WP:Teahouse

Last night I was looking up Magic Shell and came across this sentence in the history section: "In Australia, first invented it and sold by Daniel Keevers who sold the idea to Cottee's and called Ice Magic." At first I was just going to reword it so that it was actual English, but I realized it was a pretty substantial claim that was uncorroborated and I couldn't find anything online from a quick search. I felt like it didn't make sense to reword a sentence with a claim I didn't make that I couldn't support, so I just ended up deleting it, but I don't know if that's the right move. What would be the right action to take here?

It didn't help when I read the rest of the paragraph and realized it had nothing to do with the history of the product either, it was just a list of flavors and storage instructions: "It is sold in chocolate, mint chocolate, honeycomb chocolate, and strawberry flavors. It is not to be stored in a refrigerator, as it may harden and will not pour." At that point I just deleted the whole paragraph, but again, it's probably not the right move. Should I have moved this information to the lead section? Riggsmarion (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Riggsmarion, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked at the article, but from your description it sounds a reasonable thing to do. It's always worth looking for sources if they aren't given, but you're under no obligation to do so. And given that it doesn't make much sense, deleting it seems fair enough. If somebody disagrees with you, they can engage with you: see WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:I ask gemini. Why don't you try that too? Whatback11 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I am writing a new book, can I put information about it on Wikipedia? Petermartin67 (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Petermartin67, welcome to the Teahouse. It's very unlikely to be suitable unless you are already a famous author with articles about your works. Articles about books should satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books). See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{ping|Petermartin67|p=}} and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, this would not be a good idea.

:On Wikipedia, two of our core policies are notability and neutral point-of-view. This means that any information on Wikipedia has to be the subject of multiple reliable sources. It is probably unlikely that there are many published reliable sources about your book out right now.

:Another problem with writing about your own book on Wikipedia is that you have a conflict-of-interest, and it will be hard not to write about your book in a biased way. If your book becomes notable someday, someone else will write an article about it. I hope this makes sense, and happy editing! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Petermartin67, and welcome to the Teahouse.

:A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in a reliable publication, and very little else.

:Until several people wholly unconnected with you have written about your book in reliable sources, no article about it ispossible. ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::@ColinFine, can I create a page just for fun to see what I can do? And can I make it private to only me? Petermartin67 (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Hello, @Petermartin67. I'm afraid the answer is No, and No.

:::You may create pages in your user space (eg User:Petermartin67/Any random title) but there are limitations on what you are permitted to put there: see WP:UPYES. If you are developing something for a Wikipedia article, that's fine, and also for practising editing; but see WP:NOTWEBHOST.

:::Every page in Wikipedia is publicly visible. Only (some) pages in article space are indexed by external search engines, so a random person is unlikely to stumble upon pages in your user space; but if somebody goes looking (eg at your contributions) they can see what you have written - and what you previously wrote but have altered. ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Petermartin67, welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone here has given you sound advice, but I do have something to add. I got curious and I looked up the name "Peter Martin" in the area you indicate you're from on your userpage, and I did find an author who published The Mystery of Trash Island and An Enchanted Forest, two books which I did find reviews for, but ultimately not enough material to establish notability for Wikipedia. If these are your books, I would advise you to come back here at a later date when your books have received more coverage, and at that time an editor may be able to guide you through the process of seeing a biography published which lists your written works if they determine there's enough sources to satisfy the notability guidelines. Best regards, MediaKyle (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hiya, do we have any policies/guidelines for archiving article talk pages? Or can I just cut-and-paste stuff when it gets too long? Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:@GoldRomean, I don't think there are any specific guidelines on when to archive, it is just needed on long talk pages. WP:ARCHIVE has all the technical information on archiving, I would suggest setting up one of the archive bots as it will do it without human intervention. If you need more help feel free to ask or take a look at how other article talk pages are archived. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Gotcha, thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@GoldRomean, just to add to that, since most talk pages aren't archived, because they don't get enough action, people are very likely to assume that there is no archive if you let an archive bot run at the default settings. I'd suggest raising both the minimum number of allowed threads and the maximum thread age, so that more conversations stay on the talk page. It's very annoying for the same conversation to come up again and again every year or couple of months. -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for guidance. This architecture firm is listed on several project pages, so I wanted to create a basic page as reference about the firm. Can someone please tell me why this page was rejected by the editor? Draft:McMillan Pazdan Smith Thank you! 727bb23 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:The page was only declined, not rejected - there is still hope for it at in RfC. The feedback left was that it feels like an advertisement. This makes sense, as you listed the firm’s notable projects and awards. I’d limit the notable projects to just a few and add a history section to the page. Other editors will have more advice, I’m sure. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @727bb23, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

:Wikipedia is not a directory or a database, but an encyclopaedia: it doesn't contain listings or profiles or "reference pages": it contains encyclopaedia articles about notable subjects (in the special sense we use that word).

:A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else: {{HD/WINI}}

:{{User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst}} ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

: {{Ping|727bb23}} The reason the article was declined was given as {{Tq|1="appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia"}}. This is nonsense, as anyone who has ever read an advertisement can see. However, it does lack citations to reliable sources, independent of the firm that establish its notability. And at least one of them is a citation to a Wikipedia article witch is not acceptable. See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Courtesy link|Draft:Peter J. Howard}}

Hi! I am struggling to get my first article published successfully. Comments rejecting the article so far note its lack of 'reliable sources' that can be 'verified'. My subject, Professor Peter J. Howard, is a living person, an accomplished academic, well published and well known in his field of landscape studies. His books and journal articles are used by university, graduate and post-grad students throughout the English-speaking world. What he does not have, however, are articles written about him, though many books and journal articles cite his work. Mainstream media do not cover him, however, so there are no newspaper articles to cite. If 'notability' is therefore an issue, is there anything else I should be considering, apart from abandoning the article? Thank you for any thoughts on this! Lonepine0204 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Lonepine0204: Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, notability is a requirement for someone to have an article on Wikipedia. The reason for this lies in Wikipedia's core pillar of verifiability, which is to say that any information in a Wikipedia article must be able to be supported with a citation to a reliable source. Notability is our standard to make sure that we're only hosting articles on subjects that we can actually write verifiably about--if there are no reliable sources, we can't write *anything* verifiably, and that means we can't have an article at all, regardless of how famous/deserving/etc. a subject might otherwise be.

:It really is unfortunate, and it certainly imposes restraints on our coverage that can be unfair, since we necessarily have to follow what reliable sources choose to cover, and that choice is never without bias. But verifiability is our only way to have any confidence in the accuracy of the content we provide, so it is necessary, even with all its faults. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hi! Thank you very much for your reply re. 'notability'. I've just been looking at 'notability criteria for academics' and it appears that my subject does in fact qualify (Criterion #8) as the founding editor of International Journal of Heritage Studies. He is listed as such in every issue, but how do I cite that? (No author, it's on the masthead in each issue.) Can you advise me on whom to appeal to on a decision regarding notability? Thanks again. Lonepine0204 (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Lonepine0204. If his work gets cited, you may find that the he will meet the alternative formulation of notability for academics. ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you ColinFine. Yes, indeed. I've just been reading about that and I believe this will be a qualifying criterion for my subject (as well as Criterion #8: being founding editor of the International Journal of Heritage Studies, IJHS, published through Taylor and Francis). Lonepine0204 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:You need to cite more independent sources. for example, "Howard s a Visiting Professor at Bournemouth University." is cited to Howard's Researchgate profile; you should be able to cite a Bournemouth University page (other than his own). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for this pro tip! I have made your suggested adjustment to the article. Lonepine0204 (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No you haven't. Perhaps your edit failed to save? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Uh, right! :) Should be published now. "Draft: Peter J. Howard" is the title. Lonepine0204 (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I can see your edit. The article looks much better now, but the "Academic Career" section has only two citations, and the latter two-thirds of it have none. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you Andy. I will keep working on this. I am under the impression, though, that the alternative formulation for "notability" and "verification," designed to accommodate articles about accomplished academics, required fewer of the kinds of citations that tend to elude professors who keep their heads down and stay out of the press. Can you say what would be an adequate number of citations in this Academic Career section? Or perhaps I should just curtail the facts, as I understand them to be, in that section? In any event, thank you again for your review. It's much appreciated (by this digital dinosaur). Lonepine0204 (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It's not a question of quantity; statements about living people must (with a few exceptions, not relevant here) be sourced, see WP:BLPRS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I found a page that I think is self published.. What should I do?

This page is published by User:LisaLuisa and when I search the name Lisa Nehus Saxon on google the first result came up and said she was also known as Lisa Luisa Saxon. All her edits are about herself or sports writing, which there are only two. Also the IP on the editors on the page are local to Santa Monica.. I think this article is self published and mostly edited by her.

Lisa Nehus Saxon. 2603:8001:7101:5053:F976:8ECE:DC12:6A7E (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:The best thing may just be to add {{Cleanup rewrite|date=June 2025}} to the top of the article.

:Even a quick glance at the article suggests the tone is completely off.

:I wouldn't be inclined to pursue the contributions of LisaLuisa due to their age. ···sardonism · t · c 17:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Here is a [https://www.google.com/search?num=10&sca_esv=5ed3572dacaed608&sxsrf=AE3TifPKmLAgBmmQbRCt2l4nfBVtmYo8iA:1749059021700&q=Lisa+Nehus+Saxon+%22luisa%22&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP4LfNqNiNAxXTJUQIHU0ACycQ5t4CegQIJBAB&biw=1163&bih=646&dpr=2.2 link to where i saw it] was actually the subject.. Self publishing isnt allowed is it? 2603:8001:7101:5053:F976:8ECE:DC12:6A7E (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It's true that we discourage users from creating, or actively contributing new content to, pages about themselves.

:::The thing is, if you look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Nehus_Saxon&action=history the article's history page], it appears that the suspected problematic user last edited it in 2017. We're in 2025. There comes a point when the drama isn't really worth it anymore.

:::Were LisaLuisa to hypothetically resume making additions to the page, we could consider approaching them about it. ···sardonism · t · c 17:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::There isnt a single meaningful edit since 2017 other than basic maintenance but ok.. She is a HS teacher If you look at the first paragraph, she wasn the second reporter according to the source she cited, she was the 3rd.. [https://www.dailynews.com/2017/07/15/tom-hoffarth-lisa-nehus-saxon-paved-the-way-for-female-sportswriters/ Link] and the article cites imdb. Also, read the article.. its terrible in tone.. its almost written in the first person.. 2603:8001:7101:5053:F976:8ECE:DC12:6A7E (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hi, note that not all dead links have to be removed, see WP:Link rot for info on how to repair them. That being said, you can nominate for deletion if you think she isn't notable. GoldRomean (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I'm trying to submit my first RfC: Talk:UserBenchmark#RfC. However it was rejected, in part, I think because my intro summary wasn't short enough. But it could possibly also be because I was seeking comments on three edits in one RfC, all connected by trying to be more in line with wp:NPOV. Before I resubmit the RfC, and so that it's not rejected again, I'd appreciate feedback on:

1. Whether this intro summary is acceptable:

"Can I get help approving several edits that reflect the sources cited in more detail and with neutrality?"

2. Whether I need to restructure the RfC into three RfCs? and

3. Whether there is a better way to approach this?

Thanks in advance PeteskiPete (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|PeteskiPete}}, your RfC wasn't rejected. It wasn't even discussed. It was unsubmitted by {{u|Firefangledfeathers}}. And I'm not surprised. When I started reading it, I thought "I've no idea what this is about". Anyway, it's about three issues. I'd recommend taking them one at a time. When an RfC is so long that it doesn't all fit on a screen at once, it deters editors from reading it. Maproom (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the clarification and advice!PeteskiPete (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|PeteskiPete}} I've refactored the RfC and restructured the wall of text into three paragraphs. Just curious, are you connected to UserBenchmark in any way? Most of your edits seem to be about it. [[User:CanonNi]] (talk • contribs) 07:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks - much appreciated! Nope I'm not connected, other than I've used their benchmarking software amongst lots of other benchmarking software, and followed their story over the years. Should I disclose this? I'm suggesting the edits as I don't think the sources cited have been fairly represented in the Wiki article. PeteskiPete (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I have written an article about an event that has been running for the last 10 years. I am struggling to find sources for this events. I have found an extra two or three sources from the press and before I re-submit the article, I wanted to check with you if those would be enough to accept the submission. The event is well present on social media through different fan clubs, youtubers and social media groups.

Here the draft: Draft:Kingvention MarcelM777 (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:If you are "struggling to find sources", then it may be that the topic does not meet our criteria for inclusion, described at WP:N.

:See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used.

:As it stands, large parts of the article (not least the table of events, and the list of guests) are completely unsourced.

:When you have addressed that (either by adding sources or removing unsourced statements), the best way to to check if you have enough sources is to resubmit your draft for review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Pigsonthewing

::Thank you but it seems I cannot access the WP Library!

::I have done some research:

::: I found this few online articles:

::: - One from the London Magazines Echoes who had a spread in their magazines but online they have only this [https://echoesmagazine.co.uk/2016/06/13/kingvention-2016-dangerous-times/ link].

::: - The Isle of Thanet News, local news agent regarding one of the opening act (so just a mention) [https://theisleofthanetnews.com/2019/09/17/margates-kid-of-pop-to-open-huge-michael-jackson-convention-and-audition-on-americas-got-talent/ Link]

::: - A well known fan forum [https://michaelmaniaforum.com/BOARD/viewtopic.php?t=7666 Link]

::: And I have few fan websites from France, Austalia, Switzerland and UK talking about the event (from announcement to reviews)

::: Would that be enough to get the article approved?

::MarcelM777 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You may not be able to access some WP:LIBRARY resources yet, but the page I linked to includes several links; one is titled "How to find sources" and another "Resource Exchange: A resource sharing page where editors can request a source from other editors". Again: "the best way to to check if you have enough sources is to resubmit your draft for review". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@MarcelM777 I accessed the newspaper archive via the WP:Library. There were zero hits for the keyword 'Kingvention'. You may not have much luck finding sources for an event with only a few hundred attendees. The archive is described: NewspaperARCHIVE.com is an online database of digitized newspapers, with over 2 billion news articles; coverage extends from 1607 to the present from US, Canada, the UK, and 20 other countries. Hope that helps. Access to the library counts contributions to many different wikipedia projects. If you want to rack up a couple of hundred contributions, try helping out with a Wikisource monthly challenge. Just Al (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Just Al Damn! Ok! I did found few news articles related to it and added to the article. Hopefully this will be enough. MarcelM777 (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi all! I submitted a draft article about the software "awork" through the AfC process, but it was declined with the following feedback:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Valuing Wikipedia's guidelines, I have used only external, published references, with one single exception regarding the company's own mission statement. All other references are independent and reliable (imho).

I highly appreciate any help to better understand which parts of my draft may read promotional or not sufficiently neutral. I would also be super thankful for any advice on how to further improve the sourcing or content so that the article can eventually meet Wikipedia's standards and be accepted.

Here is a link to my draft: Draft:Awork (Software)

Thank you very much for your time and assistance! Max Raschke (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello and welcome. To be very frank, the whole draft is promotional. "Promotional" has a broader meaning on Wikipedia than is commonly understood; you don't have to be actively soliciting customers or selling something. You have a common misunderstanding in that Wikipedia is not a place for a business to tell about itself, its offerings, and what it does. A Wikipedia article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. Primary sources or announcements of routine business activities(like the release of a product) do not establish notability. Mission statements are wholly unencyclopedic and should just be removed, as a mission statement just tells what the company sees as its own purpose.

:What I have just said only applies to the English Wikipedia; this may be different from the German Wikipedia, which has very different policies surrounding businesses, articles about them, and how they contribute. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:It would help if you decided whether the article is to be about the product "awork" or the company "awork GmbH", and then stick to that topic. As things are, the lead is about the product, the History section is about the company, and the disambiguation string "software" is misleading – the product involves the platform, not just the software that runs on it. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• In the filmography wikitable (BLP article), if the title is stated twice, for example, he appeared in the series in 2022, and he appeared again in that same series in 2024, as stated in different rows, should we link the title twice as well?
• Additional question: for an actor who frequently appeared in television anthology series, should we separate and create a standalone table for anthology series? So that it would not be cluttered to view (for example Jake Vargas). - ArćRèv • talk 07:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• :To avoid overlinking, the rule of thumb is to link only once, but there are plenty of articles where a repeated link is helpful. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::If the table is sortable, multiple links may be appropriate,. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::I am pertaining, actually, to a single actor who was mentioned above. He appeared multiple times in the television anthology series Maynila. From 2011 until the series concluded in 2017, but not always. He appeared in many episodes, with different titles and roles. Now, should I include that series in the filmography wikitable in a single row? like 2011-2017—his roles (divided rows), the episode titles (divided rows). Or divide the year where the episode was aired, like the default style is in the article. What's your opinion on this? - ArćRèv • talk 11:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::I also wanted to separate now the wikitable for anthology series, since he made a number of appearances in the anthology series the same as traditional television drama series. So that it doesn't rumble or clutter. But I do not know if that is appropriate, as there is no rule for separating wikitables. - ArćRèv • talk 11:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

In the song credits section, should we name the section Songwriting credits, Composition credits, or Production credits? DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 10:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:@DrinksOrCoffee That would depend entirely on which credits are included. Do you have an example in mind? Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sakura Miyawaki#Composition credits which includes both lyrics and compose credits. DrinksOrCoffee_talk^Contribs 13:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think that looks fine as it is, since composition usually includes writing the lyrics. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a Wikipedia presence established for one of my employer's subsidiary companies. Article has been rejected twice - once for promotion and once for notability. (I went through this process with the parent company and it was approved almost immediately, but the parent company is publicly traded and far more well-known.) The rejected article has 22 citations, at least a third of which are mainstream/consumer media sources, and 90% of which are independent, and I've trimmed everything that seemed like it could be interpreted as superfluous PR only to be told that the article now lacks notability. The company is niche but respected within its industry, and article length feels proportional to its notability. Unsure how to fix: is there a specific type of article that should be cited but isn't, a fact that is missing, or a citation that is inappropriate?

(And yes, I have explained that wikipedia is not a PR hub.)

Draft:Natural Habitat Adventures. Jsliese (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:You may find it useful to direct your managers to WP:BOSS.

:You may also find it useful to address the question in Wikipedia:Three best sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Jsliese, at a glance this draft looks very good, so I think {{tq|the parent company is publicly traded and far more well-known}} is likely to ultimately be the issue here. If you give your WP:THREE here, as Andy suggested, I'd be happy to have a look. Feel free to make that a "FIVE" instead of three if you like, since WP:NCORP is tough. -- asilvering (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Jsliese, and welcome to the Teahouse. You say that you have explained that Wikipedia is not a PR hub, and yet you use the phrase "get a Wikipedia presence established", which is marketing speak for "use Wikipedia to promote".

:A Wikipedia article about something does not belong to that something, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned is not in any way for the benefit of that something. Yes, some organisations (and people) do get some benefit from the existence of a Wikipedia article about them (and some experience the opposite!), but that is no part of Wikipedia's purpose. Wikipedia does not care whether an organisation wants there to be an article about them or not, and it does not care what the organisation would want such an article to say or not to say. ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is not a place for people/companies to "have a presence". In fact, there are good reasons to not want an article here 331dot (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

What is the difference between a help desk and a tea house? Whatback11 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Functionally, not a lot.

:Practically, the Teahouse is watched by people who are specifically committed to providing a welcoming experience to new users, even if they're asking very basic or commonly repeated questions, and to help them learn to edit productively.

:The Help Desk is meant for users at all levels of Wikipedia experience to ask questions about editing -- after all, Wikipedia is a very large and complex project, with massive amounts of rules and guidelines, and no one person knows all of it.

:Pretty much any question that can be asked at the Help Desk can also be asked at the Teahouse. Responses at the Tea House may be different in tone, and assume less prior knowledge of Wikipedia. Questions about how to get started; basic editing procedures; and how to learn Wikipedia's rules and culture are more suited to the Teahouse than the Help Desk. Avocado (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::So WP:TH is a place to ask basic questions? Whatback11 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Pretty much. Avocado (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You can ask any sort of question at the Help Desk, but here you are more likely to get answers from people who understand that the questions may come from inexperienced or new users. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::As others have said, you can ask a question either at the Teahouse or the Help Desk (please don't ask in both), but regulars at the Help Desk may use acronyms or refer to processes that a Wikipedia regular should be aware of; we try not to do that here if possible. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:You also asked this at Wikipedia:Help desk#help desk and a tea house..... Please don't start duplicate discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I am the son of Cartoonist Abhishek (:hi:अभिषेक तिवारी)

He has a wikipedia page but it is in Hindi. I need help to Translate it to English. I am not looking for proper translation but using the built-in tool. I cannot do that as it says I don't have enough privileges. Can someone please help me with that? It would be of great help! Raghutiwari12345 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:As written, the hi.wiki article you’ve indicated appears to lack citations to any sources, and would not be accepted on en.wiki. The first step is to find WP:THREE independent reliable sources that discuss Abhishek Tiwari’s life or career in depth. Hindi or other non-English language sources are fine. If the sourcing situation is not improved, it is likely that the hi.wiki article will be removed as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Does another hi.wiki article counts?

::I see it is here: :hi:श्रेणी:भारतीय कार्टूनिस्ट. Raghutiwari12345 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No, Wikipedia articles aren't considered reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles because Wikipedia is user-generated and due to the possibility of circular referencing. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the types of source that are acceptable. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay thanks for the clarification.

::::I have found the articles, how can I cite them? Do I need to cite them in the hi.wiki page? Raghutiwari12345 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think that it would be a best practice to add them to अभिषेक तिवारी. As the template there states, {{langx|hi|इस लेख में सन्दर्भ या स्रोत नहीं दिया गया है। कृपया विश्वसनीय सन्दर्भ या स्रोत जोड़कर इस लेख में सुधार करें। स्रोतहीन सामग्री ज्ञानकोश के लिए उपयुक्त नहीं है। इसे हटाया जा सकता है। (सितंबर 2014)|translation=This article does not cite any references or sources. Please improve this article by adding reliable references or sources. Unsourced material is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It may be removed. (September 2014)}}

:::::I would consider first adding citations to that article, then starting Draft:Abhishek Tiwari. Peaceray (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::For English Wikipedia, there is a help page for creating footnotes at Help:Footnotes. The corresponding page for Hindi Wikipedia is सहायता:सन्दर्भ. Peaceray (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you are using Visual Editor to add references, for English instructions, see Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Adding a new reference on MediaWiki.org. For Hindi instructions, see Help:VisualEditor/User_guide/hi#एक_मौजूदा_सन्दर्भ_को_सम्पादित_करना. Peaceray (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Being discussed on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)}}

I want create wikidata item. My item about a musical artist. I have two news source and spotify,IMDb, Youtube artist Channel.My question is Can I create this wikidata item? mita (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes?..... May be you can. Whatback11 (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::I neet to sure about it. mita (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The only way to be sure is to crate the item, and then see whether anyone objects; if so, there will be a discussion about whether to keep it.

:::From the limited information you give, the crux will be the quality of the news items - is each a profile in a major publication, or simply listings of of an appearance, in minor local outlets? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:The Teahouse is for asking questions about editing the English Wikipedia, for questions about editing Wikidata you should look through that projects help page. Amstrad00 (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:See :d:Wikidata:Project_chat#Please_help_me_with_give_some_knowledge. Bovlb (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

What does Wikipedia:Department directory do? Whatback11 (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:At noted at the top of that page, it's a collection of links to pages that either "assist in the administration of the Wikipedia community and development of the encyclopedia" or "provide information and guidance on certain aspects of maintaining the project" or "are related to Wikipedia request departments". In short it's a useful directory for anyone interested in those aspects of the wiki. Amstrad00 (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I have asked two questions about the Wiki Loves Pride event [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_talk:Wiki_Loves_Pride/2025 here], please let the answers be known to me. KnowDeath (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @KnowDeath, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have asked in the right place, Event talk:Wiki Loves Pride/2025, and there is no reason to suppose that people who look at this Teahouse will have the answers. Please be patient and wait for the people who know about the event to answer you. ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

In the first line of the lead, should the subject’s name be preceded by their military rank? See John Hartwell Cocke. Hoppyh (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes @Hoppyh! It’s quite common among articles of military figures to have the rank and then the name. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 21:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

hello, i wanted to post my profile on wikipedia, about me, and unfortunately it didnt work, can you please show me the perfect way or format to make a good wikipedia profile about me, thanks! Mbatayneh (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Mbatayneh, and welcome to the Teahouse.

:I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.

:Wikipedia does not host profiles - not one.

:If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - which means, roughly, that several people wholly unconnected with you have published material about you - then Wikipedia coud have an article about you, based on those independent sources. It would not be "your profile", as it would not belong to you, would not be controlled by you, and would not necessarily say what you wanted it to say.

:If such sources exist, then there could be an article - but you are strongly discouraged from trying to write it yourself. If the sources do not exist, then there cannot be an article about you. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::As I've mentioned before, in common usage, "profile" is just another word for "article". We have a profile of Tim Berners-Lee, and rightly so, and many more besides.

::In the Wikipedia context, "profile" may refer to a user page [see User profile]; and we have a great many of those; including yours.

::Please deal with the substantive issue; especially as this is The Teahouse, whose users are to be greated especially gently. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I have an account on Discord and a link from Wikipedia that is supposed to bring me into the Discord group but it doesn't work. Jstashpdx (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Jstashpdx what happens when you click the "join group" button on WP:DISCORD? [[User:CanonNi]] (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am trying to understand what about the content on this page (Jayanthi Kumaresh) appears promotional. It earlier was indeed so (unintentionally) and has hence been edited to present a more neurtral tone and amply supported by citations. The tagger has indicated that there is still lots of puffery. Will anyone kindly help me review and edit the article to adhere to the wiki standards. Thank you.

Shyamala. Shyamalswiki (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Phrases such as {{tq|represent India’s Musical Heritage and promote Indian classical music; rigorous Veena training; renowned violinist; excelled in sparkling glee; gave a sold-out concert at Sydney Opera House}} all come across as promotional. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::“excelled in sparkling glee" is a quote from a review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, but a cherry-picked quote. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::There are about 150 or so links where I do a google search and I am trying to figure out how to make an article about the subject using content from those sources. So, should I just be quoting lines from each of the articles - I thought, we could make factual statements and then give citations supporting it. Can you kindly pick one line out of the article and show me a rewritten version as a sample so I can understand what is wrong ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I’m an art enthusiast passionate about promoting visibility for artists and culture from my native region. I’m currently in the journey of drafting my first article on an established local artist who has received significant coverage in reputable regional media. However, I’m facing challenges in citing these sources, as they are mostly offline and in our regional language. I’d appreciate any guidance on how best to reference such sources. Is there any possibility that I can scan and upload such articles electronically somewhere, if so where can I do this and how can I ensure that there is no breach of copyright. And would such sources be considered verifiable. Or is there any other process by which I could cite such sources for my articles.

Thank you to @Cabrils for the guidance and support so far. TheNoeticOne (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @TheNoeticOne, offline sources are fine if that's all you have, and there's no need to scan them. They should meet the usual criteria for reliable sources; whether they are available online has no bearing on this. Just cite them as you would any other source. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hi @ClaudineChionh, thank you so much, I shall try doing that. TheNoeticOne (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Also, User:TheNoeticOne, the English Wikipedia allows sources that are not in English, although it prefers English ones if equivalents are available. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you, @Michael D. Turnbull, I have now added the same. TheNoeticOne (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I have a draft article that is maybe 80% complete. I am still working on collecting some references. Is it possible to submit for review, to check is there are any major issues I have missed, or is the common practice not to submit until the article is ready to publish? Thanks! LeeSawyer (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, {{u|LeeSawyer}}. You should only submit a draft for review at Articles for Creation when you truly believe that it is ready for the encyclopedia. Submitting a draft that you know will be declined just creates unnecessary extra work for reviewers who are already overworked. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:A draft need not be 100% complete before submitting it, few actual articles are 100% complete. The basic rule of thumb that many reviewers use is, would a draft survive an Articles for Deletion discussion? If you think your draft would survive a hypothetical deletion discussion, and is properly sourced, you may submit it whenever you feel it is ready. But don't submit one just to get feedback, knowing that it won't be accepted. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:@LeeSawyer One suggestion would be to post a link to your draft at a Project Talk page that it fits. Then those editors who are most interested in its topic might like to comment or suggest additional material. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I proposed that Politics of the Arizona Borderlands be merged into Arizona. I've closed the merge proposal after no consensus emerged in a week, but would somebody be able to look over the closure to make sure I didn't miss anything? Thank you! Horse.staple (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I want to create JCCA Page and have some Notable news reffrances. i want to know this url is helpful to create a page or not, please find the below news url link -

• https://www.bhaskar.com/epaper/detail-page/jaipur-city-bhaskar/34/2023-07-02?pid=2
• https://www.bhaskar.com/local/rajasthan/jaipur/news/due-to-artifacts-worth-crores-insurance-was-done-for-the-entire-show-miniature-sculpture-made-in-green-diamond-131483684.html
• https://indianexpress.com/photos/lifestyle-gallery/artist-himmat-shah-pandemic-drawings-legacy-photojournalist-raghu-rai-lens-8850813/
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/noted-artist-himmat-shahs-paintings-sculptures-to-be-exhibited-at-jaipur-cultural-centre/articleshow/101233139.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/art/himmat-shah-90-under-the-mask-pandemic-drawings-exhibition/article67145401.ece
• https://www.outlooktraveller.com/explore/inspiration/celebrating-master-sculptor-himmat-shah

-- Reena.rex (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

: I have applied list markup, for readability. Presumably, you mean "Jaipur Centre of Culture and Arts"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Reena.rex, you're asking about the "Jaipur Centre of Culture and Arts". Among your links, I clicked on just one: "[https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/noted-artist-himmat-shahs-paintings-sculptures-to-be-exhibited-at-jaipur-cultural-centre/articleshow/101233139.cms?from=mdrNoted artist Himmat Shah's paintings, sculptures to be exhibited at Jaipur cultural centre]". This says about JCCA:

:*"The Jaipur Centre of Culture and Arts is set to open on July 2 with an inaugural exhibition featuring the works of internationally renowned artist Himmat Shah."

:* "The JCCA director said the centre will provide a platform to the country's artists and art enthusiasts by enabling them to promote and showcase various forms of art and culture."

:And that's all it says. This doesn't indicate notability. -- Hoary (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi!

I was wondering if someone could help me out...

I just nominated a new article I wrote for Did You Know, and everything is fine, except for the hook which needs additional references. Nominating the article was easy enough as there were designated spaces for the article title, the hook and the references, but now there's only the discussion page for Did You Know, I can't reply to the comments or edit the page on visual editor, and I don't know how to use the editing format it does allow and I'm kind of stumped. If anyone here could guide me through this, it would make this newbie very happy.

One of the comments also said that it would be failed if I didn't apply the corrections within a week, and I was also wondering if there is a way to ask for extentions.

Thanks! Moonshane1933 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:For such a specialised part of Wikipedia, you would do better to ask at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Upon assessing page notability it has come up a lot where people dispute whether or not a certain notability criterion applies, therefore it remains unclear, is it up to us or policies to determine notability? In other words which comes first criterion or consensus? 

If policy comes first, then is consensus on notability about whether such-and-such criterion applies on a given subject?

If consensus comes first, then we can dispute til Sunday, everything from the reliability of reliable sources, to the credibility of notability guidelines. Xpander (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Policy should be put before a guideline, so consensus is most important. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Xpander1}}, if policies and guidelines were always crystal clear and indisputable, then we could simply have bots or "Artificial Intelligence" make the decisions for us. But they aren't that cut and dried. There are always edge cases requiring nuanced decisions. So that is why Wikipedia is a consensus based project. Keep in mind that policies and formal guidelines are the product of community wide consensus. Local consensus in a debate about a specific topic can make specific decisions about that topic but can never override established policies. Guidelines usually contain language such as {{tpq|Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply.}} Cullen328 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi all! I just created my first page about the Italian food public figure Victor Hazan I tried to follow all of the rules and guidelines. Does anyone have any advice or feedback before I submit the draft for review? CiaoAlfonsina! (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:The purpose of submitting for review is to get such advice (or have the article published). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! How long should I leave it in review before submitting? CiaoAlfonsina! (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Submit it as soon as you think it is ready. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:@CiaoAlfonsina! I think that your draft will be acceptable but, if the reviewer suggests it needs more in-depth sources showing his notability, let me know as I have found many mentions of Hazan in newspapers available from newspapers.com, which I have access to. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Amazing, thank you. CiaoAlfonsina! (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Is article hijacking, which is replacing an article's content with content about a completely different topic, considered a form of vandalism? 1isall (talk/contribs) 14:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, it is considered a form of vandalism. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Once? Not necessarily. A new user might not understand disambiguation. They might believe that 'their' topic is more noteworthy. Persistent attempts at hijacking would be. --Onorem (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please see WP:NOTVANDAL for more on this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|1isall}}, when it comes to vandalism, intent is all important. Deliberately damaging the encyclopedia is vandalism. Accidentally damaging the encyclopedia due to inexperience or lack of skills is not vandalism. Cullen328 (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That is true. Any good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia that doesn't end well is definitely not vandalism. 1isall (talk/contribs) 17:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I found this new band called Chord Chaos and I found they didn't have a Wikipedia page. I decided I wanted to try and find it. The only info I can find on them is through Spotify, YouTube and their Instagram account. My draft page for the band has been declined for not having published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Can anyone give me a hand as to how I could get my page approved by adding more sources.

Would it help if I included references to more than just Spotify and YouTube?

Any help would be appreciated thank you BobElliott (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.

:See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, such sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used.

:But if you cannot find such sources, then it may be too soon for an article in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|BobElliott}} "New" anything is usually not suitable for Wikipedia, because there are few independent sources with significant coverage of anything new. Wikipedia does not lead the coverage, it follows it. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@331dot@Pigsonthewing Thank you for your help :) BobElliott (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

How to import a template from a wiki to here, specifically the Template:Main Page/Sisterprojects from Meta-Wiki??? (Alt: or someone could help me to import the template for me)

Thanks. DinhHuy2010 (talk · contribs · logs · rights · email · sandbox · links to user page · global contribs) 15:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:You will need someone with admin rights to do that; ask at WP:AN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{blockquote|someone with admin rights to do that}}

::What can a admin do here??? DinhHuy2010 (talk · contribs · logs · rights · email · sandbox · links to user page · global contribs) 15:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::An admin can import the template, as you requested. You cannot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Also "import" mean convert the template code from that wiki to here with completely converted code suitable to this wiki.

::(and also in additional to that, import revisions just require the "import" right, no need to be a admin)

::Thanks.

::(pinging @Pigsonthewing just in case) DinhHuy2010 (talk · contribs · logs · rights · email · sandbox · links to user page · global contribs) 15:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No, "import " means "import". If you meant "rewrite the code", you should have said so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Pigsonthewing Some advices for rewrite the code? (also this template I told is also have TemplateStyles) DinhHuy2010 (talk · contribs · logs · rights · email · sandbox · links to user page · global contribs) 15:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::The right venue to request for importing revisions is Wikipedia:Requests for page importation. And import rights are generally held by admins (and one special case) on enwiki here. For converting it to be suitable on enwiki, make the request here Wikipedia:Requested templates. – robertsky (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello are there people here who can help edit and finish a wiki page that has already been started? 73.60.75.31 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Generally, no.

:But you can ask on a relevant WikiProject and you might get lucky. If you tell us which article you have in mind, we can advise more specifically. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Wikipedia articles aren't generally ever considered finished. New information may always come to light on any given topic, and there's always scope for improvement. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering how I can create better articles and improve on the current draft that I submitted? NathanielTheGreatEditor (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Welcome to the Teahouse, {{u|NathanielTheGreatEditor}} Looking at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Fatality_(gamer)&oldid=1294284574 current state] of Draft:Fatality (gamer), my suggestions to you would be to familiarise yourself with how to use inline citations, to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and to gain an understanding of Wikipedia:Notability, as summarised usefully at WP:GOLDENRULE (this latter point may or may not not help you with improve that draft, but it will help when it comes to selecting topics to write about in future). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I am writing an article on Carl Marsh, the composer, arranger and conductor. Sometimes when I go to publish/save my work I get the error message "Content is not properly deflated" with no explanation and I can't find this matter explained anywhere. I am sourcing all of my claims. What does this error message mean? How can I fix the error?

Confused,

Chris King Chriskingstl (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)