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

For June 1, the "Did you know ..." "... that no other month in a calendar year starts with the same day of the week as June?" is incorrect.  The month of May is also like June.  They both start on unique days of the week.  May however is the only month that start and ends on a unique day of the week. Beatles777! (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Beatles777! Hi, The accuracy of that fact depends on the specific year. For 2025, June does start on a unique weekday. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 07:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sure. But so does May. Maproom (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::June is the only month in 2025 that begins on a Sunday. May does have a unique weekday pattern, but the statement refers only to starting weekdays. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 08:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Beatles777!}} The statement doesn't claim that June is the only month with this property. May also has it as you say. It makes the statement less interesting but not wrong. August also has the property except in leap years. May and June has it in all years. I also checked the Gregorian calendar in 1582 where ten days were skipped in October. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::"No other month" Can lead one to believe that June is the only month. even if you're just referring to this year or excluding week ends. 50.235.176.226 (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am trying to publish this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Exposure-based_modeling_of_operational_risk

I am struggling as it get rejected, probably by bots, and I don't know what to do next to improve it!

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide! Patnaim (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Patnaim first of all, there are no bots; every reviewer is human. The main problem is your draft reads more like an academic essay rather than an encyclopedic article. I would start by removing all claims not supported by a source (which is most of the draft) and summarizing the information in a neutral manner. [[User:CanonNi]] (talk • contribs) 10:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::@CanonNi Thanks for your advice. I'll try my best, but that does not look simple! Patnaim (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Patnaim, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

:{{User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst}} ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::@ColinFine Thanks for your help. I guess you're right.

::A long time ago I wrote this page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_bay%C3%A9sien and it went through immediately. But this was probably easier at that time.

::I will take the necessary time to learn, thanks again! Patnaim (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I still don't understand why my article was rejected. Its because of sources, but i dont know how i can repair it. Can you help me? 213.151.77.62 (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:It looks like you just have to find more sources that follow the reliability guidelines outlined in WP:CITE Stickymatch 12:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Because a Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about it in reliable publications, and very little else. Government documents about the setting up the Council are irrelevant.

:You need to find places (probably books or academic papers, but perhaps some articles in major newspapers) that talk about the council in some depth, and base your draft exclusively on those sources. ColinFine (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Link for future hosts: Draft:The Czech Fiscal Council

:Hello IP! Rejected has a specific meaning in our review process - it means the article will not be accepted for further review. Your draft has only been declined, so you still have hope.

:The sources you have cited thus far appear to be government documents along with lists of current and former members. You will need to cite source(s) explaining why the Czech Fiscal Council is notable. These cannot be connected with the Czech Fiscal Council in any way. Maybe you could find a newspaper article on why the organization was founded, or one talking about what exactly the Council has been doing recently - but, again, it cannot be connected to the Council in any way. I've found a source that may be useful to you - it's by a professor at the University of Bialystok. It talks about the council's influence and I believe it will qualify as a reliable and independent source. You can access it [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382070897_The_influence_of_the_Czech_Fiscal_Council_on_the_Sustainability_of_Public_Finance here].

:I wish you the best of luck and genuinely hope that I see this article in mainspace in the near future. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::IP editor. Google scholar [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&as_epq=Czech+Fiscal+Council&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 gives loads of hits] so finding some meeting our golden rules for sourcing should be fairly simple. That's even before you consider other-language sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I didn't even consider Google Scholar, oof.. good one, Mike! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 13:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you so much, too! 2A07:B242:101E:800:2DD6:9233:B:8AC (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you so much! This is exactly what I needed to know. 2A07:B242:101E:800:2DD6:9233:B:8AC (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I created a task force here: Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Visayan task force

There are many articles of interest to this task force. However, I don't know how to create a tag/parameter for it. I hope someone can guide me on how to do it, because I'd like to improve the task force page as much as I can.

Thank you. Bloomagiliw (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe Help:Template is what you're looking for? PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 19:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::I mean I'm trying to create the parameter for the task force page itself, so the page can be tagged in articles. Bloomagiliw (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Bloomagiliw I think you're looking for Module:WikiProject banner/doc. Sorry that it's not very accessible to do. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Hello, I checked that out and it might just be me being dumb, but I don't see instructions on how to make a custom parameter for a task force.

::::Basically, I'm hoping that if I write visayan=yes in the talk page of an article, within the Tambayan Philippines shell, it will produce the "This article is supported by the Visayan task force" just like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bini_(group) ("This article is supported by the Philippine music task force") in the "Tambayan Philippines" shell.

::::I'm so sorry! Either this site is complex or I'm just being dumb. I hope I can figure this out, though, because the Visayan task force page has already been created. Bloomagiliw (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hello, @Bloomagiliw. Adding a parameter to a template requires editing the code of the template. The Template Template:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (which I think is the relevant one) is protected, so only Template editors may change it.

:::::You need to request the change using {{tl|edit template-protected}} on the talk page Template talk:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines. ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am interested in creating an IPA guide for the Okinawan language. At first, I thought I simply needed to create a draft article along the lines of Draft:Help:IPA/Okinawan. However, when attempting to create the article, I came across a similar attempt to make a Help:IPA guide for the Kannada language, Draft:Help:IPA/Kannada by @Krzapex. Said draft was rejected, and the reviewer @Timtrent, commented saying that this was not the way to create Help: pages, and that one should ask here for further information.

Thus, I ask: how would I go about properly creating a Help: page, perhaps more specifically a Help:IPA page? Thank you in advance. Ushitarou (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:You just create it directly: go to Help:IPA/Okinawan and start writing. If you don't want to do that while it's in progress, you can always start it in your userspace and move it there when you're done. I recommend contacting the relevant wikiprojects/talk pages for specific assistance and advice. -- asilvering (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi you can say me how looks El salvador end the years 90s pleas pleas pleas pleas pleas pleas pleas pleas??????????? 2600:382:2B21:DE64:6B5F:3BD6:2B19:F461 (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, IP user. Your question is not very clear. Is it answered in the article El Salvador? If not, you would be better asking at the Reference Desk, as this page is for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. But if you do ask the question again, I suggest you be much more specific about what you want to know. ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

trying to start a wiki page for a music band Missioned Souls (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please see your first article and make sure your topic meets our notability guidelines for bands. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::Plus, it's technically autobiography, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Read it here. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 03:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::*strongly discouraged, but yes. Anyway note original poster has been blocked per the username policy. GoldRomean (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::*:Ah, ok. Thanks for the information! :) Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 03:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It makes sense for Donald Trump to be protected, but why is almost every significant page I try to edit protected? How should I make good edits? Xwoqjodisfumosd (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:These pages have undergone a history of vandalism, and as such limitations on who can edit them have been imposed. You can try checking out the task center for some ideas on what to do - those should classify as "good edits" in your words. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Xwoqjodisfumosd Your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daylight_saving_time&diff=next&oldid=1293545465 edit] at Daylight saving time might be better if linked with a source. The deletion of an alternative name might be discussed on the article's talk page where there has already been discussion of alternative names. Also, an edit summary (even something as simple as 'spelling') is always better than nothing. Another editor dropped some links on your talk page for ways to find articles that need help. The 'Suggested Edit' feature is easy to work with, and only requires a few minutes. Happy editing! Just Al (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Xwoqjodisfumosd}}, only a tiny percentage of Wikipedia articles are protected. And you can leave edit requests on the talk page of almost all protected articles. Cullen328 (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Title Xwoqjodisfumosd (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello! You can use the sandbox, or your own personal sandbox, User:Xwoqjodisfumosd/sandbox. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I have been noticing at one point most page vandalisms happen because of IP users so I vote to ban the ones that did it Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, this has actually been suggested before! See this for more info. In short, while (according to that page) 97% of vandalism is created by IPs, 80% of IP edits are actually constructive! GoldRomean (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::good point but others have been nothing but trouble it’s like releasing a tiger tank into a town in world war 2 it’s always trouble if a vandal shows up I just hate vandals and you may hate me for saying this if Wikipedia could just add bots that can detect vandalism and remove editing from the person that did it and that would be effective Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::We do have vandal-detecting bots like User:ClueBot NG! (Do note that warning IPs for months-old edits is not that worthwhile, and remember to assume good faith.) GoldRomean (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Also I didn’t mention most vandalisms I saw were on FNAF World 2 by the same IP that has to be a problem Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If a user continues to vandalize despite being given enough warnings, they can be reported to WP:AIV. But the edits in this case are extremely stale. GoldRomean (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That is a very good point but I am probably the only one who is very pissed off about vandalism and in real life it’s almost a crime and everyone knows that Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It’s okay to dislike vandals, in fact I bet most editors do. However, not all IPs or editors who you think are vandals are actually vandals - some are trying to contribute, but may come across as vandals. That’s why it’s important to assume good faith. GoldRomean (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Lordofcallofduty}}, three points I want to emphasise:

::::::(1) Many, perhaps most, IP addresses are now dynamic, so a user with a particular IP today may have a different one in an hour, or tomorrow, or next week. Sometimes the ISP assigns a user new IPs within a restricted range, and sometimes Wikipedia blocks that whole range, but this not infrequently hits innocent users who just happen to have IPs in the same range. Sometimes a range ban is not possible or practicable. About the only way to completely block an IP-only vandal would be to block all non-Account editing.

::::::(2) Opening a new Wikipedia account is sufficiently easy that more seriously dedicated vandals (see LTA) continually, even pre-emptively, open multiple accounts – these vandals are often responsible for the worst vandalisms, and are harder to combat.

::::::(3) As has been mentioned above, 80% of edits by IPs are good ones, not vandalism: if all IPs were banned, we would lose most of those good edits and editors. I myself have been editing Wikipedia regularly and frequently for over 20 years, have for my own reasons never created an account, and my once-fixed home IP was changed by my ISP to dynamic some years ago.

:::::There is a proverb "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" which I invite you to reflect on. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.228.242 (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Good point but take my example of a very good thing on one article Video Games Live aka my favorite group and I like that it has barely any vandalism and I will agree those points are good but I got to say! I was exhausted when I wrote that Don’t ask why? And I have to say well have a good day Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You too! GoldRomean (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Arshak Sargsyan is the founder and director of Anuloid Games RustaviOri (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse! Thanks for the information! But this is the place not to put information. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 03:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:And we do not yet have an article on Anuloid Games (which is why that link is red), so there is nowhere to use that information – yet.

:Perhaps in time you can create and submit an article about Anuloid Games, but judging from your previous attempt at Draft:ElTR you need to learn more about Wikipedia's requirements first. You might like to start by studying these project pages:

:Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia,

:Wikipedia:Everything you need to know.

:Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.228.242 (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Plus, it needs to be notable. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 03:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

How do bots like User:ClueBot NG detect warnings and give #2 warnings accordingly?

--pro-anti-air (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:For ClueBot NG, {{U|Pro-anti-air}}, please see User:ClueBot_NG#Vandalism_Detection_Algorithm. -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

{{courtesy link|User:Hello123212/sandbox}}

Can someone help explain why my article for Joe Sealey has been rejected he is a well known person in the Uk and comes from an established family, can someone help me back changes so it can be published Hello123212 (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, the reason your article was declined is listed in the decline notice. It has no sources right now. Wikipedia articles need reliable source to demonstrate notability. GoldRomean (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I quote your own user talk page, Hello123212:

:*This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

:*The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

:-- although the version on your talk page helpfully has links.

:I note that you say that he:

:*"is a well known person in the Uk"

:*"comes from an established family"

:If he's well known, then I'd presume that reliable sources will have written about him in some depth. And if so, your job will be easier.

:I don't know what's meant by "established family", but anyway his family doesn't matter. -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, please can someone review my three articles I've created, thank you.

Melinda Markey

Ena Hartman

Ewa Krasnodebska Adelberta (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Adelberta}} They will be reviewed by a New Page Patroller in due course. Asking for a review is not likely to speed the process. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I saw the reliable sources list and noticed a problem: several international newspapers, including some U.K ones (The Telegraphh) and mostly all Latino ones, are not gauged for reliability. It would be good if they were listed so we could tell whether we could use them pt not. God bless! Jeanette the headcase Martin (que me dices?) 11:00, 3 June, 2025 (UTC)

:Unfortunately, it is impossible for such a list ever to be exhaustive; but please ask on its talk page if you would like a specific publication to be included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:User:JeanetteMartin. Note that there is advice on how you could find if a particular source has been discussed before at WP:RSPMISSING. That also describes how to start a new discussion about a specific source. I'm not sure which newspaper you had in mind because you linked to a disambiguation page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I need an article to be improved for AfC, but I can't find good sources for it. Draft:Greenstreet, Missouri and Draft:Fourmile Corner Sunhighway27 (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Unfortunately, if you cannot find reliable and independent sources for coverage of your topic, then there is very little chance that it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. AlphaBetaGamma left some good future advice on your now-rejected draft for Fourmile Corner: "Next time, consider checking if subjects you're writing on has enough notability before starting drafts." You shouldn't be working backwards, where you need to find sources for something - find a source and use it as a starting point for an article instead. Don't let this discourage you, though - I had quite a few failed drafts before getting an article published. You'll get there eventually! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 11:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student).

:It is likely that both of your subjects will meet our notability criteria, once sources are found. Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Don't give up! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::thank you Sunhighway27 (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there any type of requirement for the formatting of wikipedia pages I.e. MLA, APA, and College formattiing 143.59.6.114 (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Are you referencing the format of sources? There's an extensive page covering that topic here. If you're referencing the layout of a page, you can find that at this subpage of the manual of style. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia doesn't enforce a specific citation style, but we have plenty of citation templates that make it easy to format references in a consistent manner (and which are informed by established styles like the ones you list). ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{Tq|1="Wikipedia doesn't enforce a specific citation style"}} True, but we do ask that contributors respect the existing style when updating an article; and use one style consistently throughout articles they create. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I have redone the references on my draft article Draft:Sydney Uriah Bogues However declined once again. I have added the actual document to substantiate the validity of each source. Does anyone have pointers on where I may have missed out? Thank you! Artnascar7 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:The feedback left for you time and time again has been that you need reliable sources. Your article appears to be largely primary sources, and point 5 of the policy explicitly states: "Do not base an entire article on primary source" (emphasis in original). Unless you can find sources that talk about Bouges and why he is notable after his life, then I do not believe the article will pass AfC. You also have multiple smaller sections of the article that are not sourced, sometimes there's a source earlier on in the paragraph but not for what is said at the end.

:There's also some odd things said in wikivoice, such as the end of the early childhood section: "It is for reasons like these; it would seem, why young S.U. Bogues decided to pursue a career in the field of preparing medicine." This feels like something that would belong in a book, not a Wikipedia article. Also, some of your headers are in title case (Early Childhood, The 1907 Earthquake and New Market) while others are in sentence case (Family background, Education and career): all titles should be in sentence case.

:I would heavily advise not resubmitting the article for review until you feel you have completely addressed these concerns. Do not hesitate to ask for further assistance here in the teahouse. I feel this article has potential (he's certainly an interesting character) and would hate if it was rejected for the same reasons it has been declined for. Best of luck with the article! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 13:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Great, thank you! Artnascar7 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You're welcome! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 13:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I also have a little concern, these articles usually take several months to be reviewed. this was reviewed after only a few weeks.

::::The reason I mention this because the wikieditor who reviewed it also changed their entire page with a lot of middle eastern/arabic topics on the same day my article was reviewed.

::::The subject in my draft has a largely Jewish background.

::::I hate to be divisive in the platform, but could I have somehow have it addressed as a concern? Artnascar7 (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Works

:::::* Evacuations during the Gaza war

:::::* Adly Mansour Transportation Hub

:::::* Heliopolis station

:::::* Safaa Hegazy station

:::::* Sakakini Palace

:::::* Nile Fountain

:::::* Sudan station

:::::* Rod El Farag Corridor station

:::::* Ring Road station

:::::* El-Qawmia station

:::::* El-Bohy station

:::::* Tawfikia station

:::::* Wadi El Nile station

:::::* Gamat El Dowal station

:::::* Boulak El Dakrour station

:::::* Imbaba station

:::::* This page was last edited on 2 June 2025, at 07:46.

:::::Artnascar7 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::That list of topics on ToadetteEdit's page has existed since before the article was declined (only Imbaba station was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ToadetteEdit&diff=prev&oldid=1293539329 added the same day] your draft was declined) - I do not believe those had anything to do with the draft's decline, though I do understand your concerns about bias. If you have concerns then I would bring those up on the editor's talk page. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::This person I believe wrote all these articles. But their page history says they were all placed on the page at the day of my review. Artnascar7 (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Please see the diff that I linked. I'll link it again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ToadetteEdit&diff=prev&oldid=1293539329 here]. Only the last entry on the list was added the day of the decline. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thank you, you're right. apologies. Artnascar7 (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::As an immigrant during the 1920's, I think the topic has a lot of merit. Could they put it as a stub? Artnascar7 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I think it's currently a start-class article, probably could get up to C-class with a few secondary sources. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

: Studena (water)

I've been created the page about non-carbonated mineral water "Studena" from Lipik in Croatia. I know that both the Studena and Lipički Studenac are well known brands in Croatia, but would be good for me to create its own article. Allo002 (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I believe you are asking if you are allowed to create such a page? You have (and good job making it in your userspace), but currently it only has two sources that 1) are not formatted properly, and 2) do not appear to be secondary and independent. You also appear to largely just list the products of the company - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list of a company's products. You need to demonstrate how the company is wikinotable before the article can be published. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 13:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new editor and submitted an article about "Novarabet", an Indonesian musician and verified artist on platforms like Spotify and Apple Music. It was declined because of notability concerns.

I included several sources from Yamaha Asia, Yamaha Indonesia, Kumparan, Bale Bengong, and MusicBrainz.

Can someone help me understand if these sources are strong enough, or what else I should include? Here is the draft: Draft:Novarabet

I would really appreciate any guidance. Thank you! Novarabetmusic (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:The draft has not been rejected, it has only been declined - the two words have different meanings in the AfC process. Rejection means it will not be accepted further; declined only means that it is not ready for mainspace in its current form. Your draft falls into the latter category. I will note that writing about yourself is extremely discouraged. See this page and this page for information on the topic.

:With all respect, winning a high school band competition is not an award or honor (not to mention it is unsourced). Your singles are also unsourced, and please know that discogs and Spotify are not reliable sources. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 13:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

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

:A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Unless you have several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42, it is unlikely that an article is possible.

:More generally, {{User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst}}. (I know your account has been around for a few years, but with only 27 edits in your history, you are still a "new editor". ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|ColinFine}} Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. I appreciate your time and understand your concerns. I'm currently working on improving the draft article about myself (Novarabet) and am aware of the importance of significant, reliable, and independent sources. I'm actively gathering stronger third-party references that provide in-depth coverage and are not affiliated with me.

::I understand that Wikipedia is not meant for promotion and that neutrality and verifiability are core principles. I'm also planning to contribute to existing articles—especially in areas related to music and Indonesian artists—to better understand the community's standards and editing practices.

::Thank you again for your guidance; I’ll take your advice seriously as I continue learning and contributing. Novarabetmusic (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Article link: Draft:Richard L'Abbé

I've reviewed the guidelines, and both the article and subject appear to meet the standard. That is, the subject is the focus of several articles in reliable and independent publications such as People Magazine and the Ottawa Citizen, and he's the recipient of major awards both in Canada and the US. The most recent submission was declined due to "references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions)."

Thanks for any help understanding how the subject/article are falling short of the bar needed to be worthy. Eriklabbe (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Eriklabbe}} Hello and welcome. I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed.

:Are you related to Richard? 331dot (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, he's my father. I've disclosed the conflict of interest as suggested by guidelines and I've ensured the content remains impartial, drawing solely from independent sources rather than any primary knowledge. Eriklabbe (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I see the disclosure on the draft- could you also place a disclosure on your user page(User:Eriklabbe)? 331dot (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok, I added the disclosure to my user page: User:Eriklabbe. Eriklabbe (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks 331dot (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is an interesting article, I will admit - and I think the image adds to it. However, you need secondary sources about your father's work. These sources should be secondary in origin, independent of him, and come from reliable publications. As of now, you have not achieved that. Your sources appear to be either primary or only provide a passing mention of the subject. Two of your in-text citations are oddly in the middle of the sources segment. Also, Wikipedia should not be cited as a source (see reference #2).

:No doubt an interesting article, and I have hope it will eventually find its way to mainspace. Good job with the CoI by the way. Best of luck! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 15:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Eriklabbe If you haven't, try digging [https://archive.org/search?query=%22Richard+L%27Abb%C3%A9%22&sin=TXT¬%5B%5D=year%3A%221844%22¬%5B%5D=year%3A%221845%22¬%5B%5D=year%3A%221876%22¬%5B%5D=year%3A%221877%22¬%5B%5D=year%3A%221880%22¬%5B%5D=year%3A%221908%22 here.] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Ping to @MediaKyle, you might be interested in this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for bringing my attention to this. @Eriklabbe, you're right, the subject of this article does pass GNG based on the fact that he received the Order of Canada. I'm going to take a shot at cleaning it up for you now so it can be published, and we'll go from there. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I've actually just spent a bunch of time addressing feedback received via the live chat. I sifted through newspapers.com and found a few more direct articles on Richard, rather than Med-Eng the company. I have at least 3 reliable, independent articles about Richard so I've added those to the appropriate in line sentence.

:::Oh no, we have an editing conflict now. Not sure how to proceed Eriklabbe (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh, darn. I'm sorry about that, didn't realize you were still actively editing, I probably got you all confused now. If you want to drop me the links here I can add them in. MediaKyle (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::If you don't mind, I'm going to keep my version (cause I literally just spent 2+ hours on it) and attempt to merge in your changes. Are you ok with that? Eriklabbe (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::No problem at all. I should've responded sooner Eriklabbe (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Absolutely, go for it, all I just did was some formatting so I can redo that easily enough. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Ok I merged your changes on headers and at the bottom. You have a reference structure that I'm not familiar with and didn't want to mess with that too much (i.e. {{Sfnmp|The Globe and Mail|2007}}). I think I caught most of the others. Eriklabbe (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'll wait before submitting to ensure there's nothing more I can do to help approval Eriklabbe (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{Section resolved|1=Article - a good one - is published. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)}}

To whom it may concern,

I'm unclear if my page: George Lynch (journalist) has been published as it doesn't appear in the search results? Greenpark79 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @Greenpark79. Your article is published. It will appear on search engines when an WP:NPP reviewer checks the article or 90 days pass. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! Greenpark79 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi

I do not know how to get the box on my homepage like I see on other pages. It is at the top of my page and it is the wiki-project ships one. the page is here User:Boenav

Thank you Boenav (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:It looks like you typed it in visual editor mode when it should've been done in source editor mode. If you copy that text (and the curly brackets) in the source editor, it should be fixed. Hope this helps! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Also, it’s called a userpage - a homepage is something specific for new users to get edit requests and the like. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 18:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Ok thank you Boenav (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Why girl education doesn't end in the kitchen 105.112.212.10 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse.

:This is not really the right place for this sort of question, as this page is about how to use and edit Wikipedia.

:If you can't find the answer to your question in the article Female education, perhaps you want to ask it at the Reference desk. But if you do, I think you'll need to make your question clearer. ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please do not post nonsense questions anywhere on Wikipedia- your IP has already been blocked from talk pages due to doing this same sort of thing. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 18:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed that in most, if not all, BLPs of musicians, the "Songwriting credits" sections often lack citations. This seems unusual to me, given that all content must be verifiable. Are these uncited credits acceptable under any current guidelines, or would it be better practice to include a reference for each entry (e.g., in a dedicated reference column if in table format)? AstrooKai (Talk) 18:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I suggest that, just as films contain cast lists that do not require independent referencing from another source in the articles about them, the fact that published musical works usually bear credits for their writers means that a separate reference for them is not required.

:The Project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs is not actually explicit about this, but perhaps you can find something by following up its many links, or a discussion of it somewhere in the archives of its Talk page. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.228.242 (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! Now that you mentioned, I will also ask this on the WikiProject to get more feedback regarding this. AstrooKai (Talk) 10:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

A problem reported, but not resolved, on 8 November 2023 has recurred on one of my User pages. Some references show as, "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be previewed in source mode". In source mode they only show as a number. I've copied them from another article. Is this a bug, will it resolve when I put the article in Mainspace, or have I made a mistake? Johnragla (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Johnragla}} You didn't copy the reference text but only a reference marker like which indicates that the reference text is supposed to be elsewhere on the page inside .... All the red "Cite error" messages in the rendered userspace page would still be there in a mainspace article. In VisualEditor it can be difficult to see what you copy. I don't know whether it can even copy references from one page to another. When you copy a reference within an article, you don't copy the actual reference text but only a reference marker. Maybe the reference text was in another part of the article you copied from, or maybe VisulaEditor couldn't copy the reference to a different page. In the source editor you can see what you copy. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Johnragla The first time you create a reference in source mode you define it like this reference test 1 then every time you want to re-use that reference you just use . Here you have the re-use code but lack the original definition code, so in visual mode you see the "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block ..." message simply because those references are currently undefined. You can simply delete the empty ones and create new defined references in there stead. Nthep (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need sources for a person? How am I meant to get this guy If I know him and unable to get sources for a person

^ Ollieliddiard (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello. If a topic is not discussed in independent reliable sources, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. Information in an article must be verifiable. We cannot verify your personal word. If you just want to tell the world about this person, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello {{user link|Ollieliddiard}} :). Here at Wikipedia we only write about notable topics, which for us basically means the person must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If this is not the case, we mustn't write an article about them. If they do have coverage, you are welcome to create the article. Except, editing or creating articles about family or friends is strongly discouraged due to the conflict of interest. Thank you for your time. Have a nice day! –The Sophocrat (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::As a heads up, OP did come onto wikipedia-en-help and asked this same question. He did not like the responses we gave him, which were along the lines of what 331dot and Sopho said above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I’d like to request consideration for reinserting the following biographical sentence into the article on Rebecca Alston:

“She continued her studies as a post graduate student at New York University and attended the professional program modules of Harvard Graduate School of Design over several years.”

This sentence was previously removed, but the information is supported by reliable sources already cited in the article, including:

1. Octavia Art Gallery – Artist Bio: https://www.octaviaartgallery.com/artists/rebecca-alston
2. The Museum of Geometric and MADI Art: https://www.geometricmadimuseum.org/portfolio-item/alston

Both sources note that she studied at NYU and attended Harvard GSD programs, confirming this information.

I’m also requesting help adding sourced citations to the solo and group exhibition history for the article on Rebecca B. Alston. Many exhibitions currently lack inline citations, and I’ve compiled a set of references — including reliable articles and newspaper scans hosted on Newspapers.com — confirming her participation. Below is an example:

Exhibition: One Woman Retrospective, Walter Anderson Museum of Art, 2014–15

Citation:

{{cite news |title=Where Science and Art Converge |url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/678577260/ |work=Sun Herald |date=2015-01-18}}

I have dozens more formatted if helpful and would really appreciate assistance incorporating these into the article to improve verifiability.

Thank you! Archfusionpro (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Archfusionpro, and welcome to the Teahouse. The proper place to discuss this is at the talk page of the article in question, pinging the other editor(s) who removed the information. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by appeal to some authority: see WP:BRD for how this works.

:I notice that neither of the two sources you mention above is independent of Alston: the biographies likely came from her. Some kinds of information may be cited from non-independent sources (see WP:SPS); I think it is a matter of editorial judgment (and hence to be agreed among the editors interested) whether or not those are suitable sources for that information. ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

While editing Triangle inequality, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangle_inequality&diff=prev&oldid=1293805036 found] an insecure link to http://aleph0.clarku.edu. A Google search found it in more articles than I care to edit. Could someone run a bot or other tool to change the link to https://mathcs.clarku.edu? -- 50.39.108.101 (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:NM, I put in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests&diff=prev&oldid=1293846909 a request] at WP:URLREQ. --50.39.108.101 (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, recently I've encountered a weird problem where when I go to edit, I have no option to edit regularly, only source. It's only a problem because I use a spell check browser extension to help me make most of my copyedits, which can't read source. Anyone know what's going on? Data Devourer (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Data Devourer, Welcome to the Teahouse. Under preferences (the gear icon) click the editing tab. There you can select to use the VisualEditor. In editing mode you can select Always give me the VisualEditor if possible. I hope that helps! Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Data Devourer, a bonus (?) comment (as you suggest that the inability to check your spelling is, for you, the only drawback of editing source): I only edit source, and I only use Firefox for this. (Not any "mobile" version of Firefox or other derivative; instead, regular Firefox.) This checks my spelling (against US English spelling conventions), by default. I've never asked it to do this, let alone installed any plug-in or similar to do the job. (Now that I do look in the horizontal lines menu icon, I find the option under "Settings | Language and Appearance | Language".) -- Hoary (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Firefox will spell check most common languages. There are options on the main "Setting" page. This also works on the mobile (Android, at least) version. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Greetings! I need help moving Draft:Patrick Bartley to Draft:Patrick Bartley Jr. If someone could teach me, that would be a great help! GgDionne (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant; when accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title.

:That said, the move function is in the Tools drop down menu. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi

how do I do the Wikipedia formatting with the big text and corner numbers

I see it in other articles but I do not know how to add it to my article that I made..I would like help so I can make my article good :)

thanks Boenav (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not clear what you mean by "big text and corner numbers", but I have left some helpful links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe @Boenav is referring to citations and headers? PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe; in that case the links provided should help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm editing Camera Work and want to move a detailed list of 50 Camera Work issues to a separate list article. My goal is to streamline the Camera Work article. I'd prefer to move the list now and consider any improvements to the list once I'm done with the edits to the main article.

Before I do this, I thought I'd see if you had any input or advice. Gamboler (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think that's a good idea to prevent the page from seeming too bloated, though you would need a source or two to put at the bottom of the article. A page title like "List of Camera Work issues" would be good. Then you could have a link to the list page where the list currently is in the article. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 15:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:You could also probably add the gallery to that list page as well, though I'd also keep it in the main article as it is currently. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 15:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Concerning this page Malik ibn Nuwayra, an editor seems to have vandalized the article with revisionist polemical claims as well as undoing any revisions to try to fix the one sided apologist content on the page. I'm new to wikipedia, how do I escalate? Do I really need to make an account? 97.100.5.175 (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:You should contact the user on their talk page. If that fails, follow the instructions here. Also no, you are not required to make an account although it would be useful as your IP can change and may confuse other editors. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, IP user. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by anybody insisting that "I am right and they are wrong/polemical/biased". Assume good faith is a core policy of Wikipedia.

:I observe that there has been what looks fairly combative editing on that article, but neither you, nor @Yujoong nor @Maktabaltafakkur has opened a discussion on the talk page. Your duty, all of you, as Wikipedia editors, is to work to reach consensus with other editors, and if you cannot succeed, to follow further steps from dispute resolution.

:Please note also that vandalism has a specific meaning in Wikipedia, and does not include "editing from a point of view I disagree with". ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have an article, written in 2012 in Word, which is a brief history of this football club and contains considerably more information than the Wikipedia article, which has at least one significant error, that is that the team played in amateur leagues. The team was much more significant than that and for two and a half seasons, they were members of the Southern League, which was the strongest competition outside the Football League, and whose players were mostly semi-professional, i.e. they were paid but had other jobs.

The article has sourced its content from the local newspaper of the time, the Chingford Guardian. If you contact me, I will send it to you as I don't know how else to include it.

Kind regards

Mick Blakeman 2A00:23C5:2822:801:9544:FEA7:E690:ECC2 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Mick,

:Many thanks for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia.

:If you could upload the information somewhere - perhaps [https://pastebin.com/ Pastebin]? - and post a link to it on Talk:Chingford Town F.C., editors could review your material.

:Please understand we would need to be able to locate and add suitable references when doing so. If you happen to know of any, also advising us of those on the talk page would be very helpful. ···sardonism · t · c 16:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, Mick, and welcome to the Teahouse.

:If you wanted to improve the extremely weak article Chingford Town F.C., that would be welcome; but unfortunately, unless your article was based on independent, reliable published sources, it will not be much use in doing so. Local newspapers are often borderline for being regarded as reliable; and the newspaper articles would need to be mostly independent of the club (i.e. not based on interviews or press releases).

:A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosem to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else.

:The existing article does not meet this description in several ways: it cites only one source, and it is not clear whether that book is a reliable source, or whether it is independent of Chingford Town F.C. - unless it is both of these, it does not contribute to establishing that the club meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Even if it does, a single source is not enough.

:A good deal of the article - including everything about the revivals - is unsourced.

:You are welcome to add the specific information you want to change, cited to the source - see WP:REFB for how to cite sources. But in my view, doing so will not improve the article significantly. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey everyone!

Via my local library system I was able to gain access to NewsBank and its trove of articles. Problem is that I cannot figure out the proper URL designation to use that won't direct users to a combined NewsBank/library URL which would not be accessible to most readers or editors.

I tried doing a Teahouse and WP search to no avail.

Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi...you're my only hope.

OlympiaBuebird (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:@OlympiaBuebird, Template:NewsBank text might be what you're after. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hey @Gråbergs Gråa Sång,

::That'll do. Seems like it's in English. My thanks! OlympiaBuebird (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@OlympiaBuebird I've used a similar thing for ProQuest, you can see example refs at Charleen Kinser. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Huge help...think I got it. But don't go to Vegas and bet on that. Could you do me a favor and check the following edit - 1293956302 - to see if I did it good? OlympiaBuebird (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@OlympiaBuebird Looks fine to me! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Laurence J Ruggiero (1948 - 2023) was an American Museum Director and Art Historian.

I have several newspaper and magazine citations about Larry. HorizonHarrisburg (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @HorizonHarrisburg. Welcome to the Teahouse.

:{{User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst}} (I know your account has been around for a couple of years, but you've only made a few edits).

:As GGS says, your sources do not have to be online; but most of them need to meet the criteria in WP:42 - do they contain significant coverage of Ruggiero, or just a passing mention? Are they based on an interview or press release from Ruggiero or from organisations he was connected with? ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:@HorizonHarrisburg I'm not sure this is what you're after, but it's allowed to use off-line citations on Wikipedia. Here's one example.{{cite news |last1=Harrison |first1=Claude |title=Skeeter Reece finds athletic skills are useful as a clown| work=The Philadelphia Tribune |date=June 9, 1981 |page=11}} And if you haven't, take a look at [https://archive.org/search?query=%22Laurence+J+Ruggiero%22&sin=TXT].

:{{reftalk}} Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Nehus_Saxon 2603:8001:7101:5053:F976:8ECE:DC12:6A7E (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Anne Frank article's Talk page, this message appears at the top:

"This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus."

I could hardly believe what I was reading. Can such a request not to change the mixed style without broad consensus really be legitimately made? Augnablik (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:It is not 'mixed style'; it is a subset of British English that uses a specific pattern of spelling. Don't blame Wikipedia, blame Oxford. (Whether OU, OED or OUP is most to blame, I couldn't say.) -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It's OUP. Like many publishers, OUP has its own house "style book". OED (which is published by OUP) aims to record usage among all users of English, and is not prescriptive. I can't imagine OU ever claiming any authority over such an issue. Maproom (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::I’m stunned … I had no idea of this! Augnablik (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Augnablik. There is no "mixed style" - see Oxford spelling.

:Only since spell-checkers, with their simple-minded demand for consistency, has the idea grown up that -ize is "not British". See Lynne Murphy's book The Prodigal Tongue. ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Still reeling from this unexpected news, Colin, I’m tempted to ask you why “demand for consistency” is simple-minded, when the alternative would be many different spellings that could confuse readers. But I’ll curb my curiosity.

::Off to read up on Oxford spelling. Augnablik (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I came across a podcast on the BBC website. Can a podcast be used as a source? Thanks Applesandpears20 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Applesandpears20. Welcome to the Teahouse. I think podcast may be considered as a reliable source, if it is published by reputable organization; such as BBC, New York Times, The Guardian etc. Fade258 (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I've written a draft about Dante Marchitelli, longtime NCA broadcaster for the Orlando Magic. I included multiple independent reliable sources (ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Orlando Sentinel). I've avoided any subjective knowledge. I'm not sure what else I can provide. Would actual video of Dante broadcasting NBA games help? I'm not sure why he's not meeting the standard for Wikipedia. I'd really appreciate a fresh perspective and reviewer referral. Draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dante_Marchitelli Thanks! CTO4DM73 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, @CTO4DM73, welcome to the Teahouse. I made some changes to the article that might help, as well as added a couple sources under "Further reading". Others may have more insight as to whether the subject of the article meets notability guidelines, but I noticed that you included an awful lot of external links including one to his Linkedin page, and three of the references as of now are a link to the subject's podcast. Another reference was to a forum, which I removed, as forums should not be used as a source. My question is: Do you have an affiliation with Dante Marchitelli? If so, this is something that should be disclosed. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks a lot for your help MediaKyle. I live in the Orlando, Fl area where Dante Marchitelli is a well known figure with the Orlando Magic NBA team. Should I disclose that? I have met him, but don't know him well. CTO4DM73 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If you're not directly affiliated with him, there's no need for any disclosures. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

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

1. Whether this intro summary is acceptable:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• In the filmography wikitable (BLP article), if the title is stated twice, for example, he appeared in the series in 2022, and he appeared again in that same series in 2024, as stated in different rows, should we link the title twice as well?
• Additional question: for an actor who frequently appeared in television anthology series, should we separate and create a standalone table for anthology series? So that it would not be cluttered to view (for example Jake Vargas). - ArćRèv • talk 07:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• :To avoid overlinking, the rule of thumb is to link only once, but there are plenty of articles where a repeated link is helpful. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

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