Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Help please[]

can someone direct me to someplace in wikipedia that serves as a chat room? Allaoii talk<:/span> 19:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allaoii Please see WP:IRC. You may also ask questions here. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you want a chat room? Discussions on Wikipedia are meant for shop talk, not general discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm assuming they want a chat room about Wikipedia. Frogging101 (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i have a question that doesnt fit normal wikipedia talks and since im on a whitelist this is pretty much my only option Allaoii talk 19:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Allaoii, if you can't use IRC or Discord, then the Teahouse/Help Desk areas are as close as you can probably get to a general-purpose "chat room" for Wikipedia related things. (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this is a question that is related to a topic covered by wikipedia, not wikipedia itself Allaoii talk 21:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Allaoii, try the Reference desks. Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there's no way theyll take it Allaoii talk 02:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User count[]

Please, what template, if any, do I use to output my count? Thanks. — Python Drink (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Python Drink (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Python Drink and welcome to the Teahouse! Are you talking about a userbox for your userpage? Helloheart (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um no, @Helloheart, I'm not talking about a ubx. You know the {{NUMBEROF}} that can be used to output the number of user accounts, admins, etc on Wikipedia? Similarly I want a template that would output my count—the plain number itself— to my userpage? I hope I was able to make you understand. — Python Drink (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Python Drink, and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, a template that automatically detects count does not exist, due to performance reasons. Cheers, 🥒 EpicPickle (he/him | talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding on to my comment, {{adminstats}} does exists. When placed on a page, Cyberbot I automatically creates a page and updates various statistics for administrators, including count. I understand the justification for disallowing non-admins/account creators to use the template (the bot might be overloaded with the amount of users), but it'd be interesting if the bot code is tweaked to allow for a separate version for non-admins (without the deletion, protection, block, etc statistics). I'll post on the operator's talk page. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EpicPupper, thanks a lot for your answer. I assume the talk page you're talking you're talking about is Template talk:Adminstats (coz I'd like to be there to see the discussion if there'll be any). Thanks again. — Python Drink (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Python Drink, I posted on the bot operator's talk page (User talk:Cyberpower678)! Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Escalating bad ing[]

Hello there anyone, I'm "kindof" new in Wikipedia and have never had this problem before so I'm not sure how to deal with it. In the Merdeka page, an IP had done a significant change which includes many typos, grammar mistakes and basically bad ing/writing. Which comes into question whether what the IP writes is really reliable. Feel free to see the changes, I really believe it makes the page worse for other readers.

I've reverted the s but just for the s to be reverted back by the IP. Is there a formal/usual way of (escalating) bringing another or or admin into this? For them to review and remove the s if it is as bad as I believe it is. Danial Bass (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Danial Bass and welcome to the Teahouse! I would check the contributions of the IP address and if there had been other problematic ing associated with this IP address, I would go and address the situation at WP:ANI but only do this if the IP user has had other situations like this. If not, I would leave a message on their talk page using {{subst:uw-test1|Merdeka}} and see where that gets you. Happy Editing (and reverting!) Helloheart (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! Danial Bass (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Danial Bass. Consider also asking for protection (see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection), as that would stop IPs and newly created accounts from ing the article. David notMD (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Danial Bass The summary is "Best sentence ing". Tbat's a bit weird, like the itself. David10244 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should a primary source specifically be removed if its backed up by a reliable secondary source[]

Recently one of my draft articles had tags stating [non primary source needed since two of the sources with the tags clearly had a secondary source backing up I removed the tags, later the person who added those tags accused me of white washing and explained my intent was to decieve ors keep in mind there were two more sources with that tag and 2 more with a different tag that I didn't remove. I explained that both of sources I removed tags for had a secondary source backing them up, I later recieved a reply from another user stating that if the primary source is backed up by a secondary source the primary source should be removed.

I either have 2 options here

I can either keep both sources?

Or remove the primary source?

Which one is better to do?

Draft talk:903 (PTV Bus) NotOrrio (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is rarely necessary to have more than one citation for a particular piece of information, and doing so often looks like an or trying to make up for quality with quantity. (Of course, sometimes a sentence will contain more than one claim and two sources might be needed). I haven't looked at your draft to see the specifics, but if the secondary source verifies the information, what would be the point of keeping the primary source as well? ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving visual formatting for an article[]

Hello people, as I am still learning how to , I wanted to ask if there's somebody I could ask to improve an article visually, and on a similar note is there an article detailing how I could make graphs and add tables to an article? Thank you for your help. Wpakxl (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Wpakxl, and welcome to the Teahouse. You didn't specify the article you're interested in improving but, for learning about graphs, you may wish to carefully read and work through Wikipedia:Graphs and charts, and for tables (which are not the easiest things to deal with) see Help:Table. For improving article layout and content, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Please be aware that you've asked about three very complicated areas, so you will need to work slowly and carefully though each one in turn to understand what's involved.
We're happy to answer more specific questions, but context is everything. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, thank you for your reply. This is the page I wanted to improve upon : There's too much empty space for my liking and the textboxes feel like they haven't been formatted properly, Wpakxl (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wpakxl The large amount of empty space towards the top is caused by the long infobox on the right being followed immediately by a table. Because of the table being present, there's little we can do about that, except that I've moved the 2nd paragraph of the introductory text into a 'History' section, which fills it out a bit more. (Feel free to revert this if you don't think it was a good idea.) You could do the same with the section after the tables, entitled 'Living former chief minister' - that would occupy a bit more of the white space, too, and fit in with the 'History' section I made.
I am unsure what you were referring to by "textboxes feel like they haven't been formatted properly" but I urge you to take extreme care when ing tables - they can very easily be damaged by a careless , so always check afterwards and be prepared to revert your own if you make a mistake. I often advise people to copy a table's wikicode into their user sandbox and play around with ing that first, before trying to alter the article itself. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, and thank you for your help. As for my textboxes comment, they looked a bit off-centre to me then, but now they appear to be fine. I think I will leave the article as it is, for some future or to improve, while I try to gain some more experience with formatting and such. I will keep your advice in mind, and thank you again for assisting me. I really appreciate it. Wpakxl (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up to Zoe Carides, actor : my birthplace according to Wikipedia[]

Hello all at Teahouse. I am Zoe Carides, an Australian actor. Unfortunately, somebody has once again made a change to the entry regarding my place of birth. My place of birth was London, UK. However, someone keeps changing it to 'Sydney, Australia'. A couple of very helpful users here at Teahouse found a citation to support the fact of my British birthplace, but another user went back in and changed it to 'Sydney' again. I'm very upset about this, as it's now been going on for quite a few years. Is there any way of stopping this user from continually changing the entry to false information? I had thought, since @theroadislong had kindly found a correct citation and applied it, that all would be well. But alas it is not so. Any advice welcome. Cheers, Zoe Zozment (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Zoe, I reverted it. The person below claims to have done it about 20 min ago, but it was not when I got the page.
~~ Missbellanash (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was done in this . You did not that article, as you'll see from the article history and from your contribution record. Perhaps you were looking at a cached version? - David Biddulph (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who knows, browser manufactures' are a strange lot.
~~ Missbellanash (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zozment Note that although we don't in general like the subject of an article doing any ing on it, there are exceptions including what has happened here with your place of birth. You are welcome to revert any that changes it again. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects#The information in your article about me is wrong. How can I get it fixed? for the policy. For other changes, use the Talk Page of the article and make an {{ request}}, with a reliable source for the new information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much, Mike Turnbull - I really appreciate your help here. Zoe Zozment (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've restored your birth info. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The birth info is restored by UtherSRG here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh wow, thank you so much UtherSRG! And what an excellent citation you found! I really appreciate your help and work in this. Also thanks to the other Teahouse users who've helped with extra info. Much, much appreciated. Zoe x Zozment (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please get the shit off my page.[]

I do not want all that stuff all over the page your autobots just posted.

Delete it now! #Angry

~~ Missbellanash (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Missbellanash: If you are referring to your user talk page, you could it yourself and remove it. Also, note that Wikipedia is not social media. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is sm if I want it to be, stop being instructive and ignore the things you can't do.
Take that ridiculous fake code out and put a name in, it says "name" for a reason.
~~ Missbellanash (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What name? I can't find any use of the word "name" in your user talk page. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Missbellanash Your talk page says "Please do not place signatures on the same line as comments". Editors making comments and replies aren't likely to follow that request, nor should they need to.
You said "It [Wikipedia] is [social media] if I want it to be". Just so you know, you are wrong about that. David10244 (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can opt out of notifications. I don't think that will stop the messages from being written. You can delete the message though.Cwater1 (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have a robust turn of phrase, Missbellanash. This doesn't worry me personally, but do note that WP:Civility isn't a mere essay, it's a policy page. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Policy Bashing i one of my pastimes, probably not a good idea to compliment just gets worse. Heh
@Hoary I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving and weekend! Take care, #best!
~~ Missbellanash (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking for Someone to help with Writing the Wiki Page for me[]

Afternoon Wiki Land

I am looking for someone to write a Wikipedia page for me - Please advise what I am do here. I am a complete Rookie

IT isnt really the easiest place to work things out


Feeling lost and confused in Wikipedia land. KahuKiwi (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @KahuKiwi and welcome to the Teahouse! You can write a Wikipedia page yourself, so long that the subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article (i.e. make sure the subject is notable). Once you are sure that you are ready, I would go to WP:AFC and start creating your article there. (Keep in mind that articles submitted at Articles for Creation take time to review.) If you really think that you can't create the article, you can request that the article be created or you can keep learning about Wikipedia, and once you feel experienced enough, create the article. Happy ing! Helloheart (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General advice is gain experience by improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. Requesting that an article be created rarely succeeds. David notMD (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David notMD Should the or's phone number be redacted from their talk page? (Search for "0468"). David10244 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @KahuKiwi, you can add it to Wikipedia:Requested articles.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 05:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KahuKiwi, adding a suggestion/request to Wikipedia:Requested articles is usually just a waste of time. Plenty of outfits offer to create articles for money, but we take a dim view of this. The general recommendation is DIY. However, (i) you need to acquire skills and experience before attempting a new article, and (ii) if the subject you're suggesting is yourself, please don't. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @KahuKiwi You started by putting article-like content on your User page, which was the wrong place, hence deleted and the comment on your Talk page. You have since created Draft:Kahu the Kiwi Rugby and World Sports and submitted it even though it has no content. Hence declined. You will succeed only if there are published articles about this topic that you can cite as references for verification. What you personally know to be true contributes nothing to Wikipedia notability. From what you wrote on your Talk page, I strongly doubt that this topic qualifies for an article. I suggest you abandon the draft. Six months from now it will be deleted for lack of progress. David notMD (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Horay, how is it a waste of time, its sometimes active and people add articles and remove them from time to time.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 23:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HelpingWorld, the trouble is that "time to time" is getting longer, while the list itself continues to grow. It's pretty much not for the impatient, nor for the merely mortal. Quisqualis (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Creation Request[]

Is it at all possible to get help creating an article from a semi notable band Infamous Sinphony? I tried in the past with no success only reason I ask for help. Thanks!

Here is their official website and a couple other sources: Pjryb (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pjryb Their own website is useless for notability (connexion to subject), we can't use n1m (streaming service), and the Encyclopaedia Metallum link is useless for notability (too sparse). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 08:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Pjryb, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question is that is is not impossible to get some help, but there are some significant hurdles that you will need to overcome. Remember that Wikipedia is entirely ed by volunteers, who work on what they choose (for example, I mostly choose to help people here and at the Help Desk, and don't do a huge amount of work on articles). So in order to get help, you will need to get somebody's interest up enough that they choose to work with you. It is possible that you can do that by asking here, but not very likely. You might have more success asking at WT:WikiProject Metal, but there are no guarantees.
In any case, one of the things that somebody who helps you will want to be sure of is that their work will not be wasted, and so they will want to be sure that Infamous Sinphony meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability, because if they don't then there is no point in anybody spending any time at all on an article. What you can usefully do is look for the independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the band which are an absolute requirement. If you can find them, then there is a chance of an article, either by you or if you can find a collaborator. (Follow the blue links to learn what those terms all mean in this context). If you can't find the sources, you'll know to give up. ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Pjryb and welcome to the Teahouse! What you really need are sources that show that the article is notable, so I would ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment and see where that gets you. Happy ing! Helloheart (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need Help on get approve an article[]

Hi Friends, I have made an article that got declined. Please help me with this article. Here is the article Draft:R. Rajiv Gandhi

Thanks in advance. Keech KeechB (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KeechB Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read the comments left by reviewers, especially that about the definition of a notable politician. In short, to merit an article as a politican, the person must hold a public office or have won election to a public office. The person you are writing about seems to just be a a member of a political party who has sought public office, but not yet held one. If he does not hold public office, he would need to meet the broader definition of a notable person- either way, there will need to be significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources; please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I add information to an article that contradicts another article?[]

Based on there were 3 Democratic Senators that voted in favor of the 13th amendment to the constitution, yet on the 13th amendment and Senator James Nesmith's pages, they claim that only 2 Democratic Senators, James Nesmith and Reverdy Johnson, voted in favor of the 13th amendment's passage.

The missing Senator in question is Benjamin F Harding. His page, alongside Reverdy Johnson's, has no mention of their votes in favor of the amendment.

I was planning on correcting both claims in the two articles alongside adding the claim to the pages of the 2 other Senators. The claim on the 13th amendment is not sourced, but the page is semi-protected and I don't want to step on any toes ing something there. So I figured I'd change it on the 3 men's pages, and whenever I'm more confident in my change, I'll try adding it to the article.

I also ran into a bit of a dilemma on James Nesmith's page. The claim there is sourced twice in two different books. I have been able to read the first source online, and the claim is dubious at best. The page they cite has no mention of either James Nesmith's vote or Reverdy Johnson's vote. It mentions Reverdy Johnson's support of an amendment like the 13th and the previous pages spoke of other prominent Democrats that supported such an amendment, yet no mention of the actual voting. Reading past the page they cite will require I get access to the book. I plan on doing so if I can find it at my local library.

I have not been able to view the page of the second source, if my local library has it I'll try and read it. Though if it's as dubious as the first citation I doubt it has the facts to back up the article's claim.

Am I in my rights to add the note to the articles of Reverdy Johnson and Benjamin F. Harding if I leave the other two articles alone? I was planning on doing so but thought it'd be strange to have these claims hyperlinked to James Nesmith's and the 13th Amendment's pages with contradictory statements.

So, can I delete the claim on James Nesmith's page and add my correction? The two sources are only used once in the article, in the claim I'm disputing, so I'd feel bad for the person who originally put the effort in publishing the claim only for me to remove it and their two sources entirely. ~~~~ Jinandwin (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jinandwin Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have contradictory information, you should first discuss it on the article talk page to reach a consensus with other ors as to what the article should say. Perhaps the other ors of that article are aware of the information you have, or if they aren't, can work with you to present all the sources of information. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asking for consensus on their talk pages may be useless, as the articles about these men get few visitors, and even fewer visitors to the Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When not entirely sure of myself on an article with light traffic, my method is to propose my change in the talk page. Usually there is no answer in a few days, so I go ahead. Yes, it may still be reverted, but the ensuing discussion is likely to be constructive. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help please![]

I'm new to this website and I don't know how to make the text bigger on articles, anyone know how? Sairaraosucksfrfr (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sairaraosucksfrfr: What text do you want to make bigger, on what article, and why? Section headings should normally be placed between pairs of equals signs, which caused them to be displayed in bigger print, so for example if you click the "" link for this page section you will find the heading looks like this:
==Help please! ==
Other than section headings, article text should not normally be put in large text. JBW (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sairaraosucksfrfr: If you mean that you just want the text to appear bigger in your browser for easier reading, that's a function of your browser settings. Most if not all of them allow you to enlarge the appearance of the text. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I know the reasons why my article got denied?[]

Please provide additional information on why would my article get denied after providing multiple citations, having no errors in grammar, and publishing a notable person. Liamkingbme (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liamkingbme Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason for the decline was given by the reviewer- but to restate it another way, you have documented what this person has done, but you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them and why they are significant or influential. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

STATUS: Draft:Anderson Ohiaeri Obiagwu submitted, declined, revised (more content and refs) and resubmitted. Obiagwu is founder of a magazine about African music. The magazine/organization also has annual awards for different catagories of music. David notMD (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What to do after your article is speedy deleted[]

Hey guys,

My draft article Draft:PaykanArtCar has bene deleted due to Unambiguous advertising or promotion. As the topic worths a mention and I wanted to give it another try. Could you advise what's my next step should be? If I create a new article with the same topic and title but the content is improved, would it be still deleted?

Thank you!

KP070707 (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KP070707 Yes, you can try starting a draft again. If it is deleted depends on how you write it. Citing sources, WP:RS, is essential, WP:TUTORIAL has info on that.
Your first (not only) hurdle is WP:GNG, but I easily found [1][2][3], so that should be a fixable problem. Your task as a WP-or is to summarize WP:RS, independent of the subject, in your own words. And not WP:FLOWERY ones. This is difficult for someone with a WP:COI, but you can try. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this @Gråbergs Gråa Sång. As mentioned in the talk page, let me know if there's a good place for me to share you information that I have. KP070707 (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KP070707: You should definitely NOT rely on [4], which says (even in the URL!) that it is sponsored content. [5] is also shaky - Bloomberg is usually a good source, but that is the "opinion" section of Bloomberg. ("Opinion" sections vary considerably between newspapers, running the whole range between "anyone who pays enough gets to write their own blog" to "single-journalist job, but from a competent staff journalist").
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I am surprised that you would offer the first of those sources; surely that was a mistake? TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 17:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tigraan You are quite correct, I missed "sponsored", only saw ARTnews. I'll find some NYT and WaPo to replace it with. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the Bloomberg, IMO it's good enough for a GNG-point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KP070707, when Gråbergs Gråa Sång says that "you can try starting a draft again", take that to mean "you can try starting a draft (but not an article) again". You might ask Deb for comments on your draft. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also a quicker "fix". We can redirect PaykanArtCar to Alireza_Shojaian#PaykanArtCar_(2021). Is that ok with you? You can still work on a new draft. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KP070707, I see that you had already asked Deb (but hadn't waited for a response) before asking here. -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I've got Deb's reply. KP070707 (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I put PaykanArtCar in mainspace. Feel free to improve. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone called Materialscientist stated my "did not appear constructive" and amended it, Why?[]

Why is Materialscientist allowed to my statement because it doesn't suit him/her and mentioned it "did not appear constructive", so because it does not "appear" to suit his/her idealogy they are allowed to negate my opinion? (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like you ed an article but didn't cite any sources for your addition. Please read WP:CITE and WP:RS so when you add to articles you can reference where the fact comes from. Thanks. Glen (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP or, you should not put "opinions" in Wikipedia. David10244 (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse. The other thing you need to read, beside what Glen pointed you at, is BRD, to see why Materialscientist's reversion was not personal, but absolutely central to the way Wikipedia works. ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remember: "anyone can " means "anyone can undo your if they don't think it's an improvement". DS (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ your only Wikipedia contribution (apart from asking this question) has been this one, so I assume that is what you are refering to. It makes quite a controversial claim without giving any source to support it. Your next step should be to go to the Talk page of that article and outline why that statement should be included, backed up by reliable sources. All concerned ors can then discuss it and agree what to do.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to add a note to a statement in an article?[]

In this article, - an or has added a 'citation needed' for the place where Mr. Ishihara died, and most of the news articles talk about Mr. Ishihara dying at his Tokyo home but they don't mention that it was in the Ota Ward of Tokyo :, under the image it is mentioned his house was in Ota Ward and in this article, the author's house in Ota Ward, but because these facts aren't directly linked to each other, and you have to put two and two together, how do I add this note to the article? Thank you for your help. Wpakxl (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wpakxi. I'm afraid that that looks to me like synthesis, and so not permitted. I don't like this conclusion, but it's how I read it. The safest is perhaps to leave it at "Tokyo". (Or you might decide to WP:IAR). ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, now that you mention it, it does sound like it is original research, I think I will change it to just Tokyo and remove the 'citation needed' warning. Thank you for your help. Wpakxl (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tea house 🍵[]

How can I write my own article? Alyssap167 (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Alyssap167, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. Please see Your first article. I strongly advise you to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million articles before you embark on that often frustrating journey.
If the article you want to write is about you, or somebody or something you are close to, I advise you not to: please see WP:COI. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you mean an article about yourself, then you shouldn't. Please read the advice against autobiography. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lastly, you will not "own" what you contribute to Wikipedia. In general, any or can any article, as long as content is verified by reliable source references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talkcontribs) 17:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, it's me, Some random account on this website.[]

And yes, i have a question. Do i need to start to a wikipedia article? Some random account on this website (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Some random account, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see my reply to the previous question.
Sorry, I've just realised you weren't asking about creating a new article. I'm not sure what you were asking. You can most articles (a few are semi-protected so that new accounts can't them). But you should make sure you follow Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and verifiability. Please see Help:Intro. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's ok, some people can make mistakes. Some random account on this website (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And thanks for the answer! Some random account on this website (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Some random account on this website I wonder if your question is, since you've set up an account, are you required to start ing something. As far as I know, the answer is no. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok Some random account on this website (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I reference myself when adding my family information to my fathers wiki site, i.e. wives and children?[]

I am the 2nd daughter of two biological daughters of Charles "Charlie" Applewhite, and there is no family (wives, children) information listed. I added under "Notes", because I did not know how to list a ref. Could you please let me know how I should do this? Best, Lisa Applewhite Kimbell (redacted) Apple1954 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apple1954 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You cannot reference yourself, because Wikipedia summarizes what published reliable sources that can be verified state. There needs to be such a source for family information in order to include it in an article. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Apple1954 Wikipedia has a core policy that everything written in articles must be able to be verified by its readers from the cited sources. Thus whatever you happen to know but has not been published in such a source cannot be in an article here. I will revert your addition in a moment and place some further information on your Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you prove that you are the daughter of someone you are trying to write about, and/or is this a conflict of interest? Apple1954 Apple1954 (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apple1954 We don't necessarily need you to prove you are who you say you are- but you do likely have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is almost certainly a conflict of interest; but apart from the question of conflict of interest, it is usually irrelevant whether you are the daughter. Wikipedia articles should be neutral summaries of what independent reliable published sources say about the subject. In principle the subject's daughter can do that as well as anybody else, but it may be difficult for her to confine herself to what the published sources say, especially when they appear to say something different from her memories. ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear ColinFine,
Thank you, for the information. BTW, you write beautifully!
Apple1954 Apple1954 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apple1954 It seems to me that you don't have to prove that you ARE the daughter; you only have to document the existence of the daughter. And actually, it's probably better done by someone who is not the daughter. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Lisa. For notes, we often use the template {{efn}}, which is the approach used in Charlie's article. If you're new to Wikipedia, that is quite esoteric! I'm just mentioning it so that you may know how explanatory footnotes are created, though I realize it's not your primary concern. I hope you can find a source that mentions your name. An offline obituary maybe? Our article does say that he had two daughters, but I can't access the supporting sources to see whether names are mentioned. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 22:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you use your own IMDb site as ref?[]

I am an actress with an IMDb page and my father is listed on my page, with a paragraph of his career. He has a Wiki page and I wanted to know if I could use IMDb as a ref? Apple1954 Apple1954 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Apple1954: IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, see WP:IMDB. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear victor,
Thank you. Apple1954 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apple1954 I had driven home to me the reliability--at least for establishing notability (not!)--of IMDB when I discovered that I have a page on IMDB. I had a sort of secondary, but significant--and speaking, and appearing throughout--role in a small independent movie involving a fantasy world and fantasy races from a series of graphic novels. All the actors were body painted according to their particular fantasy race. I myself portrayed a member of one "House" that has chosen to return to nature and forego clothing; we, the actors portraying that particular group, wore ONLY body paint. That movie only ever appeared on, and it stayed there for a couple of years until Vimeo recently deleted the account--presumably because too many of us were running around naked. I don't consider myself Wikipedia-notable for that. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not able to create a wiki page.[]

Hello, I am simply trying to set a genuine page for a legal business, I am having some issues, please help. Downtown Heroes FC (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your draft was blatant advertising and totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deletion was the second. The first deletion was of a draft created by another single-purpose account. That was deleted (by Deb) two years ago as a copyright violation. The recent, second deletion (by 331dot) cited "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Yes, it was unambiguously promotional: if I'd seen it before 331dot did, I wouldn't have hesitated to delete it for that reason alone. But unambiguous promotion wasn't all. It didn't just sound like recycled publicity, it was recycled publicity. It came from this page, at the foot of which we're told "©Downtown Heroes Football Club". So the rightly deleted Draft:Downtown Heroes FC was a copyright violation. -- Hoary (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't set up a "page" about a business--legal or otherwise--in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or social networking site. If this business is sufficiently notable to have been written about substantially in several reliable and reputable sources--sources completely unconnected with the business--then someone here, ideally not connected with that business, might undertake to write an ARTICLE about the business. And then, others (ideally not connected) might that article--trivially or substantially. And the result might or might not be to the business's liking. But if it's all properly and reliably sourced, if it doesn't violate copyright, and if it follows a couple of other rules, then the business will not be able to do much about it. Uporządnicki (talk)

The stock exchange release is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia?[]

Why does Wikipedia not accept stock exchange releases as reliable sources? Unlike many newspapers, which are accepted as reliable sources, the text of stock exchange releases must be pure fact. If misleading information is given, the company may come under investigation and face serious problems in addition to reputational damage. I can well understand that a company's press release, which is often more like an advertisement, is not accepted as a reliable source, but a stock exchange release is one that is monitored by the market authorities.

The financial information of all companies listed on Wikipedia is taken from their stock exchange releases (financial statements). Similarly, news about companies is mainly based on the company's stock exchange releases. Science tends to refer to the original source rather than a source that refers to it, but Wikipedia considers the original source to be unreliable because the information comes from the company itself. In contrast, if a politically active journalist makes a newspaper story about it, which reports the story from the angle he wants in a major newspaper, suddenly that source becomes reliable?

I am referring to an article I did about a company founded in 2005, formerly focused on developing clean technology companies, which decided in 2021 to focus on one of its businesses, manufacturing energy-saving filters, and to sell its other holdings. The company changed its name to reflect this company this month. There are few reliable articles on the subject other than the company's stock exchange filings and for what the company does, the information is taken from their website. The article cannot be published on Wikipedia until some reliable sources have reported on it, because the official information from the company itself is considered as unreliable source? The article is here: Eagle Filters Group Senjasenkaappi (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Senjasenkaappi Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not interested in official information from a company, at least to establish notability(for a company). Wikipedia primarily summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company. A company is free to speak about itself on its own website and social media. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Senjasenkaappi I don't think that the issue is about the reliability of the sources in this case, because as you say these are subject to overview by the relevant authorities. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which limits its content based on notability, not just mere existence. I could write a draft about myself that was entirely accurate, and so could seven billion other people. The criteria for an article here requires WP:INDEPENDENT WP:SECONDARY reliable sources which is why most of us have to use social media with less stringent rules. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Senjasenkaappi. Material published by a regulated stock exchange may be reliable, but it is not independent because the purpose of the stock exchange is to buy and sell various stocks. What is required to establish notability is significant coverage that is both reliable and fully independent of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not entirely true. Stock exchange releases must provide investors with relevant information about the company if the situation has changed from before. This can have a positive, neutral or negative effect on the company's share price, but that is for the market to decide.Senjasenkaappi (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may include a stock exchange release. But it won't help establish that the company is notable.   Maproom (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case, the company was set up in 2005. Its original idea was to own clean technology companies. The company the company decided to focus their business on has been developing filter materials since 1995. The company is listed on stock exchanges in two different countries. The fact that the company has been operating under its current name and in its current form since 14 November 2022 means that there have not yet been many articles about it, especially as it operates in Finland and publishes in English, which means that Finnish journalists, who are mainly interested in the subject, have to translate them into Finnish instead of copy-pasting them. It's apparently ok if I change the references in the article from English to the Finnish article behind the paywall instead of the orignal English release from the company? Especially as the or seems to have translated using Google Translate? It is quite ridiculous that it is insisted that information from the company itself is always unreliable in Wikipedia, but when published in a reliable financial journal by a lazy journalist, the same thing becomes reliable, because the journal itself is a source known to be reliable and the journalist has assessed the reliability of the article. Senjasenkaappi (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Switching to rewritten press releases (that is, churnalism), won't help either. You need 3 or so sources that have been written independently. No one has said that that information from the company itself is always unreliable in Wikipedia - it just does not build the case for notability. We need some indication that people aside from the company itself and/or lazy journalists reposting press releases have decided this company is important enough to write about it. MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such a limitation is an excellent barrier to publication, because there are two major sources of financial news in Finland (Kauppalehti and Arvopaperi), so there will not be at least three. Or, in some sexy area, other magazines are also writing about it, but when was the last time you needed energy-saving gas turbine filters for your home? Senjasenkaappi (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You assume that those two publications have a duopoly on reporting on companies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, of course not, but the fact that it hasn't been reported by other media. The two are also co-authoring each other's articles and publishing them at the same time. It's much easier to find articles about something on Twitter or Facebook from different media, even women's magazines. The mechanical autism that company stock market reports are not reliable sources is Wikipedia's bad fault. Have you read the article? Why is the information that the trading symbol and name will change on xx day so unreliable as self-reported by the company that some media should have reported it to be reliable?Senjasenkaappi (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have already been told that it's not that stock reports are unreliable, but that they cannot be used to establish notability as they are not independent sources- they are the company speaking about themselves. In terms of establishing notability, Wikipedia wants to know what others say about the company on their own, not based on materials from the company. If no independent sources speak about the company, it wouldn't merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Senjasenkaappi: Your English Wikipedia account is only a few days old and so far all of your s have been related to trying to create an article or content about this particular company. Is that the only reason why you decided to create an English Wikipedia account? Are you connected to this company in some way? Were you asked or otherwise tasked by the company to create an English Wikipedia article about it? If you're connected to the company in some way, then that's OK; however, the more transparent you are about any such connection, the easier it will be for others to help you. Being connected to something doesn't mean you can't try and create a Wikipedia article about it, but there are certain policies and guidelines that you'll need to be aware of in order to avoid having problems when you try to do so. Is your draft a translation of fi:Eagle Filters Group? The formatting looks very similar. Translating articles from other language Wikipedias is allowed, but once again there are specific policies and guidelines that need to be complied with when doing so. Once again, the more transparent you are about these types of things, the easier it will be for someone to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason I created the account was because I can't upload files without it (like the company logo). I usually Wikipedia anonymously because I like the idea that everyone can contribute and improve articles. I am not affiliated with the company in any way. I work in the energy sector, so I am familiar with gas turbines through that, and I know that the filter solution they have developed over a quarter of a century is one of the best in the world and reduces greenhouse emissions that way. Yes, the article is a direct translation I made from the Finnish article.Senjasenkaappi (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Senjasenkaappi for clarifying that your draft is a translation of the Finnish Wikipedia article. Translating articles from other language Wikipedias into English for possible inclusion in English Wikipedia is allowed, but it needs to be done in accordance with WP:TRANSLATE. There are a number of things you need to be aware of when doing such a thing. The first is that Wikipedia's general licensing requires that any reuse of textual content be properly attributed in order for it to not be considered a copyright violation, and this includes content translated from a non-English Wikipedia to English Wikipedia or vice versa. The reason for this is because the copyright owners of textual content are, for the most part, the persons who create or such content and not the Wikimedia Foundation. Although everyone who s any Wikipedia page on any language Wikipedia is agreeing to release their contributions under Wikipedia's general licensing each time they click the "Publish changes" button, they are still considered to retain the copyright over such content. If you translate their content into English, you're creating a WP:Derivative work perhaps, but you still need to properly attributed the original non-English article for it to not be considered a WP:COPYVIO.
Assuming that your Finnish is good enough to translate the article into English (machine translations are considered unacceptable per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION), then the next thing you need to understand is that just because an article exists on Finnish Wikipedia is not a reason in and of itself for the same or a similar article to exist on English Wikipedia. Each language Wikipedia is a distinct project with its own community of ors as well as its own policies and guidelines. Since English Wikipedia is the largest of the various Wikipedia and it has the largest community of ors, many of its policies and guidelines have been adopted many by other language Wikipedias; so, there might be lots of overlapping in certain areas. There can, on the other hand, also be some important differences not only in the specific wording of a policy or guideline, but also in how rigorously it's being enforced. You're going to need to clearly establish that the company your draft is about meets WP:NCORP in order for the draft to be accepted as an article. In particular, you're going to need to show that reliable secondary sources have been giving it significant coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH for it to be considered notable for a stand-alone article to be written about it. This is a really big hurdle to WP:OVERCOME, but it's what you're going to be expected to do in order for your draft to be accepted.
Each language Wikipedia also tends to have different style guidelines as well and English Wikipedia articles needs to be written in accordance with its WP:MOS. For example, the coloring used in the table in your draft might be OK for Finnish Wikipedia, but it seems a bit odd per MOS:COLOR. Another example is where references are added with respect to punctuation as explained in WP:REFPUNC: English Wikipedia wants them added after punctuation for the most part. English Wikipedia also doesn't really use commas in place of decimal points as explained in MOS:DECIMAL. So, there might be differences in style between English and Finnish Wikipedia that you'll need to cleanup if you're able to resolve the notability questions.
You mentioned that you created an account because you want to upload the company's logo. Assuming this logo is thee same one you uploaded locally to Finnish Wikipedia as "non-free content", then I don't think it's complex enough to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per c:COM:TOO United States as well as under Finnish copyright law per c:COM:TOO Finland. So, the file you uploaded could mostly likely be moved to Wikipedia Commons. You probably should check at c:COM:VPC just to make sure, but it should be OK for Commons. If it is, there will be no need for you to re-upload the logo to English Wikipedia since you can just use the Commons file instead.
Finally, you mentioned that you usually Wikipedia anonymously which I'm assuming means you using an IP address. That's perfectly OK, but it's not as anonymous as you might think since an IP address can often be geolocated and is visible to anyone who wants to see it. So, you might've actually been providing others with more information about who you are than you would've been doing with a registered account. You also should be aware that English Wikipedia has a strict policy against using multiple accounts in an inappropriate way and some examples of this are given in WP:SOCK. I'm going to assume that isn't you, but you also need to be very careful with WP:MEAT if you did post on some off-Wikipedia forum seeking assistance from others to try and help get your draft accepted. Such an approach is pretty much never viewed favorably by the English Wikipedia community. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Marchjuly for for your very thorough reply, which showed that you have read the article carefully!
Should I somehow indicate in the article that it is a translation?
This company has made a significant improvement in air intake filters, which provide an average 2% increase in efficiency for gas turbines. The problem with the company's industry is that it is mainly covered in energy trade magazines, as their customers are energy companies and they have virtually no consumer products other than FFP2/FF3 masks, which are also mainly aimed at professionals. You probably don't know which company made the seat belts and airbags for your car, but it's almost certainly Autoliv, which you've hardly ever heard of. A 2% improvement in gas turbine efficiency may not sound like much, but with the price of gas multiplying and one kWh of gas costing around €0.34 to produce, that's a significant amount of money. A 400 MW gas turbine can produce 8 MW/h more electricity with more air permeable filters. That's an extra €2720 per hour, €65 280 per day and €23.8 million per year.
I corrected the comments on the colouring and commas. I removed all the colouring. It was done by somebody in the Finnish Wikipedia and it's not quite ok there either.
I agree about the complexity of the logo. I'll upload it to Commons.
I usually only make minor corrections and updates to articles, so that's why I haven't had time to "log in". Today I had to boot my router and apparently I have to make changes while logged in for now, because my new IP address is blocked in all Wikipedias.
There has been some discussion online about the fact that the company's Wikipedia page has been updated. There had been calls for a rewrite, as the information was in line with the previous company structure and was no longer accurate. In the same context, there have been questions about when the English version will be available. For example, Google uses Wikipedia articles to introduce companies. They have not yet updated the information to reflect the new name, as it is likely to be added manually rather than automatically. For example, for Eagle Filters Group, the reading the page from Finland appears in Finnish and from Sweden in Swedish. In English, the start of the Wikipedia page is not displayed at all: []. Senjasenkaappi (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can provide attribution for your translation by using the template {{Translated page}} on the article's talk page as explained in WP:TFOLWP. That should be sufficient for Wikipedia's licensing purposes. The other stuff about the logo, coloring and decimal points are things that are not really related to the WP:NCORP of the company and shouldn't really impact whether the draft is ultimately accepted; they were good to cleanup, but they could've been cleaned up at any point in time. You should always try to log in to you account when you , particularly to avoid ing the same page with different accounts. I you want to use an IP for some things, then that's OK; however, it's a very bad idea to do so on the same page unless you're quite clear that the IP is you. Good luck with the draft. Even if it's declined for being WP:TOOSOON, perhaps things will change in the near future if the company continues to do good things. A company doesn't need to be written about on Wikipedia to be considered a good company; in fact, some companies might prefer not to be written about on Wikipedia because they have pretty much zero orial control over what's written.-- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I am writing an article Draft:Lewis A. Novack, but my rejection is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Any advice on advancing the article

- Seven3531 Seven3531 (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seven3531, it was rejected. It says at the top: "Stop". "Stop" means stop. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Hoary for the advice. Seven3531 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An Accident[]

I Accidently messed up My Gym Partner's a Monkey season 2 episodes! I need help restoring, Jacksoncochran048484 (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Think this is ok now. I looked at the changes you had made through viewing history, and put the double {s back. All ok. Tacyarg (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another question regarding sourcing and adding references[]

Hello, I have another question relating to the same article as before : in this an or has added an template asking for sourcing to be added to the bibliography of Shintaro Ishihara. Does Wikipedia require a list of books authored by a certain person to be sourced from secondary sources, because by what I can tell most western authors' books on here are either referenced by their ISBN code or have sources added only if their books won an award. I am pretty confused. What steps can I take to help add references for the books? Thank you again for your help. Wpakxl (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My first reaction, Wpakxl, was "Of course that's not necessary"; but I took a look at the list and yes it does need referencing. Not "<ref>blah blah</ref>" referencing, but referencing all the same. For any book whose first ion has an ISBN, provide the ISBN. For any whose first ion does not, provide the NCID or a good OCLC or (better) both for that first ion. There's your referencing done. And of course it's not merely referencing: it helps readers locate the books. (Here's a model.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS, Wpakxl, strictly speaking, an ISBN is not a reference. The ISBN for a book doesn't even prove that a book matching the ISBN even exists. However, a typical ISBN can be used for finding bibliographical information for a real-world ion of a book. Somebody could reasonably question the accuracy, usefulness or validity of this or that particular ISBN, but I don't think that they could reasonably claim that a set of demonstrably valid ISBNs for a writer with print runs as large as Ishihara's was insufficient evidence for the existence of those ions. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello and thanks for your reply. I will do as you say. I wanted to ask if there is a need for the bibliography to be in the form of a table like something over at or is the current format sufficient? Also, as I can clearly see you have sufficient experience in ing pages related to Japanese culture, would it be fine if I could come to your talk page to ask your for any doubts I might have? Again, thanks a lot for your advice. Wpakxl (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wpakxl, I don't like the King bibliography: the complexity of its layout seems quite unnecessary, and the fact that it's tabular greatly increases the amount of scrolling that's needed. Other ors here may well have very different opinions. One thing that doesn't satisfy me about the Ishihara bibliography is that the status of many of the English titles isn't clear. When this is on a book published in Japan, is this an alternative, English-language title that actually appears in or on the book (as frequently happens for all-Japanese-language books), or is it a nonce translation by a Wikipedia or? You're welcome to ask me questions; but if these are about a specific article it's better to ask them to nobody in particular on that article's talk page, and if you don't get helpful answers, then to ping me to get my attention. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lodz in music[]

There is a dispute on the talk (and article) page of Lodz. I believe that a particular song about the town should be mentioned. Another or, Merangs, writes it off as trivial. The song was Vicky Leandros's first number-one hit in Germany and has become an evergreen. Since the Lodz page has a section on the town in literature and film, I don't see why music should not also be included. Can we get outside input? Kdammers (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy links: Łódź and Talk:Łódź#Song Jolly1253 (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article creation[]

Hello, I’m the Christian Cartoonist. I desire to be a Wikipedia article creator, but it’s difficult with all the procedures and what to put in there. What are some things I can do? The Christian Cartoonist (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General advice is gain experience by improving existing articles before attempting to create an article - a difficult task for beginners. David notMD (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse! One thing you can do is to make sure you have the sources required at WP:GNG before trying to make an article. If you don't, write about something else. If you do, see WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references correctly and WP:YFA on how to start an article. See "Help out" at Wikipedia:Community portal, there's much to do besides making new articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for a site unban[]

My site was banned from wikipedia for creating a talk page or including it as a business. It was banned back in 2021 I came to know just a few weeks ago. How do I request for excluding my web address from banned list? Jabbar132 (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flatly speaking, you don't. While you technically could appeal a blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (assuming it was blacklisted on the English-language Wikipedia) in practice requests to remove one's own website from the blacklist are summarily rejected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
( conflict) I presume you are talking about your website being added to either the local spam blacklist or the global blacklist. If so, either of these has a talkpage (local | global ) where delisting requests can be made, however, the chance that requests from site owners are granted are extremely low.
If this is about, for which you made a whitelist request in June this year, the reply you recived by Anachronist is still valid. is on the global blacklist (added here) and as such a delisting request would need to be made here.
If this is about something else, woould you please specify what? Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I request about but got no answers, As you mentioned let me check and continue if still problem occurs I'll ask here Jabbar132 (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is about but I found no way of requesting unban of site or I'm missing something. Can you help me out Jabbar132 (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personal websites are not allowed on Wikipedia. There is nothing you can do to unban it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Create Article[]

How can I created article in wikipedia Hey Samsung (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, if you want to create an article you should read here for instructions: WP:MFA. Remember to keep your language encylopedic and to source any claims you make. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 13:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Samsung Be advised that writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and you may set yourself up for disappointment and frustration if you dive in too quickly- please spend some time ing existing articles first, and use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to Wikipedia Article[]

Please any one can teach me how to wikipedia article in simple way. Hey Samsung (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can start at Help:Introduction. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh dear. User now blocked as a WP:SOCKPUPPET. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I would like to get permission to use my alternate account, User:Villanykörte. I will mainly use this account for ing tests. Ricciardo Best (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're generally allowed to use alternative accounts for test s. The best way to do it is to create a user page and make sure it says on your page what your alternate account is. Read the sockpuppetry page for more information on when you can and can't use alternate accounts. Usually you don't need a second account to do testing though unless you're working with scripting or something like that. Your sandbox is a good place to do test s, and you can always create a second sandbox if you need to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gopal Tamang and Sabina Bajagain[]

Can any one create about Gopal Tamang and Sabina Bajagain article in Wikipedia for some information in people Hey Samsung (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Samsung I get the sense that English may not be your primary language; have you considered ing the version of Wikipedia that is in your primary language? 331dot (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you go to create Wikipedia Article about Gopal Tamang and Sabina Bajagain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey Samsung (talkcontribs) 15:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally am not going to; you may request it at Requested articles but there are many thousands of requests there, and it may be a long time. Could you answer my question please? 331dot (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indef blocked as sock. David notMD (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello there, I would like to know, how do I join this lovely place? Kind regards, H2Perkins. H2Perkins (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems you already have. All you have to do now is make s that improve the encyclopedia. Fix errors when you see them or add content based on reliable sources. What I suggest you don't do is ruin pages that you don't like, like you did on the talk page for Brazil. We're happy to have you here as long as your s are helpful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops - or now blocked for making unconstructive s (per filter log). Nick Moyes (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archiving URLs[]

I archived an article at but then thought it might be better to use Wayback Machine. Now I have archived versions from both and am wondering if I can somehow use both or if one is preferable to the other. Mcljlm (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a number of archiving services available. The biggest advantage of Wayback is that it does a lot of pro-active archiving, and you often will have a large selection of existing archive versions to choose from. Also, Wayback generally will have linked pages archived as well, which can be critical to the usefulness of an archive link.
I had been using in many cases when there were issues with Wayback. However, their on-screen advertisements have at times become excessively intrusive, and even though the archived page from may seem acceptable today, if they change how the ads display, that will affect previously-archived pages. As a result, I have started to look for alernatives. In particular, Wikiwix seems to be a popular alternative, though I have been using ghostarchive. Every archiving service will have its peculiarities. Unfortunately the interfaces are all different and not all web pages can be effectively archive on all the archiving services. I'm mostly concerned with having workable archive copies and not too concerned if Wikipedia readers have to put up with these slightly different interfaces. Fabrickator (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help understanding copyright[]


Dumb question maybe but I want to add an English translation to this page.

I got my reverted because I didn't cite my source. I realize that is bad practice so sorry :)

Someone on this website insists they own the copyright to the translation.

Clearly the translation there was verbatim copied from a comment 7 years earlier on a imperial Japan reenactment forum.

Are forum comments in the public domain?


Rishi RishiKakade (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RishiKakade: No, forum posts are not usally in the public domain. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, wether the translation was copied from or is a distinction without a difference since neither has any evidence on it that its freely licensed, and Wikipedia assumes things to be under standard "all rights reserved" copyright unless there is evidence to the contrary. (Courtesy Ping DanCherek as the revdelling admin) Additionally, translations are derivative works, so there are actually two copyrights to consider, the copyright of the original work (I am not an expert at Japanese Copyright, but if the song was released in 1885 its probbably PD now) and the copyright of the translation (which is still copyrighted). Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
( conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, RishiKakade, and thanks for your question. I'm afraid that forum contents are not in the public domain (unless there is a specific and clearly-stated agreement that those who post to it are releasing their words under a Creative Commons commercial license, just as we do here. That would be quite unusual, I suspect, and so the content would be the copyright of the person who posted those comments. But there is a bigger issue here - discussion forums are not seen as reliable sources because anyone can post anything to them without any orial oversight. Therefore we do not permit them as sources, just as we don't accept personal blogs and personal websites, or self-published vanity books. I don't know enough about translations from Japanese to English to know whether there would be intellectual copyright on a high quality translation. The song you want to write about is clearly long past any copyright issue. I might have to leave that for others to comment on. But because it is a simple matter of copying the Japanese into Googler translate and coming up with a poor, but workable translation, I wonder whether it would be best not to include any translation in the article at all, and let readers do it for themselves until such time as a reliably-sourced, high-quality translation can be cited. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A quick check online shows that human-made translations are copyrighted, regardless of quality. For translations on public domain text like in this, the copyright is usually held by the translator. – robertsky (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a comment, Nick Moyes, an appreciable number of forums state in their terms and conditions that the copyright of any text posted belongs to the forum, not to the person who posted it. This makes logical sense as the forum owner may wish to protect themselves from someone mirroring the entire forum, and if posting is anonymous, sorting out who owns the copyright would otherwise by quite tricky. A lot of forum users have absolutely no idea of this, and don't bother reading the small print. It's generally not a big problem, but I've seen it become an issue in a self-help forum where one particularly regular poster was considering using her accumulated posts as the foundation for writing a book, and was a bit shocked to realise she needed the forum owner's consent! Elemimele (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

youtuber wikipedia article[]

if your a youtuber what number of subscibers do you need in order to have a wikipedia article Joel clements is D E A D (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Finn McCool (youtuber) echidnaLives - talk - s 02:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not based on number of subscribers, it's based on WP:CREATOR. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I post pictures I took of a singer during their concert to their Wikipedia page?[]

Hello. I follow a singer whose page's photos haven't been updated in awhile. If I have a great photo of him that I own the copyright to (because I took it during one his concerts) am I allowed to post it on his page, including replacing the current photo in his page's infobox? I know that I'd have to upload the image to the Wikimedia Commons first. I understand the technicalities pretty well; I need advice on the legalities. Thanks. Kirkdudley (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Kirkdudley, welcome to the teahouse! You can use these images, but generally they should be high-quality enough that the musician is recognisable. So, if you were close-ish to the stage and got a good quality picture, great! But if you were at the back and can barely make them out in the image, maybe not... But, there is no guideline/policies based on this, just a community norm.
Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - s 04:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thanks! Kirkdudley (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kirkdudley: Images should be posted on Wikimedia Commons, and into a Wikipedia article from there. You won't be able to post them directly into Wikipedia. Also, please be selective - each picture should highlight something from the article, not just "here are a hundred pictures I took".--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how to add musical artist information in wikipedia?[]

Recently I send a new craft about our musical group 'popeye(band)'. But it's declined because of "not adequately supported by reliable sources". How can I fix this problem? Agentsame (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agentsame Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, please review conflict of interest for information on how to disclose your relationship with the band on your user page. Wikipedia is not a place for bands to tell the world about themselves, and were mere existence warrants a mention. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability- in particular, the definition of a notable band. An article about a band must not merely describe the band and the music it has produced. It must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band, showing how it meets that special definition of notability. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! It helped a lot. Agentsame (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help to get to neutral tone[]


I would appreciate a second look at this page Draft:Norma Jean to help point out anything that needs ing to meet the Wikipedia standards. Angelagh (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Angelagh Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for declaring your paid connection to Norma Jean. Where did you get the information about her early life and career from? Most of that content is unavailable in the cited sources, so please delete them. We don't want to know what the subject says about themselves and their backgrounds - only what reliable sources have written about that person. There are far too many External Links; one official website and one social media account will suffice.
In essence, collate only what others have already published about this person, and ensure you cite each of them properly. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nick Moyes THANK YOU! I see your point! I missed where I was referencing that information. I have removed it now. I also removed several external links. I'm open to any other recommendations as well as if it is perhaps at the point to be accepted for publication. Angelagh (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh - I found some of that content, but that raises another issue, now. Never do what you did here and copy paste from other websites ( That content is copyright of its authors (even if that person is you), and would need to be rewritten to have a more encyclopaedic tone of voice and not to closely paraphrase the original in any way. Not only that, the information comes from the subject's own website, and is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nick Moyes I just realized I didn't publish the latest changes where I removed a lot of the content. Hopefully the latest s have removed the questionable material. thanks again! Angelagh (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2011 Los Angeles Angels season correction[]

Hello. Please go to above article. Scroll down to pitchers section. I dont know how to seperate from hitters section, should be individual box by itself. Need help. Please fix. Thank you.Theairportman33531 (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe I made the change you wanted, let me know 2011 Los Angeles Angels season Angelagh (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, however, one more thing. Where it says Pitching statistics; move that all the way to the left, please. Thank you for your help.Theairportman33531 (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theairportman33531 It is left aligned now :) Angelagh (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing Heading/title[]

Someone created a wiki page for me a while back (decades) with the title 'name (film maker)'. I am working much more in other areas (theatre) now. How can I delete/change the 'filmmaker'? (I'm new to this and decided to clean up/update the page.) Quebec Scot (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Quebec Scot I note that essentially the only article you have ever ed is Michael Mackenzie (filmmaker) so I assume this is what you mean by "a wiki page for me". If you read WP:OWN you will soon realise this doesn't belong to you and is in fact Wikipedia's article about you not your page because Wikipedia is not social media. By policy, you should not be ing that article at all since you have an obvious conflict of interest. Instead, if you think that there are changes that are well-sourced, you should make suggestions via an {{ request}} on its Talk Page. One of these requests could be to move the article to a new title. However, the main purpose of the bracketed part of the title is to distinguish you from other Michael Mackenzies, not to give a full account of all the things you may have done in your career. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I shall refrain from ing. Quebec Scot (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging Theroadislong who has been working on the article and may not be aware of the COI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to find Reliable Sources On A Subject with not much Information[]

I am a new or and tried to make a draft on “Simon Barrett” Sadly I could not find any reliable source as the decent ones were “LinkedIn” and “Find and update company info service” which are not moderated, Any Help?

Read My Draft Here: Im Following The Username Policy (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that if you (who are the one who is interested in writing about Simon Barratt) cannot find any reliable independent sources, it is likely that he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. (I'm extremely dubious that Four Door Lemon meets those criteria either. It was created in 2009, when we were less careful about standards).
Note that writing a single word of an article before finding the reliable sources is usually a waste of time, because either the sources aren't there and the subject isn't notable, or if the sources are there, it's quite likely to need to be rewritten from scratch according to what the sources say. See WP:BACKWARD. ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thank you, I'll make sure to take note. Im Following The Username Policy (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No eps for Season 14 of Barney and Friends?[]

Can someone fix this? What user did this? (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For some reason it was removed over a year ago with this by @One-Winged Devil. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about a dispute on PragerU between admin[]

I did s on prageru based on their own sources of PragerU, these s were reverted by an admin who told me PragerU couldn’t be used as a source for who’s the CEO for PragerU, I tried disputing this using wp:ABOUTSELF and telling him it’s used as the source itself but he told me I have no idea what I’m talking about and to stop messaging him

the current version he reverted to still uses the source and falsely references the information, as well as other issues

My s he reverted my CEO he later reverted

the exact conversation was this

Me: “Your reverting s based on false merits due to self published sources being allowed on information about themselves wp:ABOUTSELF, which itself is already used in the article”

Him: “You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Kindly stop messaging me”

the other message I sent he ignored which was: “Use the talk page for your reverts on PragerU your keeping false information up and misplacing information in the wrong tab”

Am I wrong? What did I get wrong? If he’s wrong can I still do nothing about it since he’s an admin? Bobisland (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your wasn't reverted because of WP:SPS, but because you added an external link to the body of the article, which generally should not be done. Help:Referencing for beginners explains how to add sources correctly. Also, FormalDude is not an administrator. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Bobisland. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. That is welcome, but you need to learn how to do it properly according to our procedures - and getting reverted is part of that learning. Please read WP:Bold, revert, discuss which explains that that is the way that Wikipedia is developed. As Medline says, FormalDude is not an admin (if you look at their user page User:FormalDude, they actually say so, explicitly). But they are an experienced or who understands what is and what is not accepted in a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is he able to decide whether a article is approved or not? Is this a separate Wikipedia given role outside of administrators or is this something any user can do? Bobisland (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone can undo anyone else's s, though keep in mind the warring policy. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no such thing as "approved" (except in specific senses - eg a draft can be reviewed and accepted into the main part of the encyclopaedia), and no article is ever finished. But individual changes can be reverted by other ors, either because they are contrary to policy, or because (in the opinion of the reverting or) they are not an improvement to the article. See WP:BRD that I linked to above. ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was referencing the quote on his profile “I frequently review articles for creation and patrol articles for deletion.”

And with external links it’s a blanket ban relating to biographies in the body including the infobox? And What do I do if someone ignores going to a talk page to dispute orializing? Bobisland (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And dispute other s as the user is reverting s based on false reasons and giving new ones when corrected, with an example calling the placement of who’s the CEO of a company wp:UNDUE in a lead, I told him to use the talk page to dispute these s but he ignored me and I don’t know what to do about it, can he revert new s while ignoring consensus disputes about his reverts? Bobisland (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unexplained deletion of a long standing bio post[]

Hello. I am hoping someone on this site can help me with a frustrating situation.

The long standing Wikipedia biography post of a well known, and widely published Zen Buddhism author was recently deleted for no apparent reason.

It's possible one of Roshi Joan Sutherland's fans was innocently trying to update her bio, as it had become somewhat dated, and some very rude or intervened, and as a result completely deleted her bio!

I can't provide a link to her page as it is now gone. Thanks in advance for any help here.

Another fan of Roshi Joan Sutherland (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article, Joan Iten Sutherland, was deleted after the discussion among ors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Iten Sutherland. DanCherek (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The basic criterion for having an article about a subject in Wikipedia is that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - this is not quite the same as the general meaning of the word, and doesnt mean any of "famous", "popular", "important" or "influential" (though it often follows from those). It mostly means that several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosen to publish significant amounts about them in reliable publications: if this has not happened, Wikipedia will not accept an article about them. If you look at the deletion discussion, it was about Sutherland not meeting those criteria.
The fact that the article had been around for a long time is, unfortunately irrelevant. Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of articles which were created before we were as careful about standards as we are now. Since it is entirely a volunteer organisation, it's not anybody's "job" to go through those and weed out the ones that shouldn't be there, so they remain until somebody for some reason decides to take action. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black hat[]

Black hat (computer security) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaal5 (talkcontribs) 17:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC) please look at the , it uses Wikipedia as a source multiple times, and Wikipedia is clearly not a reliable source in and of itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaal5 (talkcontribs) 17:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jamaal5 - Though the vandalism warnings were indeed quite inappropriate (WP:BITE, anyone?), you did remove a lot more then just the Wikipedia citations. casualdejekyll 17:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Jamaal5, and welcome to the Teahouse. You're right that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as a reference. However, deleting the reference while leaving the text in the article is not helpful. Either the information can be found in a reliable source, in which case cite that; or it can't, in which case the information should be removed from the article.
In fact, the sentence you removed the reference from in your last , is copied from the article white hat (computer security), where it has proper references. A more helpful thing to do would be to copy the citations from that article. ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making the article longer[]

How to make the article longer ? Please help ! JiafeiInformated (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi JiafeiInformated, welcome to the Teahouse. Which article? In general, look for reliable sources and summarize them. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Courtesy link: Sia.
JiafeiInformated, a way not to do it is by inserting into the lede text like:
"In her,,About section on Spotify, it says that she was born from the bumhole of a unicorn named Steve." [sic],
as you did at 13:48, 25 June 2022, as your sole Article-space contribution to Wikipedia to date. (Reverted by SunDawn 4 minutes later.) Please read WP:Vandalism. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Healthcare Campaigns[]

I apologize if I am in the wrong place.

There is a need for a page indexing all Wikipedia-listed health campaigns, it would be useful for public officials, nonprofits, researchers, and providers.

For instance, there are these one-issue campaigns:

March of Dimes

Easter Seals

Pink Ribbon

Jerry Lewis Telethon

Great American Smokeout

How many more are there?

At the same time, there are multi-issue, regional/state-wide/nation-wide/worldwide campaigns, which are so important, but many of which do not have a Wikipedia page:

2019 Arizona State Health Assessment

Virginia Well-Being

Blueprint for Coachella Valley:

I thought about trying to start this myself, but just simple Wikipedia s take me over an hour... if someone wants to work with me, contact me. Thanks. BooksXYZ (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BooksXYZ Hello. This sort of comment may be better suited to the Village Pump. That said, most of those articles are members of categories that seem to be similar to what you are suggesting(such as Category:Health charities in the United States). Are you proposing a new category? 331dot (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BooksXYZ: We also have Category:Health campaigns but based on your examples you may not have the normal meaning of health campaign in mind. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to do this?[]

In Free State of Jones (film), in the Premise section is a quotation that begins, "based on the books." The quotation names two books and places them in both single quotes and italics. The Wikipedia version omitted the single quotes, so I added them. But, when a single quote is next to the italics code consisting of two vertical lines, then we have three vertical lines on each side, which bold the words in between them instead of placing the words in single quotes and italics. Therefore, I inserted an extra space between the single quote and the italics code consisting of two vertical lines, but that isn't good. How do we handle this? Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use nowiki tags. I already did so on the article, so you can see the code. Sungodtemple (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maurice Magnus and Sungodtemple, according to the Manual of Style, book titles are designated by italics and not by punctuation. I have removed the excess markup. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen328, wait! It was a quotation! If this was an error then [sic] tags would be appropriate. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 23:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sungodtemple, we never change the words in a direct quotation, but we bring the typographic formatting into compliance with the MOS. Cullen328 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two articles on the same topic[]

Hi. The 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine article was created under a different name (Kherson Oblast status referendum). It essentially covered the same topic. I only ask about merging the two histories so that the date of creation be 24 July not 11 August. I'm confused as to where I should ask about merging?--Sakiv (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sakiv: On 24 July you created an article at Kherson Oblast status referendum. It was moved to 2022 Russian-occupied Ukraine referendums where the page history [6] still is. It was later redirected to 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine. There is no rule that the oldest article takes precedence when one article is redirected to another. The only rule is that if content is copied then the source must be attributed (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). Wikipedia:Requests for history merge is for cases where it wasn't done but it doesn't apply here. As far as I can tell, the content you wrote [7] was not used in the target article so no attribution or history merge is required. It appears the only one who broke attribution rules is you when you copied the other article to your article [8] without giving attribution. It was reverted. I understand it can be annoying that your earlier creation is no longer recognized but such things happen. It would even be allowed to delete the page history showing your creation if the content is not used anywhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PrimeHunter: The article I created was linked and was not an orphan. This should not have happened at all and is unfair. I'm talking about something completely different, so why do you want to show everyone that I'm the one who made a mistake?--Sakiv (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sakiv: The only way to show 24 July as creation is to make a history merge so I looked carefully for justification and that means missing attribution. I just said what I found but could have omitted it when it wasn't in your favour. Your content was 1535 bytes. I have written more in this discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is the page Rekha Kamat notable enough to be included on Wikipedia? It is hard for me to tell for sure, but I have doubts. It mostly shows birth date, death date, family information about father, and a list of plays and films (most of which don’t have wikilink) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaal5 (talkcontribs) 01:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


what do i do if my only source is fandom wiki? :( I know i cant use that. :'( (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the topic has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then it is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
aw man rip. thanks anyway. (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can I get some help adding an infobox to the thoropa taophora page? I figured it out for the Civil Rights Movement pages, but I'm having trouble finding an appropriate infobox flavor for this one. Jamaal5 (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the appropriate flavor is template:speciesbox, but I can't find the base code. Jamaal5 (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]