Wikipedia:Teahouse

つがる, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly. Alternatively, you can contact an experienced editor by visiting your homepage and clicking "Ask your mentor a question about editing".

There are currently 2 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

December 30th: Addition?

Though it is mentioned in another article on said date, the Hurricane Creek Mine Disaster which happened in Leslie County isn’t included in the article. I sure do hope it isn’t because of notability reasons. I mean, it can’t be said guideline, it has its own article. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

If you are referring to the December 30 article, I see no reason why you shouldn't add Hurricane Creek mine disaster. Please also read WP:DAYS. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

OP has not responded, so I have added it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I was reverted by User:Kiwipete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

As @Shantavira has mentioned, please read WP:DAYS, and also as I mentioned in my edit summary, WP:DOYCITE. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

DAYS is a WikiProject style guide, not a policy ("An advice page has the status of an essay and is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.", as it clearly says), and DOYCITE is a guideline and again not a policy, from which you removed the text "...editors reviewing unsourced entries are encouraged to check for a suitable source themselves before tagging or removing the entry." Perhaps you can tell us why you did not do that, and why you think it is acceptable to revert edits such as mine, instead of building on them—which is I understand, how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You should also take note of the Page Notice displayed whenever you edit a DOY article, specifically "Citations required: Each addition to this page must include a direct citation from a reliable source. Simply providing a wikilink is insufficient; entries without direct sources will be removed.". This is also the reason for removing that text from WP:DOYCITE. I would suggest that if you have further questions, you raise them at the project's talk page. Kiwipete (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You keep asking me to read different pages/ texts which say the same thing, but which have an equal lack of weight, and none of which refer to a policy or a community consensus.

I note that, leaving my addition aside, 25 of the 30 entries in the relevant section have no adjacent sources (they are of course sourced on the linked pages, as was mine), and yet you have not removed them.

You have still not explained why you destructively removed my addition, rather than collaboratively building upon it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Just people trying to shove notability up your butt. Don’t listen to Kiwipete. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

ههههه 105.37.95.104 (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

What the flip? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Non-free content of video games

I would like to add some video game screenshots representing the games that I have in the Wikipedia articles associated in them, but I'm not sure what guidelines to follow. For example, Neon White has a gameplay section without a screenshot of the game, but Papers, Please has a screenshot in the gameplay section.

Are there any informational pages (Wikipedia:x) that I can follow regarding non-free video game screenshots? Thanks -shanshansan Shanshansan (talk) 06:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Shanshansan

For non free video game screenshots the key rules are under Non-free content criteria, which set out the ten conditions any non free image must meet. The relevant advice for screenshots is in criterion 8 and the examples under Screenshots. cheers.

~~ 🐍 Thilio🤖 07:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Shanshansan MOS:VGIMAGES would be of good use here. Feel free to add images as long as you as they follow MOS. Go D. Usopp (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Kantara 2022 film's article title

Kantara A Legend was released in 2022. Later, in 2023 a prequel, Kantara A Legend Chapter 1 was announced, and it is set to be released in October this year. In February 2023, the director said the 2022 film was part 2. The page of the first film (Kantara (film)) was moved to Kantara: Chapter 2 in July this year. Should not the first film's article be titled Kantara (2022 film)? The first film is known as Kantara or Kantara A Legend by the audience, the title Kantara Chapter 2 is often interpreted as the 2025 film. Additionally, retroactive titles are not allowed Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope or Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1. these are some examples. The current title (Kantara Chapter 2) does not meet the WP:OFFICIAL guidelines, Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. WP:UCN commonly recognizable names should be used. WP:NCFILM clearly says that this kind of article title is not allowed. I requested a move but it is getting opposed, so what can I do? I do have the option to move the article myself. The film in posters and onscreen, is titled Kantara: A Legend. Optim594 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Optim594 Since the move request is already under discussion and facing opposition the best approach is to continue on the article’s talk page or requested moves page rather than moving the article unilaterally. Per WP:RM and WP:CONSENSUS, contested title changes require community agreement. You have made valid points citing WP:OFFICIAL, WP:UCN and WP:NCFILM,.... To strengthen your case add multiple independent reliable English language sources that refer to the 2022 film simply as Kantara or Kantara: A Legend and clearly show that “Kantara Chapter 2” creates confusion with the upcoming prequel.

If consensus is not reached you can wait 30 days and submit a new well sourced request. Avoid unilateral moves as they may be reverted under WP:BRD. Continue discussion on the RM page, add strong reliable sources supporting your title and avoid unilateral moves until consensus is reached.

🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 16:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I have added sources but I have one more question, even if it did not confuse, can the title really be changed?, it has not even been retitled, I think apple tv title is because of wikipedia, recently apple tv linked movies to prime video.

An IP user said that it is better to have retitled title than an disambiguation. But Star Wars (film) was retitled and has disambiguation instead of retitled title. Optim594 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

If the film has not been officially renamed Wikipedia’s guidelines (WP:NCFILM and WP:UCN) recommend using the original title... adding the release year if necessary (example, Kantara (2022 film)). Retroactive titles should only be applied when supported by significant usage in reliable sources. As your move request is still under discussion, continue adding high-quality sources demonstrating the common title and avoid moving the page yourself without prior agreement (WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RM). 🐍 Thilio🤖 04:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kantara:_Chapter_2#c-DareshMohan-20250811170500-2001:8F8:172B:45CE:E0D6:344D:987D:E91A-20250808155200 what do I do next, please help. Optim594 (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I mean when 7 days get completed, what do I do. IP oppose counts or not? Optim594 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Gary Adante (Recording Engineer/Producer)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Gary Adante

Subject: Request for Assistance with New Article on Gary Adante (Recording Engineer/Producer)

Hello Teahouse Editors,

I have prepared a draft article about myself, Gary Adante (formerly credited as Gary Olazabal), a recording engineer and producer with over 40 Grammy certifications. The draft is fully sourced with reliable references including AllMusic, Discogs, Muso.ai, the book *Faces of Music* by David Goggin, and an article on Okayplayer about Stevie Wonder’s *Songs in the Key of Life*.

In addition to my engineering and production work, I have held leadership roles such as Director of Studios for Paul Allen, managing 17 studios worldwide, and I am currently Director of Neptune Valley Studios in Beverly Hills.

I’m disclosing that I am the subject of this article and I’m seeking a neutral, experienced editor to review and, if appropriate, help with the article’s submission.

Here is the draft in my sandbox: User:GaryOAdante1/sandbox

Thank you very much for your consideration and help!

Best regards, User:GaryOAdante GaryOAdante1 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @GaryOAdante1, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that, like most new editors who plunge straight into the very challenging task of trying to create a new article before they have spent time understanding how Wikipedia works, you have created something that is nowhere near acceptable. In fact writing about yourself successfully on Wikipedia is so difficult that very few people manage it and in consequence you are strongly discouraged from trying: see WP:AUTO.

The problem is that new editors almost always start in what seems to be the obvious way, of writing what they know. This is precisely backwards: Wikipedia is not interested in what you know, even (or, especially) if it is about yourself. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

In order to write an article successfully, you first find reliable, wholly independent reliable sources about the subject - nothing written, published, or commissioned by the subject or their associates, or based on their words; nothing in social media, blogs, or user-generated sources such as iMDB or Wikipedia; nothing which contains only passing mentions of the subject; but places where people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish material about the subject at some length, in reliable publications. (This is the essential, and often challenging, part of the process: it is akin to building the foundations of a building before starting to build it). See WP:42.

Then, assuming that you have found several such sources, the next part of the process is to effectively forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those indpendent sources say. Do you see why it is extremely difficult to write about yourself?

More generally, 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) 20:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

That's the point, @ColinFine Thanks, hope they're readying this.....

🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 20:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for neutral editor

Grammy-winning engineer biography draft needs review & submission

Wall of text

Title: Request for neutral editor to review and submit biography draft (Gary Adante / Gary Olazabal) Body: Hello, I am seeking assistance from a neutral Wikipedia editor to review and, if appropriate, submit a biography draft I have prepared for Gary Adante (formerly credited as Gary Olazabal), an American recording engineer and producer. He has worked on over 40 Grammy Award-winning and nominated recordings and has been featured in published books and recognized music industry sources. The draft is fully cited with reliable references, including: – Faces of Music: 25 Years of Lunching with Legends by David Goggin (Alfred Music, 2011) – Buzz Me In: Inside the Record Plant Studios by Martin Porter & David Goggin (Thames & Hudson, 2025) – Official Grammy.com credits – AllMusic and Discogs credits I am aware of conflict-of-interest guidelines and will not be submitting this myself. Instead, I am asking a neutral editor to consider reviewing the draft and, if it meets standards, submit it via Articles for Creation (AfC). Draft in Wikitext format: {{short description|American recording engineer and producer}} {{Use mdy dates|date=August 2025}} '''Gary Adante''' (formerly credited as '''Gary Olazabal''') is an American recording engineer and producer who has contributed to numerous Grammy Award-winning and nominated recordings.<ref name="Faces">{{cite book |last=Goggin |first=David |title=Faces of Music: 25 Years of Lunching with Legends |publisher=Alfred Music |year=2011 |isbn=978-1598630245}}</ref><ref name="Buzz">{{cite book |last1=Porter |first1=Martin |last2=Goggin |first2=David |title=Buzz Me In: Inside the Record Plant Studios |publisher=Thames & Hudson |year=2025 |isbn=978-0500028698}}</ref><ref name="AllMusic">{{cite web |title=Gary Olazabal Credits |url=https://www.allmusic.com/artist/gary-olazabal-mn0000192533|website=AllMusic |access-date=9 August 2025}}</ref><ref name="Discogs">{{cite web |title=Gary Olazabal |url=https://www.discogs.com/artist/306234-Gary-Olazabal |website=Discogs |access-date=9 August 2025}}</ref><ref name="Grammy">{{cite web |title=Gary Olazabal |url=https://www.grammy.com/artists/gary-olazabal/13010 |website=Grammy.com |access-date=9 August 2025}}</ref> == Career == Adante began his career in the 1970s at major Los Angeles recording facilities, including the Record Plant.<ref name="Buzz" /> His credits include engineering and mixing for artists such as [[Stevie Wonder]], [[Barbra Streisand]], [[Quincy Jones]], [[Michael Jackson]], and [[Paul McCartney]].<ref name="Faces" /><ref name="AllMusic" /><ref name="Discogs" /> His work spans pop, rock, and R&B genres, with multiple projects earning Grammy Awards or nominations.<ref name="Grammy" /> He has been profiled in industry publications and books documenting the history of recording studios and the music industry.<ref name="Faces" /><ref name="Buzz" /> These sources detail his role in landmark recording sessions and his association with influential producers and artists. == Selected works == ''Songs in the Key of Life'' – Stevie Wonder (1976) – engineering team<ref name="AllMusic" /> ''Hotter than July'' – Stevie Wonder (1980) – engineer<ref name="AllMusic" /> ''Bad'' – Michael Jackson (1987) – engineering credits<ref name="Discogs" /> ''Live Alive'' – Stevie Ray Vaughan (1986) – mixing/engineering<ref name="Discogs" /> Various collaborations with Paul McCartney, Barbra Streisand, and Quincy Jones<ref name="AllMusic" /> == Publications == Adante is featured in: Goggin, David. ''Faces of Music: 25 Years of Lunching with Legends''. Alfred Music, 2011. ISBN 978-1598630245.<ref name="Faces" /> Porter, Martin; Goggin, David. ''Buzz Me In: Inside the Record Plant Studios''. Thames & Hudson, 2025. ISBN 978-0500028698.<ref name="Buzz" /> == References == <references /> == External links == [https://www.allmusic.com/artist/gary-olazabal-mn0000192533 AllMusic credits] [https://www.discogs.com/artist/306234-Gary-Olazabal Discogs credits] [https://www.grammy.com/artists/gary-olazabal/13010 Grammy.com profile] {{DEFAULTSORT:Adante, Gary}} [[Category:American audio engineers]] [[Category:Record producers from the United States]] [[Category:Living people]] [[Category:Year of birth missing (living people)]] Thank you for considering this request and for your help in preserving accurate music history. 142.129.115.247 (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

GaryOAdante1, I presume that this too is from you. You're "seeking assistance from a neutral Wikipedia editor". And you have enabled email. It is very likely that a self-described neutral Wikipedia editor will email you, offering to help you get an article published, of course for a fee. Any such offer is likely to be fraudulent. Any offer of guaranteed success is definitely fraudulent. There is a possibility that the writer is sincere -- but if so then the writer will be uninformed, incompetent, or both. Don't waste your money. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads-up, Hoary.

I’m still hopeful that an experienced, neutral editor with an interest in music history might be willing to review the draft I’ve posted here. It’s fully cited with published sources, and I’ve avoided any promotional tone in accordance with Wikipedia’s biography guidelines.

If anyone from the community has time to take a look, your feedback would be very welcome. GaryOAdante1 (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

ColinFine is a an experienced, neutral editor and gave you copious such feedback, above. Please heed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Not only is it promotional in tone, it's AI generated. Particularly your comment on the draft talk page. Don't use LLM to write text. Rewrite in your own words. We don't accept AI-generated content. Also, the correct procedure is to submit it for review, not request a review here. I put a submit button on the top of the draft so you can do that after you clean it up. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Seeking assistance...

Thanks to everyone who commented earlier. I’ve posted an update on the Draft’s Talk page outlining changes made to address sourcing, tone, and structure in line with policy. The current draft uses only independent, reliable publications that provide significant coverage, with promotional material removed. Draft: Gary Adante Talk page with details: Draft talk Further feedback is welcome. 162.255.3.238 (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Please remember to log in, two of your sources don't mention him and IMDb is NOT a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@GaryOAdante1: Making sure you see this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Efns don't show if hovered over on talk pages

Hi, I started an RfC here where the proposed solution includes an EFN with sources explaining the article prose, and as all RfCs are on the talk page of the related article, I'm having this bug where unlike in the article space where if you hover over an EFN it shows a little popup, when I hover over an EFN in the talk page it's not popping up properly like it does in an article space. How do I fix this? Am I using the wrong notelist template? Thank you PHShanghai | they/them (talk) PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

No, you aren't using the wrong template, just that Hover popups for {{efn}} don’t work on talk pages because the necessary reference handling scripts are only loaded in article space. On talk pages, EFNs will appear as plain links to the notes list there’s no way to enable the hover function there. 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 11:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Thilio: How would you suggest I get around this given that the RfC wraps around having an EfN? Would copypasting the EFN content be appropriate? Thank you PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@PHShanghai....On talk pages, the simplest workaround is to paste the EFN text inline or as a brief parenthetical, then keep the full {{efn}} in the article space where hover works.

Alternatively, you could place the explanation in a bullet or numbered list below the relevant point in your RfC so readers don’t need to click to see it. See WP:TPG for talk page formatting guidance. 🐍 Thilio🤖 12:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Where do I write a article

(Redacted). Respectfully yours (Redacted). 79.143.107.27 (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a news site, and we do not report original research. Please see our list of alternative outlets.

Also, do not include the names of others in posts like this here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I've redacted this, because it seems quite oddly specific and could be WP:OUTING. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 15:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Can't move page

Hi there, could someone move the page for me. I am not yet autoconfirmed and would appreciate to skip that process as I won't write many other articles. User:Fossilio Endgamo/sandbox. Fossilio Endgamo (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fossilio Endgamo: Please see Help:Referencing for beginners; your draft just has references slapped onto the end as an afterthought. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Fossilio Endgamo, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The answer is no, but I have added a header which will allow you to submit your draft for review.

The restriction on new editors moving articles or creating article in mainspace is there for a reason: editors who have not spent time learning how Wikipedia works before they try to create an article almost always create something that is not acceptable. My personal opinion is that the restriction on creating new articles should be set far beyond four days and ten edits.

As far as I can see, your draft depends on primary sources.

An article on FFZ could be accepted only if it were primarily based on secondary sources, i.e. sources wholly unconnected with Green, UCL, or LINGO, that have published in-depth material about the idea.

Wikipedia is the last place to tell the world about new ideas, not the first: please see WP:NOTADVOCACY. ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you Fergus Green, or do you have some connection to him or to fossilfreezones.org? If so, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

It would definitely be a good idea to submit to using the WP:AFC process as ColinFine suggests, as this article is definitely not ready to be moved to mainspace. A new concept should not be sourced only from a handful of parties who recently created and/or are advocating for the concept to be implemented. An article about Fossil Free Zones should be primarily sourced from reliable secondary sources writing about Fossil Free Zones. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Researching Shintoism Cosmology & more

Sorry if I am a bother to any of you right now. But, I am wondering if I can get help on getting some information about Shintoism Cosmology and Women's role(s) in Shintoism. I am a new researcher to Shintoism but I don't know the right sources to get them from. My 2 posts were flagged from ChatGPT. Which yes, it was genuinely for being written by ChatGPT. But, I changed some words here in there of my choosing. I get it, I was in the wrong so I do not mind. All I want to do is find true good sources of stuff based on Shintoism. I just found out about Shintoism 2 days ago. I'm also thinking of converting to Shintoism because I can see the beauty and I think I believe in the Kami that are in Shintoism. My recently changed username from yesterday is based on the Kami, Amaterasu Omikami or 天照大神. I will be waiting by going outside to pray to the Kami of love (also known as Ōkuninushi no Mikoto) to pray of getting a beautiful good partner of mine. Can't wait to chat with you!

If you are in need of the draft link, here you go. Draft:Shinto Cosmology. AmaterasuNoMamorite (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, typo I mean for being written by ChatGPT. AmaterasuNoMamorite (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Your Draft:Shinto Cosmology currently lacks sufficient reliable sources. Please avoid using AI-generated text, as Wikipedia requires information to be supported by verifiable, published sources (see WP:RS). 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 18:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

"currently lacks sufficient reliable sources" This is hardly surprising, given that the OP is here to ask for help finding sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Noticed !! 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 18:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest removing everything written by ChatGPT and write the draft in your own words. The information in the draft must also be supported by reliable sources via citations. Anything not supported by reliable sources must be removed. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much to all of you whom suggested these things to me. I highly thank @ColinFine, @Tenshi Hinanawi, @Thilio, and @Pigsonthewing. If you have any more suggestions to me, bring it to my talk page if you'd like, or just say the suggestion here. Anything works really. I am open for any suggestions for my further research in Shintoism Cosmology and other things about Shintoism! You can also suggest me articles that are not even on here about Shintoism, like information about any Kami like Fujin/風神, Toyouke-Omikami/豊受大神, and Haniyasu-hime/埴安姫神!

And @ColinFine, Just to confirm for you. Ame-no-Minakanushi is not associated with my user name! In fact, it's associated with the Kami, "Ameterasu".

Ameterasu is literally if you search her up: She is our very own sun goddess of the HIgh Heavenly Plains. Even though she is the most central in Shinto. That does not make her Ame-no-Minakanushi! She was also one of the ancestors to the imperial family of Japan!

There are quite a lot of key differences between them. Ame-no-Minakanushi was one of the first Kami's to exist, Ame-no-Minakanushi is described as a primordial and invisible as mentioned in the article you mentioned (Ame-no-Minakanushi). And the Kami, Ameterasu as I said earlier, was a sun goddess and the ruler of the High Heavenly Plains, also (said again) the utmost centrality of Shinto.

I'm going to say a prayer for all of us here and to those who read this below and read this above,

O High Deity Amatersu-Omikami, please protect us and grant us prosperity. By the divine way, bestow upon us your blessings. Amaterasu-Omikami, arigato gozaimasu. (Amaterasu-Omikami, thank you very much)

Also, arigato gozaimasu for reading my question and this message.

May the Goddesses, and the High god's/Kami's of the Highest of the Heavens and the Earth guide me and you to the correct way of faith of the Kami. O High Deity Amaterasu-Omikami, arigato gozaimasu.

さようなら、良い一日を!/Goodbye, have a nice day!

良い午後を!/Have a nice afternoon! AmaterasuNoMamorite (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @AmaterasuNoMamorite. Since we already have articles on Ame-no-Minakanushi and Japanese creation myth (the second of which is woefully short of sources), I suspect it would be more advantageous for you to work on improving those, rather than trying to create a new article. ColinFine (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@AmaterasuNoMamorite that's the best suggestion from @ColinFine If I were you, I would definitely take it. Keep improving those, Ame-no-Minakanushi and Japanese creation myth you can even go deep by "see also" similar topics, like Kuni-no-Tokotachi ,Sky father and so on. 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 04:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

2025 in American television

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

---

I am writing this for my other account but this is my web browser

my main account is Lukas 4550 but I am writing on my web browser the reason I'm doing this is because some of my edits that I needed help for I've been getting reverted which means I haven't been getting the help I need to fix the things that need to be fixed my most recent edit or one of my most recent edits on 2025 in American television was reverted when I just needed help fixing some formatting if you find this contact my account via my talk page 2603:6000:D000:9607:9021:74E1:8746:4A78 (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Lukas4550, at least one of your edits to 2025 in American television was reverted with an informative edit summary. If you need help to fix what needs to be fixed, then log in as Lukas4550 and on Talk:2025 in American television ask for specific help. Incidentally, (i) I for one always use a web browser (the only alternative I can think of, the "app", sounds somewhat half-baked), (ii) the conventions of English orthography (commas, periods, sentence-initial capitals, etc) are no more than conventions, but they are helpful all the same. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I use the app as I use a tablet as my main device 2603:6000:D000:9607:B963:2B86:C94C:F79E (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Then you may wish to try a browser on your tablet. As it happens I don't use anything other than a computer for editing Wikipedia, but I'm confident that I could use Firefox on my (Android) tablet for editing Wikipedia as well as for viewing it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@IP is your up your alternative account? HQIQ (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I see you have started a discussion on Talk:2025 in American television, which is the correct thing to do.

As for editing from you browser, you can still log in there; and can be logged in in both places at once. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Finding sources

How do I find reliable sources for something that only few people know about?

I'm trying to make a page on right minarchism (umbrella term), but it got declined because there was no reliable source of information. So first off, few people know about the ideologies I'm putting in the page, few people follow them, and few people criticize them. I get most my info from polcompball wiki (and it's branched off wikis), and they are a nice community where people know a lot about politics, and put that effort into pages. There is people who criticize eachothers ideologies there, and I'm using that as my basis. I've also experienced the criticism first hand in real life, as a Minarchist myself. And as a Minarchist and political nerd myself, I know what the ideologies believe. kindest regards, MinarchistGuy381 MinarchistGuy381 (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

As the link WP:Reliable sources in your draft review says, Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable, published sources have to say about the subject. What you know is not anything Wikipedia can use. What is posted on user-generated sites such as wikis is not anything Wikipedia can use. If there is insufficient material published by independent reliable sources to show the subject's notability then there cannot be an article about it on Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

what if I make a page Of polcompball wiki? Is that possibly allowed? (this is unrelated to the topic at hand) MinarchistGuy381 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

"Whereof. . . ." Hoary (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

This. This right here, is why one loiters around the teahouse, even when one does not take tea. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I assume you've tried places like [1] and [2]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Don't use user-generated sources. Go D. Usopp (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for help guys MinarchistGuy381 (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Example of in-depth, reliable, secondary & strictly independent of the subject

Hi Team,

Could you help me review this wiki draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:HexaHealth as this draft article submission was declined due to "references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article."? If I compare the sources/references, most of the experienced editors have added these references as a reference links for any wiki article wherever there was possibility to add.

I will be a great thankful to you.

Thanks

Momosnep (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Similar question already answered at AfC help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Momosnep that question already answered here 🐍 Thilio🤖 08:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Rosedale Banishment

Hello, and thank you for your time. I’m interested in creating a new Wikipedia article about the Rosedale Banishment, a racially motivated mass expulsion that took place in Johnstown, Pennsylvania in 1923. The event was widely reported in the press at the time, has been the subject of historical research, and was recently commemorated by the state and local governments on its 100th anniversary. I’ve gathered reliable sources, including newspaper coverage from the period, modern scholarship, and official proclamations, but I would like guidance from experienced editors to ensure the article is written in line with Wikipedia’s content and sourcing policies.

I understand the importance of neutrality, verifiability, and avoiding original research. My goal is to present this topic accurately and in a manner consistent with Wikipedia’s standards, while improving public access to documented history. Because the subject intersects with racial history, local history, and notable public recognition, I believe it meets the notability criteria, but I would appreciate help confirming that and structuring the article properly.

If there are editors here who are familiar with U.S. history topics, civil rights history, or Pennsylvania history, I’d be grateful for your assistance. Whether that’s through co-drafting the page in my sandbox, reviewing a draft, or advising on formatting and citations, your input would be invaluable. Please let me know if you’re willing to help or can point me toward the best place to find collaborators for this kind of project. Codypat13 (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you used Chat GPT or another LLM to generate this. Please write in your own words for this kind of project. First gather the sources and try to summarize what they say. If your message is correct about press coverage and research it will be notable. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You are very unlikely to find someone who will work on this with you from the outset, unless you can find a real-world Wikipedia meetup or "editathon".

Your best bet is to gather as many reliable sources as you can, and then start a draft article using the WP:Article Wizard, citing a source for each statement you name in the draft..

When you have done that, you can ask at relevant Wikipedia project pages, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States History to see if anyone has any comments or suggestions.

You may find WP:Your first article helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

On second thoughts, you may also apply for a Wikipedia mentor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, I did use CHatGPT to write the first message. But in actual correspondence, I would just communicate normally. Codypat13 (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Multi word infobox parameters

While creating a infobox, can you create a parmeter with more than one word? If so, how? WikiHelper3906 (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@WikiHelper3906 Yes, "you can create a parameter with more than one word" just by using underscores instead of spaces in the parameter name. 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 08:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Move it to draft

Hi, I have written a biography draft for Rinaa Peter in my sandbox but I am not autoconfirmed and cannot move it to the Draft space. Could someone please help move it to Draft:Rinaa Peter so I can submit it for review? Here is the sandbox link:

User:Nidhi.gupta8/sandbox. Nidhi.gupta8 (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Done; now at Draft:Rinaa Peter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I have Someone [we edit conflict-ed] has reviewed and declined your draft. Several sections are entirely uncited. You have some inline citations, so use the same technique to cite everything in the article. Remove anything that you cannot cite. Once you have done that, you can resubmit it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Nidhi.gupta8, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You have made the very common mistake of writing what Peter or her associates would want people to know. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

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) 15:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Malware Mitigation Techniques

Can you give me the full list of things, which can mitigate malware? Like, i remember Petya (malware family) with "perfc" and "perfc.dat" - but are there other similar files to make for other malware? And other similarly simple tricks to do? 95.167.182.36 (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

IP editor: this is a help area for people who edit Wikipedia. We can't usually answer other questions but you might find some ideas at the article Antivirus software. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

How to not get tagged for speedy deletion?

I wrote a page about a company and they tagged it for speedy deletion claiming it was for advertising purpose though it was just about the company and how inspiring as a startup they are growing.

Don't know what to do. HELP Daalikhattak (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Daalikhattak, I managed to get a peek at the articlebefore it was removed. The article didn't have a single independent source. You referenced articles written by the creators, LinkedIn posts by the creators, social media posts by the creators. You need reliable, secondary sources discussing the company. Knitsey (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Oops, yes...didn't see there was a thread here at the Teahouse. I will move it to draftspace in a moment. Lectonar (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Daalikhattak, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I can't see deleted articles; but you have almost certainly made the same mistake as most people who try the challenging task of creating a new article without first learning about how Wikipedia works: you probably wrote either what you know or think about the company, or else what the company wants people to know.

Wikipedia isn't interested in either of these things. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources, and very little else (see WP:42). If you know much about the subjet, you will need to effectively forget what you know, and confine yourself to what these independent sources have said.

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) 16:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Lowerated. Knitsey (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• Daalikhattak The term "Startup" is a very strong indicator that this company does not yet merit an article. Startups or "rising" companies almost never merit articles, a company must become established and recognized in its field to draw the coverage needed to support an article. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Rejected without review

I submitted a detailed COI trying my best to follow the wikipedia process it got rejected without review

I posted a detailed COI request, to the best and most detail possible, Talk:Nithyananda - Wikipedia ; I waited for more than a month, finally i noted a senior admin, and asked him to review. He got angry and rejected it without review. Is there any way to take it forward for a second review? Because the facts were not even read/considered saying it is too long. Should I resubmit shorter request? SurekhaSekar (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You should submit a shorter request, and you should not use an LLM at any point in that process. You should also refrain from pinging individual administrators to look at the request. So long as you have used the request template, your request will go into a maintenance category and patrolling editors will find it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

thank you, that is what i didn, it was pending for a very very long time; are you able to see my coi request ... ? you can also consider such requests ? SurekhaSekar (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

It was likely in the queue for a long time due to the length of the request. If you think that multiple things should be changed, it might be better to break the changes down into several smaller requests. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@SurekhaSekar, any editor in good standing may consider a request. (Please do not take this as a suggestion that you ask other editors to review it for you.) -- asilvering (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You used an LLM, and said as much in the linked thread. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources

How can i update the source of an article? Bgboi179 (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if it’s a dumb question i just want to help with some football (soccer) articles Bgboi179 (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bgboi179 welcome to Teahouse...

To update a source by editing the article, replacing or adding the citation with a reliable, verifiable source and formatting it using Wikipedia’s citation templates like {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}. See guide here Help:Referencing for beginners. 🐍 Thilio🤖 18:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Cool, but how do i make the links clickable? Bgboi179 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Bgboi179. One of the parameters in templates such Thilio mentioned is url= - obligatory for {{cite web}}, and optional for the other templates, because sources do not have to be available online. If you fill in that parameter, it will generate a clickable link. Please see the reference pace Thilio linked to. ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation

How can I object to one of the final choices of candidates to become a Trustee to the Wikimedia Foundation

I would like to voice my concern, even outrage, that one of the six finalist to be elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees seems to have violated the Foundation's own Universal Code of Conduct. Please see this article for clarification of what I am talking about. https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804 As a loyal and dedicated Wikipedia editor for about ten years, I would like to voice my concern about this hypocritical/unethical action. Please guide me how to do this. Thank you. ```` DaringDonna (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

See https://wikimediafoundation.org/contact/ -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

AFC and Reviewed Articles

Shouldn't articles created via the AFC process be marked as reviewed? Because a reviewer at AFC reviewed the article and approved it because it passed Wikipedias main policies and requirements. It would also help lift off work from the New Page Patrollers. 8bit12man (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@8bit12man.. Well, At AfC,.. A reviewer checks for notability, sourcing & compliance with core policies before moving a draft to mainspace but that does not count as a New Page Patrol review. NPP includes additional checks such as copyright, formatting & categorization and is a separate process. This is why articles created via AfC still appear in the New Pages Feed and require a page patroller’s review. 🐍 Thilio🤖 20:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

AfC reviewers do check for copyright violations and other issues, not just notability & sourcing. It is a quick-fail criteria in the reviewing instructions Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi Absolutely you are right but in depth copyright checks done by New Page Patrollers and admins.

🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 20:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, disagree. If there's any trace of a copyright violation AfC reviewers need to remove it, request revdel, and decline the draft as a copyvio. Also, what specifically do you mean by an "in-depth copyright check"?. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I meant NPP often do a fuller, oops!!, I mean deeper check after the article is in mainspace 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 20:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

No, the copyright checks are the same for both AFC and NPP. NPP tends to do some other checks like, as you say, categorization, and also serve as a second set of eyes for (most) AFC reviewers. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@8bit12man, it wouldn't actually lift all that much work off NPP to mark all AFC articles as patrolled - those are already the easier ones that are pretty fast for NPP to handle anyway. But also, it's easier (by design) to become an AFC reviewer, so we want articles that have made it through AFC to get a second look. -- asilvering (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Britt Roberson page

Britt Robertson

I acted, sang, modeled, and danced alongside Britt Roberson at the American Talent Showcase in Charleston SC before she moved to LA. We were clients of Donna Ehrlich at Carolina Winds now Z-One Talent Agency in Chester, SC. She is actually posted as on of their success stories on this page: https://www.z1modelsandtalent.net/about-us. This is where she gained traction and reputable contacts for her move to LA where the bio made it seem like she just took a chance and randomly moved to LA where she got famous which isn't the case. She had to do a lot of local networking to get her contacts in LA. I myself was offered a modeling contract for NY that I never took but this showcase had big connections. If she had never attended that showcase, she would've never been allowed to move to LA to pursue a career on hopes and dreams alone. I edited the bio of course but when I tried to list my references, I feel like failed miserably. How can I site this correctly and orderly as it comes up much earlier in the bio than other information and references? And can I add the photos I have of us at the ATS? I have 2 where we're both in a group photo together? CreativeChaos87 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@CreativeChaos87 Welcome to Teahouse.

Please see the conflict of interest guideline & propose changes on the article’s talk page supported by reliable published sources. For adding photos please see WP:IMAGES to ensure they meet Wikipedia’s licensing and content requirements. Cheers. Good faith edit 🐍 Thilio🤖 22:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Because you have a conflict of interest, and you are new here, it would be best if you used Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to propose specific changes to an article with which you have a conflict of interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @CreativeChaos87, and welcome to Wikipedia editing!

If I'm reading your question correctly, you're trying to add one or both of these as links?

https://www.z1modelsandtalent.net/about-us

https://share.google/hNUdBoOzkZQ8oe36X

You were on the right track, but you wanted web citation. That would take you to this template:

{{cite web |last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |website= |location= |publisher= |access-date=}}

Filled out, looks more like this:

<ref>{{cite web |last=LastNameofAuthor |first=FirstName |title=About Us |url=http://www.z1modelsandtalent.net/about-us |website=Z1 Models and Talent |publisher= |access-date=August 11, 2025}}</ref>

Which gives us the following:

Past the part within the <ref> tags at the end of the sentence (or paragraph) where you mention the information it provides. Good luck!

(and the other user who replied was absolutely correct about reading COI) MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

'de-expand' page data beneath editor

My first Teahouse question after nineteen years! Whenever I edit an article, there's a cluster of data beneath the editor, such as "Wikidata entities on this page", "This page is a member of X categories", etc.. That all would be fine, if each of the entries was not by default expanded, sometimes pushing the preview down an entire screen's length. I've looked through the various preferences I have in place, and I don't think it's 'twinkle' or 'ultraviolet' which I have enabled - but I can't find anywhere to modify their presentation to not be expanded. Help? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Anastrophe, I haven't the foggiest, but if you can say what skin you're using and whether you're on desktop or mobile, that might help someone else answer your question. -- asilvering (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I know better. I use monobook on PC, largely on Firefox. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, I temporarily disabled the small number of scripts that were in my monobook.js to no avail, so they can be ruled out hopefully (User:AzaToth/twinkle.js. User:Lupin/recent2.js, User:Omegatron/monobook.js, User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You may get better answers by asking at WP:Village pump (technical). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, I'll give it a whirl. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect edit

Hi, someone changed one of my edits on the page saying it was offensive, but I only reported correct information from the latest interviews (source: interviews themselves with the director of the film himself)If they are not aware of the correct and latest information, please do not change when the page contains incorrect material. 93.45.197.125 (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey! I can't speak for the editor themselves, but I can say, you should follow the Manual of Style when making edits! But on you're edits, I see why they reverted for Manual of Style, unsure how they're offensive to my POV. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 00:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You didn't give a source in the article for either of your edits and both included errors in capitalization. If you have a source somewhere that has the director saying he is not trying to follow the original at all, then post the link and you can ask for help with formatting it for the article. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user: welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits appear to be your opinions about the film (and your capitals suggest that they are strongly held. It's fine to have opinions, but they don't belong in Wikipedia, which should report only what reliable published sources say. (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your opinions: I know nothing about the subject.)

If you have a reliable published source that says those things, then you could add "XXX said that ... ", citing the published source. If you're not sure how to cite it, post on the article's talk page explaining what you think should be added, and who said it where. ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Neither of your edits was described as "offensive". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

question about userboxes

I wish to add userboxes to my talk page, but I am confused on how to do this. Could you please assist me on this? Thank you :) 76.167.174.124 (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Copy and paste? Incidentally, it's normal to add them to one's user page, but user pages are only for named users. I notice "I plan on creating an account": Please go ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Userboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Plane crashes in picture montages

What's up with the excessive use of plane crashes in the picture montages for "year" articles?

I like looking at the Wikipedia articles for each year to see all the events that took place in each respective year. One thing I noticed though is in the picture montages, there seems to be so many pictures of planes that crashed. Yes these are tragic with significant loss of life, but are plane crashes really so important as to define the ethos of a year?

For example I was just looking at the article for "2000" and there are 2 plane crashes in the montage. Here are some others: "1991" has 2. "1992" has 2. "1995" has 1. "1996" has 3. "1997" has 3. "1998" has 2. "2006" has 2. "2007" has 1. "2008" has 1. "2009" has 2. "2014" has 1.

Seems excessive to feature this many plane crashes. I didn't even look at any before 1990 but I assume there are more. I even wonder if it is a single person making the montages who seems to prefer putting plane crash pictures there. What are your thoughts? Airgum (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Airgum. There is an editor who is very active on Wikimedia Commons, called User:Nagae Iku. This user seems to enjoy creating these "year" collages and may be the best person to ask. Please be aware that this editor's native language is Chinese and they claim only basic English competency. Cullen328 (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Airgum. An example link for courtesy is 1996. That montage has an incredibly long and hard to follow caption!

I think there is a way to create a montage as individual photos, that way it will be easier to swap out events/photos per discussions (like this one), and you could click on each photo to see what it is about.

That would be more of a wiki way, rather than referring to a static grouping made at some point.

To be honest I would need help in figuring if there are any technical limitations or other reasons as to why it hasn't been done that way yet. Commander Keane (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

redirect from the article namespace

Hello Wiki I'm trying to publish an article for a local band that has a record deal and some articles about them that I properly cited, but I fear I categorized the article wrong so it go immediately shut down before the review started. Here is the official problem it says:" because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces." But the article is still a draft: "Draft:The Band Solstice'. So what do I need to fix this or is there nothing to be fixed Viscosityc (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Viscosityc, all you have to do is to (greatly) improve Draft:The Band Solstice. But before you set out to attempt that, are you sure that the band is notable (as understood by and for Wikipedia)? Incidentally, are you perhaps related to the band? -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I thought I did everything correct for the article. I guess the only thing I forgot to add is wiki links. The band is notable as they have been covered by 3 independent news company's. And I am not related to the band in any way. I'm just a second degree friend of one of the band members and find it funny there are 4 different solstice bands, so I'm trying to help a friend of a friend out by giving them a wiki page they deserve. Viscosityc (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit filtered out: trying to understand why

I recently tried to make an edit to the page for Normal Douglas, changing a section heading "Sexual Encounters with Children" to "Pedophilia". The motivation for the change was accuracy and brevity, and to better reflect the content of the section. I'd like to understand why the edit was inappropriate and how to avoid this in the future.

Below is my exchange on Edit Filter>False Positive>Reports (thanks to EggRoll97 and 45Dogs for getting me this far)

ME: I was changing "sexual encounters with children" to "pedophilia" in the section title because he had sex with kids as an adult, a fact he documented in his own writings (as described and referenced in that section). The original title was misleading, since it allowed for the idea that he was also a child, rather than an adult many decades older than the children, and also on at least some occasions, paying them. REPLY: Not done – The filter is working properly. I'm not sure this is necessary. The current section title already accurately describes the events, and I don't really see the need to change it as proposed

ME: Thanks for considering it. I'm a new editor — is there a guide to language use in sensitive topics? My edit was partly motivated by clarity and accuracy, but it looks liek I missed the mark here REPLY：There is the Manual of Style, but in this case WP:BLP would likely be better to refer to

ME：Thanks for the direction. I had a look at the two guides and also a couple of similar figures (dead, respected for their work, no debate over the fact they were a pedophile) and I have a follow-up question if you have time to answer. Would "Child Sexual Abuse by Douglas" or "Documentation of Child Sexual Abuse" have been more appropriate edits? REPLY：I am not actually sure. I only realized now I might have pointed you to the wrong resource, since WP:BLP is focused on living people's biographies. In my opinion, it would likely be better to err on the side of caution. Both of those are accusatory in nature, even if they are true. Though honestly, it would likely be better to receive other editor's opinions, which you can do at the teahouse or help desk.

My questions are: 1. Is there any guidance for what language to use in cases like this (preferably with an explanation)? 2. Was the language of my edits accusatory? To my mind, you can't accuse someone of something they have said they did (e.g. if I tell you I drank a coffee this morning, you can't accuse me drinking a coffee this morning). 3. I asked whether "Child Sexual Abuse by Douglas" or "Documentation of Child Sexual Abuse" would have been more appropriate edits; I've since thought of a third: "Child Sexual Abuse Allegations". This doesn't seem quite right (because he wasn't alleging them against himself, he was documenting them), but if the other options seem accuratory, perhaps it's a better fix?

Thanks in advance for any answers or ideas you can provide. Sheidou (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

If unquestionably reliable sources say he was a pedophile (and actually used the word pedophile), then in my view, we should call a WP:SPADE a spade and use that term in Wikipedia's voice. The edit filter is just an automated response to words that have historically had a high correlation with unconstructive edits, and it acted accordingly. In this case it's a false positive. However, I don't see a problem with the status-quo wording. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The article in question is Norman Douglas. It is clear that by late 20th and 21st century standards, his sexual behavior with children was reprehensible and horrific. But stating that he had "pedophilia" implies either a specific psychiatric diagnosis or a criminal conviction. If neither occurred, then explaining his behavior that is now considered shocking without use of that term may be better. Personally, I would have no problem calling him a pedophile in casual conversation but we need to use words very precisely when writing encyclopedia articles, especially when social mores have changed for the better. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Mapbox shapes

What determines whether a certain Wikidata id can appear as a shape (versus a simple point) in a mapbox? For example, the infobox on Washington State Capitol correctly shows the shape in the map, but Budd Inlet does not; both have an associated OpenStreetMap relation ID with drawn shape in OSM. OceanLoop (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@OceanLoop See mediawikiwiki:Help:Extension:Kartographer/OSM#Limitation —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

io soi il ve di domande

ala jò a colpâ un cagnin in dare di faim

il graziis al è molt grâs.

Kerry blue terrier - Vichipedie 116.255.2.165 (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is the English Wikipedia; please provide an English translation if you can. You may be looking for another language's edition of Wikipedia. Google Translate says this is Friulian, in which case you'll want the Friulian Wikipedia (Vichipedie furlane); otherwise, try https://wikipedia.org or m:List of Wikipedias. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Map appeared in the article Vibhavadi Rangsit Road oddly

Vibhavadi Rangsit Road

Hi all, sometime ago I added a map to the article Vibhavadi Rangsit Road but the map showed up with some sort of [[File: artifacts. How do I get rid of it? Thank you very much in advance. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 03:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed it. For future reference, the |map= parameter of {{infobox road}} normally expects the name of a file (like |map=Example.jpg); if you're going to give it a full image (like the kind that {{maplink}} produces), you need to add |map_custom=yes. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thank you very much for your help!🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 15:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

kap tata bigay

who the user account facebook kap tata bigay 158.62.53.115 (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@kap tata bigay 158.62.53.115 (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

If this is a question about Wikipedia, please ask it more coherently. (And if it is not, then you're asking at the wrong place.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

"Reading lists" to establish notability

Hello! This question concerns the articles Cryptid Hunters and Tentacles. Both these articles are in quite poor shape, in my opinion, and I'd like to work on fixing them up.

They were sent to AFD in 2010 for reasons editors did not agree with (though at the time they were essentially unreferenced plot summaries), and were kept after the addition of their inclusion on some reading lists, which the AFD discussion indicated passed WP:BOOKCRIT #4. Cryptid Hunters was also nominated for some awards I do not know the notability of (but I suspect a lack of it).

I am skeptical that inclusion on several reading lists is equivalent to being the subject of instruction at two or more schools. I have found multiple reviews of both these books that qualify them as notable per WP:BOOKCRIT #1, so I do not believe their notability is in question, regardless of the state of the articles.

My question is, as I take a stab at improving these articles, is this information worth preserving? Have I correctly interpreted the guideline of WP:NBOOK in my assessment that this is not useful information, or does this actually contribute to their notability? NovaHyperion (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@NovaHyperion your interpretation of WP:NBOOK seems generally correct; Inclusion on reading lists may help demonstrate notability under WP:BOOKCRIT #4 but as you point out this criterion is narrowly defined it refers specifically to works being the subject of instruction in at least two schools not simply being recommended or listed for general reading.

If you have located multiple reliable, independent reviews that would satisfy WP:BOOKCRIT #1 making the reading list inclusion less critical for establishing notability... However, the information might still be worth mentioning in the article if the lists are from notable institutions or widely recognized sources as it could provide useful context even if it’s not determinative for notability.

In short,... you can improve the articles by focusing on high quality independent sources for reception and coverage and treat the reading list information as supplementary rather than central to the notability claim.🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 07:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Thilio Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Based on that, I remain unconvinced that inclusion on a school's summer reading list is a contribution towards notability (in my experience at least, the gap between "on a summer reading list" and "the subject of instruction" is vast) and I do not believe that the information that it appeared on a reading list is serving readers in this case, so at this juncture I feel comfortable excluding it. NovaHyperion (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Create pages then blank them?

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question. Is it OK to create user pages, I don't know if it's the right name for this, for other users then blank them? See this: 1 Qby (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Qby: I don't know if it's against any actual policy, other than the general convention that one shouldn't really edit other users' userpages. If we're talking about a one-off, it's probably not a problem, but if it's being done on larger scale that could be a red flag... for something. I suppose you could always ask the user, to hear what they have to say about this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing I'll tell you what's a red flag, they've amassed almost 19,000 edits since February 25th, that's over 3100 a day. Most of them seem to be deleted redirects. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that, I had my page screwed up. But they do have a lot of edits in a short time. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. An interesting edit history – 10 live edits and 18,900+ deleted ones. That's gotta be some sort of record. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if they're using a bot.

So the link they provided was limited to the User namespace- it only showed those edits. Their unfiltered contributions. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The user's history shows over 19K edits, but the deleted contributions is just a hundred or so. Where are the other thousands? on other projects?

This looks like a WP:NOTHERE situation. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Photographing Medieval Graffiti

Hi, I have always used Wikipedia for lots of information. I am focused on photographing Medieval Graffiti in English churches. I have surveyed hundreds of Norman and Anglo Saxon churches and wish to make them available to users of Wikipedia. This means just adding them to the occasionally low content listing of the church already listed. Often on average 6 photographs would be added. How is this done without making a mistake given I am not that IT savy?Thanks

How to add lots of photographs to English church sites. This mostly capture Medieval Graffiti which is generally not mentioned on the sites but is an area of growing interest. I have surveyed hundreds of Norman and Saxon churches to capture photographs and to add to the knowledge of those that visit churches or the Congregation them selves. It would be good to be able to add some of my images to your existing church listings Proving I do not make mistake while doing it. I am not that IT savy. Kenscontribution (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

There are two steps:

1. Upload the images to Wikimedia Commons; a sibling project of Wikipedia (this makes them available to Wikipedias in ~300 other languages, too)
2. Insert them into Wikipedia articles

Help:Images should get you started; please ask again if any of it is not clear.

Two things to remember:

• On Commons, images are categorised. If you are uploading several images from one church, and there is no category for that church, you can make one.
• Six images might be a lot for some articles. In that case, you can use the {{Commons category}} template at the foot of the article to indicate that additional images can be found on Wikimedia Commons.

Thank you for offering to donate these images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, if the graffiti is not mentioned in the articles then it is not clear why we would need photographs of it? Theroadislong (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, but I have been here a while.

Of course we want such images. If a church has mediaeval graffiti and that is not mentioned in its article, that is an egregious omission, which needs to be corrected. The images could well prompt such a correction (or indeed Kenscontribution may wish to make it at the same time). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Listings of English churches typically show a photograph of the outside of the church only. It might detail the age and style of construction and if it is 'listed' as of historic value and therefore protected from changes to the structure. It is very very rare to add that Medieval marks made by the common man exists and never shows these marks which are of huge value.In case you are unaware, the churches I refer to are often 800 to 1100 years old, and often get upgraded. In doing repairs often these important marks made by the congregation are covered up or damaged by replastering. My aim is to capture these important marks before they become lost to future generations. Hope some of that helps understand why Graffiti is not currently mentioned on most websites.

Ken Kenscontribution (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an article called Medieval graffiti? Theroadislong (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps. For now, I'll redirect that to Graffiti#Medieval Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

My Draft Was Declined, I need some help knowing what to change

I submitted my article for approval, its the second time it was declined, I am wondering what information to put in, because when I had information that was useful and insightful it was said that it felt biased, but now that I took the information out they said that it was trivial, if anyone could help by looking at the sources, and looking into the content that would be super helpful here is the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sjonnyon#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_TAIT_(August_12) Sjonnyon (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You need to show that the subject meets the requirements outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE. There is additional guidance on suitable sources at WP:NCORP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Sjonnyon, Draft:TAIT cites 32 sources. That's a lot for you to expect anyone here to check. Which three, in your opinion, do most to establish thet the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense? They'll need to be to sources each of which is reliable, is independent of the subject, and has extensive discussion of it. Maproom (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Chromebook Challenge

The recent “F Students are Inventors” trend. It once had its own article and even got a picture but was immediately nominated for deletion. Why is this and why can’t challenges have their own articles? Can anything on the internet covered in Wikipedia go 5 seconds without getting redirected or straight up wiped? Anywhosies, should we bring back the article? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

"Can anything on the internet covered in Wikipedia go 5 seconds without getting redirected or straight up wiped?", yes, and we have plenty of such articles. They meet WP:GNG.

"should we bring back the article?" Can you show that it meets WP:GNG? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh look at that. Talking about notability when the article has already existed but got nuked off the website for no reason. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The reasoning was detailed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chromebook challenge. Has anything changed since that discussion? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

If you don't like the correct answer, I suggest you don't ask the question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia page for a Senate candidate

Hi,

Would the candidate of a grassroots US Senate campaign clear the notability requirements?

Thank you Aetsai26 (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey Aetsai26 Welcome to Teahouse.

For that ,....Not automatically.. Wikipedia’s notability requirements for politicians are explained at WP:NPOL. In the U.S., a person is presumed notable once they have held a significant elected position, such as U.S. Senator or if they have received substantial non trivial coverage in multiple independent & reliable sources.

Merely being a candidate even for the U.S. Senate does not by itself meet notability; many campaigns attract little or no independent coverage beyond routine mentions. The key factor is significant in depth coverage from reputable sources not press releases or campaign materials. 🐍 Thilio🤖 15:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

GOAT of Wikipedia

Who is regarded as the greatest user of all-time? 78.212.87.64 (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not a competition. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing How can I write an Article? 78.212.87.64 (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Your first article—but first, get to know how Wikipedia works, by making smaller contributions. See the links I left on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I created a New Article

Is it fine? 78.212.87.64 (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely! Should definitely become a featured article Amministratore 267272 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

What? You don't even know what it is! ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 15:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

~Raphael!, the IP editor has not created a new article (this is easy to check), so they were joking, and Amministratore 267272 was also joking. Strictly, people should should not joke around on this desk, but a certain amount of levity is tolerated when it is obvious and harmless. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.210.150.115 (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, silly me! ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

By the way, my name is Rafaelthegreat, not ~Raphael!. It just shows it like that. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

How can I make an addition or edit to a Wikipedia page?

I want to add a name to a list of distinguished alumni from my high school, and make other edits on Wikipedia pages, mostly on World War II, my specialty. I have written numerous articles for WW2 History magazine on the subject, and they can be used as citations for various entries on various battles and biographies on this subject. Please contact me to tell me how I do it. Kiwiwriter47 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

see Wp:How to edit Wikipedia. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 15:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

We only add people to alumni lists who are the subject of a Wikipedia article.

We recommend that you do not write an article about yourself.

You have a CoI with regard to your own works, but if you think they could be useful, please mention them on the talk pages of relevant articles; or at WT:MILHIST.

Now that you have published your email address here, beware of scams. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I canked the address. THANKS! 2600:4040:A366:E700:6513:1544:CB85:955C (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The address had already been removed. What you did was to remove Kiwiwriter47's username, which I have restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Can i add images found on x.com to work and how do i go about it?

I have been trying to upload image for the Nigerian Armed forces but it has been repeatedly deleted for violating copyright while the image is free to use Nafextreme (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

That an image is made available on social media does not necessarily mean that it is free to use. There must be an explicitly given copyright that permits use on Wikipedia, or copyright law in the relevant country must permit it(such as the fact that works of the US federal government are automatically in the public domain under US law). 331dot (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you link here to an image you want to use on WP and consider free to use? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

https://x.com/beegeaglesblog/status/1557827062030802950

this is the link Nafextreme (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nafextreme That photo has appeared online at least 9 years ago according to a reverse image search. It is likely copyrighted by someone. You therefore cannot use it on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Nothing there indicates that pic has a license (see Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses) we can use. That someone puts something on twitter does not mean it's free to use on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Best approach for requesting implementation of a mass move

In order to implement Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2025#RfC on dropping preemptive disambiguation, the names of hundreds of articles related to dioceses and archdioceses need to be named. Those on US dioceses have already been moved (partially through the RM page). However, I don't know how to indicate that this is a task requiring hundreds of articles to be moved. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to phrase it or know any page movers who might be up to the task? Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

There's User:Ahecht/Scripts/massmove which is available for administrators/page movers, although they'd likely need to do a round-robin mass move because every request at WP:RM/TR about the implementation of this RFC had redirects with history so far. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The Rs with history issue is really the only barrier to me taking this up myself. Should I consider requesting temporary page mover perms to fulfill this task without burdening volunteers who might be needed to address more nuanced move requests? Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Review updates to our article

Hi - I don't understand any of the review changes which have been made to our article. I realised after a few months that I should have used a sandbox instead of just starting to type but the review comments which were written in English have proven useful.

When I go in to work on the article, I look at the history, I see stuff like this and I have no idea what this means or what has been changed - in other words I don't know if we've made a mistake which we can avoid in future. How do I get in touch with the person who has made the change and ask them for an explanation? Even better, is there a way of understanding the change / correction which has been made without having to contact the person?

Thanks - see below - I cannot understand this.

• curprev 00:51, 6 August 2025 Citation bot talk contribs 85,639 bytes +29 Add: doi, authors 1-1. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Folkezoft | Category:CS1 maint: date and year | #UCB_Category 95/185 undothanked

Iwmackay (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Iwmackay, and welcome to the Teahouse.

That was an edit made by a bot called "Citation bot", whose job is cleaning up the syntax of citations. You really don't need to worry about it - it's there to clean up after us.

If you want to know exactly what it did, you can look at the diffs, and see it did two things, one of them twice:

1. It changed the parameter names first and last to first1 and last1 respectively. This had no visible effect on the article, but is neater, because you had a first2 and last2 (name of a second author), so the parameters are parallel rather than different.
2. It added a doi parameter, which it was able to do easily because the doi was already in the URL. It allows various software to look the resource up easily.

ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Iwmackay what you’re seeing in the history is an edit made by Citation bot an automated tool that cleans and standardises references. It can run in both articles and drafts, and it doesn’t change your main text it only works on the wikitext of citations. In the log you posted: "Add: doi, authors 1-1. removed parameters Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes".

That means the bot: "Added missing details to a reference like DOI or author names" or removed unused or incorrect parameters in citation templates & renamed parameters to match Wikipedia’s preferred citation style

How to see what changed In your draft’s history click the {{diff}} link next to the edit and you’ll see a before and after comparison with green highlights for additions and pink for removals.

Since Citation bot is automated you can’t message it like a regular editor but its user page explains how it works and has links for questions or bug reports.

Also please note on your Draft: Submission declined on 21 April 2025 by @Setergh.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This means the draft will need more high quality independent and reliable sources before it can be accepted into the encyclopedia,.. You can keep improving it in your draft space until it’s ready for resubmission,... Thanks 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 19:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Two comments. I would expect an inner district of a nation's capital city to be notable. The draft would look more like a Wikipedia article if all the boldface were removed from the "Events" table. Maproom (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

My Son’s Wikipedia Article

 Courtesy link: Alen Hadzic

Requesting Guidance on Notability and Deletion of My Son’s Wikipedia Article

Hello,

I need assistance regarding the Wikipedia article about my son, Alen Hadzic. I believe the article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines because the sources used are almost exclusively news reports about a fencing ban and related allegations that were never legally proven. )Title IX – preponderance of the evidence) There is no significant or in-depth coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources about his fencing career, achievements, or other contributions.

What I find striking is that the article begins by focusing on the controversy, which suggests possible malicious intent rather than neutral reporting. The coverage centers on a short-lived controversy that has not resulted in lasting public impact or recognition. Currently, over 1,100 athletes have been banned by SafeSport, so being part of that list alone should not justify a Wikipedia article. My son’s fencing career included a brief period associated with the Olympics, which does not establish lasting notability.

From what I know, Wikipedia requires more than a momentary controversy or a single event to justify a biography, and this article lacks the sustained, independent coverage necessary to establish notability.

For these reasons, I believe the article should be nominated for deletion due to lack of notability and possible violation of Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. I would very much appreciate advice on the best way to proceed with this request.

Thank you very much for your help. Goricah3 (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, article content and inclusion are based on verifiable, independent reliable sources and notability guidelines see (WP:BLP and WP:GNG). If you believe the subject does not meet these standards the best route is to open a discussion at WP:AFD (Articles for deletion). Please present your concerns there with specific sourcing analysis. Keep in mind that coverage about controversies can establish notability if it is significant, independent and sustained the focus of the article must still follow WP:NPOV. also raise neutrality concerns on the article’s talk page for discussion and improvement 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 20:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Despite your COI, you have removed a lot of material from the article today; I have now undone this. You may make suggestions for changes on the article's talk page; as you were advised in May. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I understand. the article is clearly written with malicious intent to hurt and not to inform. It is SOLELY focusing on the brief controversy and from the getgo. The consequences and the harmful impact of this anonymously written article can be potentially devastating and I am trying anything I can to removie it. 178.220.219.137 (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Could I ask what is your connection to user:FFlorence1992? DS (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course. That was my previous account from when I first tried editing without understanding Wikipedia's rules. I apologize for any mistakes made then. I've since then taken a lot of time to learn the policies and guidelines, and am working to follow them carefully now. Still learning.I know all editors make mistakes from time to time.

I hope to contribute to Wikipedia over time, beyond just this article. 178.220.219.137 (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like the article will be kept since there are way too many sources to justify WP:BLP1E. Besides, the first page of search results when I look up "Alen Hadzic" all talk about the sexual assault claims, so removing the Wikipedia article about him isn't going to make it any better. My only recommendation, unfortunately, is to accept this happened and move on. If you want to contribute elsewhere at Wikipedia, feel free to ask us for help. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Page on Barchart

Guidance Needed

All My Edits Removed – Seeking Help Writing Informative Page on Barchart

Hello,

I’m hoping to get some guidance. I’ve been attempting to make edits to related Wikipedia pages in preparation for creating an article about Barchart, a financial data provider. I have already disclosed my connection to the company on my user page and in edit summaries.

Unfortunately, every single edit I’ve made so far has been removed, and I’ve now received warnings that my account could be blocked. I have been following what I believe to be Wikipedia guidelines:

• Writing in a neutral, factual tone
• Citing reliable sources
• Ensuring content fits the context of the page

Despite this, the edits are still being reverted, and I’m unsure what I am doing wrong. My goal is to create a fully compliant, informative article about Barchart without promotional language, but I would like to make sure I’m taking the correct approach to avoid further issues.

Could anyone point me toward specific best practices or examples for creating company pages that meet Wikipedia standards, especially when there is a conflict of interest? I would really appreciate detailed feedback before I try again.

Thank you FintechContext (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

FintechContext, none of your five edits thus far appear to be disclosing a COI, and you do not currently have a userpage, as indicated by your username being a redlink. So step one is to actually make the appropriate disclosures and make sure that they're saved, per WP:COIDISCLOSE. Otherwise, while best practices would have you make edit requests relating to topics with which you have a COI as opposed to adding the content directly, I think the bigger issue here is that you did not present any independent sources to justify that your additions were WP:DUE. In order for it to be appropriate to mention Barchart in a given article, you need a source other than Barchart or its creators to highlight its relevance in a given context. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The mistaken assertion that you'd already complied with disclosures (and also the fact that you say here My goal is to create a fully compliant, informative article about Barchart when you have yet to try to create a new article at all) makes me suspect that your post here was largely drafted by an LLM. If so, don't do that again. LLMs are not savvy enough to replace communication on Wikipedia and constantly commit errors that will get caught. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

To add to Rosguill's answer, in these edits, you added Barchart to a list of industry bodies, but unless I'm mistaken, it isn't an industry body. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

FintechContext, best practice for creating a company page is to choose a company that you're not associated with. WSikipedia is an encyclopdia, not a platform for free publicity. Yours appears to be a spam-only account. Maproom (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

3RR on user page

Does the Three-Revert rule count if I am editing my own talk page? by this I don't mean engaging in edit wars, but rather adding information I find necessary to it repeatedly, such as userboxes and milestones. Seanwk (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It only applies when reverting others, not if you are reverting yourself. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 00:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thanks a lot : ] Seanwk (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Proper sourcing and notability

Hi all, first time editor here. I have been working on Draft:Anirban Pathak. However I had a few questions about sourcing and notability after my first draft was declined.

Much thanks to the community for helping me out with my improper formatting.

I read that when writing about academics, the subject must pass one of 8 guidelines, one of which is being awarded a prize of national or international importance, another one being a fellow of a Society. Both of which I believe I have now catered to in my second draft.

Another thing I was confused about was sourcing, I am unsure if adding citations after each sentence and linking related wikipedia articles are enough.

Please help out, thanks :D Pustakp (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear what your questions are.

Your draft was declined again (so needs further work); please see the advice given in the decline notice.

You have clearly found Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The reviewer disagrees that you have shown that Pathak meets this requirement.

Technically, your referencing is fine, although you have some sentences that are still uncited. Either cite, or remove, them.

Do you have some kind of connection to Pathak? If so, please say so here, and see WP:COI Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Having trouble with talk page discussion

It's been a while. But look, I am having problems trying to correctly set up an article name move on Wikipedia. You see, a musician named Adam Feeney revamped his alias from Frank Dukes to Ging. Of course, Ging exists as a redirect, but I don't think I initiated the move discussion on the Frank Dukes talk page correctly. Any help please? DBrown SPS (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be set up correctly; you already have some replies there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected page on WikiData

I need to change two images the infobox of a museum as a freelance job, but it appears to me as "semi-protected", so I can not edit the page yet. What are the steps to unlock this "edit" option for me, in this case? Slamoreira (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Slamoreira :). Semiprotected pages can be edited by "autoconfirmed" accounts, which on Wikidata requires a 4-day-old account and 50 edits. Alternatively you can ask another user to do it for you (I can do it), or you can ask to be confirmed manually at their requests for permissions page. The same applies for semiprotected pages on Wikipedia (except we require only 10 edits). Feel free to ask any other questions :). Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sophocrat,

I appreciate your help! I just need to change two images currently showcasing in the infobox of this page: d:Q82941

The one representing the buildins (currently this one: c:File:Novo MASP.jpg) should be actually this:

c:File:Vista do edifício Lina Bo Bardi e Pietro Maria Bardi, lado a lado, 2024 Foto Pedro Truffi.jpg

The one representing the new logo should be this:

c:File:Novo logo masp.jpg

Could you update the Wikidata page with those two, please? Thank you so much. I just ask because it's a bit urgent. Slamoreira (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The new logo image is a JPG; the old one is SVG, and SVG is preferred for such simple shapes.

The photograph lacks evidence of permission (i.e. a licence release) from Pedro Truffi, the photographer. Please see c:COM:THIRD for guidance on how to resolve this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Slamoreira: Are you being paid by the museum to edit Wikipedia/Wikidata? If so, you are required to make a paid-contribution disclosure as per WP:PAID, and wikidata:Wikidata:Disclosure of paid editing. You should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, the Teahouse is for questions about Wikipedia, most of us can't help with Wikidata. In the future, maybe ask wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Slamoreira yep, you’ll have to get a few more edits until you can edit that page. HQIQ (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Helpful Raccoon: There are plenty of people here with good knowledge of Wikidata, and questions relating to it—especially in relation to how its content is transcluded on Wikipedia—should be welcomed, just as they would be for one asked about how to change an image transcluded from Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

How can a person be gay if they are a Lesbian?

I am gay and lesbian. 91.193.19.101 (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on gay, where you will see that the term happily includes lesbians. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

on a related note: it's also completely OK if the existing labels don't seem to quite fit you; we're all unique in our personal ways, and sometimes there aren't words or labels that accurately and fully capture how you feel and what is authentic to you. — DVRTed (Talk) 09:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Deleting a page because the business no longer exists

Hi there,

I've come across a page about a business and that business no longer exists - is that page entry worth keeping anymore?

What's the view on that, eg a business that stopped trading over 5 years ago? Is that a legitimate reason to delete the page?

Thanks! Ukdatageek (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)