WP:Teahouse#Why is my article marked for notability

I have been reading up on grammar and some different things recently and I was curious about so called "passive voice" writing and the different forms of "voice", which is considered the correct "voice" and could someone point me to the best MOS on this that exactly supports the policy and subsection of what the best voice is to use for the entire encyclopedia please? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:The one I know of is at MOS:PASSIVE which is just a footnote. Generally, the passive voice is preferred here. While I don't agree with Steven Pinker on everything in this lecture, I think he does a good job [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS-Txm3R3v8&t=7m20s here] of describing why the passive is often so important. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, the "passive voicing leads to less elegant and more ambiguous prose" mantra is a serious bugbear among linguists, second perhaps only to "never end a sentence in a preposition" as a 'language maven' chestnut that comes in for criticism from those who study syntax in a formal manner. For those looking for the long form of Pinker's well-argued case for the need to pushback against the latent dogma on passive voicing that has taken hold in many fields and been uncritically perpetuated for decades, you cna find more in his style guide The Sense of Style. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:"Generally, the passive voice is preferred here." Oh? That's news to me. (I for one have no general preference.) ¶ The footnote to which {{U|TheTechnician27}} points us is well-meant, but dubious. It starts: "The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing". I can't think of a single form of writing for which it would be inappropriate. Whether it would be a good choice for a particular clause depends on what it is that you want to put across to the reader in that clause. ¶ {{U|Iljhgtn}}, one thing you have to remember when reading up on the passive is that some of the people who get worked up over use of the "passive" [note the scare quotes] don't even know what the word means in the context of grammar. The article "English passive voice" is well meant and has some good bits, but it's confusing. If you have twenty minutes spare, skip that article and instead go straight to Geoffrey K. Pullum's "[https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922 The passive in English]", which cuts through miscellaneous myths about the passive and gives you the straight dope. (Within it, "passice" is of course a typo for "passive".) ¶ If you don't want to devote the time needed to read and digest Pullum's article, then my advice is not to worry at all about whether or not to express something via what you (rightly or wrongly) believe is passive. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Not quite sure what the confusion is here, but in terms of passive and active in Wikipedia articles, the two "voices" put their emphasis in different places. "Smith built an organ in the church of St Stephen" places the emphasis on Smith (it is the natural answer to the question: "what did Smith do?"). It's the natural choice for an article about Smith. "The organ was built by Smith" places the emphasis on the organ (it's the natural answer to the question "Who built the organ in St Stephen's church?"). It's the natural choice for an article about the organ or the church in which it stands. Elemimele (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Hoary}}, I can tell you of at least one field where it is virtually verboten: legal writing. Virtually the entirety of several generations of legal experts in Britain, the Commonwealth, and the U.S. have been indoctrinated into the belief that legal writing should reduce passive voicing to being as close as possible to non-existent. The concern is that in proceedings which concern important rights and impute a particular need for clarity, the passive voicing too often introduces ambiguity as to who undertook what action, both through oversight and intention. Now of course that is at least partly nonsense: while there are cases where the use of the passive can introduce uncertainty (as for example, when the grammatical agent is omitted), every passive statement can easily be written in a manner which avoids these ambiguities. Likewise, many statements are made incredibly ungainly and ineffective for conveying information by trying to force them into active voicing syntax. Proper advice for the issue of voicing in this field should be a lot more granular and nuanced. But do not hold your breath on such a pivot coming any time soon. Legal culture is incredibly conservative as to form and custom, and this probably it's most ingrained rule when it comes to grammar. Add in the fact that most legal experts have no formal background in linguistics or formal syntax and yet consider themselves low key experts on the subject, and you have the makings for seriously entrenched ideas on effective writing. {{pb}} Note that the legal profession is not the only field to adopt such a standard on passive voicing, but it does seem to be the one which has taken it to greatest extremes and shown the most resistance to relaxing the standard. Now, there's an argument to be made that the oversimplified narrative is surely better than no advice on passive voicing in the legal context, and that maybe anything more complex is likely not be as readily retained by the average practitioner who needs to avoid ambiguity in their work product. I don't know that I buy that, but it (and similar standards in other fields) may contribute to the notion that "passive voicing is not suitable for certain styles of writing" that you found in the footnote. Let's just be glad it is relegated to a footnote: thankfully Wikipedia tends to lean towards the leading edge of modern trends in more rational grammatical rules. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I know nothing about the law, {{U|Snow Rise}}, and was about to respond with "I sit corrected"; but idle curiosity nudged me to take a look. Within just the opening page of [https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep394/usrep394111/usrep394111.pdf Gregory et al. v. City of Chicago] (article) we see: {{Blue|Argued December 10, 1968.–Decided March 10, 1969. / Petitioners, peaceful civil rights demonstrators, were arrested and convicted.... / 1. Petitioners were denied due process.... / 3. ... acts protected by the First Amendment.... / 39 Il. 2d 47, 233 N. E. 2d 422, reversed. / ... accompanied by Chicago police and an assistant city attorney....}} Arguably some of these aren't passives; unarguably, some are. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, even though the proscription against passive voicing is more uniform in legal writing than any other field, as far as I am aware, it would pretty difficult to avoid it in 100% of clauses. Further, you'll find slightly laxer standards in rulings and in law review than you will motions, briefings, and other day-to-day work product, since jurists are typically less beholden to anyone constraining their verbiage, and many develop idiosyncratic styles. I also think you're likely to find the rule becomes more pronounced the closer you move towards the 21st century. But yes, lest I overstate the point, it's not an absolute. But it is a consistent and strong feature of anglophone legal culture. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{U|Snow Rise}}, perhaps conventions have changed radically since 1968/1969, perhaps the Supremes really were/are very different from more humdrum legal business; but anyway there's no obvious contrast between the opening material (page 111) of this "opinion of the court" and what follows. I jumped ahead to page 125, and there read {{Blue|our customs and our habits ... would all be wiped out ... / Churches would be compelled to welcome into their buildings invaders who came but to scoff and jeer / ... the purposes for which they were constructed and dedicated ... / ... homes ... would have to have their doors thrown open ... / Men and women who hold public office would be compelled ... to lose the comforts and privacy of an unpicketed home. / ... public matters can be discussed with impunity. But picketing and demonstrating can be regulated like other conduct of men.}} -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, again, it's a matter of context and the modern English language simply does not allow for the easy elimination of all passives across the board, so it's not an absolute rule. It's going to be less prevalent in a fifty year old source, and in rulings generally (not just from high courts, but courts of appeal--that is, those with published rulings--generally). At a bare minimum, it's most assuredly fair to say that the rule is more strictly applied in relation to attorney work product (both internal and that which is filed with the court), than it is to statements or rulings issued by court themselves. But I assure you, I'm not making the idea up, nor really overstating how stressed the standard is in everyday practice. I'm certain if you did a google search with obvious keywords of your choice, you'd find nothing less than thousands of references to this quirk of legal writing from law schools, legal style guides, bar associations, and various texts. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Long story short, {{u|Iljhgtn}}, I would not worry yourself over much with the voicing you are using here: it will rarely be a point of contention, provided the intent of your statement is clear and the content is otherwise consistent with policy and style guidance. If you're interested in the subject in the abstract, the three sources by subject matter experts cited above are a good place to start. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Got it. Thank you everyone above for your comments and insights, it has been really useful to read about and learn more. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1= OP blocked for socking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

How many paragraphs can I copy paste quoting a book in talk page SolderUnion (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:If it is copyrighted then none preferably. My apologies, I read your question incorrectly, on talk pages copyright doesn't apply unless you abhorrently violate it. Easternsahara (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's perfectly acceptable to quote material while discussing it on a talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Easternsahara}}, I am sorry but both of your answers are incorrect. Our restrictions on the use of copyright restricted material apply everywhere on Wikipedia, including article talk pages. The general principle is to quote the minimum amount of copyrighted material necessary to make an important point. The material must be attributed to the source and set off by quotation marks or by Template: Blockquote. Cullen328 (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for your answer. This is very vague. Can it be 2 pages if this is the minimum to conduct a summary? SolderUnion (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Regarding, "{{xt|It's perfectly acceptable to quote material while discussing it on a talk page}}", that is mistaken. There is no distinction in copyright law about where you copy copyrighted material; if it is a violation to copy it into an article, then it is a violation to copy it into a Talk page (or any other page at Wikipedia). The tricky part, is figuring out whether it is covered under fair use. But just because it is a Talk page, does not make it all right. Mathglot (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: It is you who is mistaken. Not only that: you contradict yourself. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:There is no hard-and-fast rule. Try to include the least necessary. If you still overdo it, someone will point that out. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. SolderUnion (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{courtesy link|MOS:SANDWICH}}

I'm asking because the taxobox can be pretty long sometimes, making it difficult to fit images into relevant sections without sandwiching text between it and the taxobox. Bloopityboop (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Bloopityboop. The answer is "yes, but not rigidly". Looking at articles that use {{tl|taxobox}} there seem to be ways of reducing the impact of such images. Palaeospondylus uses a small image on the left for an image in text affected by the infobox. Oxymonad uses a larger image centered beneath the text to avoid sandwiching the text.the text. That article also uses | image_upright = 0.4 in the taxobox code to narrow the image and thus narrowing the width of the infobox. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks Starry. Hey @Peter coxhead would you like to chime in? I know we disagree on this. Bloopityboop (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, MOS:SANDWICH is very clear that it applies equally to infoboxes. If you have to reduce the size of the image to 40% in order to avoid significant sandwiching, I would say that is undesirable, writing as one of those who are elderly and have less acute sight. If it's really important that an image is placed at a specific point in the text, then one solution is to use a gallery with just that image, which centres the image with no surrounding text. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi to all,

Does this meet notability under WP:MUSICBIO or need trimming/structure changes before going live: User:Ivhutt/Oz Noy Ivhutt (talk)?

Much appreciated, Ivhutt. Ivhutt (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, {{u|Ivhutt}}. To me, your lead section comes across as name-dropping. A musician does not become notable simply by playing alongside more famous musicians. Please read WP:NAMEDROPPING. Cullen328 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think @Cullen328 was suggesting you read WP:NAMEDROP. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you, Cullen328, for clarification. Ivhutt (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::And thank you, Bazza. I'm reading it. Ivhutt (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The longer link was red, but I have now made it a redirect to the same target. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you, Andy Mabbett. When you have a moment, I’d appreciate your thoughts on whether listing multiple Iridium appearances to demonstrate the recurrence of performances is effective or comes across as clumsy. Thank you. Ivhutt (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have no opinion on the matter. I'm not clear why you singled me out to answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your response. I was going back and forth on this, but was lead by John Scofield's and Nir Felder's articles. Should I keep fewer collaborations or drop them altogether? I do think too muchh is too much, but being involved repeatedly with the "best out there" also gives credence to your own proficiency. Thank you. Ivhutt (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, Cullen328. Ivhutt (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, that article has decent sourcing and the guy is probably notable by our standards, but the namedropping throughout is a bit offputting. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::The full name is Wikipedia:Meaningful examples in pop culture. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, Drmies. I'm on it. Ivhutt (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure thing, {{U|Ivhutt}}. And follow my lead in that copy edit I made. The hard part is that for a lot of sidemen (you know that's in large part what he is) there's not always a lot of biography to write cause you don't have the sources to write actual text, so do the best you can--if you can write a paragraph of uncontroversial biography based on a mediocre source, that's still better, because then you have a body in which you can incorporate the better sources that merely say "he plays a nice solo on this woman's album", you know? Looks more like writing, less like namedropping. Good luck. I love Mike Stern by the way. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Drmies, If you don’t mind taking another look when you have a moment, it would mean a lot. Thanks so much. Ivhutt (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Wait you're affiliated with the guy? Ask him for the newspaper articles, not just the reviews. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks again, Drmies. I am affiliated with him (and declared it) and I do have physical magazines, tons of them, mostly abviously guitar-related (Guitar Player, Premier Guitar, Guitar World, Guitar Technique, Vintage Guitar, Guitarist, etc, aside from Relix, Downbeat, AllAboutJazz,...). I tried to include the most notable sources (Boston Globe, NYT, LAT, New Yorker).

::::Your reasoning makes complete sense to me. I will do what you suggested. Ivhutt (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Ivhutt}}, I would like to offer some additional suggestions. First of all, a reference is not necessarily better just because the source is widely famous. In this particular case, a reference to in-depth coverage in Guitar World is vastly more useful than a brief passing mention in the New York Times. On to your mention of modeling your draft on two other articles, please note that John Scofield is a start-class article and Nir Felder is a stub-class article tagged as having significant problems. Using such articles as models is roughly analogous to copying the work of a C student and a flunking student. Instead, you should model articles on Good articles and Featured articles. Vince Gill is a Good article and Jimi Hendrix is a Featured article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you, Cullen328. This is very valuable because I was going back and forth between more extensive articles on the subject vs "the bigger the name". I also see that Bill Frisell has a problematic WIKI article. I also appreciate the humor in your analogy. I'll be observing the A-students in Hendrix and Gil. I'll retouch the Oz Noy article with this in mind. Ivhutt (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I revised the draft to minimize name-dropping and focused instead on a narrative approach. Reviews and press coverage are consolidated in the Reception section, with an emphasis on in-depth sources over passing mentions. I’ve been mindful of notability standards throughout—though I'm still unsure how to effectively collapse the recurring Iridium dates to demonstrate consistency. I used articles on Hendrix and Gil as structural models, and looked to Wayne Krantz’s page as a stylistic reference, since he's a closer contemporary (and his article avoids overstatement). I’d really appreciate your thoughts, if you have a moment. Thank you. Ivhutt (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hey, Cullen328. I believe I fixed it. Would you mind checking if you find a moment? I'd really appreciate it. (I replied before but forgot to add your name to the response) Ivhutt (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{u|Ivhutt}}, I think that you have significantly improved the draft. Nice work. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Cullen328, I appreciate your response. Thank you very much. Ivhutt (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Someone inserted tags into 2 of my articles, i went to his discussion-site and asked friendly what he didn't find sufficient... he deleted my post and didn't answer. I asked again, why he is so unfriendly, he deleted my post again and didn't answer. I now deleted his tags because it is only his personal opinion - but i'm very frustrated. What is wrong with editors here, if they are unfriendly on purpose??? Why then do they at all "work" in my articles? I find this a very disturbing experience and wished one could do something about the behaviour of this editor. Naomi Hennig (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Naomi Hennig, that editor was fully entitled to delete your message without answering it -- but it does seem an odd thing to do. You asked politely enough; surely your question merited at least a laconic response. The editor also made minor improvements to the one article I looked at. (Both articles are easy to find from your list of contributions.) I think that yes, in some ways the article does resemble a résumé. This is not a condemnation of the article or even of some of its sections; I've made first suggestions in Talk:Regine Schumann#Like_a_résumé%3F. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::The editor may have been "entitled", but he is treating me as if i was not even worth an anwer. I'm writing for wikipedia for more than ten years, and i deserve to be treated well and not as if i was a criminal. Noone ever complained about my lists of exhibitions - shouldn't that have been done when i posted the articles? I really don't like that way he treats me AT ALL. We do have a policy here to be friendly to each other and believe that the other person is good-willing, and i really don't understand at all, why a person whom i don't know and have never ever spoken to is out of no reason treating me as if i committed the most terrible crime. I'm absolutely not used to being treated like this - and i find it VERY unpleasant.

::And this being said, i'm extremely thankful that you gave me hints to what seems to be wrong and what i could do differently and i will have a deeper look into it and try to make it better. But, also to tell the truth, i'm sitting here crying. I am a person just as this doubledoublex2 and i deserve to be treated in a friendly manner!!! I'm very, very, very upset by the way he behaves. I'm writing for wikipedia for more than ten years, i have written really good articles (like the one he now again put such a tag on) and i don't know, why i'm being a. the goal of this actions and b. why he treats me with so much condemnation - because it that what he does! Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And again i just got an unfriendly answer by an administrator (not you!). Why is this being done to me. I'm a kind person, i'm polite, i do ask what did i do wrong, and just because i didn't write Wikipedia with a capital W -he admonishes me. Do admins in general not find it important to be friendly? I just don't get all this arrogance and aggression towards me. We have a conduct of behaviour, doesn't it apply to admins too??? Why this strange behaviour? I just wanted to learn how to do things better, but as nooone behalve you gives me a chance to do so, i'm very sad at the moment. I have not deserved to be treated like this! I'm a human being just as this admin. I just don't get this behaviour towards me. Not at all... and it's a very sad experience.

:::Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::From the Conduct of Behavior: "In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship." - respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity - i did not experience that from two contributors, only from Hoary. Naomi Hennig (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I submitted the following page for review

User:Sloggatt/sandbox

Originally I Submitted this and they moved it to drafts and then deleted because of lack of citations. I have created this one to only include the cited information from the New York Times as well as readily available Veterans information and have included references. Can someone experienced take a look and move to the main page after review? Sloggatt (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @Sloggatt, I was the editor that converted your page to a draft [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sloggatt&diff=prev&oldid=1288091450 here]. I did this, to quote the template I used, because it needs more sources to establish notability, you may have a possible conflict of interest (based on your username), and one of the sources is written by the subject's son. There are also some tips on what Wikipedia calls WP:Reliable sources left [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sloggatt&diff=prev&oldid=1288134570 here] on your user talk page. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 05:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I dont agree with this at all - its getting frustrating working within wikipedia - My Grandfather's cartoons appeared several times a week in the 2nd most widely circulated newspaper in the country in the late 50's and 60's - he was nominated for a Pulitzer prize - most people in America at that time had seen his cartoons. I have a personal archive of over 500 original cartoons that were published. I called the Library of Congress in NYC and they verified all the Daily Mirror papers are on record there with Art Sloggatt's cartoons. The Daily Mirror went out of business so the archives and references online are minimal but they do exist in the LOC. These are historical facts I have no conflict of interest and am not trying to misrepresent him in any way. Sloggatt (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I understand how frustrating this may be- Wikipedia has a lot of very specific rules. Writing an article is one of the hardest tasks a newcomer here can do. However, you do have a conflict of interest by Wikipedia's standards, because you're related to him, and must send your drafts through the Articles for Creation process. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Sloggatt, Sorry to confuse you. I was the editor who reviewed the current page. I don't know who deleted the old one. The page was not deleted, I am not sure what you mean. It was declined, mainly for not showing that Sloggatt met the criteria for biographies. Another requirement is significant coverage, the NYT article alone wouldn't satisfy this. The vet memorial is great but still not enough by itself. His late wife's obituary wouldn't help establish his wiki-notability. I hope that makes it clearer. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sloggatt, no article, draft or other page written by you (as "Sloggatt") has ever been deleted. You seem to have abandoned your creation Draft:Arthur Hastings Sloggatt. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::_{@Hoary, Thank you! Checking the page history it seems they meant it got moved to the draft space. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}

At Draft:Arthur Hastings Sloggatt and needs more refs. David notMD (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I have uploaded a copy of a Sanborn Insurance Map available from the Library of Congress, Georgraph and Map Division, Sanborn Maps Collection. The LOC says "The content of the Library of Congress online Sanborn Maps Collection is in the public domain and is free to use and reuse." What is the appropriate tag/licensing to use? It is not PD-old, since the file happens to be from 1944. It is not PD-Gov, since the map was not made by the US government. What do I use? TwoScars (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:@TwoScars I'm not an expert on copyright for that sort of source but if you don't get an answer quickly here you should ask at Commons (:c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright) where the experts hang out. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:It would depend why it's in the public domain...did Sandborn release it (or transfer license ownership to LoC who released it), or was it somehow not protected? Commons has a huge collection of them,. I spot-checked the 1940s ones, and they are all in the latter situation, as {{tl2|sister=c:|PD-US-no notice}}. If you have a Sandborn map of interest, why not put it on commons so all he wiki sites can share? DMacks (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm presuming we're talking about :c:File:BlenkoFactory1944InsMap.png that you had already uploaded to commons. That was confusing because your original comment seemed to be talking about something here on enwiki. But anyway, I see that you have now added the no-notice tag. I added the Sanborn cats. DMacks (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you all for your help. TwoScars (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Now at WP:ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Hi,

I have a strong suspicion of a group of people that are editors for years and they truly contribute in Wikipedia but at the same time promote nationalistic narrative in a very sneaky way. How should I proceed SolderUnion (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:For context, are you referring to whatever's going on at Talk:Ancient Macedonians? GoldRomean (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Am I allowed to post talk pages that have independently see a pattern of promoting nationalistic narrative?I ask because I got caution when I post it on talk pages. At the moment three editors including me have the same observation.This cannot be coincidence. I have to stress that the editors in question participate in wikipedia for many years and truly contribute to the project. What they are doing is very subtle and complex. My understanding is repeated omission to act shows intent. For example there was a mistake. The reference provided didn't correspond to what the article was saying. I corrected it and one of them reversed the changes. No one objected even if the mistake was obvious. This clearly shows intent. SolderUnion (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

: {{ec}} {{u|SolderUnion}}, First, read the behavioral guideline WP:Assume good faith. Talking about other editors behavior, especially in a negative way is a sensitive and tricky thing to do, and you are still brand new here, so it is best to avoid that for now. You should start out by locating specific content in one article that you feel promotes a nationalistic narrative, and start a discussion on the Talk page of the article about the *content* in the article, and not the editors. Identify the content you believe is WP:POV, and why you think it is. See how other editors respond to your concerns. Avoid mentioning other editors' names on the Talk page as much as possible, and address your concerns strictly about the article content. You can start a discussion at a second article that has similar problems, If, in time, more senior editors see a pattern of problems in the content of more than one article involving POV editing by the same group of editors, they may address this at user talk pages, or at a WP:WikiProject. An alternative, would be to use the template {{t|Help me}} on your own Talk page. Good luck, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. SolderUnion (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Note: this is being discussed at ANI: WP:ANI#SolderUnion. --ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Hello, helpful editors. Could you take a moment to review my submission:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Diriba_Eticha_Tujuba Draft:Diriba Eticha Tujuba] Wieditor25 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Things I may change;
From:
{{tq|1=Tujuba earned a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics with a specialization in leadership communication from Andhra University in India in 2019. He holds a Master of Arts in English from Adama University (2012) and a Bachelor of Arts in Foreign Language and Literature from Hawassa University (2005).}}
To:
{{tq|1=Tujuba has graduated Andhra University in India in 2019 with receiving a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics along with a specialization in leadership communication. He also holds a Master of Arts in English from Adama University (2012) and a Bachelor of Arts in Foreign Language and Literature from Hawassa University (2005).}}
From:
{{tq|1=Under Tujuba’s leadership, Gambella University has established various international collaborations. In January 2024, the university signed a memorandum of understanding with the Armauer Hansen Research Institute (AHRI) to collaborate on research related to indigenous medicinal plants and communicable diseases.^[4]{{pb}}Further partnerships were initiated with ICCS College of Engineering and Management in Kerala, India,^[5] and Hannam University in South Korea, aimed at faculty development and student exchange programs.}}
To:
{{tq|1=During Tujuba’s leadership, Gambella University has established various international collaborations. In January 2024, the university signed a memorandum of understanding with the Armauer Hansen Research Institute (AHRI) to collaborate on research related to indigenous medicinal plants and communicable diseases.^[4]{{pb}}Further partnerships were initiated with ICCS College of Engineering and Management in Kerala, India,^[5] and Hannam University in South Korea, aimed at faculty development and student exchange programs.}}
Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:It looks as though you have already submitted it to be looked at! Good things come with patience. (It looks good to me though.) MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 01:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you so much for checking it out! I appreciate your kind feedback and your time. Wieditor25 (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Wieditor25 I think that the current draft will struggle to show that Tujuba is notable as an academic. Your current citations 3 to 5 cover things the university did but do not provide significant coverage of him. I suspect that your main citation to a biography at a blockchain conference was written by him, so is not independent. That can be OK for uncontroversial information but does not help to show notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I might just have bad grammar, but why is it, for example, usually {{tpq|The American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift}} instead of {{tpq|American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift}}? Is this a grammar or style issue? Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think it's a primarily a style issue, not a grammar issue. Grammatically, both phrases are correct. The choice depends on context and emphasis. Fade258 (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Good question, {{U|GoldRomean}}. "American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift" is an "anarthrous" noun phrase: "an occupational term [American singer-songwriter] is used with no determiner [but here, modified by American] as a bare role [noun phrase] premodifier of a proper name [Taylor Swift]". A comment on this: "It is true that noun phrases like fertilizer salesman Scott Peterson are found in newspaper articles (in fact John Cowan points out to me that it is a well-known feature of the style associated with Time magazine), but I have never yet found anyone but Dan Brown using this construction to open a work of fiction. The construction sounds to me like the opening of an obituary rather than an action sequence. It's not ungrammatical; it just has the wrong feel and style for a novel." Source for all of that: Geoffrey K. Pullum, "[http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/001628.html Renowned author Dan Brown staggered through his formulaic opening sentence]", Language Log, 7 November 2004. It still sounds odd to me, but over the last twenty years it has undoubtedly become a lot more widely used. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! It mostly makes sense now. GoldRomean (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:See also the article False title. I despise people who omit "the" in these. :) Deor (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey so not sure if this is the right place to post this, but there seems to be an issue/glitch with the Wikipedia search bar. After trying to type Terence Crawford's name into the search bar, his suggested page does not show up. The same could be said for Junto Nakatani. Both were coming up in the search bar fine yesterday so I’m thinking maybe there’s some sort of glitch? Any help would be appreciated, thanks. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:@GOAT Bones231012 Both are working fine for me now. Looking for Terence Crawford gives four options as suggestions, as well as the standard "Search for pages containing..." Is that what you see now? Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, both are coming up fine now for me too, thanks. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Currently working on finally tidying up my user page, may I ask how I can make the userbox tab collapsible, whether I can also split it into different sections(and also if I can make those sections collapsible). If you want, just be bold and tidy it up for me, as that would be greatly appreciated.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Thehistorianisaac, To make it collapsible maybe try using Template:Userboxgroup. It already has it built in. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ok thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Since I forgot not only the password but also the username of the previous account, and even the e-mail was not connected to it, I had to create this new one. I'd like to correct the errors or typos mainly. You can see my talk page. Upset New Bird (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Upset New Bird Welcome. Creating a new account is fine if you have lost access to a previous one. Standard advice is to do a bit of detective work: try to think of some articles you previously edited, and when. Look in their edit histories and see if you recognise your edits. If you do, mention your old account name on your current user page, to explain the situation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Michael D. Turnbull: I forgot even my old account name completely. Oh my! Upset New Bird (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Then your choice of a new User name is appropriate. Happy editing! David notMD (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

When I view any article on mobile, whether logged in or logged out, I see the languages button near the upper left. When I click on it, it has my suggested languages (English and Simple English) but it always says "Missing in English", which I believe is supposed to link to the Content Translation interface. Obviously, if I'm already on English Wikipedia, the article is not missing in English. Is anyone else seeing this error, and was it reported somewhere? TagUser (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

So i decided to asking that, i want to translate to Vietnamese in summary and in this [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zhao_Xintong_2025.jpg File] but it's said "This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators" so could i edit them and im not an adminstrator too ? киска ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Namngocnghech|Wanna Slay ?]) 07:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello {{U|Namngocnghech}} ("киска"). If you are saying that you want to translate "English: Snooker player Zhao Xintong" (which already appears in :c:File:Zhao Xintong_2025.jpg) into Vietnamese and to have the Vietnamese translation added to :c:File:Zhao Xintong_2025.jpg, then I suggest that you create a section (perhaps titled "Summary in Vietnamese") in :c:File talk:Zhao Xintong 2025.jpg and post your Vietnamese-language summary there. -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Namngocnghech The file is protected currently because the article about him is linked on the English mainpage. If you wait until Zhao Xintong is no longer in the "in the news" section you should find that the file goes back to standard protection and you should be able to add your translation for its caption then. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I read a lot of articles on swimming races on Wikipedia. When it comes to an Summer Olympic event, none of them in the past will start the lead by telling you how many laps of a 50m pool that the race will take. Maybe because it is not necessary and is just filler info. Most people know basic math that a 200m freestyle race will mean 4 laps of a 50m Olympic pool. Yet recently an editor added into articles - Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre freestyle and also, Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre freestyle that those races requires 2 laps in a 50m Olympic pool in the lede. I just think this is unnecessary filler info that isn't suited for a lede that's meant to summarize only the most notable facts. Also it dumbs the article down as if it's accommodated for kindergartners. I made a talk thread - [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swimming_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_100_metre_freestyle#Rredundant_filler_info_in_lede] However I have to admit that despite I think it's filler info, I am not 100 percent sure what policy it violates. I do think it goes against Wp:Mos specifically - [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Relative_emphasis] and that we don't do this for any other Olympic swimming race articles ever but unsure of what policy exists to not allow unnecessary details that most sports readers of these articles don't need to be told about in lede. I already removed them by calling it as filler or unnecessary info. IP49XX (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Text doesn't necessarily have to be an explicit violation of policy to be removed. That it's not really helpful to an encyclopedic article about the event would be enough to argue for its removal. You went ahead and boldly removed the text (and I agree with you that it's kinda silly since we don't do that kind of basic aside in the lede for any other sporting event) and included your explanation why. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. I am a moderately experienced editor but I struggled to define the exact policy. I suppose I feel like a stingy landlord where the lede should be regarded as a prime real estate and should be concise and focused on key outcomes, and deliver the most newsworthy facts first; who won and why it mattered like records. Merely adding that the pool length is 50m and 2 laps must be done, is like explaining a soccer game was played on grass- technically that's true, but obvious, expected and distracting. It feels obvious yet I can't define that policy clearly.IP49XX (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Are 200m freestyle races always 4 laps of a 50m pool, or are they sometimes 2×100m, or 8×25m? I don't know, and I doubt "most people" do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I just think even if some readers still don't know the Olympic pool is 50m, the lede isn't the place to teach that. The lede is for the result - who won and records broken. Technical details like an Olympic pool length or lap count are better explained in the body or in a footnote. Tho they are better in a more general article like Olympic swimming unless there's some extraordinary reason like this particular race for the first time was done in a non standard pool or there was confusion. regardless the addition of the pool length and lap count is better to be mentioned further down the article and not in the lede where readers want to know what the race is and who won, and not the pool length or lap count. - It's basically like saying 100m sprint run was run on a track so runners needed to stay in their lanes - that may be informative to some, but it's not lead worthy unless something unusual happened. IP49XX (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::In my opinion it's not common enough knowledge that an Olympic pool is 50 metres long. Yes, 200m races are often 8 × 25m, just not in Olympics. To make technical articles understandable, I think this information should be included. It was already useful to the GA reviewer for this article, who didn't already know this. IAWW (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And I agree clarity is important but we should consider placement. Lede is meant to summarize the most important aspects of the event like who won and any records broken. It is not ideal for basic background details unless they're central to the race outcome. I want to keep the article professional and in line with Manual of style. We don't go adding to every single swimming race the first senntences telling people the pool length and laps count. Why start now just because you or Ga reviewer think it's central to the event. I don't think that it means it belongs to the lede, IP49XX (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:This discussion seems likes one best held on the article's Talk page -- or if it affects a lot of articles, maybe at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swimming where options like putting that sort of detail into infoboxes could be considered. -- Avocado (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The article is Return to the Kingdom of Fife which currently redirects to the band that made it, Gloryhammer. However, to keep it in line with the rest of the albums, I believe it should be it's own page. How should I go about requesting that? It has some media coverage, but I don't know how much it needs. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 14:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:You can create your article in your sandbox, then copy it over the contents of the redirect when you are ready.

:Or you may prefer to create it in WP:DRAFT space and submit it for review using the WP:AFC process, and whoever publishes it will replace the redirect for you.

:A third option is to expand the relevant section of the existing article on the band, then copy the material to the new article when ready. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I added several external links and references to this international artists but the items were removed by someone by the name of Tracy. All the information included additional citations for verification, reviews, interviews and links to Opera companies and concerts halls as sources for Gaston Rivero backing up his Wikipedia page. CraigAmstrong (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{courtesy link|Gaston Rivero}}

:{{ping|CraigArmstrong}} Why are you blindly slapping random references at the end of the article? That doesn't fly for articles on living people. We also don't cite interviews with him or any organisation he's worked for or with (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @CraigAmstrong. Please read WP:EXTERNALLINKS. An excessive amount of external links are not helpful. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I need help in order to add sources backing up the life of this artist. He is a renowned Opera Singer and this continues showing up in his page: This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous.

::Find sources: "Gaston Rivero" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) CraigAmstrong (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You should read WP:REFB, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP then. You're not using the links are sources, you're just plastering them at the end of the article. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::To expand on User:Tarlby's answer, you need to use the sources in the text, so that we can see which specific statements each source is supporting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe this is a more adminstator level question, but i stil think i should ask here, if someone knows. I uploaded a potrait picture of the singer Klavdia, for her article, as fair use, in the English wikipedia only, and mentioning there isn't any alternate free option as for this case, as fair-use guidelines say. When uploading it, i followed the template instructions and it said that the file will be deleted unless i put a reason, as why a non free file is needed, and why there aren't any free alternatives, which i did. It also states, when the image is used, to include a template to the caption. When i published the changes, and clicked on the template it says about F7, which grants the right of immediate deletion (Case 1), and the template code which was auto-generated was "{{Deletable file-caption|Saturday, 10 May 2025|F7}}", which has F7. Should/must the file be deleted immediately, or the a possible case exception, on the upload license template is valid?.

Image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Klavdia_singer_potrait_2025_non-free.jpg

Image (Cropped)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Klavdia_singer_potrait_2025_non-free_(cropped).jpg Mant08 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm sorry to say that the file should be deleted. While no free image might currently be available, a suitable image could be created, which is one of the criteria. If someone were to take a good photo of her at a performance, for instance, they could release it under a free license and we could use it. Maybe there are some Wikipedians who are going to be at Eurovision? --rchard2scout (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Rchard2scout Thank you for your response, i am deleting the full size image (somehow?), and if exists a template about that the imahe should be replaced. Mant08 (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Both files will be deleted within a few days. They are already marked for automatic processing. I can delete them manually now if you'd prefer to just have them gone. DMacks (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

How do I add content to a table that already exists in wikipedia? Cockleburr1 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Cockleburr1, If you click on "edit", then any of the boxes of the table you can edit inside the table. If you want to add more boxes, press the arrows that show up when you click a box, then click add row/column. Hope that helps, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your response. I was afraid to ask because I should have been able to figure this out through the help section but I just couldn't formulate my query to get what I needed. Your kind answer helped me a lot and I appreciate your response. Thank you again. Cockleburr1 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Cockleburr1, No problem. We all, myself included, need help sometimes. Happy editing, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

When searching for "Alpine Camp for Boys" on Google, the camp website and social media pages come up. If you explicitly search, "Alpine Camp for Boys Wikipedia," a list of summer camps appears (in which the page is linked.) How do pages become verified (if that is the name for the process of making the page easy to find), or how do I make that happen?

Thanks! Your Friendly Neighborhood Nerd (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Your Friendly Neighborhood Nerd, I believe they either are reviewed by a New Page Reviewer or 90 days. Hope that helps, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 20:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I got a notification that my page had been reviewed, but no other info was given. I can say it's older than 90 days, and searching it up still does not show a page. Your Friendly Neighborhood Nerd (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Then that may be a case of Google crawler not catching that page yet. Sorry, but you might just have to wait. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Google crawler?

::::Oh well. I'll wait. How many days/months do you think it would take? Your Friendly Neighborhood Nerd (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have no clue. Probably within a few days. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Oof. it's been a week. oh well... I'll survive Your Friendly Neighborhood Nerd (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Your Friendly Neighborhood Nerd [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Alpine+Camp+for+Boys The logs show] that the article was reviewed on May 2. In my experience, a further edit to the live article after that date will make search engines take note. So I suggest you make such an edit now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Alright then. Your Friendly Neighborhood Nerd (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm an occasional Wikipedia editor. I know what I should do but I don't know well the guidelines to point others towards. I recently noticed a relatively new Wikipedia editor added a level of detail that is probably too much to the Clearwater Ferry section. It also seems somewhat bias in favor of the rich man who has been in the spotlight for crashing into the ferry.

Anyway, the information seems factually correct but somehow not exactly needed for the article. I'm not how to approach the situation or which guidelines should be referred to about this.

I don't have a lot of time to edit Wikipedia these days and dealing with a conflict like this isn't something I'm up for.

It would be much appreciated if someone with more experience could help with this situation by either showing what should be done or letting me know it's a non-issue. Thanks!

RayScript (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

So on the article Ari Melber, the whole lead after the first sentence sounds like a very long ad for Melber's MSNBC TV show The Beat with Ari Melber. Seems like it's been noticed on the talk page as well. I've already kinda remedied the lead issue on The Beat{{'}}s article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beat_with_Ari_Melber&diff=1289502425&oldid=1289501271 here].

So the question is: can I simply remove the excessive lead content about Melber's TV show from the Ari Melber article? Most of that is already on the Beat{{'}}s article. Limmidy (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sure, you can boldly improve the article that way. I agree the lead is promotional in tone and should be fixed. Good job on The Beat's article by the way :) The Sophocrat (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Great! I've gone ahead and performed a bold removal of it. Thanks! Limmidy (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Friends,

User id is Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas , We need to know that our submission for Review is approved or something is pending for clarification from our end , please share / regards Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please be clear on your query and which submission are you talking for review? Fade258 (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Dear Fade258,

::Please open below link , we are query for the submission of below link;

::User:Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas/sandbox. Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hello, {{u|Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas}}. You have not submitted your draft for review. If you did, it would be declined as unreferenced. Please be aware that unreferenced biographies of living people are contrary to policy. Please read Your first article carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi {{U|Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas}}, I am just seeing your draft and found that, that was in userspace. If you want to publish this page as a Wikipedia article, you need to move it to the correct title and submit it for review through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. You can also follow the instruction given by Cullen. Note: IMO, It looks like an autobiography. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas/sandbox has been declined. Do not resubmit until all content it referenced by quality references. See WP:42 for what that means. If this person (you?) has not been written about by other people, there is no potential for it to become an article. David notMD (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I wonder who 'we' refers to. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Hope you're well. I am trying to create a page for ​Roger Chennells in drafts and a "this title is blacklisted" message popped up. How do I get around this to be able create and edit this page? Thanks! FazielahWonderCommsSA (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Can you please provide a link for that? I see nothing message like that, as you said above. Fade258 (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Fade258 Clicking on ​Roger Chennells or Draft:​Roger Chennells gives a blacklist notification. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{U|FazielahWonderCommsSA}}, Yes. I can see the title is blacklisted. You can request for title delisting or contact administrator for this. Fade258 (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi FazielahWonderCommsSA Please ignore the above. Your post has a zero-width space right before Roger. Your browser may reveal there is a non-displayed character when you try to pass it with arrow keys in the edit window. It depends on the copy method whether it's included when you try to make a link. I omitted it here in a working link: Draft:Roger Chennells. https://r12a.github.io/uniview (not affiliated with Wikipedia) can show non-displayed characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@PrimeHunter, Thank You. It works now. Fade258 (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks everyone. I have successfully managed to start a new draft FazielahWonderCommsSA (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{u|FazielahWonderCommsSA}} the draft Draft:Roger Chennells has been Speedy deleted. The content about him was not referenced. Referencing his publications does not contribute to establishing notability. See WP:42 for what is needed. David notMD (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi all! Need your help, please: if someone wants to add a company on Wikipedia with the basic facts about it, is that possible (allowed) to do and how to do it (the procedure itself)? Thank you very much in advance! Dape13 (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{U|Dape13}}, Yes, You can create a article of a company that you want. If the company is notable enough. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable and independent references to the subject. Fade258 (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Dape13}} Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of a company and tell of its offerings, nor is it a place for companies to tell about themselves. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please also see conflict of interest and paid editing if it is your company that you want to write about. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:If the article you write is notable and short, it would be a stub. But as long it is notable [and does not have other problems] it will not be deleted. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 11:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is only the case if the article is created directly in article space- stubs will not pass the WP:AFC process. Drafts don't need to be complete, but they need to be more than a stub. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Per 3312dot, if you have any connection, declare that on your User page and use AfC to submit a draft for review, per WP:YFA. David notMD (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

: Draft:Tsitsi Masiyiwa

Hi Guys, hoping someone is able to please point me in the right direction. I submitted a draft for BOLP, this was the 3rd submission and has been declined again on the basis that the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I thought I had applied due diligence in researching all available references on the subject available to the general public and even included references from sources that are credible and impartial (ie: Vanity Fair & Forbes). I would appreciate any guidance. Thank you. Substantiator (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Sustantiator}} Hello and welcome. The whole url is not needed when linking, I fixed this for you.

:If you have a connection to this person, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You have basically posted her resume; not a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about her and what makes her important/significant/influential as a person- what we call a notable person. Awards only contribute to notability if the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::For reasons stated The list of honors and awards does not contribute to her notability, but in my opinion that information can remain as it is informative. However, that is half the references. Of the other references, which in your thoughts meet the standards stated at WP:42? David notMD (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Why are some editor saying that I can't write "He Has been serving as mayor since 2024" on politician page because its a Biography. I have to write "He serves as mayor since 2024" M1rrorCr0ss 10:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't know why other editors are saying that: have you asked them? I would say "He has served as" rather than either of those. ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Might be a hoax, the editor has posted that someone has been mayor since 1000 BC. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{U|M1rrorCr0ss}}, the verb "serve" is unnecessary there. I suggest: "He has been mayor since 2024." -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

: {{u|M1rrorCr0ss}}, I would avoid use of the present perfect tense ("has been [mayor]") due to possible WP:RELTIME issues which could make the statement false in the future. If this is a dusty little town that attracts few editors to the article, a reader reading the article in 2026 may be reading a false statement if no one bothers to update the article after the next mayoralty election. It's better to just use wording that is WP:Verifiable regardless when a reader reads it. So I would suggest: "{{xt|He was elected mayor in 2024}}" (or, or was appointed, or became, or whatever the case may be). That remains true, regardless who the current mayor is. Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I was going through Special:Random to try finding articles to add links to when I noticed a particular section of an article (Tutankhamun and the Daughter of Ra) that seemed suspicious and might have been plagiarized from elsewhere (Plot summary), so I searched it up, and found it on [https://www.amazon.com/Daughter-Ra-Ankhesenamun-Tutankhamun-Egyptian/dp/184319354X Amazon], [https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/tutankhamun-and-the-daughter-of-ra-moyra-caldecott/1015323173 Barnes and Noble] and various other sites. I understand that users should be bold, but placing a template or notice or something of that sort claiming copyright infringement is a bit too extreme, along with my lack of knowledge about copyright, especially with book summaries. Would this require an edit or any sort of action? hi (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:You can follow the advice here Synonimany (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Probably not too extreme. What is extreme is the copyright infringement, which Wikipedia takes pretty seriously and should be removed and revision deleted ASAP. And WP:BEBOLD does apply here: the harm done by an accidental copyright template is much less than that of an unnoticed copyvio. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Question for other hosts: I've gone ahead and removed the copyrighted content (assuming I'm correct in that it is a copyvio), and now I should probably request revdel. Honestly this article might even ought to be sent to AfD, but do I request revdel of the entire article? Since the copied stuff has been there since the original creation in 2005... Best, GoldRomean (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::One of the problems is that sites looking for random blurb often cut-and-paste from Wikipedia without attribution, so you have to work out which way it was plagiarized: did we copy them, or did they copy us? To be honest, I'd be more worried about the notability and sourcing issues. This particular article has no sourcing whatsoever, and if the only sourcing available is a couple of reviews at the time of publication, is it sensible to have an article on the book at all? Elemimele (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::True, but the removed content should probably stay like that until we know for certain if it was stolen or not. hi (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, sensible Elemimele (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your help. I often see on some pages such as the politics of Yemen a request for citations. However when I tried to add a true fact to the page on the text "lord and father of mankind", it was deleted because the editor didn't like my citation. Why didn't they just post the notice that is was insufficient?

Thanks

Debra Watkins Newbycpa (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:The important thing to remember is that Wikipedia has no central editorial board enforcing policies.It's all done by volunteers, and nobody is 100% up to date on everything. DS (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I would also point out that there's a difference between "this statement needs a citation" and "this citation doesn't say what you claim it does" (and also "this statement is unnecessary and promotional"). DS (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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

:In an ideal world, we wouldn't use those tags, because all claims in every article would be cited to a reliable source. But particularly in the early days of Wikipedia, many editors didn't do that, so we have thousands and thousands of inadequately cited articles.

:In a slightly less ideal world, when an editor finds an uncited piece of information, they would look for a source and add it (or remove the information if they can't find one); sometimes people do that, but often they lack the knowledge, or the time, or the interest to do so, and so sometimes they add one of those tags - this is sometimes referred to as drive-by tagging.

:But when you are adding information now, it is seen as your responsibility to cite a suitable source, since you are the one adding the information.

:If you think that your source is adequate, open a discussion with the editor who reverted: see WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think you are confused about what citations are. Politics of Yemen has a "citations needed" tag. That means that the article needs sources. What you added to Dear Lord and Father of Mankind had nothing to do with citations on Politics of Yemen. As @Feline Hymnic said in their revert's edit summary, {{tpq| A ref is supposed to be a cite of a reliable source that supports a claim in the article's text. Instead, this looks a promotion of a product. Please see, and follow WP:CITE.}} GoldRomean (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Metawikipedians.

I’m here to gauge interest on a Wikipedia article idea of mine, or to see if it has already been created under a different name. I think an article that talks about scientific exploration of magick and occultism could be useful; there are pages about magick but they don’t really contain scientific exploration of the subjects.

so im curious if anyone else would like to see this article be created. Polkol777 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's not a question of "does anyone else want the article to be created". If you want the article to be created, that's the only thing that's necessary. The catch is, if you want the article to stay instead of getting deleted, it has to meet requirements. DS (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Fair, so essentially the article must be notable and follow other guidelines of wikipedia. Just curious if others are interested in it to also help with editing it Polkol777 (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hello, @Polkol777, and welcome to the Teahosue.

:::It's not the article that must be notable: rather, the article must have suitable sources that establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. You would need to cite, and indeed base the article on, several reliable sources that discuss specifically "the scientific exploration of magick and occultism", (or whatever you decide the subject is precisely). Sources which do such exploration, as opposed to discussing it as a topic, would not be useful.

:::You might find somebody interested - or, indeed, somebody who can point you to an existing article - at WP:WikiProject Occult. ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)