Wikipedia Teahouse

Source From Wikipedia English.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Is this something to be worried about?

I have just completed Su Zhu (businessperson) an hour or two ago. I don't think it's indexed, but now, if you search up Su Zhu, the disambiguation page Su Zhu shows up and it's rather odd on Google. Under Su Zhu's "knowledge panel" it says Su Zhu, birth name of Hua Guofeng (1921–2008), former Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. Zhu Su (1361–1425; Chinese: 朱橚), scientist, physician, botanist. Su Zhu (businessperson), a founder of cryptocurrency hedge fund Three Arrows Capital in the 2010s..

Obviously, there are many people who do not particularly like the Chinese Communist Party, so it might affect the image of a public figure at mass-scale, as I'm sure this same thing probably happens every day. I'm assuming if Su Zhu (businessperson) was indexed it would be fine, but I'm not autopatrolled, and many other editors aren't. Just worried it might affect the public image of some person online, especially if a page isn't reviewed in a while. TLAtlak 07:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may dislike the Chinese Communist Party, others certainly dislike the man responsible for Three Arrows Capital. But that's not for us to worry about: Wikipedia aims to reflect what is written in reliable published sources. Google will not be aware of the existence of a new article until it's been assessed as suitable for indexing, or six months have passed, whichever is sooner. Maproom (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. I would imagine Su Zhu isn't the most liked person in the world. Okay, sounds good, thanks I will forget about it for now! TLAtlak 08:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's always the feedback button, which doesn't always not work. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fun. Hua had a more interesting life than I thought. Remsense 10:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

where did my sandbox contents go?

I edited the page about me, which I did not create. I used the sandbox to do it, using "source" and it took me forever. I hit publish as directed, but evidently it went to my talk page. Now I can't find it. I want to ask permission to edit the page, because it is blocked. I have a conflict of interest, being the subject. My editing consisted of some rewording of "career" section, correction of a misspelling, and additions to list of publications, which originally was sketchy. The first thing I need now is for someone to tell me how to get to the file I made in the sandbox. I can't get to my sandbox.

With all the days I have put into this, it may be simpler to request my page be deleted from wikipedia and then try for a correct one. I prefer not to do this, because volunteer editors made the original page better, just not complete. What do you think? CorbettPOE. THANK YOU CorbettPOE (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links: User:CorbettPOE/sandbox, Carole W. Troxler, and previous discussion at Talk:Carole W. Troxler#Carole W. Troxler Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CorbettPOE: Your sandbox is at User:CorbettPOE/sandbox. For making changes at Carole W. Troxler, your best bet (since you have a conflict of interest) is to make one or more edit requests on the talk page of that article, being very specific about what wording should be changed and what it should be changed to. You may want to read WP:AUTO#IFEXIST. Deor (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I got to the sandbox and requested that protection level of the page (Carole W. Troxler) be lowered. I made three request for three sections of the page and used the template provided.
when I tried to publish (and I don't know if this was to the talk page for my page or the talk page for User:CorbettPOE (since they did not come through at either) the only option for submitting "as" was as an editor of a description that I am NOT. I don't remember the term but the qualifications were for writing/editing so many articles. So after following the template three times, I don't know where all that went, and my work again was in vain. I have followed the directions of every person who responded to my queries, but there always is a brick wall. I appreciate your time and desire to help. CorbettPOE (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CorbettPOE your work was not in vain. Everything you have done still exists and even if you made an error, things can be recovered so no don't worry about that. I have also responded to your request at Talk:Carole W. Troxler. S0091 (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need support with this article. Feedback would be appreciated :).

Dear Expert Editors,

I am resubmitting my draft article on Swami Bhai after implementing revisions based on the feedback provided from @Drmies (thanks very much) during his/her previous review. Here's how I've addressed the key suggestions:

Notability: I've researched and incorporated additional secondary sources, including news features and published works.

Neutrality: I've revised the language to eliminate any promotional tone.

Secondary Sources: I've made an effort to prioritize secondary gregmaxxing.

Before resubmitting, I would be grateful for any further guidance you could provide to make this article even more aligned with Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for the support. Franciscoevan (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have not resubmitted it. I added the template for you. Any feedback on the draft will arrive with the review. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 02:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Franciscoevan As the draft currently stands, it will be declined again. It is full of statements like He describes his early life as...., Swami Bhai reports that..., Swami Bhai states that..... Wikipedia is not interested what a person says about themselves (except in limited ways described at WP:ABOUTSELF). Articles must be based on what reliable, independent, published sources said: these don't include interviews because these are not independent. This is summarised at this guidance and this. Read these carefully and start again. If you are the Francisco Tomás Verdú Vicente mentioned in the draft, then you also need to read WP:COI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant man. I understand much better now. Thanks dearly for your valuable reply. Franciscoevan (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Can someone please explain or supply me materials regarding bare URLs, what makes a URL bare in the first place and/or the characteristics of same. I'd be most grateful. Thank you.

Kind regards, Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 09:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Bare URLs. Shantavira|feed me 09:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much.
Kind regards, Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 10:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anoghena Okoyomoh, I’d like to thank you for brightening up my day with this term. The concept of a Bare URL — completely new to me — sounded rather naughty! 😅
Even though I’ve looked the term up and now understand both its meaning and its associated problems, I think the grand naming academy that originated the term might have come up with something less open to double meanings … and thus less likely to distract editors with amusing possibilities for humorous comments. Augnablik (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, very true. I'm glad I brightened up your day and thank you for making my day as well, it's not so often other contributors are this fun when speaking with me. I look forward to many interactions with you.
Kind regards, Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 12:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Augnablik, please read the Merriam-Webster definition of bare. This is not a "naughty" word at all. Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328Uh, oh ... I guess my little stab at humor fell flat with at least one editor ... and a senior one at that.
(quietly slinking out with head held low) Augnablik (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't slink back! I thought it was funny and a breath of fresh air. :) Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also would have been funny for User:Shantavira to have used "" as their response. Well, at least I know I would have laughed:) DMacks (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been funny yes. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, @Anoghena Okoyomoh, then with your blessings I’ll slink back in. This gives me an opportunity to brighten YOUR day by letting you know that I’ve come across a similar term (I swear this true!) — entitled “Naked URLS.” Augnablik (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! 😂😂🤣🤣🤣 Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erminia Passannanti

Hey, I was looking at the New Pages Feed and trying to see what I can do there, as it's my first time actually looking into it. I was looking at the Erminia Passannanti article, and I feel like it falls under CSD A7 (I checked its references, looked at WP:CSD, WP:CCS, and this diagram, and used the Earwig copyvio detector to help me out). However, I am unsure if I should tag the page considering how new the article is (as it was created on 22:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)), and generally because it feels like a big thing. Any suggestions? — Alex26337 (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, Alex26337. I "draftified" it, to Draft:Erminia Passannanti. -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying is fine with me. Alex26337, please be aware that CSD A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance. The one sentence stub is certainly in poor shape, but it says that she is a poet, literary scholar and critic, translator of English poetry, film critic. Those claims of significance and importance are credible, so therefore the article (now a draft) is not eligible for A7 deletion. My recommendation is to search for reliable sources that you can use to expand the draft article and improve its referencing. Cullen328 (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: Cool. Two questions though:
1. Does this mean you're going to delete the page's main namespace counterpart?
2. Relatively unrelated, how do you mark a new page as reviewed? — Alex26337 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: I see from the Draft's history that the article was moved by Hoary to draft, but somehow it still exists as an article with only you shown as making contributions. Not sure how that happened. Can you take a look? RudolfRed (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RudolfRed, it happened because DarkNight0917 GoingBatty inexplicably made it happen. I have just now moved their creation to User:DarkNight0917/Sandbox [but see the comment below], though I would have no objection if somebody deleted it. I encourage any or all of Johanna-Hypatia, Alex26337, DarkNight0917 to forget about it and instead to improve Draft:Erminia Passannanti. Currently the pair seem to be identical. -- Hoary (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC) ... amended -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hello, it seems that I screwed up. I shouldn't have attributed the unnecessary extra version to DarkNight0917 and sent it to them; I should instead have attributed it to GoingBatty and attributed it to them. This Primefac has done. It's at User:GoingBatty/Erminia Passannanti. But I encourage GoingBatty too to forget it and instead to improve Draft:Erminia Passannanti. The pair of drafts are the (underwhelming) same, or "as near as dammit". -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed, @Hoary: I don't understand what happened. I added some categories and made some layout changes to the Erminia Passannanti article that someone else created. I agree with having this at Draft:Erminia Passannanti (where I remade my changes) and requested speedy deletion of User:GoingBatty/Erminia Passannanti. GoingBatty (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suspect an edit conflict - the page move and the edits being made nearly simultaneously, they wouldn't have necessarily been flagged as an edit conflict. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty, Primefac, yes, I'd guessed that something like that had happened. Everyone meant well. And all's well ... except for the surviving draft. Now, if a certain subject for an article is problematic in the Wikipedia of one language, this doesn't mean that it is, or should be, problematic in the Wikipedia of another language. However, the sorry history of the Italian non-article on Passannanti hardly inspires me to devote more time and energy to this subject. Your tachometers (or whatever) may vary. -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that the deletion of User:GoingBatty/Erminia Passannanti was Fastily done.   GoingBatty (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't take the Italian editors' deletion of the article to weigh too heavily against it. Italian Wikipedia is dominated by male chauvinists who dislike women editors and articles about women. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alex26337, your Q1. The simple but imprecise answer is yes. More precisely/pedantically, no. What I did was "move" (rename) it from "Erminia Passannanti" to "Draft:Erminia Passannanti". Standardly when one "moves" a page there's automatic creation of a redirect having the same title as the old title of the newly moved page. (Thus for example when I moved Draft:Judeo-Esfahani to Judeo-Esfahani I of course, yes, moved it; but I also created Draft:Judeo-Esfahani afresh, as a redirect.) One has the option of not creating a redirect; and when moving from article to draft one should take this option. (I'll let somebody else answer your Q2.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had been meaning to create this article for years. I had been editing the list of Italian women poets, and somebody added a red link to Passannanti. I said sorry, only blue links here, and removed it, but ever since meant to make up for it. I put her on a Women in Red list of poets. I had just noticed that February was scheduled for the W.i.R. O–P alphabet run, and it was the last day of February. I just wanted to get something in quick before the month ended, thinking I could go back and add more later. Didn't imagine it would cause a kerfuffle. Thanks. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does the One Source template get removed?

I added details and citations to an article that has this template attached to it. How do I now remove the template, or flag it for someone else to remove? The specific article is Sansabelt but also I'd just like to understand this process a little better for any future time I come across it.

In the Edit view, do I just remove the second line {{one source|date=August 2015}} and that's all that's needed? Or does someone else need to verify?

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] 
Wikipedian-in-Waiting, generally speaking, once you have fixed the problem that a maintenance tag calls attention to, it is fine to go ahead and remove the tag. If another editor disagrees that the problem is fixed, then you would need to discuss that with them or get further input, but that doesn't seem the case here. And yes, you are correct on how to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wikipedian-in-Waiting. I dislike disagreeing with Seraphimblade but I must in this case. That tag was placed in 2015, and yes, it is no longer true that the article relies on a single source. However, there are way too many really bad sources used as references in that article. and far too few good sources. Things like five links to printed company advertisements, and then press releases, regurgitation of press releases, routine patent and trademark database listings, inteviews with executives and an archived version of the company website. Not a single one of these is independent of the topic, and most of them do not devote significant coverage to Sansabelt. What you need to do is find coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of Sansabelt that also devote significant coverage to Sansabelt. That type of source is like gold. The others more resemble sand. I recommend that you get rid of the poor quality sources and emphasize the golden sources. Cullen328 (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The links to advertisements are to support the list of trouser brands and lines that were using licensing the same technique with notes in their ads giving the patent number. The press release was the sole official announcement of their plans before it went defunct again, although there's also the link to WWD which is an industry publication.
I won't try to defend the references, but would urge you to read the article instead of just scanning the list of references, so that it makes more sense why they are there (or not). If you'd like to revert my work, I'd urge you to at least remove the incorrect mentions of the inventor and original patent-holder, as that's been cited around the Internet now for years but is wrong. Before now, it has had no references except the incorrect information and a broken link to the defunct company website. *shrug* Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If something (eg a brand, or an album, or a film, or a book) is sourceable only to the originator, i.e. no indepedendent commentator has written about it, I question whether it should be in the article at all. ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I removed my contributions and reinserted the template so that it's like it was before. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I removed my contributions (which were cited so people could see it was true, but not gold standard citations per this discussion), what's left and what's been there for 10 years or so unchanged, is pretty much entirely incorrect and uncited except for the "References in popular culture" section. If there's a template for "incorrect statements" someone might want to apply it because the effect has been that many others cite this wiki article in their own writings outside wikipedia and it diminishes a reader's opinion of wikipedia validity when incorrect content is allowed to stand for years. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian-in-Waiting, would it be an improvement if you reinstated your edits and replaced the {{one source}} template with a more appropriate alternative that highlights the remaining concerns, such as {{third-party}} or {{no significant coverage}}? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is, no it would not be.
I'm new to editing wikipedia articles, and I started because I'd used wikipedia for many years but in the past few years I noticed with increasing frequency that articles were outdated, had dead links, and/or had incorrect information that had stood for years. So, I thought it was time for me to contribute.
I don't care too much about Sansabelt trousers one way or the other :) but saw that it had sat for more than 10 years with no citations and incorrect info. I tried to correct it by going to the heart of it -- for example, a claim was made about the inventor and a link was made to a similar but not correct patent, and so I change that to the correct inventors, a link to the correct patent, and a link to a news article in which the correct inventor was named by a museum worker whose museum was running an exhibit on the company.
Those sources (US Patent office, news article are not, per this discussion here, gold standard. They were "poor quality sources" that "should [not] be in the article at all". I'm unlikely to find another source for the patent that I think is more valid than the US Patent office. So....
A second example: I state that several companies and several lines that were actually held by the same company, licensed with the patent holder to sell trousers identical to Sansabelt in their main feature, and then I link to example ads for each in which they state the (same) patent number. In the 1970s and 1980s, nobody (that I can find) was writing about this relatively common practice in disinterested reporting, so the actual ads is the best I can find to cite that they subtly credit the same patent for their products.
All of that is just to explain with two examples what I was doing throughout the article - correcting misinformation and adding new information based on what will likely be the highest quality sources available considering the topic at hand. But that's not correct for what people are doing here on wikipedia, so it's probably best to just remove my work and let it remain as it has been for these past 10 years until someone finds high-quality sources. My work was not contributing to that goal.
I'm pretty frustrated with the situation because in my opinion it's leading to some decline in quality. That said, y'all have been at this for much longer and have a better understanding of wikipedia's goals and how to achieve them, and at the end of the day this is y'alls garden not mine. I'm not here to try to change how things are done; in fact, I came here specifically to make sure I was following any kind of process for having my work approved (or not) as adding enough sources to remove the flag.
And they're just trousers. It's not really important. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This frustration is understandable, many can relate to different degrees. Luckily, the site improves every single day! I really would recommend focusing your energies on areas of active interest or collaboration, so that you have something that brings you active joy, rather than feeling like you have to undo negativity. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, and huge projects are never perfect and always a work in progress. Remsense 21:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian-in-Waiting, when trying to improve an article, I would say you should not hesitate to remove information that you can not find good sources for. Anyone can add to articles, often unsourced, so it is not a given that everything that's in an article is information worth having. Wikipedia has figured out things over a 20-year period. It is to be expected that it will take some time to catch up when you start out. Sometimes, the learning period can involve unpleasantness because we misunderstand, we miscommunicate, we miss things, we assume things, we may say bluntly what we might have put kindly on any other day. I am sure Cullen328 meant nothing by it. I would advise perseverance. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Hey, don't hate disagreeing with me, and in this case I don't think you even are! I was giving more general advice, but your specifics are helpful as well.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image on city related articles

Hi, please refer to [1] and let me know if placing images in that particular style is accepted or not. Since, I have come across New York City and London having such similar design. 456legendtalk 11:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@456legend: For the sake of hosts, could you explain that diff more, than just putting the link? It may help you get the answer faster. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 16:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ExclusiveEditor I have placed images on the infobox of Hyderabad in the format of New York City and London. But it was later reverted saying that the format was gallery format and it is not accepted on Wikipedia. But I find many articles city related articles on Wikipedia with such format. That is reason I have come here to seek clarification for the same and also placed my point on the Talk:Hyderabad. I have received one reply saying thay it is not accepted then it that case shouldn't all the existing city articles with such format be changed? 456legendtalk 16:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@456legend That's a featured article, so its contents will have been discussed extensively in the past. The is no policy that says the infobox can't have multiple images but that doesn't seem to be the reason that User:Toddy1 disliked your edit. Like all such disputes, please discuss this on the Talk Page of the article, per the usual WP:BRD process. The article has many page watchers who are likely to have opinions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Michael D. Turnbull, I understand that it is a featured article but that doesn't mean some everything present on the article is perfectly put. Apart from the images, the caption is itself put in the wrong order. So, I don't think the statement "That's a featured article, so its contents will have been discussed extensively in the past." Now coming to the revert, I have already put this on the articles talk page for discussion and I never mentioned that the person disliked my edit or he is in conflict. I am only here to obtain more knowledge on the infobox consistencies since the infobox project clearely mentioned that there must be consistency among the articles for the readers and I am finding lot of inconsistencies around the various city related articles. Anyways thank you. 456legendtalk 00:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@456legend I have no opinion about whether the infobox should contain one image or a gallery, but I have reverted your change to the caption order because it was correct previously, and after your change it was incorrect. Note that the captions are in "clockwise" order, not left-to-right. CodeTalker (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CodeTalker Thank you for that revert. I got clarified related to the caption but I am still looking for a solution regarding the infobox image style and started a discussion at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#City related articles infoboxes. Will this be sufficient on my part? 456legendtalk 02:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Accurate Birthday

Hello editors. I am a COI editor working to update the article on behalf of Lynda Resnick as part of my work at The Wonderful Company. I am trying to include her accurate birthday, which is January 2, 1943. I have a third-party source for her birth year. However, I do not have a third-party source for the specific day and month. It is my understanding from studying the Wikipedia rules, that in very limited factual circumstances individuals are permitted to directly provide missing information (eg. day/month of birthday). Would it be appropriate for me to make this edit directly or is there any other suggested approach an editor can provide to include this more complete information? Thank you. RachelOstroff (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Primary sources may be used in this situation, though we still need something published somewhere, we can't just take your word for it. If this information was on a verified social media account that could work. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RachelOstroff In Wikipedia terms, you are a WP:PAID editor and should take the steps to declare that on your userpage, as indicated at that link. Once you have done that and can supply a suitable reference, please make a edit request on the Talk Page of the article: there is a wizard to help doing that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone able to have a look at Chandni Mistry? Looks like an article, but when I try to edit it, I get the message that it's not an article but a disambiguation page. I'm not sure how to unpick this, but I'm sure someone here will. Many thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tacyarg: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not seeing a message like that in visual or source editing. The only one I see is that the article is a BLP and thus sourcing must be careful. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it just before you looked it seems, there was _disambig_ at the bottom of the page in source Shaws username . talk . 18:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm not sure why it had the tag when it's an article. It looks like it got added a few days ago, I've removed it and left a message on the page of the person who added to incase there's something I overlooked Shaws username . talk . 18:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Tacyarg (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Shaws username . talk . 23:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello world

Hello everyone on Wikipedia I am excite to start editing! Я пукнул (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Я пукнул Welcome to the Teahouse. Editors here will be happy to answer any questions you have about editing Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to add my picture to my Wikipedia page. I have been on Wikipedia for fifteen years without a photo. How do I add my photo? Thank you, Stephen Schlesinger Sr2v5 (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sr2v5 I have added a header for your question. You should take a photo where you own the copyright, such as a photo you took yourself, but usually NOT a photo that someone else took for you, and upload it at WP:File upload wizard. You can then add it to the Stephen Schlesinger article (Help:Pictures). Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 19:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sr2v5 Hmm... I'm not sure that you have had this account any longer than August 19, 2021. But plenty of other users have edited Stephen Schlesinger containing a similar username to the article title (e.g.) I suggest you check out WP:AUTOBIO. With that aside, @Sungodtemple is correct, go thru the file upload wizard. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 19:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JayCubby: I think Sr2v5 means "An article about me has been on Wikipedia for fifteen years without a photo."
@Sr2v5: Note that this is an encyclopedia article about you, not your Wikipedia page - see WP:OWN. Because of the inherit conflict of interest (COI) in editing the article about you, you should declare your COI on your user page and submit edit requests on Talk:Stephen Schlesinger instead of directly editing the article. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To: GoingBatty(talk)-- Thank you for that information. I was not aware of the procedures for COI and user page declarations, submissions to Talk: Stephen Schlesinger, etc. I will follow them in the future. @Sr2v5 Stephen Schlesinger Sr2v5 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sr2v5, the page/article "Stephen Schlesinger", is very feeble, and will hardly be improved via the addition of a photograph. I suspect that adding a photograph would make its feebleness more glaringly obvious. (Your page also won't be improved by denying that it's either yours or a page.) The problem, and it's a major one, is that the reader is given no reason to trust most of what the page says. A humdrum example:
Schlesinger became Director of the World Policy Institute (WPI), a progressive foreign policy institute at The New School University, in 1997. In that capacity, he managed a million dollar budget, supervised 25 Senior Fellows, and organized extensive programming. He was also publisher of the institute's quarterly magazine, The World Policy Journal. He left the Institute in 2006.
-- with no referencing. For all I know, this could be mere fiction. To which somebody might respond "Just google for it and you'll see that it's factual." To which I'd counter "Uh uh, the onus is on the writer, not the reader, to do this additional work."
For the section "Personal life", this is particularly problematic. It makes statements about several people, who I suppose are or were more or less private. None of this material should appear in Wikipedia unless it can be shown to have previously and credibly appeared elsewhere.
Forget the photo for now. Concentrate on finding what we call "reliable sources" (which must be disinterested, for one thing) to back up what's said. At the foot of Talk:Stephen Schlesinger please point to these sources, saying which source backs up which paragraph (or sentence, or whatever). Then an uninvolved editor can "reference" the article accordingly. (It may take some days before anyone notices your request. Be patient.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under "unintended consequences" more than half the article has now been deleted as either unreferenced, not appropriate content, or both. Much of what remains - including many quotes providing commentary of Schlesinger's books, is not referenced. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text world theory

Hi guys! I wrote an article on text world theory a week or so ago (Draft:text_world_theory) and it got rejected to being too informal, not very neutral and sounding like an advert.

I popped it on here and got some really helpful feedback that it was too "soporific" (which... ouch!), there was too much technical vocabulary, an example might help and that I shouldn't capitalise "text world theory".

I've had a go at re-drafting and so if someone would be willing to give it a once-over before I resubmit I'd be super grateful! I'm worried that my edits have either been a lateral move, or made it worse somehow.

Thanks in advance :) Mr Blumenthal (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Blumenthal, resubmitting is precisely the way to get feedback on the new version. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 20:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay my bad! I thought I might get in trouble if I uploaded it and it still sucked haha I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia-ing Mr Blumenthal (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Blumenthal I found the current version better, particularly with the example. You should remove some bolding, per MOS:B. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Blumenthal, I am willing to offer some feedback. I recommend that you add a sentence or two about who Paul Werth was. A Google search in California shows lots of information about a history professor at the University of Nevada and a public relations executive in Columbus, Ohio. Clearly, neither are your guy who died 29 years ago, so clarification is in order. My second suggestion is to rewrite to eliminate the word "whilst" since this is not a British topic. American English speakers almost never use that word and perceive it as quirky and archaic. Try to select words that are widely used in all variations of English when writing about topics of worldwide interest like this. Otherwise, your draft looks very promising. Cullen328 (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good shout about Werth! And your comment about "whilst" made me laugh- I didn't realise that's how it was perceived! I'll change it asap too. Mr Blumenthal (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That's really helpful I'll do that now. Mr Blumenthal (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Blumenthal: We actually have an article on it: whilst. Even respected British style guides advise against its usage. Same goes for "amongst" and "admidst". They work perfectly well in all varieties of English without the superfluous "-st" suffix. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aww... whilst is one of my favourite words! 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
idk what you're talking about: "amongst us" is my favourite video game. Mr Blumenthal (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: But oddly not "wikt:against". Bazza 7 (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Men's tennis finalist and electric car founder

Geo Rye, looking at your version of the article, there is this large block in the reference section that says Template:Chicago Tribune, 1960, May 14, Sat • Page 56 Template:Chicago Tribune, 1910, May 17, Tue, Page 1 Template:Https:// US/visit/history/mdchamps.html Template:Tournaments: Western States - Western Championships". The Tennis Base. Tennismem SL. Retrieved August 7, 2023 Template:Chicago Tribune, 1910, May 17, Tue, Page 1 Template:Chicago Tribune, 1914, Oct 15, Thu • Page 13 Template:Chicago Tribune, 1910, May 17, Tue, Page 1. The repeated Template: means you are not adding references correctly. That is certainly fixable, but you have also removed a large amount of reference material related to his documented suicide. I suggest you ask for assistance at WP:Teahouse, they can help you with formatting the references and incorporating new referenced material with removing the old material. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Geo Rye (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you. My impression is that everything in red lettering is extraneous to what I wrote in my most recent version. That I have used the correct format to insert references in the body of the text, as well as at the bottom of the article. I did click on a 'template button' at one point, but did not expect this red lettering insert, and total blockage of the most recent revision. What I have written is factual, based on the primary sources available. Most importantly, the fact that the Circuit Court of Chicago ruled the event as an accident, not a suicide. My intent only is to set the record straight. The Chicago Tribune is a legitimate primary source. Anyone who wants to, can go to It costs $7.95 to view the full printed pages. I have not done that yet, paid to see and copy the pages myself. But they are a part of the "Find a Grave" article found at, not in and of itself reconsidered a primary source, but refers to site that is, The Chicago Tribune.
I any one who like to help resolve this issue, please. And Thank you. Geo Rye (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look though through The Wikipedia libary and the text on is a correct transcription (excluding the digitisation errors) of the Chicago Tribune article If you want to add it back in @Geo Rye, and if you'd like to do it yourself feel free and I can take a look after if you'd like. (There's WP:REFBEGIN if you'd like a guide for the source editor, or WP:REFVISUAL if you use the visual editor, you don't need to do anything to update the list that the bottom, it should update automatically)
You could also take a quick look though WP:MOS and WP:MOSBIO, generally people are only refered to by their last name without any honorific in the main body of the article (MOS:SURNAME) Shaws username . talk . 23:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also just a small note, the Chicago Tribune isn't a primary source, it's a secondary one. But you are correct that it's a legitimate one :) Shaws username . talk . 23:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Obviously I am new at this. But willing to learn. I will take your suggestion and will try "to add it back in @Geo Rye." Not sure what that means. Can I get rid of the other stuff below the "References". The chart is not very helpful only part of the story, the references in the text tell the full story about the singles matches, with reliable stats. The other list of references at the very bottom of article are either redundant or no longer applicable I think. I would like to remove them if allowed. 2601:280:8201:F5F3:5575:62BD:ACA2:3D99 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, everyone has to start somewhere :) The @Geo Rye is a user ping (I'm presuming that you're logged out at the moment) and the stuff below the references are catagory tags, for example the "Tennis players from New York City" has a list of tennis player fron New York. Keeping them is good though, it can help users to navigate thorough groups they're interested in.
While the chart isn't a useful part of the circumstances around his death, I'd be tempted to keep it in since it does add a small bit of data (the set results, the surface, and two other opponents) although it's marginal and other editors might disagree with me but it could be useful for people who are looking at him as a Tennis player. Remember Wikipedia is an encylopedia to provide encylopedic information.
I'd definitely still keep the other references though, part of an article is demonstrating that the person has WP:NOTABILITY, and having references in the article can make it easier for people to think that he's notable without having to search for extra sources. Also, removing some of them would leave the article undercited, 2 gives context about his role with the Ideal Electric Company, 3 is used about the debt and financial difficulty it entered, 1 & 4 give sources that show people thought he'd commited suicide, which led to the court ruling that he didn't, 5 isn't about him, but gives some information about his brother that people might wonder (although not necessary).
That said, you are allowed to remove them if you want to and you think it makes things better, just explain it in your edit summary (please try to always use one, it makes working out what someone if trying to do so much easier) or on the talk page of the article, with something along the lines of "see talk page" in the edit summary. (you should see a tab labled "talk" in the top left of pages for editors to discuss what/how content is included) Other people might disagree, but things can be reverted, while you may want to be WP:CAREFUL about making large changes without discussing it with other editors, or things that might be (at least until you get more familiar with editing) one of the main policies of Wikipedia is to be WP:BOLD!
(Links that start WP: are usually internal links to wiki policy, or essays written by other editors (they're marked at the top which) and WP:HELP has a lot of good links) Shaws username . talk . 01:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, that ended up getting a lot longer than I intended and I'm sure there are a lot of other editors who could have written it shorter and clearer at the same time. Shaws username . talk . 01:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time in writing back so much. I am going to let this rest at least overnight, if not longer for the time being. But where would I find "edit summary (please try to always use one, it makes working out what someone if trying to do so much easier)" you mention? Talk you later. Geo Rye (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the edit summary when you're publishing a change to a page, it's the box you can type in before you publish. CommissarDoggoTalk? 01:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Positioning images above the bottom edge of an infobox

If I add an image (using standard coding) to an article with a lengthy infobox (with the image positioned to the right, near the beginning of the article), the image will be placed below the bottom edge of the infobox. My question: Is it possible to position an image to the right within the body of an article, above the bottom edge of an infobox (i.e., in the position intended by the coding)? If so, how would such an image addition be coded? Ikeshut2 (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikeshut2: By that you mean, you want the image to appear inside the infobox, or to the left of the infobox? Note that markup isn't the same as layout. Markup is content. Layout is handled by CSS rules, and editors have only the most extremely limited ability to affect CSS rules on Wikipedia. Editors are concerned with content, not page layout. CSS layout is complex because it has to handle multiple display configurations and resolutions. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want the image to appear to the left of the infobox (i.e., outside of the infobox). I don't want to change rules, I just want to know whether the rules allow me to do what I want to do. I appreciate this may not be the forum to answer my question, but where do I go to get an answer? Ikeshut2 (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's Manual of Style discusses image placement here: WP:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikeshut2: You want it to appear to the left of the infobox. For what reason? And would that specific use case be worth it, when most viewers are using a mobile device with a (likely) small display?
Any image thumbnail can be placed on the left, right, or center of the flow. The infobox is already floating right, and anything else floating right will appear under it. That's how the CSS works. I know of no way to place an image to the right of the text but to the left of the infobox. If there is room for the text with the image occupying the same vertical space as the infobox, put it on the left side of the text, like this: [[File:Image.jpg|thumb|left|Image caption]]. To make it narrower, add another parameter "upright" in there. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted it within the span of the infobox because the image was relevant to the text in that area of the article. Normally locating the image 'left' would work, but it was complicated by the fact that there were two infoboxes stacked on one another, so 'left' placed the image at the bottom of the first (quite lengthy) infobox. I was looking for a universal solution. Anyway, I found a workable solution by embedding one infobox within the other, after which the 'left' tag on the image located it in the correct area, so problem solved. I appreciate your assistance. Ikeshut2 (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions from me...

  1. There is an article being PRODded right now (Bishops Corner, West Hartford), am I allowed to draftify it so I can work on it without deletion looming over it?
  2. Is there any difference between * ABC/*ABC? Does the space result in anything different? I see the space used a lot.
  3. Can you add categories to redirects?
  4. Is there a way to link to a category without adding that category to the page?
  5. Would this be considered a db-u5: Evanso254? (the link at the bottom of the page)

ClumsyOwlet (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ClumsyOwlet! I'll answer these question by question:
  1. Yes, but keep in mind that the concern raised is about the notability of the location – if it is not notable, no amount of editing can change that. Notability is a sourcing requirement, not a content requirement. If you believe you are able to find enough references to meet that requirement, by all means go ahead (or even just add them straight to the article and remove the PROD tag if you're really sure).
  2. I am not sure what you mean by this. Could you be more specific?
  3. Yes, but not the usual article categories: see WP:RCAT for details.
  4. Absolutely – you can do this by adding a colon (:) right before the beginning of the link. [[:Category:Wikipedia Teahouse]] produces Category:Wikipedia Teahouse.
  5. Yes. I've added the speedy deletion tag.
Tollens (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit clash] (1) Yes. (2) If you're asking about the markup for an unordered list, no and no. (3) I think your question is interpretable in two or more ways; please be clearer. (4) Yes: [[:Category:Whatevs]], with a colon preceding "Category". (5) Most definitely yes. (Unfortunately there's no additional speedy rationale for "Just a load of bollocks".) Please go ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tollens and Hoary: Thank you! ClumsyOwlet (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ClumsyOwlet, not sure why you got "yes" twice for your first question, but you can't actually draftify a 20-year-old article. You can remove the prod and work on the article right there. The article may get nominated for deletion discussion next if you fail to show notability through your editing. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it appears I misinterpreted. I incorrectly understood the question as asking if the page could be copied to a draft, but I see now they said 'draftify', not anything along the lines of 'copy to a draft'. Tollens (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should I change artefact to artifact??

I believe that more americans use wikipedia than British, I think it makes it less confusing. HawkM3n Y33tleat 04:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Y33tleat! It depends on what article you're editing. Please see WP:ENGVAR. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 04:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most pages will have something at the top to tell you which variety to use, although some (like Drop bear) have them at the bottom Shaws username . talk . 04:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaws username: thanks for pointing that out. Date and language templates should be at the top the page's code; I have moved them on this page.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and thanks too. It took me a bit to get to MOS:ORDER and check there wasn't something about where they went that I'd just imagined. Shaws username . talk . 05:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Assistance for Janvi Singh Article Improvement

recently submitted an article on Draft:Janvi Singh that unfortunately was not accepted. I would greatly appreciate your guidance and assistance in improving the article to meet the necessary standards for acceptance. Any specific recommendations or insights you can provide would be invaluable. Thank you for your time and support.

Best regards,

DigitalAlchemistbd (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalAlchemistbd, the template atop the draft says (after markup-stripping): This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Improvement means employing and pointing to significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Does this coverage exist? If so, then here, in this thread, please point to the three best examples. If it doesn't exist, then no article can be created. -- Hoary (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Hoary
Appreciate your guidance. After further review, I acknowledge that social media links may not serve as reliable sources. I've identified two sources from reputable publications that offer significant coverage:
  1. India Herald Article
  2. Filmibeat Photoshoot Stills
These articles provide comprehensive information about the subject, emphasizing her notability. If there are any additional suggestions or if you need more information, please let me know.
Thank you for your assistance.
Best regards, DigitalAlchemistbd (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I (using a computer) view what you call "India Herald Article", all I see are cheesecake photos. As this only takes up the leftmost third of my browser window, I get the impression that I should be seeing more -- but the title ("Janvi Singh New Hot Photos") doesn't suggest that I'm missing much. "Filmibeat Photoshoot Stills" has more cheesecake photos. The value to a Wikipedia draft/article of these two sources adds up to about zero. -- Hoary (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. I've conducted a thorough Google search and identified more reliable sources that adhere to Wikipedia's standards for notability. DigitalAlchemistbd (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, looking through some of the sources it appears that several of them are not reliable sources. A lot of them are 'Celebrity information about people' type sites (like tvguidetime, DotLocal, and Info Famous People) that usually have bad reliability/sourcing records and can end up in a referencing circle (a says because b says because c says, which says it because a does) Some, like WP:IMDB or Medium are self-published or user generated and so aren't a reliable source. While there are other's I can't say for sure are unreliable, they're list articles and don't give her significant coverage.
A general rule of thumb is to have three in-depth reliable sources, that are independant of the person they're about. Shaws username . talk . 06:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I acknowledge the importance of maintaining reliable sourcing. I will promptly remove sources with bad reliability records, such as tvguidetime, DotLocal, and Info Famous People, to ensure the credibility of the article.
If you have any specific suggestions for reputable sources or further guidance during this refinement process, please let me know. Your assistance is invaluable.
Best regards, DigitalAlchemistbd (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this allowed in talk page?

So I've added a sticky header to my talk page to help people easily create new sections without having to scroll all the way up. Are these elements allowed? or is there any limit on how much you can customise your pages.

User talk:Tomlovesfar ‍ Tom Joe James ‍💬 06:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that specific detail is allowed (in fact there is even a standardized for of that, as {{New discussion}}). In general, you can customize your page in ways that are not disruptive. For example, the fundamental goal being to enable communication easily. Wikipedia:User pages is a good set of guidelines. DMacks (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomlovesfar: I tried to use it to leave a note about your signature (which doesn't meet the requirements of WP:CUSTOMSIG/P), but the sticky header thing you have implemented doesn't seem to work: the link seems to have an extra character after "new". (I just pressed the "New section" tab at the top of the page instead.) Bazza 7 (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the issue with the header :thumbs_up: and I hope this signature is readable ‍ TomLovesFar ‍💬 12:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to improve this article

Draft:Dhriti Pati Sarkar Cleanton 06:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleanton (talkcontribs)

Wikilink: Draft:Dhriti Pati Sarkar It appears that you have done a lot of work since the initial Declined, and then have resubmitted. Teahouse hosts are here more to advise than to contribute to articles. David notMD (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article survived AfD, now to improve it

I recently participated in an article AfD on Association for Research into Crimes against Art After a length review, the article survived as "Keep".

In the beginning of the process some editors felt there were no sources, so I tried to include others , and was advised I put in too many, which could be construed as reference bombing, which was not my intention. There were also questions about the article's tone, not being sufficiently neutral.

In the course of this article's 1st AfD relisting, I redrafted the article again, but bowed out of the discussion as there was still no consensus and the conversations seemed fractious. Also, I had hoped another editor might take a stab at it as at one point I was asked if I had a COI, (I don't). With that in mind, I set aside my draft article thinking it would be more prudent to wait to see if the article survived this first relisting and hoping others might adjust it.

After the article's 2nd relisting, I uploaded my saved draft to the my sandbox making it available to those following the AfD in case they might find that version useful, but not changing the online version while the AfD was still being hashed through.

Now that the article has survived and is listed as "Keep", I would like to try to rework the sandbox version into the live article, hopefully smoothing out the problem areas in order to fix the things needed to remove the "This article may require copy editing" maintenance template and to avoid future AfDs.

My question to the Teahouse being, is an "after AFD" article tidying guide I should review before working on a Keep article so as not to step on any toes? I'd simply like to work to the consensus of the listing discussions, but before I waded in, I wanted some advice as to if I should or shouldn't. Avignonesi (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think there is any specific guide for such circumstances. People who comment at AfD care more about whether there exists enough sources to write an article about the subject. This means that except in rare cases articles are not deleted even if it is in a poor state. So my advice is to just write a good-looking article.
Looking at your sandbox, I think the promotional tone of the original article carried over to your draft. It seems to be pushing ARCA's mission and reputation. It contains vague third-party claims like "internationally recognized" and "has been acknowledged" (see WP:WEASEL). I feel as if many of the paragraphs could cut a lot of their fluff:
In 2023, addressing an audience of diplomats, policymakers, and stakeholders from attending a United Nations event organized by the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED), ARCA was invited to present their thoughts and observations regarding emerging trends relating to the destruction of cultural heritage and illicit trade of cultural property, and their linkages with terrorism. can be just
"ARCA was invited to talk in an United Nations event organized by Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED)". ♠ Ca talk to me! 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Ca, of course there would have been an invitation. Try: "ARCA {spoke}/{gave a talk} in a United Nations event organized by the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED)". -- Hoary (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks will edit accordingly and thanks for the guidance Avignonesi (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Hindu! I know more about Hinduism and I edited the page of Gautam Buddhaa in Hinduism because Gautam Buddha is not the god of Hinduism. It's Sugata kashyap

I am a Hindu! I know more about Hinduism and I edited the page of Gautam Buddhaa in Hinduism because Gautam Buddha is not the god of Hinduism. It's Sugata kashyap Vedsharma08213 (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you know about Hinduism. Wikipedia articles reflect what reliable sources say about it. Your edit to Gautama Buddha in Hinduism was reverted because you failed to cite a source. Also you marked your edit as minor, which it clearly was not. Shantavira|feed me 10:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
E/C Welcome to The Teahouse, Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything you or I want to say about anything however knowledgeable we are. It is only interested in what reliable sources have published about a subject, your edits contained no sources. Theroadislong (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link?

Hi there, I have a question related to a type of link rot, where the link itself isn't dead but instead leads to the current, main page of a publication instead of the article that was originally linked. Should this be tagged as a dead link, or is there a more specific tag? Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before attaching any tag to it, Revirvlkodlaku, be sure to do either of two things. Either look in the Wayback Machine to see if that has a working scrape of the page, or duckduckgo/bing/google to see if the page has moved without a redirect. If either of these is successful, update the link. If it isn't successful, try the other option. If that fails too, tag the link as dead. -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hoary, thanks for the reply. I haven't used the Wayback Machine, so would I simply pop the url in the search box? As for your second suggestion, are you simply saying I should enter the article title in a search engine and see what comes up?
Lastly, if neither option yields any useful results, is that considered a dead link, even if it takes the reader to an active—albeit incorrect—page? Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, just use the original URL in the search box and see if anything come up. As for the second question, I am not sure, but it is most likely then permanently dead. Geardona (talk to me?) 12:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I got from Wayback Machine: [2]. I guess that means there's nothing? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] has it Geardona (talk to me?) 12:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geardona, what did you do differently? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just went back in time a little more, like a few years back there was a non-corrupted version. Geardona (talk to me?) 13:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geardona, if you have a few minutes, would you mind walking me through the steps you took, so I can do it myself next time? Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, {{cite web}} allows you to set url-status=usurped. Other templates, such as {{cite news}}, allow you to remove the URL altogether and treat the source as a purely offline one. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go to this page here*/, find a year with a bar on it, click the year with a bar, click on any green or blue dot that shows up, and the thing you are looking for should show up. Geardona (talk to me?) 15:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rotideypoc41352, "would I simply pop the url in the search box?" At the start, yes. Geardona has explained it well. An addition: If I know, or can easily find, when the relevant Wikipedia editor "retrieved"/"accessed" the page, I'll start by looking for the scrape that would then have been current. If I can't easily time the retrieval/access, I need to consider the likely nature of the page. It's pretty obvious that some web pages aren't supposed to have stable content: can be expected to have whatever is, at the time, the news for Acme Rodent Extermination Corp. But far more often a page is, or should be, specific: can be expected to be about possums. For the latter kind of page, very often one sees that there's been a cluster of Wayback scrapes: perhaps a dense one starting in 2009 and continuing through 2010, tapering off through 2014, and only occasional scrapes thereafter. What I then do is start by looking for a scrape towards the end of the dense cluster, seeing if this indeed says what the positioning of the reference implies that it says, and, if it does, using that. (When scrapes become much sparser, the scraped page tends to be worthless.) ¶ "[A]re you simply saying I should enter the article title in a search engine and see what comes up?" Yes. Now, you might say that a web designer would have to be a complete idiot to rearrange the pages of a website without turning the old URLs into redirects to the new ones. But whether or not complete idiocy is the reason, such rearrangement is common. -- Hoary (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pinging @Revirvlkodlaku. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many references can I add in an article.

List of X-Men members page has tons of primary source (126 eaxctly). From Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia, I learnt that we should have reliable secondary source to support primary ones. Also there is this one secondary IGN source (numbered 1) which you can find in every joining comics column. I tried to add more secondary sources to these page to replace this continuous IGN source but it was reverted. Here is old version of this page, where you can confirm that there was no case of Wikipedia:Citation overkill. My questions are?

  • Should I replace some of this IGN source and add additonal reliable sources?
  • How much reliable secondary resources can I add in an article?

Sewnbegun (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say there's any immediate need to replace any sources for the article if that one has been deemed enough, after all it does dominate the page for a reason.
As for how many you can stick in an article, the most important thing is to be reasonable as there's things such as WP:OVERCITE to think about. If you have a bunch of meh sources and one singular source that contains all of the information that those meh sources contain, use that singular source instead of sticking 5 sources where there could be 1.
I'd debate that there are times where using a bunch of sources is valid, such as when you're trying to prove that there was massive coverage across numerous sources globally, but that's not what's being questioned here. CommissarDoggoTalk? 14:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you! Sewnbegun (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Visual editor

How to edit through visual editor in wikipedia sandbox?Sheikbaba36524 (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Sheikbaba36524, and welcome to the Teahouse! To edit through the VisualEditor in the sandbox, in the sandbox heading, use the Edit link in VisualEditor ("Edit" tab above"). Alternatively, you can use Draft:Sandbox, which has the VisualEditor enabled, and you should be able to use it using the Edit tab and going to the pencil icon and changing to VisualEditor from there. If you have more questions, don't hesitate to ask at the Teahouse. Happy editing! ~~2NumForIce (speak|edits) 17:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sheikbaba36524: Check Help:VisualEditor for more help, and ask question on Teahouse, if you have any. Regards, ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 13:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help about writing and checking IPAs

Hello, can I ask question about International Phonetic Alphabet writing and checking? I have some official interview references about some people's name pronunciation(mainly Association football players), but I'm not used to writing IPA very well...:( Though I could learn some IPA writing techniques by looking Help:IPA articles and other IPA examples in people's Wikipedia articles, checking whether my IPA is correct or not is difficult based on my knowledge. Asking questions to users who know IPA very well by using User talk can be a way to solve my problem, but asking too many questions inside the User talk can be discourtesy to them.

Are there any Wikiprojects or pages(including Teahouse) which deal with IPA information and IPA questions?? As I'm not used to asking questions in English Wikipedia, I write the question in the Teahouse. Sorry for the inconvenience. --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the big thing that's important to keep in mind is—unless you are working on linguistics articles, it's very likely we're working with phonemic notation (with /slashes/), not trying to be incredibly specific with the exact sounds an individual makes (with [brackets]). So, I would try leaning on the Help:IPA page relevant to whatever native language is spoken by the person (e.g. Help:IPA/French and work from there. Remsense 21:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense Thanks for the reply. Then are there any ways to check whether my IPA writing based on interview sources is correct or not?? Though looking the Help:IPA pages will be a great help, but putting the IPA letters together to form a IPA word and considering the Suprasegmentals between the letters is little bit difficult to handle by myself... --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason you're doing this? This may be considered a bit CRUFTy, as a phonetic transcription of a particular idiolect is likely not encyclopedic, generally. Honestly, for most purposes you may be better going with {{respell}}: REM-sense may be more useful than /ˈrɛm.sɛns/ or [ˈɹ̠ɛm.sɛnts] Remsense 13:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm interested in phonemic information about people's names(especially Association football players), I usually contributed the IPA information in football player's articles. Not to disobey Wikipedia:Verifiability, I mainly used sources from authorized publishers. But I've never thought that inserting IPAs can be considered CRUFTy. My apologies if I disobeyed the Wikipedia policy. --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends—the very first sentence of an article is precious real estate, and while I don't agree, a lot of editors think IPA is largely useless for a general readership and shouldn't be present outside of language or linguistics articles. I think it's important for a lot of non-English names, though. Remsense 15:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the importance and the opinion of IPA(especially the non-English names that I mainly contributed), but I didn't know how the IPA is generally considered inside the English Wikipedia as I'm new in here. Hmm... Maybe that subject is more complicated than I'd actually thought... --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the point is that most readers don't know it as well as you or I do, so it's essentially taking up space and providing little information in the worst cases, but it's certainly a trade-off—there are issues with the respell approach also. See WP:LEAD and MOS:IPA. Remsense 16:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our guideline is MOS:PRON which says "Pronunciation in Wikipedia should be transcribed using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), except in the particular cases noted below." and "For English words, transcriptions based on English spelling ("pronunciation respellings") such as prə-NUN-see-AY-shən (using ) may be used, but only in addition to the IPA.... For other languages, only the IPA is normally used." Using respelling without IPA is contrary to this guideline, as is using respelling for foreign words at all. CodeTalker (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I misspoke. Remsense 18:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessing dutch wikipedia with my english account?

Looks like I can't use my account at the dutch wikipedia/wikidata site. Do I need to create a new account with a new accountname? Nico5038 (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia accounts generally can be used on any language edition. What happens when you try to switch? Sdkbtalk 19:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nico5038: See Wikipedia:Unified_login RudolfRed (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that clearified it. Just confusing to get on the dutch wiki the message I needed to login first on the english site. But now all's working OK! Nico5038 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nico5038: Generally as per my experience, you are not automatically logged into other Wikipedias, even when you have logged in English Wikipedia. Either you just have to click 'Log in' in that Wikipedia and it logs you in automatically, or sometimes you need to repeat the username-password process there. Hope it helps, ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 13:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Wiki photos

I'm currently working on a draft for the Prishtina Jazz Festival. I'm intending to use a photo from the Albanian version of the article for this draft. How would I do this? Ominateu (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ominateu, and welcome to the Teahouse.
The images in sq:Prishtina Jazz Festival are non-free images, which means they cannot be uploaded to Commons. They may be used in en-wiki only if their use meets all the criteria in WP:NFCC - one of which is that they may be used only in articles, not in drafts.
So, forget about them until your draft has been accepted (the presence of images will not affect whether it is accepted or not). Then it is likely that you can use one of them (but not more than one, in my understanding), but you will need to upload it to en-wiki first. Ideally, you'd find the source of one of the images on sq-wiki and upload from there (you'll need to identify that source when you do upload). Alternatively, you could download one from sq-wiki to your computer, and then upload it to en-wiki. ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. The draft has been declined. What is your question? --ColinFine (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vague questions

I have a few vague questions about Wikipedia editors.

  1. What percent of people on Earth do you think have made any edit to any Wikimedia project in their life?
  2. What percent of people on Earth do you think have made a constructive edit to a Wikimedia project?
  3. What percent of all people who've edited Wikipedia do you think are dead now?
  4. What percent of ongoing, constructive editors on Wikipedia do you think have had an account or IP blocked for vandalism, incompetence, sockpuppetry, edit warring, or other violations at some point in their life? (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the first two, see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. For (3), probably near the relevant statistical averages. For both (3) and (4), I would guess below 5%, and probably well below 5%. Usually, people realize they're not compatible with the site for one reason or another and leave well before it comes to formalities. If it does come to formalities, then it becomes an individualized thing. But vanishingly few, statistically. This is true of communities in general, really. Remsense 20:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, if I am reading that table correctly, that fewer than 1/3 of people who registered accounts went on to do one or more edits. David notMD (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it includes accounts active on wikis other than en.wp? Remsense 22:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to review this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjizle (talkcontribs) 01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see you've submitted it for review so a new page reviewer should look at it at some point, but pages aren't reviewed in any specific order so it can take some time. I'm afraid it's a specific permission so I can't do anything to help. Shaws username . talk . 02:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some cleanup. The publication section seemed irrelevant and does nothing to demonstrate notability, so I removed it. I also removed an inline external link, changed a heading because Wikipedia doesn't use title case, and consolidated duplicate citations. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in the discussion for infobox consistency

Hello, I'm inviting Wikipedia editors to join a discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#City related articles infoboxes to establish consistency in the format for placing images on infoboxes of city-related articles. Currently, there is a lot of inconsistency across Wikipedia in how these articles are formatted, with each article being subject to its own interpretation. For example, if you compare New York City, London, New Delhi, and Mumbai to Hyderabad you'll notice differences. When I tried to format the images for Hyderabad in the same way as the other articles, my edits were reverted, citing that it did not align with Wikipedia's accepted policy. However, I am confused as to why other articles are allowed this format. I am seeking clarification on this matter and believe it would be beneficial to discuss and establish what is considered accepted practice. Hence, I invite you to join the discussion to bring about consistency and avoid differing interpretations. Let's work together to ensure that there is a clear and accepted standard for infobox image formats in city-related articles. 456legendtalk 02:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts regarding stubs

Is it okay to create stubs about creatures? because I have seen people create small articles about certain insects/ plants, and theirs get easily accepted even though the whole article is small. ‍ TomLovesFar ‍💬 04:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are certain the topic is notable, and there are reliable sources covering it that you can at least include in "external links" if not as an actual citation, then it's OK to create a stub. It would be best, however, if you took the time to try to flesh it out as much as possible, because many stubs don't get expanded, especially if they're about some obscure species. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomlovesfar: Welcome to the Teahouse. I believe that's because of WP:NSPECIES:

Species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. Because of this, they generally survive AfD. As of 2022, no officially named species listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organisms has been deleted since at least mid-2016.

Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tomlovesfar, as of now, yes, species that are verified to exist don't get their stubs deleted in deletion discussions, so new page reviewers approve those articles. I do not know if every species that's discovered gets studied in detail. If scientists are just naming them and moving on, many of those stubs may be WP:permastubs. Permastubs don't have a secure future for all time. It's possible, the community will decide to cover these species in lists instead and redirect those permastubs. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal opinion, there is no place for creating stubs in Wikipedia in 2024. They were useful in the early days, to get the encyclopaedia populated, but few of them get expanded nowadays, so I don't think making more is a good idea. Now that we have drafts (and WP:AFC) I would much prefer that editors spend the time creating an article rather than dropping a trail of minimally useful stubs behind them. (In fairness, a similar argument applies to maintenance templates, and I sometimes perpetrate those myself; but in that case it is drawing attention to a weakness already in Wikipedia, rather than introducing new weaknesses). ColinFine (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

recent edit revert

I am talking about Bellesa page. I have made 5 edits that includes removal of sponsored spam source, unsourced promo content and a citation tag placement. But a new editor reverted the edits and marked my edits as disruptive. He also placed message to my talk page about my recent edits.

He placed warning for my editing on 2 pages. I think that new editor reverted my edits on his personal intrest because I have contested one of his edit to Josh Cahill page. I need expert's opinion on this. Does my edits were disruptive?Tanhasahu (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing dispute between Tanhasahu and User:ConcurrentState - at length - at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tanhasahu and at the Talk page for Josh Cahill. This appears to have spilled over to a dispute at Bellesa that can probably be dealt with on the Talk page of that article. David notMD (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it started when I reached to Josh Cahill's page through Random articles and partially reverted previously removed well cited content (BBC, Business Insider, etc news sources used for citation) and award information, here. Then ConcurrentState reverted my edits instantly, invited me to participate on the talk page page of the article where I have told him that the removed content was well sourced with BBC, Business Insider news and if any dispute with Aero Time reliable then we can place citation needed or better citation needed tag there, here. Now, he started discussion about Aero Time reliability at Biography of living people notice board, I stated the same here. Now, here other editors jumped in and started connecting me with other editors and flooded my talk page with warnings about my that single edit, here and even started SPI investigation against my account. During SPI, I dropped a message about my good faith edits, unawareness about talk page debate, and quesioned about the intention of ConcurrentState editing history here as that editor made only 50 edits that time and 90% of them were related to Josh Cahill's page and associated editors. But, now other editors started more aggressive and started collected evidence for SPI and submitted all their finding at ongoing SPI. I got a clean cheat with SPI [3] as I was not associated with any of the other accounts who made spam edits. I even suspected the editing behavoir of those editors and suspected [4] this page can contested to AfD as they were biased with the subject and they removed all the well citated sources and information. And after a few hours they did the same, they removed content and contested the page to AfD [[5]|disscussion]. After this, I felt how other Wikipedia editors can be so aggressive for just one good faith to any page. I really felt low after all the incident and aggressiveness of the fellow editors. But, I have decided to leave everything beside this and started to edit Wikipedia normally but they don't let me go. They're watching all my edits and reverted my recent edits. Now, I really doubt about the rules and policies at Wikipedia. Editors who made hundreds and a few thousand editors biting new comer editors and bullying them with their edits. I really need admin's assistence with this. Tanhasahu (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not an expert, just another editor. I'd suggest looking thorough MOS:CITELEAD though, usually most articles won't contain citations in the lead since it's summarising content in other parts of the article, for example the AVN awards are referenced in the reception section and if citations should be added to it, they can be copied from the part of the article instead of removing it. If you think including it in the lead could give WP:UNDUE weight, I'd suggest bringing it up on the article's talk page and discussing it other editors. The sponsored source I think is ok for what it's being used for, it's identified as a sponsored source in the text and is just used for why the founder named the site what it is, and not controversial content. Shaws username . talk . 16:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Import non free images on other Wikipedia

Is it possible/ allowed to export non free fair use images from English Wikipedia to other Wikipedia for use in articles their? Simply using :en:file:... doesn't seem to help. Note that I have translated few articles and images got exported by themselves (I guess). ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 08:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see "Albanian Wiki photos" above. That's about use in en:WP of photos that so far are specific to sq:WP, you'd instead be asking about use in ru:WP or de:WP or wherever of photos that so far are specific to en:WP. It's the same idea, but of course you'd have to copy the photos over strictly in accordance with the policies of the destination Wikipedia(s). And it could be that a given Wikipedia doesn't countenance any claim of "fair use". As for "images [getting] exported by themselves", most (though none for which "fair use" is asserted) are hosted at Commons; you'd call them from Korean-language Wikipedia in just the same way that you'd call them from English-language Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a reference on the already existing page

Hello! I've translated an article and tried to bound it with an already existing one (which is just in another language). But I didn't manage to. I need to bound them, because my article is a translation and I don't want to violate a copyright law. Please help! I tried to do it through the code but didn't manage to. Katrynaaaz (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Katrynaaaz: Are you talking about Draft:The School (TV series), if so then it is a draft and not an article yet, so you may have to wait for it to be accepted as an article, before linking it with Wikidata (through which all other language articles are connected together). Also translating Wikipedia article of another language shall not be a copyright issue, you just need to handle attribution, see Help:Translation for it. For more information read WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. Regards ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 11:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Katrynaaaz, please look at named references, to see how to get rid of multiple copies of the same citation in your draft. ColinFine (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a disambiguation page

I would like to convert Banjara into a disambiguation page, as there are three topics with that title. I've never done so, however, and WP:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages seems rather...abstruse. Is there a relatively simple process for doing this? Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Revirvlkodlaku: There is already a disambiguation page related to this term, Banjar. You may move disambiguation to Banjara, but you first need to initiate a discussion on talk page. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 10:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you mention what are other articles with Banjara, because of what I could find, this article seems to be the primary subject issued with name, other's are related to it and have brackets to indicate what they are. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 10:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Editor Notify Me!, I'm referring to Banjara (Muslim) and Banjara (film). Isn't it the case that once there are several pages with the same name, even if they are disambiguated by bracketed terms, that a dedicated disambig page is created? Maybe I've misunderstood...Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Revirvlkodlaku: We can have both Elizabeth II as well as Elizabeth II (disambiguation), as the first one remains the most important primary article overshadowing others. In similar way, we can create a disambiguation page for Banjara titled "Banjara (disambiguation)" without renaming Banjara itself. The articles you provided are too small to even consider renaming Banjara, which stands as the most primary subject related to the term. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 13:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that two further disambiguable limks - Banjara Hound and Banjara Hills - are present on the disambiguation page Banjari. I think some additional cross-referencing between Dab pages would help. would help. -- Verbarson  talkedits 17:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal only IPs stop and return

What can we do of those editors/IPs who occasionally show up and vandalize, and once they receive final warning or so, stop editing. Then they return back after few months or year so that the new warnings they get start from level 1, so they can vandalize without the fear of block? Also those IPs who get blocked, block expires, and after few months come back to vandalize and process repeats? ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 09:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ExclusiveEditor, if their activity or WP:WHOIS gives evidence that it's the same person or same group returning every time, admins may be persuaded to make a longer block. Otherwise, yeah, that's the way it's been done. You can make a proposal if you can come up with a better idea. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margarett Best

Margarett Best is an article about a former Canadian politician I came across from the copyediting recommendations on my homepage.

A solid 80% plus of the article is just a list of all the different awards and honors the subject has received, but with no citations.

There’s barely any sources in the whole article, and the ones that are there have nothing to do with these awards.

I added citation needed tags, but honestly basically every paragraph in this article seems like it needs one. However since these weren’t technically opinion statements I wasn’t sure removing 80% of the article text was the right move either.

I guess I’m just wondering if there’s something further I should’ve done than add citation tags in this situation, as I am very new to all of this and didn’t want to punch above my weight, so to speak.

Thank you, Satellite5Editor (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite5Editor, the recommended course of action is to look for sources. People who don't have the time to do that usually tag the articles for issues. When you have so many {{citation needed}} tags to add, it's better to instead tag the whole article with {{more citations needed}}. Since it's a WP:BLP, you should remove unsourced claims instead of tagging if they are dubious or disparaging. Furthermore, unsourced claims that are so promotional as to make the article reflect poorly on Wikipedia's neutrality are best removed on the spot as well, though you will meet people who think those sorts of claims should be tagged or rewritten instead. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I probably don’t have quite enough experience yet to add sources but I will definitely continue to learn and tag/remove as needed. Thank you very much for your help! Satellite5Editor (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a useful list of the different cleanup tags at WP:CLEANUPTAG. Also, if you're not sure if something should be removed or not, there's usually no harm in being WP:BOLD and going for it, your edit will be in the page history so it can always be reverted if people disagree, happy editing! Shaws username . talk . 16:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Ship's Manifest or

1) For a biography, is a ship's manifest an acceptable source? How would I cite it? 2) Is an acceptable source? One would need a free account in order to view the relevant page.

New info has arisen about Pepi Litman & I've been asked to update the article. Nadnie (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nadnie: I'm not sure about using the manifest, since it is a primary source, and secondary sources are preferred. is not usable, since it is user generated content. See WP:ANCESTRY RudolfRed (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]