Wikipedia:Teahouse#CSD

Hi there, I have a question about Wikipedia guidelines concerning article introductions. My understanding of this from a few years ago was that the introduction is intended to summarize key points from the body of the article. Is that still correct?

I ask because I work at the Wyss Foundation, and it's not clear why half of the introductory section for that article is now about a separate organization (the Berger Action Fund). The claims about Berger are largely correct (though there are some important factual omissions from the cited sources), but again Berger is not Wyss, and this information is never referenced again in the body of the article, so I'm not sure why it's in the introduction.

I've made requests about Wyss Foundation content before using the article Talk page, but I want to make sure I understand Wikipedia guidelines correctly before I engage there again. Any feedback would be appreciated. ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @ZH for Wyss Foundation. Yes, the lead of an article is a summary of the body. MOS:LEAD should have everything you need to know regarding this. Good luck. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hello, {{u|ZH for Wyss Foundation}}. You are correct that the lead section should summarize the content of the body, and you can learn more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Given that these two groups are funded by the same man, and share offices and staff, and are sometimes discussed together in reliable sources such as the New York Times, it is not unreasonable to describe them both in the same article. More content about the Berger Action Fund could be added to the body of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for the information. I'm still a bit confused, though. There is currently no mention of Berger in the body of the article. Why, then, is Berger covered at length in the introduction? ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Because someone some time ago added it without thinking of the lead being a summary. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for the explanation. It's been several years since I made a Talk page request, and I don't want to make a misstep. Would it be reasonable to ask if the introductory paragraph in question could be moved into the body of the article? And then maybe a sentence or two summary could still be included in the intro? ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: {{u|ZH for Wyss Foundation}}, more than reasonable; in fact, that is exactly what should have been done at that article in the first place. Feel free to add your edit request to the talk page. Be sure to be very specific so anyone reading your requeset will understand exactly what is to be moved, and ideally, where in the body. If you have suggested wording for the summary to be added to the lead, please add that, too. Note that the lead is supposed to summarize only the most important points of the article, so if you judge the fund to be a more minor point, the fund would not have to be mentioned in the lead at all; that is more of a judgment call on how important it is to the whole topic. Mathglot (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you for the advice. Would it be okay if I tagged you in the request? ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: {{u|ZH for Wyss Foundation}}, yes. Mathglot (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Kind regards. I wanted to ask if there was a precedent for citing from a reference whose origin is not known precisely. An example would be having a physical copy or picture from the page of a book, but not knowing or remembering its name, author or publisher. I wanted to know how this was handled with the traditional template, and how known information can be added (such as the library where it was retrieved from), assuming it meets the reliability threshold. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is massively contaminated with junk, and no doubt there are thousands of precedents, NoonIcarus; but their number don't justify it. However formatted, {{Olive|Page 35 of a book, almost certainly in English, and published in the late 20th century but no later than 1993.}}, for example, wouldn't show the reader where to find the page. Therefore it would be unsuitable, however ingeniously one might use a Cite template for the purpose. -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hello, {{u|NoonIcarus}}. Precisely Googling a distinctive sentence from such a source may identify the source, if you are lucky. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Or for pictures a reverse image search. Polygnotus (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you. The specific example that I'm thinking about is a list of films along with their respective budgets. The downside is that this makes it harder to identify the source compared to a sentence, but on the bright side it's also probably easier finding the information online or in other references. Still, I leave the question open for bibliographical material that may not be as easily digitlized. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Many thanks for your insight. I totally agree that just because a mistake is commonplace or a lot of people makes it doesn't make it right. I guess another way to put the question is how much "complementary" information from the source is enough to turn the lack of main info appropriate, if any. Just some food for thought. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with Hoary that verifiability is key. If the reader cannot trace the information to a reliable source, then the citation loses its value in an encyclopedia. At the same time, I think your question—how much complementary information is enough when the core citation info is missing—is worth exploring further, especially for physical or rare materials that aren't easily digitized.

:::One thing I’m considering is whether it's possible to temporarily include such information on the article’s talk page while trying to track down the full reference. Maybe adding a tag like {{citation needed}} or {{better source}} could also alert others to help identify the source. Jeong seolah (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I tried to make the page "Memelord" but it did not let me do so. Is there any reason why this page cannot be made? It has the RSes to justify a spot on here I would think. Thanks! Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:That article has been protected from creation due to extensive vandalism. If you think you can write an acceptable article about this topic, please submit a draft via the article wizard. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Gjb0zWxOb}}, please be aware that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that Wiktionary already has an entry for "Memelord". Cullen328 (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi there! The reason you’re unable to create the Memelord article is because the page has been protected from creation due to repeated past vandalism or non-notable attempts. That means new pages with that title can’t be created directly.

:However, if you believe the topic meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and you have reliable sources (RS) to support it, you can still write a draft version using the Article Wizard. Once written, it can be reviewed by editors before being moved to the mainspace.

:Also, note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary—if you’re focusing on the definition or slang usage of memelord, it may be more appropriate for Wiktionary, where an entry already exists.

:Hope that helps and good luck with your draft! LookatmiWiki (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello hello! I'm currently working on the (English language) Wikipedia page for the Länsimetro, however I've noticed that the Finnish Wikipedia pages :fi:Länsimetro and :fi:Länsimetron_historia are seemingly pretty well done and contain better-presented and generally better information. I do not speak Finnish, nor pretend to, however I still believe it would be beneficial to cross-pollinate between the two articles. Would it be acceptable for me to use machine-translated text from the two Finnish articles in order to update the English article, so long as I flag it on the talk page, or is this a task better left for fluent speakers of Finnish? Thanks! BerkutSimp (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Generally you can use machine translation to turn the Finnish text into English, but you should generally copyedit to ensure it sounds like normal prose and isn't a mess of garbled sentences. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::I see, thanks a lot! BerkutSimp (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hello, @BerkutSimp. There are two other caveats: the first is to make sure that your translated text is well sourced and properly cited. If you translate text that is not sourced up to the level required in English Wikipedia (see WP:42) then what you are doing is effectively writing the article backwards. The second is to give correct attribution, which is a legal requirement of the licence Wikipedia uses. See WP:Translate us. ColinFine (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:If you are not able to read Finnish yourself, you should not be performing translations from Finnish. See the page for the content translation tool for descriptions of the past pitfalls of using machine translation; ultimately, if the best we can do is a blind machine translation, readers can do that themselves. I'm not personally familiar with Finnish either or the general quality of machine translation for Finnish to English, but it is a language far enough removed from English that I would be very doubtful of the quality of machine-generated translations, as performance will likely be more similar to English--Chinese or English--Hebrew (read: bad) than English--Spanish (a relatively consonant pair of languages that are also commonly translated, creating a large body of training data to build off of for the translation algorithms) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thus far I've simply resigned myself to updating the page with a public transit infobox, because I'd imagine simple figures and one-word entries are far less prone to mistranslation. However, I would rather defer to you if you feel as though even that is too error-prone to bear BerkutSimp (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I frankly don't think this is too much of a problem - I use machine translation as a basis to write Great Han Sichuan Military Government and REM-KL (from Chinese and Russian respectively) with few issues. It definitely would help if you cross-reference with other things outside Wikipedia to ensure what you're saying is accurate. As long as you have the general idea of what the original text is saying, you should be fine. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 15:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::To be frank, {{u|BerkutSimp}}, the advice that you are getting from {{u|PhoenixCaelestis}} is false. Any editor translating Wikipedia content from another language to English (or vice versa) is expected to have working competence in both languages, or to collaborate with another human editor who speaks the other language well. Machine translation can and regularly does make serious errors in meaning, especially when translating content that discusses complex concepts or includes idioms, slang and colloqualisms. So, I strongly encourage both of you to refrain from irresponsible use of machine translation. I am pinging {{u|Mathglot}} to this conversation, a highly experienced editor who is interested in this problem on Wikipedia. I am in general agreement with what {{u|Rosguill}} wrote above. Cullen328 (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

: {{u|BerkutSimp}}, in a word, no, it is not acceptable. You should leave it for speakers of Finnish. Although machine translation is far better than it once was, it continues to make serious errors on occasion. If you do not know the language, there is no way to know when that occurs, and therefore no way to ensure verifiability, which is a core content policy of Wikipedia. As several editors have already mentioned, competence in the foreign language and in English is a prerequisite to using translated content at Wikipedia.

: In addition, the original article was written by Finnish Wikipedia volunteers, not domain experts, and is therefore not a reliable source. The citations in their article hopefully are reliable and may or may not support the Finnish content, but how would you know if you don't speak the language? Even if the translation of the article is faithful to the Finnish original, it's important to be able to understand the foreign citations in order to maintain verifiability. If you machine-translate unverifiable content and add it here, you are in violation of our verifiability policy. If you need additional help regarding translation, feel free to contact me on my Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::I see, tysm for letting me know ^_^ I really appreciate it. I don't think any of the information in the infobox I created is inaccurate, at least according to the sources I looked at, however I see how they might not hold up under scrutiny. I leave the question of whether it stays up to more experienced Wikipedians than I, however, though I'd like to say that said Wikipedians should feel free to do so if they feel it is best. BerkutSimp (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@BerkutSimp If you ever do find that a foreigh-language Wikipedia article looks good, and, more ipmortantly, has good sourcing, please feel free to leave a note on the talk page mentioning that! Hopefully somebody competent in the language will see it. Or, if you just want to cite a fact or two, you can maybe ask for help from somebody in :Category:Wikipedians by language. There's no guarantee, but many people are okay with translating a sentence or two. I know I've met people on the Wikimedia Discord who've translated things for me, or translated entire documents for other editors... but that's a bit more unusual! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 04:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:As a native Finnish speaker, I occasionally test Google Translate (and some other tools) between Finnish and English, just to see how they're coming along, especially because Finnish has a notoriously difficult grammar. While these tools are certainly improving, they're still far from perfect. I'd say that if you translate four sentences from Finnish to English, Google gets three of them pretty spot-on, but the fourth one is either almost right but with a subtle mistake such as translating an idiom literally or getting two homographs mixed up, or in some cases is complete gobbledegook. Gobbledegook is easy for anyone to spot, but if you don't know Finnish you're very unlikely to catch the subtle mistake because it looks superficially okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, on the article that I am creating, (The article is Draft:2024–25 in European women's basketball) some of the leagues have a third place tie, but the tie has a different format (for example, the final could be a best of three while the third place play is a home and away aggregate tie). Bulgaria's league is the example, where the final is a best of five but the third place game is a home and away aggregate tie. How do I change it so it resembles the differing formats? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:The best way to my knowledge would be editing the template directly. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry, what do you mean by that? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's okay, I mean by editing the template to include that option manually. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 17:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The problem is that I really know very little about coding ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::You can most likely make an edit request for the page and someone can help you with it! :) Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 17:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I did that. Hopefully that helps ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Alright, hope that works! Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 23:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Earlier today, Mike Waltz was announced as an intended nominee for US ambassador to the UN. Several editors have modified his infobox to include to this position, though he has not been confirmed to the post. Is this acceptable? I was of the believe that officeholder infoboxes should only feature offices that the subject actually held (or was elected to but has/did not yet assumed). Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would consider it, not notable, I have found a source about this, if you wish to read up on it, its Wikipedia:TDS, if you have any questions please reach out to me. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Valorrr}} Notability is not the issue here. I am very confused by your comment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The title I refer to "Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article". Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And the check what I left on your talk-page. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Seems to be contravening WP:CRYSTAL. Bazza 7 (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Valorrr}} there is no issue of notability here. Nobody is talking about creating an article—this about whether an infobox should reflect a status they do not yet possess. {{re|Bazza_7}}, thanks for the reply. I think you're right that CRYSTAL is most applicable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I understand, both are applicable, the source is used from truth-social, making it about Trump, and thats why I applied WP:TDS. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia page for Terrance Howard, I have reverted a few edits that redact criticism of the living persons without providing a source, which I believe not to be in good faith as the account has a small history only of reverted edits. I don't think I am in the wrong for these rollbacks, but I am getting notes left by said editor on my talk page regarding edit warring (after only a couple rollbacks of undescribed changes) and "being unkind to fellow Wikipedians", which while I do not agree with them, I am not sure if I am in the right to delete them. I feel like I would be fine given the editor's history but want to check. How do I proceed? CollinDChase (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Politicalscaffolder&diff=prev&oldid=1288347511 Given the reply given on his talk page], I feel comfortable removing the note, but would still like some insight on how to deal with this. CollinDChase (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hello, {{u|CollinDChase}}, and welcome! The account has been blocked. For dealing with vandals, you can leave a note on the Administrators' vandalism intervention board{{snd}}Twinkle can help with this. As for your talk page, you are not required to keep most stuff on your talk page in general and I would have no qualms about removing those particular edits on your talkpage. Hope this helps! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I just finished translating an article, which I chanced upon while browsing through the Ukrainian Cultural Diplomacy Month page. It can be found on Ukrainian/Crimean Tatar Wikipedia. It's on my userpage right now, and I'm not quite sure how a translated article is added and linked to all the other languages of Wikipedia. NasiLemakAddict (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:@NasiLemakAddict

:1. upload the translated article

:Create a new article with your translation in the appropriate language Wikipedia (e.g., Ukrainian, Crimean Tatar). When saving the article, it is recommended to leave the source of the translation in the edit summary (e.g., “This article is a translation of a Korean Wikipedia article. Original: en:Article name”).

:2. Linking between languages (interwiki links)

:Once articles are created, you can link them together by adding interlanguage links. In recent years, most interlanguage links have been managed through **Wikidata**, where they can be found at By adding a Sitelink to the article in Wikidata, you can create an interlanguage link, allowing each language Wikipedia to link to each other's article

:You can also find more information in Help:Interlanguage links and Wikipedia:Translate us. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:NasiLemakAddict, you have created this at User:NasiLemakAddict/Coffee culture of Crimean Tatars. Thank you for making it clear in the summary for your first edit that this is a translation of a uk:Wikipedia page. Before you proceed further, a question. Your user page shows your ability in six languages, but Ukrainian isn't among them. How proficient are you at reading Ukrainian? -- Hoary (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Not really, I just translate based on Google Chrome's translation. So maybe it doesn't fit some criteria? Maybe someone proficient in Ukrainian can verify and improve. Either way it's an interesting article and I would like to see it available on English. NasiLemakAddict (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{U|NasiLemakAddict}}, I'll agree that the result is interesting. But we should be able to stand behind the quality of what we write/add -- or at least the fidelity of what we write/add to the reliable sources that this references. We can't do that if we don't understand what we are getting Google Translate to digest. Please look in the thread titled "Is it considered acceptable to use machine-translated text from other wikis", above: it has excellent comments from (in what seems to be chronological order) {{U|Rosguill}}, {{U|Cullen328}}, and {{U|Mathglot}}, comments that apply to machine translations from either Finnish or Ukrainian. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::OK, I'll look into it NasiLemakAddict (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Concern, I am a new editor. I submitted Draft: Rotimi Solomon Ajanaku but it was declined for being too autobiographical and lacking notability. Could someone please review or give guidance on improving it to meet Wikipedia’s standards?

Thank You R.ajanaku7 (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Partly asked and answered at User talk:HickoryOughtShirt?4. It wasn't declined for being too autobiographical per se, but because there is no proper secondary sourcing. "Too autobiographical" is probably a result of the article not being neutral at all, but "neutral" is a thing that the dictionary can explain to you. Drmies (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Some of what are intended to be references at Draft:Rotimi Solomon Ajanaku are not properly formatted, instead appearing as hyperlinks. David notMD (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I recently did a edit for the Qualcomm page adding a new product line, Dragonwing, the IoT, Robotics, and Etc. but it linked to a page called list of x-men enemies, instead of making a red link, or linking to a dragonwing page (which is something that doesn't exist yet). How would I go about writing a article? im really confused. LeoPysmak (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|LeoPysmak}}, if you want there to be an article about the Qualcomm product "Dragonwing", you create a draft about it (and don't link to the draft). Once you think it's ready, you submit it for approval. If it gets accepted, the reviewer will sort out the existing redirect for you. Maproom (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I am working on an article, Corruption in Greenland, and I think I have found a good source [https://www.sermitsiaq.ag/samfund/korruption-flere-sager-om-bestikkelse/514714] But it's in Danish/Greenlandic. How would I go about getting it translated? I don't want to use a machine translator as they are inaccurate. Thank you, loserhead (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Loserhead}} You could ask for help or advice on WT:WikiProject Denmark. You should probably use machine translation to get an overview, then ask for confirmation of specific phrases, rather than asking volunteers to translate the whole thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:I usually use a machine translator, supplemented with an online dictionary, for sources in other languages. Cremastra _talk 19:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

(Draft: Draft:A Dog's Courage) It got denied because it had no reliable sources, but I don’t see how they aren’t reliable? Henihhi28 (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Henihhi28 None of your sources are independent of Cameron. A couple just show that the book exists and one is to Cameron's own website. For a book to meet wikinotability, or for its author to do so, we need evidence that it has been read and reviewed, for example in reliable newspapers. Note how A Dog's Way Home (novel) has such sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

When I fulfill an edit request, should I ping the user who submitted the request when I say {{Done}}? Thanks. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 21:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:In my opinion, this may be different for others, but I usually don't, unless the editor specifically asks. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 23:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ec}} It wouldn't hurt, but it's probably not necessary, since the editor who made the request is probably watching the page or at least will check back on their own. Deor (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, it also depends on if they're using a script, for example I use Wikipedia:Convenient Discussions, which auto subscribes me to the topic if I reply or create it, really depends on the user. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 23:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks! 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 23:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know whether my draft: Draft:Shelby (dog) meets the criteria for wikinotabilty even though it isn’t finished yet. I just wanna make sure. Henihhi28 (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:The reference to wbrucecameron.com appears to be a blog, which wouldn't do much for notability, but your other two references look good actually. [https://www.examiner-enterprise.com/story/entertainment/2019/02/22/shelby-finds-stardom-in-8216/5879013007/ This one] might also be of use to you. This seems like it has a good chance at being notable, seeing as the movie has an article. See List of individual dogs and you might be able to get an idea of how many references you need from that. MediaKyle (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::I removed the blog, and thanks Henihhi28 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::I just submitted it - Wish me luck! Henihhi28 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry, maybe my answer was a little misleading - when I said your other two references look good, I meant they're good to use as references, but you're going to need more than just those two articles to assert notability. I'd keep looking and see what else you can add. MediaKyle (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok, I will because the article does seem very stubby. Henihhi28 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::So far I managed to find more source backing it up, hopefully it makes the cut even though its few. Henihhi28 (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::What evidence supports identifying Shelby as a pit bull? David notMD (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I fixed that, the sources say she’s a Rottweiler-German Shepherd mix Henihhi28 (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Should this revision be hidden [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Biden&diff=1288456792&oldid=1287704181] Cwater1 (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think so. It's not overtly offensive, just bad faith vandalism. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Okay [thumbs up] Cwater1 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I've recently been manually translating articles from non-English Wikipedias into the English Wikipedia. I came across the Content Translation tool, but even though I already have extended confirmed rights, the tool doesn't seem to be working for me.

When I try to use it, it doesn’t translate any text or load anything on the English side. I’m not sure if it’s a technical issue or a permission-related restriction. Need Guidance! 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 07:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please read this section on its guide page. Easternsahara (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello... I found some errors in the films list related article List of Pakistani films of 2025. There are columns, colors and Manual of Style disarranged and difficult to understand. I have made some fixes, which i know and i can do. I need further improvements in the list and columns as per other related lists. Thank you Misopatam (talk | contribs) 08:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello Misopatam, lists that are in niche topics such as Pakistani films of 2025 tend to be unorganized and messy. This is true of most lists unless they have a user who fixes them when new information comes out or vandalism occurs. An example for List of World Heritage Sites would be the user Tone. Since there are various ways to arrange pages, you should look at other List of (Demonym) Films of (year) and follow that consensus or change it by discussing it. This can be done either on Wikiprojecet:Lists or the talk page, I am not sure as I have never done it before. The best place to look are featured list in this scope because other less developed lists tend to be less well-formatted. You can also place {FormattingError|error message}} (with two curly brackets at the beginning and end) on the page and hope someone comes by and fixes it. Easternsahara (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Can you please do it yourself. You can see List of Pakistani films of 2024 and made arrangements by looking from this article lists Misopatam (talk | contribs) 13:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok. Easternsahara (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you. Misopatam (talk | contribs) 13:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you but now i have fixed it myself and Resorted the better version because it was disruptive by IP. Misopatam (talk | contribs) 19:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Please could I have some help with the article Tom Venning. What is the consensus on creating other pages for newly elected legislators? Moondragon21 (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:What help do you need? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:"Elected legislator" at a national or first-subnational level: notable, no argument. That said, I would wait until all the votes have been counted. DS (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Could someone please review and approve the following drafts?

• :Draft:Diriba Eticha Tujuba
• :Draft:Genanew Gofe Gonfa
• :Draft:Liviu Movileanu

Thanks in advance! Wieditor25 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I reviewed them for you, (declined) you thought the reviews "unfair' and blanked them, and have not disclosed your conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::I clearly explained during the discussion that this is 100% not a paid article or a promotional piece, and that it didn't receive a fair review. It could add value to Wikipedia, if a fair reviewer take a time to review it. An a draft declined in one one second review, wow! We all have something better to do...

::~~ Wieditor25 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Whether or not it is a "paid article or a promotional piece", if you have a CoI you are still required to declare it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I did but since the reviewer had a different interpretation- just reviewed the article on ONE second, then I chose to revert. Wieditor25 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::And where did you do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I am not a reviewer, but it is obvious to me that Draft:Diriba Eticha Tujuba is not currently acceptable as a Wikipedia article, because as far as I can see it does not have one single source that meets the triple requirement of being reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42).

:::Most of the sources are from institutions connected with Tujuba, and so are not independent of him, and the ones about the MoU with AHRI are not about him, and in any case (since they are substantially the same) are clearly based on a press release, and so are fail the test of independence as well as the test of significant coverage.

:::A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Until you can find and cite several (at least three) different sources which meet the requirements in WP:42, you will not have established notability, and your draft will not be accepted.

:::Questioning the integrity of the reviewer is not likely to strike other reviewers favourably, and removing your COI declaration because you don't like the review looks like petty spite. ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Theroadislong}} They didn't just blank the review comments; they blanked the page. Isn't that {{Tl|Db-blanked}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, that's correct but I felt it prudent to leave it for another editor to decide, since my input is not appreciated. Theroadislong (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

A wiki user is opposing all my drafts/articles. I request a fair review of deletion actions affecting:

• Gambella University
• Selale University

These are accredited public universities in Ethiopia, similar to others already listed. The deletion rationale seems inconsistent with WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC.

Wieditor25 (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Being accredited confers zero notability and the relevant criteria is WP:NORG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::If these articles are being considered non-notable, should we also review the other Ethiopian university articles and consider deletion? All follow the same format and notability level. Wieditor25 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, that's a definite possibility. That other articles exist does not mean that they were ever approved by anyone, or even if they were, that they may not meet current standards. Schools and universities are particularly problematic because the notability guidelines have changed over the years; it used to be that mere existence was sufficient, but that is no longer the case. They are now treated like any other organization. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes we should, feel free to list them. Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Wieditor25}} Do it yourself, if you're not just taking the piss and throwing a rhetorical grenade to deflect. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Wieditor25}} WP:NACADEMIC applies to people, not schools (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). And accusing {{user|Theroadislong}} of being unfair here while you yourself are attempting to canvass is pretty rich. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::I still question the reviewer's fairness toward articles from certain regions, but it's not worth spending time.GL! Wieditor25 (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Then it's time you read, or re-read, WP:AGF. If you continue on your current path of making unsubstantiated allegations against other editors, you will end up with your account blocked from editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sounds kinda like a threat, though, against free speech. Wieditor25 (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Funny thing is, you don't have free speech here. You are required to abide by our community norms, which include not making such disparaging comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Wieditor25}} Please also see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please don't start a new section to continue the same request (I've now merged them here). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Additionally, I have reviewed the other editor's actions, and they seem very fair. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

i want to know that if there is one, i will get it for my PC Googolpie (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:commons:OOUI maybe ? Sohom (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Do you mean logos, like those in :c:Category:Wikipedia logos (2010)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, I wondered if someone could assist {{user|ADITYAKUSHWAHA999}}. I think they have a question about a caste but I don't have the knowledge to answer them. This is in relation to the Kushwaha (surname). I reverted an edit where they tried to add someone, but now I think they have a different question? Thank in advance to which one of you kind editors takes a look. Knitsey (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:What was the question? Henihhi28 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'm working on a draft article titled "Partido Piquetero" (a political organization in Argentina), and I would appreciate feedback before I submit it through Articles for Creation. I followed reliable sourcing policies, avoided overreliance on self-published sources, and included national media references (like Página/12 and Tiempo Argentino). Could someone please review the draft and let me know if it's on the right track for acceptance?

Here is the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rennis970/Piquetero_Party

Thanks in advance! Rennis970 (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:It seems good, although, you do have many red links; red links are links to an article that doesn’t exist, so I suggest you remove the s around the “links”. Henihhi28 (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also I added a cn since something was unsourced. Henihhi28 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{U|Henihhi28}} it's probably best to refrain from advising people here, until you have more experience of editing. Theroadislong (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{U|Rennis970}} you get feedback on your draft by submitting it for review. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Theroadislong I don’t think that’s what they meant; they said if it was on the track and I do have a better understanding of editing now.Henihhi28 (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{U|Henihhi28}} You clearly don't Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::and it’s also clearly not appropriate to discuss this here. Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced editors like you. Henihhi28 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you very much. Is there anything else that doesn't have sources for at this time? Rennis970 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Everything else is good, you still have red links in the electoral summary though. Henihhi28 (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Rennis970, To submit it place {{subst:Submit}} in the source code of the page. Happy Editing, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there,

As tweets are able to be posted onto Twitter with no content so long as there is some form of media (images, videos, polls, etc.), how does one cite a tweet onto an article that has no text? In my case I am trying to cite a tweet from a musician that has only posted a picture in the tweet but no content. Leaving a tweet citation with no content (a.k.a. |title=) returns an error as it is required, however I am unsure of where I go from here.

Thank you! Spifory (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Generally, tweets are considered to be primary sources and Wikipedia requires secondary sources. See WP:OR and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Easternsahara (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Spifory. Why are you wanting to cite this tweet? As Easternsahara says, it is rarely appropriate to cite a tweet; but it is also rare to cite a picture, as it is unusual for a picture to be able to verify a claim in an article (which is pretty well the whole purpose of a citation). ColinFine (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:It isn’t best to cite a social media source as I’m pretty sure Wikipedia:Reliable sources speaks out against this. Henihhi28 (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:As far as I know there's no rule on this. I'd say just put |title=[Image] or something similar. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Although you must give us more context to determine if this is appropriate. Twitter users are generally not considered reliable or secondary sources. Easternsahara (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Howdy,

Recently an AfD nomination for an article on Christopher Mellon was successful. This nomination was made by @Chetsford.

I redrafted the article, and it was rejected by @BuySomeApples. Nevertheless, I solicited BuySomeApples' help, and we put in a bunch of work to vet suitable sources to satisfy Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Throughout this process, Chetsford was commenting on our drafting and sources (and in some cases [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288276727&oldid=1288229029 actively lying] about whether sources had been used in the previously deleted version). Based on a reference in my re-drafting efforts, Chetsford then put in an AfD nomination for The Sol Foundation. I suggested that this article should be kept in the AfD discussion, and I believe this attracted the attention of @Very Polite Person.

Very Polite Person then asked if he could help with the drafting of the Mellon article, and I agreed. They redrafted and submitted the article in a day.

Chetsford then commented on the draft, suggesting that it should be rejected on the basis of "SIGCOV problems." He listed out 9 sources that he deemed to have these problems.

Very Polite Person's redraft was met with a rejection from @Bonadea, with a justification of "Per Chetsford's source evaluation (supported by my own source checks) and the recent AfD outcome."

In response to this, I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288635827 written a rather large comment] documenting Chetsford's mendacity in his "source evaluation."

If we intend to fully go forward and attempt to get this article published, how can we if one editor is lying and another is deferring to them?

Thanks so much,

Ben.Gowar (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:(AfC Comment). @Ben.Gowar, it was declined not rejected. You can still resubmit it for review if you think that Mellon is notable. Best Regards, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:If they are repeating this kind of behavior, I do believe you have the right to report them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents. Henihhi28 (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• NOTE: I don't really have more to offer as I primarily wanted to source things; I've said my peace for the moment. But... I think the problem here ultimately boils down to the fact that this part of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that has been the standard [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_(people)&oldid=401137430 since we added it fifteen years ago in 2010] is that:

:: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"

: For a reason I cannot understand, this WP:BLP forDraft:Christopher Mellon is being held to some sort of drastic standard that defies and without authority exceeds WP:BASIC. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:: I'm happy to explain it. WP:BASIC does not free one from the necessity of meeting the standard of WP:SIGCOV for sources used to establish the WP:N of a subject. It simply affirms that multiple sources may collectively establish the substantiality of coverage. But each source used to affirm N must still crest the threshold of SIGCOV. In the case of Mellon, it doesn't matter if you have 10,000 articles that simply attribute 1-2 sentence quotes to him; these don't collectively transmutate into SIGCOV by alchemically mashing them altogether. I hope that helps but please don't hesitate to ask for further clarification. Chetsford (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Ben.Gowar - I apologize as I don't have time at the moment to read your entire note, but I note the first instance you raised of me "lying" is because I used the term "flying saucer" instead of the term "UAP" which is the term you apparently prefer. I'm not certain that necessarily constitutes "lying" anymore than someone interchangeably using the term "ultramarine" instead of "cobalt" to describe a specific shade of blue. Either way, I apologize if I used imprecise terminology in discussion and this offended you. But I hope you can take confidence that the term used I'm certain did not impact anyone's ultimate determination as the underlying issue was that the source in question lacked SIGCOV.
Insofar as my "actively commenting" on the draft, I'm an AfC reviewer and actively comment on many drafts, this one was no exception. (In fact, while I could have declined the draft myself, I proactively chose not to do so as I nominated the previous article for deletion and I felt it was necessary other editors look at your draft to make the decision to decline or accept it independently, which is ultimately what occurred.) This is a fairly normal and rote process of AfC. The only unusual part of this is that I have never seen non-AfC reviewers leave messages in the review section (particularly messages of such robustness) as you and VPP did. While not (I don't think) proscriptive, it is rather atypical. That said, if you feel I acted inappropriately at any point in this process, I encourage you to raise your concerns at WP:ANI. Chetsford (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Howdy @Chetsford,

::You did not offend me. However, if you mosey on down to the flying saucer article, you will find the second sentence to be: "Not to be confused with Unidentified flying object." So, no: I do not take confidence in your certitude.

::As far as other editors looking at "my draft," well, my draft wasn't submitted. However, given that you commented on the draft that was submitted before @Bonadea ever did, and given that Bonadea cited your comment as a justification for declination, I would scarcely call Bonadea's decision "independent."

::My feelings about your conduct are not relevant. My arguments are. Ben.Gowar (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I removed that disambiguation hatnote because it directly contradicted the first sentence of the article describing it as a specific type of UFO. Sesquilinear (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|Ben.Gowar}} Accusing another editor of deliberately lying is a form of casting aspersions. {{re|Chetsford}} is allowed to voice their own opinion on whether a source is trivial or not according to their assessment. If you, I, or any other editor disagrees, that doesn't prove anything except a difference of opinion. To contribute to Wikipedia, you have to adhere to its policies on Wikipedia:Civility, and that means no personal attacks. Making a post just to accuse another editor of lying and an AfC reviewer ({{re|Bonadea}} of not doing their job is unacceptable. I'd like for you to be able to keep on working on your draft, but while you're doing that you have to act appropriately. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks @BuySomeApples. Based on the casting aspersions information page, I can accuse an editor of lying as long as I have evidence and level the accusation in the appropriate place. In this case, I was indeed asking what to do in the case of a particular editor lying (with the evidence cited). So, it sounds like I should have anonymized my inquiry. In any case, I will head on over to the administrator's noticeboard/Incidents.

::Oh, by the way, the number of mentions of a given person in a given source is not a matter of opinion. Nor is whether a source has been used in a previous draft or not.

::But thanks,

::Ben.Gowar (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Ben.Gowar}} I don't think going to ANI will have the results you're hoping for, but go ahead. I'll let the other editors and admins continue helping you with your draft since I think I've given you all the advice I can. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I suppose no one can force anyone else to stop lying, not even the ANI.

:::Thank you for your effort anway,

:::Ben.Gowar (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

An IP-only user (50.101.200.217) has been editing dozens of Wikipedia pages of various celebrities of the link removing links to districts, towns, and boroughs, instead just linking their larger area (e.g. removing London boroughs and replacing the link with London). This is not vandalism, obviously, but seems from most FA and GA I have seen to not be standard practice, and thus, it seems it should be reverted? Is the most efficient way to revert them one by one, or is it a minor enough thing to just leave be? The editor continues to make these edits and by the looks of their contributions history and talk page would not notice a message given. While I believe these changes to be in good faith, the user appears to have a history of vandalism. Insight appreciated. CollinDChase (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:I was thinking of WP:GEOLINK. This is not proper editing, but report seems over the top, manually changing a persisting editor seems futile, and a warn seems like it would not be seen. CollinDChase (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I've already been on Wikipedia for over 10 days now, but I still can’t access InternetArchiveBot. Just wondering—what could be the issue? — ArćRèv • talk 04:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Is Medium a reliable source? — ArćRèv • talk 07:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, @Arc Rev! Basically, Medium is a website which hosts user-made blogs. Anybody can write them and there's no editorial oversight, which means nobody officially fact checks the blog posts, and there's no guarantee users will correct the posts if they make mistakes. As such, it's considered a generally unreliable source by the Wikipedia community. You can read more about that here: WP:MEDIUM. {{pb}}There's one exception to that - if the person writing the Medium post is a recognized subject matter expert talking about their field of expertise, or they're talking about themselves. For example, if a highly respected professor who specialized in Chinese film wrote a blog post analyzing a film from the 1950s, you might be able to cite that, or if a famous actor announced their birthdate on their blog, you could cite that. But that's about it, I'm afraid. You can read more on using self-published sources (like medium) at WP:SPS. (And especially note the part of the guideline which says you can't use self-published sources for information about living people who didn't write the source - lots of newbies get triped up on that, but it's an important part of our sourcing requirements for articles about living people. Can never be too careful there, you know?) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 08:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am working on Draft:Aramean people, the references at the bottom carry the entire reference, whereas on other articles only the author, year and page of the source is mentioned, when highlighting over it, it shows the entire reference. How can I apply this to my draft as well?

Wlaak (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)