Wikipedia:Teahouse#Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted

Do administrators on Wikipedia have to be 18 years old? What do they typically have? Super Salty (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Super Salty there isn't a minimum age requirement to become an administrator. It is far more important to have extensive experience in many areas of Wikipedia editing and maintenance. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::Because of the amount of experience required, I think it follows that admins would have to be at least four or five. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 03:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Four or five years on wikipedia, I assume. I don't recommend infantile administrators. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::"Infantile" would be a pleasant upgrade from the things some admins routinely get called. DMacks (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:While we have had admins in the past who were under 18, in many cases we do not know, have no way of knowing, and no need to know, an individual's age. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::Right, admins don't have to give any personal information like name, age or nationality. If they had to give enough information for somebody to examine an age claim then many good candidates might refrain because identifying information could be leaked. See e.g. List of people imprisoned for editing Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Anything is possible Cwater1 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:Btw I’m on an alt account so I don’t give away my age on my main one. Super Salty (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

What is pseudo-rollback and normal rollback, and how are they different from one another?

--pro-anti-air (talk) --pro-anti-air (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Pro-anti-air – The term "pseudo-rollback" may refer to Twinkle/RW/UV's "rollback" or "rollback-like" revert. Essentially, "pseudo-rollback" is a form a rapid reversion that technically uses MediaWiki's undo tool. Any autoconfirmed user can install Twinkle/RW/UV and use "pseudo-rollback". Normal rollback requires the rollback permission to use; it can be requested at WP:PERM/R (but likely requires a substantial anti-vandalism record, perhaps using pseudo-rollback). — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 01:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::But what's the difference? --pro-anti-air (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Pro-anti-air – In a nutshell: any autoconfirmed user can use "pseudo-rollback" (with Twinkle/RW/UV), whereas you need the rollback permission in order to use "rollback" or "true rollback". In your case, you can use "pseudo-rollback" as you are autoconfirmed (and extended confirmed at that), whereas you can't use "true rollback" yet as you lack the permission as of the moment. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 01:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi! I'd like to add that in terms of functionality, rollback tends to be slightly faster than the alternatives, which is (mainly) why you need special permissions to use it. There are also some things you can do with rollback but not pseudo-rollbacks. The AntiVandal and Huggle tools, which are used mostly for fighting vandalism, spring to mind; you can only use them properly if you have rollback rights. Anerdw (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

How do I request close on a page move discussion? I looked around but I can't find a forum to find a noninvolved editor to close my move discussion. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:The Requested-moves queue keeps track of what is >7 days old (the usual timeframe for RM), and several editors tend to patrol that list. However, there is often a backlog at any given time, so I'm not surprised if things that are ripe for close sometimes do not get handled promptly (especially if they are complex, or there are other complex ones that suck up those editors' time). Which one are you discussing? If it's a straightforward request and clear consensus with reasonable participation in the first week, I can take a look. DMacks (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply to|DMacks}} I'm talking about Erotica (Madonna album). It's a pretty simple close and there's more support than opposing. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The Capitalism article used to have a section on Stakeholder Capitalism which lights up a web search. I can't see it for many years. Is there a tool to find the last entry before an edit removed a heading? Or is there some way to generate the revisions for an article such that one could use a script to find text in the history of an article? Or maybe there is such a tool already? Bodysurfinyon (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Welcome back to the Teahouse, {{u|Bodysurfinyon}}. It sounds like you're looking for WikiBlame. You can find a link to it on the history page of each article (or other type of page). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Bodysurfinyon}} When you look at a Wikipedia article history (or talk page history or any non-automatically-generated page history) you will find a list of External tools somewhere above the revisions listing. There is a link 'Find addition/removal' there, which brings you to the WikiBlame page with some fields pre-filled. --CiaPan (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::While wikiblame is designed to do just what you are asking for (and I use it quite frequently), it often times out, which can be quite frustrating (and it has some other failure modes as well). In any case, I am finding it to be ineffective, so I want to suggest some other possible approaches.

::But before I get into that, I want to note that Stakeholder Capitalism is currently a redirect to Stakeholder theory. Also, you might want to go to the Wayback archive to look through the archived versions. Poking around through the archive copies may be a more practical way to search for what you're looking for, given the difficulties that at least I am encountering with wikiblame. Whether this is going to prove helpful or not, I don't know, but it looks like wikiblame is not being very cooperative in this instance. Fabrickator (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Asking Travisscotterfan (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Are you talking about the rejected Draft:Julian Tran? That is an unsourced piece of text while according to WP:BLP all biographies of living persons must be sourced with reliable, independent sources. The Banner talk 12:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::To add to this, your draft did not actually get deleted. It is still there, as linked above. GoldRomean (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Should the "draft" be moved into a sandbox since it's completely made up? --Onorem (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yikes. If it's a hoax, it can probably be nominated for deletion (G3). GoldRomean (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Its not a hoax, just don't have any sources right now. Julian Tran isn't really listed anywhere, I don't even know why. Travisscotterfan (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::If there's no sources anywhere, then it can't be on here. If you don't have sources, don't try writing the article.

::::::"Notable" means "enough sources exist". DS (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

What is in-depth coverage? Priotyleft123 (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Priotyleft123 Welcome to the Teahouse. There's no firm definition but WP:SIGCOV, which is part of an important guideline says {{tq|addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.}} Usually, this would be several full paragraphs. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Oh, you mean big coverage? Priotyleft123 (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No, not really, a list of episodes of a long running TV show might be "big" in terms of size but wouldn't be considered in-debth. Think looking at something closely, in detail, at multiple angles, a sign that someone has thought hard about it rather than just acknowledged its existence. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

So my Draft that being Draft:Nathan Sage 1 was Rejected, The reasoning is that I I didn't have enough routine in my article, So How many Articles do I need in order for it to be routine enough for it to be accepted? Fad8229 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Fad8229}} You completely misread the comments by the reviewers. The issue is that all you have is coverage related to his campaign. You need to prove his notability with sources that cover anything EXCEPT his political campaign. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hmm, I see what they're saying, Just add more to the page other than his political Campaign, I see that though and now I will add to it. Fad8229 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::But make sure that all, or nearly all, that you add, is cited to sources completely unconnected with Sage, @Fad8229.

:::{{HD/WINI}} ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I think I already have sources that have no connection with Sage. But maybe I'm missing something. Fad8229 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hello, @Fad8229. Those sources I have looked at (I haven't looked at all of thenm) all seem to be largely quoting what Sage says - they contain very little independent material. Please read the third sentence of my reply above. ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Welp Guess I'm going to have to delete the draft. Fad8229 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not going to deal with it anymore. Fad8229 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Other issues notwithstanding, it's not good to start the biography of a living person with "Nathan Sage was..."; It sounds like he's dead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yep, fixing that. Also what other issue so that I can fix. Fad8229 (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! My recent AfC submission (Draft: Kevin Donahue) was declined for lack of notability. I made some updates, including the addition of two citations that I believe help meet the notability standards - one of which is a profile piece by Washington Post. Before I resubmit, I was wondering if someone could provide input on if you think this works/meet the expectations? I don't want to resubmit and risk deletion if it still does not work! Thank you! Presleyconnor (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Deletion is highly unlikely. The purpose of submitting for review is to get the kind of feedback you are requesting. Please do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you!! Presleyconnor (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I recently made an article David Lamb, possibly a British philosopher, and strangely enough there was not a single source for completing their BLP, such as the birth date, almost no CV information, except mention of University of Manchester, in publications. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367809355] (not to be confused with [https://missio.edu/david-lamb-dphil/], their namesake). Given the number of reviews, possibly passing C#1 per NACADEMIC, the article's worth expanding, but there was no other sources online. So any suggestions for finding more sources (If any) is most appreciated. Xpander (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Links to topics that do not exist seem to be coloured green when surely they should be coloured red.

See Draft:Great Toilet Battle ----MountVic127 (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @MountVic127. That link looks red for me, as expected (WP:REDLINK). Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::That link is also red for me, {{u|MountVic127}}. Most likely, the problem is with your settings or your browser, as opposed to Wikipedia itself. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Funny, gotchaইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|MountVic127}} User:MountVic127/common.css sets all links to green. Different things can affect whether this or another color declaration takes precedence. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I’m wondering if the musical artist Cain Culto is notable enough, per Wikipedia’s standards, to have an article written about them? It seems to me that they are notable enough, based on [https://completemusicupdate.com/approved-cain-culto/ this short article], but I’m not sure if that’s enough to justify a Wikipedia page. YaMighta (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:He might be notable in the future, but I suggest that one link is not enough at this time. Bduke (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:See WP:Too soon for discussion of the possible issue. Generally we look for a minimum of three separate sources that are all of Reliable, Independent (of the subject) and of Substantial length to demonstrate Notability (though these have some wiggle room). There are special criteria for musicians – see Wikipedia:Notability (music) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.100.112 (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Articles on Chinese firefighting are awfully inadequate and confusing for full context

So, I plan to split the National Fire and Rescue Administration(post-2023 agency in currently in charge of the force) article into a seperate one about the China Fire and Rescue(the post-2018 firefighting force; bit of a Ministry of public security - People's Police or Department of the Navy- US Navy situation). However, China Fire and Rescue is already a redirect to the NFRA for some reason, so may I ask if there are any extra steps in regards to splits where the destination is already a redirect?(better yet, could somebody do the split for me?) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

On the article about the 0-4-0 wheel arrangement, I noticed Iceland wasn’t included. Iceland doesn’t have railways, but there used to be one within the capital city of Reykjavik. The Reykjavik Harbor Railway was a narrow gauge railway that was constructed in 1913. It had two 2ft gauge 0-4-0 tank engines built in the 1890’s by the German company Arnold Jung Lokomotivfabrik. These two engines were known as Minør and Pioner. The two engines were used to haul goods along the harbor, such as coal, minerals, and other material. Both engines are preserved today. Should we incorporate Iceland into that article?

For more info on the Reykjavik Harbor Railway, see Rail transport in Iceland 199.192.122.199 (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:It sounds like it's the sort of addition that might be useful for the article, ideally with sourcing explaining what you've written. At the very least, you could add it in a WP:SEEALSO section as an interim measure. CMD (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Believe me, this is actual info. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::: It's unlikely any content will be added without a source. See WP:V. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::File: 090625 Minoer.JPG

::::This is what Minør looks like.

:::::File: RHR-Pioner.JPG

::::and this is what Pioner looks like. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Also, Tarlby, I’ve noticed you have commented on my talk page. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Whaddaya mean ridiculously massive? I didn’t see a problem with them on the rail transport in Iceland article. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The images in that article very likely use the "##px" parametre, which sets their width (in pixels) and forcibly scales them down accordingly. Without that parametre, the images render at their native resolution - which was large enough that the images did not fit on my 1080 screen. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I read that Wikipedia says be bold and move pages if needed. But when I try to move, someone reverts it back. And when I open a move request (RM), no one is replying. Then what is the point of be bold if moves are not allowed or always undone? Should I move pages or not? I'm a bit confused.ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|ইমরান ভূইয়া}} the guidance is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You boldly moved the page, another reverted. Discussion is the correct response; can you show where you have tried to discuss things? I was not immediately able to find it.

:Additionally, you have moved a lot of pages. Please slow down a bit. Also remember that an official name is not necessarily what a Wikipedia article should be named; the WP:common name should be used instead. MKFI (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::@ইমরান ভূইয়া, remember to be bold, but not reckless. It is definitely recommended that you contribute where possible, try to do so at a reasonable pace. Moving a page is also a more significant page than many edits, and should be done with special care. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone here know where I can discuss or ask for changes regarding articles about cricket? There are no responses on the Wikiproject Cricket Discussion page.ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:The best place is the Talk page of the article concerned.

:If you want to suggest a specific change, make a new section, describe the exact wordings involved, and provide (as bibliographic details and/or a link if there is one) a published Reliable source to verify the new information (there must be one), then wait a week or so to see if anyone replies.

:If no-one does, or if you just want to make the change straight away, "be Bold" and make it (adding a citation of the source to create a Reference), and see if anyone then replies. They may Revert your change, in which case you can then engage in a Discussion on the Talk page (or their or your Talk page if you prefer) and come to a consensus.

:Remember to make Edit summaries for edits you make, and read the edit summaries of other people's edits (including revertions), which should explain their reasons.

:This is a normal and acceptable way of editing on Wikipedia: we call it the Bold/Revert/Discuss cycle (more details at that link).

:Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.100.112 (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

When I edit articles about films, one editor keeps asking me, "What is your connection to those films?" Why is that? Is it not possible for one editor who is passionate about movies to also be passionate about sports?ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:You asked "Why?" at User talk:ইমরান_ভূইয়া#The_RajaSaab and had a reply. In general, people will sometimes ask this because because WP:COI-editing is a problem on this website. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Check this out as well. User talk:ইমরান_ভূইয়া#Conflict of interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk • contribs) 11:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Nickname in infoboxes

Why are there so many media-related nicknames in cricketers' infoboxes, and why is King Prince Boom Boom Afridi included? Famous footballers do not have nicknames in their page infoboxes. I am not against the stokesy things in Ben Stokes' article, but it should not have been either. (IMO)ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Why do you think Cricketer's infoboxes should not include nicknames?

:Nicknames have long been entrenched in cricketing culture, certainly in English-speaking countries, and are regularly mentioned in, for example, cricketing commentaries on TV and Radio, so they are of interest to readers.

:They are perhaps less often heard/used by the public in the case of footballers (though I could be mistaken), but that is in any case a different sport, and there is no reason that cricketers' infoboxes and footballers' infoboxes as overall classes should be consistent with each other. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.100.112 (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I was quite shocked by [https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/articles/cj42rvdk2k4o this article] this morning and tried to find a WP article in which this sort of thing is discussed, but failed to. I know it goes on, but the extent to which it happens, and the connection to gambling, was something that surprised me. Other than the victim's article, where more generally is this on WP? Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Tony Holkham There's a general article at cyberbullying, with a sidebar on various forms of discrimination which links to many other related articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, @Michael D. Turnbull. I did look there first, but none seems to be helpful on sport, specifically. I will try from the sport end. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The article on sports betting is not very good. It might benefit from a section on this sort of abuse. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I was thinking that. I notice a huge amount of abuse is directed at sportspeople, but this seems more serious, somehow. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1= A parallel discussion is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Draft : Timothy Hannem. Please don't open multiple discussions on the same topic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)}}

:I see this draft was declined : Draft:Timothy Hannem

:But I don't understand, it says it needs :

:"in-depth sources"

:"reliable sources"

:"secondary sources"

:"independent sources"

:The majority of references at the end of the page link to french newspapers who are reliable, secondary and independant sources. Why are these references considered "not reliable", "not secondary" and "not independant" ?

:The newspapers mentionned in the references are very well known in France, just take a look : Le Parisien, L'Express, Le Monde, Libération, 20 Minutes (France).

:Thank you for your help. 147.161.152.126 (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Do more than one of them have in-depth coverage of the subject? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Ping|CSMention269}} Who declined the article and presumably speaks French? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Looking at some of the sources, I think that the main problem is that they are not independent of Hannem. They seem to be based on interviews. What Wikipedia needs is evidence that people have read his work and reviewed it, or that it has influenced people who have no connection with him. This is summarised in our notability for authors criteria. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::"What Wikipedia needs is evidence that people have read his work and reviewed it".

:::His most known book has 183 reviews on Amazon (search for "Urbex", published in 2016). He has also has a "press" on his website, featuring many reviews or interviews. https://www.glauqueland.com/presse

::: As for the sources of the draft :

:::The first source is taken from his second book.

:::The second one is a review of his blog.

:::The third is an interview.

:::Sources 4 to 9 are independent reviews of his books, but also interviews since he responded to the journalists’s questions.

:::Source 10 is a video from the editor of “Canevas”

:::Source 11 and 12 are reviews an and also an interviews.

147.161.152.126 (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I have just created a page for Martyn. This is the first time I have created a page on Wiki so I may well have made some elementary errors in the presentation and required information and referencing. The immediate feedback I got was it was not notable. Martyn is a well-known broadcaster in Wales as a rugby commentator and is also the author of several books. I have listed the books together with their ISBN numbers. Any advice as I how I should proceed from this point would be much appreciated. CofiCaerdydd47 (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:@CofiCaerdydd47 A brief look shows me that your draft has muddled sourcing. You will need to re-do it after reading this guide to how to do references correctly. Wikipedia has very strict requirements for biographies of living people and drafts which don't conform will rapidly be declined. As you realise, the main aim of your draft will be to show how Williams is notable. There is some more advice in this essay. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Many thanks Mike. This was my first effort at my first article so lots to learnt I guess! I will follow your suggested links CofiCaerdydd47 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi all,

I’ve been working to improve the David and Stephen Flynn article, which is quite sparse and currently lacks balanced coverage of their early business story. I recently rewrote a neutral, well-sourced “Career Beginnings” section in my sandbox and would love some feedback before proposing it again for inclusion.

I’ve tried to stick closely to Wikipedia’s policies on tone, neutrality, and reliable sourcing (Irish Times, Irish Examiner, etc.). Previous efforts were reverted with concerns about promotional tone and perceived overuse of AI assistance, so I’m approaching this revision with extra care and openness to feedback.

I’d really appreciate any thoughts on how to improve the draft or better approach consensus.

Thanks so much!

— Calmsea123456 (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{courtesy link|David and Stephen Flynn}}   Maproom (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Another {{courtesy link|User:Calmsea123456/sandbox}}. Deor (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I received a comment that "Comment: See WP:Markup for how to mark section headings, and see WP:Layout for general information on the layout of articles. Section headings are delimited by equal signs (=), which are used to construct the table of contents of a page. Please edit this draft as specified before resubmitting."

Are you able to provide further clarification about what that means?

Thank you,

Michelle MHDE 2025 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:@MHDE 2025 These comments all relate to Wikipedia's manual of style. This is our way of ensuring consistency between articles, which start with a summary of content called the lead and continue with sections that split the content to make reading easy. Finally, the references are gathered together by the software in a section called "References". Currently, Draft:Verne (company) has little of this structure, which you will see, for example in a well-developed article like IBM. Incidentally, if you are in any way connected with this company, please read this guide to editing with a conflict-of-interest. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Please help. I started an article in my sandbox, and also published it here. User:EPXa/sandbox

It should correctly be published under the following URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_microphone

I do not find the right way to change that. Please help me in this matter!

Thank you! EPXa (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:@EPXa I have added a template to your sandbox so that you can submit your draft for review. If accepted it will become an article at Optical microphone (currently a red link as it does not exist yet). Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello - I’m requesting a second opinion on the decline of the draft article for Cyan Ta'eed (Draft:Cyan Ta'eed). The draft was declined with the rationale that the subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria due to insufficient coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

However, I have provided multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, including profiles in major Australian business publications and interviews that explore her work and impact as a co-founder of Envato, as well as her role in other ventures. She meets all the criteria of a noteworthy person since she is an Australian business woman on a variety of "rich lists" around the world.

I fully respect the review process and understand the need for neutrality and reliable sourcing, but I believe the decline may have been made in error or possibly via an automated or overly strict process. I’m asking if other experienced editors could please take a look and offer an additional perspective. Thank you. JazzyOxygen (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Courtesy link: Draft:Cyan Ta'eed. Was this, or any of your other edits, made using an LLM such as ChatGPT? GoldRomean (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::No JazzyOxygen (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Which three of your sources meet the criteria at WP:42? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the question. There were several reliable sources listed, but I just updated and resubmitted it with 4 more new sources that meet all the criteria listed at WP:42 and are all listed as generally reliable sources: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources including sources from The Age, The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, and Forbes. JazzyOxygen (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it true per Wikipedia:ARBECR that non-extended-confirmed users are even not allowed to request a category related to the topic? See for instance [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Categories&diff=prev&oldid=1296059405 here]. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:That is correct. All a non-XC user can do is request edits to existing articles on the relevant article talk page or WP:RFPP/E. (I take no position what-so-ever on the appropriateness of that category.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply| Jéské Couriano}} but this both not possible for requesting a category; because the talk page doesn’t exist. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Requesting a new category be created isn't a request to edit an existing article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Requesting that the category be added to an existing article (and created in the process) would be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

I’m reaching out for some advice on creating a Wikipedia page for Asda Money, a financial services brand under the Asda group in the UK. While Asda Mobile has its own dedicated Wikipedia page, I believe Asda Money also has notability in the financial sector, and I’d like to propose a new article for it.

I’ve seen that the page for Asda Mobile has been well-received and editors are actively updating it, and I’m wondering if the same approach could be taken for Asda Money. Before I proceed amy further, I wanted to get feedback from the Wikipedia community here.

Does Asda Money meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for a standalone article? If so, could you kindly point me in the right direction regarding the creation process and any key considerations I should be aware of?

Thank you in advance for your time and any guidance you can offer!

Best regards,

David. David.afonso26pmx (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:@David.afonso26pmx There is a section on Asda Money at Asda#Asda Money which currently has only one referenced source. You could start by expanding that with extra detail backed up by reliable sources. As a new editor, that would be a good way to develop your skills and you could suggest a spin-out article later via the talk page, if your additions got too large. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I frequently run across references that I would like to check, but that are paywalled. What is the policy on this? A paywalled source isn't a source at all, since it can't be verified. The reason I've begun looking into this is that in a few cases related to topics in which I'm an expert, the sources do NOT support the assertion in the article. Rskurat (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:You might be looking for WP:PAYWALL. GoldRomean (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:If you don't have access to a paywalled source, try asking about it at your public library. It's amazing what they can help you get hold of. Also once you meet the qualifications, you can try The Wikipedia Library, which is great for many sources which would otherwise be paywalled. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Rskurat A paywalled source is a source, since a reader can always pay to see its content. Whether they are willing to do so is another matter. If you notice any source that doesn't support what the article says, that's a separate issue that should be pursued, at its simplest by marking it with the template {{t|Failed verification}} or by removing that assertion if you can't find an alternative source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::a reader cannot always pay to see the content of a source, lower-income editors are excluded. Some subscriptions can be evaded by attempting to access the source at a public library (e.g. NYT) but in science articles I've seen citations of journals owned by Taylor & Francis or Elsevier where access is $30-40 per article. That is effectively unverifiable. Rskurat (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Rskurat The Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request is good at tracking down sources. They may be able to help. Blackballnz (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Unfortunately, a lot of academic research is off-limits to many people. Think about primary research done in labs - no one has that sort of equipment at home. Its the same with citations. Paywalled sources are more difficult to find and verify, but it's not impossible, and whether or not it's easy or accessible is largely irrelevant. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The article of the 2-6-4 wheel arrangement features one of the most popular Austrian steam locomotives and the only tender engine to have that wheel arrangement. This being the class 210 2-6-4’s. They were designed by Karl Gölsdorf and were built in 1908. Given their huge as heck driving wheels, they probably clocked up a lot of speed. According to SteamLocomotive.com, they weighed 269,404 pounds in total, had a 4422 gallon water capacity for their tender, and 21,727 pounds of tractive effort. But, are they notable enough to have their own article? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable sources. That can be websites, books, newspapers or magazines. It seems highly improbable that such coverage does not exists - you just have to find it.

:See WP:FIRST and WP:REGISTER - the latter will open up more tools for you over time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:You might find List of rail transport–related periodicals helpful. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.41.216 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::What the flip? I’ve got too many names. Everyone I’m in a different place I have a new weird username! I’m 199.192.122.199 at home but whatever! 76.72.195.223 (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Those are the IP addresses assigned by your service provider. Again; see: WP:REGISTER. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::So, 94.6.41.216, I checked that link and Austria wasn’t included. Just Australia and Africa. 76.72.195.223 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

i added a better image [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Myanmar&diff=prev&oldid=1296076138 see here] on page Religion in Myanmar, now someone revert it. Because he believes previous image is good and his preference is only there. 獅眠洞 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:If we have good images why we use not good images on Wikipedia pages. 獅眠洞 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::I left a message on the Talk discussion you started in on the page in question. My revert isn't a "monopoly" you're welcome to challenge it and ask other wiki editors for their opinion as well there. Thanks for talking about the change rather than reverting reverts. Hopefully we will have a meaningful discussion. I've given my reason there and hope that convinces you! Your edit was done in good faith so I don't believe you've done anything wrong. Cheers! EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:OK so talk to them about it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please follow the process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

My first wikipedia just has been accepted (see: Adam Linder). Due to my previous mistakes, I have some maintenance templates flags that I would like to remove. But I can't do it myself because this rule apply to me: You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict of interest [exceptions apply: see individual template documentation]. Nevertheless, some other flags are now outdated. For example: This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. (March 2025). How could I remove them ? Does someone else that doesn't have a conflict of interest should do it ? I think that now, given that the article has been accepted, it respects the Wikipedia's rules and these maintenance flags should be removed because they are now off-topic.

Thanks for your help.

Simononwiki1 (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Simononwiki1, if you are saying that promotion of a draft to full article status shows that (at least in the promoting reviewer's opinion) the resulting article is free of any problem noted in a template heading it, then no, not true. Seriously defective drafts can and do become articles. How about this article -- is it seriously defective? Perhaps somebody reading this either (a) is familiar with most of the cited sources (I'm not), or (b) has the time and energy to examine them (I haven't). If nobody steps up in the next few days, then I suggest that on Talk:Adam Linder you invite {{Noping|Timtrent}} (who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Linder&diff=1279769251&oldid=1279767989 attached the templates]) to take a second look. -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

=

I want do a biographie about someone or me ho, it can be possible 105.97.246.12 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Simply, if you are notable, then others will want to create an article about you; if you are not, then no article will be possible. Consider an alternative website, such as LinkedIn. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Be careful of COI editing...it's technically possible to write a good article about something with which you are affiliated, but it's usually best to avoid it. At the very least, make sure to disclose any COIs and follow the guidelines at WP:COIEDIT. Anerdw (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The search bar changed and now every time I search something up it just feels weird. Try it yourself and fix it! 199.192.122.199 (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Nothing's changed for me. In exactly what way is it different? Also, if the search bar has permanently changed, it wouldn't be the responsibility of any Wikipedia editor. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not seeing any sort of change, can you describe what's different in more detail? PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::It like fades in quickly when you click it instead of just popping up quicker than Regan MacNeil giving you a heart attack when you play the scary maze game, and the search results are in bold. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It's popping up just the same for me. Odd. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Just the same as normally - wanted to clarify. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It seems like its only you having this problem, so its more likely related to your browser or computer. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Restart your device. If the problem persists, ask at WP:VPT, stating what device you are using, what browser, and what page you are looking at. If you can upload a screenshot, so much the better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I was going through a few articles I may want to improve upon, and I believe I've found something that might be a hoax. I already posted to the article's talk page, but it's a niche subject, so I'm not sure how soon I'll get a reply there. Is there anywhere I could go to ask about this? Thank you. 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 00:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:The article is also at GA status. 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 00:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::I assume you're referring to Talk:Bohemond III of Antioch. Just googling it, I can see a few sources describing him (and others) as 'the stammerer'. I haven't checked their reliability but it shouldn't be too difficult to find a source. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That's true. I was worried about no contemporary sources mentioning it, but that doesn't matter. Sorry! 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 00:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::But I also couldn't figure out of any of these sources were older than the wikipedia entry 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 00:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The article was created in 2004; I see numerous references being used that date from the 20th century and should be easy to consult; those post-dating 2004 presumably reflect further recent scholarship to improve the article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.11.213.205 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you so much!!! 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 01:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Although already answered, this question is off-topic here. The Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia. For questions about topics such as history, please use WP:REFDESK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)}}

I wonder which tower was hit first in 9/11 I have no clue someone tell me and each section of how the passengers took down the plane I’m very confused Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:The north tower was hit first. About 'how the passengers took down the plane' - that was the fourth plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, to my knowledge. I don't know the specifics but there was some kind of passenger revolt. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, you are correct. For more info you can read United Airlines Flight 93, which was the single plane that day that didn’t reach its target (presumed to be the White House or Capitol). ^EF⁵ 02:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Footage I found clearly looks like the south tower being hit first is it wrong or not? Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The North Tower (1WTC), the one with the antennae on top, was hit by AA11 at 8:46 am. Several minutes later, UA175 plowed into the south tower (the one without the antennae). So, the North Tower was indeed hit first. See also Timeline of the September 11 attacks. ^EF⁵ 02:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It might be several different shots edited together in the wrong order, or just from a perspective that makes it difficult to tell the two towers apart. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Cot|title=The article Iran–Israel War may only be discussed via edit requests on Talk:Iran–Israel War. Not here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)}}

We all know that misinformation is extremely common in articles that cover more recent or controversial topics, the Iran–Israel War is no exception. This is mostly about the '4 downed F-35i's'.

[https://en.irna.ir/news/85865308/Iran-shoots-down-fourth-Israeli-F-35-fighter-jet-in-Tabriz Iran claims they downed 4 of them] and, along with the provided source being possibly biased or incorrect, they used 'images' to back it up. I put it in quotes because the [https://www.ibtimes.sg/fact-check-this-real-photo-israeli-f35-fighter-jet-shot-down-by-iran-amid-ongoing-conflict-80392 image] is, without a doubt, AI-generated. This lays the assumption that not a single F-35 was really lost. My America and Lockheed-pilled head believes it more.

My only real problem here is that the article makes no mention of the above, only 'Iran said they downed a few, Israel denies it'. The talk page and article are locked down so I have no real place to put this.

The goal of this is to (A) point out a piece of useful information that has not been mentioned (somehow), and (B) try to see if I missed a pipeline where I could do this more effectively. Part of me wanted to just scream into talk pages like a door-to-door salesman but no one would like that.

Cheers,

BigBoiWikiWhale (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{U|Jacob Lee 6939}} ("BigBoiWikiWhale"), if an article implies (or states) that photographs relevant to the article subject are genuine and unaltered, but you can point to reliable, disinterested sources that argue to the contrary, then feel free to point this out on the article's talk page. Specify the sources, of course. Be sure to comment coolly and as concisely as possible. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you say above that the talk page too is locked down. However, it expressly permits edit requests.

I also see that "You may only use this page to create an edit request". Also, that there are, very understandably, tight restrictions on discussing the article elsewhere in en:Wikipedia. In view of which, I'm closing this thread. -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Cob}}

I took the information off the copy I own which lists songs and lengths of each track. This is the most direct firsthand way I know to obtain the material. Mukilman (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Mukilman.

:Wikipedia does not accept original research. The album you own might be a useful way of obtaining this information, but it can't be added to the encyclopaedia unless it is sourced from reliable, independent, and secondary sources. See WP:V for more information. If you cant find this information in reliable online sources, the album is likely not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::It looks like there is plently of coverage of this album, it probably is notable enough for wikipedia - you'll need to demonstrate that using secondary sources though. Using the liner notes for track lengths is fine though, I believe. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, it'll fine since that information isn't exactly controversial. Original research is more of a problem when it becomes difficult to track down that research. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::That's not OR. Track lists and times are routinely taken from album sleeves/ CD inserts. See {{Tl|Cite AV media notes}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1= A parallel discussion is taking pace at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#02:48, 18 June 2025 review of submission by Textbypeeps. Please don't start more than one discussion on the same topic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC) }}

I’m working on my sandbox draft: User:Textbypeeps/sandbox2

Tone has been revised to neutral, and I’ve added reliable sources (Retail Dive, Business of Fashion, CNA, CFA Institute). But rejected because detected as advertisment. Do you see any remaining issues that might trigger rejection. Can I get help please. Thank you! Textbypeeps (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Textbypeeps, welcome to the teahouse.

:Remember that information doesn't have to be an explicit endorsement to sound promotional - even the very existence of an article can be seen as promotional. Your article largely discusses the services provided by several companies, with lots of links or references to those companies. An encyclopaedic article should contain a limited summary of this information, with more information such as purpose, history, etc. to provide context for the subject and establish its relevance and notability to the rest of the world. If you are able to do this with reliable sources available, then the article can be reworded to sound less promotional in tone. In my experience, reading a range of different existing and high-quality articles can give you a good sense of how to write with a neutral and informative tone. Hope this helps. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:A few comments:

:*Section headers should be in sentence case, not headline case.

:*The text of an article should be sentences, with verbs in them.

:*How does an authentication certificate get permanently attached to a sneaker or pair of sneakers? Maproom (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Hello, My previous thread has been archived. Today I made another attempt to rewrite the article to make the tone sound neutral. I am hoping that this will help remove the promotional and other tags. Any feedback for improvement is highly appreciated. Thanks Shyamalswiki (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I quote: {{Olive|The ensemble has toured internationally, including an 18-city North American schedule and appearances at Sydney Opera House and other major venues.^{[53][54][55][56][57] [58] [59][60][61][62][63][64][65]}}} A contrast with the claims for her appearances at {{Olive|Esplanade, Singapore / Hong Kong Arts Festival, Hong Kong / Rikskonsertene, Norway}}, which come with a total of zero references. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|Shyamalswiki}} There are definitely WP:REFBOMB problems with the amount of references on the page. Also, the addition of external links in the body to the subjects YouTube videos and Ted Talks go against WP:NOELBODY and are not appropriate. There is also information that is promotional and probably unneeded, such as a list of venues the subject has performed in. I would probably highlight a couple of the notable festivals they were apart of, and remove the rest. The collaborations section would read a lot better in prose form, not another list. The "Cup O' Carnatic season highlights" subsection should probably be completely removed as it is not the subject of the page and is unnecessary trivial information. cyberdog958^Talk 06:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I want there to be Régional 2 because of Régional 1. 94.196.253.242 (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:You are free to make Draft:Régional 2. If it adheres to en:Wikipedia's policies it will be promoted to a regular article. However you'd be wise to get plenty of practice improving existing articles before attempting to create a new one. -- Hoary (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:You might want to discuss your plans and ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/France task force. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

does new joinees receive warning out of blue for their unintentional or intentional mistakes? or periodically receive soft warnings aka pointing out mistakes? Kiji-Jiki (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Kiji-Jiki Usually, yes. We try to be polite and helpful to newcomers, unless they are being deliberately disruptive. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:You can read more about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings and WP:BITE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Was wondering why this tree is not a historical tree I am sure it is a friendship oak or an angel oak and probably about 800 years old if I would guess I would like to put a pic on here and exact location of where it is located . I just wish if it is something very special someone would notice it . 2605:59C8:10EF:E810:B979:95F1:B085:1038 (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:The Teahouse (this page) is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia.

:You can ask about your tree at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, with a picture (if you took it yourself) and/or the location (a link to a Google Streetmap view would do). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe I have been the victim of a targeting edit-stalking harassment campaign by a user for several years now and would like to file the proper report necessary to do something about it. What information do I need specifically and where should I post this report? Thank you. Hostagecat (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please see the advice at Wikipedia:How to deal with harassment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I also note that you have replies at User talk:Popcornfud#You are edit-stalking me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I am a new editor and while I have read/learnt a lot about edits. Can I get someone to edit any errors for my page Draft:Eyre Llew

Thank you most kindly. Basig2142 (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:You have several unreferenced sentences or paragraphs. These all need references.

:You need to be sure that the band meet the notability requirements at WP:BAND.

: Some of your links (e.g. The Great Escape, The Darkness) are to disambiguation pages; they need to be fixed.

:One of your images lacks licensing/ permission details and will be deleted if they are not provided.

:If you have a connection to the band (the fact that you photographed them in the UK and Singapore suggests you might) you must declare this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you so much Andy, now I know what to focus on. Yes I am connected to the band and have added the conflict of interested for the submission. Basig2142 (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Basig2142}}: some comments (I've only looked at the lead section):

:*Should it be "are a band" or "is a band"? I know some people have strong views on this. I can't remember which view prevails.

:*Names of genres, like "Post-rock", are generally not capitalised.

:*The lead and body of an article should not contain direct external links, like yours to https://open.spotify.com/album/0z4BFpH7SVCD4VkTdF5TvP.   Maproom (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you Maproom for your expertise.

::I just looked at other artist articles in the same genre like 'Caspian' and 'Alt-J', one says 'are', one says 'is' so I see what you mean.

::How would I add evidence for a specific music release? I assumed this was that right way to do it as Caspian also added an external link to Amazon.com/shop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Trees#cite_note-amazon.com-3)

::Do I need to move direct external links to the reference list at the end instead of in the body of the article? Basig2142 (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::Fwiw, "are" is the typical British usage, and "is" is the consistent American one, fwiw. So either can be correct, and the choice depends on the WP:ENGVAR the article uses overall. See also MOS:PLURALS. -- Avocado (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think "is/are" comes down to a difference in varieties of English — "are" is the standard for British English; "is" is the standard for American English if the band name is singular (Green Day is... versus The Turtles are...). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I am a new editor here and will like to edit my account name ... don't know if it's possible to that. If yes, what is the procedures? EiraMa-diva (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:@EiraMa-diva Since you just started this account, the easy way is to just abandon it and start a new one. Less easy way: WP:CHU. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::As an administrator, I highly recommend renaming the account over abandonment, which would inherently prevent any real or perceived problems with having multiple accounts. Peaceray (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to publish an article about a Canadian company that has been influential in AI and ML development and changed much of about how retailers use analytics today.

I submitted the article, but was rejected by @Sophisticatedeveningbecause my sources were not good enough. I removed PR sources and added more trusted sources. But I was then rejected again by @Pythoncoder because the article sounds more like an advertisement. I noticed that the reviewer spent only 1 minute looking at my article. Is that enough time to evaluate the article, or is this done with an automated tool?

What can I do to improve the article? This is the article in question: Draft:Retalon (software). ImalinkaIam (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:GPTZero says 54% of the content is AI generated, which is not acceptable. The ‘Recognition and Awards” section has no notable content and the rest is VERY promotional. Do you have a conflict of interest by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Theroadislong No, conflict of interest, I was doing research on Canadian companies that have had an impact on the modern world for a University project, and I got super interested in Retalon, because it's not well know but has had a huge impact on AI tech, and no-one knows about them. I'm hoping to get an interview with their CEO in a couple of weeks.

::I did use GPT to help me with phrasing, but I did all the research myself. Will rewriting it help? ImalinkaIam (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::GPT is NOT your friend here, it has made it sound very promotional, we need dry neutral prose with no adjectives. And just so you know interviews are NOT reliable independent sources even when published. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok, thank you. I will rewrite it. Would it be possible for you to review my rewrite when it is ready? ImalinkaIam (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm extracting all Proto-Indo–European roots from Wiktionary and accurately analyzing their syllable structure. PIE's phonotactics on Wikipedia aren't accurately documented, so I was wondering if I can add my results there and source Wiktionary. Unlimiter (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I believe that would classify as circular citing and/or original research, and thus is a no-go. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::Do I then link all unique sources of all roots? Unlimiter (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:No, because—as your suggestion implies—Wiktionary is user generated. We don't use UG sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Boris Vishnevskiy from September 22, 2016, to September 19, 2021. does MOS:YEARCOMMA is applicable? aka can i remove comma after 2016? jiki (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Kiji-Jiki! Yes, YEARCOMMA applies to ranges like that. There should be a comma after 2016 in your example. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{courtesy link|Draft:Dj Vancy}}

"Hi, I’ve resubmitted a draft article about myself (DJ Vancy), and I would appreciate any advice on whether the improvements meet the notability requirements. Thanks in advance!" Vancythedj (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Vancythedj your resubmission was refused shortly before you posted here. The reason given was "Facebook and Mixcloud do not indicate notability and the Siaya Today seems to be a paid advertisement or written by the submitter themselves (author is just labelled as "Contributor")". This means that your draft has no WP:Reliable sources whatsoever.
Meeting Wikipedia's WP:Notability requirements can be hard. To show "notability" you need to find at least three references that meet WP:42 ? - i.e. that

:# Give significant coverage and discuss you directly and in detail, not just passing mentions, lists or event schedules.
and

:# Are reliable, issued by a publisher with a reputation for fact checking, not tabloid papers or magazines, fansites, social media, or blogs.
and

:# Are independent from you. Not interviews, press releases, or other material written, or paid for, by you, your friends, or agents.

:Each of your three references must meet all 3 criteria, not one meeting one criterion and another meeting a different one. If you do not have such references, your article is very unlikely to be approved. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. - Arjayay (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I have created a draft article about Egyptian music producer Nasr Mahrous in my sandbox at User:Androulaki/sandbox. I would like to move it to Draft:Nasr Mahrous so that I can submit it for review.

As a newer editor, I don’t yet have permission to move pages to the Draft namespace. Could someone kindly help with this move?

Thank you so much! Androulaki (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am technically not new to Wikipedia but I barely edit so consider myself "new" so forgive me if I'm asking a question that's already been asked before; I tried searching to see if it was but am not coming up with quite the same question. I'm also in the process of orienting myself more on page editing protocol.

I am the President of the Historical Society of West Windsor, New Jersey. There is a blurb about a locally significant historical site (the Schenck-Covenhoven Cemetery) that is included as two short (and unfortunately historically-inaccurate) paragraphs under another historically distinct site (Washington Road Elm Allee). The cemetery is significant for multiple reasons - it's possibly among the oldest extant burial grounds in the state (not the oldest of course; I know there are older ones) and contains some of West Windsor Township's founders and some of its earliest colonial settlers. We believe it may warrant it being a separate Wikipedia article rather than just a blurb under the Washington Road Elm Allee article, which has very little historical relationship with the cemetery besides geographical proximity. Currently, searching for the "Schenck-Covenhoven Cemetery" on Wikipedia redirects to the Elm Allee's page.

My question: What is the "litmus test" for whether this "splitting off" is warranted? I'm considering writing a separate article, but if the current primary editor of the Washington Road Elm Allee does not accept editing the redirect, that may make those efforts redundant. I could theoretically write the article anyway, but would it risk redundancy - and thus deletion? Thank you in advance. Paulligeti (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Paulligeti}} Welcome to the Teahouse. If you have resources that would allow you to create a substantial article about the cemetery, such as historical texts, newspaper articles, or similar, then you should go ahead and write the article. The primary author or creator of an article has no more ownership of it than anyone else. Even if the article were subject to a discussion about deletion, if consensus came to any conclusion, it would probably be to add what was written back to Washington Road Elm Allée. If you are really concerned about it you could contact the user at their talk page (User talk:Djkeddie) or create a new topic on the Washington Road Elm Allee page and notify them using @Djkeddie. -- Reconrabbit 20:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you very much for the detailed and rapid reply. Paulligeti (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey Teahouse, for a while I've had a random drawing of a witch that I found on Commons as the infobox image in my user page, and I'd like to replace it with something that's a bit more personal to me. I've got a couple of questions about that which I wasn't able to dig up for myself:

1. Is it acceptable for me to upload some piece of art I've made, or is it preferable for me to use a photo of myself? I'm an extremely private person, so I'd prefer the former, the latter would force me to obscure my face enough to not be useful.
2. Should I upload it here to en, or do I need to wade through the arcane rules of Commons?
3. Aside from the necessary info marking the image as my own work, is there anything I should keep in mind for an image that's exclusively meant for my user page rather than an article?

Thank you in advance 🥰 Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 20:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:The only rules you have to follow when uploading a photo to Commons is that it is within the project scope and falls under an appropriate free-use license for its reuse by others. The Commons project scope states: {{green|A file does not acquire educational value solely because it is in use on a user page. However, the uploading of small numbers of images for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project.}} As an example, there are several images of Cullen328 that are hosted on Commons, an English Wikipedia administrator who does not have an article written about him. -- Reconrabbit 20:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)