Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

Cassiopeia, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

• To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
• About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

Is there a way to quickly find Wiki editors experienced in using one or the other editor and willing to help with occasional questions beyond the basics?

I was originally going to ask how I could find someone who's an expert in the Visual editor, as I'd really like advice about some reference work in that editor. Then it occurred to me that there might be other Teahouse frequenters wondering how to get special help in using the Source editor — plus others who like me also prefer the Visual editor — and so I'm asking on behalf of both groups. Augnablik (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Augnablik, I suggest that you ask your questions here in the Teahouse. An answer may be inexpert or plain wrong; but if so then somebody better informed is likely to correct it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most experienced editors use the source editor and may assume others do so always state clearly if a post is about VisualEditor. Somebody who knows it well enough will probably come. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All right, but reluctantly, @Hoary and @PrimeHunter — let me begin with what should be a simple question for seasoned editors who use the VE:

I know there’s a template that creates the equivalent of footnotes for articles. I’ve used it frequently, though I’m always surprised that it puts authors’ surnames before their first names, like in a traditional bibliography. But is there also a template in VE to create a traditional bibliography? I haven’t yet found one. Augnablik (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik, VE is kind of annoying for this. You can stick a bunch of footnotes at the bottom of the article, then switch to source mode and remove the ref tags. Or you can use "insert template" and search for the one you want - they all start with "cite", eg Template:Cite book. But then you have to input each field manually. I switch back and forth between the two editors a lot for this reason. -- asilvering (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Asilvering … I was beginning to think there really weren’t any Wiki editors who use VE for citation work! The situation you describe does sound annoying, as you put it. I would think that because there’s a way to do the equivalent of footnotes in VE, there’d also be a way to do the equivalent of a bibliography. I wonder if that’s being worked on and we just don’t know about it. Augnablik (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

_____________

@Asilvering, I tried what you suggested, but I found that I couldn't do what I had in mind — which was to keep the footnotes in place but also have a section below it for a bibliography. When I tried to copy the footnotes and create a new section where I could paste them and then (using the Source editor) remove all the ref tags, I found that whatever I did in the copy/pasted references would affect the original footnotes themselves. Disappointing. Augnablik (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've done it out of order - create the footnotes that become the bibliography first, then switch to SE and remove the ref tags. You can then switch back to VE and copy-paste the bibliography entries into your actual in-text footnotes (use the "manual" tab when adding the footnotes in VE), or just generate new footnotes. Like I said, it's a pain... but I haven't found anything better, myself. This is why so many people use sfn. -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I did create the footnotes first. Or were you saying that was the exact opposite of what you were suggesting?

Augnablik (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik, I figured this would be easier to demonstrate than to try explaining again, so have a look at the page history of User:Asilvering/footnotes. -- asilvering (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, much appreciate your help ... I'll try out what you suggested at your Talk page, and we can take up the thread there. Augnablik (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik I've added a comment on that talk page. ash (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening with the "Analyze a page" program for archiving references? It has a huge backlog and I have been unsuccessful in getting it to work twice. At a time when web pages at universities are being removed, I think it is important to archive these references. TwoScars (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @TwoScars, Keep in mind that the tool won’t archive all references for a particular article on Wikipedia, If the Archive tool isn’t working very fine and you wish to archive a particular citation, consider using alternative methods, you can try (https://archive.ph/) then add the archive link and access date to the existing reference. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 23:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple weeks back, I saw an edit that updated peak chart positions for songs. However, the claimed positions did not match the source. For example: on the song "Edamame", the previous revision said peak in Canada was 13, and edit claims it went up to 6. However, https://www.billboard.com/artist/bbno/chart-history/can/ says it went to 13. Most of the user's other contributions are similar incorrect chart adjustments. The user has already received three warnings on their talk page for incorrect chart adjustments and one for something else. I made a request for administrator intervention which resulted in a 72-hour block, however the behavior promptly continued after the block expired.

How do I proceed from here? Do I just submit another request for admin intervention? Do more warnings need to be issued before that's possible? Could/should all edits made by this user be reverted? Yhvr (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Yhvr. If this user has vandalized, been blocked, and continued vandalizing from that point, continue reverting them and report them again. Thank you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thank you! Yhvr (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still don’t understand why people decide to vandalize information on the internet that’s what fake news is for am I right? Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like an essay explaining namespaces, what constitutes a reliable source, that we generally follow WP:TRUTH, policies, etc. There's a lot of people out-of-wiki I see that generally don't know what's going on here, and it'd be nice to link to one essay instead of a bunch of essays, policies, and guidelines that nobody will read. KeyGremlin (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One could look up Wikipedia in an encyclopedia, KeyGremlin, and thereby arrive at Notability in the English Wikipedia, Wikipedia community, Reliability of Wikipedia, and more. I suspect that any "essay" that not only explained "notability", described who contributes to en:Wikipedia, evaluated the reliability of what results, and also explained such matters as namespaces, protection levels and so on would be an "essay" in the sense of 'attempt', or similar to An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding (originally published in four volumes). But one day perhaps we'll see Wikipedia added to "List of Very Short Introductions books". -- Hoary (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KeyGremlin Your idea is interesting.

If I understood rightly , the idea is to create a short text linking to a few of "Policies and guidelines" and a few "essays" ?

Am I right ?

There are already a directory about "essays". This directory is only about the "Wikipedia essays" and not the "users essays".

There are already a "List of policies and guidelines" and an item "List of policies". Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just the important ones so that people can grasp why things are the way they are on Wikipedia. KeyGremlin (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KeyGremlin I think that I understood what you want. What do you think ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello This draft article I wrote is going through the AfC process, but I'd rather put it straight into mainspace (which I've done with articles before). I'm not sure how to do this now it's in AfC. Also, the name is a redirect, so that would have to be fixed (there's a note on it about this). Can someone help with this. Many thanks. Blackballnz (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Blackballnz, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You can withdraw it from AFC simply by editing it to remove the AFC header (and comments).

In order to move it over a redirect, you will need to make a request at WP:RM. ColinFine (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ColinFine- so I would withdraw it from AFC & put into mainspace first? And then make the request at WP:RM? James Ashcroft currently redirects to Jimmy Ashcroft (a footballer). Blackballnz (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't need to move it to mainspace first, as far as I know, @Blackballnz - you can request a technical move from Draft space to mainspace. ColinFine (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so over the past few months I've been doing this article Oslo Mosquito Raid (1944)

And I don't really know how to improve/fix the issues currently plaguing it HCPM (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, there's a paragraph starting "The first wave commenced an attack run". Where does this material come from? -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HCPM I've copyedited the article but there are still two issues: (1) there are few inline citations and (2) two of the 4 existing citations aren't appropriate. ash (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to translate this article to english: fi:Alma Tuuva

but i'm scared that the article would be deleted due to the person not being notable enough. this person is a helsinki city council member and a social media persona with 35k followers. are these enough to merit an article in the eng wikipedia Warpfrz (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. What in-depth coverage of him has there been in reliable sources, independent of him and of each other? -- Hoary (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please do not assume genders. she has been covered on yle.fi, hs.fi and is.fi Warpfrz (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A fair comment. I don't know how or why I assumed "he"; a stupid mistake. -- Hoary (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Warpfrz. If the sources in the Finnish article meet the criteria in 42, then they probably establish that she is notable by English Wikipedia's standard, and you can translate the article. (It would still be worth looking for English sources, as they are preferred if they are equally good as sources; but if these don't exist, the Finnish sources may be used).

If the Finnish sources are not adequate to establish notability, then attempting to translate the article would result in an English draft that was written backwards. In that case, it would be better to look for better sources - in English or Finnish - before trying to write a draft from them. If you cannot find suitable sources, you'll know not to spend any time on this. ColinFine (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW – and keeping my views on this person's ideologies etc. strictly to myself! – I do think the sources in the fi.wiki article are likely enough to establish notability here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I’d really appreciate any helpful input regarding a biography currently under deletion discussion on Simple English Wikipedia.

The article is about a dermatologist and public health educator whose work has been featured in Khaleej Times, Financial Express, and Times of India. It focuses on his efforts in digital health education.

If anyone has time to take a look and share their thoughts, I’d be truly grateful.

Article: simple:Yousef Abo Zarad

Deletion discussion: simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Yousef Abo Zarad

Thank you so much for your time! Mvfra (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yousef Abo Zarad, an article on this person was deleted from the English Wikipedia. - Arjayay (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvfra "Wikipedia in English" and "Wikipedia in Simple English" are distinct projects and each of these are independent of each others.

Therefore , those who doesn't contribute to "Wikipedia in Simple English" can't help.

In my point of view , this matter have to be discussed on "Wikipedia in Simple English". Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did the WMF or people who control the top of how everything looks related to skins just change something today? Or maybe I am just going crazy, but some things look different on my "home page",. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, however you can change how things look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 17:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn If so, there ought to be comments at the mediawiki page but I don't see any. You could ask on that talk page, although this whole area looks fairly inactive. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are you able to locate that sort of thing? I can click the link you provided, but I mean how did you find the link that you provided to me? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)a[reply]

@Iljhgtn: The feature is Special:Homepage. I would enter mw: in our search box to go to mw: (www.mediawiki.org) which is the wiki about the MediaWiki software. There I would try a search on homepage. The linked page is the first result. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"mw" with a ":" takes you directly to MediaWiki you say? Learned something new today. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See more at Help:Interwiki linking#Prefix codes for linking to Wikimedia sister projects. mw is a shortcut for the long and clumsy mediawikiwiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

mediawikiwiki is long and clumsy alright. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn To answer your "how": I'm a mentor to new editors, so I knew the homepage is part of the "Growth Team features". So I entered WP:GTF into the search box, which took me to a page from which there is a link to the mediawiki page. I entered the latter link as a URL rather than a wikilink as I found that easier in this case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page about the two battles of the River Stour. How can I improve this page so it is accepted please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Battles_of_the_River_Stour Chiefsub68 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Chiefsub68, and welcome to the Teahouse. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable secondary sources say about a subject, and very little else.

You have only one citqation, with a very short summary (of unknown provenance) and a primary source. A Wikipedia article on a historical battle should normally be based on at least three separate scholarly works which discuss the battle in some depth - books from reputable publishers, or papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals. ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I submitted an article (Rebecca B. Alston) for review, and it has been accepted. I have two questions: 1) what do I need to do to resolve the conflict of interest banner that is still on the article? 2) When will the webpage itself be created? I searched it manually and it seems to not be created yet. Archfusionpro (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article (or webpage) Rebecca B. Alston certainly exists. (Its section headers are all in headline case, they ought to be in sentence case.) Maproom (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Archfusionpro The COI banner is there probably because the text contains such gems as "Bio Forms communicates a distinction from her earlier geometric work while retaining a subtle indication of geometric vocabulary, moving towards more fluid, exploratory forms that reference organic decay through viral compositions. These works elucidate a dynamic microcosm rendered through a unified approach merging painting and drawing techniques." which are not cited to a source and read like as if written by someone with a COI. Clean out all such material and the COI will be less obvious. As to "search it manually", do you mean you tried to use an external search engine to find the article but failed as it hasn't yet been indexed? That's because, although the AfC process is complete the article has not been reviewed by the new pages patrol and won't be available to search engines until it is, or 90 days have elapsed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take a country on Wikipedia like Iceland for example. Iceland, like many other countries on Wikipedia, has sub-articles that go along with the parent country. However, what if an article related to Iceland, like Languages of Iceland, seems too short? Can it be merged into its own section on the country's article, or is it required to be its own separate article on Wikipedia? DiamondFrxsh (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondFrxsh, Welcome to the Teahouse. Nothing "requires" an article on Wikipedia. If you think that it should be merged, see the instructions at WP:Merging. If the instructions are too complicated, feel free to ask for more help. Happy editing! CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of Iceland has had a "additional citations needed" tag on it since September 2014. I would search for additional references first, and then perhaps merge it to Icelandic language if the aforementioned article can't be improved. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 07:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about proposing a merge to that article, but wanted to ask this question first on whether countries required sub-articles. Thanks! DiamondFrxsh (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! When listing notable works at the end of an article, is there a specific format that must be followed? I see notable works listed in different ways at the end of articles (like journalists, writers, filmmakers, etc.) and sometimes it's a table, sometimes it's a list that only has the title/year. Other times with more details... Is there a preferred or "more correct" way than others? Thank you! Kinfolx1114 (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinfolx1114 As you have found, there are many ways to do these lists. The official manual of style on the topic is at MOS:LISTSOFWORKS, so please be guided by that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Kinfolx1114 (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2025&action=edit&section=15 JLStevenNgao (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may relate to Eurovision Song Contest 2025. Do you have a question? David notMD (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned User:Imdeadinside12 twice to start using edit summaries in their talk page. Then, i look into their talk page, seems like this user has been warned regarding other edit related stuff too from other users multiple times. Is there a way to report an account that behaves this way? Http iosue (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per User talk:Imdeadinside12, dating back to 2021, this editor has been warned on Talk page to A) Provide edit summaries, B) not enter original research, C) provide references. The editor has not created a User page or ever replied on own Talk page, so may not be aware there is a Talk page. However, Imdeadinside12 has successfully made thousands of edits to article with a low revert rate, so maybe this is not the fight to pick. David notMD (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Draft:Violet Sky needs to be improved. But I have a question, is it notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and how can I improve it? Aubreeprincess (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aubreeprincess, Bonadea has written "No real claim to notability in the draft, and the sources are local publications and/or build directly on interviews." If you disagree with part (or all) of this, then bring up the matter with Bonadea. But if you (perhaps sadly) concede that Bonadea is right, then be sure to cite better sources. (If these don't exist, no article can be produced.) If you want a second opinion on the value of the sources you've already cited, then please, in this Teahouse thread, link to the three that you consider the best among the seven. -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Aubreeprincess did also post to my user talk page to ask about this, and I responded there – unfortunately, they also posted some personal attacks at another help desk and on their own user talk page, and they were blocked for a couple of days. --bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Yes, and also an essay (now deleted). Aubreeprincess, finding reliable sources to confirm what one already knows is true can be very difficult, and it's very hard to persuade other editors to do this for one. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the sandbox of Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality. When I added a new parameter via UI, it generated template data for all parameters at the end of the template.

In the test cases, it now always gets appended after template. So that's obviously not right.

Does this template data serve any purpose aside from documentation, and would I have to move it there?

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 11:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where should a request to change the protection level be posted? This is the one I'm talking about (but regardless, I would like to know): Talk:Kushwaha#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_16_April_2025 TIA! Lova Falk (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at Talk:Kushwaha, Lova Falk. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Editors... I'm seeking Advice, and Help if you're willing, as I've sorta hit a wall. I'll check back here if forced to, but I've created a Talk area to have a fuller discussion regarding FOUR New Season Articles I'm drafting in my User space... for TEST purposes, prior submitting them as Drafts for Review. Reason being, I'll have to learn transcluding the Season articles' episode lists to an existing List page. But...

Rather then go into detail here, read this in my Sandbox first... then please Reply in my Talk page here....

I already have the first two season articles mostly prepared, and am working on the remaining two seasons (3 & 4). Season 1 & 2 links are available from the "read this first" link above.

Any/All CONSTRUCTIVE Advice & Criticism is welcomed, and TIA ~<}:^> GreyElfGT (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would like to create a page on the music artist The Stupendium. I would create it but I don’t have the time nor do i have the info. If some people would like to help me i will create a draft and put it here. (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Boeing747Pilot, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but if you're not able to put the time into finding the essential reliable independent sources required to establish that The Stupendium is notable, then it is very unlikely to happen. While it's not impossible that somebody will see your request and want to work with you, it's not very likely: why should a volunteer editor want to? (Maybe if somebody else here is a fan).

In its present state Draft:The Stupendium has zero chance of being accepted, because it has only a single source, whose reliability is disputed (see WP:GENIUS), and does not really have significant coverage of the artist.

Please see your first article. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i am aware of the fact the article is very short. I don’t plan a submitting it within the week or maybe even the month. I have a lot to do and will put as much time in as i can. And i know The Stupendium is known. I will put more sources in and hunt to find anymore. (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I edited a Wikipedia page for a school and put the school's yearbook as a source for some dates related to the school, and someone else edited the page and marked it as a possibly unreliable source. Is a school's own yearbook an unreliable source for the school? ShamrockFrog64 (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN has discussed it occasionally, and typically sees it as a self-published/non-independent source. So it could verify some details about a school similar to how the school's own website would. DMacks (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need to add images to my draft but it would be impossible to make it my own work and it would be hard to contact the creator. What do i do? (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, @Boeing747Pilot. If you are able to take a photo of the subject (not of an existing image, which is almost certainly somebody else's copyright) yourself, then it is your own work, and you have the legal power to license it in the way that Wikimedia Commons requires. IN most other cases, you cannot. See WP:image use policy.

But if you are talking about Draft:The Stupendium, there is no point in worrying about images before you've established that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - it's like trying to paint the windows of a house before you've even surveyed the plot to make sure it's fit to build on. Images won't affect whether the draft is accepted as an article or not. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I will build on to the article. I don’t plan on completing soon considering what i need to do and the time i have. (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished writing an article on a Lake in Sweden --- Pulsujärvi (lake), I had used Infobox Water body template but when I added the coordinates, It is not showing the Map preview, I donno if it's an error or something like that, Need Guidance! 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 15:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you have is correct! All pages lead to a place like that! (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you press the if you press the goes URL then it will take you to Google Earth. (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @JesusisGreat7. You have added the coordinates, but you haven't specified a map in the pushpin_map argument. See Template:Infobox body of water ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!  I was viewing info on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Erbar.  In the Reference section, one reference has a glaring error.  However, I am stumped on how to change it as the edit link does not show the information.  What to do?  Thanks. Wdrazo (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed an error ("Macmillsn" for "Macmillan"). I don't know if that's the one you mean. Maproom (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wdrazo (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Wdrazo, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The probable reason why you couldn't find it is that in the source, the text of references is not in the reference section, but in the section where the reference is first cited. The software collects them into the refernce section. So Maproom fixed the typo where Reference 2 is defined, at the end of the first paragraph. ColinFine (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like something staring you in the face for years. Thanks for clearing that up! Wdrazo (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guy_She_Was_Interested_in_Wasn%27t_a_Guy_at_All and in its other section it mentions a playlist being published by Apple Music and Spotify, but the playlist is published by Universal Music Japan, I couldn't find any secondary sources that say this info, would it be correct to replace the wrong secondary source with a primary link to the playlist on the official Universal Music Japan youtube channel/tweet from the authors account Jackdawss (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackdawss, welcome to the Teahouse. Primary sources which are reliably published are fine for facts. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

are there supposed to be no primary sources for an organization's page? as in internal documentation etc Brokebutbrilliant (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is also about corporate notability. can I ask about certain links? Brokebutbrilliant (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your "paid" declaration for Draft:Presearch, Brokebutbrilliant. Very limited use can be made of primary sources. However, any claim that rises above the very humdrum has to depend on secondary sources, as does demonstration of notability. It seems to me that this draft is going nowhere. Perhaps Presearch will be notable a couple of years from now. -- Hoary (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. That first response was to ensure that removing this primary sources was needed, as I eliminated it all for secondary sources. (At first I thought it was good to provide primary sources). I'm going to upload the draft after this reply. TechCrunch, The New Stack, PCMag, Lifewire, and the Search Engine Journal are the secondary sources for notability, but there were others added for further references. Those secondary sources mention the subject as the headline and focus, and not including lists of alternatives, which I'm assuming for now means subject written about in passing. If that is rejected, are the Teahouse -- or the reviewing editor -- able to give specific parameters? In reference to the sector, search engines, there is a handful of companies, listed on List of Search Engines and with their own pages, that have less or comparable secondary, notable publications by Wikipedia's guidelines. Seeks maybe two. Dogpile maybe seven, two of which were about raising or acquisitions -- which aren't included in the latest draft:presearch after reply. Kagi six. Elasticsearch seven. OpenSearch_(software) maybe 7. If YaCy, in the same distributed sector, touts Heise Online, The Register, and PC World, then it would seem logical to me that TechCrunch, The New Stack, PCMag, Lifewire, and the Search Engine Journal, even if whittled down to compare to YaCy's notable publications, would be comparable for draft:presearch. -bbb Brokebutbrilliant (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is written about the question of article deletion, but it's just as valid for the question of article creation. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make an article on a local café called Magno's, and I have no idea how to add the title on the draft. Can someone help me with this? QeedIsAWatermelon (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @QeedIsAWatermelon, Here you go Draft:Magno's, You can click on the link to start your draft and write about the subject, make sure you search the web for reliable sources. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 23:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a draft submission template to the top and a section for references at the bottom. To have these added automatically, use Wikipedia:Article wizard. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something fucky is up with this page Banyamulenge but I'm not used to wiki formatting enough to fix it. Can someone take a look? Thanks! Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone fixed it, thanks! Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked why AFCs took so long earlier here in the teahouse, but it seems to have been archived. I wanted to ask editors who have been on this site longer, how long does it take for drafts that are not amazing nor are they terrible to get reviewed? Theres a backlog of 3,000 and historically, it seems like this has always been the case. DotesConks (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DotesConks, thank you for reaching out to Teahouse, To my best of knowledge, it depends on the time you created your draft, Someone will attend to a draft if they are active at the time you created the draft else if not reviewed as soon as possible, it goes to backlog which some reviews still check, and it also depends on your created piece, some articles get attention than the other especially if it’s of public interest, important, a spam or otherwise. Editors likely review the first set of articles they see per WP:NPP and try to send a feedback, but if you create directly, There is not stipulated timeframe as new page reviewers can patrol on there own discretion. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 23:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chippla360 I understand, but I was already told this and really I'm just asking for an estimated review time for drafts that don't excel yet aren't dumpster fires. Given that the oldest draft is 20 months old, this has me awfully concerned. DotesConks (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review has no timeframe, It depends on when someone gets to it, but I assure you if you’re a user actively creating clean pages, there is a possibility your articles get reviewed within a week. A 20 month draft ? In Wikipedia unedited drafts are deleted after a period of 6months which is the G13 delete so if the draft is 20 months, I suggest you either resubmit the draft or ask a reviewer to have a look at it, hope it meets WP:GNG? Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 00:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DotesConks, you are correct that excellent drafts tend to get accepted pretty promptly and terrible drafts tend to get declined or rejected pretty promptly. So, the best way to get a draft of middling quality approved quickly is to improve it significantly. Problems that cause drafts to stall are several: Thinking that adding lots of mediocre references is better than selecting fewer excellent quality references. That's false, and reference quality is vastly more important than quantity. Failing to make a plausible claim of notability in the lead section. Using promotional language instead of rigorously neutral language. Also, the fact is that drafts about highly technical topics often languish. This applies also to drafts where most of the references are in foreign languages, especially those written in non-Latin scripts. Many reviewers are less likely to feel comfortable with such drafts requiring special skills to assess properly. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello @Cullen328 who are you tagging on the text lol ? Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 00:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chippla, please clarify your remark and your "lol". Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DotesConks take a look at your Draft talk:North Korean defection methods, you noted on your Userpage it’s the best you have created, there are reliable source but it still fails verification, so many citation needed tags, lacks verifiable inline citations. So probably this could pend also untill issues are resolved. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 00:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chippla360 I already explained to the editor what my manual of style is. I'd say 80% of the citation needed templates should be removed. DotesConks (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 I've tried my best to supply as many high quality and medium quality sources to my created drafts but it just isn't enough to make it outstanding. Which is why I am asking this question now, nearly 3 weeks on from submitting my drafts. If I have to play the long game, how long will that game be? DotesConks (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - after 6 months, unedited drafts are eligible for deletion. This doesn't mean that they will be. DS (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, before that "20 months" claim becomes canonised, the oldest draft currently at AfC is 3½ months old. There are 24 drafts over 3 months, accounting for <1% of the pending c. 2,800 drafts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction (luckily, only in my head) to this thread was "Aw, stop whingeing." But then I took a look at Draft:North Korean defection methods. This is littered with admonishing templates. Sample: Upon reaching a "friendly"{{Clarify|reason=Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which requires content to be factual, accurate, and reasonably precise. Thus, referring to "friendly" countries, especially without clarification of the term, is not good enough. I suggest changing it to a description of how these countries view defectors, or some other factual collective description of "friendly" countries. According to Wikipedia, no countries are "friendly".|date=April 2025}} country, North Koreans surrender themselves to the police.... I suggest that in the particular context (which is, after all, how we normally understand words), "friendly" is easily interpretable as "believed by potential defectors from North Korea and/or their assistants to be receptive to applications for refugee status" or similar. "Friendly" is perhaps not the best word; it doesn't have to be: (i) it's in quotes, suggesting that it's not in Wikipedia's voice; (ii) this is an article candidate, not a Featured Article candidate. I have already removed one admonishing template as mere pettifogging; other experienced editors may wish to take a look at the draft and consider the aptness of its templates. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’ve proposed a new item for in the news at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Women’s World Chess Championship

Is there anything else I need to do personally, or is it a matter of enough people supporting/opposing it?

Do I need to monitor the entry to see if people support it and then add the (Ready) tag? Xrisk (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. I'd suggest asking questions about the ITN process at its talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Did you know...

that the Car Seat Headrest song Vincent references At Eternity's Gate from the clinical depression Wikipedia article?"

Within Vincent, it links to Teens of Denial. Would that be eligible for DYK or would there have to be an independent article for Vincent (song) to be eligible?

Shanshansan (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shanshansan Welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:DYK for details. DYK only "showcases new or expanded articles" so I don't think that article would qualify. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a draft article for the Dutch artist Draft: Dries Verhoeven. Since I have 'autoconfirmed' status, I believe I'm able to move the article to mainspace. Would that be appropriate at this point? I feel the article is essentially complete now.

Before doing so, I'd appreciate having someone proofread it to catch any issues I might have missed. Could anyone suggest where I might find someone willing to review it?

Floriano95 (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Floriano95 Hello and welcome. You've already submitted the draft for a review; if you want feedback on it, or someone to check it for errors, you should allow the review process to play out.

I can say that you should remove the external links from the "chronologial overview" section; if these are intended as references, you should format them as references instead, but they seem to just be links to his own website to document the existence of his work; an article about him should not merely list his entire portfolio, but works that are discussed in reliable sources independent of the subject. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am having issues getting the AFD Stats tool to work for my account. Am I doing something wrong? https://afdstats.toolforge.org/

Thanks! Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried for you.

I get "AfD Statistics for User:Gjb0zWxOb

ERROR: No AfDs found. This user may not exist. Note that if the user's username does not appear in the wikitext of their signature, you may need to specify an alternate name."

I don't know what is the problem because your account does exist. Anatole-berthe (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD stats implies that either this username doesn't exist (which isn't true) or that you haven't actually !voted in any AfDs, which looks like the explanation. According to XTools you have only edited four pages in the Wikipedia namespace, none of them AfDs. Have you !voted in any AfDs? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 14:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to assume good faith upon this and this IP editor, who both appear to be block evading Nazruliman2008 (talk · contribs). I have a feeling that this is not intentional, and according to WP:BLOCKEVADE, "an administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block". I suggested the user do what you are supposed to do if you are globally locked on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Now I am not sure what to do next. Should I open a WP:SPI case, or just assume good faith upon this editor? Justjourney (talk | contribs) 16:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nazruliman2008 is globally locked. In the hypothetical case the IP is the same user. We should intervene.

The account was banned for the next reason : (Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia). Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anatole-berthe I added a comment at WT:TPG to reply to IP user (putting their comment in the wrong location), see Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Nazruliman2008. Since the subject line is "User:Nazruliman2008", and with the use of emojis, that's the reason I think the IP may be a sock of said user. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 17:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did rightly intervened. I believe others editors can confirm. Anatole-berthe (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents, is anyone allowed to give their input in an ANI discussion? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RedactedHumanoid, welcome to the Teahouse! As long as comments there are constructive, yes, anyone can comment on a discussion. — E_F⁵ 19:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]