Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

 Courtesy link: Talk:Max Schreck § Nazi Germany

This issue arose from a series of repeated edits at Max Schreck, but its resolution should have broader implications. I don't see anything about this particular issue at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Germany), but maybe it's been addressed before, and I just don't know how to find the discussion. If there is a guideline or discussion that provides a clear answer for me, could someone please link me to it?

The issue is this: should "Nazi Germany" replace "Germany" for all events occurring in the country between 1933 and 1945, irrespective of whether they involved the Nazi party or the German government in any way? In this instance, Max Schreck, the actor, died in Germany in 1936. He was not, as far as I know, a member of the Nazi party, and the article about him suggests no connection with the Nazis or the German government at the time of his death. His place of death is normally given simply as "Germany", but various editors—or perhaps one determined anonymous editor—keeps changing this to "Nazi Germany". I, and occasionally other editors, have been reverting this change as improper or even vandalism, but I'd like to be able to point to a policy—or at least a consensus—against it, since logic alone doesn't seem to be satisfactory.

I'm not a mind reader and can only speculate as to whether the other editors' motivation is to tie Schreck to the Nazis, or to say that everything in Germany after 1933 was tainted by the Nazis, or just some kind of adamant insistence that "Nazi Germany" should be regarded as the proper name of the country from 1933 to 1945. I understand that when discussing political and military history, the Nazi regime, its systematic repression of minorities, and various topics related to World War II and the Holocaust, it frequently makes sense to refer to "Nazi Germany". But that wasn't the name of the country at any period of time, either in German or English; it's more of an alternative name that carries certain implications that simply aren't relevant to all subjects touching on Germany. And using that name when there seems to be no clear connection to the Nazis or their government seems misleading.

The most recent editor to make this change and be reverted then changed it to "German Reich", which at least has some claim to officialness, though it still seems wrong to me, as it wasn't the common name of the country in English, but would only have appeared in very formal contexts—and the reason for preferring that name still seems suspect to me: an attempt to call attention to the Nazis and their government in an article that isn't concerned with either.

I could understand using "German Empire" between 1871 and 1918. I don't think that term is as frought or weighed down with baggage, and it has some advantages in defining a historical period. But saying "Nazi Germany" as though it were the name of the country strikes me as like insisting that articles—or their infoboxes—refer to "Red China" or "Communist" China, rather than "China", or "Apartheid South Africa", or the "Jim Crow South" in articles that don't concern communism, segregation, or racial discrimination. I think it's commentary, and unencyclopedic. And if there's a consensus about this, then it would probably apply to hundreds of articles about people, places, or events occurring in various places during particular spans of time. P Aculeius (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I share your point of view that we had to write "Nazi Germany" only if this is necessary for the context.

I think it's irrelevant to write "Nazi Germany" for example because someone died in "Germany" during this period in the biographical article about the person who died there.

I think to "Max Schreck" mentionned in your message.

When "Charles de Gaulle" is born in 1890 in "Lille". At the time it wasn't the "French Fifth Republic" but the "third".

Do we write in the infobox he died in 1970 during the "fifth" ? No

Do we write in the infobox he is born in 1890 during the "third" ? No Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The Third Republic is very far from an analogous example. The point is, that Nazi Germany is seen as an extremist aberration in the history of Germany, which may merit, in some situations, use of the words "Nazi Germany". Rather than mentioning the French Third Republic, which is not the kind of aberration that Nazi Germany was, a much better analogy would be with someone like Pierre Laval or Pierre-Etienne Flandin, leaders of the Nazi-collaborationist regime in France in World War II. It's interesting to note that the fr-wiki articles call Flandin the deputy head of the régime de Vichy (under Marshall Pétain), and calls Pierre Laval "a central figure of collaboration during the French occupation by Nazi Germany", whereas English Wikipedia calls Laval "Prime Minister of France" and Flandin "Deputy Prime Minister of France" during the war years. A better example would help. Mathglot (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Mathglot concerning the message of "MARCH/08/2025" at "11:18 UTC".

You bring a good point between differences on "Wikipedia in English" and "Wikipedia in French even if this is not the subject.

Also , each Wikipedia have its own policy because they are independent of each others.

"Max Schrek" and "Charles de Gaulle" have something they share.

They had the particularity to be born in the same country in which they died but it wasn't the same political regime when they are born and when they died.

Yes , "Nazi Germany" is seen as an extremist aberration in the history of Germany but in my point of view it doesn't matter because "Schrek" is born and died in the same country.

On the article about him , it's indicated in the infobox he's born in "Berlin" , "Kingdom of Prussia" in the "German Empire".

Therefore , I don't oppose we add the fact he died in "Nazi Germany" even if it's only a historiographic name and not the official name.

Who name this country by its official name when we're talking about Germany of that time ?

As he's born and died in the same country. I think it's unuseful but why not ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There is a logic to it, if Nazi Germany is considered it's own (version of a) country, and it can be. There is a guideline somewhere recommending "use name of country at the time of birth [of subject/whatever]". Making a WP:OTHERCONTENT comparison, Gandhi and Deepak Chopra was born in British India. And there is of course the WP-tedious example of Nikola Tesla. OTOH, I remember writing somewhere "He was born in Vienna 1944 in..." Huh. Baggage, indeed. I went with "present day Austria." MOS:GEO may be worth a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I didn't claim that it's completely devoid of reason; just that it's not an appropriate distinction. "British India" existed for well over a century, and can't really be said to tell readers anything about the people who lived and died there, although in general we would probably still say "India" unless for some reason we needed to call attention to British rule or the country's pre-1948 borders. "Nazi Germany" was never the name of the country; neither the official name, nor the local name, nor the common name in English. While referring to it as such in the context of articles referring to the Nazis, their rule and policies was and remains common, then as now the "common name" was still "Germany". And there is nothing about the subject of this article that connects him to the Nazis or, as far as I can tell, makes the fact that they had taken power in 1933 relevant. I don't see anything in MOS:GEO that addresses this issue. P Aculeius (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A prime example of the sort of small details people argue about regularly on wikipedia :). Technically either would be fine, but I tend to agree that in the infobox it is not necessary in this case. Polyamorph (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Prime example, yeah. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

My understanding was that you objected to [[Nazi Germany|German Reich]] being in the infobox, so the article didn't say "Nazi Germany" either, though commonly we use the article title when we link places and stuff. WP appears to judge "Nazi German" to be the WP:COMMONNAME of the article, if that is wrong, you can try to get it changed. IMO the link makes sense since per infobox he was born in German Empire, but local consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, now it's been put back that way, and this discussion is the justification. It now says that he died in the "German Reich" rather than "Germany", and if anyone clicks on that, they go to "Nazi Germany" and see a nice big swastika flag. So encyclopedic. P Aculeius (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Not anymore. Undone, not for any pro- or con reasoning here, but strictly due to the misleading piped link. Mathglot (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

My understanding is that, to the extent Schreck had anything at all to say about the Nazis, it was critical. EX: he performed in the anti-Nazi satire The Pepperbox. However the use of the phrase "Nazi Germany" is not implying he was a Nazi and instead helps to contextualize his engagement with the Bohemian art scene and the concomitant minor engagement with the German left as an act of dissidence. Simonm223 (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't see how a direct link to "Nazi Germany" is any improvement, if the argument is that "German Reich" means the exact same thing but without the word "Nazi". The infobox should point to "Germany", which was the common name for the country in English from 1918 to 1945, and since 1990. It's not enough that the infobox doesn't say "Nazi", it shouldn't direct people to "Nazi Germany". "Nazi Germany" is an article focused on the Nazi regime, not the country in general; if someone died in the United States in 1954, we wouldn't put "Eisenhower Administration" in the infobox, any more than we'd put "Jim Crow South" for someone who died in Alabama. P Aculeius (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We are going around in circles. You are correct, we would not put "Jim Crow South" for someone who died in Alabama but your reasoning is faulty and that example is invalid for the same reason given previously why saying we wouldn't put that "someone died during the 'Third French Republic'" was an invalid example. See this diff for the explanation of both cases. Mathglot (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@P Aculeius Concerning your message from "MARCH/11/2025" at "02:16 UTC".

"Eisenhower administration" is a defunct administration of a "political regime" still existing in my eyes.

USA have the same constitution since the end of his administration even if there was some amendments like the last in effect since 1992. The 27th amendment. The constitution was amended not changed for another one.

Some people consider that "United States of America" have the same political regime since 1789 because the constitution is in force since this year. I'm among these but I don't know what is consensus on "Wikipedia in English" on this matter if there are one.

I consider this is the same political regime since 1789 even if there was changes in this country (Political , Economical , Social , Cultural etc...) over time like the 19th amendment that grants women the right to vote.

This is why we would'nt write "Eisenhower administration" for someone who died in the "United States" in the course of the year 1954. This administration wasn't a country or a political regime.

In the case of "Max Schreck". He is born in "German Empire" and died in "Nazi Germany".

These two things are facts. If we say he died in "Nazi Germany". It doesn't means we say he was a sympathiser or a member of "NSDAP".

This is a precision about the political regime in force when he was born and when he died. Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

Do you think the game is notable ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Lordofcallofduty: Cool it with the personal attacks.Have you considered starting a wiki for this game on Fandom? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I want to propose a new policy. Where is the right place. Mast303 (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello @Mast303. WP:VPPR sounds like the place you're looking for, though I really recommend going to WP:VPI first to see how people think of your ideas first before you propose them. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I suggest you also take a look at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals since many ideas have been discussed before. Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, Mast303. Could I ask what the new policy is meant to do? Making a new policy page is pretty uncommon, but there may be a better way to achieve whatever the end goal is, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Mast303, before you propose a new policy, have you noticed that the page where new policies are proposed has 217 archive pages? It's not unlikely that whatever new proposal you have in mind, may have already been thought about and proposed before. You would be well-advised to search the archives, to see what the rea○しろまるtions were, to previous proposals similar to yours. You can search for them in the search box at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Where to find a reviewer for good article nomination?

Hello! Recently, I have nominated classical theism article for good article review. The article itself is extremely polished. I am confident that it would pass the review without many hurdles.

However, I am unable to find anyone willing to make a review. What can I do in this situation? Brent Silby (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi! Usually you just wait for someone to pick it up, which can take some time (1+ months). You can also ask around at the Theology WikiProoject. :) — E _F ⁵ 19:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@EF5 thanks for the advise! Unfortunately, the WikiProject that you've linked appears to be defunct. Brent Silby (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Brent Silby Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion or philosophy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Brent Silby, I read on the article's talk page: "Classical theism is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee. Nominated by Brent Silby (talk) at 18:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)". That's barely over a week ago. Why the rush? Meanwhile, you have work to do. For example, there are two references to one book by Anthony Kenny of over a hundred pages, yet you don't refer the reader to any pages within it. Yet none of the Good article criteria seems to mandate the provision of page numbers; and these criteria "are the only aspects that should be considered when assessing whether to pass or fail a GAN", so the article might get away with non-provision. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

May it not happen to your nomination. but there are >600 nominations waiting for reviewers, some as old as six months (sad). David notMD (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I was wondering what I would include in an article about a French Senate Election. Could someone tell me what I should include? Vestrix (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I suppose you could list the existing senators that are not recontesting. Any notable new candidates should be included. Any changes to the election process, incl number of electors should be documented. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Vestrix, you should summarize the significant coverage that the range of reliable, independent sources have devoted to the topic. If they repeatedly focus on some aspect of the election, then include that. If they do not bother to mention another aspect of the election, then neither should you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok, thank you to both of you! Vestrix (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

on this page Critical density the first link says Critical Density (Hacker) - what does this mean? I assume this means that someone has vandalised the page - is this correct? If so, is there any way to check what is happening with this page? Is there some way to find e.g. a talk page for it?

BennBluee (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@BennBluee, I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. -- asilvering (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

no worries, thanks! BennBluee (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am recently reading pages related to demographics in Tripura where I found that some pages related to ethnicity were vandalised by IP address users, I tried to revert but not know how to revert, please seniors editors help me. 獅眠洞 (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Like this page Halam tribe, I request u please tell me how to revert, to fight this type of vandalism, and disruptive edits 獅眠洞 (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@獅眠洞 I've reverted that article. This can be done by clicking the "undo" link in the page history or using a tool like WP:Twinkle or WP:Ultraviolet. Ultraodan (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

why do people keep vandalizing Wikipedia articles

i have the answer

The people who do are insecure and dumb and hate me for saying this the people who do deserve to rot in hell Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Lordofcallofduty i can agree, but please try to remain civil! :( ogusokumushi ^{( ୧ ‧+ ̊ 🎐 ⋅ )} 17:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

thank you sensei 獅眠洞 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

i am mobile user undo option is not showing. 獅眠洞 (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am a mobile editor, undo does not shown on my phone while I am visit the page 獅眠洞 (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@獅眠洞 You need to click on page history, where you can see all the edits and undo them. Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That option doesn't show 😭 獅眠洞 (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Your on phone don’t you have another device to do so?? If not I don’t think we can help Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have mi note 10s with miui 14version 獅眠洞 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am working on edits that have some of the information about them in another wikipedia page, which itself is comprised of multiple sources. Is it OK to reference another wikipedia page instead of rewriting all the source links I need from the referenced page? Sablc4747 (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sablc4747, in brief: no, never; per WP:WINARS. You must always use a reliable source, and as Wikipedia is self-published, it is by definition not a reliable source. Mathglot (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. Although Wikipedia pages do include credible links. So I was thinking that if an entry has several reliable links detailing something, it would be easier to reference the page than to copy paste the several relevant references from the other pages.

But I hear you. Point taken, Thanks :-). Sablc4747 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

it would be easier to reference the page than to copy paste the several relevant references from the other pages
There's no guarantee that those links will stay on the page forever. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

what i've always done is look for a sentence/section relevant to what im covering, and look at the cited article/paper/etc. for it, and go from there ogusokumushi ^{( ୧ ‧+ ̊ 🎐 ⋅ )} 17:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

So, India-Bangladesh film awards is a new article created by me. It's been up for over a day now and while it has been reviewed, no content assessment and grouping into wikiprojects yet for some reason. Also, the page has a Bengali equivalent but it says it's not available in other languages yet. Can someone do these? If so, thanks a lot!

Now can someone just... block this IP address? (@66.59.52.106). Take one look at it's contributions and it becomes clear it's just here to vandalize. They have been given many warnings by many people including me but never listens. I found a total of 4 actually good edits by this IP, even then, 2 of those are unverifiable. So I see no reason to not block this IP sometime in the future. Thanks. Yelps (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Yelps: I've done the rating / WikiProjects. This is something you can also do yourself.

If you let me know the bn.wiki article, I'll link it for you (again, you can do this yourself also, from the 'Tools' menu).

I don't see, based on a cursory glance at least, sufficient level of vandalism from that IP which would justify blocking it. In the future, you can report suspected vandals to WP:AIV. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

okay, the bn. Wiki article is ভারত বাংলাদেশ চলচ্চিত্র পুরস্কার. And since you mentioned I can do the rating and linking to other languages for myself, how exactly do I do them for Future articles I create? And I guess you're right the IP doesn't have enough vandalism to warrant a block, but it might be time in the near future. Again, thanks for the help. I really appreciate it. Yelps (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This may depend on how you access Wikipedia, which skin you're using, what extra tools you have installed, etc., but the way I do the linking to other language versions and rating is from the 'Tools' menu, 'Edit interlanguage links' and 'Rater', respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The easiest way to rate articles and add WikiProjects is to install the WP:RATER tool. Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have made several amendments to the Max Verstappen page. Every single one was reverted. Some changes only added clarity as the existing source was misquoted, others breaking up confusing sentences that were badly constructed (covering too many topics at one time), one tidying up a confusing timeline (the events interjecting the sentence did not happen 'after' the main point as projected in the poorly worded sentence). One change only added a year into a sentence to aid the clarity of determining which season the sentence was referring to as the section covered multiple years. All good editing practice. Who is protecting the Max Verstappen entry with such vigour? We owe it to the readers to make the content as clear as possible and to accurately reflect the source reference material. Also every entry I made that quoted 'controversial' elements was removed. It feels like the Max Verstappen page is not projecting a balanced perspective of his reported biography. The sources I'm using are reputable, including BBC and Formula 1 websites. Wikipedia is not here to present a one-sided perspective of history. F1WDC2021 (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@F1WDC2021: Did you maybe try bringing this up at Talk:Max Verstappen? This is a content dispute, and the first port-of-call should be the talk page of the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @F1WDC2021, and welcome to the Teahouse. It can be frustrating to have your edits undone; but remember that Wikipedia works on consensus, not on appeal to some authority. If another editor disagrees with you, the first step is to discuss it with that editor, usually on the talk page of the relevant article. If you are unable to reach agreement, then DR tells you how to proceed. Please see WP:BRD as well. ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The editor who has reverted your changes has started a discussion on the article's Talk page. Seek consensus there. Your edits and the reverts are shown on the article's page by using View history. David notMD (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I hope you're all doing well.

I would like to understand the process of adding a picture to Wikipedia when that picture is publicly available on Instagram or Facebook.

The copyright situation in this case is not entirely clear to me, and I want to ensure that I follow Wikipedia’s guidelines correctly.

Could you clarify whether such images can be uploaded and used on Wikipedia? If so, what steps should I take to ensure compliance with copyright policies?

I appreciate your time and guidance on this matter. Kadri marzouki (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Kadri marzouki: The first thing you need to do is verify the image's copyright status. Unless it is explicitly in the public domain (i.e., not under copyright) or under certain Creative Commons licences (CC-0, -By, -By-SA) we can't use it freely (or at all, if it is a picture of a still-living person). See WP:NFCC for some more details. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

To reinforce what Jeske correctly says: "in the public domain" has a very specific meaning when it comes to copyright: it does not just mean "publicly available." Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 18:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Kadri marzouki, any photograph posted to Instagram or Facebook (or anywhere else on the internet) is copyright protected unless there is rock solid written proof to the contrary. No exceptions. Cullen328 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks guys! (@Jéské Couriano @Writ Keeper)

@Cullen328

Now that the situation is clear, thank you.

In this case, the person in question has passed away.

Are there any steps I can take to use the picture on his Wikipedia page? Kadri marzouki (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Helo, @Kadri marzouki. In certain circumstances it is possible to use non-free images in articles. I presume that you are talking about Tim Kruger (I wish editors asking questions would not try to conceal what they are working on and what they have already tried: it doesn't work, and it just gets repliers irritated that they have had to play detective).

In order to use non-free materials, you need to be sure - and explain - that the use meets every one of the criteria in the non-free content criteria. No 1, "no free equivalent" is the reason that non-free images of living people are almost never acceptable. As Kruger has died, it is possible that you can justify that point - you would need to make a reasonable attempt to find a free image first.

To use Kruger's picture, you would need to justify the claim that "no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose", as well as the other 9 conditions. If you believe you can do so, then you may upload the picture as "non-free" - to Wikipedia, not to Commons, providing the full justification. ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello again, and I hope I’m not being too persistent on this particular subject.

I am referring to Tim Kruger’s profile picture that he posted before his death, and nothing else at this moment.

I understand that there is an option to add the photo by providing the necessary information.

As a final question, could we check if the uploaded picture meets the required criteria?

I have attached the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TimKrugers_selfie_on_Instagram_February_13_2025.jpg#filelinks

Thank you a lot for your hard work! Kadri marzouki (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Kadri marzouki, the use rationale looks fine. A minor problem is the presence of the same image on Commons, but it should be deleted there soon. If you are sure that no freely licensed image exists, it should be OK. On another minor note, I recommend cropping the image to minimize the distracting "selfie shoulder". Cullen328 (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Cullen328, this is much better. Many thanks!

There is no freely licensed image of Tim Kruger available.

The same image I uploaded to Commons will be taken down soon, as you mentioned, but if there's anything I can do to speed up the removal, please refer me to the relevant article or instructions.

Now, a notice has been attached to that selfie indicating that it must be resized, which is a simple task, and I want to do it.

But my question is: should I reupload the resized version of the same selfie as a "non-free file", as I did with the previous one? Or is there a way to edit it directly?

Kadri marzouki (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Kadri marzouki, you can comment in the Commons deletion discussion as the uploader, explaining that you made a newcomer mistake, and that you support deletion from Commons. The current file page here on Wikipedia has three resolutions. You can download the lowest 201X240 resolution version to an image editor, crop it, and upload it as a new version. There is an option to do that in the "File history" section where it says "Upload a new version of this file". Cullen328 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Cullen328

Done!

Again, thank you for being extremely helpful, direct, and focused.

Your clear guidance and support are truly appreciated.

Kadri marzouki (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Kadri marzouki, well done. Keep up the good work. Cullen328 (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

In Robert Todd Lincoln, under "Print sources," I added the original date of Lord Charnwood's book, but I don't know how to do it correctly in the template. Would someone please fix it, and I'll see how it's done. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @Maurice Magnus. I've corrected it. The point is that Template:cite book has a parameter called orig-date separate from date. I didn't know this for sure until I went and looked at the template documentation, though I strongly suspected it. ColinFine (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Question 1: I wanted to solicit input re: a question I'd asked on this talk page several days ago, and I checked to see if there were any WikiProject banners at the top. There weren't, so I went in search of a Project that seemed appropriate and left a message. But now I figure that I should also add a couple of relevant WikiProjects to that talk page. The Teahouse archive indicates that I can make my best guess about which projects to tag. My question: on some talk pages with WikiProject banners, there's also an importance rating. Do I just leave that to a participant in that WikiProject to assess if they want?

Question 2: A few days ago, I moved a page that had an open WP:RM on it, not realizing that that's contrary to policy. (It seemed to me that there was consensus and a couple of weeks had passed since it was opened, and I didn't know that I needed to wait for an uninvolved editor to close it.) Now that I realize that I shouldn't have moved the article, what should I do? Revert the move? Or leave it be, since the new title seems OK with everyone? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For 1, I would just add importance=low, and let others boost the importance if they think the article is actually more significant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For 2, if you noticed straight away then you should revert your move. But since it has been done and you noted it on that talk page, and there are no objections, you may as well let it stay moved. Moving two more times would be slightly disruptive to those that edit or watch the page. So it's best to minimise moves. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

FactOrOpinion, given that most (but not all) WikiProjects are moribund, I would have no hesitation assigning an importance rating in such a case. I have been working on Joe's Stone Crab lately, which happens to be the most lucrative single location restaurant in the United States, with annual sales in 2024 of almost 50ドル million. I had no reluctance to rate it as "High-importance". Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Graeme Bartlett, Cullen328, thank you for your responses. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Any way to override this?

Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 04:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If there is, then I hope that it's not advertised, as I'm sure it would greatly appeal to trolls and other attention-seekers (as well, of course, as to level-headed people). -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

As a technical answer, the way to bypass it would only be to either be an account creator/event coordinator, a bot, or an admin. Most trolls aren't getting anywhere near those rights (ACC is behind an NDA, adminship is behind RFA, and event coordinator is a strongly real-world permission, which is a length I imagine the vast majority of trolls aren't willing to go to. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, I see Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If I make a minor formatting fix for the RFD (after leaving my comment), like adding a bullet point here, are these kinds of edits allowed? I've read at WP:TALK#REVISE, that this is allowed. Does it still apply to RFD? Justjourney (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Editing your own comment is normally fine. But if some one response to your comment, and then you want to change your mind, it would be best to strike out your comment and add your new one. Minor formatting of other entries to tidy it up, should be OK. But fixing spelling or punctuation errors in others comment would be going too far. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

i am a new user at Wikipedia please help me to release my article which is BacanaPlay online i want to maintain and again and take care of Wikipedia's guidelines accordingly Minhas05 (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello and welcome. Your draft was in Portugese, you need to post it to the Portugese Wikipedia. It was also improperly placed; if you want to write your draft in English, you should use the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

it was mistakenly published i really appologies about that so give chance to me rewrite and posted in correct language and also i will be take care about the guide lines and source Minhas05 (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand, you may go to the Portugese Wikipedia and work with the editors there to help you write it. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

i uploaded rendered images of a mobile phone device- but the bot flags it as copyright protected material. what do I do? AdiDusi (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

AdiDusi, I imagine that you're asking about this file. BlueTurtles believes that it violates the copyright of the copyright owner. You have declared that you are the copyright owner. Are you really the copyright owner? (Is this a composite of photographs that you took of the phone?) -- Hoary (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

its a 3d render representation that looks exactly like the image they used for their promotional material. AdiDusi (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

hi,

What dose it means this page is Redirect? I'm Drafting this article Draft:Ashfika Rahman for a long time. I've submitted for review on 26th Feb 2025. its showing 'Review waiting' since then.

this is my first article so don't understand, how long it usually take to review draft? and is there any problem with the noticed Redirect page? or it is ok for the article category.

thanks in advance.

Soumitra Photographersoumitra (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Your draft was declined today. Please see the advice left by reviewers. That was by chance, there is no specific time frame for this all volunteer process. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Photographersoumitra You will have seen a message at the top of the draft while it was in the review pile "This may take three months or more." qcne (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Wikipedians!

I saw that a notable brook in my province (Catamaran Brook) was missing a Wikipedia page, so I created a stub. Unfortunately it was deemed to have too few sources for its notability to be established. The brook is notable because it has been, disproportionate to its size and significance, the subject of hundreds of studies, which in turn have been cited in thousands of ecology research articles.. but how does one go about citing that? Is it as simple as citing Google Scholar's search engine? Or do I need to comb through articles in the hopes that one mentions it? Or is the fact that this brook is heavily researched a minor thing in the end, and the article should be given up on?

Thanks!

–Elms StatelyElms (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @StatelyElms, and welcome to the Teahouse. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have said about a subject, and very little else. If it has been the subject of hundreds of studies, then I would have thought that some of them would meet WP:42, and establish that it is notable in Wikipedia's sense. But the study you currently cite does not contain significant coverage of the brook, merely mentions it as the site of the study - in our sense, it is not at all the subject of the study. If all the hundreds of studies you mention are passing mentions like that, rather than about the brook, then I fear it may not be notable in Wikipedia's sense. Are there perhaps some which are about the ecology of the stream as a whole? ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am also a newbie, but after a quick google there seems to a lot of research into it specifically, like this paper looking into its biological, physical and chemical conditions [1] including a multi-disciplinary study with over 100 papers beginning in 1989 and still continuing: [2] Surely these would make it count as notable if referenced properly? Suppposedly (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello! I am new here, and found two articles via Women in Red about linguists who are members of Academia Europea in German which I thought I could translate. However, I'm not sure as to if there is a correct procedure: I have done one of them and the translation on its own got declined because of notoriety. I added a lot more citations and everything is fine (I think) with that one, but I'm wondering how to approach the second, which will also (I think) get hit with NPROF/lack of citations. The translation badge says version x is a translation from the German, so presumably it's not okay to add my edits, citations etc on that version? Should I do a strict translation, publish that with the translation badge, and then add the citations & edits after it gets declined/while it gets reviewed? The Translation: help page just says the additional citations need to be added, if I'm understanding it correctly. Or is it okay to mark something as a translation when I've edited it heavily? Or is there a third option I'm missing entirely? Suppposedly (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Suppposedly and thanks for your contributions. The talk page banner is there to provide attribution to the original article, however it should not limit you to including only what is written in the original German article! Feel free to expand and add more citations as you wish.

When you translate an article from another language, it does not guarantee that the article will also be notable under the English Wikipedia's policies. Therefore it is always a good idea to look up more references in English and add them. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Got it, thank you very much! Suppposedly (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Suppposedly, the English language version of Wikipedia tends to be stricter about notability and verifiability than other language versions. Adding more high quality references to a translation is almost always a good thing. English language references are preferred if available, but references to German or other language sources are fine as long as they are reliable and relevant. Cullen328 (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That makes sense! Thank you - this professor is a German philologist and so I don't expect her to have much in English Suppposedly (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Suppposedly, if you use the translation tool (WP:CXT), it will automatically add the attribution in the first edit summary, so you don't have to worry about it. What I tend to do is translate the base version (maybe omitting a chunk or two if it's unsourced) using the translation tool, and publish that to my userspace. Then I fix it up, rewrite things as I please, add more info from other sources, etc. Then move to mainspace.

When you're translating from German, make sure you can actually verify the text with the references that exist. A lot of German Wikipedia articles have a list of general references at the end but no footnotes. This drives people on English Wikipedia crazy. -- asilvering (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you - that's a great idea! Unfortunately it looks like I can't use the tool yet, but I'll definitely copy the rest of your method. And I definitely will, good to know! Interesting that the standards are so different between DE and EN! Suppposedly (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You can. That's a white lie that exists for political reasons that are before my time. So long as you set the tool to publish to your userspace, not to mainspace directly, you can use it as normal. -- asilvering (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ahhh that's very helpful, I wish I'd known about that before that tool before! Thank you very much! Suppposedly (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Suppposedly, I remember that I enjoyed reading Ewa Dąbrowska's Language, Mind and Brain, though it was several years ago and I've now quite forgotten the nature of the enjoyment. Not that my opinion is of any importance. What do matter are the opinions of other linguists on her work. These linguists should be unrelated to her (e.g. not in her department in the U of Birmingham, not her coauthors), and the opinions should be published in reputable journals or books (not mere blurbs or blogs). I don't mean to slight Dąbrowska in any way when I say that, in its current state, the article on her seems short of material about her and her work that's clearly reliable and independent of her. You seem now to be working on at least one draft; I suggest putting the draft aside for a short period while you add content to the article Ewa Dąbrowska. -- Hoary (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC) Sorry: for "that's clearly reliable and independent of her", please read "from sources that are clearly reliable and independent of her". -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Honestly, I've started working on another translation because I'm a bit stuck as what else I can add! I'm sure it's my error rather than her (and good to hear you've enjoyed Dąbrowska's book: I don't know much about cognitive linguistics but tempted to read them now I've spent so much time reading about her and her research!)

I'm not sure what else would count as opinions of other linguists - I've already added book reviews as someone suggested (and I think the Linguist List counts as a legit source, if that's what you're referring to, as it's used as a legit source by linguists in general and as a reference by the National Science Foundation among others). I've looked at other cognitive linguists and they seem to either have a similar amount of referencing or like Vyvyan Evans be a bit more controversial and have more news sources and blog posts talking (largely complaining) about him.

Any tips or suggestions greatly appreciated. Suppposedly (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Suppposedly, I too know little about cognitive linguistics. One review of the book Language, Mind and Brain appears in Language, vol 84 (2008), pp. 186–189; JSTOR 40071020. (Which reminds me: please read Template:ISBN/doc.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ah thank you, I had no idea there was an ISBN template! Added. I've added a section about her books so I can cite some of the reviews (currently in progress as the auto-cite feature seems to have stopped working and manually citing is giving me flashbacks haha - don't worry, I will manually cite if I have to). Thank you for your help! Suppposedly (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

How do you feel about a article concerning Mary Lou Donuts? Dragon Klaw (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Dragon Klaw I think it's probably too soon to have an article on that business; looking solely for "Mary Lou Donuts" on the news section of Google shows a page of results, most of which seems to be local news. Don't get me wrong, the news that is there is promising, I just have doubts that it'd pass review. CommissarDoggo ^Talk? 23:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay. Dragon Klaw (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've wanted to nominate the March 2025 Western Syria clashes and/or the 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites for the "in the news" infobox at the front page, but I don't know how and I can't seem to figure it out. Could someone please help me out? Thanks! LordOfWalruses (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You need to go to the Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates page and follow the instructions in the section titled Nomination steps. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello LordOfWalruses, HiLo48 is right. Also, if you still have confusion about the process, you can ask at Wikipedia talk:In the news. The editors most active on that aspect of the project are most likely to see your question on that page. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello! Although I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time now (and got the hang of Wikitext), I was thinking about writing a article on the electronics company Innoasis. I am typing this on one of their devices. I was wondering if it was appropriate to start and publish the article. K.O.518 (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

K.O.518, the fact that I'm now typing this response on a Lenovo computer shouldn't disqualify me from writing about Lenovo. But I paid for this computer myself. If you paid for your Innoasis "device", the fact that you're using it shouldn't disqualify you. Are you employed by Innoasis or otherwise related to the company? Also, if this would be your first article, please digest H:YFA. -- Hoary (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @K.O.518, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's great that you've got the hang of Wikitext; but I would argue that for somebody who wants to create a new article, that is less important than understanding notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable sources, and referencing for beginners. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello.

@ColinFineColinFine Yes i understand those, i reworked several articles for anti advertisement.

@HoaryHoary No. I wanted to because Innoasis is a modestly large tech company, and i was surprised that it did not have a article. The question i am asking is if Innoasis deserves a wikipedia article or if it is too small to be noteworthy. K.O.518 (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@K.O.518 No topic "deserves" an article but any topic can have one if there are a sufficient number of reliable, independent sources which cover it in some detail. A custom Google search for Innoasis doesn't look promising but if you are aware of other sources then please list three of the best ones here in this thread and we can advise further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello All! the first page i have created and i am struggling as i tried to cite the articles avaliable about a artist/composer. I will shorten it and add it here, would love feedback before resubmitting.

Best Regards looking forward to this learning experience.

Jas JBG551 (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

JBG551, in just the first two lines of Draft:Ustad Lachhman Singh, I read "renowned", "eminent", "honoured", "excellence". Please don't try to impress. Instead, try to inform. -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

ok thank you let me change wording asap JBG551 (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @JBG551, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I would like to write an article about Justice William Holloway CSI, 1828-1893. A former Madras High Court judge, briefy acting Chief Justice, and Vice Chancellor of Madras University. He is important for promoting Indian systems of justice, against strong opposition of fellow judges. He consistently tried to get an Indian lawyer appointed to the High Court for the first time. This finally happened after his retirement with the appointment of his candidate (Sir) Muthuswami Aiyar who later acted as Chief Justice of Madras. One author states that Holloway made a unique mark on the law of Madras and indirectly the law and standards of the profession in India as a whole. HE WAS MY GREAT GREAT GRANDFATHER. I APPRECIATE THERE IS A FAMILY CONNECTION BUT I ONLY KNOW OF HIM FROM RESEARCH. DOES THIS RULE ME OUT AS A POTENTIAL AUTHOR ? Philip Venning WykeKinnear (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Probably, since you are related to the topic. Shaneapickle (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@WykeKinnear. Welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, please do not type in all capitals. It is considered shouting. Having a family connection does not rule you out, but it will make it difficult for you as you will need to forget everything you know about him and base your article entirely on what reliable sources have said about him. His being "important" is not relevant. Everyone is important. Please read Wikipedia:Your first article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. In fact everything I know about him comes from reliable published sources, such as the Dictionary of Indian Biography and similar references. However in view of your stern reprimand I won't be submitting an article. WykeKinnear (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@WykeKinnear Please don't be put off. Any COI for a relative who died over 100 years ago is going to be minor and you are clearly aware of Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Even those editors with much more obvious COI, or who are paid to edit, can create draft articles via the WP:AfC process and that is what I suggest you do. You should find this essay helpful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

WykeKinnear, it sounds like you've got the sources, so please do go ahead and write! English Wikipedia spans a very wide range of cultures and individuals. Some value direct, straightforward communication, and "say it how it is". Others have a strong code of politeness, and prefer to "talk through flowers" (as the Germans put it, picturesquely). Unfortunately a lot of people try to produce very gushing, laudatory articles about ancestors of whom they're proud, and when they post questions here, to save them wasting their time, they tend to get rather firm answers about Wikipedia's very strict attitude to notability. If your great great grandfather passes muster, by all means go ahead. For subjects like this, a descendent is the most likely person to have collected all the appropriate information, and if it's there in secondary sources, it's fine. What doesn't work is an article compiled from primary sources (an article like that should be written and published elsewhere). You should write in the dry and factual style of Wikipedia; don't let it get emotional or overstate his importance (you can only say he was influential/important to the extent that secondary sources have evaluated him as such). A real benefit of you being a family member is that you may own the rights over images of Holloway, which you can then submit to Commons if you wish, and include in your article. Elemimele (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

... any picture of him is going to be public domain by now owing to its age. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hey now, it is his great grandfather. What other person could have such easy access to his corpse? Mgjertson (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have already added a few news sources, (including a flight radar of the plane) and I havent submitted it for review yet as im still working on it. I would like to have some help on what can I do to improve the article.

The link: Draft:Beechcraft Bonanza Flight N347M

Thank you, Shaneapickle (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(also i think i made a post here about something but i dont remember) Shaneapickle (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Crashes of this type are unlikely to be notable with so few sources reporting on it, especially so since there were no fatalities. Particular thing to look out for is that all your references are listed at the end, but there should be footnotes at the end of sentences/paragraphs that make it clear where the information is coming from. Recon rabbit 13:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

could I have some help with that since I am a relatively new editor Shaneapickle (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This page should provide some guidance: Help:Referencing for beginners. Recon rabbit 14:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, Shaneapickle. Please read the advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, there is a bunch of sources reporting on it, search up lancaster pa crash. Shaneapickle (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I am rather new to Wikipedia, and I have created a new page (Ford West). When I clicked "publish," it was directly published instead of being submitted for review as usual. I guess I did something wrong! What happens now? Best regards Edmond Furax (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Edmond Furax You are WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, so allowed to create articles directly if you wish. They will be considered by the new pages patrol in due course and may be draftified. or even nominated for deletion as a result. You can either leave your article as-is, improve it in-situ or move it back to a draft yourself for improvement there, with the option to submit it for formal review. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Edmond Furax: If you want to submit for review another time then you can start at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I'm new to regularly editing Wikipedia and am hoping someone can help rule on whether I have a WP:COI before I work directly on an article.

I've detailed the situation in the article's talk page. Essentially, I wish to improve the article of a statistical data release that I contribute to as part of my job. No one at work has asked me to do this and I would edit strictly during my personal time.

I am hoping someone can help guide me here. Thank you! Polunbus (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Polunbus, it seems you do have a conflict of interest. You say you edit outside of your working hours, which just means you aren't a paid editor. Keep in mind the second and third sentences of WP:COI:

Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.

Yes, editing with a COI is discouraged, but it is not prohibited, and you seem to be here in good faith. No one will stop you, but you should follow WP:DISCLOSE and all other relevant policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. It is also recommended that you use {{edit COI}} (edit requests) to make the edits, but you don't have to. win8x (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

how do I locate another members sandbox Judsonnewbern (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Judsonnewbern, you can find a link to a list of subpages in the page information of any page. So your own subpages are at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Judsonnewbern/, which would show your sandbox if you had made it. If you want you can replace your name with another editor's in that link or go to "Page Information" (right side of a page for me) then click on "Number of subpages of this page". Ultraodan (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you very much - Judsonnewbern (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Does the WP:SIGNPOST post real stories (just subscribed), or just fake, for fun ones? Justjourney (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Justjourney, the Signpost posts real stories written by Wikipedia editors about topics to do with Wikipedia. Ultraodan (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Can you link a Sign Post story you've seen that you consider "fake"? It's not written The Onion style, if that's what your asking. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Some issues of The Signpost contain a "humorous" article, which is fictitious and intended to be funny. These sometimes aren't funny, which can mislead readers. Maproom (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Maproom How would I know about these? Justjourney (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The way I find out about them is: I'm reading a Signpost article, and wondering why it doesn't make much sense to me. Then I notice the word "Humour" as an inconspicuous subtitle. Maproom (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I'm working on WikiProject Football. I've added citations to some pages, but many get removed because "unreliable sources". So, can you suggest reliable sources for player goals, assists, and appearances? Thank you! KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

KhoaNguyen1 I would suggest asking at the WikiProject itself, (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football) where editors who follow football specifically are more likely to see your question. Please also see WP:RS for more information on what a reliable source is. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football itself seems to have some guidance as well. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Alright KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi. I've been thinking for the last week or so of creating an article for the upcoming sequel series/reboot to Walking With Dinosaurs , although I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notability criteria. There is a lot of information about it in the form of news articles, etc, although I'm not quite sure what constitutes independent sources and what constitutes non-independent sources, as I've never tried to write an article about a piece of media before. Would a new page be warranted, or would an expansion of the relevant section on the existing Walking With Dinosaurs page be preferable for the time being? Thanks in advance. Borophagus (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Borophagus: the latter [expand section of existing article]. Then, if the sequel gains more coverage later on, it can eventually be split or spun-off into its own article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Understood. Will probably work on it tomorrow. Thanks! Borophagus (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

How do I report a user for vandalism? For the Clara Mann article (I fixed it back) Bruebach (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Bruebach That was the first and only edit from a new account, so it might just have been a newbie error. I suggest you make a polite comment on that editor's talk page pointing out the mistake. Persistent vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV but I don't think that is needed in this case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Considering the type and content of the edit, it doesn't look like a mistake. But I suppose I can give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

But it's always good to know the protocol for dealing with vandalism, so - thank you. Bruebach (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello. I don't know if this is the best plase to ask, but whatever. I have been contributing to Wikimedia projects, on and off, on IPs and accounts, for about 3 years. I have switched accounts many times for various personal reasons. What I am worried about is Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, which says I cannot use multiple accounts maliciously. I have occasionally vandalized Wikipedia in the past. My question is, will I get blocked for this, if I get checkusered and the accounts link up? I no longer want to vandalize here. Another important thing to note is that my IP is shared by everyone at my school. I edit at school. I have made every single account I ever had from that IP. Some people vandalize from that IP, so would that incriminate me aswell? I just don't want to be blocked for something I did in the long past, or something other people did. Thanks for the help, loserhead (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

P.S. This is my final account, I do not ever intend to leave it. loserhead (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, Loserhead4512! If you have abandoned all previous accounts and only edit with this one, you are no longer using multiple accounts. And people aren’t typically randomly checkusered for no reason; there typically needs to be some sort of malicious activity or suspicion of such for checkuser to be used. So if you are not using multiple accounts anymore and you’re not editing maliciously, you should be fine on that count. More than one editor has begun their Wikipedia career with vandalism and u-turned into a positive contributor in the end. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok, thank you so much! This makes me feel much better. loserhead (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am trying to add Porters Lake, Nova Scotia#This Street, That Street, and The Other Street to the Wikipdia:Unusual articleds list, but does not let me edit the tables FlagNerd1010101 (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@FlagNerd1010101. Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Unusual articles is semi-protected to prevent vandalism. You can make an edit request on its talk page, but I don't think Porters Lake is an unusual article at all. Some unusual street names are mentioned but that does not make it an unusual article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A while back, I needed to gather some basic and statistical info related to the results you get when rolling s n-sided dice, and then adjusting it by an integer (0) amount; for instance, the resulting minimum value, maximum value and most likely value(s) you get for particular n and s and adjustment. I found most of the info scattered across textbooks, papers and (a few) Web pages (in particular, the Dice page from MathWorld), but never did find a single Web page that presented it. This info is useful to those who are into certain branches of computer science, probability and simulation, and to players of "d20" games.

Some months ago, I added some of the basic info the Dice page, but it was reversed by a knowledgeable editor who essentially said it was too detailed for that page. The editor suggested that Dice Notation page was a better location for it, but that page is about (several different) dice notations, and doesn't really get into the properties related to them (sensible; the page is about notation, not properties). So is a Dice Properties page in order? (These sort of "properties" pages do exists in Wikipedia, e.g., Absolute value and Floor and ceiling functions.) If so, I'm happy to get one going.

So, what do you all think? Is there an appropriate page for this info? Or should it be a new page? Or it is just too esoteric to be in Wikipedia?

Many thanks! Eclectucator (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Replied at old discussion at Talk:Dice#Where, if at all, to put basic stat info for nDs dice to centralize discussion Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've read the Dice Pool page, and its focus is on the (apparently more recent) definition of Dice Pool -- rolling a number of dice and counting how many reach a certain threshold (e.g., how many times a 5 or a 6 appears out of rolling 7 six-sided dice). The info I'm interested in presenting is when the values that appear on the dice are added together and then perhaps adjusted by an integer quantity...so it seems it's not a great fit for that page. Perhaps there's another page is more appropriate? Eclectucator (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Here is the source (in Korean): https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/handle/10371/178421 This document is freely available for download in pdf format. I want to add a table (page 70) to the article Web novels in South Korea. Активная Мечтательница (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You probably do not refer to this source at all, Активная Мечтательница; simply, because appearance in a master's dissertation is no guarantee of quality. Please see WP:RS on "scholarship". -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

But there is a {{Cite thesis}} template for this kind of reference. You could also check if the author has published anything in a journal or book. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I noticed that some people have colored names, (even gradients) and I would like to know how to get a colored name myself.

Thanks, Moon. -MoonOwO- (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, -MoonOwO-. Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia:Signature tutorial provides information on how to color the username in a user's signature. —⁠andrybak (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, This is a popular music producer from Nepal. Its been 90 days since we created his page but its still not yet showing up on google search results. The page is cited using links from newspaper and sources. Can you please check? link to the page - Aasis Beats Azdemi (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It's highly likely Google's cache is delaying its appearance in search results. Once the cache is updated, it'll show up. There's nothing we can do on our end; this is a Google issue. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Azdemi Although articles unreviewed by the new pages patrol become available to indexing by search engines after 90 days, the actual indexing is often not done until there is another, later, edit. Someone removed puffery from the article today and, sure enough, it is now indexed by Google, at least here in the UK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Mike, Great news! The issue is all sorted out now. The page is indexed. Thanks a bunch to everyone who helped out! Azdemi (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Post 1978 Iranian politics is considered a contentious topic and requires having EC status in order to edit the article of Iran or anything controversial in Iran. However this does not apply to talking or referencing Iran. I do not have 500 edits (only 300, through 1 IP and this account). Would it still be possible for me to suggest a move anyway? I have a rationale on this and searching through the archives does not bring any substantial previous discussion that it should be called Iran not Persia. My rationale is simple, Iran's neighbor Turkey is called Turkiye internally and by the rest of the world. It is even recognized by the UN and all of the maps (google, apple, etc), yet Wikipedia still calls it Turkey. So what is the difference here? The English name of Iran is Persia and the English name of Turkiye is Turkey. Yet there is this double standard, we call Iran, Iran and we call Turkiye, Turkey. DotesConks (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

At least one of your premises -- that "The English name of Iran is Persia" -- is mistaken. I suggest that you wait until User:DotesConks has 500 edits, whereupon you can rethink the matter. During your wait, please read and digest Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

"Iran" is the most common name in English. "Turkey" is the most common name in English. Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I need experienced users to save this article which I think is worth. Here is the link: Draft:Joannes Maria Valenzano Thank you in advance. WikiBolo (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

WikiBolo The url is not needed when linking. You don't specify what help you are seeking. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, excuse me, I need complete help to take this article from draft to published state but the banner request has become too technical for me so I am looking for someone experienced to take over the operation in the most relevant way possible. WikiBolo (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The request isn't technical at all, WikiBolo. It says that there's insufficient evidence here of materials that go into depth about Valenzano (meaning that he's not "notable", as notability is defined by and for Wikipedia). You do have a "bibliography", but each item within it is only partly described and it's not clear which item backs up which assertions. As for the two sources you do cite, one, which you describe merely as "Tarisio - Archive", clearly had or has a commercial interest in talking up Valenzano. If disinterested sources (journal articles, etc) that go into depth about Valenzano do exist, please cite them to back up more material that you write about Valenzano, and please describe the sources informatively and helpfully. -- Hoary (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I would like to point out that this article exists in the same form and with the same sources on Wikipedia-France and Wikipedia-Italy, therefore I do not understand why this version is not accepted by Wikipedia-England. It should also be noted that this 19th century luthier is found in specialized books and international collections alongside great luthiers of the 17th and 18th centuries such as Guarnerius, Amati or even Stradivarius. Please, let us not deprive ourselves of interesting articles linked to interesting sources (which could help English experts in their possible research) because a robot could not do complete checks as humans can. It would be really great if someone more experienced than me could introduce this article. I'm counting on you. Thank you in advance. WikiBolo (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

WikiBolo Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. It is up to the translator to make sure they are meeting the requirements of the Wikipedia they are translating for. If this draft is acceptable on another Wikipedia, I would suggest focusing your efforts there. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand that policies differ, but knowledge should be universal. If this topic is deemed notable on another Wikipedia, shouldn’t it at least warrant discussion here rather than dismissal? WikiBolo (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have a COI and have placed a request for an impartial editor to replace the infobox on the Tencent Cloud page. (The page used the "Software" infobox instead of a "Company" infobox). Although two editors have responded, no one has offered to make the edit. I would greatly appreciate it if an experienced editor could review my request on the Talk Page.

Link: Talk:Tencent Cloud#Infobox Change Request

TencentCommsYeran (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Your request is open and pending. Requests are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello

1 Year back i published new film article, and after that i didn't publish any articles. and after one and half years i published the new article in my account directly without sand box. But my article was not getting publish, its been 10 days ago, i published. Still my article was in draft. PLease help me to publish immediately. There is an emergency.

Thank you Jenil JJ (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Which article are you asking about, Jenil cs ("Jenil JJ"), and what emergency is this? -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is the article page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kaliyugam_2064.

Any suggetions or changes do i need to do get earlier approval. I am a newbie, i don't know it takes 2 or 3 months to get the approval.

This is a film page article. I submitted before 5 or 6 days. This film will gonna release by next month. If it publish ASAP. It would be helpful. Thank you Jenil JJ (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Jenil cs Did you read the message on the draft which states "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order."? qcne (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Jenil cs, looking at your draft, I see that many sentences and whole sections of the articles are lacking inline citations. Providing those after every sentence and ensuring that the citations support the text you've written will help the article pass review. -Darouet (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Darouet ok... Understood... I will try to update the details. Thank you for your suggetion Jenil JJ (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

got it Jenil JJ (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Isn't the right pronoun for animals is it? The article Motty uses he. Hörgő (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Hörgő: The second sentence of the article states the animal was a male calf. "He" is not incorrect. Bazza 7 (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We generally seem to use he and she when referring to individual named animals: see e.g. Tusko (Oregon Zoo) and Lansing elephant incident for other elephant examples. The Manual of Style's guidance on pronoun usage does not mention animals, though given that it still permits "she" for ships I can't see any reason why we shouldn't use it for animals... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the word "it" to refer to a specific, named animal. -- asilvering (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The plot summaries for the novels The Way of Kings, Words of Radiance, Oathbringer, Rhythm of War, Wind and Truth, and probably others have plot summaries that contain far too much fan detail, spoilers, and verbiage. MOS:NOVELPLOT suggests they should be 400-700 words, and these are in the several thousand each. They are mostly being added by one or perhaps two anonymous IP editors. As part of the Guild of Copy Editors I have tagged them as too long in response to requests for {{copy-edit }}, but nothing is changing. I have mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Fantasy task force too. Would it be too drastic to just wholesale delete the plot section, protect the page from anonymous editing for a month or two, and try writing a much smaller summary? — Jon (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The plot summary for e.g. The Way of Kings is over 3000 words – more than two thirds of the length of the entire article. If I were you I would simply replace it with a much shorter summary. Unless there's active disruption on the article, I don't see any point in asking for it to be protected. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Agree. The protection is too drastic, but by all means cut down the plot summary. -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi everyone,

I love Wikipedia and I would like to be part of it. That way, I'm writing an article about an Australian choreographer called Adam Linder (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adam_Linder). Currently, I have mainly two issues that are:

- This article contains promotional content .

- This article relies excessively on references to primary sources .

I would like to improve the article.

Firstly, I already erased every promotional content and read the page that talked about "What Wikipedia is not" but maybe there is still some sentences that are not complying wikipedia's policies. I would need your opinion to know if I can try to publish it yet.

Secondly, I tried to edit all references by adding as many relevant, independent and reliable sources. Compared to the first version, there is way less references to primary sources. I tried to add secondary sources as much as I could. But given that it's my first article, I would like an external point of view that could guide me about secondary sources and the reference topic.

I'm connected quite often and would answer within 24h.

Thanks a lot for your help and your time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adam_Linder

Simononwiki1 (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Simononwiki1 Our policy on biographies of living people says that every fact should be backed up by an inline citation. So I took a look at Draft:Adam Linder#Biography (which should really be the "early life" section) and noted that At the age of 15, Linder was spotted by the Royal Ballet School. However, the only citation, to this magazine, says nothing about his age when he was "spotted". Such lack of verification is one of the things you must get right to have your draft accepted. You can submit it for formal review when that type of detail has been addressed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok I see. I had previously another citation that acknowledged the fact that he was spotted at 15 but I erased it because the reference was mainly an interview, meaning a primary source. BUT it was mentioned previously, out of the interview, just as a intro of the artist. Here's the reference: https://032c.com/magazine/choreographer-adam-linder-dances-for-hire-and-disrupts-contemporary-creative-economies. Should I still put it or the source is not relevant ?

Thanks for your help, I will try to reference every facts well.

Simononwiki1 (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello again @Simononwiki1. You can cite certain information from non-independent sources such as interviews provided it meets the conditions laid out in WP:ABOUTSELF, including that "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Now, if the claim were that he had danced with the Royal Ballet at 15, that would be an exceptional claim, and require a stronger source; but that he was spotted, probably not. As often, this is an editorial judgment, and editors may disagree on it. ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okok I see. I think I will replace the age 15, with a more general formulation like: "At a young age", which is more acceptable. When I will find a relevant and reliable source that attests the fact that he was spotted at 15, then I will explicit it.

Thanks a lot for your time.

Simononwiki1 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @Simononwiki1. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, and very little else. For every piece of information, say where you saw it; and if that was not a reliable source, don't put the information in. ColinFine (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Find what? This isn't the magazine? [3] Maineartists (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have left an invitation on the editor's TALK PAGE: [4]. I am having difficulty in finding evidence where another editor has "warned" them or "brought to their attention" these problematic issues; or where they have made continuous edits after the outreach. The editor in question Huangdan2060 has not even been pinged at this discussion. I cannot find discussions on the articles' TALK PAGES either: [5], [6]. But I have been known to miss things before; so if someone could bring them here, that would be helpful. Many are lighting torches for the trek over to ANI and I see no trail of outreach, warning or continued violations after the fact as have been alluded to above. Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at the information entered, I see a magazine issue trying to be fitted into a "book" cite template: cite book |language=en, zh|author= |trans-title=Stars who came up from Nothing |script-title=zh:那些草根出身的明星们 |journal=TEENS'SPACE |volume=6 |year=2019 |publisher=Chongqing Publishing House |location=Chongqing |pages=12-15. The "Journal" is titled TEENS SPACE. I assumed the "script-title" that the editor put in: 那些草根出身的明星们 (tr: Those grassroot stars) was merely a poor translation entered into "trans-title": Stars who came up from Nothing. Have you actually tried to search for the MAGAZINE with the criteria: TEENS SPACE, Volume 6, 2019, Chongqing Publishing House, pg 12-15? Rather than solely focusing on the ISBN and trying to match it? I translated the entered quote provided by the editor in the template: 我出生在农村,但就是这样的农村生活经历,磨炼了我坚强的生活意志,也造就了我坚忍顽强的个性。正是这些经历,成就了今天的我。所以我认为:英雄的出处是来自内心的强大,来自对梦想的执著追求和对你所从事职业的坚持与踏实,以及面对浮躁浮华的淡定和定力. I also placed the Chinese quote into Google and it brought up several hits for: Zhao Liying saying these very same words (sometimes verbatim) in other interviews: [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. This particular article: [11] is titled: "Is Zhao Liying a grassroots star?" (Zhao Liying was born in the countryside ... etc) I find nothing out of the ordinary within the entry except the ISBN. If that had been left out, and Template:Cite magazine was used, it would be a perfectly acceptable citation entry. I would suggest, since you have more resources at your disposable, to search for the magazine with the information provided. Having the quote continually validated and attached to the BLP in other interviews seems to validate the entry (just not the ISBN). As for the textbook, the editor has (as well) given this information: Bai Li, Gong Shaoshi, (2000年01月01日), Rich Cultural Relics, Junior High School Local Textbook of Huaihua: History, Changsha, Hunan: Hunan People's Publishing House. Have you tried to search for this book based on this given information within your resources instead of focusing only on the ISBN? Just a thought. Maineartists (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, everyone. May be delete this draft, thanks. СтасС (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

why? ogusokumushi ^{( ୧ ‧+ ̊ 🎐 ⋅ )} 18:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@СтасС you have requested deletion at least three times already without providing a valid reason for deletion. If the article is left unedited for six months it will automatically be deleted without you needing to request it. Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

OK.--СтасС (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've been having a minor disagreement with another editor regarding the applicability of this policy and was looking for a sanity check.

The context is an RfC concerning the framing of statements made by Donald Trump regarding the Unite the Right Rally. The other editor has been arguing that we should balance academic sources with news sources for a greater diversity of perspectives. I have expressed a preferential weighting for academic source from peer reviewed journals, which are abundant. I've argued that the guidance in WP:NEWSORG should apply to this topic as it is specifically about the parsing of rhetoric - which is an academic discipline. There are also elements of political science and sociology at play with an exploration of political speech. The opposing editor appears to be arguing for a narrower definition of "academic" arguing that the topic isn't "a complicated physics topic" or something similar.

My assumption is that political science, sociology and the study of rhetoric apply (as such sources exist on this topic) and that the definition of "academic" within the policy refers to those domains that exist within the academy and not merely hard sciences. Am I off base? Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Simonm223, first of all, WP:NEWSORG is part of a guideline, and is not a policy. That being said, the main guideline, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, enjoys almost universal support among active editors. The Unite the Right Rally took place nearly eight years ago, and is now in the realm of history as opposed to current events. I am in complete agreement that academic, peer-reviewed sources or books by widely respected authors are superior to news reporting articles in a case like this, although news sources are fine in the early stages of development of an article about an obviously notable current event. They are OK for articles about less controversial, more obscure topics. But when an abundance of academic sources are available years later, then the full range of academic sources should be preferred as references to news reporting articles. Cullen328 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. That's basically what I thought. Simonm223 (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi all,

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

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

1. is not to be used lightly, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That works for me! My only suggestions would be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks @Mathglot for the ping.

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

Hello! I'm not very smort so I don't have much info to add to individual pages. However, i would like to do some anti-vandalism work, so if someone could point me in the right direction, it'd be greatly appreciated. Also, is there a portal somewhere that automatically takes you to the editing side of wikipedia (not editing mode in pages, editing as in all the groups, pages, and talks that people only looking for info on wikipedia won't find.) Cdominic8 (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Don't worry about being "smart enough" to add to articles - the idea is to use WP:RS to write everything, not just your memory, so as long as your reading comprehension is good, that's most of what you need. For anti-vandalism patrolling, you're looking for WP:CVA - but honestly, vandalism tends to get cleaned up pretty quickly, so I'm not sure how much mileage you'll get out of that. You might want to try clearing out some of the easier-to-fix maintenance backlogs instead of or in addition to that. For the "editing side", I think most of us end up watchlisting a handful of "backroom" pages about the thing we're specifically interested in doing rather than using this main portal, but here you are: WP:COM. Hopefully you can find something that catches your eye from there. -- asilvering (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not "most of us" in saying that I personally frequent WP:DASHBOARD (WP:-). LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh yes, which reminds me of Template:Backlog status, which is a bit buried on that page but is a good one to point out individually. -- asilvering (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, my draft at Draft:Cultural impact of The Shining was recently declined for the reason that its information could be moved to The Shining (film). Is there any way to improve the draft as it is? I'm asking mainly because it was declined and not out-right rejected, which makes me think it still has the potential to be an article. LeGoldenBoots (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello. "Declined" allows for the possibility of resubmission, whereas "rejected" would not. Instead of using the draft process I would also suggest expanding the article about the film first, then argue it should be spun off in a talk page discussion. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Alright, thanks for the advice. The first prose in your response was the point I was trying to make. Cheers. LeGoldenBoots (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

In order for an article to be counted as destubbed, does it have to be reevaluated and labeled as start class or higher? Vestrix (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No need to ask twice, for specifics for the destubathon you're looking into- ask at the contest page.

Otherwise check out WP:DESTUB. aquarium substrate ^talk 17:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

When I destub an article, how do I get it reevaluated. Vestrix (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Vestrix, you can do that yourself for any ratings lower than Good article and Featured article. GA and FA have formal processes. If a stub has been expanded and improved, a "Start" rating is always approriate. Cullen328 (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Typically, I replace unreliable sources with ^{[citation needed ]}, however I realized today that there's likely many scenarios where I should keep the ref and add ^{[better source needed ]} instead. When should I remove an unreliable source vs requesting a better one? Is bsn meant for sources with simply questionable reliability as opposed to sources that are outright unreliable? Taffer 😊 💬 _(she/they) 21:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@LaffyTaffer, a citation needed tag is a request for someone else to find a citation. If the unreliable source might be at all helpful for the search, use a more specific tag like "better source needed", or "fails verification". See Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Great to know! Thank you so much 💗 Taffer 😊 💬 _(she/they) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

In my edit filter log, it says I tripped an edit filter by subscribing to the signpost. Did I subscribe incorrectly? Justjourney (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Justjourney Don't worry - that filter is a test filter, where an admin is trying some things out. No action was taken as a result of your edit, and your filter log isn't held against you. Lots of harmless edits trip many log-only edit filters all the time. Sam Walton (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Why was the page rejected again? I revised all the points exactly as instructed. What else do I need to change for the Wikipedia entry to be accepted?

I based my entry on the Wikipedia pages of two actor friends, both of whom were approved. Their content is almost identical to mine, yet my entry was rejected.

I would greatly appreciate any helpful tips or support!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Imad_Mardnli J0ker76 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@J0ker76, on a first glance over, I would tell you to be mindful of two policies: WP:OVERCITE and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Essentially, just because something else exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean an equivalent thing also needs to be on it.

As reviewers are denying on the basis of WP:General Notability Guidelines (GNG), I will analyze your sources. I am inclined to ignore citations 1 through 6 as they seem to only back up the name. Honestly, one citation is too many for backing up a name. I am also not sure what seven through nine are backing up. Eight and twelve seem to be primary sources, and therefore, do not contribute to GNG. Nine might work but it is in German, making it hard for me to check it. Ten I would deny as it seems it may be autogenerated or something of that fashion. Eleven is a database and I don't believe those contribute to GNG. Overall, that leaves two sources that I question and six that may not be relevant. If you have any questions, you can reply here, or if this gets archived, message me on my talk page. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

After eight Declined your draft Draft:Imad Mardnli has now been Rejected. David notMD (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@David notMD, For future reference, is there anyway that a user can undo the rejection and what are the thresholds? ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, I was wondering if someone could help me with uploading a short film poster for the Brighter Days Ahead article. The poster has been posted by both Ariana Grande and her official team’s X account Olivergrandeee (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand this is not even close to a priority, but I'm finding it difficult to code a "collapsible collapsed" for years in the following code:

I'm doing something wrong, but for the life of me can not figure out what? Any help would be appreciated, and thank you in advance... ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi The Emperor of Byzantium. There is no "collapsible collapsed" in your code for that table. I have added it.[12] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Situation 1: currently, Wikipedia has an article about Large Language Models and a separate list of large language models. But what about reflective models? Should we create a general article about reflection in models along with a separate article listing reflective models, including details about individual implementations, benchmarks, etc? This solution feels somewhat cumbersome.

Situation 2: there's an article about Intelligent Agents, but does it need a companion list of specific intelligent agents? So far, I've found only the article on the OpenAI Operator, but there seem to be no articles covering agents such as Claude Computer Use, Runner H, or Manus. TheTeslak (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Philosophical Investigations has three notes (as opposed to footnotes), which, as is customary, are labeled [a], [b], [c] in the text. At the bottom, however, above "References," they are numbered 1, 2, 3. I can't identify the problem. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Wikipedia Teahouse
• Wikipedia help forums

• Noindexed pages
• Wikipedia pages semi-protected from banned users
• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed
• Pages that should not be manually archived