From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Editing a foreign-language wiki[edit]

I found an egregious error in a French-language Wikipedia article, so I left a message on the talk page. It was made clear to me that I needed to communicate in French, so I translated the message and reposted it. It's been two weeks and I haven't heard anything back. The question is: is it kosher to edit a foreign-language wiki? Note this doesn't regard the language or a translation, it's a matter of fact. The info box for the article about a novel incorrectly lists the name the author used as a working title, not the title it was actually published under.

There's also an error in the body of the article. They use the French phrase "pepites d'dor" (gold nuggets) which definitely should be "mineral d'or" (gold ore). The novel was originally published in English, so the editor was basing their plot summary off a translated edition, so I figured that might be a problem, so I included that information in my original message, but intend to let it go at that. Is that correct behavior, or should I edit that too (if editing is appropriate at all)? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Different-language Wikipedias are also different editions of Wikipedia, with their own communities, standards, and practices. We can't really give you an answer to this question because fr.wp is a completely different beast from en.wp. I also do not recommend using automated translation; it tends to fall apart if used for discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pete Best Beatles: Just going to add that when you try and edit a non-English Wikipedia, you're most likely going to be expected to be able to communicate (at least to some degree) in the relevant language. I'm pretty sure all non-English Wikipedias have help desks or noticeboards in which questions can be asked, and some of them may even have specific pages set up for asking questions in English. So, you might have better luck get a response at a general help desk than perhaps an article talk page. French Wikipedia has a page called fr:Wikipédia:Bistro des non-francophones/en which seems to be geared to helping non-French speakers with issues on Wikipedia; so, perhaps try there. As for editing non-English Wikipedia articles, there should be no reason why you can't. However, once again, you shouldn't assume that all policies and guidelines are the same across all the different Wikipedias (some are quite different), and you shouldn't assume that others who disagree with you are going to go easy on you just because you may have difficulties communicating in their language. I've seen a number of discussions on English Wikipedia talk pages breakdown simply because one of those involved is not really competent enough in English to participate. You don't need to be fluent as long as you're understandable (at least in my opinion), but you also should understand that the individual bias of the others involved in the discussion may start creeping in if they find your language ability to be lacking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really reasonable to edit a wikipedia in a language you do not speak, automated translators are not yet good enough for you to fully understand the text or contribute at a sufficient level. If it is a language you speak, but not perfectly, you may find it difficult to defend your edits on the talkpage, even if you are in the right. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, everybody. I went ahead and made the edit, documented it in the edit summary and on the talk page (in French) and related the whole story (in English) on the Fr:Wikipedia:Bistro page mentioned above. @Boynamedsue: You didn't read what I said: the edit involved only the title of a book, a matter of fact. It had nothing to do with a text, the language, or a translation. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pete Best Beatles Another contributor has since clarified the text in the lead, to make it clear that "for the love of Imabelle" is the title the book was published under, while "The Five Cornered Square" was the working title of the manuscript. Regarding minerai/ore vs. pépites/nuggets, I searched a bit on the internet without being able to find confirmation either way, so I will not edit that.
I think editing a foreign-language Wikipedia without perfect mastery of the language is acceptable if you are reasonably sure of what you are doing. That can be achieved by a combination of machine translation tools, making very careful edits, and only on fairly standard parts of the article (e.g. an infobox). I have done so on the German and Italian Wikipedias (I can read and listen German fairly well, but I speak and write with many errors; I can barely understand written Italian, or slowly-spoken Italian about simple topics).
I would even think that using talk pages in English might be acceptable for a small subset of articles that are likely to attract editors fluent in that language, for instance, fr:Anglais américain (American English); but not the page about a book that has been translated.
However, telling others from that Wikipedia that they could just use a translating tool because "you’re in the US and speak only English" is absolutely not acceptable. No fr-wp editor has replied to you, so I will do the biting for them: it is plainly a you problem that you cannot communicate in French on the French Wikipedia, and if measures entirely on your side cannot fully fix that, you should at the very least recognize that the problem is on your side and humbly ask for accomodation, rather than demand that others adapt to a problem that you created. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan: Regarding your statement "Another contributor has since clarified the text in the lead, to make it clear that "for the love of Imabelle" is the title the book was published under, while "The Five Cornered Square" was the working title of the manuscript", I see that on the history page, comparing versions. But for some reason that's not the way it reads in the article itself, I don't see that anyone changed it back. The change I made to the info box has stuck, though. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan:Well, the article has gone back and forth, but it's where it needs to be as of right now. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the consensus around "A is (one of the) greatest works of X"?[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia, and am trying to understand the consensus on ranking people and works.

Every now and then I stumble across Wikipedia articles involving science and mathematics where it is said: "The work A is the greatest work of X" or "The work A is one of the top 3 greatest works of X". Here X can be a person (e.g. "John Doe") or X can be a domain (e.g. "biology").

I personally find rankings of "greatness" unhelpful as it is conveys no useful information to me. Great in what sense and to whom? It is subjective and vague to me.

If I change perspectives, and ask myself, why do people write such statements? Maybe what they mean is:

  • "Sources I read mention this more than other things."
  • "If I compare this content to other content of the time, I find it more interesting, surprising, or resonating."
  • "I want to spread its beauty (as I see it) to others by citing somebody who thinks the same."
  • "It's the earliest work I know of where ideas of this kind were stated."

I'm aware of WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. However, it is not clear to me what the consensus on rankings are, when it is sourced. Can anybody be an authority on "greatness"? I have a very strong opinion on the unhelpfulness of "greatest" type of statements, but it unclear to me what the consensus is.

Has this been written and talked about? Thank you. :) 'wɪnd (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@'wɪnd Such a statement can only be in an article if an authoritative source (preferably multiple sources) actually makes that claim. No WP editor can make such a claim. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I see this too often in articles which have nothing to do with science or math. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, Wikipedia's consensus is that statements as I outlined in the question are encouraged if there's an "authoritative" source? Who is to tell who an authority on judging "greatness" is? To me, this does not seem objective. Any ranking words such as "greatest", "major", "leading", "top" seems to hold little informational value to me, and masks a more precise statement. 'wɪnd (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@'wɪnd, we rely on the opinion of experts in a particular field to judge the best of that field. Of course, experts often disagree, so Wikipedia usually holds off on making any such pronouncements until a majority of experts have agreed on which is the best. Each field has its own criteria for greatness, and ideally, somewhere in the article should be an explanation of what the subject's greatness consists of, specifically. Our article says that Fred Astaire "is widely considered the greatest dancer in film history", and follows that up with a long section on "Working methods and influence on filmed dance", plus explanations of his particular skills at other points in the article. (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you showed a specific example. That makes it easier for me to understand what the consensus is. :)
In the Fred Astaire article there's the statement "is widely considered the greatest dancer in film history" [2]. Following the [2] reference I get to an Encyclopedia Britannica article which says: "He is regarded by many as the greatest popular-music dancer of all time.".
Now, it seems to me, the Britannica article has neither author nor any reference to this claim. According to the revision history, it seems to stem from before 2000.
So Wikipedia consensus says: if an unknown author at Encyclopedia Britannica before 2000 makes a "greatest in X" statement about Fred Astaire, then this opinion is encouraged to be included in Wikipedia? What does many mean here? And great in what sense? 'wɪnd (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@'wɪnd, since the Encyclopedia Britannica is considered to be a reliable source, then yes, we can include statements it makes. If someone wanted to question its reliability, there are avenues to do so, but that's a separate point - once a source is deemed reliable, all of its statements are also (usually) deemed reliable. If other reliable sources make conflicting statements, those should also be included (taking into account our policies on neutral POV, due weight, etc.). And as I said before, any statement in our articles - and IMHO in any decent reference publication - that something is "great" should be followed by an explanation of why it is great. I assume the EB article did so, as ours does. (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of problems. One is that a publisher or a newspaper, for instance, being a reliable source does not make all their books or articles reliable. I've seen reputable publishers publish dreadful fringe junk. This goes for the Britannica, and a number of editors don't think highly of it.[1][2]. Among other things its articles give no sources and there isn't always an author. I've even see a sockpuppet convince the Britannica to include their fringe claim. It's a tertiary source and we should try to use specialist sources. So I would never consider the Britannica to be a good source for this sort of "greatest' statement. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there you go - looks like the EB has been challenged. Sources do get challenged and re-evaluated all the time. If consensus says it's actually not a good source for that claim in Astaire's article, then the claim should be removed. It all comes down to consensus in the end. (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, this seems to be related to the conversation here, with Boynamedsue, about some reverted "According to whom" tags and the specifics of WP:WEASEL words. (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up there. I think when we consider "greatness", you really need a good source to state it in wikivoice. The logical thing to do if you are unsure is to simply attribute the statement to the person or organisation which makes the statement. That is certainly more positive than tagging it. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would definitely avoid using "the greatest A" even for clear-cut cases. Note the Bob Dylan example at WP:PEACOCK; we can definitely find authoritative sources that call Bob Dylan "the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture" or "a brilliant songwriter", but we should still refrain from calling him so in wikivoice. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be a subject under some debate. Albert Einstein is "widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest and most influential physicists of all time", Muhammad Ali is "frequently ranked as the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time", The Notorious B.I.G. "is widely considered one of the greatest rappers of all time", etc. There's even a kerfuffle going on at Yuzuru Hanyu, which I stumbled across recently. I suppose it's all part of an ongoing three-way tug-o-war between fans, critics, and informative neutrality. (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tigraan: thank you! WP:PEACOCK is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. This hits the nail on the head. Thank you. :) Now I know what template to include: {{Peacock term}}, or better yet to rewrite the sentence with attribution if it is clear to me how to do so (as @Boynamedsue seems to prefer). 'wɪnd (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright stuff[edit]

Hello! I upload images, but I’m not sure how to not list them as my own/I can’t find a button that says I can list the owner of the image. Can someone help me? Thanks! NonPopularPerson (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NonPopularPerson, you can't donate the copyright of an image to Wikipedia unless it's yours to donate. The owner of the copyright can, either by creating an account at Wikimedia Commons and uploading it there, or (more difficult) by doing some tedious form-filling. Maproom (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, NonPopularPerson, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that copyright is quite complicated. In most cases, you may upload images only if you own the copyright (and can license it on the fly) or if they are already free for use - either they are in the public domain (usually because they are very old), or because the copyright owner has explicitly licensed them in a suitable way. It's not enough to list the owner of the image, or for the owner to give permission to use them on Wikipedia: the owner must explicitly release the image under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, which will allow anybody to alter or reuse the image for any purpose as long as they attribute.
Most images you find on the internet have not been licensed in that way, and so you cannot use them unless you contact the owner and they agree to license them (which they would do either by uploading them themselves, or by mailing according to donating copyright materials). ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NonPopularPerson - The Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard allows you to upload a non-free file (such as a book cover or CD cover), and states "Please ensure you understand copyright and the image use policy before proceeding." If you let us know what image you want to upload, we can provide additional suggestions. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NonPopularPerson Some info about copyright was given to you in late 2020 on your talk page. There is more on this Teahouse page, above, from a couple of days ago (it might get moved to archive). Those notes were maybe not completely explicit, so maybe that info wasn't clear to you... I hope the blue links on copyright and image use policy that GoingBatty left you (click on those, please, and study them) will make this area clearer. Copyright is complex, but, to restate: in general, you cannot upload and use images that you find on other web pages, in Wikipedia. Hope this helps. (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Me again, I tried to submit a photo of the same image, this time understanding copyright and filling out the form. Is there a way that I can publish the image on Draft:CodeSpark without having to make the system make it a draft? NonPopularPerson (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NonPopularPerson Did you understand that you cannot submit images that you do not own the copyright to? Or are you trying to follow the fair use guidelines? It's not clear to me that you have understood all of this ... although others are more knowledgeable about copyright than I am. (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I improve my article Draft:Sciex?[edit]

My article has been rejected for being too commercial, and for not using independent sources. I did review several other Wikipedia articles on companies in the field of chemical instrumentation before I wrote this. I tried to use a neutral tone, introducing facts about the history of the company that might be of interest for notability, not for promotional purposes. I almost exclusively used used references from the scientific literature or from media outlets not associated with the company (mostly to support facts about business issues), with only one reference from a company annual report. Perhaps an experienced editor can suggest what aspects I should eliminate or improve. Brucet8585 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brucet8585. You've done a good job using neutral tone, i think what's needed is for the prose to be brought together and some explanation to the reader why these aspects of the company are significant. Have a look at prose like 'Over 300 instruments were sold during the next several years ' and ask yourself is it encyclopedic or does it simply serve to make the company look good? "SCIEX is one of the major suppliers in the overall mass spectrometry business estimated (in 2019) at $3.68 billion world wide" is good but what is SCIEX's market share? If you can establish the importance of the company and make these kinds of tweaks then that will go a long way; often promotional articles are just lists of selected facts and big unrelated numbers, so this is what we're trying to avoid. Hope that helps, Zindor (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brucet8585, can I just add that having read your draft, I consider it to be well-written and well-supported by references. I would urge DGG to reconsider their assessment. I am utterly certain that were your draft to land up at AfD, it would survive (which is the ultimate test). Sciex is one of the big mass spec companies, and while we are not here to advertise, we are failing in our job if we don't say what a notable company or notable person has achieved; I don't see any obvious way in which you could express things more neutrally. (For the record, I have no connection with Sciex, nor do I have the foggiest idea who Brucet8585 is outside Wikipedia). Elemimele (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, some tidying is going to be necessary outside the Sciex draft. At the moment Sciex already exists as a redirect to Danaher Corporation. Rather annoyingly, the article on Danaher has a list of divisions, which includes a blue-linked Sciex, which of course is the redirect that takes the reader back to where they already are. I'm quite certain that (almost) no one in the mass spec world will have the foggiest idea of the existence of Danaher. Elemimele (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think DGG made the right call at the time because the promo indicators were evident and there is a lack of SIGCOV. I agree though if it's a large company in a multi-billion industry then it probably would be kept. Regards, Zindor (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed reference to 300 instrument sales, and changed the reference about market size to one that has a quotation saying SCIEX is a major player. The previous market size number that I had cited (3.68 billion $) was actually for the LC/MS market. This new citation is for the entire MS market at 5.5 billion (in 2018). I added the quotation about being a major player to the reference. This is from an industry market study. Actual market share information is difficult to find without paying for one of these expensive market reports. Brucet8585 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Elemimele . I will try to work with Zindor and DGG to find a way to appear less promotional and remove any contentious references and statements. Brucet8585 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also have a grub around if I get a moment, and see if I can find some stuff relating to Sciex in particular. I have a feeling they are quite important amongst the metabolomics people in Germany. There are two sorts of coverage for a company like this: business coverage and scientific-impact coverage. They can be notable based on their contribution to the science/technology just as much as their market share in the business of selling instruments. I would argue, for example, that Thermo's development of the orbitrap is far more significant than their actual existence as a business making mass spectrometers. Elemimele (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brucet8585:, @DGG:, @Zindor: Having grubbed around, I still think it might be possible to make it less promotional by emphasising Sciex's claims to technical novelty and their role in the development and commercialisation of mass spec technology; I've found two refs this morning: second commercial tandem mass spec; first commercial ICP-MS; first commercial Electrospray ionization (ESI) source; 2nd commercial LC-MS.[1] [2] Elemimele (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele You have been busy! Thank you for these references, which I have not seen. I will try to strike to right tone of notability not promotion and see how it flies. Brucet8585 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly know something about this field. Hard to compare the importance ("notability") of science vs business, but I think it is true in this industry that developments in the science drive business success (eg Thermo). Every company has made key developments that contribute to its success - the Orbitrap for Thermo, oTOF for Waters, FTMS for Bruker, triple quadrupoles for SCIEX. Hard to find independent references that document the breadth of the impact that developments in mass spectrometry have made on the various fields of bioanalysis - from drug development to drug discovery to metabalomics to proteomics. Your second reference is a good example of one aspect though. Brucet8585 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Yost, Rick. "The Top 10 Milestones in MS Highlighting 50 years of MS developments". The Analytical Scientist.
  2. ^ Gelpi, Emilio (2009). "From large analogical instruments to small digital black boxes: 40 years of progress in mass spectrometry and its role in proteomics. Part II 1985–2000". Journal of Mass Spectrometry. 44: 1137–1161.

date in signature[edit]

Can someone please explain why my signature is showing 25 May 2022? (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the dates/times in all signatures are displayed in UTC, regardless of the time zone where you actually are. GoingBatty (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that is very confusing. What if I was in another country besides the USA? What would the date be then? (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same, because UTC does not change based on what country you are in. RudolfRed (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP editor. No, it is not confusing at all when you understand the concept of time zones. Planet Earth has 24 of them, and Wikipedia, as a worldwide project, needed to pick one time zone to coordinate its record keeping around the planet. UTC is the time in London, which is, going back centuries, the most important city of the English speaking world. As a Californian, I accept that and am well aware that the new day starts in London late afternoon or early evening from my Pacific Standard timezone. Greenwich Mean Time is the historical concept. UTC is widely used by projects that operate in many countries, even if English is not the main language. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that London is currently on British Summer Time (UTC +1 hour), so it is currently 09:25 here. Shantavira|feed me 08:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am understanding now, but it took me awhile and there is no harm being confused. Thank you, though, for the explanation! (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to put it very concisely: UTC is "co-ordinated universal time". It does not belong to any country nor to any poles. Also, UTC does not have daylight saving mode, so it never changes and remains the same throughout the year. So, it can act neutrally (not belonging to any country) — nobody gets disappointed, and it is a good "fixed" point of reference for other countries/time zones (as UTC is same all the year). —usernamekiran (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help creating an article[edit]


I am a new comer to creating and editing Wikipedia pages. however i have spent maybe hours combing through the site for interesting information. In 2021 a family member of mine died. And he had a huge effect on Alaska, however he lacks a Wikipedia page to him. And i promised myself at his funeral that i would not let such an injustice stand. And so i stand here today asking with much respect that anyone who is interested help me make a Wikipedia page to the late Chief of Ruby. AlaskanBorn (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @AlaskanBorn and welcome to wikipedia! I'm sorry about your family member, but unfortunately people have to meet certain criteria to have an article, which does include (as the basic criteria) them being mentioned in multiple reliable sources independent from them or you. if you do have sources or news articles focusing on them that establish their notability, then you may write an article, click there to figure out how, but you'd also have to note that writing an article is very hard and even harder for people who are related to the subject (you'd need to disclose your conflict of interest while writing, and this is non-negotiable, and be careful to write neutrally about them). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 06:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the convenience of people reading this, here is AlaskanBorn's contributions, so we can check if they decide to start writing about their family member. A diehard editor Editing Wikipedia too much rn, talk to me here, bruh. 07:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, split off to separate comment) oh, and another tip for someone with a conflict of interest would be to basically forget everything you know about them personally and write as if you know nothing about them and only go off and summarize what these sources have stated, nothing more. since most bits of information have to be verifiable and have reference attached to them, you cannot add anything that your sources don't cover, even if they are true. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Melecie "cannot add anything that your sources cover" ... I think you mean "that your sources do not cover, right? (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. can i please stop making typos aaaaaaaaaa 💜  melecie  talk - 06:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AlaskanBorn, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that "X deserves a Wikipedia page and it's an injustice that they don't have one" is, usually, a very very bad reason for creating an article. An article about your family memeber would not be his page, it would not be for the benefit of him or your family (except incidentally), and it would not necessarily say what you wanted it to say. It cannot be "an injustice", because an article is in no way for the benefit of the subject: we have many articles on thoroughly unpleasant and objectionable people if they have been written about enough elsewhere, and we do not have (and will not have) articles on millions of wonderful people if it happens that they have not been written about. Please also see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ColinFine (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AlaskaBorn I am guessing that your intention is to create an article about First Traditional Chief Donald Honea, Sr. of Ruby, Alaska. As pointed out above, this would only be plausible if people have published articles in newspapers or on websites about Honea. Only if you are sure you have those items to use as references should you attempt this task. A Google search on "Donald Honea, Sr" did yield several obituaries, but this may not be enough to justify an article. As an alternative, consider adding content about the Native American presence to the History section of Ruby, Alaska. David notMD (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • AlaskaBorn I'm a bit surprised that you would bring up the lack of a Wikipedia article (not a mere "page") at your family member's funeral. As others have noted, Wikipedia is not a place to memorialize our loved ones. There are websites where that is done. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need advice re: fixing issues in a rejected article[edit]

Hi everyone! This article got rejected, and I need some help to understand what exactly I can do to improve it. I did my best to follow the NPOV guidelines, did a thorough research, and tried to provide sources and references for everything (both reputable news and academic articles). Also, I included criticism so as to cover the topic as objectively as possible. In the meantime, I wrote another article on an entirely different topic, and it got approved without any objections (despite way fewer sources being available). It kind of confuses me, so I'd really appreciate any pointers you guys could throw my way. Big thanks in advance! AhimeCrudele (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @AhimeCrudele, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not unusual for an editor to have one article accepted, then another one rejected. The key hurdle the article need to get over is WP:NCORP - the notability criteria for businesses. At the same time, it mustn't read like an advert for that company, listing every single product (which yours does). Phrases like "Even though the DIY kit lacked official backing, it stirred much attention. " are not neutral (nor even supported with a citation). Despite that, there are an awful lot of citations you have included, so could you tell us which three (and only three) citations show detailed, in-depth and independent coverage of this company? I would prefer you tell us what they are, rather than expect us to wade through to find them for ourselves. Maybe that could be a start, though others may wish to make different suggestions for you Nick Moyes (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Declined (what happened) is less severe than Rejected. David notMD (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I didn't even realize that there was a difference! Lots of details to process here... AhimeCrudele (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this really is helpful and I think it'll get me back on track! AhimeCrudele (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! need some advice about an article I put together.[edit]

Hello everyone.

I am a very sparingly contributor to wikipedia and recently put together an article, which was rejected on the grounds that it felt like an ad. I tried to be neutral but the subject has lived a truly inspiring life, to me at least. So I feel like a second set of eyes would be helpful in polishing the tone and make it better appropriate for wikis standards. Do you mind giving it a look over and giving me some comments? Here is a link to the draft article.

Thank you

Senet Senetsudaien (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Senetsudaien Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I must point out that you have breached our first rule of Wikipedia by copy/pasting, or at least closely paraphrasing, a lot of content from other quite promotional sources. See this copyright violation report. Those sentences should be removed and rewritten in your own words. You have not written in a dispassionate, encyclopaedic voice, but have used promotional wording throughout. You have also repeated and cited what they have said about themselves as if it were true. It may well be, but we only accept what others have written about that subject, not what they say about themselves in interviews. He may well meet our notability criteria, but the content at the moment is not acceptable for Wikipedia as it stands. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Senetsudaien, the draft says for example In the 1970's, he worked for Andy Warhol in the early days of Interview Magazine as a part of the launching team.[7][6][8][5][9][10] I'd simply say that he worked for Andy Warhol during the launch of Interview. You might have more than one reference if one only says that he worked for Warhol but doesn't mention Interview, another that he worked for Interview but doesn't mention Warhol, etc -- but why as many as six? -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Senetsudaien, an unreferenced sentence like His natural talent for drawing and his desire of becoming a fashion designer led him to the acclaimed Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) in New York does not belong in a neutrally written encyclopedia. Remove all unreferenced and unattributed evaluative language. Also, we use first names like "Freddie" only once, in the first sentence, according to the Manual of Style. The exception is when distinguishing between family members who share a surname. Remove those excess "Freddies". Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
great thanks Senetsudaien (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. Senetsudaien (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forum for community review of draftifications[edit]

Hi everyone. If a page mover moves an article to draftspace, what is the forum to challenge the page move? Would WP:DRV be an appropriate forum? I would of course first try to persuade the page mover to move it back to article space. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot: to challenge the draftification all you need to do is move it back into the main space. At that point anyone who feels it meets one of the criteria for deletion may nominate it as such. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks :) Do you know the name of the policy that says it's OK to do this? Do I need to discuss it with the page mover first? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clayoquot: See WP:DRAFTOBJECT. You do not need to discuss it first. RudolfRed (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clayoquot: @RudolfRed: That is not a Wikipedia policy, that is an essay, basically one editor's point of view. A better practice would be to initiate a discussion on the talk page of the user who draftified it. Usually when I draftify something, it is for a good reason (usually the author had no clue about what makes a Wikipedia article acceptable) and I move it to draft space as a courtesy rather than delete it. Because I have seen newbies start move-warring, I also often leave a create-protection behind so that only a reviewer with the extended-confirmed right can move it back to article space. This is a way to encourage more eyes on the article, rather than rely solely on the judgment of the newbie who wrote it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: This is about Marine resources, which was draftified, then reverted by Clayoquot. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For good reason - that looks more like a PowerPoint slide than a Wikipedia article. casualdejekyll 12:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, it's worth noting that participating in the AfC process is entirely voluntary in most cases, including this one casualdejekyll 12:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: I agree it's good to encourage more eyes on an article if an experienced editor feels it's not ready for mainspace. The usual place to do this is AfD. If a newbie moves an article that has been draftified to mainspace, which I think is what you meant by "start move-warring", would it not be appropriate to nominate it for deletion if you still feel it's inappropriate? W.r.t WP:DRAFTS, good point that it's not a policy. On the other hand, it represents the collaboration of 235 editors since 2013 and is actively watched by 63 editors so I think it's fair to say it has a solid level of acceptance in the community. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 13:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clayoquot: I routinely make small edits to essays, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. Only a handful of editors contributed the majority of that content. I disagree with the assertion that "it's fair to say it has a solid level of acceptance in the community." It's an essay, the essay expresses a valid viewpoint, but that viewpoint does not have community consensus.
As to your question about AFD being inappropriate, the answer is yes in many cases it's inappropriate. The purpose of AFD is to judge whether to keep an article on a topic based on its notability. AFD isn't a place to canvass other editors for improvements. You propose an article for AFD when you have policy-grounded reasons to believe that the topic isn't suitable. If an article topic may be notable but is written in an incomprehensible or non-encyclopedic way, or without sufficient evidence of notability, or in dire need of cleanup, it is appropriate to move it to draft space. If someone other than the author reverts the move to draft, that's fine. I draw the line, however, at the article author doing this.
In my experience, every time an author of an article attempts to revert a move to draft space, that author has a COI or a promotional intention. Some of them end up being blocked, and I've seen some become good editors after my mentoring. Bottom line: COI editors have no business deciding what content should be in main space. That has community consensus. They can write drafts, and the drafts can be approved by someone else, but they do not get to decide when an article on their pet topic is ready for publication. That is why I often create-protect articles I draftify, with a protection level that allows experienced editors to un-draftify. I have no objection if an editor other than the author reverts a draftification. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the work of volunteers (like yourself) who are on the front lines of COI and promotional editors. A lot of our usual processes are understood to be different if one of the editors involved has a COI. I think it's fair to assume that the processes described in WP:DRAFTOBJECT shouldn't be used by COI editors.
What about the case when I'm the author of an article that's been draftified and I don't have a COI or promotional intent, and I want to object to the draftification? I could follow your recommendation to ask the page mover to move it back to mainspace, but what if the page mover refuses? That would bring me back to my original question - where would I go to start a community discussion if the page mover and I disagree? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clayoquot: See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (Wikipedia:Third opinion is useful if it's just two editors disagreeing), or, if that's undesirable, you could state your case here and ask for another review. Better still, you could address the concerns expressed by the person who disagrees with you and revise the draft accordingly. I'm a pretty experienced editor, I've been editing Wikipedia for 16 years, and while I am capable of writing a good article directly in article space, I will still occasionally submit a draft for review if I suspect my investment of my time in the topic has colored my viewpoint. I have one such declined review at Draft:Mark Cheverton. And I will not move it to article space myself if another experienced editor disagreed that it should be there. But I haven't gotten around to recasting it in the context of the only notable thing in it. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia, after all. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

Has the gadget Xtools stopped working? It is continuously saying "cannot fetch revision data". What is the problem with the tool? I cannot see any info regarding a page. Is the problem same for everyone? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: It is working for me. At least enough to see this page: [3] RudolfRed (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed No, actually I am not talking about the Xtools website. I am talking about the Wikipedia gadget that one can enable from the preferences sections, if he or she likes to. I am talking about that gadget. Why is it not working for me? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

what the freak?[edit]

I joined Wikipedia to work on making a page for a studio I work for, I put hours of work into it, and I come back to find out its been entirely deleted and my profile is full of some 'admins' leaving denial messages which all have bios like 'yeah i stream on twitch in my free time'. who on earth is deciding what is worthy of being on wikipedia???? are you kidding me???? ItsAmmon (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsAmmon: The draft in question was deleted as blatant promotion. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things one can do on Wikipedia even without the complicating factor of a conflict of interest. Attacking the deleting administrators for notifying you on your talk page - not "profile" - about the deletion isn't a good idea. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'attacking' LMAO - and it wasn't blatant promotion. I quite literally based my article off one that is up as we speak and its exactly the same. We are just bigger. This is bullcrap. ItsAmmon (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsAmmon: Wikipedia is never to be used for publicity purposes, and that's the reason behind both of your drafts, the one about yourself and about your employer. Someone realized that, proposed it for deletion, and an administrator agreed with the assessment and deleted it. You say you put "hours of work" into the studio draft, and yet it was just two sentences. Who's shoveling the bullcrap here?
That said, in my opinion the deletion was premature and you should have been given a chance to flesh it out more. @Athaenara: you deleted it; would you reconsider? Draft space, after all, is the only venue we offer for editors with a conflict of interest to write an article. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: I'll do nothing to help anybody promote their employer. The new user may not know about Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, s/he/it's free to try that. – Athaenara 05:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Athaenara: As you well know, WP:REFUND is not applicable to G11 deletions. That is why I pinged you in the first place, because the undeletion decision would be yours. As the article in question was only 2 sentences, however, ItsAmmon is free to try again. Many company articles get started by a COI editor. If the company is notable, the draft will eventually improve to the point where it's acceptable. This particular 2 sentence draft didn't get that chance, and the author's conflict of interest wasn't evident from the content. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ItsAmmon, you tried to write an autobiography twice, and those drafts were deleted twice. I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2009, and I estimate that 99.9% of efforts to write an autobiography fail. Maybe more. You tried to write an article about the company you work for, and your draft was utterly mediocre, and completely failed to make the case that the company meets the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline. I agree with Anachronist that the deletion of the draft was premature. Perhaps it was a work in progress and you were right on the brink of demonstrating that the company is notable. But you ought to start from strength and the backbone of a good draft is references to reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic of the proposed article. Your draft had none of that, so you were starting out from a position of weakness rather than strength. I understand that you are a game developer. You ought to be familiar with game theory. Wikipedia is not a game in the sense of video games or board games or gambling or athletic games. However, it is a game in the broadest sense of the term and it has a complex rule set and a variety of social norms that we call Policies and guidelines. The goal of the Wikipedia "game" is to build a free, well referenced, neutrally written encyclopedia in every significant language. If you charge into a game like a bull in a china shop, ignorant of most of the rules and insulting people who might otherwise be willing to help you, how successful do you think that you will be? Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what the freak? No need to bowdlerize, ItsAmmon: if you want to ask "What the fuck?", go ahead and ask it. Just don't expect to get the hospitable responses for which the "teahouse" is justly famous. In contrast, politeness and specificity are appreciated; perhaps "How was my draft 'unambiguous advertising or promotion'?" ¶ who on earth is deciding what is worthy of being on wikipedia???? Large numbers of editors (among whom adults, males, the middle class, US residents and whites are somewhat overrepresented) have laboriously reached a set of criteria. ¶ are you kidding me???? No we are not. -- Hoary (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An Admin (not the Admin who Speedy deleted your attempts at autobio and the company your work for) did you the courtesy of informing you what happened to your articles, and why. Insulting the messenger is never good strategy. David notMD (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:JalenFolf, who placed the notice, and who I assume ItsAmmon is referring to, is not an admin. casualdejekyll 12:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, they have been around for 15 years. Their judgment is likely quite sound. casualdejekyll 12:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the latest draft was a very clear autobiographical self promotion of a subject that under Wikipedia's standards is not notable. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a Family Friends Wikipedia Article[edit]

Hi. I'm a Highschool senior. As a senior we were tasked with doing a extensive project that required a thirty minuet presentation. I decided to do my project on a family friend, who has gotten very famous, and has even got himself a exhibit in the Smithsonian Museum. The project went very well. I ended up interviewing him for a hour. Here's the question. I wanted to pay him back for all of the help he has given me. so when I looked at his article on Wikipedia I noticed that it was severely out of date. I would love to update his article to include his most recent achievements with his help, but I don't know if I'm qualified to do so. I would love to give him a legacy that will stand as long as the internet is around. Am I qualified? (His Name is Gary Strobel) Speartopia (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Speartopia: Well, you have a conflict of interest, so you might want to read the WP:COI guideline. Basically, you can make corrections to the article (spelling, grammar, dates, names, adding sources, reverting obvious vandalism) but any substantive changes to the prose are best proposed on the article talk page. You can use the template {{request edit}} to preface your proposal, which causes your proposal to be listed on a category page that is monitored by some editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Speartopia Could I add that updating recent achievements must be based, not on interviews with the subject, but on available independent sources. Once you’ve declared your WP:COI, you could add a ‘Selected publication’ list yourself, which might do the trick. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are qualified. Per COI, you need to state on your User page that Strobel is a family friend. People with a COI are asked to not edit the article directly, but instead to post requested changes on the Talk page of the article, using that request edit notification so that someone will see it, and then either implement or reject your requested changes. A suggestion: existing content and new content will need references. Use your Sandbox to practice formatting references. Your intent is admirable, and I hope your persist. P.S. You could take a photo of Strobel, add that to Commons, and then put the photo in the article. David notMD (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding former cantons in Template:Cantons of [department][edit]

Can I add the list of former cantons in the templates of cantons of French departments (like in Template:Cantons of Nord)? See :fr:Modèle:Palette Cantons du Nord for example. (I know that most of those articles will be red links, but over the course of time, interested people can make such articles). Excellenc1 (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Excellenc1 My gut reaction is that it would be unwise to do that. It would cause confusion if mixed with others current cantons. Lots of red links would be pointless, even if they were placed into a separate part of a template. Why not create one simple list article of former cantons (in a defined date range, I’d assume?) and add that to a ‘See also’ section for relevant articles? Nick Moyes (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes So can I add a list of former cantons in the pre-existing list of cantons (instead of a separate article)? Like I did in cantons of Eure. Excellenc1 (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Excellenc1 I don't think that would a problem. But at Cantons of the Eure department, I don't see any source that would allow me to Verify your list of former cantons. As many are redlinks, I think some link to show which they were would be valuable. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how to change main page title[edit]

new to creating Wiki page... only in sandbox at this time....I wanted to name the page Earl Carter, American Photojournalist Tne name that appears is Earlc11946 and I am unable to change it...that is my account name and I get messages that a user page has not been created yet....I am working in sandbox at this time....I have view many you tube videos hoping to finds an answer and looked at many wiki support pages.... Earlc11946 (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Currently at User:Earlc11946/sandbox. David notMD (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Earlc11946 If this is an attempt at autobiography, see WP:AUTO. If this is ever submitted as a draft and accepted, the accepting reviewer will properly name the article. As there are no existing articles about other Earl Carters, "Earl Carter" will suffice. David notMD (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Earlc11946, here's one section, in its entirety: Chief Photographer, Kingsport TN Times-News, Staff Photographer, Miami FL Herald, Photo Editor, The Huntsville AL Times. Problems: No reliable source is provided for any of these claims; it's not the state but the newspaper title that needs italics; your positions are of less interest than is what (according to reliable, independent sources) you achieved in each of those positions; article text should consist of sentences, each one having a subject (e.g. "he") and a predicate (e.g. "was a staff photographer for the Miami Herald, where he [whatever]"). -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bridlington website removed[edit]

Hi, I am trying to include the website as a link in the Bridlington page but it keeps being removed. The website is the towns primary website and has been in existence since 1989 providing local tourism and business information, history, local news, what's on guide etc. Could someone advise the likely reason as to why the site is being removed as I see no difference between and other sites performing the same functionality listed within wikpedia for example wikipedia pages for Morecambe, Scarborough, Norfolk, Wales and I am sure many more.

Any help to understand why the editor for the Bridlington page is choosing to remove links to sites with content which seems acceptable on other pages would be most appreciated.

Thanks in advance for any help or advice as i am starting to feel paranoid. (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to guess why the link has been removed: you can instead ask those who removed it to explain. The place to ask is Talk:Bridlington. -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
additionally, there is a guideline for external links, which you may want to check. the revert summaries stated that it was removed for being promotion, and given that the page seems to be primarily for promoting bridlington tourism (not an official government site which will definitely be allowed, for example), I'd understand this conclusion, however I'm not the best person to determine whether this is an appropriate link. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thanks for that, I understand what you are saying, just annoying that there is no government site for the area, presumably because the job is already being done by ourselves :-( (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, fellow IP - since you say "ourselves", I assume you have some connection to the website. In that case, you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI), which you should disclose per the policy, and - friendly warning - should expect to be challenged if you start adding links to the site in an apparently promotional manner. Thanks for checking with us instead of continuing an edit war, though! (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does English Wikipedia have a "Reference Space" akin to French Wikipedia?[edit]

I noticed that on French Wikipedia common books have their own space with editions listed. For example:

That allows for easy inclusion of that reference in various articles.

Does English Wikipedia have this too? And if not, were there ever attempts to do something like this and archived discussions somewhere? 'wɪnd (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@'wɪnd: I'm not aware of anything similar. You could ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We once had some kind of reusable references from templates, but they were deprecated again. {{Cite doi/10.1126.2Fscience.1084370}} was one of these if you have admin access. You can see some of the discussion at Template talk:Cite doi. —Kusma (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@'wɪnd We used to have some templates that operated in this manner, but they were all deleted following this discussion. (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtempleton @Kusma @IP: I very much appreciate your responses. Super helpful. No, I'm not an admin yet, still very much a beginner. 'wɪnd (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Pasting Between Articles[edit]

I'm editing articles on abortion in different states. Each article has a "terminology" section that is, for the most part, identical. Terminology doesn't vary between the states, but the wording of each section is slightly different. Can I "standardize" across all the state abortion articles by copy and pasting the same text into each? Cioriolio (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your edits that Abortion in Alabama, Abortion in Iowa and Abortion in Florida are existing articles. I am stunned by the idea that there may be 47 more such articles! "As to whether text in a "terminology" section can be the same across states, I suppose that depends on the law in that state. As for copy/pasting from one Wikipedia article to another, that is allowed as long as the Edit summary states where from. David notMD (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cioriolio You can copypaste text between WP-articles, but the rule is that your WP:ES must include a wikilink, like "Adding text copied from Abortion in Iowa." More at WP:COPYWITHIN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD @Gråbergs Gråa Sång
Thanks for your help Cioriolio (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I am wondering how likely SpringerNature's waitlist for Wikipedia library access is to open up.

I think Springer Nature does not have that many spots because I have been waitlisted several times because there are not enough spots.

I am wondering if this is the reason why the waitlist is long.

ScientistBuilder (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScientistBuilder, welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to ask about this is the Wikipedia Library itself. Try contacting them via any of the listed methods here. Regards. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 02:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get enough sources to create a good/decent article?[edit]

How can I get sources in villages in Ukraine. Many people said that I cant give enough sources but, every time I googled it, most of it are just forecasts. Xicilisms (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Xicilisms, welcome. I'm not sure which sources you are after but i've written a method down about census records at this page, i think it may be useful to you. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i forgot i found an English version the other day. A citation to the census is enough to prove the village is a populated legally recognised place per the inclusion criteria, but if you can expand the articles a bit further using significant coverage in reliable news sources etc that's even better. Zindor (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance Tag Issues: How to remove when issues dealt with[edit]

Grass Valley (company)

I'm working on cleaning up this page (my user page has a paid disclosure statement).

There are three maintenance items:

  • This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2020)

I'm working on all of these to update all at the same time where "citation needed" appears.

  • This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (May 2020)

I have removed a section that looked to be "marketing speak" just leaving chronological facts. However, the maintenance item still is listed and I can't figure out (also see below, same issue I believe) where these are flagged in the edit page. Have I missed something? I know it's not automatically removed from reading the instructions, but can't find anything in the edit page that relates to this and the following item.

  • This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (May 2020)

I believe this is the same section as flagged above, so same issue. Reply in visual editor please. Silbergleid (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Silbergleid - Thank you for adding a paid disclosure statement on your user page. I added one for you on Talk:Grass Valley (company). Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the article directly. Instead, you may post questions and suggestions on the article's talk page with the {{request edit}} template, or use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Silbergleid - Also, I'm not sure why you requested a reply with the VisualEditor. What difference does it make whether I use the VisualEditor or the source editor or the new reply tool? GoingBatty (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions said to request mobile or visual editor, I had to pick one (or thought I did). With regards to the edits of the Grass Valley page, all of the missing citations relate to very old historical events. While I have a conflict, I also have access to analog (paper, film) archives that can help point me to third-party citations such as books that have never been digitized or magazines that are not available online either. My feeling is that I would rather clean those up since I can do the research needed. No one outside the company has access.
Thanks for adding the disclosure. The "paid" instructions said to place it in one of three areas, so I did just that. Silbergleid (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, can you actually answer my original question? Silbergleid (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Silbergleid You are asked to pick an editor to use; the editor others use does not matter in that regard. You received an answer to your question- you should avoid editing the article directly. Independent editors that monitor the use of those tags will eventually evaluate the article to see if the issues raised have been addressed. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks for your help. Silbergleid (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Silbergleid, the "very old historical events" are actually quite important, since they seem to be what the notability of this company is primarily based on - see the discussion at the bottom of the talk page. Most of what the history section talks about right now is, from Wikipedia's viewpoint, not very important at all. Apparently the company has an "illustrious history", according to an editor from long ago; if you have access to sources which could inform us of that history, they would be very useful! (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Silbergleid, I see you've continued editing the article. I think I should remind you of what GoingBatty said above - Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the article directly. Instead, you may post questions and suggestions on the article's talk page with the {{request edit}} template, or use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the "Draft"[edit]

Good evening,

I have just created an article on the french economist Gaël Giraud but there is the draft, and I don't understand what I did wrong.

Somebody helps to find the issues ?

Draft:Gaël Giraud here the article.

More over, i can't anymore edit the code.

Ty for the answer.

PS : Sorry for my english, i'm french. Mathieu Royans (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Draft has not yet been submitted for review. When you are ready please press the blue Submit the Draft for review! button. However, it is unlikely to be accepted at present as it is unclear what the subject is notable for. He is a civil servant, a priest and a mathematician. None of these alone makes him notable so we need to know what it is about him that makes him notable and desereving of a Wikipedia article. I hope that that helps.  Velella  Velella Talk   23:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mathieu Royans, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not certain what issues you're talking about – the draft is there and you should be able to edit it. Velella gave you good advice; you should make sure the draft explains why he is notable by Wikipedia's standards before you turn it in. This guideline explains it more specifically. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mathieu Royans. Is the draft you're working on a translation of the French Wikipedia article about fr:Gaël Giraud? If it is, then you probably should take a close look at WP:TRANSLATE since the information it contains applies to your draft. It's OK to translate articles found on other language Wikipedias into English, but you need to make sure that the original article is properly being attributed for Wikipedia's licensing purposes. The next thing you probably should look at are WP:OTHERLANGS and WP:BIO. Each language Wikipedia is part of the same family so to speak, but they also are separate projects with their own policies and guidelines. In many cases, these policies guidelines are the same or quite similar, but it many cases they're quite different. Since English Wikipedia is the largest of the various Wikipedias, it's policies and guidelines tend to be more rigorously enforced that perhaps is done of some other Wikipedias (e.g. French Wikipedia). So, in order for a draft about Giraud to be accepted on English Wikipedia, you will need to establish that he meets English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You might be able to use the sources cited in the French Wikipedia article (even if they're written in French) to help establish his Wikipedia notability as long as they are considered to be WP:RELIABLESOURCES for English Wikipedia purposes, but any reliable sources giving Giraud WP:SIGCOV in English would also be helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE : Thank you for your answers ! @[email protected]@Marchjuly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathieu Royans (talkcontribs) 14:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Regarding Citations in an Article Draft[edit]

Hey there, I was wondering if anyone could go over the sources in Draft:Blooket to see if they are in line with the quality expected for a wikipedia article.

Thank you all so much! This is the first article I've really worked on, and this means a lot to me. AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AdmiralAckbar1977, probably not what you want to read but there are still significant issues. Reddit and Youtube are not reliable sources. ICANN doesn't do anything for notability, Tapinto is a passing mention, K-12 is a press release, LeeDaily gives no indication that its anything more than a blog, publicistpaper uses exact same software as LeeDaily and its 'about us' is even less reassuring as it actively solicits press releases, TealMango is similar to both of those and also looks to be recycling press releases as news articles. BizJournals, I also have doubts about as Inno seems to be brand-new focused on emerging products with no editorial policies and the one scholarly paper cited I can not access. Wikipedia needs some in-depth coverage of the subject that wasn't supplied by the subject and currently thats lacking.Slywriter (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you so much for responding. Looking back on the citations, I agree with everything you state - and probably should have worked harder to find actual refutable sources. I do have one additional questions. Would it be possible to cite the actual website as a way to identify features of the website. Or is that also not allowed. Thanks! AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First hurdle is notability, which requires independent, reliable secondary sources. Once notability is established, using primary sources for limited non-controversial information is usually acceptable, though the article can not turn into a product catalogue or be overly self serving.Slywriter (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AdmiralAckbar1977 I tried to help you out by finding some good references, but was only able to find a few newspaper articles and books that mention Blooket as one of many good resources. These would be helpful if you had a couple of articles that gave in-depth coverage to use as your main references. If you happen to have a subscription to, and use 2021 - 2022 as the time frame to search in, there 3 articles about school resources that mention Blooket as being useful. If you don't subscribe to it may be possible for you to get a one week free trial subscription that will allow you to find and save those articles.
I also searched on and found a couple of non-fiction books that recommend Blooket. It may be that Blooket is too soon, in which case you may be able to find good references in a year or too. If you go back and work on your draft article at least every six months it won't be deleted, and will be there if better references come along at a later date. Best wishes on project. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I'll take you and @Hoary's advice and kinda wait it out until Blooket becomes significantly more mainstream, and if it never achieves Wikipedia level notability, then no problem! In the meantime I'll just add a little from time to time, probably follow your idea about and the like.
Thank you so, so much - AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AdmiralAckbar1977, there's no need for "actual refutable sources": that would be taking the principle of falsifiability too far. Reliable sources, yes. My guess is that these simply don't exist. Maybe wait a couple of years for [Wikipedia-defined] notability to emerge? -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing AdmiralAckbar1977 meant "reputable" rather than "refutable". CodeTalker (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will my article be meaningful[edit]

I recently purchased Woven Jacquard Silk Portrait panel of George Washington at a charity auction. The panel has documented estate provenance. The panel was made in Lyon, France in 1856. From what I've learned on line, there is one in the Smithsonian and one at the MET. There are no articles in Wikipedia on this panel. I don't know how many were produced in France, or how it got to America (or when). It would be really cool to create a wikipedia arctic on this. What do you think? DanJill (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @DanJill and welcome to wikipedia! first of all, you would need to check over the notability guidelines to see if the article would be meaningful. if it does, if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then you're likely good to go (although if there are any existing articles where this info can be added instead, add it there instead, since making an article is hard). check out Your first article to write an article. if it doesn't, then stop: the article won't be accepted. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DanJill. Your first task is to determine whether or not the weaving is notable. The short definition in that General Notability Guideline is A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So, assemble a list of reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the weaving. If you can find three to five of those sources, then you can start writing an article draft. Without such coverage, it is not possible to write an acceptable article. In addition, there is the issue of your Conflict of interest as an owner of one of these weavings. If you manage to produce a compehensive article about this weaving, it could plausibly increase the value of your weaving. You need to openly disclose your conflict of interest (as you have commendably done here), and defer to experienced editors who do not have a COI. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DanJill, if you come to the conclusion that a whole article on your portrait isn't possible, you are still in the fortunate position of being able to photograph it, and offer the photo for use in other articles as appropriate. It might be that a good photo of this portrait would be interesting at Jacquard machine, which currently has the famous portrait of Jacquard himself, and a bit of abstract William Morris, but otherwise no example of the product. Getting good images is a real problem for Wikipedia because the copyright arrangements here are so generous to the reader, meaning that the vast majority of images on internet are not appropriately covered and can't be used. You own the rights to your own photos! Elemimele (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DanJill, I've never heard of Jaquard silk, but assume it's related to Jacquard machine. Perhaps you should consider an article about "Jacquard loom art" or something like that, it may be easier than showing WP:GNG for a specific piece. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DanJill Personally, I would have it appraised to see if it's worth millions of dollars (or hundreds of thousands). Then I would decide whether to insure it, perhaps sell it, lend it to a museum, etc. Then, maybe, draft an article about it... (You might already be doing all of this...) (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of particularly clear / well organized articles re: plants (as a guide to editing a plant article?)[edit]

Hi - I saw the following topic included in a list of articles that could use copyediting: Diplazium australe

I did an off-the-cuff search for some plant articles that might serve as templates: (,,

Of these the Sequoia article seems maybe the most clear and well organized. But would welcome pointers to any additional examples.

And, more generally, does Wikipedia provide category-specific listings of articles that are regarded as particularly well written?

Thanks. Margarita-Dz (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Margarita-Dz - under Wikipedia:Featured articles#biology and Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences you will find sections on Wikipedia articles about plants that have been rated as either Featured articles or Good articles - have a look at some of those - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you also take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants. Shantavira|feed me 12:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Margarita-Dz (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions for VERYWELL article[edit]


I tried to correct the the infobox link on the Verywell article and was blocked. I checked the history of the spam issue and I see it is four years old and no longer relevant. The spamming user accounts were all disabled. The URL on the infobox forwards to a different domain and I wanted to update it to reflect the correct one. Any advice? Emarket 12:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emercado2020 (talkcontribs)

hi Emercado2020 and welcome to the teahouse! Verywell links are currently blacklisted for use in Wikipedia due to persistent abuse in I'd assume elsewhere in the wiki (plus besides, since you're not seeing those links, it could be that the blacklist is doing a good job of keeping those links out when it's used as spam). I'd advise you to take it over to the whitelist noticeboard so it can be whitelisted for use in that article. happy editing! 💜 (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)  melecie  talk - 12:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Emercado2020. I'm a bit concerned because I notice that all your contributions to date have focused around Dotdash Meredith and its brands, and your username may indicate a marketing connection. You should be aware that editing with a conflict of interest is subject to certain restrictions and requirements - see WP:COI. (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for missing the disclosure. I've updated my profile to be transparent. I believe talking here about the edit complies with COI requirements. Is there any reason why the edit I proposed should not be made? Emercado2020 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Emercado2020 - I have transferred the second version from your Talkpage to Talk:Verywell - the first version was correct, the second was correct for the article.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Emercado2020, asking for help here is perfectly fine, but if there are edits to specific articles you want to make, you should make edit requests on the talk pages (see WP:EDITREQUEST). You should not generally be editing them yourself if a COI applies. See melecie's answer above for instructions on having the link whitelisted for use. (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new page- WeatherSTEM- Need help editing to get approval[edit]

I submitted an article for WeatherSTEM, it keeps getting rejected. I edited it to add resources, and changed the wording, I even used other similar pages on Wiki as a guide for how to word the article. How to I make the correct edits needed to get this approved? Is there someone I can hire to publish this for me if I send them the info? Weathergeekman (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Weathergeekman Writing acceptable articles is a tough challenge and the usual problem for new editors are, first, to show that the topic is notable according to English Wikipedia's strict standards. This is done by citing sources that are reliable and WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject. You only properly cited three sources, of which two are weatherstem's own website, which doesn't demonstrate independence, and the third is to the top level of IBM's website, which doesn't allow readers to verify the stated fact and won't be useful for notability unless IBM has discussed their partner in some detail. You have a slew of other "sources" as bare URL, which are not linked to any of the text, so no-one can tell which source backs up which statement and judge whether any adds to the notability. At minimum, you need to convert the best ones using {{cite web}} and ditch the rest. In drafts, the accepting editors will be looking for quality, not quantity. I don't know why you would want to pay anyone to create this article unless you are part of the WeatherSTEm organisation's PR department and if so you need to carefully read WP:COI and WP:PAID for some mandatory things you need to do. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:WeatherSTEM
(edit conflict) Hello, Weathergeekman, and welcome to the Teahouse! Mike Turnbull gave you good advice about your draft. I noticed you said on your talk page I am trying to find our article so that I can edit and review it and I am trying to get WeatherSTEM Wiki verified. How do I go about this?. Are you employed by WeatherSTEM? If you are associated with the company in any way, then you need to disclose that before you continue editing the page. You can follow the practices detailed at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline; the section about paid editing can be found here. Perfect4th (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any way to remove slurs from edit summaries?[edit]

Hello everyone,

I spotted that there's been a recent vandalism problem at Goodfellas (presumably triggered by the news of Ray Liotta's death) that led to the page being semi-protected - while looking through the article's history, I noticed that some of the edits reverting the vandalism were from an IP user who included racial slurs in their edit summaries aimed at the vandals (e.g. this diff: This is clearly unacceptable and in violation of Wikipedia's policies, but I'm not a regular editor and don't really know what, if anything, can be done about it. Is this something that can be removed? Is this something that community consensus says should be removed, even if doing so is technically possible, or should it be left up? (The IP in question seems to have already been banned for their racism, so hopefully the problem won't recur, at least). Any advice would be greatly appreciated - thanks in advance!

TrueAnonyman (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out @TrueAnonyman - only administrators can redact edit summaries, and I've now done just that. Sam Walton (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! TrueAnonyman (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The edit summaries in question have been revision deleted by Samwalton9. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing TOCs! (with 2022 skin)[edit]

Am I doing something wrong?

After some mild mannered and kindly "robot" suggested that I switch to some new "skin" -- (I do not even really understand what a "skin" is, ... in this context!) -- eventually I started noticing that, on all "Talk:" pages, the TOC ("Table of contents") was missing.

Then (today iirc) I started noticing that, ... the same thing was happening in "article" space. NO Tables of contents!

Just on a wild GUESS, I tried going back to my "Preferences", and changing my "SKIN", from "Vector (2022)" ... << (back) >> ... to "Vector legacy (2010)".

All of a sudden, my TOCs resumed working as they usually do! ... and as they have been working -- just fine! -- for years.

Any advice? (Are there any questions that I perhaps SHOULD be asking, at this time, but that I do not even know to ask?)

Thank you, Mike Schwartz (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps" one [question] that I should *** "avoid" *** asking, -- (right?) -- is: ... whether or not this new "skin" is causing similar issues for THOUSANDS of other Wikipedia readers (and editors). I would expect that if something like *that* were taking place, that ... then ... in that case ... some Wikipedia experts ... way more clued-in than the average bear ... would have already either [a] fixed things, or ... (at least) [b] issued some kind of "notice", to rescue [persons like] me from having to submit a new "TOPIC" like this, on a page like this. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Schwartz: Welcome to the Teahouse. The new skin moves the table of contents onto the left side of the screen. You can follow discussions about it at mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements.
Please don't go crazy on formatting like using the big tag multiple times; it's somewhat irritating.Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: Thanks for that kind reply.
I have done *** some *** (but apparently not enough) reading, at places that I found, starting with the help that you provided.

My question << Am I doing something wrong? >> still stands.

When I use the "OLD" interface ("Switch to old look") I can find the TOC (positioned kinda sorta within the body of text on the page) ... and I do not mind navigating "from" -- and even back "to" that "OLD" TOC ... which can sometimes be done using the << back >> feature [or 'button'] of my web browser.

When I use the "New" interface ("Vector 2022" or whatever it is) ... I cannot see the TOC. I do not know "what to do" (to cause it to become visible), or ... where it is, if it is already there (maybe right in front of my nose?)

Please forgive me if I am not specifying very expertly, what it is that I need to know (I need to find out). I suspect that, if I knew that, I would then be able to ... not only
  • [a] do a better job of asking my question here,
    but also
  • [b] answer the question myself, instead of having to "ask" it.

Thank you. -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Schwartz: It should be there on the left. I took a screenshot and marked it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.

I am not seeing that TOC that you are seeing (and sending).

I mean, I do see it in the attachment ... I just do not see it in the screen snapshot that I probably should create, and post here. (and maybe I am about to do so ... it might take a few minutes).

Seeing that (screen shot) ["IOU"] might not enable you to figure out the full answer to ... :

My question << Am I doing something wrong? >> [...which] still stands.

But it might be a step in the right direction ... and it might cause me to not seem [quite so] crazy ... as I perhaps did when I first asked ... :

<< Am I doing something wrong? >>

Thank you. -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: (and anyone else who is interested.)
I regret the delay.

I have 3 ["snapshot"] files. TWO of them are ".PDF" files, which show relatively small Wikipedia articles, both of which allow their TOCs to be visible to me when I use the (OLD) "Vector 2010' skin.

I am not sure how to (figure out how to) attach those 3 files to this message. I am tired, now, so ... I am just going to include a link to the place "on the cloud" ... (on "Google Drive"), where the 3 files are resting now. Here is the LINK:

NOTE that, even though ... one of the two "smaller" files (they are *.PDF files) does appear to "IMPLY" that there was a TOC shown on my computer screen, before I took the "snapshot" (using "Ctrl-P" meaning "Print", and then using "Save as .PDF" instead of the name of an actual ink-on-paper printer) ... it is lying ("pants on fire").

That is the purpose of the THIRD file ... which is a *.JPG file ... namely, to *show* that the info that was actually being displayed on my computer screen -- when using the "Vector 2022" skin -- did not include a TOC at the top of the article. (nor on the side ... I looked all over).

Actually, I just added a 4th file ... once I saw that I could download a .PDF of an article "directly", without using Ctrl-P and "Save as PDF". That (4th) file is in a sub-folder.

Thanks for listening. Any advice appreciated. -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text in this section is very weird. I like it. Thefficacy (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like it. Wakes it SIGNIFICANTLY harder to follow. (eospecially after the user was asked to refrain from crazy formatting) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 11:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about AFD[edit]

Hello, I’m a COI editor for Fitness Blender, which was recently reviewed and accepted and moved into article space. Then nominated at AFD shortly after. I’ve read the WP:GNG guidelines thoroughly and I’m a bit perplexed that this article was nominated for deletion. Here’s WP:SIGCOV by independent reporters in this Wall Street Journal article about the company, this Seattle Times article about the company, a more than passing mention in the New York Times, this Insider article about the company, this KING5 article about the company, this Seattle Met article about the company, this Paste Magazine article about the company, among others. These are not press releases. I understand that people don’t like companies using Wikipedia for promotion, but I feel like these sources are being overlooked in this discussion. The nominator thinks because some of these have quotes from the founders, that they are interviews, and thus should not count. But these are not Q&As and nothing I can see in WP:INTERVIEW states that an article with quotes from the subject throughout cannot be used for WP:GNG. The article was kept thin to avoid being promotional, but I do think the company is notable given the sources linked above. Am I missing something about notability guidelines? Just looking for some help or guidance. Thanks. ButtercupBaleen (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ButtercupBaleen, we need independent sources to establish that the subject is notable. A journalist reporting what a founder of the business has said about it does not qualify as an independent source. WP:INTERVIEW states "the mere fact that a person has been interviewed does not automatically mean that interviewee qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article". That also goes for the interviewee's business. Maproom (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition on using citation templates in existing article[edit]

I have been advised, when editing an existing article which consistently avoids the use of citation templates, that I should not change a citation I'm modifying to use a citation template without first oobtaining consensus. Is that really the case?

To be clear, I'm not offering to go through the article and change all the citations to templates, but it seems to me that using a template offers important advantages. I would likely avoid fixing citations if I couldn't use a template. FWIW, I do all my Wiki edits with the "traditional" editor rather than the visual editor. Fabrickator (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fabrickator, welcome to the Teahouse. This page should contain the answer for you Zindor (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CITEVAR. The style should be kept consistent within an article. However, if the existing citations are incomplete, they do not "count" as establishing a referencing style for the article. MB 17:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And let's not overlook note 3. Then again, citing rules can be characterized as a form of intellectual lazines, but please don't be offended. Fabrickator (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a regionally notable criminal case[edit]

Hello! I have a friend who was involved in criminal case back in 2016 that was regionally notable (covered by about 20 media outlets).

To make more of a long story short, the State's version of events was inaccurate and there was significant police misconduct that directly influenced the conviction. This didn't come out until after (the DA withheld evidence), and he tried to appeal, and though he was told he had grounds to appeal, it would only have set him back to square one, not thrown the case out, as it should have. His family, at that point, had endured quite a bit already, so another two years of it seemed cruel and he elected not to. Sadly, our system is a business that's predicated on the irrational pursuit of convictions rather than the objective pursuit of the truth. This has harmed countless people and their families over the years.

Without getting into a ton of detail in this question, he has extensive evidence that the State's version was inaccurate, even a recent report from a private investigator. He also approached the news outlets who covered the case, and, to date, 15 have removed their content after seeing the evidence of what actually did and didn't occur, including a few larger ones. In fact, in response partly due to his case, a larger one recently debuted an initiative where they allow people the opportunity to have outdated articles removed to help them in moving on with their lives—so, some good is coming from his situation.

Why I'm reaching out on his behalf is there are a handful of news outlets remaining that are being stubborn and mean. He’s only ever reached out politely and respectfully, but they refuse to look at the evidence he has, which is an extreme breach of the journalistic code of ethics. And that's why it got me thinking about Wikipedia. His case was an historical event, and Wikipedia would be a great way to get the truth out there, especially since Wikipedia ranks high in search engines. It would be a way for him to counteract the fake news, and it would be a massive blessing and help to his family as the fake news has been highly damaging socially, economically, and personally.

The purpose of the Wikipedia page would simply be to display the truth and that the State's version is false and has always been false. So, if a potential employer, or, say, his child's parents were to stumble upon his name online, they would at least have some correct information to counteract the false stuff. Please let me know how to get started on this if It’s even possible. Thanks so much!

-Seizetheday44 Seizetheday44 (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a very compelling story to tell... but until it gets significant media coverage, Wikipedia is not the place to tell it.Fabrickator (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for responding! It was significant in the midwestern region, but you're saying it would had to have gotten national coverage? Seizetheday44 (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seizetheday44: Welcome to the Teahouse. It would need to be reported by reliable sources with significant coverage to demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia's definition of notability for it to be included. The encyclopedia is not a place to right great wrongs; if it is accepted by Wikipedia, it would have to be reported in a neutral manner. Primary sources have very limited uses on here, and secondary ones are vastly preferred over them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That's a very informative response and super helpful. Maybe it would be best to post the relevant information on a personal website instead.  Seizetheday44 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Seizetheday44. So glad you brought your question to the Teahouse. In addition to the great information @Tenryuu provided above you may want to read this. It will give you some pointers on how you may proceed with writing an article should you decide there is enough coverage in reliable sources to continue. Good luck! --ARoseWolf 18:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf @Fabrickator@TenryuuThank you, everyone!!! Seizetheday44 (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding! It was significant in the midwestern region, but you're saying it would had to have gotten national coverage? Seizetheday44 (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seizetheday44, That I am aware of, there is no threshold regarding local, regional, national or international media attention. There is only the requirement of it receiving significant coverage in reliable independent sources, secondary preferred. One can make the deduction that the more local the media coverage is the more involved and less independent it will be, either positive or negative. SO that is why you will see the national and international media sources used more but there is no written rule specifying this and local/regional media can be independent and reliable. --ARoseWolf 18:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolfOhhh, I see. That makes sense. Very interesting. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for clarifying that! But the proof involved would have to be confirmed by a secondary source and published somewhere online first, correct? Seizetheday44 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seizetheday44: Sources don't need to be online; it's fine if they're not. What matters is that they're independent of the parties involved and reliable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TenryuuGot it. So, a private investigator would constitute an independent source, if I'm understanding that correctly. I was thinking relevant screenshots could be included of her report (and she's a female private investigator, which is awesome and fits in with the push for more female Wikipedia contributors). Seizetheday44 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seizetheday44: They wouldn't, unless the findings were published to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy; even then, that would be a primary source at best. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu Gotcha. I just thought she would constitute a secondary source because the primary source would be the news articles, and her investigation and subsequent correct information that she uncovered from her investigation would be secondary to the primary source. Seizetheday44 (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seizetheday44, Don't equate primary and secondary with independent and non-independent or with reliability. They may or may not be connected in each case but that is dependent upon the source. A primary source simply means it's written by someone close to or directly involved with an event. --ARoseWolf 19:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf Got it, thank you. Thanks for explaining that. Seizetheday44 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that I think the investigator could reasonably be considered secondary but not independent as one would hope they didn't only interview their paying client. Then again, Tenryuu may be correct that the investigator would be considered Primary because of their proximity to the event or those involved in the event. --ARoseWolf 19:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf I see what you're saying, and it is a bit confusing, in all honesty, haha. In this instance, she interviewed everyone involved and combed through all the available documents and evidence, and then referenced what she discovered against the prevailing State/Media narratives and found those to be inaccurate. So, her proximity to those involved in the event was necessary for her to do her job, so I don't think creates a conflict of interest in that regard, but I could be wrong. I do think that the righting of the wrongs that someone mentioned might be pertinent, though, because ultimately, that would kind of be what it is. Seizetheday44 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf Which, by the way, her report contains actual statements from those involved that contradict what was published originally, and screenshots of those would be included in the entry. So, I guess, there wouldn't need to be cited sources, because the sources would be right there to read directly. Seizetheday44 (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seizetheday44, no, those would be primary sources, and not something we could use. A Wikipedia article doesn't present evidence and build a case - it summarizes the reports of reliable sources on cases others have built. (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf I see what you're saying, but I guess I was thinking that the initial media coverage would be considered the "primary source." Seizetheday44 (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm not ARoseWolf - at least I don't think so - just a random IP.) You might want to read WP:PRIMARY to get a better idea of what we mean by primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. The initial media coverage was earlier in time, perhaps, but still secondary. (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ I definitely understand that--it just seems kind of silly that the people with first-hand knowledge would be given less precedence as a primary source, than a news outlet would as a secondary source. I would think that, if the truth is proven and corroborated, which it is, then that should take precedence over something the media published, who did not do their due diligence in thoroughly investigating. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not sure if I'm articulating what I'm trying to say correctly, haha, I apologize if I didn't. Seizetheday44 (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and it's an objection many people raise. But in the end, Wikipedia's purpose - as it stands now, who knows where it will stand next year, or a decade from now - is "to be verifiably wrong rather than unverifiably right." (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seizetheday44, the fact that she's a paid (I assume) investigator for one of the parties involved would create a bit of a conflict of interest. If an unpaid and unconnected news organization picks up the story and prints it, then maybe the whole thing - criminal case, investigation, retractions, etc. - could wind up as Wiki-notable event. I assume you don't want to have an article that only covers the initial conviction, that wouldn't help your friend at all. Good luck carpe dieming! (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ @ARoseWolf Haha, thanks! And she was, yes, but part of what she uncovered was old evidence that had been withheld by prosecutors that also contradicted the prevailing narrative, which she included. So, I was just thinking that the fact that she was paid might be immaterial because the proof/evidence speaks for itself regarding showing the truth against what the State and media initially presented. So, the authoritative source in in this instance isn't necessarily the PI, but the truth itself. She was just the means by which that was excavated, if you will. Seizetheday44 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately: WP:TRUTH. (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ Gotcha. Well, the irony in it all is the reason the issue began in the first place is because the media (and State officials) were not reliable sources, haha, although the public would consider them to be. So, essentially, another news outlet would have to publish a new story in order for that to be considered a reliable source? I think I understood that correctly--it's all somewhat confusing for a newbie, haha. Seizetheday44 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the essay I linked above reads as follows:
"Sometimes we know for sure that the reliable sources are in error, but we cannot find replacement sources that are correct. As Douglas Adams wrote of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 'Where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong.'"
So... yeah. (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ Wow, that's very interesting. This is a super clear explanation--I appreciate it. I guess, yeah, that's a tough thing to address because there does feel like a moral component should be evident, but it does make sense. You're right, the procedures could change, but if the objective is currently to be verifiably wrong as opposed to unverifiably right, then yeah, there's nothing that can be done. I would probably contend as to the validity of the evidence presented in juxtaposition to the "reliable" sources, but again, as you pointed out, the way the rubric for reliable sources is structured currently on Wikipedia, those that are, in fact unreliable in this instance, would be considered reliable (ultimately, any "source" is just a person sitting at a computer who has their own bias whether they admit it or not, haha). And I get that 100%. I know that none of this sort of thing is easy to navigate, so I appreciate you (and everyone who replied) doing your best to try and help me understand! Thank you! Seizetheday44 (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFTi Emporium - page deletion message removal[edit]

Hello, our company name is NFTi Emporium and we recently put our page in wikipedia.

However after a short period of time it was found out that is was proposed for a deletion,

we were very confused why it was, later we found out if was by the person @Zippybonzo

We contacted with this user what the issues were, then the user stated that the issues were

the following

- There was a source that does not count as a source, which is a twitter link.

- There was no user declaration made that who wrote this wikipedia page is getting

  paid by the company NFTi Emporium.

In response the twitter source has been deleted.

And the user who wrote that is Ekcs27 the disclosure has been made.

So everything has been sorted out accordingly.

We now ask can the deletion message on the page now been removed after appropriate actions have

been taken and things have been amended.

Thank you Ekcs27 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ekcs27, and welcome to the Teahouse! I took a quick look at the article, and I'm afraid that I must agree with what the editor has said when proposing the article for deletion. As the article stands now, it is written too much like an advert for the company, which is not in keeping with the policy WP:What Wikipedia is Not. The article would probably need a complete rewrite to correct this, and even then it might not be notable, hence why it was proposed for deletion. I would advise you to familiarise yourself with the deletion policy as well, in order to understand the proper procedures which will be taken. If you have any more questions or queries, please do feel free to post them here. Have a good day! HenryTemplo (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "notable", we recently just put the wikipedia page. It may take some time for any page to be notable.
Additionally the only things what the issues were by the user stated were the following
- There was a source that does not count as a source, which is a twitter link.
- There was no user declaration made that who wrote this wikipedia page is getting
  paid by the company NFTi Emporium.
And these have been amended.
And the user after that does not seem to have any problems after that. Ekcs27 (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't read the rules about notability, do so now, as it is crucial to understand them. Notability is defined slightly differently on Wikipedia, and any article's subject must be notable as defined by those rules, otherwise it is not suited to Wikipedia. Thanks! HenryTemplo (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "It may take some time for any page to be notable", please read WP:TOSOON, thanks. HenryTemplo (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ekcs27, you have removed the PROD - that's allowed, though the article may still be proposed for deletion. However, you also removed all the maintenance templates, which is not allowed. You have a declared COI, you should stop editing the article. (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the exact reason why the article shall get deleted ? which sentences and paragraphs are something that seems incorrect ? Ekcs27 (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ekcs27, the article is largely unsourced and its notability is in doubt. You need to read WP:NORG. To be frank, you should never have attempted to bypass WP:AFC in the first place, since you are a paid editor. (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NFTi Emporium. (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ekcs27, it's unclear whether the article is meant to be about NFTi Emporium, or Kareem, or Kareem's artworks. If you want to create an article, decide what its subject is to be, find some independent sources on that subject, and then write a draft basing it on those sources. Maproom (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is meant to be regarding the company itself. But has a small part talking about its CEO. Ekcs27 (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom It is meant to be regarding the company itself. But has a small part talking about its CEO. Ekcs27 (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference problem[edit]

Annals of Iowa 2.png

I do not know how to repair this. No link at all? This is via the WP Library deisenbe (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe: There is a link next to the message that says "how to repair". Click "show" for help on this issue. RudolfRed (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to follow those instructions. Either I'm not following them right, or they didn't solve the problem. They led me to cfeate this:


but it doesn't link to anything. This is the second reference as I had an AN number at hand for it, but not for the first. deisenbe (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe: Here's the correct URLs to use for those two refs:
You should also consider adding and populating the doi parameter as well.
Here's ready-to-use examples for both refs:
  • |url=|doi=10.17077/0003-4827.11512|doi-access=free
  • |url=|doi=10.17077/0003-4827.11521|doi-access=free
Hope this helps! Garzfoth (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I have no idea how to create a doi parameter, nor where to find instructions. deisenbe (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deisenbe. Citing (scholarly) journals is vital for many articles. The Digital object identifier is an international standard which we use normally within a {{cite journal}} template. If you look at the website, you'll see that each article's webpage has a "how to cite" part that gives its doi. The good news is that Wikipedia has lots of tools to help editors create citations. See WP:CITEGENERATORS. The one I use can take a simple doi within the cite journal template:
{{cite journal |doi=10.17077/0003-4827.11512 }}
and turn it into a full citation ready to be placed inline as a reference.[1]


  1. ^ Lloyd, Frederick (1866). "John Brown Among the Pedee Quakers. Chapter I". The Annals of Iowa. 1866 (2): 665–670. doi:10.17077/0003-4827.11512.
Hence for most citations I never fill out the parameters in the template myself but rely on the tool to do this for me after I supply the doi (or the ISBN, as the tool also works with books). However I do check that the tool has got everything correct and I add |doi-access=free if appropriate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Local notes with nested references[edit]

I somewhat frequently have a bit of an issue where I would like to have a wikitable with some notes in it. I can use Template:efn and Template:notelist, but notelist collects all notes that occur before it in the page, which is sometimes undesirable. It even seems to ignore reference groups. As an example

Lorem ipsum{{efn|dolor sit amit{{refn|{{harvcoltxt|Syed|1998|pages=19-20}}}}}}

== Table ==
{| class = "wikitable"
! consectetur adipiscing elit{{efn|group="table"|sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua<ref>{{harvcoltxt|Syed|1998|pages=48-49}}</ref>}}

== Notes ==

== References ==

This above puts both notes in the first notelist, but I want only notes in the table group to be put in that notelist. The other thing I've tried is to use the references html.

Lorem ipsum{{efn|dolor sit amit}}

== Table ==
{| class = "wikitable"
! consectetur adipiscing elit<ref name="note2" group="table"/>
<references group="table">
<ref name="note2" group="table">sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua{{refn|{{harvcoltxt|Syed|1998|pages=48-49}}}}</ref>

== Notes ==

== References ==

This fixes the above problem, but introduces some new ones. The citation disappears and the group forces the note to be called "table 1", which I'd like for it to not be. I've tried a few more minor variations on the above two, but I've not been able to get the desired outcome.

What way is there to do this? AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AquitaneHungerForce I'm just going to focus on the efn mark-up example here, the issues are similar in the second one.
The "Group" parameter has to be one of the following predefined groups, lower-alpha upper-alpha lower-roman upper-roman lower-greek or note, which have various forms of styling. Any other value is treated as part of the default group (lower-alpha).
As stated in the template documentation, you must not use quote marks around parameters when using {{notelist}} and {{efn}}, the templates add them automatically when needed.
Hope this helps, (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really help. It just means I can't use groups to solve the issue, which already seemed evident. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AquitaneHungerForce Doesn't this do what you want, or have I misunderstood the question? (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lorem ipsum{{efn|dolor sit amit{{refn|{{harvcoltxt|Syed|1998|pages=19-20}}}}}}

== Table ==
{| class = "wikitable"
! consectetur adipiscing elit{{efn|group=upper-alpha|sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua<ref>{{harvcoltxt|Syed|1998|pages=48-49}}</ref>}}

== Notes ==

== References ==
It messes with the formatting of the notes, which is something I'd like to avoid. I guess it's works as a stop gap. But I'm really looking for a principled solution that doesn't cause weirdness in the final result. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AquitaneHungerForce What do you mean by "messes with the formatting"? It seems to display OK for me. (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it changes the references to render with latin caps. So when you have a couple of ref groups you end up having to label them based on technical concerns rather than in a way that's natural for the reader. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AquitaneHungerForce The different styles of numbering are an intentional feature of the notes templates, so that they are visually distinct and easy to seperate from references which are denoted by numbers. If you want to have the notes use numbers like the references then you can use {{Refn}} instead, which does accept arbitrary group names. Try the following:

Lorem ipsum{{refn|group=notes|dolor sit amit{{refn|{{harvcoltxt|Syed|1998|pages=19-20}}}}}}

== Table ==
{| class = "wikitable"
! consectetur adipiscing elit{{refn|group=table|sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua<ref>{{harvcoltxt|Syed|1998|pages=48-49}}</ref>}}

== Notes ==

== References ==
{{reflist}} (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah exactly. I'd like to use the styles with intention. e.g. I'd like to use lowercase leters for the notes. But since that formatting is tied to ref groups I'm forced to use random formatting to avoid collisions between the groups. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AquitaneHungerForce You are supposed to be able to set the numbering scheme in a {{reflist}} template using the |liststyle parameter, but it seems to have gotten broken in a template update a few months back. I've just left the admin who did the template edits a message. (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the article name or changing the article name[edit]

Hi, i've been trying to find out how to edit the article name Kamina Johnson-Smith but I can't seem to locate that option. I would like to remove the hyphen from the individual's name. Krystal Mac (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done - you have to "move" the article - it's on the3 top tab. but see WP:MOVE. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Krystal Mac: If it's a controversial move, you might want to discuss this on the talkpage (for example with the creator of the article), but that doesn't seem to be the case here. YonasJH (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

trying to get photo file to fit in side of userbox[edit]

I'm trying to get a photo to fit inside

R MThis user has had the best two years

I like

ThomasPaine 2.jpgThis user is interested in political science.Edmund Burke2 c.jpg

So I tried editing the the source like this to make my own.

{{userbox|border-c=black|border-s={{{border-s|1}}} |id=[[File:LDS name tags.jpg|LDS_name_tags size 8]] |id-c=black|id-fc={{{id-fc|white}}} |id-s={{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}|info=This user has had the best '''[[Missionary_%28LDS_Church%29|two years]]''' |info-c=white|info-fc={{{info-fc|black}}} |info-s={{{info-s|8}}}}}<noinclude></noinclude>

And it's not working the way I'd hoped. What am I missing here?

Thanks! Jmjosh90 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Jmjosh90 and welcome to the teahouse! try this:

{{userbox|border-c=black|border-s={{{border-s|1}}} |id=[[File:LDS name tags.jpg|LDS_name_tags size 8|x48px]] |id-c=black|id-fc={{{id-fc|white}}} |id-s={{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}|info=This user has had the best '''[[Missionary_%28LDS_Church%29|two years]]''' |info-c=white|info-fc={{{info-fc|black}}} |info-s={{{info-s|8}}}}}

LDS_name_tags size 8This user has had the best two years

you were just missing a cap in the image to prevent it from expanding into full size. I've added x48px to prevent it from expanding too much, instead having a height of 48px. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!
Jmjosh90 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'm a new editor (Just started May 27th), and I don't understand how to do the citation links at the end. Please help. Macegav4774 (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: May 26th Macegav4774 (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Macegav4774 and welcome to the Teahouse! please see Referencing for beginners. you can use various templates such as {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} for this situation, and have them inside the <ref> </ref> tags. additionally, I'd advise you to read Reliable sources to see which can count as a reliable source for your citations. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After using a template inside the <ref> </ref> tags, you only need to put "{{reflist}}" in the References section at the end and the references autopopulate. RandomBlobby (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Macegav4774 (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help reviewing status and class of article[edit]

Hi there everyone, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and have made a number of edits on the research station article. I would love to get some feedback and help reviewing the class status of the article which was formerly tagged as a stub. Thanks! Bubbleteafiend (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, i would like to know the answer to this as well. I have seen good articles with a low rank, or no rating at all. YonasJH (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly more than a stub now! I'm no expert in quality ratings, but I suspect someone here will be able to give you their assessment. For classes of B or below, you can make the assessment yourself against the quality scale. Also, if you would like feedback on the article, WP:PRG might be a good place to look which tells you both how to ask for a peer review, and how to improve the article before asking for one. RandomBlobby (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou! I'll check it out Bubbleteafiend (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
B and below, how articles are rated primarily depends on when the last review occurred. If you think the rating should be different, feel free to change it. Dege31 (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's great to hear, thankyou. Bubbleteafiend (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grading is unimportant. Improvement is important, and it's needed for this article. Sample: In Europe, some early field stations (which are still in operation today) included Concarneau Marine Biological Station (Station de biologie marine de Concarneau) which was founded in 1859 in Concarneau, France. Concarneau Marine Biological Station is a marine biology station which was founded for the purposes of conducting research into coastal fishing by the request of Napoleon III. In Asia, [...] First try: In Europe, one early field station still in operation today is Concarneau Marine Biological Station (Station de biologie marine de Concarneau), founded in 1859 at the request of Napoleon III by Victor Coste in Brittany for research into coastal fishing. In Asia, [...] (Though I'd probably cut the bit about Napoleon III.) Tip: Try reading an article out loud. -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point thankyou, I'll be sure to have a look over some of the wording. Bubbleteafiend (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Depp and Heard to Depp v Heard[edit]

We all know about the ongoing defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Search up Depp and everything that comes up is Depp v Heard. Same thing when searching up Heard. I just think for the time of the trial (until sentencing date and as long as the word "Depp" is associated most with Depp v Heard and the word "Heard" is also associated most with Depp v Heard) both Depp and Heard should redirect to Depp v Heard, as most searchers will be looking for the trial and scandal and not Johnny Depp's life and film career or the super basic word heard that everybody knows the definition of usually. --Otis the Texan (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Otis the Texan and welcome to the teahouse! this will probably be  Not done, for the former as Johnny Depp still remains as the main topic. anyone who knows of him through the case may still want to research who Depp is, and given that he's the most notable person with the surname Depp, it redirects there. for the latter, Heard is a very basic word where outside of Depp vs Heard and to most people unaware of or just don't care about it, it will relate to hearing. there's also lots of notable people with the surname Heard including Amber Heard, so it makes less sense to redirect either Heard or Heard (surname) to Depp v Heard, a case which is not even the main topic since both people are notable and have their own articles, since relevance isn't really a reason to change the redirect target. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 04:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...oh, and a relevant essay you might want to read: Recentism. 💜  melecie  talk - 04:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would just be a temporary redirect. Is that allowed on Wikipedia? Also while I totally agree about Johnny Depp becoming best known as an actor and not an abuse victim, but do really think Amber Heard if found guilty will ever be best known as a good actress? Otis the Texan (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still believe that if you're searching for Depp, you're looking for Johnny Depp himself and not the case Depp v. Heard (or maybe the bits of Depp's article that provides background behind events in Depp v. Heard). same thing for Heard, which is a disambiguation by the way, plus she already has her own article that details her acting career, this defamation case won't be her entire life covered by the news (which is often the case for person articles redirecting to event articles, like Jennifer Willbanks -> Runaway bride case, see WP:ONEEVENT for more on this). regardless, the proper place for this to be brought up would be Talk:Depp v. Heard as Hoary pointed out below, or the relevant talk pages Talk:Johnny Depp or Talk:Heard. 💜  melecie  talk - 04:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But please, Otis the Texan, don't post it to more than one talk page, don't present your opinions on this case, don't speculate about the future, don't ask others for their opinions, and don't ask others to speculate about the future. Best of all just drop the whole matter. -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, Otis the Texan, the best place for you to suggest this would probably be Talk:Depp v. Heard. This page certainly isn't the place. -- Hoary (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Otis the Texan You said most searchers will be looking for the trial and scandal and not Johnny Depp's life and film career. Really? How do you know this? You must have access to Wikipedia's internal user and search statistics, right? (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Each biography gets several times more page views than the trial, and that's during the trial.[4] There are many redirects with both their names.[5] It doesn't make sense to redirect one of their names to the trial. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, @PrimeHunter. Nice chart and tables. (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse my not-perfect language. I'm a foreigner. How to make a sandbox under my user name when I don't want to have a discriminating "own" user page? Jari Rauma (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just click on "Sandbox" at the top of any Wikipedia page and then edit it and publish it to create it. Whether you have a user page is irrelevant. Shantavira|feed me 08:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked: There is no word for "Sandbox" (Hiekkalaatikko in Finnish) in Finnish Wikipedia at the top of article page or at the top of the article's history page or at the top user's start page or at the top of the user's talk page. Jari Rauma (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply click on fi:Käyttäjä:Jari Rauma/hiekkalaatikko, edit it, and save it, Jari Rauma. Though I've no idea why you're asking about the matter here rather than in fi:WP. -- Hoary (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jan. On English Wikipedia, you can have as many user sandboxes as you like, having any names you like, such as User:Jan Rauma/My first sandbox or User:Jan Rauma/some topic I want to write an article on. Also for convenience there is an automatic link to the one called User:Jan Rauma/sandbox (if it exists) at the top of every screen. I would guess it would be similar on su-wiki, but I don't know. ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It worked! Thank you very much. Why am I asking here? Because I have asked 2 times in the Finnish Wikipedia without getting an answer yet. Jari Rauma (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Buongiorno, sono nuovo a Wikipedia e sto scrivendo un articolo. Vorrei inserire l'indice ma non so come fare.

Mi potreste aiutare? Grazie ancora.

Cinescienza (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was the first non-English post on this page and apparently the answer to my question about the sandbox. Thanks, good joke though, if you can’t come up with a better answer. Jari Rauma (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about you, Jari Rauma. -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cinescienza, if you're asking about the table of contents that normally appears near the top of a complex article, don't worry. It will be generated automatically. -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
grazie Cinescienza (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ox, Oxen and disambiguation page[edit]

The article entitled "Ox" does not list a species. This is a significant oversight.

Also, the "Ox" disambiguation page does not refer to the animal.

I am not an expert in bovines. While I do have skill in editing, I have no knowledge of the Wikipedia system. Thus, I am reporting this here with the hope that someone who has both skills can make the necessary updates to these articles. (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ox conspicuously points to the article Cattle, which explains. The "Ox" disambiguation page has a conspicuous link to Ox. So your opinion and mine differ: in mine, no such change is needed. You're free to ask on Talk:Ox for this or that alteration; perhaps somebody there will agree with you that it's needed. -- Hoary (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Ox is a male bovine, it can't list a species, can it? An ox can be a Bos grunniens or a Bison bison, etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


how to ping anybody Saha86830 (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply link to their name, Saha86830, and sign your message (as I'm doing here). -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you use the [ reply ] link, there's a little-guy-with-a-plus button you can use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this website reliable?[edit] I found many Wikipedia articles cited this site and the site is very much popular and minimum 10 years old. Actually, I want to use this site for refference that's why I am asking that is this site reliable or not? Thanks Grabup (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Grabup. My guess is that most people here won't know either. The place to ask is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Hoary (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Hoary says. Searching the archives of that noticeboard, nobody seems to have asked about it before. The question is, is it a site with an editorial policy of checking facts, or does it just reproduce anything that comes its way? ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary,@ColinFine. Thanks for the answers. I asked this question there in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Grabup (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


how do you replace the images in a table? Edward Zeke Rivera (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Edward, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you'll need to be more explicit if you want a useful answer, because with what you have said so far, my answer is "the same way as you replace images anywhere else" - see Help:Pictures. Note that unless the images you want to use are already in Wikimedia Commons, you'll need to upload them, and that gets you into the thorny area of copyright. ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine WE ARE BORG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward Zeke Rivera, Welcome! Can you give us an example? And do you want to replace the images with images correctly uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, or random pics you found online, which is probably a no-no? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed & Welcomed to get a page Approved[edit]

This page about a fighter in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was deleted (now in Draft for 6 month reprieve) the main issues being:

1. Yitzhak is not important enough to be included in Wikipedia
2. Insufficient references
3. Too much on the events surrounding Yitzhak's actions compared to the Yitzhak himself.
4. Style

Point 1. I attempted to deal with this point here but got no response.

Point 2. I have used every source available,namely 5 books where his actions are described and I have edited the reference section etc.

Point 3. Re-edited and slashed to a minimum ( I think)

Point 4. Tried as much as possible but found the instructions and guides baffling.

I have received no response about the changes I have made since the original article.
I am unsure of what else to do to get it approved. Any and all guidance welcome.
JSKutcher (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JSKutcher, consider asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, it can't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linked data project[edit]

Hi I am in my first MSc year in GIS. I am in a project linking data from OSM and Wikipedia. I have to link osm residential construction sites to their Wikipedia page. To do so I have used a tool to transform OSM data into RDF so that I can link to wikidata and eventually wikipedia. I uploaded a very simple and basic article about Kruisvaartkade Draft:Kruisvaartkade. Is it possible to generate a wikidata page from this when it is still draft? LefterisKaltsas (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why you'd need a novel wikidata page when many already exist, also there's little chance of that draft ever becoming an article. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Zindor (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-advertising" in user page[edit]

Hey, I recently created my own user page User:Rhinocesus - Wikipedia in which I briefly mention my twitter page (because contacting me via twitter will probably give a faster response then my talk page). Is this allowed? Rhinocesus (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhinocesus and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, I will remind you that Wikipedia is not a place for self-advertising. I think you are new in Wikipedia where you are not aware of such Wikipedia policies. If your eidts were promotional then you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please be patient or don't get panic, I will send some useful links in your talk pages. That guides you on how Wikipedia works. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, Rhinocesus. The guidance regarding what may be placed on userpages is at WP:UPYES. This specifically says that links to a personal website are OK provided they are not used in a promotional way. However, the guidance also cautions that such personal information, once published, is very difficult to remove, so you should be cautious about your privacy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Standard of Article Creation[edit]

I am confused by the double standard in creating new articles on Wikipedia.

I created Nano Energy based on hundreds of articles on Wikipedia for similar journals with the same set of references, but it was moved to draft. I raised the concern to the person who rejected it to restore it.

I re-submitted Draft:Exaly (I had no contribution to it) which already had several reliable and independent references (mostly from universities and academics), and it was rejected twice. I can give you tons of examples of similar articles on Wikipedia with much fewer independent references.

I understand that each reviewer/administrator interprets the requirements differently, but it is not justified to reject something when there are similar articles on Wikipedia. It is like the Common law in the justice system.

What is the strategy of Wikipedia for having a uniform encyclopedia?

I wanted to create the articles for missing journals, but I know I will encounter the same problem.MojoDiJi (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it is not justified to reject something when there are similar articles on Wikipedia. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unfortunately, few editors are motivated to plough through the thousaneds and thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles improving or deleting them. (I include myself here). ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine, thanks for the link that indeed supported my point. An encyclopedia should be comprehensive at the level it is designed.MojoDiJi (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy is not for articles to be "uniform", particularly if that means uniformly bad. We have standards we enforce, and those standards have been rising. Certainly, there are articles created years ago which would not be accepted if they were created today. If you come across such an article, you can work to improve it so that it meets current standards. Or, if you believe that would not be possible, you can propose it for deletion. (I'm surprised you got Nano Energy accepted. It seems to me to offer no evidence that its subject is notable.)   13:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Maproom (talk)
Maproom, you surprised me by questioning the notability of Nano Energy (which is now proposed for deletion). If Nano Energy is not notable enough for Wikipedia, there are at least hundreds of journals on Wikipedia which should be deleted (I can name tens of them on the top of my head). Out of curiosity, what is your standard for the notability of a research journal? Nano Energy has received over 320,000 citations so far. What is the purpose of a scholarly journal? What impact a journal should have on the progress of research to be notable? MojoDiJi (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nano Energy may, for all I know, be notable. (I'm inclined to suspect not, because it's published by Elsevier and has a title comprising unrelated subjects, like the notorious Chaos, Solitons & Fractals; but I've made no attempt to check.) The article does not establish notability through WP:GNG: it does not cite sources showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Such sources may exist, but you haven't cited any. If there's a standard for notability based on impact factor, I'm unaware of it. If you are aware of such a standard, you should mention it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano Energy.   Maproom (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
maproom, Whether it is a written rule or not, people who are familiar with scholarly journals will judge an article about a journal based on its reputation (which is somehow represented by its impact factor). This is exactly my point. Someone who is familiar with scholarly journals should judge such articles. You may argue that there is a one single rule for the secondary sources of all Wikipedia articles. Then, there are at least hundreds of articles about journals which do not meet those criteria. In my practice, Wikipedia editors are excessively aggressive towards new articles without having the expertise. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding information boxes[edit]

Hey there, I was wondering if anybody could help me learn how to insert the boxes one traditionally sees at the very top right of an article, the one with all the info and whatnot on the article in question. I'm writing up Draft:Star Wars: Young Jedi Adventures, and think it requires one of those.

Thank you all so very much, AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AdmiralAckbar1977: Welcome to the Teahouse. You are thinking about infoboxes, and they are not required for articles. They help consolidate information about the subject, but by no means are they required. I would focus on making sure the draft is good enough to be accepted before even thinking about that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello AdmiralAckbar1977 and welcome to Wikipedia. Help pages about many of the items you'll need as an editor can be found by typing "WP:" followed by the name of what you are looking for into the "Search Wikipedia" box. So WP:INFOBOX will get you to the right place. That said, I think it is a bit WP:TOOSOON for your draft to be accepted as it refers to something only supposed to happen in 2023 and not yet widely discussed in reliable independent sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a draft page/article[edit]

Hi, Could you please kindly let me know the process how a draft page gets published as a Wikipage permanently? And how long does it take? What does the submitter need to do? Thank you. NepLekhak (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant courtesy link: Draft:Badri Bahadur Karki. (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @NepLekhak, and welcome to the Teahouse! Before being moved to the mainspace (becoming an article), a draft should be submitted and reviewed through the WP:Articles for Creation (AfC) process. An AfC reviewer will then decide whether or not to Accept the draft article, decline the draft article for later improvement and resubmission, or reject the draft completely. This process can take some time due to the high backlog of about 3,000 articles, although it is unlikely it will take any more than 4 months between each submission. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what HenryTemplo said, articles aren't necessarily permanent once they enter mainspace. They can be nominated for deletion if they don't meet certain guidelines or by editor consensus at Articles for deletion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing question: Company rebrands[edit]


General editing question. A company has rebranded, and the Wikipedia document still references the previous brand name - whilst the document references the new, and in the infobox references the old brand name as "formerly". My assumption is that this document title (and reference URL) won't change, unless there is substantial need/cause for further disambiguation amongst other namesakes. Am I correct in this assumption? This is the article in question: Proton Technologies - I saw the question raised in the contrib notes and this got me thinking as I can't see any direct guidance on this. Taylordanrw ([[User talk:|talk]]) 17:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Taylordanrw. I verified the current name and moved the article to Proton AG. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article and category that do not stick to subject[edit]

The article Dichotomy is supposedly about dichotomy in logic, yet contains a slew of example from outside logic. I'd like to remove the lot of them, and if someone wishes to reuse those in a different article, then that's great. However, if the article is to be limited to logic, then perhaps it could be retitled something like Dichotomy in logic, or Dichotomy (Logic)? Also, one of the Categories to which it has been assigned is Greek words and phrases, but Dichotomy is not a Greek word, it is a word with Greek etymology. In fact, the entire Category suffers from this confusion, as it is a hodgepodge of Greek words, words that are same in both languages, English words with Greek roots, and English translations of Greek phrases. I'd like to delete at least all the English words, unless 'close enuf' is what to aim for. Knoitalno (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first paragraph. Dichotomy starts off well, by saying what it's about. It sticks to that subject for a while, and then wanders off into other uses of the word. I consider that inappropriate. An article should be about a topic, not a word and its various uses.   Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Maproom (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I use the talk section of Wikipedia?[edit]

How do ask a question, or reply to somebody?

Requity (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Requity. If you want to ask a specific editor a question, you can do so on that editor's talk page. If you have a question about how to improve an article, you can ask on the article talk page. If you have a question about a policy, you can ask on the talk page for that policy. And so on. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Requity! You can ask a question by clicking the new section button on the top of the page. You can reply by clicking the reply button next to a comment. Always remember to sign your posts with the ~~~~! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 19:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Requity you can read more at Help:Talk pages 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 19:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 Thank you!
Requity (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about animals[edit]

I don't see a list of songs about animals, though I see several other lists about categories having numerous members, such as List of songs about cities. Am I missing something? If not, then what should be done to start one?2603:6010:4E42:500:55A1:1870:CE12:CB2E (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. It seems that nobody has gotten around to it. Register an account and start editing. After four days have gone by and you have made at least ten edits, you will be eligible to create the list article. Read Your first article for guidance. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grr...I wrote so much you beat me to making a reply[Joke]. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 19:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, and Welcome! There is the page List of songs about animal rights but no, there is not a page about songs about animals so as a turtle I am very sad [Joke]. If you are willing to put in the time and energy, be bold and make one! However, I would strongly recommend making an account and spending more time on Wikipedia and learning more skills before your right an article. (I have 1000+ edits and when I started I wanted to make an article. You can see how far I got in my sandbox.) Once you have decided to and you are ready, read Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. In the mean time, create an account and try working at the Task Center! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 19:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make my signature not look ugly.[edit]

I've seen people on Wikipedia with stunning signatures, whilst my signature looks like this: Requity (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Requity. Please read WP:SIGNATURE#Customizing your signatureSIGNATURE. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of the expertise of Wikipedia editors[edit]

I understand Wikipedia runs based on consensus, but I see some editors make irreversible changes without relevant expertise. For instance,

I created Nano Energy, which is proposed for deletion (Talk:Nano_Energy). By any standard, Nano Energy is among the top 5% (if not 1%) scholarly journals. For example, the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator level listed it as a distinguished journal (see Wikidata).

I re-submitted Draft:Exaly in which the contributors (I was not one of them) provided examples of high profile authors who used the scientometric analysis of their publications in their CVs. The editor, who rejected it, compared it with someone who goes to a music concert. Anyone with academic experience knows how much academics are sensitive in including reliable resources in their CVs.

I believe each category has its own standard (there are more secondary references for Instagram model comparing with scientists). All articles in a category should be judged by the same standard by people who know the field. Being an experienced Wikipedia editor does not qualify someone to judge all topics. MojoDiJi (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MojoDiJi, we have inclusion criteria to assess against and we do so in a neutral way; you don't have to be a subject matter expert and sometimes that can be a hindrance because we look at notability in a broad sense not under a narrow light. I suggest you express your concerns at the article's deletion nomination as we have no control over the process here. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts, Zindo, but I beg to disagree. You should be an expert to judge the significance of references. For instance, there are lots of media coverage for a junior politician, which can be used as secondary sources; but there are rarely articles about successful scientists. You cannot judge the availability of secondary sources equally. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MojoDiJi That's why we have different definitions of notability for different subjects. A scientist would have to pass the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC, while politicians have to pass the criteia at WP:NPOLITICIAN. If they don't meet either of those specialised criteria they may also qualify for an article if the pass the general WP:NBASIC criteria for a biography, or any of the "this person is automatically notable" criteria at WP:ANYBIO. (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point. There should be separate notability criteria for scholar journals. If not, people who are not familiar with scholarly journals should not take the action/make the judgement. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MojoDiJi There is, see WP:NJOURNALS and the specific criteria at WP:JOURNALCRIT. If you include a reliable source that shows that the journal passes one of the three criteria laid out there it is essentially guaranteed to be kept if nominated for deletion. (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for that. I was looking for this page. Clearly, Nano Energy meets the requirement. Therefore, the editor who proposed for deletion was at fault. Taking an action without reviewing the rules in place. This is the concern I am trying to address. Unnecessary actions waste other people's time. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MojoDiJi Yes, the nomination was clearly incorrect, three established users have commented there and there is currently unanimous support for keeping it. Notability on wikipedia is an extremely complex and unintuitive concept with the rules being different for essentially every subject, so it's not surprising that mistakes get made occasionally. It's a real shame that you seem to have been bitten quite badly by having your first article nominated for deletion, I hope it hasn't put you off completely. Have you considered joining a wikiproject? Wikipedia:WikiProject Science is full of people interested in writing about scientific topics, they can be a great resource to get subject specific help. (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should add though that the subject specific do see a lot more activity than the general one, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. You were very supportive. I might have overreacted. MojoDiJi (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there're far less useful sources for Instagram models - or really anyone whose fame comes from social media, web videos, or eSports - than you realise. And WP:NACADEMIC exists because of the issues surrounding sourcing for academics, especially when WP:Biographies of living persons is also a factor.
As to Exaly, we do not accept notability-by-osmosis, and our audience hardly understands what the hell a scientometric analysis or an h-index is. We're written for the layperson, and the article should reflect that by just summarising what the journal is. WP:Notability (academic journals), while not a guideline or policy, explains what reviewers are looking for when it comes to these sorts of publications.
This looks more to me like a gripe that would have been easily dealt with if you had bothered to do research on Wikipedia before jumping headfirst into the literal hardest thing to do here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are many news outlets such as The Sun (s credible secondary source) which publish an article whenever an Instagram model post a racy photo. The link did not mention anything about notability by osmosis. My point is that maybe you need to start accepting it for cases like this. You make the same mistake as the editor I mentioned. Here the authors are not the users. By linking they, as reliable and independent professionals, testify that the analysis of their publications is correct. Anyhow, I did not devise this type of referencing. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MojoDiJi The sun (and many such similar publications, like the daily mail) is considered a depreciated source, see WP:THESUN. This means that editors have deleted essentially all references to the sun except those used in a small number of situations (like WP:ABOUTSELF, see this search for the last 20 [6]), it is highly discouraged as a reference and coverage in the sun does not count towards notability. (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was just an example that celebrities get more media coverage than scientists. However, it was good to know. Thanks :) MojoDiJi (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MojoDiJi We don't give experts special rights to decide on notability, partly this is because we have no way of verifying who anyone is (see, for example, the Essjay controversy) and partly because everyone can find it difficult to acknowledge their own biases - if you use a piece of software every day you might think it is notable enough for an article, but from an outside observer's perspective it might be that the coverage to support an article simply doesn't exist.
The journal article deletion nomination appears to be frivolous and I fully expect it to be kept, so the deletion nomination process is working as intended. Likewise the draft on the search engine appears to be full of not great sources and the decline appears to be correct. Compare the sourcing in that draft to things like Scopus, Google Scholar or Microsoft Academic Search. The sources in Draft:Exaly are almost entirely people using or mentioning the search engine, as opposed to coverage of said search engine. The reception section should cite some kind of third party coverage of the reception of Exaly, you might use a news article on the search engine or a bit of coverage from a book, for example, rather than finding individual examples of mentions and combining them together (this falls afoul of WP:NOR), citations 7-14 do not show significant coverage of the topic and, in my opinion, should probably be removed. Citation no 6 appears to be to a research paper, but it is actually a citation to a user submitted comment on that paper - this is not usable as a source as it is WP:USERGENERATED. In citation no 5 the only mention Exaly is a one word link in the "other resources" section - there is no coverage of this search engine at all there. Citation 4 is a WordPress blog, while the author here is an expert in the field and this can probably be used for information it doesn't really show notability. Citation 3 is the website's own about page, and is not independent coverage. Citation no 2 appears at first glance to be a university writing about the search software, but a further search shows that it's just a copy paste of Citation 1 appears to be a good length piece of coverage by an independent party and is exactly the kind of source that is needed, one or two more sources like that are what is needed in this article.
If you are an academic having a go at writing wikipedia articles you might want to have a read of Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia and Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics, both of which were written by academics to give advice on making the transition from academic writing to wikipedia writing. (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I highly appreciate your review. If you rejected the article, I would say it was an expert review. But comparing high profile authors with attending a music concert is not acceptable. I am mostly interested in creating articles for journals than Exaly, and find it ridiculous to see high impact journals nominated for deletion. However, since you mentioned; I need to add two points. First, if you look at the pages you lined such as Scopus, Google Scholar, etc., they have not much references when their articles were created. The references were added over 10-15 years. Second, you did not scrutinize the references thoroughly. For instance, Citation 6 is not a user comment. It is stated by the original author of the paper. I agree with you that Citations 7-14 should be removed but comparing them with going to a music concert is unacceptable. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that the OP's statement that "some editors make irreversible changes" is incorrect. The actions here are anything but irreversible. Nano_Energy was draftified as not being ready for article space. It was then moved back to article space and improved. Another editor has now nominated it for deletion, and that's being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano Energy, where several editors have already expressed opinions that it should not be deleted.
And Draft:Exaly was not "rejected". It was "declined" three times. There's a big difference. "Rejected" means it is not believed that the topic will qualify for an article. "Declined" means the article is not ready for article space, and the reviewer (in this case reviewers) leave suggestions on what needs to be fixed. Meters (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meters, I still believe the changes are irreversible. The original author of Draft:Exaly gave up. I re-submitted it though I had no significant contribution. I give up now and draft will be deleted. I give up creating new articles for missing journals when I see the articles I created are unfairly suggested for deletion. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Draft:Exaly is abandoned it will not be deleted until it has been untouched for six months, And even if that happens it can be restored at any time by any editor simply by asking for it to be restored. How is that irreversible? I already told you that your article Nano_Energy is under discussion and so far several editors have supported keeping. Why don't you work to improve the article, and contribute to the AFD instead of simply throwing your hands up in the air and giving up? Meters (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meters, as you see I did comment (though in the wrong place :D). We all are volunteers with no personal gain. It is frustrating to see that you spend time to help the community and instead your contribution is treated unfairly. I follow the rules to enhance Wikipedia. I am not here to fight to prove the value of my contribution. If I had created a controversial article, I would expected to see the result of consensus. But when I created something that was strangely missing in Wikipedia, it is disappoint to see it is considered for deletion because someone without the required knowledge or reason felt this way. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MojoDiJi One of the things you have to bear in mind is that the minimum standards that articles need to survive has increased drastically over the last 20 years. "what wikipedia is not", which removed some of the worst of the early content from the project wasn't written down until nearly 6 months after the project started [7]. The concept that "information needs sources" wasn't actually written until mid 2003, two and a half years after the project started [8] The concept that things should demonstrate significant coverage in third party sources wasn't written down until late 2006 [9] nearly 5 years after the project started. Even when written down a lot of these policies weren't really enforced properly until the late 2000's, when the fallout from things like the Seigenthaler biography incident forced editors to start enforcing content policies more thoroughly. There are a lot (as in millions) of articles from the early days of wikipedia which do not meet modern quality standards, but cleaning them all up is a monumental task, there is currently a "sweep" wikiproject in the works though that aims to clean up the worst of them.
Although the comment in citation 6 is by the original author of the paper it has not been through the same peer review and editorial process as the main paper and as such cannot be considered to be equal, especially in terms of things like reliability. Mentioning something in a discussion about a paper you wrote is also very different from mentioning it in the paper submitted for peer review from a notability standpoint. (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of your views. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with the article to be worked on for approval[edit]

I have a strong belief that all my articles are best on people that require the wikipedia kind of recognition

However the rules of notability do not seem that clear for me maybe to understand

Aanywell wisher will be grately appreciated

thank you Andrew Kayiza (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kayiza Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this refers to Draft:Prince Abul Alqasim Ssemuggala Mulanga Mutatembwa Lukeberwakutta Kimera. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone, and is not meant as a form of recognition for someone(there are, in fact, good reasons to not want an article about one's self). A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the personm, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Being a prince may very well be notable, but only if independent sources write about him, without his involvement or that of associates. Your draft has virtually no sources. Wikipedia is interested in what other people unaffiliated with the Prince say about him. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Joanna Langfield Page Edits[edit]

Please review latest changes.

Hello, I made changes to the page I am writing called Joanna Langfield. The last comments I received on it was that the way it was written currently was that it was not compliant with how you would like, so I made the changes.

If you can please review so it can (hopefully!) be published now that would be greatly appreciated. GregWikiMake (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Joanna Langfield.   Maproom (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The enormous list in section "Notable Works and Mentions" is mostly trivial and adds virtually nothing to the draft except an air of desperation. Theroadislong (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GregWikiMake. According to MOS:SURNAME, she should be referred to by her surname following the first mention of her. Remove all those extra "Joannas". The "Interviews" section is unreferenced and it therefore comes off as shameless namedropping. Unreferenced sections are a red flag for reviewers. This would only merit inclusion if discussed by an independent reliable source. I agree with Theroadislong's comment about the "Notable Works and Mentions". It is a disjointed and jarring list of factoids. You need to develop the skill of writing in an encyclopedic fashion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing and I can remove the Joanna's.
I do want to make clear however that I know for a fact that, because she is my mother and I spoke to her about this (and that I have already disclosed), she did interview all those celebrities.
When Joanna first started on the radio 40 years ago nothing was digital or online. I have called many MANY people about this to try and get references, to no avail.
With all that being said, how do you believe I should write the Natoble Works and Mentions section? GregWikiMake (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

trying to anchor a reference and it won't anchor[edit]

Reference 19 is supposed to go to its anchor and it won't. What am I doing wrong? Wikipedia:Sandbox#Governor_and_federal_judge and Wikipedia:Sandbox#References. If it reverts back on you by the time you get my question, this is the link to the old version. --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: Since you've stricken through your post, it's probably fair to assume that you figured things out yourself. If that's the case, then great. For future reference, you can probably just remove your question in such a case if you want as long as nobody has replied to it and it wasn't posted too long ago. You can also strike through you post, but probably should follow the instructions in WP:REDACT if that's what you want to do. Just leave the section heading as is and strike through everything up to your signature. A subsequest post stating you've sorted things out would also probably be a good thing. The way you tried to strike your post created a formating problem that made it seem as if your post was part of a completely unrelated question asked by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to resolve "Category:Rejected AfC submissions"[edit]

Hi, I need help resolving this issue with a wikipedia page that was rejected. What should I do? MaryamZahedi (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MaryamZahedi Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help to know which draft you are talking about, as your account has no edits(other than here), but generally a rejection means that nothing further can be done. If the draft was "declined", then something can possibly be done. 331dot (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for getting back, the original submission was sent with a different account and I'm here to help figure out how we could publish a new page on Wikipedia. It does meet all the guidelines and I don't know what needs to change in order to have it go through the next time. Really appreciate your input. MaryamZahedi (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MaryamZahedi Again, it is difficult to help you without knowing what the draft is. Who is "we"? Do you represent an organization? Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia and its terminologies and trying to help a friend who is also new to this, and has created and submitted an article that was published on instead of wikipedia and I'm trying to understand what needs to be done next time to help so that it goes through. Trying to figure out what caused the rejection so that it doesn't happen again. The article ended up being published under the name "Bioenergy Economy" in the everybodywiki website but this chat is not letting me link the URL here since it's an external site. MaryamZahedi (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MaryamZahedi. The draft in question is Draft:Bioenergy economy. It still exists. It has not been rejected. It is not in any such category. Instead, it has been declined, which is different. The draft has lots of problems and several reviewers have offered good advice about how to improve it. Read all that advice and heed it. Study Your first article and follow that advice as well. If you have a Conflict of interest, be sure to declare it. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The original author is User:Ghz91. Cullen328 (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is super helpful to know. Thank you for referring me to that page, I will take a closer look and read through it all. Thanks! MaryamZahedi (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
regarding everybodywiki, it seems that bioenergy economy's draft has been forked there. it's not officially related to wikipedia or any of its sister wikis, and has been recognized as a fork of wikipedia that scrapes pages using a bot (which is the case with your draft). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that could happen, thanks for informing on that! MaryamZahedi (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Millar (baseball player)[edit]

Go to the article, go to: Replacement player section. Reference needs to be cleaned up. Thank you for your time. Theairportman33531 (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The 1st reference was missing a close tag. Thanks.Slywriter (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Is there an administrator who can delete a previous edit summary I made that has a spelling mistake or fix the spelling mistake in the edit summary? I am unsure how to complete this request with a dummy edit, if possible. (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries cannot be changed once the edit is saved. They can be deleted, but this will not be done because just because it contains typos or spelling mistakes. (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minor errors in edit summaries are not worth worrying about. If you make a significant error in an edit summary, like misspelling the word "tuck", then you can use the technique described at Help:Dummy edit to clarify what you really meant. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Sisters[edit]

All 7 dots on the Seven Sisters Colleges map are in the wrong places. I have no idea how to fix it. 2600:6C4A:427F:E1BB:61E2:A659:C1B5:F90D (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears you would fix the map on Seven Sisters (colleges) by fixing the coordinate location in the Wikidata entry for each college, such as d:Q167733 for Barnard College. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Library books as a reliable source[edit]

Are library books a reliable source even though I read them? Should I use the text from the book I read to edit on articles? It is called research. This will be a good idea to help improve Wikipedia and contribute on building an encyclopedia. Books and literature tend to have more information than the Wikipedia itself. Respond when you are ready. -- (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Books can be excellent sources but you must develop the ability to evaluate the reliability of any given book. Does the publisher have a good reputation? Does the author have a good reputation? If you have determined that a specific book is reliable, then it does not matter where you read it. Libraries books are fine. Books from new or used bookstores are fine. Books that you can read online are fine. Bokks you borrowed from a friend are fine. If you pull a book out of a garage can, then that book is fine, as long as the author and the publisher are reliable. Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 This IP is an editor avoiding a block. They were blocked for a year as 2601:205:C002:D1E0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for long term trolling, disruptive editing and vandalism, they are currently avoiding their block as (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and various IP addresses in the (talk · contribs · WHOIS) range. I opened an SPI about this a week or so ago but they're a bit backlogged there at the moment, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ If you look at the edits of those two IP ranges you can see the obvious overlap in topics and pages and the good hand bad hand editing, e.g. they vandalise the page Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia as 204.129 [10] and leave some trolling on it's talk page [11] before showing up again as 76.20 to do some good hand editing [12]. (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to get a printable version of Encyclopedia.[edit]

Since Wikipedia Book Creator has been closed, do you have any reason why it is closed? If so, how will I get my own personal book with selected articles and have it printed on PediaPress? Any strategy? How can I find the way to create my own Wikipedia book? Thank you! (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In brief, that project did not prove to be viable. PediaPress still seems to be in business, but they are no longer in a partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation. Also, there are countless self-publishing platforms available that will print a book to order for you. I used a service like that recently, that claimed to collect the best photos that I have posted on Facebook in recent years. Their algorithmic bot did a great job of selecting photos, although about 3% of them were incongruous. The algorithm clearly favors photos of flowers and babies. That was fine with me. Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]