From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

How to become a teahouse host[edit]

I am a lot more experienced than most editors here. Reason? I want to become a host here. How can I become a Teahouse host? What are the requirements? (I think I meet all of them and there’s no way where I would be presented as not even close). I will reach 500 edits today or tomorrow, which increases my chance of meeting all requirements. Equalwidth (C) 05:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure why you assume there's a set of requirements per se. However, are you truly experienced enough to locate the "Become a host" button at the top of this page, and then click it? That may send you on your way, cheers! :) Remsense 05:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is invisible. Equalwidth (C) 05:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh! in that case, I would go to this page. Good luck. Remsense 05:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just need to make 45 more edits and I will become one! Equalwidth (C) 05:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
…500 mainspace edits? That’s a little strict so for that case the criteria will be 500 edits across all namespaces. Equalwidth (C) 06:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Equalwidth, nothing special happens when you sign up as a Teahouse host, so you don't need to worry about getting a certain number of edits to clear this imaginary bar. There isn't anything stopping you from answering other people's questions here, no matter what your edit count or account age is, so if you can help someone, just go ahead and do so! -- asilvering (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’ve successfully registered myself as a Teahouse host after reaching 500 edits. Equalwidth (C) 07:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I am a lot more experienced than most editors here." Well, no. The most active of Teahouse Hosts have been such for years, had accounts longer than that, and number their edits in the thousands (I am at >52,000 edits). That said, welcome! Teahouse needs more active Hosts. Start by offering advice only when you are sure your replies are correct David notMD (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a lot more experienced than most editors asking questions here Equalwidth (C) 06:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would hope so, this is a place for newcomers to ask questions! Remsense 06:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is essential is having enough knowledge and experience to ANSWER questions correctly. David notMD (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I am concerned looking at their talk page: it seems to consist of an already extant track record of receiving advice and help from more experienced editors, which is met with silence at best and unequivocal disagreement usually. Plus the editing behavior I've happened to also see, featuring pretty arbitrary references to policy whether actually read beforehand or not. I would really recommend keeping an eye on this person's advice in the Teahouse, unfortunately. The enthusiasm is good, but. Remsense 07:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Equalwidth, becoming a Teahouse host is not a reward or a badge of honor. It is taking on an obligation to do your very best to provide friendly, accurate and informative answers to the questions that editors ask here. And to be willing to learn yourself. I have been editing for 14-1/2 years and have contributed to the Teahouse since its earliest days. I have made over 10,000 edits to the Teahouse. Do not be quick to answer a question unless you are highly confident that your answer is correct. This is not a race or a game. There are many questions that I do not answer because this is a very complex project, and after over 100,000 edits to Wikipedia, there are still aspects of the project that I do not fully understand. It is far better to remain silent than to give out incorrect information. Cullen328 (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I knew all that… Equalwidth (C) 10:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if you "knew all that", go ahead. But if you see that your Teahouse replies are being subsequently criticized/correct, consider stopping. Competency is required for all aspects of Wikipedia (WP:CIR), and can lead to you being indefinitely blocked if you persist and are consistently wrong. David notMD (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to note that Equalwidth was blocked for a week earlier today, for disruptive editing. Equalwidth, you'd still be welcome to help out at the Teahouse in the future, preferably when you have more experience, but it seems you need to work on your own behaviour first, before seeking to help others. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, and then there's this quotation from their user page:

Books sound like a waste of time because I believe that they provide no value whatsoever

which does not bode well for their complying with WP:Verifiability. Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, they also have a userspace essay about how sourcing isn't important, and in their unblock request, mentioned their intention to restore a talk page notice that tells editors not to tell him to read up on policies. I've been trying to help this editor for the last two weeks because they do seem to have a good-faith desire to contribute, but much like this thread, all they do is insist that "they already know" and refuse to change.
Please notify me if they return here after their week long block expires. They've been rather prolific in giving bad answers and advice both on at the tea house and across the project, so they really shouldn't be fielding questions here any time soon. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sergecross73, to sum it up, it seems like they have good faith in themselves, but not in anyone else. Remsense 21:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty much. It's like he wants to start a career as a Trainer, but refuses to spend any time doing the jobs he hopes train people in; commendable to want to help people, but entirely ineffective because there's no base of experience to pull from. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New and intimidated, could use some advice and encouragement.[edit]

Here's my situation. I could use something else to do to pass the time. I lost the taste for computer games quite a while ago, so that's a non-starter. Never been particularly outdoorsy, so all the outdoors things are a non-starter as well. Youtube's getting stale and transforming more and more into TV as time goes on, and I dislike TV so much that I haven't watched it in 12-14 years. While I do love to read, when it's the only thing to do, it starts to get old. Not to mention for an unknown reason I can't read a book more than 2-3 hours a day otherwise place names and character names begin to mean nothing to me.

I figured that I had this Wikipedia account I'm not using, so why not help out Wikipedia?

The thing is, even though I've looked through the new editors' tutorial and the introduction to contributing, I still feel completely intimidated! I'm worried I'm gonna mess something up and be told to go away and never come back. I do have some MediaWiki experience, so I feel confident in actually executing an edit, the markup isn't the scary thing to me. But I'm concerned I'm gonna break some rule or policy I don't know about or I may be interpreting differently than everybody else. Again, it's intimidating.

Advice? Thoughts? Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Kilroy Was Here 1856, Welcome to Wikipedia.
You can begin your editing journey by visiting the Wikipedia:Community portal and fixing articles with maintenance tags. You must not be scared to edit, if you do something wrong (not repeatedly), someone will definitly notify you about it and rectify the error. If you have copyediting skills, improve the quality of Wikipedia articles..
If you need any assistance or have doubts, you can always reach out to me or any other editor or put up a question in the Teahouse. Leoneix (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kilroy Was Here 1856 WP:TASKS, is also a good place to find tasks initially. Leoneix (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leoneix Thanks for the help, those two pages definitely help. I feel a little less anxious about this whole editing thing now. Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kilroy Was Here 1856 You might make a mistake (which will get fixed by someone after you), but you won't break anything. One of the Wikipedia editing guidelines is WP:BE BOLD, so just go edit, and don't worry! Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Kilroy Was Here 1856, I was in the same position a few months ago - there are so many policies and pages that it can be overwhelming for a new user! I would encourage you to find articles about things you are interested in and start small. I learned a lot from jumping in and starting, like add a fact to a stub article with a citation, fix typos or grammar, or fix markup that displays an error in edit mode. My suggestion is to explore categories in your interests and find tasks you feel comfortable doing. If there is an area you would like to learn, there are lots of friendly editors who can point you in the right direction. Good luck and welcome! NatFee (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NatFee Thank you for the advice and encouragement. When you break editing down like that it does seem a lot more accessible and achievable. Thanks again! Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As others have been saying, the general policy here is to WP:Be Bold, and sometimes bold changes are wrong, but that’s what everybody else is here for. I totally get the intimation. It seems like everybody has every policy linked and memorized and locked & loaded, but the truth is, those with the most knowledge self-select for making corrections! That’s what’s kinda great about it. It doesn’t mean you’re so far behind. Also small tip, don’t be too discouraged if one of your good-faith edits gets caught by a vandalism filter or bot and gets reverted. It can be discouraging, but it happens a lot and doesn’t mean you did anything wrong. Best to just chat with the person who made the revert over on their talk page and clear it up. This place really benefits from new editors, and there are doubtless many projects waiting for your interest, expertise and attention. Welcome! Wow Mollu (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wow Mollu Thanks for your reassurance. It does seem like everybody"s got everything at their fingertips doesn't it? Glad to know it's more of a process of just applying the knowledge I already have. Your tips regarding the filters and edit reversions are welcomed and appreciated. Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What a good question! I can share a little bit about my experiences along these lines. I started editing in part because of a chronic illness has made other activities that I previously enjoyed more difficult. Previous work and hobbies which involved reading, research, and writing have been put somewhat beyond my reach. But the piecemeal nature of editing Wikipedia has let me enjoy parts of what I feel like I'm missing, without exhausting my limited energy.
I have been editing with focus for less than a year now, and there certainly have been a lot of frustrations. I've encountered plenty of editors who are unfair, belligerent wrecking balls. And they tend to be loud, and can have the reflex to talk down to new editors, or to people wandering onto pages they have some investment in. And this attitude is unpleasantly brash and macho, deeply invested in some kind of social darwinist meritocracy. However, these editors tend of be loud, and they tend to be easy to identify.
There are many others who are thrilled at every little addition, who are tremendously patient, even though they explain the same things over and over again, or do the same little fixes repetitiously. Editors who operate like this tend not to stick out as much, tend to be quieter, less argumentative, and so it's easy to see just the scary ones.
I've personally gotten a lot out of offering people help, putting my inexperience up front, asking lots of questions, and I've learned to disengage more quickly once it seems like someone isn't going to be welcoming, isn't interested in collaboration. It's been tremendously satisfying, even with my reasonably little experience, to be able to help people out who have even less experience. It seems that the need to find ways to help new editors stick around is really underprioritized, so if there are tiny bits that I can do to make it feel welcoming—and to make the less welcoming editors a bit easier to ignore—that's very satisfying.
As for more practical advice, choosing a few types of tasks that you want to do can help to build confidence, and can limit the policy areas you have to be hyper-familiar with. I got a lot out of setting myself goals like "add ten short descriptions a day for a week" or "copyedit two pages a day for a week" to help push myself to actually practice specific tasks; I will also decide to focus on a particular topic area for a few days, which makes it a little bit easier to get things done. It's good to recognize that different types of tasks will in some ways open cans of worms as far as how much you have to read about, and to understand that if you're trying a type of edit, that may be a much bigger investment of time and energy than something you've done a dozen times already. I've gotten a lot out of looking over page histories to see the dynamics of how changes happen on pages, what sort of things are likely to cause conflict, what mistakes are commonly made, but also to identify what sort of edits by others seem valuable to you. When an editor makes a contribution that I find valuable in that way, I often click through to their user/talk/contributions pages to see what I can learn about their workflow, because sometimes I can learn valuable tips just by virtually shadowing someone else. I also find it has been useful to build a personal list of pages in the manual of style, or some lists, or essays by editors that I either frequently refer to, or are just inspiring/motivating in some way.
It has helped me to think of this as a hobby; I build patterns of investment in my work, I explore how others engage, and I try to set myself goals. A woodworker who tries to reinvent the wheel with every new project, not consulting how others have accomplished tasks before, and not investing in follow through will likely walk away from the half finished jewelry box, and wobbly chair, and dull tools pretty unsatisfied. There's an overwhelming amount to learn, but we can understand that every step along the way is just another small task, and that we never get to understand or master every part of it. Best of luck, apologies for being a bit long-winded, but I hope this has been helpful, and I'm very happy to help in any further way I can! Handpigdad (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was patrolling recent changes and saw someone edit a person's biography section by adding their pronouns. Is this something that should be removed or what? I didn't mess with it because I thought, personally, it might be useful information; however, I am no policy maker and wanted to seek advice for the future. Jan Silija (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jan Silija, If possible please link the article here. Leoneix (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leoneix, here it is: Yiftach Fehige. Jan Silija (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jan Silija It's all good. The subject is referred as "he" in the article and a lookup on the university's website verifies it. There is no need of explicitly mentioning pronouns. Happy Editing! Leoneix (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) @Jan Silija: Someone else reverted the addition of "(He/Him)" in this edit. The usage of "he" and "his" throughout the article are sufficient. For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. Of higher importance is that the article has no references. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GoingBatty Should it be blanked or deleted? per WP:NOSOURCES Leoneix (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leoneix: The edit was reverted, and I think that is sufficient. GoingBatty (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, but there are no sources to support the info written. There are only primary sources (uni profile) available. Leoneix (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leoneix: You asked "Should it be blanked or deleted", and maybe I misinterpreted what you meant by "it". I was thinking about "it" meant the addition of "(He/Him)" to the article, which was reverted. If you meant "Should the entire article be blanked or deleted", then that's outside the scope of this discussion of pronouns. Feel free to nominate the article for deletion if you think that's appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a full professor in a book-writing field - it would be extraordinary if he did not meet our notability guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for not mentioning clearly Leoneix (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
YUP ! it should be removed from the article. 😂🤣84Swagahh🤣😂 17:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it was, by me. Though perhaps something could be done with the infobox. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 17:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[PERSON] has been covered by [MAGAZINE 1], [MAGAZINE 2], [MAGAZINE 3], etc.[edit]

Hello I was wondering if this sentence structure is always considered puffery for a biography article and if so I can delete it. I do know be bold, but was looking for a paragraph in MOS category to justify removing this sentence I see in even well-maintained biographies. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @बिनोद थारू; great question! We tend to avoid absolutes on Wikipedia, so I hesitate to say always, but that sentence does read as quite puffy to me. One reason it may exist is that it's someone attempting to establish notability for a subject by linking to the best sources on them. If the sentence is supported by refs that look high-quality, you could try removing the sentence and just moving the refs to after the first sentence of the article. Otherwise, just take it out.
Regarding policy-and-guideline-based rationale for removing it, there are a few different things you could cite. WP:PUFFERY is certainly one. Another would be WP:DUE, as articles are supposed to reflect coverage in secondary sources, and while a magazine profile might normally be a secondary source, it's a primary source for the fact that it has covered that person. And so unless e.g. Magazine 2 have written about the fact that the person was covered in Magazine 1, there isn't secondary coverage.
Hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there's also a legitimate "does removing the sentence improve the encyclopedia" question to be answered. If we take the Mike Hollingshead article, for instance, I'm not convinced that we do anyone a favour by removing the sentence here:

Mike Hollingshead is an American professional storm chaser, photographer and videographer from Blair, Nebraska.[1] His work has been covered by NPR,[2] numerous photography magazines and websites, and on the cover of National Geographic.[3] It is also featured in films and television, such as Take Shelter, The Fifth Estate, and the series finale of Dexter. In 2008 Hollingshead released his first book titled Adventures in Tornado Alley: The Storm Chasers with co-author Eric Nguyen.[4][5][6][7][8]

A core WP policy is WP:IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Examples of users following their conception of the rules, but degrading the product, are all too frequent. Please don't be one of those. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion numerous photography magazines and websites does not convey any information, so it would be better to remove it. Same is the NPR bit since it's a standard news outlet. But Nat GEO cover is very relevant for photographer so can be left included. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does convey information. Citations are not provided for the claims, but then it is not highly likely the claims will be challenged. So I do need to put it to you: what's so damn important about your opinion? Who died and made you king? --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
? बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are presuming your judgement is better than the person who wrote that part of the article or, come to it, mine. You are boldly stating that a sentence which conveys information does not convey information. Does it occur to you that you may not be correct? --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I would say am 60%-70% the times correct. So maybe some decision fall into 30%-40%. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those odds, inflated as they are by your own confirmation bias, do not seem great to me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
बिनोद थारू, good question. Statements such as that in the title of this thread strike me as near worthless. If somebody was "featured", or if his work was "covered", in some issue of some magazine or wherever, then decide if the feature or coverage is worth describing, and if it is then describe it. The article Mike Hollingshead says that "In 2008, Hollingshead released his first book titled Adventures in Tornado Alley: The Storm Chasers with co-author Eric Nguyen" and points to four reviews of this; summaries of the reviews would be far more valuable. I'm not volunteering to do this myself (either because I'm up to my ears in another article or because I'm a lazy bastard; take your pick). -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC) (sixty to seventy percent of the time right, maybe)Reply[reply]
बिनोद थारू, I agree with Hoary. If a source says something relevant about the subject, tell the reader what it says. If it doesn't, don't bother citing it. Maproom (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

submitted draft article[edit]

I submitted a draft article for review about a week ago. How long does it normally take to receive an initial response? Is the response made directly to my email address? Legendt9455 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Legendt9455: if you mean  Courtesy link: Draft:Draft "Robert E. (Bob) Bourke Jr.", then you haven't yet submitted that; you need to click on the blue 'submit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot locate a blue "submit" button.
I believe I clicked the blue "submit" button on 11/28! Legendt9455 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello and welcome. If you are referring to Draft:Draft "Robert E. (Bob) Bourke Jr.", you have not actually submitted it yet. You need to click the "submit your draft for review!" button. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Legendt9455 Don't submit it in its current state or it will be rapidly declined. You need to read and comply with the policy relating to biographies and this means you must cite the information correctly. See WP:REFB. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.... you also need to decide whether you are writing about Bourke or about Studebaker. If the former, a lot of your current text is not on-topic. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That page relates to biographies of "living persons."
Is there a link to biographies of deceased persons? 2600:8800:A800:B2A:DC6C:D7B3:8650:688F (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did click on the blue "submit" button on 11/28.
I cannot locate a "submit your draft for review" button now.
Any suggestions? 2600:8800:A800:B2A:DC6C:D7B3:8650:688F (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the time varies. When I first submitted my draft, it said up to 4 weeks. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Stone Free) 17:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI - There used to be a backlog of thousands of unreviewed drafts. The system is not a queue. At that time submitted drafts got a note that it could be months. Currently a tremendous effort by many reviewers shortened the list to under 200. I echo the advice not to submit your draft until you fix the obvious; otherwise, you are just wasting a reviewer's time. David notMD (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft declined[edit]

how do I submit a biography of a well known plastic surgeon? Drwilliammiami (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You have already attempted to do this, and it was deleted as promotional. Furthermore, you seem to be writing about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy as to why that is highly discouraged. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tried twice, speedy deleted twice. Unless "Dr. William" (you?) is as famous as surgeons listed at Surgeon it is unlikely that a third attempt could succeed. David notMD (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drwilliammiami: Note that "famous" isn't quite right, it's whether there are sufficient independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of the surgeon to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, called "notability". See WP:NBIO for more information. GoingBatty (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Be aware that if you do succeed in creating an article - by including reliable source references - you do not "own" that article. If there are publications about reputationally negative events, for example a malpractice suit, that could be added to the article by other Wikipedia editors. David notMD (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I recently removed an image of Jodie Foster from Alethea. As stated in my edit summary, I don't think that the image is appropriate. Another editor reverted my removal of the image (with no edit summary). Could someone here please take a look and adjudicate. Thank you. (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone else removed the image. Personally, I agree it does not belong. David notMD (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would Bookworm857158367 like to comment? Cremastra (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
please discuss this at Talk:Alethea RudolfRed (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the image because the character that she played was the reason for the increase in usage of the name that year and the following year. The picture is of her as a child actress during that time frame. A picture of her in the Alethea role would be preferable but I didn’t find a free image on the Wikimedia commons. Nonetheless, I think a picture of her at the age she played the character is appropriate. I object to the removal of the image and reverted the edits. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reversing my opinion, as the temporary increase in popularity of the name circa 1973 is linked in the text to the appearance of Foster's so-named character in a popular TV show, even if only for one episode. David notMD (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David notMD Since the ref is imdb, and doesn't say anything about temporary increase in popularity of the name circa 1973, how about removing everything about Foster-Athea from that article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The use of the name increased after the TV appearance, per the other mentions in the article. I continue to object. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. And just because something is online, it doesn't follow it's a good WP-source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Started a discussion at Talk:Alethea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no skin in this game (my daughter's name is Rachel). David notMD (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, now you made me remember Althea, but apparently that name is unrelated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the image again. The link is extremely tenuous, and mostly original research. The name and Jodie foster aren't related, or Jodie would be the name we are talking about. Bookworms should probably let someone else make edits to the page Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about consensus[edit]

Hello! I've been involved in several discussions about moves or mergers over the years where it seems that a lone dissenting voice causes the discussion to end in "no consensus", which is as good as saying the result is "oppose": i.e., nothing changes. Is this a general rule? I know it's not exactly a vote or numbers game, but if say two people support with arguments and one person opposes with arguments (and I'm not even getting into the realm of flawed or simplistic arguments!), does this generally yield "no consensus", thus killing whatever the proposal is? Is there something more technical the closing editor/administrator looks at than this? (I admit that it has been frustrating to me personally, and I'm just looking for some clarity. In more than one case, an editor has "opposed" one time and then never participated in the discussion ever again; this seems to be an easy way for any editor to kill thoughtful proposals: oppose and then ghost). Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Wolfdog and welcome to the teahouse. A few thoughts from me:
  • "no consensus" may effectively look as "oppose" in result, but what it really means is to "keep the status quo".
  • if say two people support with arguments and one person opposes with arguments: I think Wikipedia expects those who participate in the discussion to engage in debate and conversation as a way to build consensus. If people just "vote" and not engage with each other, then no consensus is generated.
  • an editor has "opposed" one time and then never participated in the discussion ever again: I agree that is very frustrating. I personally would not care much from the opposition. Provide your rationale in full would add more credit to you when the clerk closes the discussion.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wolfdog Achieving consensus is an important Wikipedia policy as described at WP:Consensus. It would be unusual in my experience for a single dissenting voice to prevent good arguments from winning through and we would almost never delete articles via WP:AfD if that were the case, since someone almost always wants retention. Discussions about moves are more likely to end in a decision to retain the status quo because one solution is just to create a WP:Redirect at the alternative title. If you have specific cases where you think the result was ridiculous, then the policy page describes how that can be challenged. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for both of your responses. I think the feeling is more frustration than ridiculousness. It's more the "ghosting" that irritates me -- I'm always up for continuing the conversation (though I can think of one recent time when I was infoloaded or "TLDR'd" out of all energy to continue participating!). Obviously I feel the results of certain discussions were not for the best, but that goes without saying whenever I've been the nominator. Sometimes that lone opponent gets ya! Wolfdog (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wolfdog, It's definitely something that's played (and ultimately, sometimes misplayed) by ear—but there's a certain point where everyone has made their respective points and no one has been particularly swayed or outmoded among the interlocutors or audience, and at that point it's often best to close as no consensus. Usually, I think closers are pretty okay at sensing when one interlocutor was just wordier as opposed to having a better point or having more agreement, but it's certainly frustrating when that's not the case. Remsense 03:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How do I make a draft about something? Tailscraft (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome. The easiest way is to use the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You appear to have already made a draft, so perhaps I misunderstood your question? 331dot (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tailscraft The issue with your Draft:HShop is that it ignores a key pillar of Wikipedia, namely that we insist articles are about topics which reach a threshold of wikinotability. That means that drafts must include evidence from sources that are independent of the topic and meet other criteria summarised here. Your draft only had citations to the website of HShop themselves, which is not enough. Please read WP:YFA. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

add sources to "Education" and "Events and exhibitions" sections[edit]

How  to add sources to "Education" and "Events and exhibitions" sections in article? where I can upload diplomas and certificates Khanlar Asadullayev (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Khanlar Asadullayev Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this is about Draft:KHanlar Asadullayev which appears to be your attempt at an autobiography. Writing your autobiography is strongly discouraged for the reasons mentioned at the link. You have run into exactly one of the problems. You would like to cite evidence that you have had a particular education and held various exhibitions BUT you lack published sources that say you do. You are writing your draft backwards and need to read that linked essay to see why that won't work. I'm afraid that it is highly unlikely that any acceptable autobiography will result and you may not like the outcome in the long term if it did. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.... incidentally, by uploading a very high-resolution copy of your painting to Commons at File:Melburn by Khanlar A..jpg you have given permission to anyone to use that image for any purpose, including commercially, for example as a greeting card, provided they cite the source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why two of my written historical articles edited todays do not appeared in wikipedia? Pirro2023 (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit history indicates that the only edit you made other than the above is this edit, and it wasn't to an article. Which articles did you edit? 331dot (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You did make several attempts to edit your user page that were blocked by edit filters as spam. Your user page is not article space, but a place for you to tell about yourself as an editor or user. New accounts cannot directly create articles and must use the article wizard to create and submit a draft- but creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles, to get an idea of what we are looking for- and to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot advice[edit]

Hi, I would like to know whether a bot would be able to do this particular task or not. The task is to replace the existing format with the template like I did here on my sandbox to explain it better: [1]

The following articles: 2004 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election and 2009 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election require these template changes. Since I am finding this monotonous task quite difficult to do it myself, I am looking for help probably a bot might help I believe? Any info or help is appreciated. Thank you 456legend (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 456legend, Welcome to the Teahouse. I think this will be better answered at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Cheers <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you 456legend (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What to do when multiple reliable sources publish misleading information?[edit]

In regards to Dave the Diver - Wikipedia this article. An administrator previously threatened to block a user for trying to edit the article to state that the game was not an indie game, when in fact it was. The admin's reasoning was due to reliable sources stating the game was "indie". Even though the incident appears to be resolved it makes me curious about how a similar incident would be solved for posterity 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gamowebbed WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gamowebbed WP:DR might be of interest. When there's dispute about whether a source is reliable or not for any particular piece of information, and editors politely but persistently disagree, that tends to go to WP:DRN or WP:3O and maybe eventually WP:RFC. If someone is a dick about it or otherwise disrupts that process, that's when admins tend to step in. An admin shouldn't be using the threat of blocks to enforce a content issue like "what do the sources say". -- asilvering (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the info @Asilvering, I have decided to submit an ANI to seek administrator counsel. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meeting my host[edit]

meeting my hosts is so proud to meet them and one-day I might also meet them and I want to meet my hosts (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP editor, this is a help location for editors who are using Wikipedia. Do you have a question about Wikipedia? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

help (again)[edit]

a random IP has sent a weird talk page message on my talk page, about meeting some host. idk what the host is, but they gave me what I assume to be a phone-number. help, I'm so confused, why does everyone go to ME first?? Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Stone Free) 13:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Babysharkboss2 The same IP placed a message here at the Teahouse just above your comment. I've no idea what they want but suggest you ignore them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
im so confused, about why i'm the only person they talked to on theirr talk page, and why they would post something private like a phone-number, but i'll ignore them and wait for it to archive, thanks! Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 13:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Babysharkboss2: The top of this page says "Meet your hosts". It's linked to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts which lists official Teahouse hosts but a user may not notice the link. Then it would be natural for the user to assume that anyone answering questions here is a host they can meet, and you have answered questions. If it was a common occurrence then we could consider a redesign but I haven't heard of a non-host being contacted in this way before so I think we should just ignore it. At least you have an explanation now. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so like, they want to meet the Teahouse hosts? Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 14:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Babysharkboss2: Yes, but only after misunderstanding something. They apparently thought "Meet your hosts" at top of the page meant "You can meet users who answer questions here." It only means "Click this link to see a list of Teahouse hosts." PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Babysharkboss2: You are allowed to remove the post by WP:REMOVED. I have removed the apparent contact information above. I suggest you do the same if you don't remove the whole post. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i removed the persons phone number from my talk page, and i'll wait for my bottom archive it. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 14:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no CLUE what you'll have to do ! 84Swagahh (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not a terribly helpful comment, @84Swagahh. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
they don't, check my talk page. 84Swagahh has been talking about unrelated stuff on a old thread. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 16:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Babysharkboss2 They clearly know a lot about editing as they used piping in their 7th edit. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well, doing something like piping isn't unique to Wikipedia, so it could be that they know editing source, but not much about Wikipedia itself. I only know piping from editing in Fandom, so like, some things can be learned anywhere. But yeah, I don't think they are truly new to wikipedia. but hey, have faith, I guess. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 18:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look on my talk page, the other person asked about that and I explained it to him ! 😂🤣84Swagahh🤣😂 18:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i know, it was two people in fact, and I have your talkpage on my watchlist. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me) (Waif Me!) 18:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok, well also, I clicked on the piping link from your reply and I didn't realize it was something complicated. I used the visual editor and I selected the text I wanted, clicked the link icon and clicked the article I needed the link to. Next , I just clicked on my newly added link to change the actual text. 😂🤣84Swagahh🤣😂 18:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page Approval[edit]


There is a company mentioned on this page called 'Zego'

They are one of the few companies on this list without a page, despite having more notability type mentions, the proposed page keeps getting refused, I was wondering if anyone could give me any suggestions. Ive told more notable mentions, but I believe it already meets those requirement's and there isn't any more mentions to add. Here is the page. 2A02:C7C:6E04:A700:709C:CBA1:BC1F:2985 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the reviewer left a note asking you to see WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCOMPANY. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 13:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gromphadorhina picea[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources for this, its a hissing cockroach that is commonly mistaken for other hissing cockroaches which is why there is little to no information about it, do you guys have any information about it? Username but name (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Username but name, try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Username but name I asked Bing's new AI-driven search engine and it gave me this source as well as a summary of other sources. Whether that's reliable or not is debatable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much, this seems pretty reliable as i've seen some things on this site before and they have all been true. Username but name (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating a new entry[edit]

How do I create a new entry? Dancetheater (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean by new entry[?]? Would you like to know how to make a page? Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 16:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. I’m not sure of the terminology but the inclusion of a biographical profile of someone not currently included. Dancetheater (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you want to make a new page about a person? You just gotta go to (or, I recommend) the ALL MIGHT WIZARD and make a page. but If it's about a person, make sure it follows WP:BLP and has good sources Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 16:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
crap, wrong Rc. Make sure it has reliable sources, not recent changes, lol. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 16:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
whats a new entry? 😂🤣84Swagahh🤣😂 16:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Help:Your first article Cwater1 (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia prefers the term "article" to "page", as the latter can be taken to imply that Wikipedia is social media. Articles are articles, but the associated Talk pages are pages. David notMD (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was confused on what he was talking about when he said entry, so I replied asking what it meant. 😂🤣84Swagahh🤣😂 18:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability guidelines[edit]

Where do I find notability guidelines? Dancetheater (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability for general guidelines, is there a specific category of article you're interested in? microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 16:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The types of persons whose biographical information could be included in Wikipedia Dancetheater (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you could make a page on someone, but that must be notable. If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual...[1] Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 16:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The overall guidelines may be found at WP:N; that page will also link to narrower guidelines for certain areas(for example, notable organizations). 331dot (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if the person in question is alive or recently deceased, you need to take into account the special stipulations at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is this song notable enough for an article?[edit]

I was thinking about creating an article for Die For Me by Post Malone featuring Future and Halsey from Hollywood's Bleeding and I wanted to know if it could be created into an article. The reasons that I have that constitute its creation are its popularity (one of the the most popular on the album, as well as the high charts and certifications) and Halsey's solo version which adds two new verses. Thanks! Rockboy1009 (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends on whether there are enough reliable sources for the song in particular, and not just about the album! Cheers, good luck! Remsense 21:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are few sources about the original song by itself, but it is gone over in the many articles of Halsey's solo version. Would the solo version constitute its own article by itself? Rockboy1009 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rockboy1009, usually if they are considered the same song, they are included in one article. See examples such as "The House of the Rising Sun", "Billie Jean", or "Old Town Road". Cheers! Remsense 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So with those sources would the song be ok for an article? Rockboy1009 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rockboy1009, yes, as long as you make the existence of a remix clear, I've edited my response above to include some examples you can compare with. Remsense 22:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How long should a new article be before being published? LouieLumber (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is not really any length requirements, but you should make sure that the article could be expanded beyond a single paragraph. i.e. there is enough info published in reliable sources to make a whole article about it. Ca talk to me! 00:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That - "you should make sure that the article could be expanded beyond a single paragraph" - is poor - which is to say wrong, invented, unhelpful - advice from User:Ca. There is no policy on length, beyond that an article must convey context, avoid being nonsense. Article subjects must be notable, and notability should be evidenced by reliable sources. That's it. A draft like Draft:Dave Nayak is perfectly long enough, but sadly the subject is not supported by reliable sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An article that cannot be expanded beyond a single paragraph is unlikely to be notable. Ca talk to me! 01:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! LouieLumber (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LouieLumber, there is another angle on this, which is that some topics which are notable, just don't have that much information out about them, so are unlikely to expand much. These could either be left as permastubs, or WP:NOPAGE may apply, which is to say, it might not make sense to have a small stand-alone page for it, but might make more sense to group it with other, small articles about related niche topics, and make a collective article about the group topic that covers all of the related, smaller subtopics on one page. Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Articles can be short, yet convey salient facts and are referenced. Wikipedia has a rating of "Stub" for articles that are accepted but short, with the hope that other editors will add more content. David notMD (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit History[edit]

Why when I look at the edit history of some pages, some revisions are crossed out? Subariba (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:REVDEL. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mobile table of contents inaccuracy[edit]

The first item in the table of contents that appears on mobile for the article Photographic print toning is “Sepia tone,” which I assume was maybe a previous title before a move. I’m having trouble finding how to correct this. It only seems apparent on mobile — on desktop the article title does not appear in the table of contents, it just starts with the first section header. Thank you! Wow Mollu (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wow Mollu: That mobile view is showing the same table of contents as the desktop version, using a browser. Are you using a browser or one of the Wikipedia apps to view the article? RudolfRed (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You’re right! Now that I reload it, it shows the article title. I came to this article from the disambiguation page for Sepia. On that page, under Color, the link for Sepia tone redirects to a section within Photographic print toning. When it does, the first item in the mobile app table of contents displays as “Sepia tone” instead of the article title. This seems a bit confusing, no? Since the Sepia tone section is way down the page, nowhere near the top. And tapping on that item brings you to the top of the article, which is not about sepia. Wow Mollu (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wow Mollu, you're being correctly redirected. There isn't a separate article for sepia tone, it's just part of the article on photographic print toning, so the link takes you right to the part that has the relevant information, rather than landing you at the top so you wonder why on earth you got there. I can't explain why tapping on the item brings you to the top of the article, though. That doesn't happen to me, so I wonder if it's something strange about your mobile browser. -- asilvering (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I’m not explaining very clearly. Yes, the redirect works great! It brings me to the right section. I guess what realizing is it’s more of an issue (IMO) with how the mobile interface is populated. Normally in the mobile app, the top item in the TOC is the article title. When I use the redirect link Sepia tone, it brings me to the correct section of the article called “Sepia toning”, however when I open up the TOC panel, the first item in the TOC reads Sepia tone (the name of the redirect) not Photographic print toning, the actual name of the article. So using the redirect link in the mobile app, the TOC reads: Sepia tone, Chemical toning, Selenium toning, Sepia toning, Metal replacement… etc. This happens with other redirects too, I now see! All this to say, this is probably not a question for teahouse, it seems to have more to do with the way the mobile app is set up. I just find it confusing that the title of the article is changed in the table of contents when you get to an article from a redirect. Wow Mollu (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh hm, now I understand, and I'm not sure where to send you for a better chance at finding someone with a solution. MW:Wikimedia Apps? -- asilvering (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot reproduce this on Android using the app. I suggest you post it on mw:Talk:Wikimedia Apps, and include details of your phone OS, app version, etc. I have had helpful responses from there. -- Verbarson  talkedits 18:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page Numbers[edit]

How do I add page numbers when citing books? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! In the {{Cite book}} template, you can specify one page with the |p= parameter, or a range of pages with the |pp= parameter. If you need help using these parameters in the Visual editor or otherwise would like clarification, let me know! Remsense 04:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I use the template with an auto-generated citation? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes! When you put in an ISBN or otherwise automatically generate a citation for a book, what it does is create a {{Cite book}} template under the hood. If you are using VisualEditor, do you see where you can specify page numbers? If not, check out Help:VisualEditor#Editing templates.
If you are not using VisualEditor, you should be able to add the parameter with all the others! Don't hesitate to ask me for more help if you still need it. :) Remsense 04:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LeónGonsalvesofGoa, if a book is cited at all, it's typically cited more than once. Rather than having two or more fully written out REF tags, differing only in page numbers, consider using the combination of (A) named references -- <ref name="arbitrary_name">{{Cite book | [lots of bibliographical detail but no page number(s)]}}</ref> just once, <ref name="arbitrary_name" /> every other time -- and (B) Template:Rp. -- Hoary (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alt account[edit]

I am the alt account of User:TrademarkedTarantula, and I'm aware that sockpuppeting is a problem. How do I verify that I'm the same person? Thanks, TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Hello! You should use the template {{User alternative account banner}} on your alt account and disclose that you operate that alt account on your main account's user page (the latter by using your main account). You may also find Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate uses pretty useful as it will tell you about legitimate uses for alternative accounts, as well as explaining inappropriate uses of alt accounts. Happy editing! – 64andtim (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to create a new style2 template for infobox?[edit]

I want to create a new color scheme for the Style2 part of an infobox, like the "M2 M6" on this page. I'm a bit dumbfounded. Thanks in advance! Eticangaaa (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Eticangaaa. I am frustrated by the fact that whoever made this system apparently neglected to document this, but the style2 options for Istanbul Metro seem to be defined at Module:Adjacent stations/Istanbul Metro. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much! Apparently the style i was wishing to create has already been made :P Eticangaaa (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enough sources?[edit]

Subject is Maurice Novoa, are there enough sources here; (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What matters if not the number of sources, but the content within the sources.
The things to consider when making ana article is:
Are the sources reliable? Do they come from a third party? Do the sources altogether have enough information to write an article about a given subject?
Not much volunteers are willing to read all the linked articles. Instead try giving the best three sources. Ca talk to me! 14:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first few appear to be primary sources based on the URL. You can still use them in uncontroversal situations but they will not contribute to notability. ✶Mitch199811 14:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awards that are themselves not notable, i.e., not Wikipedia articles, can be listed, but do not contribute to the recipient's notability. Example "American Martial Arts Alliance Foundation Legends Hall of Honors." David notMD (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best 3 sources with most in-depth coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long-running AfD discussion[edit]

Hello! A few weeks ago, my new article Isaac Saul was nominated for deletion, and since then I have been trying to defend its notability. However, after the first few days, the discussion quickly dropped off. Now, it has already been relisted twice with no further discussion, and it will be relisted a third time tomorrow. I worry that this article has been buried under a pile of newer AfDs, and that it will remain in limbo indefinitely. Is there anything I can do to make this process move faster? Thanks, Mover of molehillsmove me 14:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisting is an Administrator's option to solicit more comments. Most likely the same Admin is the one who will make the decision. And soon. David notMD (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tilderman Casteel[edit]

What or who is this? Elf clark (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia has no article on Tilderman Casteel and a web search draws a blank. Why are you asking? Shantavira|feed me 15:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Entry on Gilbert Stuart (artist)[edit]

The bibliography should include a major, original source on Gilbert Stuart (1999) which is first cited in footnote 14 and appears elsewhere. Would someone please make the change? I don't know how to do it. Thank you. DEvans2 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DEvans2:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the future, it's better to make these requests at the talk page of the article instead of at the Teahouse. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks. DEvans2 (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a problem in writing articles in English[edit]यादव_रामकृपाल

Can't write any article in English.Ramkripal YadvG (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what are you asking exactly? Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me) (Waif Me!) 17:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedias are available in many languages. Choose yours at List of Wikipedias. Shantavira|feed me 20:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 – User: Translated the message to English. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 17:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete all the[edit]

per "i added an image to this article and was then informed that that image might not have actually been the legal way to do it", can image deletion be handled here, as opposed to in commons? cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 19:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Cogsan. Welcome to the Teahouse. You can undo the edit yourself by going to the article's 'view history' tab and clicking on the undo button in the latest entry. In the edit history, you can mention it as 'self-revert'. Hope this helps <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is how you remove it from the article, but that doesn't delete the actual image file. @Cogsan: If the file is at Commons, you will need to follow Commons procedure, yes. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)Ah! I think I misunderstood your question earlier. To address it properly now, I've tagged the image for speedy deletion, following your request. Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
guess that works lol
thanks cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 20:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
incidentally, wouldn't it have been a g11, as opposed to a g7? cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 20:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. You requested the deletion. G11 is promotional; this image was not promotional. It could have been filed as a G12, unambiguous copyvio. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes in entry on Gilbert Stuart (artist)[edit]

I've had a problem with the following note corrections (given in quotes). Would someone please help? I'd be very grateful.

Note 2, change Ireland to "London." At the end of the note, add this explanatory source for the name problem: "Evans, Dorinda, Gilbert Stuart and the Impact of Manic Depression, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2013, p. 127."

Note 35: "Quote from Jane Stuart in" Evans, 2013, p. 14.

Note 46: add missing pages at the end of the note: Evans 2013, pp. 18-19, "69-73, 82-84, 148."

Thanks so much for your attention. DEvans2 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DEvans2: I don't understand what you're asking, but for suggesting changes to an article, start a discussion on the talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or, better, be WP:BOLD and fix it. RudolfRed (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for replying. I've submiotted my request again and tried to make it clearer. These are corrections to my own text. DEvans2 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeking a discussion; I'm making corrections to what I wrote earlier in notes. This is self-correction. If you can't do it, please allow someone else to try. What is not clear about it? DEvans2 (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DEvans2, what is not clear is that we don't understand what you're asking us to do.
The page is not protected, you can make any corrections yourself. Valereee (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Editing Source page is almost gibberish. For instance, I want to correct what I already wrote in note 2 but that text now is " ref name = gsm />. It's meaningless without even a note number. How can I improve on what I can't read? I'm asking to make corrections in notes 2, 35, and 46. Or please lead me to where it is not all in code. When I worked on the entry before, the setup was different. I'm a beginner and not sure what I've done wrong. DEvans2 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DEvans2, if for some reason you cannot make corrections yourself, please describe the hurdle that you face. RudolfRed, Valereee and I can each of us do what you ask us to, but I imagine that they are as reluctant as I am either (A) to work unthinkingly for another editor or (B) to spend time evaluating asked-for changes before carrying them out. -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did change notes 2 and 44 (previously note 46; not sure why instantly changed). Then I accidentally made a "cite error" in ending note 35. It should read: 35. Quote from Jane Stuart in Evans 2013, p. 14. This is under Personal Life, after the "exceedingly pretty" quote. The Help page gives instances of the error. How do I now re-do the note and remove the red citation? Sorry to be such a bother. DEvans2 (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re the 46 to 44 change: as I think I've told you before, the references are numbered automatically (in the order they first appear in the text), so if someone (perhaps yourself, perhaps someone else) has deleted (or moved) a couple of different references from before what was 46, all those after the first deleted reference will drop their number by 1, and all those after the second deletion by a further 1. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is obvious and I knew that. I didn't knowingly delete something. The problem now is getting rid of the red citation. DEvans2 (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protection of Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war[edit]

Can someone please explain how it's allowed by policy to extended-confirmed protect Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war, and where anybody is supposed to discuss changes to this article if they're not extended-confirmed? Kk.urban (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a false notice on the talk page that says "Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask for uncontroversial changes supported by consensus." Kk.urban (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the notice, it "can be applied to combat disruption, if semi-protection has proven to be ineffective." Presumably semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. The Israel–Hamas war has to be one of the most controversial things happening in the world right now, so it's not surprising. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, it's very controversial, but then where can anyone discuss the article? Kk.urban (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kk.urban: Use the "submit an edit request" link in the notice to submit an edit request. RudolfRed (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RudolfRed OK, thank you. Can I use that to submit an edit request to the talk page? Kk.urban (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the link will take you to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit RudolfRed (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RudolfRed Can I use Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit to submit an edit request to the talk page? I want to edit the talk page, not the article. Kk.urban (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, I don't know what the rules are, since this talk page was protected due to Arbitration Enforcement. I suggest staying away from this and other contentious topics until you have EC rights. But, if you want to proceed, you can try submitting an edit request for editing the talk page and see what the answer is. RudolfRed (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kk.urban, you need to have 500 edits to contribute to that talk page. You are 2/3 of the way there. The restriction was imposed by Ritchie333, because all articles having to do with the Arab–Israeli conflict have stringent behavioral restrictions due to chronic disruption. That talk page was being disrupted by newer editors. It's a fact of life. Cullen328 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving Sources on Article[edit]

Hi, hope you're all doing well. I am currently working on my very first Wikipedia article and was seeking some guidance in regards to sources. My article was not accepted because I need to incorporate more references.

These are the references I currently have:

big4bio (2022-03-24). "Spotlight Q&A: The Story of XiltriX - Big4Bio". Retrieved 2023-12-06.

Schaefer, Nat (June 8, 2022). "Lab monitoring as a service for the pharmaceutical industry". Pharmaceutical Technology. Retrieved December 6, 2023.

These are some additional references I found that I was thinking of adding:

The question is, "Will these be enough?" Let me know if you have any suggestions. Thank you in advance, I appreciate your feedback. Andazimeta (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:XiltriX North America --Finngall talk 22:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andazimeta, big4bio looks like an aggregator, so not itself a reliable source, and even then it's an interview, so we don't consider it independent. The Pharm Tech article has the feel of being created from a press release, so not independent. The site looks really iffy, too, their about us says "Combined with our award-winning targeting technology built into our network of websites, we offer a unique end-to-end marketing solution combining insight, creativity, and cutting-edge AI-technology. Our marketing solution allows clients to identify, target and engage with prospects using access and ownership of our 40+ B2B media websites and their large sector specific audiences. With more reach, data targeting and first-party data than any other partner, we produce world-class campaigns for our clients. For more details on our technology-driven marketing solution" me that looks like a promotional agency. The Einstein article kind of looks like a med school discussing their own operations, which depends on the subject company's stuff, not independent. The LabManager is a bare mention? For me, as a non-med editor, this doesn't look like enough, no. Valereee (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thank you taking the time to review the sources, that was very helpful insight. I'll do more research and see if there's any better sources I can find about the company. Do you have any suggestions as to what elements to look for in regards to identifying sources Wikipedia might deem to be more in-depth and reliable? Thank you again. Andazimeta (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andazimeta, the minimum requirement is WP:NOTABILITY; for a business we'd like to see three instances of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. All three need to meet all of those criteria: independent, reliable, secondary, and significant coverage. Valereee (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was able to find the Wikipedia page for a company that seems to have a similar business model as the one I am doing research about. The name of the company is "Elemental Machines." It looks like their page has three sources. Would you say they are a good example as I move forward with my research? Andazimeta (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I've nominated that article for deletion. It was an advert, failed WP:CORPDEPTH, several refs did not resolve to news stories. I would not advise emulating it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you need to face the fact that 80% of Draft:XiltriX North America is an undisguised advert. The sections "Industries served", "Common parameters", "Security and compliance" all entirely unreferenced, all the sorts of things you'd expect to find on a corporate flyer. Wikipedia is not a venue for company marketing. If you cannot find good independent references to support the subject, than I urge you to add {{db-g7}} at the top of the draft such that it is marked for deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

where can i find more sources for this article And The Music Plays On (Del Shannon album)? Samchristie05 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Samchristie05 I would start with a simple google search, those might turn up a source or two that is reliable and secondary of the article subject. WP:NALBUM has useful information when it comes to the notability of the recording you are writing about. I have included some links below to help you find sources.
Seawolf35 T--C 01:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
when i press RUNAWAY A Del Shannon Story & The Music of Del Shannon it said it's not preview Samchristie05 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Samchristie05, as explained back in October, the person who hopes to create an article first looks for reliable sources, and, if they find some that are informative, then goes on to create an article. I sense that you're going about it backwards. -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appropriate Sources[edit]

Greetings, I have been making article edits anonymously for awhile and decided to create an account. I have been researching and writing for about 11 years now on Pacific Northwest (US) transportation history. I thought I would take some of those new learnings and update the related wikipedia articles. I have been STRUGGLING with appropriate references, since at times my edits have been discarded. I assume published books are appropriate sources, but what about state historical society's online essays? (for which some of my edits were rejected in the past, including the one I did yesterday). What about online sites of newspapers and magazines? Most historical societies have a website with historical information enclosed, are those appropriate sources? (for which my edits at times were also rejected in the past). I will push ahead. Thanks for any information. Most Appreciated! PNWTransportHistory (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PNWTransportHistory generally speaking we don't accept blogs as reliable sources (see this all discussed in exhaustive detail at WP:RS), and I think most historical societies' online essays function effectively as blog posts. But that's only a "generally speaking" - it's really going to depend on the specific source. Online sites of newspapers and magazines are fine, so long as those newspapers and magazines are themselves reliable (eg, the NYT online is fine because the NYT is, but the NY Post is not fine and neither is its website). -- asilvering (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd add the nuance that online postings hosted at a historical society's website are likely to be accepted, but when it's just a wordpress blog, even if it claims to be written by a subject matter expert and doesn't state anything extraordinary, it's more likely to be scrutinised. Folly Mox (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to add characters to specific categories when no discrete character page exists?[edit]

I want to update categories of neurodivergent fictional characters, but most of the characters I plan to add do not have discrete pages. NewerSouper (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know this can only be done in a fairly restricted fashion; see WP:LISTRCAT (and more generally the rest of that page). It is possible to create redirects for characters, pointing to an appropriate page, and to categorise the redirects, but only into categories that pertain to the 'universe' or fictional setting in which the fictional characters are found. The example given in the LISTRCAT page is categorising minor Eastender's characters (UK soap opera) into Category:EastEnders characters], but not categorising them into, for example, Category:Fictional characters by occupation.
I don't know what you were planning by way of categorisation, but you need to take account of Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects and the restrictions it places on such categorisations. You are not at liberty to start adding fictional characters which do not have articles, to categories outside their fictional setting. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the information, although I am confused on one thing. It seems to me that you are saying that putting characters without individual pages into the neurodivergent categories is not allowed, but most of the entries in those categories are exactly that. NewerSouper (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. It's always fun to come across corners of wikipedia where users pay not a blind bit of notice to the guidelines. Were you to want to discuss this oddity further, I'd recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect as being the most likely place to have an audience interested in the topic. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does being a fan count as conflict of interest?[edit]

I read the conflict of interest stuff, and don't think it does. But I'm not completely sure as it isn't very clear on this. Not related in any other way to them. 2603:6011:5:C53A:54C1:6246:A502:4605 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that were the case, we'd all have conflicts of interest due to editing articles regarding topics we are deeply interested in. No—conflicts of interest amount to personal circumstances of a kind where it might be difficult to expect the average person not to express consistent bias in their tone, or in their judgement and synthesis of sources. For most adults, it is a wholly distinct, much deeper thing than fandom as generally experienced, I reckon.
Think more "my boss Mr. W needs greater exposure for our firm ABC Corp or we're doomed" or "the situation in my hometown DEFville is totally wretched due to XYZ factor". One may have a conflict of interest when editing articles directly related to Mr. W, ABC Corp, DEFville, or XYZ, etc., but ultimately that begins as a personal judgement—with the exception of direct payments for editing, which must be disclosed.
In all likelihood, if you care about accurately representing sources, you're going to be fine. Cheers! Remsense 04:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. I can say from experience. I made an article of a group I am clearly a fan of, the name of their fandom is even in my username. And yet, AFC approved it, and nobody else has marked it for deletion.
Remsense gives a very good explanation. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
god I'd hope not, or the draft I made would be toast! But no, being a fan of something doesn't mean WP:COI. Generally, COI would be things like, a member of a school, a band member, or just anyone writing or fixing a page about themselves. If fans writing would count as Conflict of interest, then we'd kinda loose WP:NPOV. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me) (Waif Me!) 14:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This question does not have an easy answer and it depends entirely on the nature and the depth of the fandom, and and the specific behavior associated with that fandom , and the specific article. For example, I was once a mountaineer and long believed that Reinhold Messner is the greatest mountaineer. In recent years, I have thought that perhaps Nirmal Purja is the greatest climber. But you will see me making few if any edits to either article. Neutral editors should be working on both articles. Cullen328 (talk)\

Post creation[edit]

Hello, I created a page about a topic and incorrectly copied information from another page relating too it, I have since removed the information and resubmitted the page for publish but I can not tell weather it has ben denied again or if it will be in the future. Thanks. Luftwaffespectre (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It shows at the top your draft is still waiting for review. It just shows the old decline messages underneath until (and if) the page is approved. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Luftwaffespectre Hi! There are numerous issues and it is most likely getting denied. The article is not encyclopedic. There is already an article related to Mercury Cougar, you could have just added info about this new generation there. Apart from this, the writing style in the draft is not favorable for wikipedia. I suggest you to go through WP:PG to understand our guidlines. Happy editing! Leoneix (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To add to this, I was going to say something about the sources, considering one of them lead to a website my browser marked as "unsafe." People do not want viruses you know. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
specifically the first source. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I clicked all the external links on the page, I use Firefox, and I did not get any such warnings. It may be a simple HTTPS cert expiry from the description you have given, but I will not assume one way or the other, just making clear that it is often not a matter of malicious hosts. Remsense 05:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use OperaGX, so maybe it is my browser. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
still, it doesn't help with the source's credibility. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the information to the main article with accurate sourcing from the NTHSA, do I need to remove the draft article, if so how do I do that? Luftwaffespectre (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Add {{db-g7}} at the top. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much, it appears to have been deleted, I'm still quite new to editing Wikipedia . Luftwaffespectre (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is to be removed, then it may be for different reasons. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me) (Waif Me!) 13:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request edit access tutorial[edit]

Excuse me, how do I request edit access as a user who hasn't made 500 edits yet? For example: I need to edit the "Foreign relations of Israel" page because the "Diplomatic relations" section contains inaccuracies. Underdwarf58 (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Underdwarf58: In most cases, you shouldn't need to request edit access – you can submit an edit request using the edit request wizard and an editor with the required permissions will make the edit on your behalf. Tollens (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok thanks Underdwarf58 (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request feedback about draft article improvement[edit]

Hello all, I have been working on and off to create my first article Draft:Bhargav Sri Prakash . It started as a class project for school but it has turned in to quite a research project and I am learning a lot! Thank you to the experienced editors for reviewing my submission. I value your suggestions and to those who have contributed with edits. I have been researching more online and found a lot more news articles. However I am not sure I am on the right track with formatting and content. Basically I am looking at other articles and trying to learn by adapting the style. Can you please take a look and give me your advice? Thanking you, KrisJohanssen (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @KrisJohanssen, the draft mainly cites primary sources and only a few secondary sources making the subject less notable. I feel like some parts of it are written like a resume. Leoneix (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The subject comes across as a self-promoting bullshitter. His main claims to fame are that he was a national tennis champion (he wasn't), and that he's invemted a "digital vaccine" (it's not a vaccine). KrisJohanssen, I suggest that you find a more deserving subject for your efforts. Maproom (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

base href , to reduce page size[edit]

Hi. Does wikipedia offer a way to do <base href="..."> ? I'm trying to reduce the wikipedia page size on a page with many outside links. Thanks! Kweetal nl (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Kweetal nl: this isn't an answer to your question as such, but may be relevant nevertheless: other than citations, and a few select links in the end matter, Wikipedia articles shouldn't really have external links. Okay, it's not quite as drastic as that, but that's pretty much the gist of WP:EL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh. They /are/ citations (i.e., links to BHL pages). (BHL = biodiversity heritage library).
(but perhaps people will not find it interesting) - Kweetal nl (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If (?) you mean User:Kweetal nl/sandbox49, then no, they're not citations; they're inline external links. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok - I'll remove it (largely). - Kweetal nl (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public Article[edit]


I don't know know how to fix and changes to meet the requirements of Wikipedia. May request Wikipedia to help me edit, change and fix what they stated in my article so it can be list in Wikipedia and go to public?

Thank You Sincerely,

Hiwakari Itsumo Hiwakariitsumo1901 (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hiwakariitsumo1901: I've already answered this at the AfC HD; please don't ask the same question in multiple places, as it wastes volunteer time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verifiable links[edit]

I do not understand what type of links are unverifiable in my draft Draft:Smita N. Kinkale. Anonymousartuser (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sources you have provided are largely either user-generated, (Linkedin, which is not acceptable as a source whatsoever) very close to the subject (the galleries their work has been displayed in), or not directly about the subject (a short news blurb about 12 people including the subject). Otherwise, statements made in the article do not seem to be informed by the reliable sources you have provided. See below. Remsense 11:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anonymousartuser The whole "About works" portion of the biography has no sources at all. Who interpreted her art that way? You? Please read Wikipedia's policy about biographies of living people carefully. All significant statements have to be backed up by reliable published sources. You have re-submitted the draft without addressing the issues identified in its previous review. Therefore it is likely to be rapidly declined again. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.... as it has been. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anonymousartuser Judging by your User rename request you are attempting to write an autobiography. That is strongly discouraged for the reasons given at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anonymousartuser You need to cut the "Critic reviews" texts drastically, see MOS:QUOTE. Note that a WP-article about Smita N. Kinkale is supposed to be a summary of WP:RS about but independent of Smita N. Kinkale. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
just looked at the draft, and yikes. Firstly, as Michael D. Turnbull pointed out, you had a rename request which makes it look like you are writing an autobiography, which isn't really good. Second, you have a lot of external links on there, like on to the schools website, that should either be added in as sources, or removed entirely. Last, there a flimsy unreliable and unrelated sources in the article. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me) (Waif Me!) 14:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I send an old fashioned check in order to get my donation to Wikipedia?[edit]

Donation question Jasonmtnbiker (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Jasonmtnbiker, welcome to the Teahouse! This is more of a place for help from volunteers about editing Wikipedia; we don't really have much of anything to do with donations. To read more about donation options and ways to give, check out this link: Thanks! Writ Keeper  14:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]