Wikipedia:Teahouse

Nick Moyes, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

There are currently 1 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template

IP Peer Review.

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

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

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

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

Yep, can't create the PR page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yes. They are generally very stubborn about re-enabling things for some reason. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 22:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I presume use of a VPN would not be possible? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

yep. It would also not work anyways due to this being on district-assigned devices 24.155.147.109 (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

why allow paid editing?

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

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

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

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

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

They can also, for example, edit directly if they are reverting egregious vandalism; making uncontroversial factual updates or technical fixes; or adding uncontroversial and non-promotional citations; all providing that appropriate declarations are made. They can also make edits suggested via the edit request process, if they are invited to so so by an independent editor. And see WP:CURATOR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you look carefully at the wording of the paid editing policy, you'll see that's wrong. Just being an employee who updates an employer's article doesn't make you a paid editor. Publicity efforts need to be part of your job description. I disagree with this, personally. I think an employee who makes promotional edits about their employer should be considered a paid editor regardless of whether PR is part of their job. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You have it exactly the wrong way round.

"promotional edits" are "publicity efforts", by definition, and are treated as such both by our policy and our practical responses to such edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors. If someone's role at a company is completely unrelated to publicity, they are not (by a strict reading of WP:PAID) a paid editor. Many editors disagree or use a different definition in practice; that is exactly Anachronist's point. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure in which I suggested an expansion to the current definition in the policy to include any person making promotional edits in behalf of the entity paying them, regardless of whether promotion/publicity is part of their actual job. I proposed that because that's the consensus I see on individual user talk pages as well as this discussion right here above. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Pending article.

Hello, I am reaching out regarding the feedback I received for article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Amnis

I have made the necessary changes (company name capitalization, adding more external sources and deleted one section to better match the encyclopedic format). Before re-submitting, could I receive a little bit more in-depth feedback in case the current version still needs some tweaks?

Best,

~~~~ Stefan85xx (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Stefan85xx. That is the purpose of review. We don't normally do pre-reviews. ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I see ColinFine's comment that we don't normally do pre-reviews, but I just had a look, and to me the whole article still looks very much like advertising. The problem (as I see it) is not style, but content. The whole article is set up to show what this company can offer me if I do business with them, and how I can become their customer – most or all of that needs to be deleted. A Wikipedia article shows mainly (taking almost all of the words in the article) how the company has been seen in the past by the general public who are not doing business with them. We want to merely collect and show the information that any member of the general public could already find in the public library and the news. We don't want any information that wasn't already communicated to the public by reliable sources unrelated to the company (or only a little of that). TooManyFingers (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the References section a little bit. Many of them are press releases and links to the company's own site. To improve the article in the most effective and efficient way, I suggest first deleting all parts of the article that are sourced to any of the following:

- a press release

- the company's own publications (websites or any other kind)

- publications by partner companies

- articles that include an interview with a company representative

- any coverage that the company paid for in other sources.

After all those parts of the article have been cut out, take a look at what remains.

Note: I just took a quick look at what it might be like to do that myself. By my very rough estimate, there were only two or three sentences worth keeping. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

(In fact it is sometimes OK for some of those kinds of things to appear, in the proper context, in an article that would still be good if they were deleted. But this article currently has almost no core content - the promotional fluff is essentially all there is.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Most of it's not encyclopaedic. If I revised it, I'd trim at least half. Tell me why someone in another country (eg. Uruguay or Fiji) would want to know about this company? Why is the company special? MmeMaigret (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

More specifically, to tell you what reliable publications unrelated to the company have already said about those things. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Birth date sourcing

On the page for Carlos Fernandes (activist) I want to include the Facebook funeral announcement from the NGO he was a founder of, Iris Angola, as a source his date of birth.

For context, other news outlets do not provide his birth date. Some say he was 41, but according the funeral announcement from Iris Angola, he was 40 at the time of his passing. Considering this is the only source that gives a date of birth at all, and considering it would be odd for the organization he founded to get his birthday wrong, I think it should be used for date of birth.

However, it is a self-published source (a Facebook post) which typically isn't allowed. I verified the Facebook account is legitimate and does belong to the real Iris Angola since another news source, the Bay Area Reporter, linked to it saying it was Iris.

Is this use of a self published source allowed given the circumstances? Thanks. Urchincrawler (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I think one main reason this should be good is that there's no sign of possible controversy about this particular person's birth date. If controversy was expected, it might be different. TooManyFingers (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

yes it was mine 2409:4091:C029:9A2A:E92F:3E:F5F8:D9ED (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

13042002 2409:4091:C029:9A2A:E92F:3E:F5F8:D9ED (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, what? If you have a question of your own, please start a new topic to ask it. If you're just messing around in a non-productive way, please stop. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

You can include it on the basis that that's where you got the information. It's just won't count as a reliable secondary source. You can also add the date with an "independent citation needed" template after it, or add the date and the fb source with an "independent citation needed" template after it. MmeMaigret (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems A-OK. I did a similar thing with a date for a specific festival. If you're worried about it, perhaps include a <!---hidden message---/!> explaining why you think the source is good enough to prevent other editors from fiddling with it. (Unless they found a better source, of course.) Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Struggling to get an article accepted

Hi, can someone please give me some support to finalise a submission Draft:Annah Stretton 2

Mesomay (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

What have they been saying is wrong with it? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply...This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Mesomay (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I see. Unfortunately, the only way to fix this problem is to find those references they talked about. It means that so far, the article's references are the wrong kind. Does that make sense? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Everybody knows that Wikipedia must have an article about Einstein, one of the most important figures in 20th-century science.

Everybody knows that Wikipedia must NOT have an article about me, because I am not important to the rest of the world, only to me and a few people who know me.

Almost every person is in between: they are more notable than me, but less notable than Einstein. To have an article about them, we have to prove they are notable. (It's easy to prove Einstein is notable, and impossible to prove I am notable.) TooManyFingers (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response. I think I understand what you are saying. My subject is definitely notable in New Zealand, which is evidenced by the number of awards she has won in business and fashion. I can find examples of other New Zealanders with less notoriety and they have used media sources aswell. Are you able to access the draft? Mesomay (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Awards don't help unless the awards themselves are notable awards. (On a different topic, think of those "car of the year" awards that the carmakers always give to each other and that nobody follows.) Published material (independent sources choosing to write articles about her work without interviewing her, for example) is worth a lot more. Have you carefully read the requirements listed in the message you got? Those requirements are tailored to your particular situation - it's not just a form letter that everyone gets. TooManyFingers (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mesomay, welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. WP:N and WP:PSTS might be helpful for you in understanding what kind of sources are needed. Please let me know if I can be of any more assistance. Mariamnei (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

link Versions111 (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Annah Stretton 2 (started by Mesomay); not to be confused with Draft:Annah Stretton (about the same person, and started by RKLET). "Media source" is a term that covers anything from scrupulously compiled material read for enlightenment and/or pleasure (and for which one would willingly pay money) all the way down to uncritically recycled PR bumf. There is no simple relationship between (A) degree of fame (or "notoriety") and (B) notability (as understood here). -- Hoary (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@MesomayIn order to establish notability, you've got to satisfy one of the categories of presumed notability or show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Your article needs restructuring and doesn't do a good job of highlighting her notability. You've also got so many sources that, in some ways, they hide the better sources. I've revised the article and beefed up the lead, which now highlights her order of merit (see WP:ANYBIO) in the lead. It would help if some of the articles about her, that likely show sig cov (eg. the NZ Herald articles) weren't behind paywalls. You might see if you can find free sources so people can see that they actually show sig cov. MmeMaigret (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Ceres Rail Company

Experienced editor wanted: Draft article for notable SA heritage rail company (Ceres Rail Company). I can provide sources but won't edit due to COI Simon Le May Beckett (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:SCAM and note that help from real Wikipedia volunteers is always free. Real Wikipedia volunteers will never ask you for money or any other compensation. No one can guarantee that a draft will be accepted or an article will be kept in exchange for payment. Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

You can create a draft article at Draft:Ceres Rail Company and submit it for review by an independent editor, following the process described at WP:AFC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Please also be aware that you will have little control over the content ie Multiple injuries as Ceres Rail train avoids collision at Cape Town port. Theroadislong (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

That seems to show the company in a good light, having prevented a more serious accident caused by somebody else's error. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Andy.

Rovos Rail is a 'pocket of excellence' when it comes to South African tourism – widly regarded as one of the best luxury train experiences globally. However I notice that Rovos Rail focuses on a derailment – to some extent overshadowing Rovos’ success and benefits that it brings to regional tourism- in a remarkably challenging Southern African rail environment.

Ceres Rail Company focuses on the restoration of both freight and tourist rail services within the Western Cape province of South Africa to; (1) reduce traffic congestion in Cape Town, caused in part by booming regional tourism and property sectors, and;(2) promote tourism in outlying rural regions of the Western Cape, notably Elgin, South Africa and Ceres, South Africa, in addition to occasionally Darling, Simon's Town and overnight trips to Mossell Bay. Recently Ceres Rail Company has added Botrivier as a destination which will enhance the tourism appeal of another rural town.

Ceres Rail Company retains skills from former Transnet (State Logics Company) employees to maintain and restore heritage locomotives, such as South African Class 26 4-8-4 and rollingstock including the Union Limited, formerly Blue Train (South Africa) and more recently the restoration of rail infostructure. CRC’s other primary focus is enabling the migration of road freight to rail from Ceres, the leading fruit growing region of South Africa, to the Port of Cape Town. Unfortunately the Michell's Pass branch line was severely damaged during floods in June 2023. CRC is now endeavoring to restorage the railway through the pass at its own cost in order to restore the freight and tourism rail services between Cape Town and Ceres.

The restoration of freight rail services provides significant benefits to the region, including reduced damage to provincial roads, reduced logistics costs for exports, reduced truck induced road accidents and reduced congestion in the City of Cape Town. In the context of the incident you mention, as you have pointed out, the experienced locomotive crew was able to brake hard to avoid the train heading into parked rail wagons, which unfortunately caused some passengers to be thrown forward. Fortunately, the incident was not severe to an extent that it required the involvement of the company’s Public Liability Insurance provider. However in an ideal world the incident mentioned shouldn’t overshadow the mission of restoring rail operations in the Western Cape.

The reasons why I’m looking into Wikipedia in the context of Ceres Rail Company are ;(1) numerous Wikipedia search results make references to Ceres Rail Company, without it obviously having a Wikipedia page and (2) AI generated search results contain a surprising amount of misinformation or Hallucination (artificial intelligence) I figured that a dedicated Wikipedia page could help remedy the above.

Apologies for not being able to keep my response to a few lines.

Kind Regards

Simon Simon Le May Beckett (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Most of that is irrelevant on this page, You can follow the advice I gave above; or not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Advice to rather avoid creating a page to avoid references to a "hard braking" incident? Simon Le May Beckett (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Try "You can create a draft article at..." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I hope you know that the vast majority of what you just wrote here is never going to be accepted in an article. If you try, it will be cut out very quickly. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

What I wrote was merely a synopsis. If I were to create a draft article, I'd prompt Grok.ai to draft it. Alternatively I'd seek the services of a paid "content creator' Simon Le May Beckett (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Please don't use AI to create a draft it will be declined. Theroadislong (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:SCAM as a matter of priority. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree about reading WP:SCAM, first.

I want to add that hiring a content creator for a Wikipedia article is very much like hiring a "money creator" at the very moment you need to buy something. Buying something requires you to have the money already, and no matter how qualified an expert is, they can't create money.

In the same way, the content of a Wikipedia article is strictly limited to the content that already existed before you start, and no expert is able to just create some for you.

(In fact getting an article on Wikipedia is even more strict than needing money before you buy something, because Wikipedia can't defer its requirements about legitimate content that already existed. No credit card exists for this.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The point is Simon Le May Beckett, that appeals to other editors to write an article for you (for whatever reason) don't often work, because everybody here is a volunteer that chooses what they spend their time on. If you are lucky enough to catch somebody's interest, so they want to work on it: great; but that doesn't often happen.

So most of the time, if you want an article writing, the most likely way to make that happen is to do it yourself. The articles for creation process is designed for (among other things) people with a COI to create articles even with their COI.

Having said that, creating an article is the most difficult and challenging task for new editors. 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. And that's even without a COI.

It's possible that you will find somebody interested in working with you on this at WikiProject Trains; but don't hold your breath. --ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no barrier to entry but it does have rules/ways of operating and as you can see you’ve already run foul of a number of them. Suggest you create the draft page as suggested. You can also add the page to a WikiProject for South Africa? (not South Australia, right?) and hope someone writes it. Or you can write the page yourself and declare your conflict on the talk page. But note the company needs to be notable to warrant a page, see WP: company. This is an encyclopaedia - if the company wouldn’t make it into an encyclopaedia for ZA, it won’t make it into a global encyclopaedia. Also suggest you use another quality company article as a guide. You might also get someone else at your company to write the page. You never know, you might already have an existing WP editor. But avoid choosing Comms. Comms/PR writing is not WP writing and, like your explanation above, it shows. ps People are more likely to have a look when you have something to review.MmeMaigret (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Reusing citations

If a citation/reference I used supports more than one fact in an entry, e.g., it states both a person's place of residence and their pet's names,can I use it as a reference for both facts? If so, how do I do that? תמי ניניו (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. If you're using the source editor, write <ref name="foo">Citation details here</ref> the first time and then <ref name="foo"/> the second time. If you're using the visual editor, just click the reference, control-C, and then control-V wherever you want to reuse it. Mrfoogles (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@תמי ניניו Full details at WP:REFNAME. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

You should ask yourself whether the name of a pet is truly encyclopedic information. It very rarely is. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I rather think that the OP was just using that as a theoretical example, not suggesting any actual intention to do so, just as Mrfoogles was not suggesting the actual use of "foo" as a ref name. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@תמי ניניו, welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. Everything said here is correct, but I will advise that you should ensure that you never reuse the same name for two distinct references in the same article, which will create a template error. It happens two often that there will be a <ref name="NYTimes"> and then the next New York Times article will inadvertently receive the same name. Mariamnei (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@תמי ניניו There are a couple of ways:

(1) In visual editor:

• copy and paste the footnote; or
• click cite and reuse and choose the citation you want to reuse.

(2) In source editor, the code is <ref name="???"/>

MmeMaigret (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

¿How can I become an confirmed user?

Hi, i'm a new user on the English Wikipedia, i need a little help because i am auto-confirmed on the Spanish Wikipedia. I'm Luciano 543 17:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Soy Luciano 543 You should be autoconfirmed here, too. The confirmed right is a separate group with the same privileges; and I'd granted in the rare case where waiting for autoconfirmed is undesirable. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Soy Luciano 543 and welcome to the Teahouse and to English Wikipedia. WP:autoconfirmed should happen automatically when your account is at least 4 days old and you have made at least 10 edits. To be considered extended confirmed, your account will need to be at least 30 days old and you will need to make at least 500 edits. Mariamnei (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Glad to see an upside-down question mark in an English text. Aminabzz (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

¿Because you think English should use them too? I'd go for that. TooManyFingers (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up to Morris Miller

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1265#replacing photo

I've resubmitted the Morris Miller biography, correcting the citations and adding more text. I'm not sure how to respond to your point that his marriage and children must be confirmed with a citation. Please take a look at the article now. Equusreserve (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Equusreserve (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

About Draft:Morris Miller (which I confess that I repeatedly misread as Morris Minor). In order to deliver the content of the current draft, does the draft need quite so many paragraphs? -- Hoary (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

There are two ways to respond: add an appropriate citation, or remove the statement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

About not knowing how to respond: Dishonest people exist, so all of us must follow rules that are made to filter out dishonest statements. Every item needs third-party evidence. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Fighting vandalism

What's the best way for a new user to fight against vandalism?

Curious Crystalite13 (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

By first waiting till you've made a couple of hundred non-trivial edits to articles, and have experienced disagreements with other editors of those articles, and thereby familiarized yourself with such matters as where unhelpful but good-natured editing ends and vandalism begins. You'll then be a lot better equipped to diagnose and deal with vandalism than you probably are now. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

ok, thanks Crystalite13 (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Crystalite13, I should have added: "... and you'll have made valuable contributions to existing articles". There's plenty to be done, and on nontrivial subjects too. Consider the two nations named Congo. They're so close that the capital of the one is just across the river from the capital of the other. But now see the article Democratic Republic of the Congo–Republic of the Congo relations. This currently tells the reader about events in 1971, and ... uh ... that's it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Certifications for IPv6

Am I allowed to mention engineer certifications for IPv6 as a section for IPv6 or an article? ==

Title. I am from NLTVC Education and I would like to make additions to the subject mentioned in the title. Is there anything I need to be aware of? Thanks.

The sources I currently have: https://education.ipv6forum.com/certified_atp_atep.php (All trusted companies for educating IPv6 enginnering are listed here)

https://edu.nltvc.com/?page_id=731 (I am aware this is possibly biased)

(Disclosure: This help section is written by an intern with access and permission to the company account, on behalf of the ipv6 forum education program here: https://education.ipv6forum.com/about_us.php) Sureswaran Ramadass (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Many things...

• The WMF's terms of use require you to declare your status as a paid editor - see WP:PAID. Please do this before making any further edits.
• The first ipv6forum.com source is just a list of companies. What do you intend using it to show? Wikipedia is not a directory.
• The nltvc.com source is a primary source, With your conflict of interest it would be seen as advertising if you used it. WP:PSTS provides guidance on the types of sources and their acceptability. Strive for reliable, verifiable, independent sources.
• Not a Wikipedia issue but the second ipv6forum.com source switches between mentioning the IETF and the IPv6 forum as if they were the same without directly saying whether it is or not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• The topic may be notable but trying to squeeze it into IPv6 seems like squeezing driver's license into car. I'd suggest you start at WP:AFC using the guidance you can find at your first article.

Cabayi (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

1.The WMF's terms of use require you to declare your status as a paid editor - see WP:PAID. Please do this before making any further edits.

Does this include the chat at teahouse? This is otherwise clear about the article mentioned.

2.The first ipv6forum.com source is just a list of companies. What do you intend using it to show?

"This Certification is recognized worldwide by leading vendors including CISCO, Huawei, and Juniper Networks as Authorized Training Providers" This statement here, about the IPv6 forum education program. I am not sure if it needs to be included.

3. The nltvc.com source is a primary source, With your conflict of interest it would be seen as advertising if you used it. WP:PSTS provides guidance on the types of sources and their acceptability. Strive for reliable, verifiable, independent sources.

Noted. I will bring this up again with my supervisor.

4.Not a Wikipedia issue but the second ipv6forum.com source switches between mentioning the IETF and the IPv6 forum as if they were the same without directly saying whether it is or not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah, I can see how that's an issue regarding sources. Do I need to find another reference source? I can't seem to find any mention of their about us page elsewhere, like in https://ipv6forum.com/ .

5.The topic may be notable but trying to squeeze it into IPv6 seems like squeezing driver's license into car. I'd suggest you start at WP:AFC using the guidance you can find at your first article.

Noted. Thanks for answering if it should be a new article.

With these answered, I would like to ask one more question.

Currently the draft article that my supervisor has mostly filled up seems more like a product placement stating how Authorized Training Providers as stated by the first source would teach the subject.

Draft Article (I will write it in Wikipedia later with corrections): https://imailsunwayedu-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/20021135_imail_sunway_edu_my/EZm4B5UBv6lDlFCuLZk1WPoBxGUKd3ELX9qmsHke0a4sfg

I will rewrite the whole thing if needed.

Thank you for your assistance. Sureswaran Ramadass (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The original message includes the following:

(Disclosure: This help section is written by an intern with access and permission to the company account, on behalf of the ipv6 forum education program here:

I'm not sure what the words "this help section" really refer to. Are you saying that the company has a company account on Wikipedia? That would be in violation of WP:ROLE or WP:NOSHARE.

I'm only pinging @Pigsonthewing because I think he's around and I know he understands this type of thing better than I do. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

User has a CoI/ paid editing declaration on their user page, which is correct according to our policies. I see nothing which suggests a shared account.

Sureswaran my wish to read WP:BOSS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

"With access and permission to the company account" was what confused me. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Read it, though my superiors want to post about the courses or at least the types of courses/sections of IPv6 education available. How do I go about this? It says not to make a page about the company/organizations I am working for preferably, but nothing about a topic that is adjacent to the companies I work with. @Pigsonthewing

I believe at worst this clashes with the "no advertisement" policy WP:PROMO here and the neutrality policy at Wikipedia. I have already informed my superiors about it and that Wikipedia articles take time. Sureswaran Ramadass (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft Declined - references

Hello - I've been asked to write an article regarding an organization. The draft (Draft:Rehabilitation_Medicine_Society_of_Australia_and_New_Zealand) was declined due to the references "not showing that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". While I understand that referring the website is not enough, I thought the other references met the expectations for a wikipedia article (independent, reliable, secondary). I have read other wikipedia articles that had less references. Is there anything else I can do with the references to show that this organization qualifies for a Wikipedia article? Drgdfry (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Drgdfry Hello. Please read other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways for inappropriate content to exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken and we reduce the chances that others will do what you did. We are only as good as the people who choose to help us.

For that reason it is a poor- if understandable- idea to use any random article as a model or example. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Your draft just tells of the activities of the organization, it doesn't summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization and what makes it a notable organization as Wikipedia defines one. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

One very important aspect is where the references come from. Here's an example that might help: if I come to you suggesting that we go into business together, will you take the word of my friends and family that I'm honest? Or will you hope for references that are not so biased? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

There are way too few references for an article of that size. There are entire sections without a single reference. Either remove them or add more citations mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Doubt regarding article Premalo

Hi, The article Premalo was moved to Draft:Premalo space, quoting more sources needed, but the movie was released and has full-length reviews with good amount of sources. 202.153.35.242 (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Then you may go ahead and submit it for review. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The plot and cast sections are entirely unsourced, fix that and try resubmitting mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I can give some suggestions here so that the draft gets better. Hope it helps!

1. The lead should be at least 100 words, it is too short right now.
2. The plot section and the cast section need sources.
3. The production section and the release section should be expanded, if sources can be found to help with the expansions. Right now, they only have some sentences each.
4. It is common convention to write the reception section as prose, not as lists.

EarthDude (wanna talk?) 18:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Contrary to what was said above, a plot section in an article about a movie does not need references. See MOS:FILMPLOT which says "Since films are primary sources for their articles, basic descriptions of their plots do not need references to an outside source." CodeTalker (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Offering of videoconferencing or Discord server

Does Wikipedia offer Discord servers or videoconferencing platforms, such as Zoom meetings or Google Hangouts? YourMadeZoom (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@YourMadeZoom There is an unofficial Wikipedia:Discord. But in general Wikipedians keep to written word and not video conferencing (even on something like Discord) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

As I type this, I'm on a break from the Celtic Knot Wikipedia conference; hosted on Zoom. Tomorrow, I'll be delivering Wikipedia training via Zoom, as volunteer at a WikimediaUK event..

There are many other Wikimedia conferences, talks, editathons and meetups that run online using video conferencing tools; not least Wikimania. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Where can we find out about these trainings and events? I'm sure there's a page explaining it, but sometimes I'm lost in the WP jungle :P Barbalalaika (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

There probably isn't a single page; but see m:List of Wikimedia Conferences and Events and sign up for any newsletters that interest you, via m:Newsletters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Alright, do I attend these conferences and events? YourMadeZoom (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I can't make that decision for you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

It is important to note that consensus-building still has to happen on wikipedia and not off-wiki (WP:CONSENSUS). — Rtrb (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Who said otherwise? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

No-one, but it might be wrongly inferred, so Rtrb's reminder seems apposite to me. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Review for translation

Hi! I translated and improved material from the Lithuanian article lt:Juozas Eretas into English at Draft:Joseph Ehret.

Could someone check the translation and approve that article? Niekshas (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, you have submitted the draft for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You have external links embedded in prose. We don't do that on the English Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Business analysis

I am trying to improve the Business analysis article by finding sources. I added an inline citation for the information in the section called "sub-disciplines" but it looks like the whole section is just copied directly from that source. It doesn't seem to be a very reliable source either, it's just a blog of some data management consulting company. What would be best practice in this situation? TambourineDream (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@TambourineDream: Do you know if the Wikipedia text or the source came first? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The text was initially not sourced at all. I did a search and found the source, then realized it was a word for word copy. There is a template asking for editors to add sources to that section. TambourineDream (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:DCV tells you what to do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@TambourineDream: That doesn't answer my question, so I'll rephrase slightly. What came first, the text on the Wikipedia article or the source's publication? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question. The source doesn't have any date that it was published. It only has a last updated date of July 9, 2025. That is a good point. It could have been easily copied from Wikipedia in the first place. I searched through the edit history of the Wikipedia article and I can see this wording as far back as 2009. I've only been editing on Wikipedia for about a week so apologies for any mistakes. TambourineDream (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

ChatGPT usage

If i use ChatGPT, just to improve my article, is this prohibited or not, like if some person decided to use AI to improve their article, will they be warned? Nail123Real (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nail123Real: How willing are you to go thru what the chatbot says with a fine-toothed comb to fix errors and outright hallucinations? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Another way to put it: it's not strictly prohibited, but the level of effort in reviewing and ensuring that the chatbot's output is correct and usable is similar to the level of effort of just writing it from scratch, so I don't really see the point. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

so it isn't prohibited but never required or useful? Nail123Real (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nail123Real: That's a good way to put it, but I'd emphasise that the community in general discourages, borderline hates, their use. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

yeah, no one likes AI for page edits on wikipedia, and all of its sister projects, it isn't even great at having opinions or bias Nail123Real (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Anything "AI-looking" is quite likely to just be deleted. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

well, as long as it is obvious, but still, that's a good statement Nail123Real (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's not really a problem in taking inspiration for upgrades or collect references, etc from AI until or unless it Violet any Wikipedia rules but i prefer and tell everyone to find and write and do everything from start by yourself and don't use AI in a large amount. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

But why use it in ANY amount? Using AI is a clear and obvious admission that you are incompetent. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That's why i am telling to prefer writing it by yourself and do not use AI as much as as possible. Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

But to "not use AI as much as possible" is just to never use it. There's never a case where someone needs to use AI.

Being in a hurry to get an article written and put up, and not even caring what's in it, is really bad - and I'm afraid that's probably the biggest reason it gets used.

If, for example, someone felt they needed AI to cover for their lack of skill in some area, then they would have no way of knowing if the AI result was flawed - they'd be blindly submitting material, having no clue if it was good.

I could use AI to write about advanced geometry, but the writing would be garbage because I don't know the subject. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct the same thing i am talking about Abdullah1099 (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Page pulled in 2021

My page got pulled in 2021 - and we don't know what to do.

Hi, I had a page up for years, started and updated by people I do not know, and when my team added a few new items in 2021, they pulled my page, saying I did not have the proper notoriety to have a page. I'm a veteran filmmaker, won awards since 1990's. And now I am a published scientist - many articles peer-reviewed and cited many times, have had many articles written on my team's work, many books that include my team's work. I've been interviewed on national TV and radio, been on scores of podcasts. Our social media campaign has just top 140 million views. We are absolutely wanting to follow Wikipedia rules - and I'm a donor to Wikipedia because I support its mission. We do not know what to do at this point - we feel a page for me reflects Wikipedia's requirements. We are open to any help. Peter Byck PMB2025 (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Who is "we" Wikipedia accounts are strictly single person use. The article about you was deleted after a discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Byck Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

"my team". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion about deleting the article focused on two things: at that time you didn't meet the notability requirements, and the article was written like a CV. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Please go easy on the sarcasm, TooManyFingers. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. Your point is right despite the fact I was open/straightforward/not sarcastic. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the deletion (though strike-through would have been better). -- Hoary (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

On 1 March 2021, PMB2025, and thus after the article was "deleted", it was converted into a draft: Draft:Peter Byck. Three days later, Bib123456 submitted a revised version for review. Salimfadhley declined this. The most recent edit to the draft was made in May '21. On 9 September 2021, Liz deleted it, saying: "(G13: Abandoned draft or AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13)". So if you think the draft merits further work and eventual resubmission for article status, please go to WP:REFUND/G13 and follow the instructions provided there. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

... and, on a positive note, the basis of the earlier problems was not your career accomplishments; it was lack of reliable third-party coverage (those third parties have had a few years to catch up) and the writing style (which something can be done about).

But if it's accepted, it will be because it's (to you) a totally unrecognizable article compared to the earlier one. About 99.6% of the successful article will intentionally be information that is recycled from mainstream media. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @PMB2025. Please read WP:FAQ/Article subjects, to learn what you and your team should and shouldn't do. ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

DUDA

Quiero crear un articulo sobre la directora de mi escuela, existe varia información sobre ella sin embargo no tiene su biografía en Wikipedia que es algo que le gastaría ¿Me pueden orientar si cumple con la relevancia enciclopédica? 189.233.165.229 (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

This is the Teahouse. If you can't give a helpful response, please don't respond at all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

If you hope to write about her in Spanish, then you should instead ask at the Spanish-language "café". If you hope to write about her in English, then first please read answer and notability. -- Hoary (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hola, bienvenido a Wikipedia! Yo hablo un Poco Espanol y es no bueno, pero Wikipedia de Ingles es por Ingles. Wikipedia de Espanol es for Espanol. Lo siento por respuesta anterior. Gracias! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

new editor

I noticed that the author of the article is the new editor and I sent a ping in the AfD. Would you give me some advice on how to approach a new editor? And would you help me support the new editor? --SilverMatsu (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand your motive for saying this. Why are you suggesting I should want to help? TooManyFingers (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

A suggestion, TooManyFingers: Silvermatsu is less suggesting that you, TooManyFingers, would want to help than that somebody here -- possibly you, possibly me, very likely somebody else -- would like to help. -- Hoary (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I know that. Yet it's a silly and obtuse suggestion that seems more likely to be an attempt at canvassing than an honest effort to help a newbie. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" must still remain subordinate to "Don't make stupid assumptions". TooManyFingers (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't find it either silly or obtuse and I don't sense that we're being canvassed. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The creator of the article is indeed new, SilverMatsu, and, on the talk page of the article, has made a polite request that, as it comes from a new user, seems unremarkable to me. In your place (nominator of the AfD), I'd provide a candid but gentle response, but I'd be careful to word it to avoid any risk of starting up a discussion in parallel to the AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, when I was a new editor, I didn't understand how discussions on AfD, so I was concerned about the article creator. I was considering replying on the article's talk page as well, but it seems better not to do that. --SilverMatsu (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

SilverMatsu, I'm pretty sure that on occasion I've nominated an article for deletion and given its creator tips on how to defend it effectively. (Also, that on occasion I've withdrawn my own nomination, having realized that the assumptions or inferences prompting the nomination had been mistaken.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I see. I appreciate your advice. I'll do what I can. --SilverMatsu (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I added a link to this page to AfD so that new editor can ask questions in Teahouse. --SilverMatsu (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

how do I add wikidata

I made Honoured Blood Donor of the USSR and I found wikidata with other language pages (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4375583) but I can't figure out how to add it so my page shows up on the wikidata.. TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore, you can connect them by adding the {{Authority control|qid=Q4375583}} template to the bottom of the page, with the qid= being its Wikidata code. Nil🥝 12:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not what {{Authority control}} does.

The answer is to go to d:Q4375583#Wikipedia on Wikidata (your Wikipedia account will work there also) and add it there. Click the pencil icon, type "en" in the "wiki" field, and then paste the article title in the next field; then click the tick icon to save. Note that this doesn't yet work in mobile view. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Issue with edit request

Hey, I was going through some of the edit requests on user:AnomieBOT/SPERTable and I saw an request on an not-protected page. It turned out to have been intended as a COI request, so I set it to answered and asked the person to fix their request, but I am here to ask if there is maybe a technical problem? I saw on the template page for the template they had used, that it is supposed to default to COI requests if the page it is on is not protected. And yet… it showed up as a semi-protected edit request.

thanks in advance

Edit: forgot to mention this was on the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pacific_Equity_Partners#c-LizziePEP(New)-20250924064200-LizziePEP(New)-20250416053400 Slomo666 (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Anomie so they see this. My guess is that it's a technical thing that needs to be fixed, but I'm not well-versed in bots. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 13:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Slomo666 and PhoenixCaelestis: It appears that they had used the {{request edit}} template, which is a redirect to {{Edit protected}}, which says it defaults to "semi", not "COI", and doesn't even seem to have an option for "COI". (OTOH, that doc doesn't mention that it ignores the level parameter if the page is protected at a different level.) Where are you seeing something saying that the template they used is supposed to default to COI requests? Please ping on reply if my attention is needed, not watchlisting this page. Anomie⚔ 13:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You are right. I think I was looking at the page Template:Request edit button where it does say it will use {{edit COI}} if no protection is given/exists, and must have confused it for the request edit one.

@NotAGenious I am answering your question in this reply as well. I made a mistake when I was trying to figure out what went wrong.

It seems then that I don’t quite know why the COI edit-requester made the mistake, but it doesn’t appear to have been a technical issue (based on what you both have told me).

Thanks for explaining.

Slomo666 (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Slomo666 : For non-protected pages, Template:Edit protected automatically makes a semi-protected edit request ({{#invoke:protected edit request|{{if empty|{{{level|}}}|semi}}}} - if level parameter is empty, uses the page's protection level, else sets a semi protected edit request). Did you find other information elsewhere? NotAGenious (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Neeraj Churi (producer of Sabar Bonda)

Hi everyone,

I wanted to ask for guidance on whether it would be appropriate to create a Wikipedia article about Neeraj Churi. He is a film producer who produced Cactus Pears an Indian-Marathi queer film that won World Cinema Grand Jury Prize Dramatic. There are others listed as producer but the media coverage and his interviews elicit that he was the force behind the film.

Beyond this film, he has produced several other notable works such as Sheer Qorma (film), Ek Jagah Apni (screened at Cannes). I noticed that WP:Author gives notability to authors if their books have significant reviews in reliable sources. Is similar perspective taken for film producers?

There is also coverage on him solely but they are interviews. Such as at Scroll.in conducted by Sharif D Rangnekar [1] and at Mid-Day [2]. He runs a grant with KASHISH Pride Film Festival and has been a jury for a long time.

Thanks in advance for your guidance Aubmgc2025 (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Interviews don't count toward notability. Also, while WP:NAUTHOR does say that multiple reviews of their works means the subject is likely to be notable, it isn't a definite thing. In practice, this isn't really a good criterion, because notability is not inherited. It is possible for a book to be notable while the author is not. Likewise, it is common for a wine to be notable while the winemaker is not, and song to be notable but the songwriter is not (although in the case of a musical recording, the artist must be notable before we can have an article on the recording).

In my years on Wikipedia, I have seen that it is difficult for a producer to qualify for an article, especially if all you have are interviews. The film producer isn't an "author". A film producer typically plans, coordinates, arranges financing, and makes administrative decisions, but wouldn't be considered a "creative professional" in the creation of the film. I would say WP:NAUTHOR doesn't apply but WP:GNG does. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

United Nations General Assembly

Hi. I want to suggest writing the list of all country representatives who speeched at the various sessions of UNGAs from the First session of the United Nations General Assembly to the 80th. Aminabzz (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You could start a discussion at WT:WikiProject United Nations, to see how others feel. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Football clubs statistics

I want to suggest that all football clubs around the world have their first official game, & the best and worst results in the infobox just like the national teams. Aminabzz (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That would probably be best suggested at WT:WikiProject Football. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Pseudo-Drafting - Is this okay?

So, I'm planning to write an article on the upcoming game Pony Island 2. This game is not even released yet, let alone notable. I do want to start fiddling with writing it, though, but again, not notable enough to be a draft. Would this be suitable to make in userspace (e.g. User:Fractal-Dreamz/PonyIsland2)? Or would that be a misuse of userspace? I'd prefer not to do it in a sandbox, nor outside Wikipedia because of templates, infoboxes, etc., but if I can't, then I can't. Any advice is appreciated. FractalDreamz ✯ 16:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't have an official or reliable answer, but it seems to me that, compared to writing a good article with quality references, templates and infoboxes are really easy. I would write such an article entirely "at home" without Wikipedia, in plain text, and then much later paste it into somewhere on Wikipedia and add the missing bells and whistles. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You could do it that way or as a regular draft. Help:Userspace draft states that "In an RfC regarding the applicability of Wikipedia:Notability to drafts within the userspace and draftspace, community consensus determined that "notability guidelines do not apply to userspace and draftspace drafts.""

If you make it in userspace, I'd recommend using Template:Userspace draft to make it clear that it's a draft article. If you make it in draftspace, note that drafts that have not been edited in six months may be deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G13--but they shouldn't be deleted for failing notability, as I understand it.

Good luck with writing your article! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks for you answer and well wishes! FractalDreamz ✯ 17:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Fractal-Dreamz, and welcome to the Teahouse.

While, as others have indicated, there is nothing forbidding it, writing a draft before the subject becomes notable is may be a considerable waste of time.

To use a house-building analogy, it is like building the walls before you have surveyed the plot of land, or even determined that it is suitable for building on.

Whether a subject is notable depends almost entirely on whether it gets written about, by people unconnected with it, in reliable publications - and there is no way to predict whether that will happen.

If it doesn't happen, there can be no article, and all your work will be wasted.

If it does happen, it will be possible to write an article - but that article should be a summary of what those independent sources say, which you don't yet know; so you might have to junk what you've written and start again.

For example, suppose the critics all think the that the game is terrible. If enough of them write about it at length, there can be an article; but the bulk of the article should be summarising how those critics pan it.

Whatever they say, information available at present is likely to play a small part in writing the article. ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Edits that remove image sizing

@38.210.0.65 has been removing image size settings across many pages with no edit summary. For example see this change to Logistic function. Are these edits appropriate? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I think there are probably some arguable reasons for wanting to do what that editor did, but doing it without any discussion or even an edit summary seems like a bad idea. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, very. See MOS:IMAGESIZE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Editing

How do you edit to add figures with backed up sources Reliance research (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question--what do you mean by figures? Could you give an example? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

One important step is to make sure that your sources are ones that Wikipedia considers reliable. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources to know how that works. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors

Hello,

I came upon this wiki page: Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors

After reading this article in Vanity Fair: https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/story/the-florida-divorcees-guide-to-murder?srsltid=AfmBOoqfC1-G6Gkma8KQNrMEqP3vRbcvPuuKkyaMm1TAVqbraSzVXQts

Archived version here: https://archive.is/gIquW

I do not know how to edit Wiki pages, but wanted to post it here in case an editor could update it to include this new information about the Hit Man author. Thank you! NotADropToDrink (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@NotADropToDrink, welcome to wikipedia! I've added that link to the article (see Special:Diff/1313165103) so that future readers and editors will be able to find it easily. I'll also leave you some links on your user talk page in case you'd like to get into learning how to edit wikipedia yourself. -- asilvering (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Auto-confirmed and extended-confirmed

Hello in well, what is the difference between auto confirmed and extended confirmed? Is it automatic or manual? UnityDecit555 (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @UnityDecit555. Being confirmed means your account is 4 days old and has completed at least 10 edits (when given automatically, which is usually the case, you are "autoconfirmed"). Being confirmed allows you to create articles, edit semi-protected pages, etc. Being extended-confirmed (also given automatically most of the time) requires 500 edits and a 30 day old account and allows for more permissions. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Notability threshold?

Hi ... I am a relatively new employee at a company that I believe meets the notability threshold that would merit a dedicated Wikipedia article. I am aware of the need to disclose that relationship in the course of article submission. I know the bar for this type of article is high (rightfully so), but I just want to gut check that I'm correct in my notability assessment before submitting the article. Basically I don't want to waste anyone's time if the endeavor is doomed from the start.

For context, Equilar is a 25 year old company that works in executive data and intelligence. The main element that warrants a notability discussion in my opinion is that its data is frequently and extensively cited by major independent media outlets on the subject of executive compensation, CEO pay in particular. Equilar experts are frequently cited in these articles, it is more than just a cursory mention or quick data point.

I've included a representative but far from exhaustive group of potential citations below.

New York Times

The Rich Compensation for Being CEO (2025)

A New Measure Shows CEO Pay at Even More Astronomical Levels (2024)

Associated Press

How AP and Equilar Calculated CEO Pay (2025)

Wall St. Journal

Is There a Relationship Between High CEO Pay and Effectiveness (2022)

The Hollywood Reporter

The Hollywood CEO Pay Mega Chart Revealed (2025)

Harvard Business Review

We Know Female CEOs Get Paid More, But We Don't Know Why (2017)

This is far from an exhaustive list of possible citations, but I chose these to establish the following:

• While not necessarily the subject of these articles, Equilar data often represents the bulk of if not the entirety of the foundation for the reporting, including regular annual studies done in partnership with the New York Times and Associated Press (to be clear Equilar is only involved from a data standpoint. There is no editorial control over the content itself on Equilar's part).
• In addition to providing data, Equilar is frequently quoted as an expert on topics of executive compensation and corporate governance (see Hollywood Reporter and Wall St Journal articles as examples).
• The Harvard Business Review article is a bit older but I included it to reflect that these types of citations have been occurring for a significant number of years, as well as another case of Equilar research representing the entire news peg for the story. If it would help, there are similar citations going back as far as 2002, I just didn't want to overdo it from a quantity standpoint.

I can include some citations on topics beyond CEO pay if they would be of interest, though the CEO compensation data definitely yields the most substantial citations in independent media because of widespread public interest in the topic.

I recognize these do not quite rise to the level of, say, a full-on feature or profile on the company, but I feel they do clearly rise above the level of citation Wikipedia considers to be trivial according to its guidelines. CEO pay in particular continues to be a highly socially relevant issue for a number of reasons, and Equilar is a frequently cited and quoted authority on that topic across a wide swath of independent media. I believe it is reasonable to the public interest to have a Wikipedia article establishing the nature of the origin of that data.

If there are any particular types of citations missing from the above that would be helpful, I am happy to provide additional reporting.

Thanks for taking the time taken to evaluate the above, and if Equilar is deemed to meet the notability guidelines I would look forward to following all processes and guidelines in creating the article.

MCLynch121 (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @MCLynch121, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being open about your status, and asking before you dive in.

It doesn't seem to me as if citations of that sort are significant coverage, and it's also not clear that they are independent of Equilar. Please evaluate each of your sources against all the criteria in the golden rule: only if a source meets all of these can it contribute to establishing notability.

Note that qualities such as "social relevance" often get mentioned as a reason that this or that draft should be accepted, or article not deleted. Such qualities are irrelevant to the question of whether the subject is notable. ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Can I just go in-depth on one of the citations that would maybe clarify my point a little bit. It would seem to me that this does rise to the level of "significant coverage" as outlined by Wikipedia.

Take the Hollywood Reporter article. This is an independent media source that built it's article about CEO pay in Hollywood entirely around the Equilar 100 annual report on the highest paid CEOs. Here's a passage of the article for context:

"However, one trend of the past kept up. Many Hollywood top executives’ pay packages ended up above the median total compensation for this year’s first-take Equilar 100 list, compiled by the data firm based on annual compensation disclosures by the largest companies by revenue across multiple sectors. (That list was revealed at the end of March, meaning various big entertainment players are excluded.) The Equilar 100 median total pay was $25.6 million, which represents a 9.5 perfect increase for the same set of companies from the previous year.

Looking at the broader entertainment industry compensation compiled by THR, many toppers received “sizable” long-term stock or options awards, notes Amit Batish, senior director of content at data firm Equilar. “Despite weak stock performance at some of these companies, the media and entertainment industry is constantly evolving, and both companies and boards prioritize long-term stability in their top executive roles. This desire for continuity may help explain why many of these pay packages exceed the median in our study.”

For comparison, and taking a broader view across all industries, the Equilar list is led by Jim Anderson, the CEO of Coherent Corp. (which makes equipment for networks and lasers), whose compensation package amounted to $101.5 million. Microsoft boss Satya Nadella ranks fourth with $79.1 million, followed by Apple CEO Tim Cook with $74.6 million."

So you have a major independent media outlet 1) Using Equilar data as the entire foundation for its article 2) Quoting from an Equilar employee and treating them as an expert on the topic.

As the guidelines on significant coverage note: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

There are many citations available along these lines in very reputable, independent publications. If the above wouldn't qualify as "significant" then I would likely cease the attempt but I am also struggling to find which part of the stated guidelines this example would fail to meet. MCLynch121 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's important that they be discussing Equilar - that they intend to be telling a story about Equilar, rather than using the company's services to tell someone else's story. If it's inside a different story that's fine, but we should be able to point out the part where they directly discuss Equilar for a significant length. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

All I can say is, in the same way a book can be notable while the author is not, or a wine be notable while the winemaker is not, or a song be notable while the songwriter is not, so can a company's product be notable while the company is not. Based on what you've written here, that's the impression I get about Equilar. You might want to re-cast the draft to be about the product rather than the company. It would be a better article, more likely to be accepted. See WP:NPRODUCT, which suggests writing about both the product and the company with the primary focus on the product. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, appreciate the helpful feedback. In a world where I had a mix of both types of citations (some from independent sources speaking about the company ... maybe not NYT or WSJ level but still substantial independent publications, as well as some more product-focused along the lines of those in this thread) would that help to meet the notability threshold? MCLynch121 (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if you had some reliable independent sources speaking about the company, that would help significantly. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Don't forget to declare your COI on your user page, or declare yourself a paid editor if you're receiving any sort of compensation (financial or otherwise) for this. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

More formal tone

I have an article that I have drafted for a consumer electronics company. Despite it looking like articles for other consumer goods companies, the reviewers said I needed a more neutral tone. I have eliminated all subjective phrases and only cite out to 3rd party reviewers for any statements about the products qualities and consumer satisfaction. I am not sure how to offer a more neutral tone so any help would be much appreciated. Here is a link to the draft article: Draft:TP-Link Systems. Thank you for any assistance in VisualEditor. Gguice (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

How much primary sourcing would you say the article contains right now? Things that are in there because you know them, not because the public already knew? TooManyFingers (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I haven't read the article. But I did glance at it, whereupon I immediately noticed (i) citation of Wikipedia (shown by |url=https://en.wikipedia.org); (ii) "In 2024, TP-Link held a 36.6% unit share (and 31% dollar share) of the U.S. direct-to-consumer router market", citing TP-Link for this. First, do not cite Wikipedia. Secondly, do not cite the company itself, other perhaps than for matters that are minor and can't be described as achievements. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Gguice. "Despite it looking like articles for other consumer goods companies" is not relevant. We have many thousands of seriously deficient articles, mostly from an earlier era when we weren't so careful, simply because not many volunteeers want to spend time trawling through them. See other stuff exists. Drafts are reviewed on their own, not against existing articles. ColinFine (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Map in infobox

How to make a map and marker only appear in the top infobox when there are infoboxes for multiple nearby places on a page?

Hello, I have done several pages about sports complexes. In some cases, it is technically impossible, or makes it too cluttered, to have just one infobox for the entire complex. So I have one with general info about the complex on top of the page, plus one or two others about its main facilities. However, when a mod or user activates the map function on the page, the map ends up being displayed in several or all of these infoboxes. Given that the facilities are in most cases within immediate proximity, I'd rather only have the map in the top infobox. How can I do that? Thanks. A couple examples: Piscine patinoire de Boulogne-Billancourt, Parc Pierre-Lagravère [Asked at 00:50, 25 September 2025 by Redacwiki]

Hello Redacwiki. You may add the parameter | mapframe = no to the infobox templates to suppress their maps. I have done so for the article Piscine patinoire de Boulogne-Billancourt, see this edit. Feel free to ask any other questions :). Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Reference where there's no book etc

I found old letters my father wrote, and the responses, in 1946 during WWII and one is a printout of a radio interview with a US Senator in 1946 that I am referring to in my Wiki entry for the senator and don't know how to reference it. The interview is nowhere in a book or magazine; all the info (date, network, radio stations etc.) just in this printout I have from 1946. Just how do I reference this? All the templates want a web or other source; there is none. Just this typed print-out from my dad's papers. Thanks so much. Wikijanieo (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I believe the template you could use is Template:Cite AV media. There is a parameter that asks for a URL, but you don't have to fill out every parameter, just what you have from the transcript.

I do wonder whether this radio interview meets our criteria for reliable sources, but I don't have the context to say either way. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try it with AV media, and if it doesn't meet the criteria, I'll find out. Thanks again. Wikijanieo (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

It fails for verifiability, Wikijanieo. You have stated at the help desk that this is something you found among your father's papers. Unless you specify where your fathers' papers are to be found, and where among them this is, and unless you also make it clear that the article's readers are welcome to look at the printout for themselves, we can't consult it and any attributions to it are not verifiable. -- Hoary (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Wikijanieo, Welcome to the teahouse and to Wikipedia! As previously mentioned, this will usually be an issue of WP:V. Even if you can somehow get around this issue, you will need to make that your edits do not violate WP:OR. Mariamnei (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Michael Craven

Hello! I have a draft requested article for Michael Craven (NJPW General Manager), which is located here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Sports#People (scroll to the Professional wrestling section, “Michael Craven (NJPW General Manager)”).

I am not autoconfirmed and can only request articles, not create or publish new ones. The draft appears near completion and has solid sources, but it is stuck in the requested articles section as I do not have publishing rights.

Would any experienced editor be willing to help move, review, and publish the article for me?

If the text needs any improvements, I am happy to revise or provide additional sources.

Thank you very much for any help! 152.165.120.53 (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello IP, as I understand it, List of Requested Articles ist just that: a list! It's helpful for interested people if someone puts some references in there, but not a whole draft. Even if you (as IP) cannot create articles directly, you can always use the WP:AFC process. So my advice would be: make a draft out of your text and work from there. Maresa63 ^Talk 06:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I saw that Harold Meij had an article and as a wrestling fan felt that Craven should be included as he is the only person in japanese sports history to create three events in three different countries in one year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Craven I hope it looks ok! 152.165.120.53 (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Any help so it gets approved is super welcome(Thanks!) 152.165.120.53 (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Two things I will add:

1. "X has an article so I think Y should have" is OK as a motivation to create an article, but it doesn't necessarily mean that an article is possible. The very first thing you should do in creating an article is research whether or not there are adequate sources to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Just because another wrestler meets these criteria does not mean that yours necessarily does. Indeed, if the other article has been around for a while, it may be that he doesn't meet the criteria, and the article should be deleted, but nobody has looked at it yet. See other stuff exists.
2. 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) 10:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi people

What should I do on Wikipedia, aside from contributing? Gold or Lurk (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gold or Lurk and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia! There is always a lot to do in Wikipedia, from writing new articles, adding information and sources to existing articles, nominating WP:DYK and bringing articles to WP:GA status. I hope this gives you a general idea of some of the many things that can be done on Wikipedia, and feel free to ask me any follow up questions. Mariamnei (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Somewhat obviously, another thing you can do on Wikipedia is read the encyclopedia! Wikipedia is packed with fascinating articles, and quite often I find myself making contributions and improvements to articles I've come across only by going down different rabbit-holes and expanding my knowledge, simply by exploring Wikipedia's millions of articles. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Gold or Lurk. Perhaps Help:Introduction will give you some ideas. Also, the WP:task center ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to add to this (and something I forgot to mention earlier), the Wikipedia Adventure provides a fun, interactive way to learn how to contribute to the site! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

TVTropes a reliable source

Hello folks, Should TVTropes be cited as a source? What about the content itself? Mannymations12 (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mannymations12, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid not. See WP:RSPTVTROPES. ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mannymations12: No (no editorial oversight). TVTropes is an open wiki much like Wikipedia is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Could IPs join wikiprojects, or sign in guestbooks? 107.116.89.118 (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, in principle. The difficulty is that IPs associated with individual people can change over time and hence if you want to join a project it would be better to create an account. English Wikipedia will move to "temporary accounts" instead of IP addresses, on October 7, so the problem will be less severe after that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Adding trivia to articles

To be fair, should we add trivia to the articles? Are there existing articles with trivia section? XtraMateSo2 (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

No we shouldn't, XtraMateSo2, because trivia is mere trivia. Do articles exist with trivia sections? Yes they do, often titled "In popular culture" or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

There are times when "in popular culture" contains something worthwhile, but it's often just an excuse for a trivia section.

It seems to me that sections actually headed "Trivia" used to be more accepted (or not removed as swiftly anyway); I'm glad they're gone, but I think it's worse when trivial material is silently put into the main parts of articles by people who just aren't good writers. TooManyFingers (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Hey there,

I just finished writing and publishing an article, but when I was tidying it up I realised there’s already an article on the same topic. The one I put together is a bit broader, more up-to-date and has more info. The earlier article has an outdated title, which is probably why I didn’t come across it before. What is the correct way to go about this situation? KiltedKangaroo (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@KiltedKangaroo I assume the article you placed in mainspace is RapidDestroyer but I haven't found the other one. The correct process now is likely to be to WP:MERGE them. That link describes the process you should follow. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Is Kalapito condidered a vandal?

read title↑ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.31.175.64 (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC) 11:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)11:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)11:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

No. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Was "help me" (which is closed) Kalapito's post or not?

I see no recent posting with that title, and none with that title by Kalapito.   Maproom (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

A Teahouse query titled 'Editing help' was posted by Kalapito on 13 September 2025. There is a link to it on User talk:Kalapito in the currently last section 'Your thread has been archived'. It was/is not considered WP:Vandalism, which is a deliberate attempt to harm or obstruct Wikipedia in some way. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Ongoing on the Main Wikipedia Page

Why does the "ongoing" link no longer work? See Main Page. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The best place to ask woudl be Talk:Main Page#Errors with "In the news". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Gratuitous Gratitude

Hi, just wondering if there is a way to see, or if anyone knows, what the edit on Wikipedia is that has received the most "Thank"s? Thank you. ButterCashier (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious about this myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Bad new feature:

[edit summary here]

👍153 👎212 TooManyFingers (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I would be overjoyed if this was an actual feature that I could abuse. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

If I could choose a brand-new amazing Wikipedia feature, it would be this: Edits without edit summaries give every appearance of succeeding, but in fact disappear without a trace after 10 minutes. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Uh oh... (Far too many of my edits are simply marked "minor" with no further details. I'm trying to get better about it, lol) Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

There's a setting in your user preferences to give you a reminder if you try to submit an edit without an edit summary. Once it teaches you the habit, you almost never see that reminder come up again. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

How should an AfD be overridden?

Hi, we have a situation at Talk:The Princess Diaries § Merge proposal, I'm not sure what process should be used in this case. There was consensus at AfD to merge about half of the articles of a series, but the other half wasn't nominated and would keep its own article if nothing is done. FaviFake (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@FaviFake I see nothing wrong in that. Presumably those articles are Wikinotable in themselves and merit their own articles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure that, if they had been nominated, some would have at least been merged. Some of the ones that weren't nominated were even much shorter than the ones that were nominated. (example: Project Princess). FaviFake (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you've already started a merge discussion. That seems like the best choice for what you're trying to do. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll point to this discussion then; the other editor disagrees and believes this cannot be done. FaviFake (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Why was I signed up for non-English Wikipedia

I don't think I ever clicked on a non-English Wikipedia page, yet somehow I got this notification just now.

The same thing happened a while back to Italian Hogshine (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine: you seem (Special:CentralAuth/Hogshine) to have visited the Ukrainian Wikipedia today, and the Italian one a few days ago. When you do, your account gets 'attached' to that project, just in case you start making edits. With some projects that triggers an automatic welcome message to you. You can ignore those. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Note that it wasn't a real sign-up process - it's the same account you already had, being automatically recognized by other Wikipedia sites. This means, if you visited Ukrainian and Italian pages but didn't intend to become a major participant in them, there's nothing you need to do about it. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

See meta:Welcoming policy for a proposal to make those automatic account messages less annoying. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I think I like that proposal - basically that they can't send you those messages unless you have been active on purpose on that site, rather than just visiting. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I expect that your accidental visits to other languages' Wikipedias happened when (for example) you clicked a link to get more information on a Ukrainian person or topic, but because English Wikipedia had nothing on them, an English editor gave a link to Ukrainian Wikipedia because a foreign language link is better than no information. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Why was the Acanthonus armatus called “bony eared assfish”

As in what way did assfish even come? ( Ancanthonus ) 2A00:23C8:3983:9801:1DE5:4D7A:2D2B:B04C (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

This information is already in the Etymology section of the article. Unless you can find better. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Please consider making your way to WP:RD. As TooManyFingers says, it seems to be answered in the etymology section. It's "ass" as in "donkey". Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

To enlarge on that, "Acanthonus" could be translated as "Donkey (Greek:onus) that lacks (a-) eye-corners (canth[i])" (notice its very round eyes). The "familiar" name is doubtless based on the scientific one, since as a deep sea species it had likely never been seen before being collected by scientists, but may not reflect what the original scientific namer had in mind. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Adding news references to an article

I am trying to write full-fledged Wikipedia article. By the way, i already wrote an article on Cadet College Swat . Unfortunately, it deleted due to weak and dead independent news citations. Here, i need your humble opinion;

Can I use independent news sources in my article even if the article’s main subject is not specifically about my topic, but the topic is still mentioned and covered within the news story (for example, in its description or as part of a broader report)?

The independent news article link given here:

1. KP’s conflict-hit areas benefit from army-run institutions The News International https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/793405-kp-s-conflict-hit-areas-benefit-from-army-run-institutions
2. KP budget 2016-17: Cadet college for girls, 200 smart schools envisaged Dawn (newspaper) https://www.dawn.com/news/1264947

-- Haseeb Manj (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

You can use things like that as sources for statements in the article, but they don't contribute to demonstrating notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The sources that show your topic is notable are probably the ones you need to find first - if you don't show enough notability, the article can't go ahead. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Sandbox/draft "copypasting"

This is a bit of an odd one, but in 2010 I created the Rutgers Campus Buses article in my sandbox, and for some reason never published it. Another editor must have found it and did, merely copying what I wrote. Is there a way to merge these histories so that my work on it can be credited? I dont mind being copied really, but I would like the credit. It looks like I can use Template:history merge, but that creates a banner, so I wanted to check before doing so that this is correct. Thanks! Metallurgist (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Merged User:Metallurgist/Rutgers bus into history of Rutgers Campus Buses. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for assistance: Move Draft:La Cadena de las Americas from Draft space to Mainspace

Ciao fellow editors--When you have some extra time perhaps someone can assist in reviewing and moving Draft:La Cadena de las Americas into the mainspace from the Draft Space. It appears to be well documented and it describes a colarborative effort to create a nonprofit international radio network to promote cultural diplomacy and international peace by William S. Paley at the Columbia Broadcasting System and Nelson Rockefeller at the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs throughout North and South America during World War II as in support of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's interest in Pan-Americanism. The network received widespread recognition by diplomates throughout South America for its promotion of democratic ideals while also providing a forum for musicians and composers from both North and South America to participate as cultural ambassadors for international peace--- an unusual and remarkable cooperative effort by a private media conglomerate and a government agency. Thanks again in advance for your thoughtful assistance and Happy Editing. With best regards..47.19.187.198 (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)NHPL

Somebody -- perhaps you (I didn't check) -- has submitted this for a review. That was and is enough. In time, it will be reviewed. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

transnational proximity

I started to post the notion of transnational proximity. It was denied and I revised it substantially. I still don't know whether it is enough to be accepted. Please check and I will greatly appreciated. Messenger12 (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the first sentence, Messenger12: In the global cultural sphere, several major approaches talk about the flow of popular culture. (i) I don't understand "global cultural sphere". What (if anything) does it mean? (ii) Do approaches really talk? (iii) What kind of "flow"? (Is this the epidemiology of pop culture?) That sentence aside, the first reference reads Straubhaar, J. (2021). Cultural proximity. In the Routledge Handbook of Digital Media and Globalization. Who is the editor (or who are the editors) of the book? Page numbers? Publication details? And the last reference is to IMdB, but IMdB is not reliable. And the whole thing seems intended less to inform its readers than to impress them. Please inform, in straightforward language. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've declined it because it reads like an essay. Please revise the article to read more like an encyclopedia article. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

In addition, it also appears to use complex terms with no context. Please also note that a Wikipedia article is intended to be read by the general public, not people who already have a specific amount of knowledge in something. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles don't start out with a list of definitions. See WP:LAYOUT. There's a lead section that provides an overview summary of the rest of the article, highlighting major points in each section. The lead is then followed by the rest of the article. As it is, it's an essay, not an encyclopedia article. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)