From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Article Review[edit]

Citation has been added to draft:Ceno (rapper) so kindly move it to article space. Gfxseries (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works, go back and resubmit it through the Article Creation process. I'll say though that it appears that all the "citations" you added are just to discography-type pages,, etc... That's not gonna cut it. ValarianB (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gfxseries. That draft in its current form has zero chance of being accepted. The references are pretty much worthless. Please read and study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
STATUS: Declined, then Rejected, and miscellany-nominated for deletion. Paid editors are expected to demonstrate competence. The draft has no reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"... identifying with the blue side of the spectrum crisp." I just don't understand the kids' lingo these days. (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:David notMD and others: Volunteer editors are also expected to demonstrate competence, and usually do. It is surprising how often paid editors, who should be demonstrating their competence to their clients, demonstrate to the volunteer community that they don't know what they are doing. Maybe there should be a lesson for their clients that they would be better off to spend their money on improving a corporate web site, which they control, than on trying to pay for Wikipedia listings. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative article source link[edit]

I want to add a pdf link to a source but I already have a URL. Is there a way to add a second URL? ScientistBuilder (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? What kind of url do you have now? Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScientistBuilder I thought that PDFs are generally not considered to be reliable, published, verifiable sources. Are you using a PDF as a source? (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It depends entirely on who has published them and where. A PDF is just a medium, like paper, or websites. Some of these are published by organisations with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. Some are published by some random guy who wants to say something. Most are somewhere in between.
A PDF found on the website of a reputable newspaper is probably a reliable source (which may or may not be independent of the subject). If somebody sends you a copy of that PDF, it cannot be used as a reliable source. If somebody uploads the PDF to their own website or Dropbox, it is not a reliable source (and may be a copyright violation). But if somebody sends you the original URL of that PDF on the publisher's website, it probably is a reliable source. ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about emerging artists[edit]

I am writing about emerging artists who have done pretty well in their fields. any suggestions! Anuaurora (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anuaurora, welcome to the Teahouse! A few points.
Writing a WP-article that "sticks" without any previous WP-experience is hard. Consider just editing some topics that interest you for a while, and check WP:TUTORIAL. Learning how to add references properly is essential, especially if you write about living people, WP has rules about these things. As an example, Oscar Ukonu is an article I wrote. It's pretty basic, but not glaringly WP-awful. Note how sources are used, depending on what they are and say. Your task as a Wikipedian is not to sell your subject, it is to summarize what independent sources (WP:RS) say.
If you have a subject in mind, check WP:BASIC. If you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem!", move on to WP:BLP and WP:YFA. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anuaurora If you mean visial or performing contemporary artists, then List of contemporary artists has plenty of examples of articles. David notMD (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anuaurora It's a fine line--if an artist is too emerging, it will be harder to find reliable, independent coverage that shows how they are notable. But it's possible. Good luck. (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to Existing Article[edit]

This is not a question; it is just an observation. I recently asked advice from Wikipedia on whether I could add a section to an already very good Wikipedia article on Colonial Pipeline Company. I was advised by the person that responded that I needed to provide primary or original sources. I do not have such, so I abandoned the task.

The CPC article is long and informative, but it does not mention or skims very lightly the control systems that allow this 5500 mile system with more than 200 facilities to be operated from a remote site. There is a lot of whiz-bang stuff about the large diameter pipe, the pumps and motors, the giant valves, the enormous BPD throughput but nothing about how it is controlled. Hint: it is not by humans on site at those facilities.

I know this because I worked directly on designing, building, and installing those SCADA and control systems from 1966 until 2002. But in the end it is not really important. Keep up the good work. MisterURL (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In explanation, this is a side-effect of what Wikipedia is. We are a tertiary source. We rely on secondary sources to decide that something is interesting, go looking for the facts, and check their accuracy. We then collate and summarise information from the secondary sources. We shouldn't go directly to the primary sources: simplistically, primary sources are often biased by their authors, who are inevitably closely connected with the subject. A good author of a secondary source has enough distance to see the subject in perspective and assess how important is that particular primary source, and to know its bias. Also we cannot use our own knowledge, because then we would be our own primary source. If you know something about a subject, what you have to do is go and write the primary or secondary material yourself, and then Wikipedia will have something to work with! It can be very frustrating when we encounter an article that is obviously incomplete, but this usually comes down to the fact that although we consider it interesting and important, so far no one else has done so, at least not enough to get it into print. But this is also what separates us from blog sites and general interest sites. There is nothing to stop a blog from being as accurate as Wikipedia - it's just we try to guarantee the reader sources, and some neutrality as enforced by being a collaborative effort of multiple editors based on the multiple efforts of many secondary sources. Elemimele (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that, and you make it very clear. It would be difficult for me to remain entirely objective. Thank you for the response. This arcane dab of knowledge is indeed of interest to very few - maybe none other than a handful of people that worked on it way back then - so I will be content to just know it happened myself. MisterURL (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing an article in return for undisclosed payments[edit]

I am not an editor of Wikipedia. I sought editorial help from Wikipedia editors in editing and publishing an article about my life, which I believe satisfies the applicable notability requirement. The article was published on the main Wikipedia pages and after about three months was removed to draft status, republished and removed again to draft status with the lead comment that the article "may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" and that "the author has been sanctioned for failing to disclose paid contributions". I was unaware of any noncompliance with Wikipedia policies by the editor and would like to resubmit this article (and cure an additonal comment that the article may have been promotional) with the help of an editor who will comply with applicable disclosure rules and policies. Can you please advise now to proceed and identify one or more editors who will provide proper editorial assistance and comply with applicable rules and policies, so that the article has a fair chance of being and remaining published. 2603:8001:A401:EB00:4D5C:A4B1:D65D:A793 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Without knowing which draft you're talking about, there's not much any other editor can do to help you. The editor that you communicated most likely ran afoul of neglecting Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which is a recurring problem Wikipedia has, and is something that is strongly looked down upon. While you're waiting to see if any interested editor is willing to help you, I encourage you to read the essay An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what was said by the IP, the draft in question seems to be Jack Samet (or maybe Anita Gupta, but that seems less likely). Unfortunately both have been rejected and two of the editors who submitted them have been blocked for COI violations, among other things (a third has simply gone inactive). (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:GenomeBon for information about the block of the editor who submitted the draft about Jack Samet. Cullen328 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is correct. The draft I am talking about is the one about Jack Samet. I did read the article you site, as well as Wikipedia notability requirements and I still believe, (although I well understand my belief is not controlling) that disregarding the vioation of the the editor (which I had no part in knowing or committing) that fairly considered, the article merits publication on the main pages. As to notability, there are relevant citations supporting factual statements in the Draft to 38 independent reliable published statements including those in the New York Times, New York Daily Mirror (now defunct), Columbia Daily Spectator, San Francisco Herald Examiner, Los Angeles Daily Journal, The Business Lawyer, United States Supreme Court official reports, UCLA Daily Bruin Prime Magazine, San Diego Union, Los Angeles Times, San Diego Daily Transcript, among others. Most of these are more than incidental and go into detail about a specific activity I was involved in and at least two, the Prime Magazine and the Forest Hills High School Beacon review my life in some detail. I appreciate the comment that the Draft may be promotional and I desire editorial assistance in removing and editing those aspects of the article. All I am asking is for a fair review of the Draft, editorially revised to eliminate possible promotional aspects, and free of the taint of actions by editors not of my making. Is this possible, and if so, please advise as to how I should proceed? 2603:8001:A401:EB00:2488:B44C:8FCD:621D (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the draft article about your life was Declined there is a chance it can be improved and published. However, if it has been Rejected then it is a lost cause, and the project needs to be abandoned. I don’t know what article you are concerned about, so I don’t know the status of it.
Have you read Notability and Referencing for beginners? It isn’t enough for a potential Wikipedia encyclopedia article to prove that you exist, it must also show that your life story meets the notability standards established by Wikipedia. And the way to prove that notability is by finding at least 3 good published references that don’t just mention you in passing, but discuss your life in depth. These references have to be independent of you or anyone working to promote your life. No press releases, information from personal websites, or interviews of you.
The vast majority of Wikipedia editors are volunteers who work on projects they are interested it, and I have no idea how to find an actual experienced Wikipedia editor willing to help write your autobiography. But while you are waiting to find someone to assist you I would suggest you start gathering up as many good references as you can find, so that you can give them to the person who becomes interested in writing your life story. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You (unregistered editor) have been given good advice. My advice is to reconsider whether to pay anyone to write a Wikipedia article for you. Paid editors will almost always assure you of their skill in Wikipedia, but they usually do not have the skill that they claim. Some paid editors ask a lot of stupid questions. Other paid editors get into a lot of stupid arguments with the Wikipedia community. Many of them think that, because they are being paid, they know what they are doing, but they often don't. If you want to publicize your life, it might be better to hire someone to improve your personal or corporate web site, which you do have control of. Paid editors often cannot deliver what they promise. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Draft article has been both declined and rejected, but I believe in each action, due to the violations of Wikipedia policies re disclosure of payments, of which I had no knowledge. I have read the article you refer to above, on Notability and Referencing for Beginners (See my response above to Cullen328) and I do not believe the Draft:Jack Samet, considered without regard to the prior editorial violations, is precluded from publication on the Main Pages of Wikipedia by a fair interpretation of any of the contents of that article. I have gathered good references, as you suggest, and the 38 citations are contained in the Draft in its current condition. How can I present the Draft to Wikipedia editors so that they can evaluate whether they think it merits publication and would be interested in editing a Draft which is already largely complete? It was published on the Main Pages of Wikipedia in October, 2021 and was not removed until late January 2022. 2603:8001:A401:EB00:2488:B44C:8FCD:621D (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, my replies to Karenthewriter and Robert McLenon have been conflated, which demonstrates unintentionally, my clear need for editorial assistance and guidance in dealing with the Wikipedia world. Hopefully, Karen and Robert will each read both replies, and what was intended to respond to each of them will be evident. I agree with Robert's advice regarding paid editors and I certainly have learned my lesson. I do not have a website, and so have no interest in publicizing my life for the purpose of growing business as I am retired. My hope was to make a legacy statement, so that those interested in the activities in which I took part, will have an additional vehicle for obtaining knowledge about them. 2603:8001:A401:EB00:2488:B44C:8FCD:621D (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor/Mr Samet, I'm going to try to address all your various questions/concerns in one post.
Writing a good article is hard; writing a bad article and moving it to mainspace (what you called "publishing" it) is easy. Many people do the latter every day, rather than going through our review process (Articles for Creation). We have a corps of overworked reviewers who go around and assess such articles to see what needs to be done with them. It took several months in the case of this article, but it was finally deemed wanting and moved back to draft. This is a common occurrence.
About the list of potential sources you posted above - only two of those, the student publications, seem to be about you rather than something you did, so those are the only ones which can be used to determine notability. The high school paper is unlikely to be reliable by our standards. The Daily Bruin is pretty highly regarded and may work as a source, but it will entirely depend on the content of the article. If it's non-independent - for instance, if it's an interview with you - it will not qualify. Assuming it does qualify, that's only one source, which is usually not enough (typically reviewers look for three).
Everyone here is a volunteer who works on stuff they're interested in. Trying to find a stranger who will take enough interest in your life and career to write an acceptable article about you will be difficult, perhaps impossible. We do have a place where you can request that an article be written - it's here - but no one may ever pick up the suggestion.
Finally, what to do about the rejected draft. I can't find any firm guidance to quote you on this, but the best thing would probably be starting over again from scratch, following carefully the guidance at Your First Article, especially the part about gathering good sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject - without those, it's all wasted effort. (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Submission of article for review[edit]

Hi, I am trying to submit an article in my sandbox for review but there is no button on the page to enable submission. Kindly assist. ∼∼∼∼ Nellydieli (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nellydieli. You have submitted your draft but there is very little chance that it will be accepted. You would need to provide compelling evidence that this student event is notable, which is unlikely. Most of your references do not discuss the event. Your draft is written more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I suggest that you read and study Your first article, and perhaps consider another topic. Cullen328 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen328, thanks so much for your comment. I appreciate; and I will check to see what I can do about that article. However, this is not the article I am referring to. This page provided a "submit for review" button with which I submitted but not so with my other pages. I have other articles in my sandbox that I want to submit as well.Thanks to assist.∼∼∼∼ Nellydieli (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nellydieli. That is why it is always advisable to mention the specific page. I guess that you are talking about User:Nellydieli/sandbox/Sotonye Denton West. I have submitted that draft for you. I believe that this person is almost certainly notable. I recommend, though, that you spend some time improving and expanding the draft. There are only two references in the draft, and certainly there must be other reliable sources that devote significant coverage to such an accomplished jurist. And even the two references now present include a lot of biographical information that can easily be incorporated into the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen328, I sure need a guide on Wikipedia and it looks like I found one in you already. Thank you so much. I was not gonna submit Sotonye Denton-West yet because as you rightly noted, there are only two references and my Instructor (from AfLIA) had informed, at the time we were training last year, that we needed at least four references to begin with. I will do more research on Denton-West in due course. Kindly check User:Nellydieli/sandbox/Opubo Da Lilly-Tariah. I have other articles to submit and I will do this in a while. Nellydieli (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nellydieli If you want to develop articles in your sandbox(es) and then submit them when you judge they are ready, the easiest way to do that is to place the template {{User sandbox}} at the top of each sandbox page. You'll find that the template adds a button that you can use for submission. The alternative is to use the main articles for creation process. Thanks for your contributions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, Fantastic! I checked and it worked. Thank you so much. Nellydieli (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Why was I being accused of trolling when I made a valid request on a talk page? (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming you don't understand something when you do understand it can be construed as trolling. RudolfRed (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the claim of trolling is incorrect, just to be clear. Thanks! (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that failure or refusal to "get the point" may be seen as disruptive editing. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 01:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that trolling was not the case. Thank you again for the information! (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you type at the line of the heading[edit]

If you don't know what i'm talking about, i'm talking about the line of the heading, basically, if you make a new section you will see a line, i was wondering how you can type in it, like the good articles and stuff. I'm using the {icon} template and i want to type at the line of the heading, basically if you use the {coord} templates it would appear on the right of the line of the heading. Leahnn Rey (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Leahnn Rey and welcome back! if you want to place stuff at the top of the heading (like the good article icon), you should use {{topicon}} instead of {{icon}} (which displays inline text). if you want to place stuff at the bottom of the heading (like {{coords}}), you'd want to use <span> as such: <span id="coordinates"> Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet </span>, replacing the lipsum with whatever you wanna put in, which assigns them to the location coordinates typically use. examples of both can be found here in my sandbox. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to Report an Incorrect Photo of a Person on a Page[edit] My great-grandfather was Sir William Alfred Brand C.B.E., cane farmer and politian, who I knew personally - I was a teenager when he passed away. There is a Wikipedia page on his life, which I have no problem with, EXCEPT the fact that the attached PHOTO is NOT him. My mum thinks it is a photo of another man who was also in politics, possibly before or after he served in politics. Anyone who didn't know my "Da" might easily have confused the 2 men as both wearing glasses and similar builds, but it is NOT the same man. Having the incorrect photo on his profile page is somewhat distressing to the older members of my family ie. my mum and her siblings (grandchildren of Sir W A Brand). Is it possible to have this photo removed? You can see a correct photo of my great-grandfather on the website of Australian Dictionary of Biography - 2001:8003:6460:7800:2D06:7FBA:65EE:E5B3 (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising this. I have taken the liberty of removing the image from the article. Images here tend to be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons, and looking at the information associated with that image, I can't see where it came from, or what evidence there might be that it's genuinely William Brand. We can only include reliable, sourced information, so it shouldn't be there. When it comes to images, unfortunately we can only use images that are free of copyright, or where the copyright has been released in a very generous way, so I don't feel able to use the image you provided. Maybe someone with a better understanding of copyright can reassess! Alternatively, if you have an image to which you own the copyright, you could upload it. I haven't gone looking for the image in other Wikipedias; you might like to do so, as it may have been used incorrectly elsewhere. Elemimele (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rather to my surprise, Elemimele, Commons shows that this fuzzy little image, which you rightly removed from the en:Wikipedia article, gets quite a lot of use outside en:Wikipedia (and indeed is still used within it). That is unsatisfactory even now; and if nothing is done about it then I imagine that the image will creep back into the article on Brand. However, hasty removal is likely to be summarily reverted. I'll make a start. -- Hoary (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele, Per the licensing info at [1], this image [2] appears to be annoyingly out of Commons reach. Ping @Alexis Jazz, if you have any wisdom for us. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, as Tigraan said below, you'll need to find a somewhat older image. Before 1955 would be {{PD-Australia}} (and should be used per WP:FREER if found, but still with a fair use rationale), before 1946 would also be {{PD-URAA}} and could be used without a fair use rationale. I'd also suggest putting Rocketrod1960's uploads in a maintenance category to check and improve the sources. c:File:William Drayton Armstrong - Queensland politician.jpg is also found on [3] for example. Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add comments to Deletion requests/File:William Brand.jpg. -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we should have too much trouble getting a new image for the article. One solution would be for the IP to upload to Commons a photo of Brand (assuming the IP took one at some point). Alternatively, for deceased individuals, a WP:FAIRUSE image can be hosted on English Wikipedia for use in the article and the one at the link the IP provided seems to meet all the criteria. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've uploaded that image as fair-use and added it into the article. If we subsequently find a higher-resolution or properly licensed image that can be put on Commons, the fair-use one will be deleted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull: According to WP:URAA and/or [4], photographs taken in 1954 or earlier are public domain now in Australia (the copyright regime was "50 years after creation" which means everything went into PD in 2019 the latest).
That does not help for this exact image, because according to this entry from the National Archives of Australia, it seems it was taken in 1956. However, if during your search, you found earlier images on other websites, those might be fair game. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And in a couple of years we can move the fair-use one to Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected article[edit]

I just tried to make my first edit to a semi-protected article, an addition to the short description, and I ran into trouble. First, I'm not an anonymous editor and I'm not newly registered (I just qualified for Wikipedia Library priviileges). The edit didn't show up in the preview, or on the page after I published the change. However, the edit showed up just fine in my list of contributions, and in the arti79.155.36.178cle's revision history. The edit is still there on the edit page. The article is The Batman (film) (I justified my edit in the edit summary). Pete Best Beatles (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pete Best Beatles. That article is not semi-protected. It is Extended confirmed protected, which is a more stringent form of protection. As for your edit, you are trying to change the short description to 2022 American neo-noir superhero film by Matt Reeves. That description is way too detailed and it should be much more concise. Per Wikipedia:Short description, Editors should bear in mind that short descriptions are not intended to define the subject of the article. Rather, they provide a very brief indication of the field that is covered. You have jammed six different things into the "short" description. Be extremely concise. Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: I was just trying to add "neo-noir" to the existing description. Does "extended confirmed protected" mean I won't be able to make my addition (or that anyone will be able to take your advice either)? "Semi-protected" is what it says in the template on the edit page, that's why I said that. I think it's weird that my edit shows as legitimate on my list of contributions and in the article's revision history, since it didn't take. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pete Best Beatles: If you look at the edit history of the article, you'll see that your edit "took" for a few hours, until SirDot removed it with an edit summary of "Only the primary genre". Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Author's pseudonym[edit]

While tidying up the article for a children's book series, I discovered the author (Jennifer Rowe) wrote the books under a pseudonym (Emily Rodda). The pseudonym is listed as the author, while the related articles are tagged as 'Books by Jennifer Rowe'. Initially I thought the article had been vandalized before discovering that 'Emily Rodda' links to 'Jennifer Rowe'.

My question: is it reasonable to add the author's name, with something like "Rowan of Rin is a series of five children's fantasy novels by Australian author Jennifer Rowe (under her pseudonym Emily Rodda)"? WP:PSEUDONYM didn't seem to have the answer, and I discovered that there doesn't seem to be much consistency - for example books by Mary Ann Evans aka George Eliot sometimes mention they were written under a pen name and sometimes do not. Thanks in advance for any advice! StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If all books in that category had been written by "Emily Rodda", the easy fix would be to rename the category (we have Category:Lady Gaga albums, not Category:Stefani Germanotta albums). But the article Jennifer Rowe says that she wrote children’s books as Emily Rodda and adult books under her own name. The category includes Verity Birdwood, a character from the adult books (it is also questionable whether a character should be in "Category:Books by ...", but the books themselves have no article so far I suppose).
I would say go for your suggestion and see if anyone complains. If there is pushback, a trip to WP:CFD might be required. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to know why my article is regarded as promoting a company or instituion[edit]

Hey Guys, i'm new here, just wondering why my article is regarded as promoting a company or instituion? Since the data resource i provided is coming from a concret and solit media resource, i choose the topic i like to contribute in WikiPedia but still get denied and rejected by directly deleting my contribution withour letting me know where the issue is at, i sincerely ask for help if anyone can guide me on this, Thank you for reading and replying, stay safe. 010e0e (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, 010e0e. I cannot see the article that was deleted after that discussion, but I assume it is similar to Draft:ThunderCore. Some advice has been posted to your talk page, the most important of which being

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

As far as I can tell, the current draft is sourced mostly to press releases and other sources closely associated to ThunderCore, which are therefore not independent. The only source approaching something of the quality we are looking for is Coindesk, but there is consensus that it should not be used because of conflict of interest issues.
I do not really think the draft has issues of promotional tone, but the "qualification for a Wikipedia article" part (called "notability" here) is a big issue. If you cannot find good sources (e.g. mainstream newspaper sources) then you should stop working on the draft altogether because it will never be accepted. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advices! I will check on this closely: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) 010e0e (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An important thing to remember, 010e0e, is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to ThunderCore being deleted, the draft you moved to article about Chris Wang (ThunderCore CEO) is at AfD and likely to be deleted. You have not yet replied to a query on your Talk page asking whether you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) or are paid or otherwise compensated (WP:PAID) for your attempts to create articles about ThunderCore and Wang. David notMD (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse hosts: I do a lot of copyedits, but is there any reason to copyedit an article that is up for deletion? I would guess the answer is No, but in that article about Chris Wang of ThunderCore, the phrase "Chris borned in Taiwan" just cries out to be fixed.
010e0e created ths article, then commented that "This page is a solid article content" in an edit summary; Praxidicae and TheRoadIsLong both draftified it at different times. I'm trying to resist making copyedits... (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who coordinates at the Guild of Copy Editors, I would recommend refraining from copyediting unstable articles (whether in edits or namespaces), as there's a decent chance that they may end up being deleted and your efforts wasted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BMW E36 saloon 1994.[edit]

Many thanks for definitive article on the BMW E36 saloon cars. The 1994 E36 that I have was classed as BMW E36 and is a 325iSE. The SE I am informed by BMW stands for "Special Equipment" and consists of an electric sun roof and rear headrests. Hope this is of some help. (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user, and thank you for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. If you have suggestions for improving an article, the best place to make then is on that article's talk page (rather than here, where thousands of editors hang out, quite probably none of whom know anything at about that subject or that article). However, all information in a Wikipedia article should be available in a reliable published source: information that is just from your (or my) personal knowledge is not acceptable - see Verifiability for why that is so important. ColinFine (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance in Editing Page[edit]

Hi so I recently updated the page of the California State Legislature, 2021–22 session as it very clearly had not been updated at all in several months (you can see in contributions I did over 3,000 characters worth. And for one of the things I was trying to update was the profile box for Mike McGuire who became Majority Leader of the California State Senate on January 19, 2022. Except whoever did the original table for his profile did it in a way that I have zero idea of adding in his new office as Majority Leader so if anyone who has a lot of experience in creating table's could possibly take a look and add that in that would be super helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyboi18 (talkcontribs) 09:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sunnyboi18. If nobody comes forward to help, I suggest asking at WT:WikiProject California or WT:WikiProject Politics. ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor conduct[edit]

Where and how can a concern be addressed regarding a non-admin editor who appears to be misusing their rollback tool? (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse, I would raise the matter at ANI (Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents) where administrators and other users can comment on it. Thanks, | Zippybonzo | Talk | 10:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...after having tried to discuss the matter with them, of course. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 11:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
better advice possible if you specify an aticle. David notMD (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I don't want to leave this draft to rot, but I also can't develop it. The subject is covered a lot in books (which I don't have access to) after a quick search on Google, but history isn't exactly my area of expertise, nor do I have an area of expertise. It's probably not gonna get any new editors. What should I do with it? Vortex (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can boldly press the blue button and see what the AfC reviewers think. Consider leaving a comment that it is an abandoned draft that you think is notable. Slywriter (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vortex3427 Welcome to the Teahouse! You could post the information about the books on the draft, make a note on the draft talk page asking for assistance, and ask the appropriate WikiProject for assistance (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portugal). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Slywriter I might do that after I follow GoingBatty's suggestions. Maybe others could find the time to improve the article in a way that I can't? Vortex (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that da Mata already meets the notability requirement of WP:NPOL, given that he was a Portuguese minister. Why don't you just submit the draft as-is (it is otherwise OK in terms of citing etc.) and let others improve it when in Mainspace, Vortex3427? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I noticed that a few months back when I was still editing the article, but I was confused if it would override WP:GNG. I've already notified the WikiProject and might include some of GoingBatty's other suggestions, but I'll try it now and see how it goes. Thanks, Vortex (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links to prove the article is notable; Other country Wikipedia approved an article, english one didn't, what do I do?[edit]

Hello, I need some help with defining which links are proving that the company is notable. I`ve read the instruction, still have doubts about these links:

Could you please help me with defining which ones are reliable sources?

Also, there is an article about the company on Ukrainian Wikipedia. Does it make the company notable if the other Wikipedia branch decided it is? Or every country Wikipedia is autonomous and makes its own decisions? Sofia.pavlivna (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every Wikimedia project is autonomous and basically independent from each other. Vortex (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what company you're referring to, but can you try the sources in that Ukrainian-language article and see if they're reliable? Non-English sources are also allowed on here. Note that I have been on Wikipedia for a scant thirty days and have no idea if the advice I'm giving is good or not. Vortex (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vortex3427 - Your replies are correct! Every article on the English Wikipedia must meet the English Wikipedia's criteria for notability (in this case WP:NORG), regardless of whether an article exists on any other Wikipedia site. GoingBatty (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I can confirm that the advice given by @Vortex3427: is 100% correct (Wikimedia projects are independent, looking up the sources in other languages is usually the first step, that non-en sources are accepted on en-wp).
Regarding the sources... Sofia.pavlivna, when you say you have read the instruction[s] (by which I assume you mean WP:GNG), did you understand them? Your first three links are press releases (not even trying to hide it for the second one: Our client portfolio...), which pretty clearly fail the "independent from the subject" test.
The fourth one is written in dubious English, and it’s even worse on their main page. I am pretty sure that is some random person’s blog, which fails (at least) the "reliable source" test.
The fifth one superficially resembles the sort of thing we want (apparently a press article, with a journalist signing it, dealing directly with the subject with some amount of detail). However, if you look at the content, it is pretty clear that it contains only stuff that several persons from the company said to the journalist. Such interview-like content is not considered independent.
A side note, since you are a paid editor. Please tell whoever is in charge of such things at your company (possibly yourself) that writing on Wikipedia is a risky adventure, with a very serious risk of spending lots of time accomplishing nothing. If the client was promised they would get a Wikipedia article, I suggest you withdraw that promise immediately, and explain that you can try but that you have very little control about whether the article stays or not and what it will say if it does, no matter how much they pay you. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sofia.pavlivna: Welcome to the Teahouse! Press releases and directory listings like these are not independent reliable sources. GoingBatty (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFC submission declined[edit]

I have recently tried to draft a page and submitted it for AFC approval but my submission was declined. The reason provided is that the subject is not notable, my question is how will I get know which subject is notable or not? Wikiboss1311 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about Draft:Ross Dickerson? weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 16:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Yes! Wikiboss1311 (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiboss1311: Check out WP:N, which has lots of info on that. RudolfRed (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I heard somewhere that a good way to check if a subject was notable was to pretend that you know nothing about the subject and try to find sources that support statements in the article. But I might be wrong. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 16:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good way to start, weeklyd3. But if you find such sources, you need to evaluate the quality of those sources: if they're on social media, blogs, forums, wikis, iMDB, they're probably not reliable and do not contibute to notability. If they're written, commissioned, or published by the subject or their associates, or based primarily on interviews or press releases, then they're not independent, and don't contribute to notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed, there's a template to help you start looking: {{find sources}}. ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Reassessment[edit]

Hello, I've recently taken an interest in improving certain Wikipedia Articles to A rated status or more. I would like to reassess an article I've recently been working on, because it's last assessment was on October 9, 2009. I would ask for one at WP:Good article reassessment, however I'm certain it doesn't qualify as a GA. Where should I report it? (This is the article) Dinoz1 (chat?) 18:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you just need to remove the current rating so that it appears on lists of articles needing quality assessments. ––FormalDude talk 18:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Dinoz1 (chat?) 18:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinoz1 A status is actually above GA status, so if you think it's not a GA, it's definitely not A-level. I've assessed it at C-class. Good luck with it! -- asilvering (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Asilvering, User:Dinoz1 - A-class and GA have different rating bases and are not entirely comparable. Some WikiProjects, such as Military History, have A-class ratings, but most do not, so for most WikiProjects the scale is Start - C - B - Good Article - Featured Article. There has recently been pointless argument over whether A is above GA, or GA is above A, or neither. Most WikiProjects don't have A. Military History is a project that has a well-organized assessment scheme. Many B-class assessments and nearly all C-class assessments are done by one person, usually by common sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who is saying GA is above A? I'm not familiar with any wikiprojects that rank them in that manner...? -- asilvering (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the 'name' of the template for?[edit]

For example, there is a template,

The name of this template is 'Men's professional basketball leagues' and the title is 'Men's basketball leagues' I understand what the title is. It is what is really displayed on the screen. Then what is the function of 'name'? Is it just a unique identifier?

I also wonder whether the name or title should be unique in the English wikipedia space. Regpath (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Regpath, and welcome to the Teahouse. The name of the template is how you invoke (make use of) the template. If you want to use it on a page you put its name in double curly brackets to transclude it:
{{Men's professional basketball leagues}}
and it displays whatever that template happens to display; in this case


This particular template is a navigation template, and the concept of a "title" is meaningful; but for many templates there is nothing that may reasonably be called a "title" about them. ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I see all my Teahouse questions in one place?[edit]

Can I see all my previous teahouse questions in one place whether it has been archived or not? Regpath (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Regpath: You can view all your contributions to the Teahouse here. ––FormalDude talk 22:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Regpath (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing unpublished manuscripts[edit]

I was wondering how does one cite an unpublished diary that resides at a state library such as the following? Robbiegibbons (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robbiegibbons Near the bottom of that search result there is a "Link to online item" which opens a page that has the full details to build a citation. The {{Cite archive}} template may be useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cluebot NG[edit]

Hi, I know I'm not relatively new here, but I'm still new enough to use the teahouse. I just have a question on Cluebot NG and that is, is Cluebot a software that I or any RC Patroller can use, or is it a bot that is run by some random dude. thanks Msaskiw (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Msaskiw, welcome to the Teahouse. ClueBot NG is a bot account. Also, if you’d like to learn more about how it works, feel free to check out its user page. Face-smile.svg Helen(💬📖) 02:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Msaskiw Or maybe a "random female"; not everyone here is a "dude". (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helps clear it up. Msaskiw (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in AfD[edit]

Is it appropriate to vote for "Keep" for an article nominated for deletion that is originally created by yourself? Insight 3 (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Insight 3. I don't think there's anything improper with the creator of an article nominated for deletion voting "keep", but keep in mind that the result of the discussion will still be determined through consensus-building. What I mean is that if you just post something like "keep because I created the article", then you’re not likely going to convince others to agree with you. You might want to take a look at WP:AFDEQ and WP:ATA for some insight into how to participate in an AfD discussion. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! got it. Insight 3 (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to know what about voting "delete" by the same nominator. Is it countable ? Onmyway22 talk 03:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Onmyway22. It's going to be assumed that someone nominating an article for deletion is casting a vote in favor of such an outcome even though they might not explicitly state as much in their nomination; so, it's not really necessary for them to "vote" again per se, except perhaps in some cases where an alternative to deletion has be proposed by someone else in the discussion. Each participant is only supposed to vote once; a participant may change or amend their vote, but there's a correct way to do so that doesn't require casting a second vote. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Onmyway22, administrators who close AfDs know to ignore duplicate "votes". For what it's worth, I am an administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aparna Rajeev , an attack or suspected sockpuppetry.[edit]

I have been watching this nomination page. The nomination seems an attack to delete the article with multiple accounts, the nominator is a novice (with contributions) and (experienced with activity), and the user only nominated that article and he voted in the same as delete. which is the only nomination and delete vote from the user, see AfD Statistics for User:Zinjan32 User:Slowvansz (nominator). When I see the nomination page, there was another delete vote from another novice account user:Aoyoigian. The participant Ayogian got blocked for paid edit and sockpuppet. Both the nominator and the participant do not even create their user page.

After the block of User:Aoyoigian again another novice account named User:Zinjan32 came up with a delete vote. with the same nature of edits. The only contribution of this account is voting delete for the nomination. See the contributions and see the AfD stats. The account only contested only in this nomination as delete. All these three accounts having same nature of edits. So I strongly suspect these two contestants are the sockpuppets of the nominator. Onmyway22 talk 03:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Onmyway22 and welcome to the teahouse! sockpuppet reports should go to Sockpuppet investigations, follow the instructions over there to see how to report a case. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 06:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Onmyway22: I took the liberty of correcting the text of your link to Slowvansz’s AfD contributions. As said above, accusations of misconduct, especially sockpuppetry, should be done in an appropriate forum with relevant evidence. That is to avoid snide attacks like "I think X is a sockpuppet, just saying" which poison the atmosphere. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with first page[edit]

Hi, I’ve been editing for a few months but trying to publish a few pages with no luck. My current draft:ForagerFunds is the closest I have to getting a page to work. I have followed a few others in the same industry to match the quality of sources and right tone. In this case I am referring to Magellan Financial Group and Australian Ethical. I can’t work out why the Forager Funds page isn’t allowed compared to the others. Any tips? (And yes I’m kinda into investing so I like editing this type of content). TrueStay (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Forager Funds 💜  melecie  talk - 06:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TrueStay. The other two articles you mentioned, Magellan Financial Group and Australian Ethical Investment are start class articles with significant problems that are quite obvious to experienced editors. But we have over 6.5 million articles and millions of them are mediocre or poor. Editors work to improve such articles or delete such articles 24/7/365 but it is a daunting task. Your argument that you have found two mediocre articles so we should accept your mediocre draft is not very persuasive. When I look at your list of references and click on a few of them, I am unimpressed. The bibliographic information is incomplete. Several are behind paywalls but you can always include a brief, substantive quotation from the source so that reviews know that it is not a passing mention. Please explain how this business meets WP:NCORP when the vast majority of companies don't. In the end, it is all about the quality of the significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing else matters nearly as much. Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate accepting my first article ‘Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing’. However, while moving it to the Draft, a reviewer / editor changed the name of the article to ‘Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College’ The article is now approved with the wrong name. How can I rectify this ? I'm a beginner and need a bit of help in getting around here, Thanks for your patience[edit] RathishN (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RathishN, I've retitled ("moved") the article. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Hoary , much appreciated RathishN (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

first article deleted[edit]

my first article is deleted . i don't know why it's deleted. can anyone tell me whether my topic is notable. details available in talk page of me. Baruah ranuj (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Baruah ranuj. This seems to be concerning a person named "Nituparna Rajbongshi". Articles with this title have been deleted four times and the title itself has now been protected so that only highly experienced editors can create a fifth version. I happen to be an administrator so I took a look at the deleted fourth version. Vast swathes of that article were unreferenced which is highly problematic. There were only two references, neither of which were independent, and neither of which established the notability of this person. What is required is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This article lacked any such references and was therefore unacceptable. Please read and study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
cannot i create the fifth version ? Baruah ranuj (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Baruah ranuj, first you should find appropriate sources. If such sources do not exist, any work on a fifth version is futile, because the article will not be accepted in Wikipedia. Appropriate sources are those that are all at once (1) independent of the subject (→ no interviews, press releases etc.), (2) reliable (→ no random blogs, social media, etc.) and (3) deal with the subject in-depth (→ no phone book entry, company listings, routine newspaper entries about recurring events, etc.).
If you can find a few such sources, bring them here and we will tell them if they’re ok. Make sure to select the best three or four rather than drowning us under thousand bad sources. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i have just submitted draft article with the title Draft:Nituparna Rajbongshi. Please review it and help me to work in wikipedia and to learn more . Baruah ranuj (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Baruah ranuj, considering the current sources in the article, you do not seem to have read the advice I gave regarding what sources are needed ([5] is the only one that is even close to meeting the standards). If you had said that you are confident the new sources are sufficient, that would have been one thing, but I just feel you did not care. I am therefore not inclined to "help you to work in Wikipedia and learn more". TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glass production 10-years-old bug report[edit]

Glass production doesn't actually say at any point what the raw materials are. This was reported in March 2011 and is still an issue today. A candidate for {{technical}}? (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that information in the glass article. Shantavira|feed me 08:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new entry to Deaths in 2022[edit]

How do I add a new entry to the list of Deaths May 2022? Is May 2022 closed for missed notable deaths? Where can I find guidance on this particular issue? Andymcteddybear (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May has its own article Deaths in May 2022. Make sure that it's a notable person and remember to add a reliable source. The criteria are at the top of the article - X201 (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2022 FIBA Under-16 Women's Asian Championship[edit]


I was able to do updates on the above-mentioned article as I forgot to add a reference link upon creating it. Can you please assist to check if this article can now be moved to article space?

Thanks for help! Alexander marshall 07 (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to save a partial draft without publishing[edit]

I think I have finally cracked the fortress wall and figured out how to get a page started in my sandbox. but it is far from finished. How can I save my work but not "publish" it for review yet? I have extensive sources and links to fill in still. I'm using the visual editor, but I suspect the command line at the top was created automatically because I loaded some information from a Word doc into which I'd originally copied another Wikipedia page to use as a template (which seemed easier at the time, when I couldn't figure out how to find one on Wikipedia). It reads {{subst:AfC submission/draftnew}}. It also could have been created when I clicked through the "let's get started" sections. Either way, I don't know if that's the command I want in order to save the work I've done so far but not submit it for review yet. Right now, the only apparent way for me to save the work I've done is to hit "publish page." I did see a mention somewhere saying it won't actually publish, but I've also seen info that says "ready to have your work reviewed? Click the blue "publish" button." So which is it?

Color me confused — and frustrated that I keep clicking on "help" links, instructions, live chat links, etc., and cannot for the life of me get this answer. The live chat link won't even work, for some reason. I've tried to get in by entering my user name in the box instead of the one that appears under the name "Nick" (no idea who that is), and tried it with the ghost name in the box under "Nick" and my password. It won't work either way. I have a screenshot if you'd like to see it.

I've put a lot of work into this entry, so I'd like to see it get posted, if possible.

Thanks for any insight you can offer!

"~~~~" TexasEditor1 (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TexasEditor1, There's no saving without it being visible on wiki. That is why button the button is labeled "publish". However, articles in your sandbox can be worked on without any worry that they will be deleted and have minimal visibility. Slywriter (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. TexasEditor1 (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are exceptions to Sandbox content not being deleted. A major one is having copy/pasted content that is copyright protected. Another is being unabashedly promotional. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1 if you are concerned about hitting "publish" to save your work-in-progress you can do the majority of work off-line, before transferring it to Wikipedia. I have written and published several Wikipedia articles, and I'm just more comfortable doing my work in a couple of off-line documents so that I know that everything stays under my control until I've completed my work. I have a Mac laptop so use TextEdit files – one for collecting all of my notes and references, and one for the actual writing and formatting. Once I believe my draft manuscript is complete I copy and paste it into my sandbox to see if I've made reference formatting mistakes, or if any sentences seem awkward or confusing. This is just a suggestion of what works for me.
Also, even though I'd done a small amount of freelance writing before discovering Wikipedia, I still limited myself to editing for 3 years before I felt experienced enough to try and create a new online article. And then I read Your first article so many times I practically had it memorized! I understood that the process was rather complicated for beginners in the "Wiki writing world" so I took it slow, read a half-dozen similar Wikipedia articles for examples, double and triple-checked everything I did to make sure I wasn't making any noticeable errors, and submitted my work for review. More than a decade later I'm still learning, but very much appreciate being able to publish articles that I believe will of help and interest to others.
Best wishes on your Wikipedia volunteer work. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice! I did create this offline, but there are so many footnotes, external links and Wikipedia links, I thought I would try to get the numbering straightened out in my sandbox. I've been trying for quite a long time to figure out how to get this posted, and I'd finally gotten to the point where I thought I could create a sandbox draft and store it till I finished (I couldn't finish it all at once because there a lot of links and I wanted to make sure they still work, etc. and get footnotes right, and check to make sure I am following protocols and instructions as carefully as possible. I know this page is legit; I just want to make sure I've done it right and conform to specs before I actually ask for a review. And this one is a big job. Y'all are being very helpful and I appreciate it!
I think part of my confusion is that everywhere I tried to turn for more info or help, it seemed to get more complicated, with coding complexities I was hoping to avoid by using Visual Editor. And when I got into that, I saw all kinds of caveats that made it sound as if it probably wouldn't work. I decided to try anyway, because I have a huge table that would be horrid to have to rebuild on the actual page. I haven't figured out how to manipulate column widths yet (it doesn't appear that dragging them works, as it does on my Mac), but I don't really need to and will research if I decide I do. TexasEditor1 (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TexasEditor1 I hope you're able to get everything figured out in time. I've never attempted a table of any kind, so I won't attempt to give suggestions on creating them. The only advice my non-technical brain can say is that when I feel overwhelmed with trying to figure out what's going wrong with an article I set the project aside for a couple of days. When I come back with rested eyes and mind it's often easier to see the mistake that's causing the "log jam" in my data formatting. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article improved with proper reference[edit]

Previous discussion : #first article deleted

my first article was deleted due to lack of proper references ,told by an admin.

So I have re-written the article with proper references to prove / show the notability of the article.

So, I request a Review of my draft article . Baruah ranuj (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baruah ranuj Your Draft:Nituparna Rajbongshi has been submitted, and is waiting for a Reviewer. Teahouse hosts advise, but are not necessarily also Reviewers. Asking here is not a short cut to a faster review. As noted a few queries back, articles with this title have been deleted four times in the past, so unless this new effort is significantly improved, expect the same result. David notMD (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I've just joined wikipedia and my IP address is partially blocked.I've followed the links to "ping the administrator" or email them using the links provided, but I just land on instructional pages. I've never contributed to wikipedia in any way and would just like to understand how to go about removing this block, because I am unable to even sign in... Thanks in advance for the advice. (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you could edit this page, you are not blocked. It may help you to create an account(or request one at WP:ACC) if sometimes the IP you use is blocked and sometimes it isn't. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot They're p-rangeblocked from the User- and User talk namespace. @IP you can requests an account at WP:ACC. In theory one could also attempt to appeal the block, using the {{unblock}} template but since you're most likely not the intended block target and want to sign in anyway, ACC will be faster. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits Revision[edit]

My edits are being revised and deleted on this page Cedric Henderson (basketball, born 1975) which is a biography of a living person. My attempts to revise are positive in nature and attempts to delete harmful information posted by @wikiamazing75. If you look at this user's history, they contribute contentious information and pictures that are harmful to the living person. Elitebasketball23 (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removing sourced information without so much as a policy based explanation as to why. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain why, I said it was harmful to the living person. Elitebasketball23 (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being "harmful to the living person" is not a valid reason. WP:NPOV says that information about the subject that is negative should be included in the article, provided it is reliably sourced. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elitebasketball23 The information seems to be well sourced; if those sources are not being summarized accurately, please tell how on the article talk page. If the sources are summarized accurately, there is not much we can do. Do you have a connection to this person? 331dot (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but their information is one-sided and the specific user continues to delete my edits in my attempts to protect the living person. I am making edits at the request of the living person. Elitebasketball23 (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could we enable page protection? Elitebasketball23 (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elitebasketball23: From Wikipedia's perspective, we may need to, as we appear have a paid editor, or at the least an editor with a conflict of interest, sterilizing the article and removing negative information. —C.Fred (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the page history. My posts are attempts to revise harmful information posted by @Wikimazing75. Look at their contributions to the page and you will see. Again, my posts are the request of the living person (not paid) Elitebasketball23 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elitebasketball23 Please read about conflict of interest. The onus is on you to explain on the article talk page why sourced information should be removed. I don't agree it is one sided, it contains a quote from him. It's doubtful page protection will be granted, but you may be blocked should you persist in edit warring. Please go to the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See extended discussion on your Talk page for why the photo you wanted to add is not yours to add (you did not take the photo). David notMD (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to switch to visual editing?[edit]

Hey there,

How do I switch to visual from source editing?

Thanks, AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AdmiralAckbar1977, when you are editing in the source mode, there should be a button on the top right corner where you can switch. See this image Kpddg (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does the Wiki Library work?[edit]

Just got eligible and need to know what this is all about before I give away personal data..., also, do experienced editors even use it? Fijipedia (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, experienced editors use the Wikipedia Library all the time - I personally use the ProQuest Historical New York Times and the access pretty much everyday. AFAIK the only data you automatically share is your Wikipedia account, which is just to confirm that you're eligible. It'll automatically give you access to something like 50 different research databases, and you can apply for access to others. When I applied for access, it just linked it to my existing account there. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 17:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think The Wikipedia Library (TWL) is absolutely fantastic. I'm very privacy-conscious but haven't had any concerns about using it. Your use case will vary depending on what type of topics you work on, but it's worth signing up and giving it a spin next time you're looking for sources. — Bilorv (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fijipedia I signed up for and use it constantly. It did take a while to get my subscription started, I kept seeing it was pending, and when I decided to check and see what it would cost to pay for the subscription myself I discovered I'd been given access but hadn't been told that, so it takes a bit of work to get everything sorted out. Then a year later my subscription expired and I had to reapply for a renewal. Some may consider it a lot of bother, but I'm low income and willing to do a bit of work to get a subscription that's allowed me to improve countless Wikipedia articles. I really appreciate the free subscription. Karenthewriter (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should 'Taxa named by <zoologist>' added as a category for the zoologist?[edit]

Lately I've been adding species to categories based on who named them. I noticed two different styles regarding the categories and the zoologists. In some cases, the zoologist is added to the taxa named by them category, for example René Léon Bourret. In other cases they're not in the category, for example Arthur Adams (zoologist) & Category:Taxa named by Arthur Adams (zoologist). Sometimes the category is added to a "see also" section of the zoologist, for example Jacques Daget. Which style should be followed? Rusentaja (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusentaja, you could try asking at WikiProject Animals if there's any agreed-upon standard, since those are likely the folks who'd be drafting any such standard. It's possible there simply isn't one. (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lost 90% of Wiki article progress after computer updated? Most recent version not in draft history, can someone please help?[edit]

Draft: ILENE I have been on assignment working on the page Draft: ILENE for the past 3 days, which included a large amount of sourced information from numerous sources. My computer installed an overnight update, but upon restarting, 90% of information was lost, reverting the article back to an early version that is not acceptable and will not be used. Is there any possible way to recover all of the lost information, or the last version of this article which should be dated either June 23, or June 24, 2022? Please help. At my wits end. Thank you. 247ice (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@247ice: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you didn't click on the Publish changes button to save the draft, there is unfortunately no way to recover the text. Sometimes the browser may save it locally, but this doesn't seem to be the case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. It does unfortunately appear to be lost. I will redraft , thanks again. 247ice (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Publish changes means save. It's called "Publish" because it can be seen by others, although not found by searches. David notMD (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may just be in over my head...[edit]

I have been looking over and throughout Wikipedia and still have the slightest idea of what I am truly supposed to be doing next. I need help with this one move and I should hopefully see the gist of what's needed and/or expected from me. Thank you all. Have a wonderful day! Pocohontas77 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pocohontas77: Welcome to the Teahouse. You're not obliged to do anything if you have an account. There was a long gap between my first edit and account creation. If you would like to contribute, new users should have a homepage on their profile (the link should take you to yours) where the Suggested edits panel may give you some ideas. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pocohontas77 my Wikipedia work is based entirely on what interests me. I'll begin thinking of an old movie I liked, a favorite author, or a historical event, and decide to see what Wikipedia has on the subject. Sometimes the article I read has few or no references, I think that one section may have errors, or I'm annoyed that the article is just a stub. That article becomes my next project. I look for references through (I do enough volunteer work to qualify for a free subscription) through research books I own or can find at local libraries, and I check Google Books to see if there are short "previews" that provide me with a few useful details. I improve the article, leave an edit summary and hit "Publish changes." On occasion I'll research and write a new encyclopedia article on a notable subject that fascinates me enough to put in all the required work, but mostly I just intend to do a quick read of a subject that interests me, and then discover I'm not satisfied with the current state of the article. I hope this helps. Karenthewriter (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm going to be starting big edits on Harrowgate, County Durham, when I came across something which could be confusing to readers and editors.

The article begins with "Harrowgate is an area, or township, of north Darlington". The part that confused me the most was "Harrowgate is an area, or township". According to the township article, The term "township" isn't in use in London for official purposes. What should I do? Thanks. Dinoz1 (chat?) 18:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinoz1, the township article also says that some councils in the north of England have revived the term. However, what's really important is what the sources call it - do either of the sources in the article (or any of the sources you'll use for your big edits) use the term? (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World War 11[edit]

Not sure what best to do about it but someone has added a silly political satire to the World War 11 article: World War 11

I am inclined to delete this article entirely but if not the satire probably needs to go. It has been added and reverted then rereverted so I think it perhaos needs to be protected to avoid an edit war.

MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarylandGeoffrey: Welcome to the Teahouse. I've re-reverted the silliness, and warned the editor who re-added it. There's no reason to delete the pre-vandalism disambiguation page, and the restrictions against edit-warring do not apply when it comes to reverting obvious vandalism like that. That said, protection would not be warranted unless the vandalism persists. Thanks for calling it to our attention, and happy editing! --Finngall talk 19:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit Conflict] Hi MarylandGeoffrey. The 'article' is a useful disambiguation page, so should not be deleted. So far there have only been two insertions and revisions, so it may be that the contributor involved (a new account with only one other, serious, contribution) knows not to make a third attempt amounting to 'declaration of edit war.' Two different editors made the reversions, so evidently the page (or the contributor) is well-watched. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with this. (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the user is obviously vandalizing (which he is) you have the right to bypass the 3 revert rule and edit war as you please until an administrator steps in. There's no reason to delete a page because of a troll. Fijipedia (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a new article to go live[edit]


Though I've been editing for a few years, whenever I create an article, I do it via a red link to an existing name in other articles. However, I have just created a new one (, but I'm not sure how to get it out of my sandbox and onto Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

Beryl reid fan (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beryl reid fan: Welcome to the Teahouse. As an extended confirmed user, you can click "Move" in the More dropdown menu at the top of the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ),

Thanks for your help. However, following your suggestion I have succeeded only in creating the page 'User:Karen Lloyd' ( Can anyone else offer any help, please?

Beryl reid fan (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


No worries, have sorted this now (by googling it).

Beryl reid fan (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beryl reid fan, for future non-Googling reference: Help:MOVE. (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I nominated the accidental userpage for speedy deletion (CSD U2). Urban Versis 32KB(talk | contribs) 23:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Urban Versis 32KB(talk | contribs)

Beryl reid fan (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdare Urban District Council Elections[edit]

This series of pages talks about the elections for the Aberdare Urban District Council. I have corrected the summary to show that the Council remained in place after 1910 (previously it was shown as being abolished in 1910). The Council remained in place until 1974 (with the last election for the Council being in 1972. I have the records of these elections and want to add the results from 1910 to 1972. However the only records I have been able to use are manuscript records, in some cases backed by microfiche records of newspaper articles. Can I enter these as sources? - the manuscript records are held at Aberdare Central Library and within the 'W W Price Collection' and are backed by a record kept for about 50 years by a local Councillor which is in my possession. I have shown a link to the 1910 record which is here: 1910 Aberdare Urban District Council election. Thanks in advance for your help and advice. Alunwms (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alunwms. Reading a microfiche record of a newspaper article is completely equivalent to reading the original paper version. It is nice when a reliable source is available online, and if it is, a link should be provided. But there is no requirement that sources be available online. Include as much bibliographic information as you can. For a newspaper article that you read by microfiche, that would be the name of the newspaper (wikilinked if there is an article about the newspaper), the date of publication, the precise title of the article, the authors name(s), and the page number. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help Alunwms (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography table[edit]

Hello there, I wanted to ask something regarding filmography tables. So, I have noticed that usually in most artists, actors, etc.—people who are involved in entertainment, film, television, and such - the rowspan of years in their filmography is merged if there's more than one film release in a specific year, and roles as well, if a role has been portrayed consecutively. However, in some articles, despite of the artist portraying a role in succession as in follow ups (2-3 times, for instance), the role is not merged as one row spanning over the required cells, and likewise happens with year count in some articles. There weren't any invisible comments there or remarks in the talk pages of those articles. Hence, I would like to know what's the reason behind it, I mean besides - wouldn't a merged row be much cleaner and less confusing as well? Thank you in advance, and have a good day. Sam (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam0006, in the end it comes down to the person creating the table (I assume you mean table, not infobox). They may either not want or not know how to merge cells. It can be daunting, especially to newcomers and especially in the source editor - I hear it's somewhat easier in the visual editor. As far as I know, there's no rule that says they must or must not be merged; if you think Wikipedia is improved by merging them, have at it (using a really good one like List of Tom Hanks performances as a guide is usually helpful). But if someone doesn't like the change and reverts you, remember to have a discussion or - perhaps - just move on. (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Sam (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious account, if there's an admin, please investigate[edit]

I made an edit to the page History of Transylvania and user Aishik Rehman reverted my edit, instantly, by instantly I mean not even 1 minute has passed. So I was okay, I reverted it back and asked him "could you explain me why you undid the edit?", he literally did the same, instant revert, no explaination given and not even 1 minute passed. I said it must be a bot account so I reverted again, the undoed my edit again for the 3rd time, without explaining why again, and then again I reverted and asked him if he could explain why
He then stopped:
Kind of weird, so I went on his profile page.
Looks normal:
Then I went to his contribution pages: it's insane. From 19:35 to 20:19 he made 50 edits, all of them removing content. And all of them to very unrelated pages. One is a Korean singer, one is a religious page, one is the history of England, one is a German school for girls, and one was my edit with the History of Transylvania.
I'm 99.9% it's a bot. Hard to believe a human can make 50 edits in 40 minutes on greatly unrelated topics. Not sure if bots are allowed or any stuff like that so I just wanted to bring this to attention. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLastOfTheGiants, they seem to be doing some sort of anti-vandalism patrol, in which case it's quite possible for a non-bot to make such edits. They recently responded to a post on their talk page - you could bring up the issue there. (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This account doesn't look like a bot. I've seen non-bots revert vandal edits in seconds, and stuff being reverted in less than a minute is normal. I would consider taking this to their user talk page or ANI if all else fails. (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TheLastOfTheGiants. Bots are allowed and your 99.9% confidence level was incorrect. This is a human being editing rapidly. Bot accounts must be approved at the end of a stringent review process and all bot account names end with the three characters "bot". Bots do enormously important work here. Antivandalism bots are highly effective and getting better all the time. Many bots do repetitive maintenance and housekeeping tasks. Properly programmed bots are essential to this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft review[edit]

i have submitted a draft article.

I request a review of the article.

Thank you Baruah ranuj (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Dimpu Baruah
Hi, Baruah ranuj, and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like the draft was already reviewed and declined. You can improve the draft by adding more reliable sources that establish notability. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Baruah ranuj: I don't think its a bot. Don't engage in an edit war. There is a reply at User_talk:Aishik_Rehman. Continue the discussion there. RudolfRed (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed, I assume this was meant to be a reply to TheLastOfTheGiants (pinging so they'll see it). (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry for the misplaced post. RudolfRed (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Baruah ranuj, submitting a draft article is a request for a review. Asking again at the Teahouse can be seen as an attempt to jump the queue - please be patient. (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How and where do I put a quote in my signature?[edit]

I'm trying to add a couple of words to the end of my signature yet I have no clue where to even go. Thanks for helping. Fijipedia (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fijipedia, go to Special:Preferences and scroll down until you reach the "Signature" section. Make sure the "Treat the above as wiki markup." option is selected, and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Signature tutorial. Urban Versis 32KB(talk | contribs) 02:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing my article[edit]

I need help fixing my article. Whenever I save a change for fixing my footnotes on my article, it reverses it back, no matter how hard i try to fix it. Can you help me fix my article? @Dormiojrkiller (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please be aware nobody owns any article. However, you are welcome to discuss problems on the talk page. Such as Draft talk:Miranda Doll (fictional character). weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 02:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is obvious junk, and I have rejected it accordingly. As for its illustration, see this deletion request. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Show all my sandbox subpages in my sandbox main page[edit]

I want to see all my sandbox subpages in my sandbox main page. I think this is what I'm looking for, but it does not seem to work. Could anybody see my sandbox and tell me what went wrong? Regpath (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Regpath. I am not an expert programmer but I just recommend that you create a clean wikilink from one page to another. Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Cullen328. Thank you for your suggestion. W←]hat I want to do, however, is to show all my subapages automatically, without including wikilinks every time I create a sandbox subpage. Regpath (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Regpath. Why do you want to view all of your subpages when you can already view all of your contributions? What matters here on Wikipedia are edits that actually improve the encyclopedia. Everything else is far less relevant. Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of reasons somebody might want quick access to subpages - In this case, it looks like Regpath has seven different drafts/workspaces for specific pages. They almost certainly just want to be able to get to them quickly. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 07:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Regpath, probably this is not exactly the solution you're looking for, but by putting

{{ucb|Regpath}} on your userpage or your sandbox, it will create this:

Neat and handy... --Maresa63 Talk 07:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware you can either simply place a link to all subpages on your main sandbox. Otherwise, this should work too:
(Note: Not all special pages can be embeded via this way, and not all parameters are supported) Hope this helps, Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jacobi: why disambiguated?[edit]

The mathematician is pretty obviously the primary topic. (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are detailed and well referenced and about the same length, so the primary topic is not at all obvious to me, but you are welcome to make your case on the appropriate talk page. Shantavira|feed me 10:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for the location of death of a subject[edit]

Please advise - I have provided a source in a citation, a website with the necessary information but it is only accessible if someone is registered on the site (no subscription or payment required). Since I cannot expect an editor to do this I would like to upload a screenshot/jpeg of the relevant information. Is this possible and acceptable? I am a new editor and am having some trouble navigating on the system. Thanks very much. Rwarsager (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rwarsager Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not necessary to do that; there is no requirement that a source be able to be accessed without registering, or even that it be without payment(see WP:PAYWALL). A source need not be easy or free to access. It doesn't even have to be online. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of whether or not its possible, but it's not required in any way - See WP:PAYWALL. That said, there's consensus that FamilySearch is usually unreliable because of how much of its content is user-generated - Unless you're linking directly to an obituary or death certificate it should not be used. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 12:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should also change the "title" field to the name of the page/document you're linking too instead of the URL, otherwise it doesn't render properly. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 12:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]