current#Guidelines, it is only used for events that have just occurred with many editors on the article, and only left on the article for about a day. Events like M23 campaign (2022–present) are longer-term and only edited a few times per day (as opposed to the expected dozens or hundreds warranted by the template). Hopefully this clears things up. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Dang, you beat me while I was writing my comment. I applaud you. MallardTV (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Same! Xd ObserveOwl (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I added this template on two pages, I'll revert those edits. HalikhSovar78 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I've really only seen the Template:Current used. These are its guidelines.

Guidelines

• Every article on Wikipedia has a general disclaimer that the article contents may not be accurate.
• As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used on those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day (for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news).
• It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence.
• This and closely related templates are generally expected to appear on an article for less than a day, sometimes longer.
• If you would like an article on a significant current event to be noticed, please see Wikipedia:How the Current events page works and

MallardTV (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am trying to move First Horizon Coliseum (Greensboro Coliseum) to First Horizon Coliseum (I want to remove the unneccessary disambiguation in the title) but I am getting this error: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. It looks like this is because there is a redirect from First Horizon Coliseum to First Horizon Coliseum (Greensboro Coliseum)? How would I go about doing this move?

Thank you, Esb5415 (talk) (C) 13:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Esb5415: Hello! You can request the move at WP:RM/TM and a page mover will do it for you. ObserveOwl (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Esb5415. I have made the move. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Esb5415 (talk) (C) 14:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Good day Teahouse Members, I have recently received feedback on a resubmitted draft and would appreciate some further insight on 2 of the feedback points received.

1. "The Draft does have many sources, however, they are primary or interview based sources" - please can you confirm whether Vanity Fair is considered a secondary source? They have been renowned for investigative journalism. I have also included a source from Sunday Mail, please confirm why this is not considered a credible source?
2. "Missing citation for Education" - The University of Zimbabwe does not have a publicly available resource for Alumi, what other sources could be considered credible for an MBA?
3. "Draft is written in a flowery way" - I have gone through the article again to ensure any promotional content does not exist in the draft. I am battling to pin point any further Peacock terms and would appreciate any guidance in this regard. Thank you in advance

Substantiator (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome Substantiator. The whole url is not needed when linking; I've fixed this for you.

Vanity Fair is probably a reliable source, but it is not an independent source because it is an interview with Ms. Masiyiwa, her speaking about herself.

She must have a source somewhere where she states where she was educated; this would probably be a valid use of a primary source as someone could ask the university to confirm that she received a degree from them. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Sunday Mail is also an interview with her, and reports a routine activity- that her organization received a grant.

I would also note that it is redundant to resubmit for review and then ask for feedback; the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Substantiator, and welc ome to the Teahouse. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I am Shaneapickle, and I am wondering about the page I made (linked here) And I am wondering how can I improve this draft? Link: Draft:Selam (moon)

Shaneapickle (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'd say that is a pretty good start to an article. To improve the page, perhaps you can add academic sources. There seem to be a lot of coverage about this object in Google Scholar [15]. However, there is already an article on the larger satallite 152830 Dinkinesh, which already contains a detailed description of the moon. I think you should focus on improving that section instead of splitting a new article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Then why does Dimorphos have a page on it then? Shaneapickle (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

If you believe there is so much to be written about Selam exclusively that it would clutter the 152830 Dinkinesh article, feel free to continue working on the draft. Currently the draft is much smaller than the pre-existing section on 152830 Dinkinesh. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

ok Shaneapickle (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, could I get any help regarding to my draft Draft:Taiyoukei Erika as it's been declined and I'm not sure what to do. Applesauce666 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Applesauce666, and welcome to the Teahouse. On a quick look, it appears to me that you have based your draft on what the Originator wants people to know. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Far more seriously, as the originator of the software, you are regarded as a paid editor, and it is mandatory for you to make a formal declaration of this, usually on your user page.

If you create an article about your own software, it is likely to read as promotional, unless you do something like this:

• Find reliable sources that are wholly independent of you - not written or commissioned by you, not quoting you, but independently written.
• Forget everything you know about the software, and write a summary of what those sources say even if you think they are wrong.

Of course, this is hard to do, which is why writing about your own creation in Wikipedia is rarely successful. ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Applesauce666, please be aware that Fandom is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. Read WP:FANDOM for community consensus on this source. Cullen328 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I’d like to add detail about Leytonstone House and the Bethnal Green Industrial School which are only mentioned briefly on the page about Leytonstone. Should I create new pages or add to the existing page? I’d like to create new pages but there would be repetition of what is already there. I’ll need help as I haven’t made a contribution for years! Tanzi22 (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

You can add to the existing page first; it can eventually be split or spun-off into its own article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)