Wikipedia:Teahouse

jmcgnh, 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? ; 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

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly. Alternatively, you can contact an experienced editor by visiting your homepage and clicking "Ask your mentor a question about editing".

There are currently 1 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

December 30th: Addition?

Though it is mentioned in another article on said date, the Hurricane Creek Mine Disaster which happened in Leslie County isn’t included in the article. I sure do hope it isn’t because of notability reasons. I mean, it can’t be said guideline, it has its own article. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

If you are referring to the December 30 article, I see no reason why you shouldn't add Hurricane Creek mine disaster. Please also read WP:DAYS. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

OP has not responded, so I have added it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I was reverted by User:Kiwipete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

As @Shantavira has mentioned, please read WP:DAYS, and also as I mentioned in my edit summary, WP:DOYCITE. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

DAYS is a WikiProject style guide, not a policy ("An advice page has the status of an essay and is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.", as it clearly says), and DOYCITE is a guideline and again not a policy, from which you removed the text "...editors reviewing unsourced entries are encouraged to check for a suitable source themselves before tagging or removing the entry." Perhaps you can tell us why you did not do that, and why you think it is acceptable to revert edits such as mine, instead of building on them—which is I understand, how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You should also take note of the Page Notice displayed whenever you edit a DOY article, specifically "Citations required: Each addition to this page must include a direct citation from a reliable source. Simply providing a wikilink is insufficient; entries without direct sources will be removed.". This is also the reason for removing that text from WP:DOYCITE. I would suggest that if you have further questions, you raise them at the project's talk page. Kiwipete (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You keep asking me to read different pages/ texts which say the same thing, but which have an equal lack of weight, and none of which refer to a policy or a community consensus.

I note that, leaving my addition aside, 25 of the 30 entries in the relevant section have no adjacent sources (they are of course sourced on the linked pages, as was mine), and yet you have not removed them.

You have still not explained why you destructively removed my addition, rather than collaboratively building upon it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Just people trying to shove notability up your butt. Don’t listen to Kiwipete. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Question on medical articles

So I'm in a bit of a conundrum: this is my first time editing a medical article (Autism) and I'm starting to familiarize myself with the relevant guidelines. NYT is generally reliable except for medical articles, however the article that I want to cite I believe is accurate and is also backed up by academic sources. Not to mention I have personal experience with the subject of the article and know it's accurate firsthand (although I know that doesn't count for much here). Can I cite the NYT article in addition to said sources? Gommeh 🎮 13:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

That depends on the nature of the statement. Best to discuss on the talk page of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Gommeh, you may also ask at WT:MED. Mathglot (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Addison Wiggin Page Edit

Hi Teahouse hosts,

I'm seeking help with updating the article on Addison Wiggin. I’ve prepared a fully rewritten draft that updates the article for 2025, trims overly long quotations, and improves sourcing (per WP:BLP and WP:QUOTE). The updated draft includes citations from high-quality secondary sources like The New York Times Magazine, Reuters, The Economist, and Time.

I’ve posted the proposed draft on the article’s Talk page here:

Talk:Addison Wiggin#Proposed Article Rewrite: Addison Wiggin

Would someone be willing to review it and consider making updates if appropriate?

Thanks so much! Awiggingsf (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Awiggingsf The draft still needs stronger, reliably published secondary sources throughout from the lead section to the bibliography to meet WP:BLP and WP:RS standards. I recommend reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources and making sure all key claims are well-supported. Once improved.

🐍 Thilio🤖 18:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Ledes should not have citations, but should summarise what is cited in the body. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to Draft:Addison Wiggin.

However, as we already have an article at Addison Wiggin it would be best if you made smaller, incremental proposals for changes, one at a time, in the form "replace paragraph X with paragraph Y" or "add paragraph saying Z", with citations, on the article talk page, using the edit request wizard.

Also, see WP:PAID and, depending on whether you are Addison Wiggin or work for him WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY or WP:BOSS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

You have already been advised, here and on your talk page, about our CoI and Paid editing policies.

I have therefore undone the edits you made directly to the article, today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Article about self-harm

Dear Friends.

I think I would like to add substantially to the article about self harm. However, I see so many things in there I do not understand. Like the section with medical sources, I do not know what kind of scientific literature should go where and on what basic. Generally, the structure of this article is very different to "typical" Wikipedia article and I am lost. Can somebody shred some light on this matter?

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The self-harm article seems (at least for the first 30% or so that I read through) reasonably written for a layperson to understand. If you find a section too technical or full of medical jargon, you can tag the section with {{Technical|section|date=August 2025}}.

If you have suggestions or comments about improving the article, start a discussion about it on Talk:Self-harm. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kaworu1992 It seems a bit odd to me that self-harm is marked as a good article while also having a tag about relying too much on primary sources. Anyway, you should be aware that for human medicine, which is part of the article coverage, we have stricter sourcing standards described at WP:MEDRS and you should bear that in mind when you add more information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

One option available to you is to start a discussion on the article's talk page, about what you think should be changed, and why, and stating which sources support the changes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hm... there seems to be a little bit of confusion? ;-)

I have open access scientific journals articles I want to use as sources. However, I see we have a... particular bibliography section that is kinda problematic to me to understand its structure? Basically, we have books, non-meta-analyzes and meta-analyzes? Do I understand it properly? I'm kinda afraid I will put "bibliography" in the wrong section and people would be angry at me... :-(

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The references are split into sections. The first section are the footnotes directly referenced in the article text. For some of these, the article uses <ref> tags, and others use shortened footnote {{sfn}} tags. The shortened footnotes link to the items in the bibliography, and are useful if you need to refer to the same source multiple times, but with different page numbers. If you have a source you want to use this way, put it in the bibliography with the appropriate {{Cite}} template (which {{sfn}} needs to work), and then use the {{sfn}} tag in the article prose to cite that source. See Template:Sfn for documentation on usage. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you are still confused. The answer remains: discuss whatever confuses you, and whatever you wish to change, on the article talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Using a newspaper cutting as reference

I cannot find an online link as reference but i have a newspaper clip - can i use this and if it is possible, how do i save it as a link reference ? 119.74.170.237 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

With the help of Template:Cite news. -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

IP editor: note that there is no requirement to provide Wikipedia readers with a live link to the image of your clip. All you need are the full details of the newspaper's name, date of publication, page number etc as the template documentation describes. While some websites such as newspapers.com do allow for saved clips we are happy with offline sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you teahouse editors for advice 119.74.170.237 (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Villee's Biology article?

Hi!

I wonder whether some people could create Villee's Biology article for Wikipedia? I am not so much a creator of articles, but if such article would exist, I would gradly translate in into my native Polish. And the topic seems to be encyclopedic? ;-)

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Kaworu1992, many people wish that other people would create certain articles. Expression of that wish seldom has any effect. But in order to raise the likelihood of an article being created from infinitesimal to very low, you might post your request at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Biology. (I'm assuming that "Villee's Biology" is a matter of biology. But it could of course be a poem, a mural, a rock group, or whatever.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Presumably the standard textbook Biology by Claude Alvin Villee Jr. (and other co-authors in some editions).

It seems to have been widely used and updated over a period of decades, so it's likely that there have been enough reviews and other discussions of it to make an article about it possible, but these would not be easy to track down (many will not be online), so the "some people" would have to feel motivated to do so.

It might initially be more productive to improve the article on Villee himself, since it is barely more than a stub, with only one reference. Working on that would likely also throw up more material about the book. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.210.150.115 (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Quentin Quesnell

The only WP article on Quentin Quesnell is in Swedish. Since he was American and was a professor at various U.S. universities, is mentioned in numerous Google snippets and several English WP articles I'm surprised there's no English article about him. Mcljlm (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mcljlm: it's possible that no one has simply got around to creating a proper article on him... or perhaps he isn't notable enough to justify one. (There was an unreferenced one-liner on him back in 2006, but that was deleted in fairly short order.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

If you would like to write an article, see WP:Your first article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd never heard of him till shortly before posting here so I'm not sure I should start an English article. Mcljlm (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, so long as you can read and understand the sources about him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Lloyd G. Running Wolf Wilcox

He was the Hereditary Chief Medicine Man of the Narragansett Indian Tribe. I would like to enter a short biography of him and a series of quotes that demonstrate his philosophy and teaching. Francois Abenaki (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

If he is notable by wikipedia standards, you may use the Articles for Creation process to create an article. Be ware though that writing a Wikipedia article from scratch is very difficult when you do not have experience editing - it might be worth spending some time editing other articles first. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 06:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Francois Abenaki. I echo what NOtCharizard says, especially about getting experience first, and learning about fundamental principles of Wikipedia such as notability, verifiabilty, and citing sources

Note that a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.

A short list of the subject's publications, or quotations, may be added, but these should not be the main part of the article; and if there are not enough independent reliable sources, then there cannot be an article. (Sources do not have to be online, as long as they have been reliably published ColinFine (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

See also WP:Your first article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Non-free content of video games

I would like to add some video game screenshots representing the games that I have in the Wikipedia articles associated in them, but I'm not sure what guidelines to follow. For example, Neon White has a gameplay section without a screenshot of the game, but Papers, Please has a screenshot in the gameplay section.

Are there any informational pages (Wikipedia:x) that I can follow regarding non-free video game screenshots? Thanks -shanshansan Shanshansan (talk) 06:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Shanshansan

For non free video game screenshots the key rules are under Non-free content criteria, which set out the ten conditions any non free image must meet. The relevant advice for screenshots is in criterion 8 and the examples under Screenshots. cheers.

~~ 🐍 Thilio🤖 07:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Shanshansan MOS:VGIMAGES would be of good use here. Feel free to add images as long as you as they follow MOS. Go D. Usopp (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Kantara 2022 film's article title

Kantara A Legend was released in 2022. Later, in 2023 a prequel, Kantara A Legend Chapter 1 was announced, and it is set to be released in October this year. In February 2023, the director said the 2022 film was part 2. The page of the first film (Kantara (film)) was moved to Kantara: Chapter 2 in July this year. Should not the first film's article be titled Kantara (2022 film)? The first film is known as Kantara or Kantara A Legend by the audience, the title Kantara Chapter 2 is often interpreted as the 2025 film. Additionally, retroactive titles are not allowed Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope or Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1. these are some examples. The current title (Kantara Chapter 2) does not meet the WP:OFFICIAL guidelines, Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. WP:UCN commonly recognizable names should be used. WP:NCFILM clearly says that this kind of article title is not allowed. I requested a move but it is getting opposed, so what can I do? I do have the option to move the article myself. The film in posters and onscreen, is titled Kantara: A Legend. Optim594 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Optim594 Since the move request is already under discussion and facing opposition the best approach is to continue on the article’s talk page or requested moves page rather than moving the article unilaterally. Per WP:RM and WP:CONSENSUS, contested title changes require community agreement. You have made valid points citing WP:OFFICIAL, WP:UCN and WP:NCFILM,.... To strengthen your case add multiple independent reliable English language sources that refer to the 2022 film simply as Kantara or Kantara: A Legend and clearly show that “Kantara Chapter 2” creates confusion with the upcoming prequel.

If consensus is not reached you can wait 30 days and submit a new well sourced request. Avoid unilateral moves as they may be reverted under WP:BRD. Continue discussion on the RM page, add strong reliable sources supporting your title and avoid unilateral moves until consensus is reached.

🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 16:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I have added sources but I have one more question, even if it did not confuse, can the title really be changed?, it has not even been retitled, I think apple tv title is because of wikipedia, recently apple tv linked movies to prime video.

An IP user said that it is better to have retitled title than an disambiguation. But Star Wars (film) was retitled and has disambiguation instead of retitled title. Optim594 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

If the film has not been officially renamed Wikipedia’s guidelines (WP:NCFILM and WP:UCN) recommend using the original title... adding the release year if necessary (example, Kantara (2022 film)). Retroactive titles should only be applied when supported by significant usage in reliable sources. As your move request is still under discussion, continue adding high-quality sources demonstrating the common title and avoid moving the page yourself without prior agreement (WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RM). 🐍 Thilio🤖 04:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

References

List columns

How do I take a long bulleted list and split it into two or more columns? For example, here. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You can use the {{Columns-list}} template.

🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 17:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Which is that? And in visual editor I should specify. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

use the {{Columns-list}} template. I can help you arrange the list if you want.

🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 17:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Thilio, you can use template:t to make a template appear as a link. e.g. {{reflist}} 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 21:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jothefiredragon Thanks 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 21:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I tried tinkering with the columns-list and could not get it to be formatted correctly. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

It really does not matter, it was just a visually pleasing aesthetic, but it is really no big deal. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn Done here with {{divcol}} Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Gary Adante (Recording Engineer/Producer)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Gary Adante

Subject: Request for Assistance with New Article on Gary Adante (Recording Engineer/Producer)

Hello Teahouse Editors,

I have prepared a draft article about myself, Gary Adante (formerly credited as Gary Olazabal), a recording engineer and producer with over 40 Grammy certifications. The draft is fully sourced with reliable references including AllMusic, Discogs, Muso.ai, the book *Faces of Music* by David Goggin, and an article on Okayplayer about Stevie Wonder’s *Songs in the Key of Life*.

In addition to my engineering and production work, I have held leadership roles such as Director of Studios for Paul Allen, managing 17 studios worldwide, and I am currently Director of Neptune Valley Studios in Beverly Hills.

I’m disclosing that I am the subject of this article and I’m seeking a neutral, experienced editor to review and, if appropriate, help with the article’s submission.

Here is the draft in my sandbox: User:GaryOAdante1/sandbox

Thank you very much for your consideration and help!

Best regards, User:GaryOAdante GaryOAdante1 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @GaryOAdante1, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that, like most new editors who plunge straight into the very challenging task of trying to create a new article before they have spent time understanding how Wikipedia works, you have created something that is nowhere near acceptable. In fact writing about yourself successfully on Wikipedia is so difficult that very few people manage it and in consequence you are strongly discouraged from trying: see WP:AUTO.

The problem is that new editors almost always start in what seems to be the obvious way, of writing what they know. This is precisely backwards: Wikipedia is not interested in what you know, even (or, especially) if it is about yourself. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

In order to write an article successfully, you first find reliable, wholly independent reliable sources about the subject - nothing written, published, or commissioned by the subject or their associates, or based on their words; nothing in social media, blogs, or user-generated sources such as iMDB or Wikipedia; nothing which contains only passing mentions of the subject; but places where people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish material about the subject at some length, in reliable publications. (This is the essential, and often challenging, part of the process: it is akin to building the foundations of a building before starting to build it). See WP:42.

Then, assuming that you have found several such sources, the next part of the process is to effectively forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those indpendent sources say. Do you see why it is extremely difficult to write about yourself?

More generally, My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

That's the point, @ColinFine Thanks, hope they're readying this.....

🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 20:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for neutral editor

Grammy-winning engineer biography draft needs review & submission

Wall of text

Title: Request for neutral editor to review and submit biography draft (Gary Adante / Gary Olazabal) Body: Hello, I am seeking assistance from a neutral Wikipedia editor to review and, if appropriate, submit a biography draft I have prepared for Gary Adante (formerly credited as Gary Olazabal), an American recording engineer and producer. He has worked on over 40 Grammy Award-winning and nominated recordings and has been featured in published books and recognized music industry sources. The draft is fully cited with reliable references, including: – Faces of Music: 25 Years of Lunching with Legends by David Goggin (Alfred Music, 2011) – Buzz Me In: Inside the Record Plant Studios by Martin Porter & David Goggin (Thames & Hudson, 2025) – Official Grammy.com credits – AllMusic and Discogs credits I am aware of conflict-of-interest guidelines and will not be submitting this myself. Instead, I am asking a neutral editor to consider reviewing the draft and, if it meets standards, submit it via Articles for Creation (AfC). Draft in Wikitext format: {{short description|American recording engineer and producer}} {{Use mdy dates|date=August 2025}} '''Gary Adante''' (formerly credited as '''Gary Olazabal''') is an American recording engineer and producer who has contributed to numerous Grammy Award-winning and nominated recordings.<ref name="Faces">{{cite book |last=Goggin |first=David |title=Faces of Music: 25 Years of Lunching with Legends |publisher=Alfred Music |year=2011 |isbn=978-1598630245}}</ref><ref name="Buzz">{{cite book |last1=Porter |first1=Martin |last2=Goggin |first2=David |title=Buzz Me In: Inside the Record Plant Studios |publisher=Thames & Hudson |year=2025 |isbn=978-0500028698}}</ref><ref name="AllMusic">{{cite web |title=Gary Olazabal Credits |url=https://www.allmusic.com/artist/gary-olazabal-mn0000192533|website=AllMusic |access-date=9 August 2025}}</ref><ref name="Discogs">{{cite web |title=Gary Olazabal |url=https://www.discogs.com/artist/306234-Gary-Olazabal |website=Discogs |access-date=9 August 2025}}</ref><ref name="Grammy">{{cite web |title=Gary Olazabal |url=https://www.grammy.com/artists/gary-olazabal/13010 |website=Grammy.com |access-date=9 August 2025}}</ref> == Career == Adante began his career in the 1970s at major Los Angeles recording facilities, including the Record Plant.<ref name="Buzz" /> His credits include engineering and mixing for artists such as [[Stevie Wonder]], [[Barbra Streisand]], [[Quincy Jones]], [[Michael Jackson]], and [[Paul McCartney]].<ref name="Faces" /><ref name="AllMusic" /><ref name="Discogs" /> His work spans pop, rock, and R&B genres, with multiple projects earning Grammy Awards or nominations.<ref name="Grammy" /> He has been profiled in industry publications and books documenting the history of recording studios and the music industry.<ref name="Faces" /><ref name="Buzz" /> These sources detail his role in landmark recording sessions and his association with influential producers and artists. == Selected works == ''Songs in the Key of Life'' – Stevie Wonder (1976) – engineering team<ref name="AllMusic" /> ''Hotter than July'' – Stevie Wonder (1980) – engineer<ref name="AllMusic" /> ''Bad'' – Michael Jackson (1987) – engineering credits<ref name="Discogs" /> ''Live Alive'' – Stevie Ray Vaughan (1986) – mixing/engineering<ref name="Discogs" /> Various collaborations with Paul McCartney, Barbra Streisand, and Quincy Jones<ref name="AllMusic" /> == Publications == Adante is featured in: Goggin, David. ''Faces of Music: 25 Years of Lunching with Legends''. Alfred Music, 2011. ISBN 978-1598630245.<ref name="Faces" /> Porter, Martin; Goggin, David. ''Buzz Me In: Inside the Record Plant Studios''. Thames & Hudson, 2025. ISBN 978-0500028698.<ref name="Buzz" /> == References == <references /> == External links == [https://www.allmusic.com/artist/gary-olazabal-mn0000192533 AllMusic credits] [https://www.discogs.com/artist/306234-Gary-Olazabal Discogs credits] [https://www.grammy.com/artists/gary-olazabal/13010 Grammy.com profile] {{DEFAULTSORT:Adante, Gary}} [[Category:American audio engineers]] [[Category:Record producers from the United States]] [[Category:Living people]] [[Category:Year of birth missing (living people)]] Thank you for considering this request and for your help in preserving accurate music history. 142.129.115.247 (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

GaryOAdante1, I presume that this too is from you. You're "seeking assistance from a neutral Wikipedia editor". And you have enabled email. It is very likely that a self-described neutral Wikipedia editor will email you, offering to help you get an article published, of course for a fee. Any such offer is likely to be fraudulent. Any offer of guaranteed success is definitely fraudulent. There is a possibility that the writer is sincere -- but if so then the writer will be uninformed, incompetent, or both. Don't waste your money. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads-up, Hoary.

I’m still hopeful that an experienced, neutral editor with an interest in music history might be willing to review the draft I’ve posted here. It’s fully cited with published sources, and I’ve avoided any promotional tone in accordance with Wikipedia’s biography guidelines.

If anyone from the community has time to take a look, your feedback would be very welcome. GaryOAdante1 (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

ColinFine is a an experienced, neutral editor and gave you copious such feedback, above. Please heed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Not only is it promotional in tone, it's AI generated. Particularly your comment on the draft talk page. Don't use LLM to write text. Rewrite in your own words. We don't accept AI-generated content. Also, the correct procedure is to submit it for review, not request a review here. I put a submit button on the top of the draft so you can do that after you clean it up. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Seeking assistance...

Thanks to everyone who commented earlier. I’ve posted an update on the Draft’s Talk page outlining changes made to address sourcing, tone, and structure in line with policy. The current draft uses only independent, reliable publications that provide significant coverage, with promotional material removed. Draft: Gary Adante Talk page with details: Draft talk Further feedback is welcome. 162.255.3.238 (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Please remember to log in, two of your sources don't mention him and IMDb is NOT a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@GaryOAdante1: Making sure you see this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Request for Assistance

Hi, Teahouse editors, I'm a Wikipedia user, but I'm in wikibreak currently. However, I want to collaborate, discuss, or support others. Therefore, Is there anyone open to a casual partnership or collaboration in any area? Thanks for your consideration and help! However, I wonder if this message should be posted here or in my talk page... Upset New Bird (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

What would you like to get help with? 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 06:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jothefiredragon: For example, there is to engage in some collaboration or discussion around my favorite topics. Upset New Bird (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Upset New Bird, Wikipedia's talk pages aren't for discussion around the participants' favorite topics. (Other, unrelated websites do provide such opportunities.) But if you want to discuss the possible improvement of articles on your favorite topic(s), fine. However, are you (A) offering to collaborate with or support other users, or (B) requesting assistance? (And what do you mean by being "in wikibreak"?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary: I mean both (A) and (B). Also, "in wikibreak" means "being on a wikibreak", that means "taking a break from editing the wiki article". Upset New Bird (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Upset New Bird, if you're not editing articles, you should have little need for assistance. -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Upset New Bird. One possibilty is to find a WikiProject that interests you, and watch its talk page, or contribute to it - it depends just how "breaky" your Wikibreak is. But, as Hoary says, discussion about topics (as opposed to about creating or improving - or deleting! - articles) is not appropriate anywhere in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Your post here is as vague as the one you made to the Help Desk. You can help us to help you by being more clear about what you are seeking in your requests.

If you're on a wiki-break, we wouldn't want to spoil that. Come back when it's finished, and at that time, see the links I just left on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

You are not taking a Wiki break because you are here, actively trying to find ways to use Wikipedia. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Dian Rana

Hi, I’ve submitted a draft biography of Draft:Dian Rana, meeting WP:NBIO with multiple independent reliable sources. Would someone be able to? Thanks in advance. Nusantarakita (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Submitting the draft is how one requests a review. Everyone would like their draft reviewed quickly, but this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can. As noted on the draft, "This may take 4 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,129 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nusantarakita you will just have to wait for your draft to be reviewed. HQIQ (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

You were fortunate to get multiple reviews within a span of a few days. That is unusual. Just wait it out. We get people coming to the Teahouse every day asking for draft reviews. That isn't how the process works. You submit for review, and you wait. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Efns don't show if hovered over on talk pages

Hi, I started an RfC here where the proposed solution includes an EFN with sources explaining the article prose, and as all RfCs are on the talk page of the related article, I'm having this bug where unlike in the article space where if you hover over an EFN it shows a little popup, when I hover over an EFN in the talk page it's not popping up properly like it does in an article space. How do I fix this? Am I using the wrong notelist template? Thank you PHShanghai | they/them (talk) PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

No, you aren't using the wrong template, just that Hover popups for {{efn}} don’t work on talk pages because the necessary reference handling scripts are only loaded in article space. On talk pages, EFNs will appear as plain links to the notes list there’s no way to enable the hover function there. 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 11:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Thilio: How would you suggest I get around this given that the RfC wraps around having an EfN? Would copypasting the EFN content be appropriate? Thank you PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@PHShanghai....On talk pages, the simplest workaround is to paste the EFN text inline or as a brief parenthetical, then keep the full {{efn}} in the article space where hover works.

Alternatively, you could place the explanation in a bullet or numbered list below the relevant point in your RfC so readers don’t need to click to see it. See WP:TPG for talk page formatting guidance. 🐍 Thilio🤖 12:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Where do I write a article

(Redacted). Respectfully yours (Redacted). 79.143.107.27 (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a news site, and we do not report original research. Please see our list of alternative outlets.

Also, do not include the names of others in posts like this here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I've redacted this, because it seems quite oddly specific and could be WP:OUTING. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 15:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Can't move page

Hi there, could someone move the page for me. I am not yet autoconfirmed and would appreciate to skip that process as I won't write many other articles. User:Fossilio Endgamo/sandbox. Fossilio Endgamo (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fossilio Endgamo: Please see Help:Referencing for beginners; your draft just has references slapped onto the end as an afterthought. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Fossilio Endgamo, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The answer is no, but I have added a header which will allow you to submit your draft for review.

The restriction on new editors moving articles or creating article in mainspace is there for a reason: editors who have not spent time learning how Wikipedia works before they try to create an article almost always create something that is not acceptable. My personal opinion is that the restriction on creating new articles should be set far beyond four days and ten edits.

As far as I can see, your draft depends on primary sources.

An article on FFZ could be accepted only if it were primarily based on secondary sources, i.e. sources wholly unconnected with Green, UCL, or LINGO, that have published in-depth material about the idea.

Wikipedia is the last place to tell the world about new ideas, not the first: please see WP:NOTADVOCACY. ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you Fergus Green, or do you have some connection to him or to fossilfreezones.org? If so, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

It would definitely be a good idea to submit to using the WP:AFC process as ColinFine suggests, as this article is definitely not ready to be moved to mainspace. A new concept should not be sourced only from a handful of parties who recently created and/or are advocating for the concept to be implemented. An article about Fossil Free Zones should be primarily sourced from reliable secondary sources writing about Fossil Free Zones. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Researching Shintoism Cosmology & more

Sorry if I am a bother to any of you right now. But, I am wondering if I can get help on getting some information about Shintoism Cosmology and Women's role(s) in Shintoism. I am a new researcher to Shintoism but I don't know the right sources to get them from. My 2 posts were flagged from ChatGPT. Which yes, it was genuinely for being written by ChatGPT. But, I changed some words here in there of my choosing. I get it, I was in the wrong so I do not mind. All I want to do is find true good sources of stuff based on Shintoism. I just found out about Shintoism 2 days ago. I'm also thinking of converting to Shintoism because I can see the beauty and I think I believe in the Kami that are in Shintoism. My recently changed username from yesterday is based on the Kami, Amaterasu Omikami or 天照大神. I will be waiting by going outside to pray to the Kami of love (also known as Ōkuninushi no Mikoto) to pray of getting a beautiful good partner of mine. Can't wait to chat with you!

If you are in need of the draft link, here you go. Draft:Shinto Cosmology. AmaterasuNoMamorite (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, typo I mean for being written by ChatGPT. AmaterasuNoMamorite (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Your Draft:Shinto Cosmology currently lacks sufficient reliable sources. Please avoid using AI-generated text, as Wikipedia requires information to be supported by verifiable, published sources (see WP:RS). 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 18:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

"currently lacks sufficient reliable sources" This is hardly surprising, given that the OP is here to ask for help finding sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Noticed !! 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 18:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest removing everything written by ChatGPT and write the draft in your own words. The information in the draft must also be supported by reliable sources via citations. Anything not supported by reliable sources must be removed. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much to all of you whom suggested these things to me. I highly thank @ColinFine, @Tenshi Hinanawi, @Thilio, and @Pigsonthewing. If you have any more suggestions to me, bring it to my talk page if you'd like, or just say the suggestion here. Anything works really. I am open for any suggestions for my further research in Shintoism Cosmology and other things about Shintoism! You can also suggest me articles that are not even on here about Shintoism, like information about any Kami like Fujin/風神, Toyouke-Omikami/豊受大神, and Haniyasu-hime/埴安姫神!

And @ColinFine, Just to confirm for you. Ame-no-Minakanushi is not associated with my user name! In fact, it's associated with the Kami, "Ameterasu".

Ameterasu is literally if you search her up: She is our very own sun goddess of the HIgh Heavenly Plains. Even though she is the most central in Shinto. That does not make her Ame-no-Minakanushi! She was also one of the ancestors to the imperial family of Japan!

There are quite a lot of key differences between them. Ame-no-Minakanushi was one of the first Kami's to exist, Ame-no-Minakanushi is described as a primordial and invisible as mentioned in the article you mentioned (Ame-no-Minakanushi). And the Kami, Ameterasu as I said earlier, was a sun goddess and the ruler of the High Heavenly Plains, also (said again) the utmost centrality of Shinto.

I'm going to say a prayer for all of us here and to those who read this below and read this above,

O High Deity Amatersu-Omikami, please protect us and grant us prosperity. By the divine way, bestow upon us your blessings. Amaterasu-Omikami, arigato gozaimasu. (Amaterasu-Omikami, thank you very much)

Also, arigato gozaimasu for reading my question and this message.

May the Goddesses, and the High god's/Kami's of the Highest of the Heavens and the Earth guide me and you to the correct way of faith of the Kami. O High Deity Amaterasu-Omikami, arigato gozaimasu.

さようなら、良い一日を!/Goodbye, have a nice day!

良い午後を!/Have a nice afternoon! AmaterasuNoMamorite (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @AmaterasuNoMamorite. Since we already have articles on Ame-no-Minakanushi and Japanese creation myth (the second of which is woefully short of sources), I suspect it would be more advantageous for you to work on improving those, rather than trying to create a new article. ColinFine (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@AmaterasuNoMamorite that's the best suggestion from @ColinFine If I were you, I would definitely take it. Keep improving those, Ame-no-Minakanushi and Japanese creation myth you can even go deep by "see also" similar topics, like Kuni-no-Tokotachi ,Sky father and so on. 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 04:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

2025 in American television

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am writing this for my other account but this is my web browser

my main account is Lukas 4550 but I am writing on my web browser the reason I'm doing this is because some of my edits that I needed help for I've been getting reverted which means I haven't been getting the help I need to fix the things that need to be fixed my most recent edit or one of my most recent edits on 2025 in American television was reverted when I just needed help fixing some formatting if you find this contact my account via my talk page 2603:6000:D000:9607:9021:74E1:8746:4A78 (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Lukas4550, at least one of your edits to 2025 in American television was reverted with an informative edit summary. If you need help to fix what needs to be fixed, then log in as Lukas4550 and on Talk:2025 in American television ask for specific help. Incidentally, (i) I for one always use a web browser (the only alternative I can think of, the "app", sounds somewhat half-baked), (ii) the conventions of English orthography (commas, periods, sentence-initial capitals, etc) are no more than conventions, but they are helpful all the same. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I use the app as I use a tablet as my main device 2603:6000:D000:9607:B963:2B86:C94C:F79E (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Then you may wish to try a browser on your tablet. As it happens I don't use anything other than a computer for editing Wikipedia, but I'm confident that I could use Firefox on my (Android) tablet for editing Wikipedia as well as for viewing it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@IP is your up your alternative account? HQIQ (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I see you have started a discussion on Talk:2025 in American television, which is the correct thing to do.

As for editing from you browser, you can still log in there; and can be logged in in both places at once. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Finding sources

How do I find reliable sources for something that only few people know about?

I'm trying to make a page on right minarchism (umbrella term), but it got declined because there was no reliable source of information. So first off, few people know about the ideologies I'm putting in the page, few people follow them, and few people criticize them. I get most my info from polcompball wiki (and it's branched off wikis), and they are a nice community where people know a lot about politics, and put that effort into pages. There is people who criticize eachothers ideologies there, and I'm using that as my basis. I've also experienced the criticism first hand in real life, as a Minarchist myself. And as a Minarchist and political nerd myself, I know what the ideologies believe. kindest regards, MinarchistGuy381 MinarchistGuy381 (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

As the link WP:Reliable sources in your draft review says, Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable, published sources have to say about the subject. What you know is not anything Wikipedia can use. What is posted on user-generated sites such as wikis is not anything Wikipedia can use. If there is insufficient material published by independent reliable sources to show the subject's notability then there cannot be an article about it on Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

what if I make a page Of polcompball wiki? Is that possibly allowed? (this is unrelated to the topic at hand) MinarchistGuy381 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

"Whereof. . . ." Hoary (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

This. This right here, is why one loiters around the teahouse, even when one does not take tea. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I assume you've tried places like [1] and [2]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Don't use user-generated sources. Go D. Usopp (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for help guys MinarchistGuy381 (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Example of in-depth, reliable, secondary & strictly independent of the subject

Hi Team,

Could you help me review this wiki draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:HexaHealth as this draft article submission was declined due to "references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article."? If I compare the sources/references, most of the experienced editors have added these references as a reference links for any wiki article wherever there was possibility to add.

I will be a great thankful to you.

Thanks

Momosnep (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Similar question already answered at AfC help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Momosnep that question already answered here 🐍 Thilio🤖 08:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Rosedale Banishment

Hello, and thank you for your time. I’m interested in creating a new Wikipedia article about the Rosedale Banishment, a racially motivated mass expulsion that took place in Johnstown, Pennsylvania in 1923. The event was widely reported in the press at the time, has been the subject of historical research, and was recently commemorated by the state and local governments on its 100th anniversary. I’ve gathered reliable sources, including newspaper coverage from the period, modern scholarship, and official proclamations, but I would like guidance from experienced editors to ensure the article is written in line with Wikipedia’s content and sourcing policies.

I understand the importance of neutrality, verifiability, and avoiding original research. My goal is to present this topic accurately and in a manner consistent with Wikipedia’s standards, while improving public access to documented history. Because the subject intersects with racial history, local history, and notable public recognition, I believe it meets the notability criteria, but I would appreciate help confirming that and structuring the article properly.

If there are editors here who are familiar with U.S. history topics, civil rights history, or Pennsylvania history, I’d be grateful for your assistance. Whether that’s through co-drafting the page in my sandbox, reviewing a draft, or advising on formatting and citations, your input would be invaluable. Please let me know if you’re willing to help or can point me toward the best place to find collaborators for this kind of project. Codypat13 (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you used Chat GPT or another LLM to generate this. Please write in your own words for this kind of project. First gather the sources and try to summarize what they say. If your message is correct about press coverage and research it will be notable. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You are very unlikely to find someone who will work on this with you from the outset, unless you can find a real-world Wikipedia meetup or "editathon".

Your best bet is to gather as many reliable sources as you can, and then start a draft article using the WP:Article Wizard, citing a source for each statement you name in the draft..

When you have done that, you can ask at relevant Wikipedia project pages, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States History to see if anyone has any comments or suggestions.

You may find WP:Your first article helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

On second thoughts, you may also apply for a Wikipedia mentor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, I did use CHatGPT to write the first message. But in actual correspondence, I would just communicate normally. Codypat13 (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Multi word infobox parameters

While creating a infobox, can you create a parmeter with more than one word? If so, how? WikiHelper3906 (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@WikiHelper3906 Yes, "you can create a parameter with more than one word" just by using underscores instead of spaces in the parameter name. 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 08:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Move it to draft

Hi, I have written a biography draft for Rinaa Peter in my sandbox but I am not autoconfirmed and cannot move it to the Draft space. Could someone please help move it to Draft:Rinaa Peter so I can submit it for review? Here is the sandbox link:

User:Nidhi.gupta8/sandbox. Nidhi.gupta8 (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Done; now at Draft:Rinaa Peter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I have Someone [we edit conflict-ed] has reviewed and declined your draft. Several sections are entirely uncited. You have some inline citations, so use the same technique to cite everything in the article. Remove anything that you cannot cite. Once you have done that, you can resubmit it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Nidhi.gupta8, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You have made the very common mistake of writing what Peter or her associates would want people to know. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Malware Mitigation Techniques

Can you give me the full list of things, which can mitigate malware? Like, i remember Petya (malware family) with "perfc" and "perfc.dat" - but are there other similar files to make for other malware? And other similarly simple tricks to do? 95.167.182.36 (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

IP editor: this is a help area for people who edit Wikipedia. We can't usually answer other questions but you might find some ideas at the article Antivirus software. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

How to edit the descriptive text

I would like to edit the descriptive text under the title for a couple of articles. To be clear, I am talking about the unbolded text which appears below the (bolded) article title in the search drop-down, when you start typing your search. I assume it's some kind of metadata, but couldn't find any mention of how to update the metadata. I'm guessing it goes by a different name. Could someone point me to the right place? Thank you! KTnow (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @KTnow, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:Short description. ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

That's the one. Thanks @ColinFine! KTnow (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

How to not get tagged for speedy deletion?

I wrote a page about a company and they tagged it for speedy deletion claiming it was for advertising purpose though it was just about the company and how inspiring as a startup they are growing.

Don't know what to do. HELP Daalikhattak (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Daalikhattak, I managed to get a peek at the articlebefore it was removed. The article didn't have a single independent source. You referenced articles written by the creators, LinkedIn posts by the creators, social media posts by the creators. You need reliable, secondary sources discussing the company. Knitsey (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Oops, yes...didn't see there was a thread here at the Teahouse. I will move it to draftspace in a moment. Lectonar (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Daalikhattak, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I can't see deleted articles; but you have almost certainly made the same mistake as most people who try the challenging task of creating a new article without first learning about how Wikipedia works: you probably wrote either what you know or think about the company, or else what the company wants people to know.

Wikipedia isn't interested in either of these things. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources, and very little else (see WP:42). If you know much about the subjet, you will need to effectively forget what you know, and confine yourself to what these independent sources have said.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Lowerated. Knitsey (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• Daalikhattak The term "Startup" is a very strong indicator that this company does not yet merit an article. Startups or "rising" companies almost never merit articles, a company must become established and recognized in its field to draw the coverage needed to support an article. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I submitted a detailed COI trying my best to follow the wikipedia process it got rejected without review

I posted a detailed COI request, to the best and most detail possible, Talk:Nithyananda - Wikipedia ; I waited for more than a month, finally i noted a senior admin, and asked him to review. He got angry and rejected it without review. Is there any way to take it forward for a second review? Because the facts were not even read/considered saying it is too long. Should I resubmit shorter request? SurekhaSekar (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You should submit a shorter request, and you should not use an LLM at any point in that process. You should also refrain from pinging individual administrators to look at the request. So long as you have used the request template, your request will go into a maintenance category and patrolling editors will find it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

thank you, that is what i didn, it was pending for a very very long time; are you able to see my coi request ... ? you can also consider such requests ? SurekhaSekar (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

It was likely in the queue for a long time due to the length of the request. If you think that multiple things should be changed, it might be better to break the changes down into several smaller requests. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@SurekhaSekar, any editor in good standing may consider a request. (Please do not take this as a suggestion that you ask other editors to review it for you.) -- asilvering (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You used an LLM, and said as much in the linked thread. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

asking for a reality check about banners added to an article

Hello, Some banners were just put up on a page I wrote on artist lawyer Alfred Steiner (artist). It has been up for quite awhile without issues but now there are recent banners for: 1. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. 2. This article does not cite any sources containing significant coverage. 3. This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. (July 2025). I researched this article thoroughly and there are so many articles aside from the 1 primary source listed, the SCOTUS, and I guess some trade associations could be included. All of this is so untrue I would appreciate a reality check and a check from another editor because these banners are so inappropriate. Otherwise there are multiple articles that are about or include the subject from numerous nationally and internationally recognized publications including the NY Times, Forbes, Hyperallergic, Washington Post, Artnet, Hypoallergenic, NPR etc. and many well known art publications. Thank you. Ogmany (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ogmany, have you asked the editor who tagged the article to explain their reasoning for you? -- asilvering (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, no. I find the banners to be inappropriate and would appreciate another editor's pov before I do so, if I do so. Having had some bad interactions with some editors I hesitate. Yet of course I have had input from some great and truly helpful editors and was looking for that here. Ogmany (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You should ask that editor for their reasoning rather than assume they would react aggressively. There is no reason to assume that. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Will do. Have to admit since I work on my own, have been burned before, was asking because I thought I could ask here first to see if my pov was valid, I thought the Teahouse was for that. Ogmany (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ogmany, welcome to the Teahouse. Apologies if you already know this, but: the "trick" in collaborating successfully is to go in with "how can we each have our views heard, and reach a consensus?" as opposed to "I am right and I'm going to convince you of this". I have not looked at your previous discussions, and perhaps you did this; but very often when somebody gets a response they see as aggressive, this is what they've done.

Looking quickly over the citations in the article, I see that many of them are from institutions or galleries that have an association with Steiner, and so are not independent. ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

That's true. You are right about the response and I appreciate the reminder. Also true about the gallery listings. The galleries are linked under the list of solo and group exhibitions, after the show name and galleries listed. That is to cite the show the artist was in. Reviews are also cited too. This is a common convention in artist's pages on Wiki that I have seen many times when listing shows artists have been in. Ogmany (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

And while reviewing the gallery listings, others are indeed primary sources of collections he is in, again another convention I have seen on Wiki when listing collections artists are in. Ogmany (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ogmany, if you approach another editor with something like "All of this is so untrue ... I think this is inappropriate", yes, they may get their hackles up at you unnecessarily. But if you ask a more neutral question, they should be able to explain to you why they put the tags on (of course, you can then disagree). Onel is an experienced NPPer and will take his responsibility to answer your questions pretty seriously. :) -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I've removed one (of three) purely because it was redundant to the other two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking over the fist bunch of references, I must agree with the tags based on those, but my viewpoint might change upon looking further. Although I cannot access the NYT articles, as far as I can tell, the citations are either not independent of the subject, or aren't even about the subject, or don't provide any coverage of the subject; half of the first dozen citations cite a court case for which Steiner submitted a brief. I have to reach citation #20 before I even get to a source that provides coverage of him, and that coverage is brief. Profiles on web sites, interviews, court cases don't count toward notability.

Ogmany, you would have been better off going through the WP:AFC process and submitting a draft for review. I doubt it would have been approved for publication. I'm a far more experienced editor, and even I have used AFC on occasion to get a reality check on a draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. That is helpful and I get that. I will check into and consider the WP:AFC process, particularly for the law section of the article. You made me realize I should rework the legal section of article to more strongly reflect the work he did and direct coverage of that. I have to check it out further but think I may have got caught up in reviewing these landmark cases and their importance to artists and copyright before I got directly into his work on it and what led to him working with artist's coalitions on it. He's definitely unique since he can speak to the law as a lawyer and artist and was trying to get that across perhaps more than actual direct mentions of him regarding it, because their are a lot of interviews with him about this out there. (As to the artist section, I think that is solid. And as mentioned above, those gallery and collection listings, along with many reviews and interviews, are there in his show exhibition list which I see as a regular convention in a lot of artist's listings.) Ogmany (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Once when I wrote a draft biography of an author, the reviewer suggested it would be best if I re-cast the draft to be about his books instead, because the sources establishing notability for the books was better than for the author (yes, it is possible for a non-notable author to write a notable book, and it is possible for a non-notable artist-lawyer to work on notable cases). So I rewrote it to be about the books, and it was a better article. The same may be true here. There is a notable topic specific to artists and copyright buried in your article, and that topic may not have a standalone Wikipedia article. You could move your biography article to draft space for the time being to work on it further, or re-cast it to an article about the law topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Good point and appreciate your thoughtful answer. You helped me consider not so rigidly separating his law and art work and bringing them together. They both cover the copyright issues for artists and will make for a more cohesive article with secondary sources predominating. Already drafting it. Thank you. Ogmany (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources

How can i update the source of an article? Bgboi179 (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if it’s a dumb question i just want to help with some football (soccer) articles Bgboi179 (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bgboi179 welcome to Teahouse...

To update a source by editing the article, replacing or adding the citation with a reliable, verifiable source and formatting it using Wikipedia’s citation templates like {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}. See guide here Help:Referencing for beginners. 🐍 Thilio🤖 18:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Cool, but how do i make the links clickable? Bgboi179 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Bgboi179. One of the parameters in templates such Thilio mentioned is url= - obligatory for {{cite web}}, and optional for the other templates, because sources do not have to be available online. If you fill in that parameter, it will generate a clickable link. Please see the reference pace Thilio linked to. ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation

How can I object to one of the final choices of candidates to become a Trustee to the Wikimedia Foundation

I would like to voice my concern, even outrage, that one of the six finalist to be elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees seems to have violated the Foundation's own Universal Code of Conduct. Please see this article for clarification of what I am talking about. https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804 As a loyal and dedicated Wikipedia editor for about ten years, I would like to voice my concern about this hypocritical/unethical action. Please guide me how to do this. Thank you. ```` DaringDonna (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

See https://wikimediafoundation.org/contact/ -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

AFC and Reviewed Articles

Shouldn't articles created via the AFC process be marked as reviewed? Because a reviewer at AFC reviewed the article and approved it because it passed Wikipedias main policies and requirements. It would also help lift off work from the New Page Patrollers. 8bit12man (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@8bit12man.. Well, At AfC,.. A reviewer checks for notability, sourcing & compliance with core policies before moving a draft to mainspace but that does not count as a New Page Patrol review. NPP includes additional checks such as copyright, formatting & categorization and is a separate process. This is why articles created via AfC still appear in the New Pages Feed and require a page patroller’s review. 🐍 Thilio🤖 20:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

AfC reviewers do check for copyright violations and other issues, not just notability & sourcing. It is a quick-fail criteria in the reviewing instructions Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi Absolutely you are right but in depth copyright checks done by New Page Patrollers and admins.

🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 20:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, disagree. If there's any trace of a copyright violation AfC reviewers need to remove it, request revdel, and decline the draft as a copyvio. Also, what specifically do you mean by an "in-depth copyright check"?. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I meant NPP often do a fuller, oops!!, I mean deeper check after the article is in mainspace 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 20:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

No, the copyright checks are the same for both AFC and NPP. NPP tends to do some other checks like, as you say, categorization, and also serve as a second set of eyes for (most) AFC reviewers. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@8bit12man, it wouldn't actually lift all that much work off NPP to mark all AFC articles as patrolled - those are already the easier ones that are pretty fast for NPP to handle anyway. But also, it's easier (by design) to become an AFC reviewer, so we want articles that have made it through AFC to get a second look. -- asilvering (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Britt Roberson page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britt_Robertson

I acted, sang, modeled, and danced alongside Britt Roberson at the American Talent Showcase in Charleston SC before she moved to LA. We were clients of Donna Ehrlich at Carolina Winds now Z-One Talent Agency in Chester, SC. She is actually posted as on of their success stories on this page: https://www.z1modelsandtalent.net/about-us. This is where she gained traction and reputable contacts for her move to LA where the bio made it seem like she just took a chance and randomly moved to LA where she got famous which isn't the case. She had to do a lot of local networking to get her contacts in LA. I myself was offered a modeling contract for NY that I never took but this showcase had big connections. If she had never attended that showcase, she would've never been allowed to move to LA to pursue a career on hopes and dreams alone. I edited the bio of course but when I tried to list my references, I feel like failed miserably. How can I site this correctly and orderly as it comes up much earlier in the bio than other information and references? And can I add the photos I have of us at the ATS? I have 2 where we're both in a group photo together? CreativeChaos87 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@CreativeChaos87 Welcome to Teahouse.

Please see the conflict of interest guideline & propose changes on the article’s talk page supported by reliable published sources. For adding photos please see WP:IMAGES to ensure they meet Wikipedia’s licensing and content requirements. Cheers. Good faith edit 🐍 Thilio🤖 22:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Because you have a conflict of interest, and you are new here, it would be best if you used Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to propose specific changes to an article with which you have a conflict of interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @CreativeChaos87, and welcome to Wikipedia editing!

If I'm reading your question correctly, you're trying to add one or both of these as links?

https://www.z1modelsandtalent.net/about-us

https://share.google/hNUdBoOzkZQ8oe36X

You were on the right track, but you wanted web citation. That would take you to this template:

{{cite web |last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |website= |location= |publisher= |access-date=}}

Filled out, looks more like this:

<ref>{{cite web |last=LastNameofAuthor |first=FirstName |title=About Us |url=http://www.z1modelsandtalent.net/about-us |website=Z1 Models and Talent |publisher= |access-date=August 11, 2025}}</ref>

Which gives us the following:

Past the part within the <ref> tags at the end of the sentence (or paragraph) where you mention the information it provides. Good luck!

(and the other user who replied was absolutely correct about reading COI) MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Why is the article for X still called Twitter?

Hello, I've just checked the article for X (formerly Twitter) and it's still has the old name which doesn't make sense to me as when the Taliban took over Afghanistan, Wikipedia recognize the Islamic Emirate as the de-facto ruler of Afghanistan while majority of countries and organizations still recognized (and still up to present day as I am typing this question) the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

So, if Wikipedia can recognize governments as the de-facto ruler of a certain country, then wouldn't it make sense to recognize the transition of a social media company from a Bird to a Letter? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@GuesanLoyalist

Wikipedia follows WP:COMMONNAME, which means article titles use the name most commonly used in reliable sources... You can propose a change at Talk:Twitter for community discussion. cheers. Good faith edit. 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 22:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Changes to the article name cannot be proposed, per Talk:Twitter#Requested move 9 August 2025 which has set a moratorium on "all discussions about the article name" for 6 months. Tenshi! (Talk page) 22:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @GuesanLoyalist. The relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia uses the name for things that the bulk of the reliable sources use, not necessarily the official name.

Please see the FAQ at the top of Talk:Twitter, which refers to the extensive discussion of this specific question. ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Colin, Will do GuesanLoyalist (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

'de-expand' page data beneath editor

My first Teahouse question after nineteen years! Whenever I edit an article, there's a cluster of data beneath the editor, such as "Wikidata entities on this page", "This page is a member of X categories", etc.. That all would be fine, if each of the entries was not by default expanded, sometimes pushing the preview down an entire screen's length. I've looked through the various preferences I have in place, and I don't think it's 'twinkle' or 'ultraviolet' which I have enabled - but I can't find anywhere to modify their presentation to not be expanded. Help? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Anastrophe, I haven't the foggiest, but if you can say what skin you're using and whether you're on desktop or mobile, that might help someone else answer your question. -- asilvering (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I know better. I use monobook on PC, largely on Firefox. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, I temporarily disabled the small number of scripts that were in my monobook.js to no avail, so they can be ruled out hopefully (User:AzaToth/twinkle.js. User:Lupin/recent2.js, User:Omegatron/monobook.js, User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect edit

Hi, someone changed one of my edits on the page saying it was offensive, but I only reported correct information from the latest interviews (source: interviews themselves with the director of the film himself)If they are not aware of the correct and latest information, please do not change when the page contains incorrect material. 93.45.197.125 (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey! I can't speak for the editor themselves, but I can say, you should follow the Manual of Style when making edits! But on you're edits, I see why they reverted for Manual of Style, unsure how they're offensive to my POV. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 00:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You didn't give a source in the article for either of your edits and both included errors in capitalization. If you have a source somewhere that has the director saying he is not trying to follow the original at all, then post the link and you can ask for help with formatting it for the article. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

question about userboxes

I wish to add userboxes to my talk page, but I am confused on how to do this. Could you please assist me on this? Thank you :) 76.167.174.124 (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Copy and paste? Incidentally, it's normal to add them to one's user page, but user pages are only for named users. I notice "I plan on creating an account": Please go ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

What's up with the excessive use of plane crashes in the picture montages for "year" articles?

I like looking at the Wikipedia articles for each year to see all the events that took place in each respective year. One thing I noticed though is in the picture montages, there seems to be so many pictures of planes that crashed. Yes these are tragic with significant loss of life, but are plane crashes really so important as to define the ethos of a year?

For example I was just looking at the article for "2000" and there are 2 plane crashes in the montage. Here are some others: "1991" has 2. "1992" has 2. "1995" has 1. "1996" has 3. "1997" has 3. "1998" has 2. "2006" has 2. "2007" has 1. "2008" has 1. "2009" has 2. "2014" has 1.

Seems excessive to feature this many plane crashes. I didn't even look at any before 1990 but I assume there are more. I even wonder if it is a single person making the montages who seems to prefer putting plane crash pictures there. What are your thoughts? Airgum (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

redirect from the article namespace

Hello Wiki I'm trying to publish an article for a local band that has a record deal and some articles about them that I properly cited, but I fear I categorized the article wrong so it go immediately shut down before the review started. Here is the official problem it says:" because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces." But the article is still a draft: "Draft:The Band Solstice'. So what do I need to fix this or is there nothing to be fixed Viscosityc (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Viscosityc, all you have to do is to (greatly) improve Draft:The Band Solstice. But before you set out to attempt that, are you sure that the band is notable (as understood by and for Wikipedia)? Incidentally, are you perhaps related to the band? -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit filtered out: trying to understand why

I recently tried to make an edit to the page for Normal Douglas, changing a section heading "Sexual Encounters with Children" to "Pedophilia". The motivation for the change was accuracy and brevity, and to better reflect the content of the section. I'd like to understand why the edit was inappropriate and how to avoid this in the future.

Below is my exchange on Edit Filter>False Positive>Reports (thanks to EggRoll97 and 45Dogs for getting me this far)

ME: I was changing "sexual encounters with children" to "pedophilia" in the section title because he had sex with kids as an adult, a fact he documented in his own writings (as described and referenced in that section). The original title was misleading, since it allowed for the idea that he was also a child, rather than an adult many decades older than the children, and also on at least some occasions, paying them. REPLY: Not done – The filter is working properly. I'm not sure this is necessary. The current section title already accurately describes the events, and I don't really see the need to change it as proposed

ME: Thanks for considering it. I'm a new editor — is there a guide to language use in sensitive topics? My edit was partly motivated by clarity and accuracy, but it looks liek I missed the mark here REPLY：There is the Manual of Style, but in this case WP:BLP would likely be better to refer to

ME：Thanks for the direction. I had a look at the two guides and also a couple of similar figures (dead, respected for their work, no debate over the fact they were a pedophile) and I have a follow-up question if you have time to answer. Would "Child Sexual Abuse by Douglas" or "Documentation of Child Sexual Abuse" have been more appropriate edits? REPLY：I am not actually sure. I only realized now I might have pointed you to the wrong resource, since WP:BLP is focused on living people's biographies. In my opinion, it would likely be better to err on the side of caution. Both of those are accusatory in nature, even if they are true. Though honestly, it would likely be better to receive other editor's opinions, which you can do at the teahouse or help desk.

My questions are: 1. Is there any guidance for what language to use in cases like this (preferably with an explanation)? 2. Was the language of my edits accusatory? To my mind, you can't accuse someone of something they have said they did (e.g. if I tell you I drank a coffee this morning, you can't accuse me drinking a coffee this morning). 3. I asked whether "Child Sexual Abuse by Douglas" or "Documentation of Child Sexual Abuse" would have been more appropriate edits; I've since thought of a third: "Child Sexual Abuse Allegations". This doesn't seem quite right (because he wasn't alleging them against himself, he was documenting them), but if the other options seem accuratory, perhaps it's a better fix?

Thanks in advance for any answers or ideas you can provide. Sheidou (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Mapbox shapes

What determines whether a certain Wikidata id can appear as a shape (versus a simple point) in a mapbox? For example, the infobox on Washington State Capitol correctly shows the shape in the map, but Budd Inlet does not; both have an associated OpenStreetMap relation ID with drawn shape in OSM. OceanLoop (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

io soi il ve di domande

ala jò a colpâ un cagnin in dare di faim

il graziis al è molt grâs. 116.255.2.165 (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)