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. Alternatively, you can contact an experienced editor by visiting your homepage and clicking "Ask your mentor a question about editing".
The 1972 Finnish miniseries turned movie called “8 Deadly Shots” is about Pasi, a farmer who becomes drunk and eventually kills some policemen. The series was based on an actual shooting that happened in 1969 when the suspect shot the four cops with a rifle and was caught. The real life culprit of the crime was Tauno Pasanen, born 1934. Though the miniseries has its own article, the only instance of the article on the real life incident is on, of course, the Finnish Wikipedia. Should the thing have an English article? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article subject must have demonstrable "notability". Wikipedia:Notability (events) says, in a nutshell, that "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." If you believe that you can create a draft about the event that demonstrates notability (so defined) and adheres to en:Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines, then you're welcome to create it. The interim title might be Draft:Pihtipudas shooting incident. -- Hoary (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it meets the criteria in WP:Golden rule, why not? It would be a good complement to the article about the miniseries.
Though it's likely the best Reliable sources will be in Finnish, that's OK; en.Wikipedia only prefers English-language sources if they (i) exist and (ii) are as good (or better) than the non-English ones, and given the high incidence of English literacy in Finland (I've been there :-)), there should be no problems with obtaining accurate translations (you're allowed, indeed encouraged, to collaborate with other Wikipedians).
You've probably been active on Wikipedia long enough now to pick up the basics, so why not gather some good sources, read Help:Your first article, and then start a draft via WP:Articles for creation. You can spend as long as you like improving it before you submit it for review, and if it's not up to standard the first (or second, or . . .) the reviewer will advise what needs to be improved. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.210.159.137 (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finnish (and probably Scandinavian) newspapers of 1969 and later would likely be valuable, as might any sources used by the Finnish Wikipedia article (which I haven't tried to find, as I only know three words in Finnish, one of them obscene :-) ). 90.210.159.137 (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“1969 A man from Pihtipudas in central Finland shot four police officers who had arrived to calm him down and arrest him.”
From: Yle- Friday’s police death in Finland second since turn of century.
Yep. Not much policemen were killed in Suomi land compared to Yankland when the 21st century began. The shooting is mentioned in the article. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look through the histories, and it seems like Cát Hải has been both a redirect and disambiguation page, and has some edits after the information from the older article was copied in. There are also some minor differences between the two articles (an image and one word added in several places, as far as I can see).
It doesn't seem productive to have the same information in two places, and I'm not familiar enough with the article subject to know if one is preferable over another. My question is, is this correct, or should it only exist in one place? And if it is the latter, what is the correct way to go about fixing this? NovaHyperion (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if it is the latter, what is the correct way to go about fixing this?
Thank you all for your responses! I have yet to encounter a merge/redirect situation, so I appreciate the guidance on how to handle them if one comes up in the future. I'll try and find some examples of other situations like this and weigh in on that discussion. NovaHyperion (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add "being a pacifist" to Daniele Ganser's page
I know Daniele personally. He is a peaceful and virtous human being. He loves humanity. So do I. Can you please add in the section "known as" the following true statement: "Being a pacifist". What exactly should be wrong in being a pacifist? Could you please explain that to me and the whole world? Thank you for being so kind. You don't believe in GOD? That is a problem. You want to get to know GOD? I am happy to support you. Have a wonderful day ahead in the name of Jesus Christ our LORD.
I am very pleased to write you about the truth of Dr. Daniele Ganser. You want to know more about Daniele Ganser? There are plenty of videos on YouTube from him. For sure the one important video that demonstrates he is really doing the work for unifying humanity and therefore for peace, is this one: go to YouTube and type in "Daniele Ganser Menschheitsfamilie". As it is in German, you may not understand it. However, he is describing what he means with "Menschheitsfamilie". Menschheitsfamilie means in English something like "Family of Human beings" and this includes all of our species, regardless of religion, nation, sex, etc. He uses this word to make clear that all human beings are connected on a spiritual level to a higher power. You may call this power God, Holy Spirit, Universe, Allah, whatever. His Father was a Christian Pastor and his Mom was a nurse. Daniele visited the Rudolf Steiner Schools. I hope, you know who Rudolf Steiner was, if not, just ask Wikipedia :-) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner. As you see, Rudolf Steiner believed in Reincarnation and Karma. Here you have got the video in German, maybe you can ask one of your colleagues to have it translated in English: go on YouTube and type in "Dr. Daniele Ganser: Mein Gespräch mit Tahir Chaudhry".
Daniele was the first person in Switzerland that discovered that on 9/11 there were 3 Towers which collapsed, see WTC 7, even though no plane flew into it. He worked with structural engineers from the ETH Zurich to analyze why WTC 7 collapsed. They were to 99% sure that it was blown up. This is not a conspiracy theory, but a scientific study. I think you can do your studies yourself about WTC7. Here you have a link, which is stating the same by a US Fireman: https://internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com/did-world-trade-center-building-7-really-collapse-due-to-an-office-fuel-load-fire/.
Anyway, we have to finish with all that lies about Daniele. He is a very friendly person, who believes in the good of humanity and he has also online courses here, which help people to become peacemakers: https://www.danieleganser.online. Does all this information help? Do you need anything else to write the truth about Daniele? Tell me what you need and I will organize it for you. Thank you for being a supporter of Love, Justice and Peace. In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord please receive my heartfelt regards
Nobody has said that there is anything wrong in being a pacifist. What is not acceptable in Wikipedia is adding unsourced information to an article - and "unsourced" means "not backed up by an independent reliable published source". Unpublished information, whether from the subject, or anywhere else, does not belong in a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message. Yes of course it was me. And I will never stop until the truth about Daniele is written in the article of Wikipedia. And what is wrong with proselytising? If you do not believe in Jesus Christ it does not mean that he does not exist my dear friend.
Wikipedia is really not the place for such a thing. I shall ask again, do you have a reliable source to support the claims you want to make on this article? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 13:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have just stated plainly that you intend to disrupt Wikipedia indefinitely until you get your way, regardless of the rules the community has agreed to abide by. The article is now locked from editing by anonymous IP addresses (congratulations on that accomplishment), and your statement of disruptive intent is going to result in your account being blocked indefinitely. Until you can familarize yourself with the community's rules regarding content and behavior, I recomment you step back and take some time to learn before editing further.
It will depended on the individual circumstances. Some of your searcher results include text like "a Hebrew translation edition" and "Revised English Translation Edition", each of which is correct adjectival use, and may be a title or quotation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits20:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone! Can you please explain on why is social media not a reliable source? What will happen if you cite social media sites as a source? Why does social media site seem to become widespread than other religions sources, such as newspapers and academic journal publications? 216.9.110.11 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse.
The basic answer is "because anybody can write more or less anything they want on Social Media" - without any fact-checking, or even if they know perfectly well that it is false or made-up.
In certain limited ways, social media can be used as a source about the person who has posted material (providing it can be established that they are really who they claim to be).
Some newspapers, and some academic journals, have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control - these are the ones we refer to as reliable sources.
A third party in this context means someone or something other than the person who posted the info on social media. That includes individuals, companies, products, pretty much anything other than the person who posted. (Or if the social media post was from a company or a school or a band, then anyone other than that same company/school/band is a third party.)
So if you're writing an article about Avocado Smith, and on Avocado's verified Facebook account they claim "I was born on July 5th, 1975", then that's a claim about themself -- a first party. So is "My favorite food is avocado". Since those claims are about themself and are very "unexceptional" claims (nothing that makes them unusual, nothing that would grant or detract from prestige), you can use those posts in Wikipedia as primary sources for that information, but only in an article about Avocado Smith.
If Avocado Smith, on their Facebook page, posts "my mother is five feet six inches tall", that's also an unexceptional claim. But it's about someone other than themself -- a third party. Even in an article about Avocado Smith, you're not allowed to treat anything Avocado says about anyone else as true based on social media. So you can't use that post in Wikipedia as a source of information about Avocado Smith's mother's height. Because that's information about Avocado's mother, who's a third party. Similarly, if Avocado Smith posts on Facebook that Madonna wears a bracelet that Avocado sent her, you can't use that information in Wikipedia, because it's about Madonna, who's a third party.
Also note that social media posts don't count toward the 3 independent reliable sources required for notability for most subjects on Wikipedia. ColinFine did a good job explaining why we have these rules. -- Avocado (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit Conflict] I understand it to mean that If A says X about themself on their own social media account, it can be taken as verifying that they have at least claimed X about themselves. However, if A says Y about B (a third party), it cannot be taken as verifying Y about B, because it's just A's unchecked (by any editor or fact checker) opinion. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.210.159.137 (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then any editor is encouraged to remove that information. Even more so if it's on a biography of a living or recently deceased person (WP:BLP). We take WP:Verifiability very seriously.
An editor who makes a habit of adding such poorly sourced information -- especially to BLPs, or especially if they've done it repeatedly in spite of warnings on their WP:TALKPAGE -- is liable to be blocked from editing until they satisfy an administrator that it won't happen again. -- Avocado (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've been working on a draft article about Bushwick Avenue in Brooklyn, New York City. The draft was recently declined because it needs better sourcing and possibly a clearer structure.
I've added some historical context and cleaned up the route description, but would appreciate your advice on:
Finding reliable, independent sources that demonstrate notability.
Improving the lead or structure further.
Anything else that can assist prepare it for resubmission.
Are you located in Brooklyn? I understand the public library system there is excellent. If you ask the librarians for help, they should be able to help you find sources. -- Avocado (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shorn of its markup (bolding, links, etc), the article de:Dieterich Buxtehude starts: Dieterich Buxtehude (* um 1637 in Bad Oldesloe oder in Helsingborg; † 9. Mai 1707 in Lübeck) war ein dänisch-deutscher Organist und Komponist des Barock. I suppose that you have this sort of thing in mind. I don't see this convention mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. I've seen it used in English-language Wikipedia and it doesn't seem odd to me; but it is unusual here and I think I remember seeing other editors converting from it. -- Hoary (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, MOS:OPENPARABIO does not indicate use of these sorts of markings and the symbol "†" does not appear anywhere in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style pages, and also no relevant hits for the word "dagger". Dagger (mark)#Modern usage notes that the "death year" use is a fairly German thing. So that's all consistent with seeing it often in dewiki, not seeing it often in enwiki, and removing it when seen in enwiki. DMacks (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DOB says that * and † should not be used to indicate "born" and "died"; where necessary we instead use the words born and died, or the abbreviations b. and d. if space is limited. On German wikipedia, * and † are commonly used; I don't know of any other language version which uses them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that explicit recommendation not to use them. Not sure why my search for that character didn't match. DMacks (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request for help with creating a new page on wikipedia for a book series
Hi there, I've been wanting to create a page for Silverborn: The Mystery of Morrigan Crow for a while now - it's a part of the Australian Nevermoor book series by Jessica Townsend and was released in late April - but I am unsure of how to actually create the page. I would say that the book meets the notability criteria of "appearing in two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself" as evidenced by this review from the ABC and this review from a Melbourne book retailer. If someone could direct me on how to create a page, that would be great. Thanks. Cornonthehunt (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Your two sources might qualify, but I'm dubious: the first one, while it does talk about the book somewhat, has a great deal of Townsend talking, and so is not entirely independent; the other has little more than a plot summary.
The two would be useful in addition to some stronger sources, but I don't think that they on their own are enough to establish notability. It is quite likely WP:TOOSOON. ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well, thank you for the advice regardless and I will look for higher quality sources at some point in the future. Thanks! Cornonthehunt (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got that, but would it be okay to go ahead and add the new characters from Silverborn to the pre-existing page on the series as a whole? The page is ranked as low importance anyway. CHEEZEBRINGER (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not many countries are featured in the article. Thanks to Germany, this wheel arrangement was used across many of Europe. My issue is with two Scandinavian countries, Denmark and Norway. The two said countries’ own nationalized rail networks, Danske Statsbaner and Norges Statsbaner, both owned 2-10-0’s, adapted from German design. Class 63 for Norway, and Class N for Denmark. I think you know what’s about to happen. Should they be in the article? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The use of German 2-10-0 locos as war reparations is encyclopedic and certainly justifies mention. However the two articles you link are very high level articles about the recent modern era for those railways. They're not historical articles, they're not detailed articles. This deserves inclusion on articles about steam haulage on those railways, or about their immediate post-war history, but I can't see existing articles which cover that scope.
Including them on the 2-10-0 article has a similar issue. It's encyclopedic and worthy of mention, the German Kriegslok 2-10-0s and Class 50 and Class 52 should feature highly in an article on 2-10-0s. But the Danish and Norwegian uses are already mentioned there. Maybe the single class articles could expand the coverage a bit more; in particular, why did Denmark get Class 50 and Norway Class 52? What was the difference and was this deliberate, or merely convenient? As I know of few changes to these as operational locomotives (AFAIK, the main differences were in how they were constructed), why was this? Was it merely that the Class 52 were supposed to have warmer winter cabs and this was useful for Norway? That would be worth mentioning (Sourcing required!): it takes a statement in the 2-10-0 that's sat there unexplained, then explains it. That's a useful and encyclopedic improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "users behind it", if you meant Article creator or editor of a spcific article, that exists in "page information" and "view history" section, respectively. Sys64wiki (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, I'm a somewhat new editor on Wikipedia. I've been working on the Assyrian continuity article, adding sources and expansions where I can, trying to boost its quality. I would appreciate any tips or help in discerning reliable sources and non-reliable ones, and if these sorts of sources would lead to a boost in the quality of the general article. I'm also curious about the good articles process and how one could possibly get to this status and the steps to take for it. Thank you. Gamigos123 (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamigos123, you are about to step into a minefield. I'll swing by your talk page, but the short version is: you're going to want to work on literally anything else as your first GA. -- asilvering (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, technically, to log out from other sessions we have other command in the preference menu. You would not log out from other session merely from changing passwd. Sys64wiki (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I would like to access certain sources such as Bloomberg.com that pose a paywall in order to be able to access its information. I'm curious if there is an alternative to subscribing to every digital newspaper/magazine. While I am subscribed to a number of them, I do think it is wasteful to pay for those that I would need less often. Thanks. Kvinnen (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlinmack I've started by removing the entirely uncited section on "Visited countries" which I can't believe is relevant. The policy on biographies of living people applies to the article and that should be your basis for pruning it further. It also needs the many external links in the body text to be removed. If you can find new sources to be used as cites, that would be great. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buddy34 I think you are misreading the article, which says He married Marlu Kirbus (1940–2013).. Those are the dates of his wife's birth and death, not their marriage duration. Maybe you should edit the article to make this more clear, although at present there is no source for the information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing I think you also misunderstood. Your change made this part say He was married to Marlu Kirbus from 1940 to 2013, which seems an extraordinary claim that definitely needs a source, as it implies he was aged nine on their marriage date! An IP editor has reverted that back to the version in my previous comment. We could do with a source... Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra2- I am assisting my client to resubmit for material contribution around the term: Virtual Model Homes. We were mistaken and attached the company name to the submission which has now been blocked. It should be attributed to his personal creation and not for solicitation. I would like to try again fresh with no such advertising. His name, Steve Ormonde was associated with the last submission so I do not want to get blacklisted again. Please help. @cooperevolutionCooperevolution (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cooperevolution - I’m not sure what you mean, so clarification would be appreciated, but here’s some info that might help: Deepfriedokra2 has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Why are you attempting to contact them? Do you know them outside of Wikipedia? Your Draft:Virtual Model Homes was deleted by the “real” Deepfriedokra, a Wikipedia admin, back in 2024. If you want to recreate that, I suggest following the instructions at WP:YFA and making sure to disclose any WP:Conflicts of interest that you might have. GoldRomean (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having difficulty navigating the platform. The user interface feels confusing, and it's not easy to locate helpful guides. Is there a way to simplify the experience or access clearer resources?
Is this conversation public or private? How can I confirm that?
Most of Wikipedia is public; very rarely is anything “private”. I suppose you can verify that by going to the URL for this page logged out; you will be able to see this conversation and all the other ones too. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could check whether there's public access to a page within this website just as you'd check for a page on any other: while logged in, copy the address (URL) of the page to your clipboard; while you're logged out (perhaps because you're using a different browser), paste it and see what you get (the same page, a message about lack of public access, an error message?). No, not every user has a user talk page: The user has an address reserved for such a page, but until somebody writes something to it, it doesn't exist. Your own came into being when this was posted to it in January '23. Anything ever posted to your user talk page will remain publicly visible (whether on that page or in its "history") unless some or all (or one) of the versions are (is) "deleted", which is unlikely. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scouting Stimulus, and welcome! Yes, the site can be difficult to navigate, and guides can be hard to locate. This is largely due to the fact that this is a volunteer project. Not only are the encyclopedic articles written by volunteers, but so are the rules of Wikipedia, all the Help pages, all the Info pages, all the template documentation pages, and pretty much everything else. There is no "Department of Documentation", much less a "Director of Documentation" that is planning everything out in a logical way. It's more of a controlled chaos of everybody going around doing whatever they feel like doing (within the rules, which we also write). I like writing articles, documentation, and little programs called templates, so that's what I do. That means there is inevitably a lot of overlapping documentation, duplicate documentation, outdated documentation, and missing documentation. That said, there are lots of helpful folks who will help you find your way, and if the idea moves you, perhaps you will be the very person to reduce the chaos and devise a way to make it easier for new users to find helpful guides. Whatever you decide to do, I hope you enjoy the site, and stick around. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be possible in theory but what would be the reason for it? We try to keep protection to a minimum across the board as our whole shtick is being a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 03:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because, sometimes Talk pages are protected especially if there is vandalism or disruptive editing. But I've never seen a Pending changed protection be used on a talk page 174.91.6.13 (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pending changes still allows the edit partially through for an experienced editor to review. Most vandalism is not suitable for a talk page, even only temporarily. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am a student who has been given an assignment to make a substantial edit to a Wikipedia article, adding at least one source. My edit was immediately deleted, which I assume means I made a mistake, either in formatting or in some other area. Is there any way to know what the issue was? Kelseyjay (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kelseyjay, yes, there is. I assume we are talking about this edit of yours to Hymns to Mary. If you go to the History tab of the article, you will see their reason listed in the edit summary. If that is insufficient, go to the Talk page of the article, start a new discussion, and ask the reverting editor for more details. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, "source" means a proof in regards to what is being added in Wikipedia article, such as news articles or books, as these are trustworthy and reputable source with relatively lesser bias. See Citation for more information on this subject. Kangarooblock07:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The revert by User:UrielAcosta was not a good one, because instead of just undoing the part of your edit to which they (not unreasonably) objected, they undid your whole edit, including parts that did not relate to their objection, and which were not explained by their edit summary.
You should now follow our dispute resolution process, starting as suggested above, with a discussion on the talk page (but bear in mind what Helpful Raccoon says about you source).
Is there any definitive guidance for whether section headings should include spaces or not? For example, ==Plot== or == Plot ==? I constantly see edits being made to add or remove spaces in headings. MOS:HEAD gives no guidance. WP:SECTIONNUMBERING and MOS:GOODHEAD give contradictory examples of correctness. Masato.harada (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, Masato.harada, it makes no difference whatever. So feel free to do whichever you wish. If somebody believes that it matters, and that you're doing it the wrong way, let them explain to you why/how it's the wrong way. -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am an independent contractor being paid by Endpoints News to support publishing an article about the company on Wikipedia (the company is now part of Financial Times), among other responsibilities. I have drafted a version of the article in my sandbox and, after a first round of edits with the support of my wonderful mentor, I would love if more experienced and impartial Wikipedians could also give me their feedback. I am determined to follow Wikipedia's rules for neutrality and welcome all and any advice. Could anyone have a look? My next step would be the Articles for Creation process. MD-EPN (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To show notability, several sources have to be independent, reliable and substantial. FOor the references I checked, the coverage is not substantial or missing altogether. When you are ready for an AFC review add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both so much, and I take note on the feedback re notability -- I will work on this. Much appreciated. Quick question, would the fact that the company is part of Financial Times, and an independent news organisation on its own, have any impact on notability? Asking so I can settle an internal debate about this. Again, I am ever so thankful. MD-EPN (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MD-EPN, to enlarge on previous replies: when Wikipedia talks about "notability", it has nothing to do with how "important" something is; instead it usually refers to the extent to which multiple sources that Wikipedia considers Reliable (meaning they are edited and fact-checked) have, independently of any input from (or connection to) the subject, published material of substantial length about the subject.
Being 'namechecked' or cited does not count towards notability. Awards received will only count if those rewards are themselves considered notable (which usually means that there is already a Wikipedia article about those awards). See Wikipedia:Notability for details. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly knwn as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.251.210 (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sooterout, Done. That page move required an administrator and I am an administrator. I verified that "Sunjay" is the most common spelling of his name in English language sources, and moved the page accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect, according to Indian nomenclature, Sanjay not Sunjay is actually accurate and right naming word. You can search for the word on Google to see almost entire Indian names that match "Sanjay". Most importantly, why it's "Kapur" in title and in the lede it's "Kapoor"? If it the same things as "Kapoor" then both Sunjay and Kapur are wrong tiles. [[User:Sys64wiki|Sys64]] (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sys64wiki, the English Wikipedia uses the spelling most commonly used by English language reliable sources when writing about this particular person. We do not use "Indian nomenclature", whatever that is. Both "Sanjay" and "Sunjay" are accepted English spellings in general. Similarly, both "Kapoor" and "Kapur" are accepted English spellings. But the preponderance of reliable sources use the "Sunjay Kapur" spelling for this particular person, I believe. I have edited the article for consistency in the spelling. Cullen328 (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I’ve written a new, well-sourced draft article about BAF Shaheen College Kurmitola to replace the current redirect page that points to a section of another article.
I’d like to know if I’m allowed to replace the redirect with my standalone version, or how I can request support to improve and publish it properly.
Here's the draft: Draft:BAF Shaheen College Kurmitola
I'd really appreciate guidance on moving it to the mainspace or improving it to meet Wikipedia standards. Thanks! 0ximjub43r (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@0ximjub43r Welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need to concern yourself with the redirect at this stage. If and when your draft is approved, the approving editor will do whatever is necessary. Shantavira|feed me18:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @0ximjub43r, I see that you have declared a COI on the draft. In this case you must submit the draft for review. Nothing needs to be done on your end, if it is accepted the reviewer will take care of the redirect. – AllCatsAreGrey(talk)18:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page translation and translating pages with issues
I speak a little Chinese and my parents are native Chinese speakers, so I've been wanting to translate a page only available in Chinese using, with a little help, of course. I was looking at Five-spice powder and saw that thirteen spice was an article only on Chinese Wikipedia (十三香.) I want to translate it, so I'm wondering about two things:
In general, is there anything different about translating vs. creating an article? Any different buttons to click or procedures to follow that aren't written down in Help:Your first article (since this is my first article)?
The article in Chinese Wikipedia does have an issue listed, that being that it doesn't have any citations. Is that an issue? Does it mean that I have to change it first and add citations?
a. This is sort of a sub-question of question 2, but do I have to "re-check" for notability? There aren't many sources in English, but there are some in Chinese. I am a little worried about if citation will be confusing so I would prefer not to cite, although if needed, I can. Since there are no citations, only external links, I'm a bit confused about if it would pass a possible re-check.
If for any reason, I can't make it an article, I would be happy to turn it into a sub-section, but for now, these are my questions, and I hope to be able to make my first article on Wikipedia.
AtTheTownHouse, there are many commonalities between translating and creating an article from scratch, but clearly many differences. For starters: you are allowed (even encouraged) to translate articles from other Wikimedia projects, such as Chinese Wikipedia. That said, English and Chinese Wikipedia are both self-published sources, i.e., anybody, including anonymous IP editors, can create or later the content, so ipso facto, the *content* cannot be assumed to be reliable. Also, the two Wikipedias have different requirements, and everything published here must meet the policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia, which, as you pointed out, require WP:Notability of the topic (and other things). The help page H:YFA is a great place to start, and offers almost everything you need to know, also for creating a translation, which is also a new article. If the original has no citations, or only general website links, other editors might object, and either WP:DRAFTIFY your effort, or nominate it for deletion.
If you believe the topic is notable, I would recommend starting the article in WP:DRAFT space, and using a combination of some translation, and some writing from scratch. You might even consider abandoning the Chinese article entirely, and starting fresh with a set of reliable sources, preferably in English if available, or in Chinese when not, and writing a brand new article based on those references, and then submitting your Draft to WP:Articles for creation reviewers, who will give you feedback and let you know if it is ready to be an article. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the article David W. Menefee (which is not a "profile" as most people would understand the term, in that it does not belong to you, is not controlled by you, and will not necessarily say what you would want it to say) was created in an era when we did not enforce policies such as biographies of living persons, and is seriously deficient.
In particular, it has almost no proper citations. From Wikipedia's point of view, this is far more important than whether it is up to date.
What it should consist of, almost exclusively, is a neutral, cited, summary of what people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to publish about you in reliable publications, and very little else (see WP:42).
While you should not attempt to edit the article yourself, you are welcome to make edit requests on the article's talk page. You should make sure that any information you want added can be cited to a reliable published source - and in most cases, to a source wholly independent of you. But given its state, I'm not sure how ready editors will be to consider making changes you suggest.
What you might do is make that task easier by offering suitable sources yourself: are you aware of sources wholly unconnected with you that talk about you in some depth? If you were to list such sources here, somebody might be willing to work on the article. ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article David Menefee does appear to have sources, which are listed in a separate section. The problem is that they have not been converted to inline citations, which is how Wikipedia's current policy on biographies of living people insists they should be done. One approach to improving the article would be for its subject to indicate on the talk page which source he believes supports which piece of text so that editors could begin to tidy everything up. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP. You can edit any page by clicking the Edit button at the top-right of the page, or the Edit button right next to any section title. Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What shows up should be a box with the article's text in wiki markup (assuming you're using the source editor, otherwise it looks like regular text in the visual editor). There, you can type in and remove text to edit the article. Help:wikitext will be useful, and I would recommend help:editing aswell. Those pages will link to other policies and guidelines that will also help. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When clicking Edit the wikitext editor shows up by default, which uses a special syntax to format the page (such as ''two apostrophes'' for italics). You might prefer the VisualEditor instead, which you can learn to use with this introduction. Sophocrat (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When putting punctuation after something that uses markup (bold, italics, etc.) (is that the right word?), should I also apply the markup to the following punctuation?
Hello Somerandomguy55 :). You shouldn't apply the markup/formatting (that is indeed the right word) to the punctuation. So in your example the comma shouldn't be italicized. Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. I have a concern, what is the general policy about creating an article about the entertainment industry award shows? Recently, I started Draft:23rd Lux Style Awards, but I think it is not enough notable to be published yet. A discussion at Talk:Lux Style Awards suggested to merge the related articles into one mainspace to avoid forking and bloatation.
M.Billoo2000, I haven't looked at your draft, but the content of Lux Style Awards is very thin. What have reliable sources, independent of the organization(s) running or financing, advertising via, or televising the 23rd award(s), said about them? Add that to the article Lux Style Awards. -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: Hi dear admin. The only independent and reliable journalist I could find was Amna Haider Isani at Something Haute; but that too on their Facebook (which the other editor removed) and YouTube [2][3] only. The other two sources are [4][5] which seem independent but I doubt their RS status. The award show has no SIGCOV, and the unbylined references are just copy paste with nomination list and then winners announcement. At a glance, someone can say it is obvious for an award's reports to have only list of categories and people. That is why, I wanted to ask specifically about Wiki's policy on writing such article(s). Thank you! M.Billoo06:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
M.Billoo2000, when you write The award show has no SIGCOV, that is another way of saying that the award show is not notable and should not be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Textbypeeps, I asked you a few weeks ago about paid editing, and instead of replying to the message or disclosing a connection, you removed the content from your other sandbox. Please disclose, in general terms, any connection you may have with Novelship or any other company mentioned in your draft. If you are employed by the company, you count as a paid editor regardless of whether you are specifically paid to edit Wikipedia. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I’m not involved with any company mentioned. I followed sneaker resale trends and wanted to contribute an informative article. I appreciate your feedback and will make sure the content stays neutral and well-sourced. Textbypeeps (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Textbypeeps You'll get much more complete references by running your the URL through citer at toolforge. That won't change the text but will really help readers, as will sticking to Wikipedia's manual of style regarding use of boldface type (see MOS:BOLD, which suggests only very limited use). The main issue, IMO, is that your draft reads like an essay, straying into original research, since you seem to have combined information about individual parts of the topic rather than paraphrasing what other reliable sources have said on the subject. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I’m working on a draft about Nebojsa “Nash” Subotic, a business executive.
The article was declined due to notability and tone. I’ve added independent sources from USA Today, Inc., Fortune, etc., and revised the tone. Could someone please review whether it now meets notability and neutrality standards before I resubmit? Thanks!
@KostaAtWP The most obvious problem is that the awards you have used to indicate his notability were given to organisations he is associated with, not to him personally. No doubt many other people contributed to the work. You also need to fix the dead link, perhaps from an archive. You will get more feedback by re-submitting to draft. We don't really do pre-feedback feedback. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently completed an article for publication, revealing per Wikipedia's guidelines that I had been paid for drafting the article. Upon completion, I clicked the "Submit Draft for Review!" link but didn't seem to get any sort of response/acknowledgment. I then clicked the Publish button, but similarly did not receive any sort of response. The article has not been published. How can I find out where the article stands and whether/when it will be published. Thanks. PoliceEditor (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PoliceEditor - I assume you mean User:PoliceEditor/sandbox which has not been submitted, hence the big blue button "Submit your draft for review". Please make sure you are logged in, and then click on that button. If that does not work, please come back here, and explain exactly what happened. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Successfully submitted. The issues seemed to be that I was trying to click the "Submit" button while I was in Edit mode. Once I went back to Read mode, it worked fine. Thanks again for your help. PoliceEditor (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Atlanta Institute of Music and Media was founded in 1985 and has had a handful of famous graduates. The college has also been cited on a few Wikipedia articles. I don't know how to go about getting a page for them, my initial attempt wasn't approved. Jenn vf (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenn vf The problem is the lack of sources talking about the Institute, rather than brief mentions in relation to its graduates. I took a look at newspapers.com, on the assumption that there might be some general sources there but all I found was brief mentions. If you can't find sources meeting these criteria, then I'm afraid you will have to give up. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything that exists can have a Wikipedia page about it. I am mentioned on a Wikipedia article, but there has not been significant independent material published about me, so there cannot be a Wikipedia article about me.
The question for you is, have several people, wholly unconnected with the the Institute, and not prompted or fed information on behalf of the Institute, chosen to publish in-depth material about the Institute in realiable publications? If the answer is No, then no article is possible, and you are wasting your time and effort in trying.
If the answer is yes, then you can try to write an article about it. You would do this by leaving aside anything you know about the Institute, and writing a neutral summary of what those independent sources say.
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) 18:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone! I’m a new editor and I’ve written a sandbox draft for an article about my botany professor, Dr. P. Hariprasad. He has a PhD in chemical mutagenesis, has co-authored a state science textbook, taught for over 40 years, and mentored over 350 doctors and many researchers.
Could someone kindly review the draft and let me know if it meets the standards for notability and format?
@XxRebornGOATxX The immediate problem with your draft is that it has no cited sources to already-published information. This is part of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. It is not surprising that you made this error, which is common when new users try immediately to create articles. Please read Help:Your first article or, as I would advise, edit some existing articles to learn how Wikipedia works. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i have added other external links now, do u mean i shud add the links for the tobacco plant and other words for which articles already exist? XxRebornGOATxX (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i havent used ai, although i have written the script i uploaded the script to chatgpt and asked it to code for the subtopics since i have no connection with html nor css, i also asked it not to alter any phrases, plus i used gramarly also XxRebornGOATxX (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@XxRebornGOATxX, I hope it's OK, I have gone ahead and added citation needed to the early life section as an example of what needs referencing. This will give you an idea as to what Wikipedia is looking for per WP:BLP. Knitsey (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I do not understand what you are saying, especially the "If wikipedia has a mobile app and the main page has links to the sister projects it has on the mobile app?" and the "if this is real i will freak out for a fortnight." Can you write it so it is easy to understand? Thanks. RafaelHello!18:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I too am not clear what you're asking. But if I go to "Main page" on the Wikipedia Android app, it does indeed have links to the sister projects. Those open in a browser, not in the app. Is that the answer to your question? ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy one and all. I am an architect, designer, writer. I am registered as an editor (MMcD Investigator).My immediate goal is to post a Wikipedia article about a highly accomplished public figure (archeologist) who more than deserves it. OK, so I keep hitting a wall. I have a mentor but she cannot figure this out so she referred me to the Teahouse.
First, everytime I try to get beyond simply seeing my "Hello, MMcD Investigator!" page nothing works. Wikipedia says that I do not exist.
For example, when I try to get into my sandbox (my mentor recommended this step) I get this:
<<Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. Before creating this page, please see Help:Subpages.
To start a page called User:MMcD Investigator/sandbox, type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then publish it.>>
Second, because I know the person I want to post I have tried repeatedly to complete the Wikipedia:Articles for creation requirements. I am now (after several days) able to get to my User Page and I have disclosed that there is an AFC issue
Paste the following in the edit box, replacing Title of your draft with the article name you wish to create.
{{UserboxCOI|1=Title of your draft}}
Click the "Publish changes" button>>
OK, so I can get that far, but then there I get no additional instruction. I should note that the article is written (after many hours of work) and in a Wikipedia format. I can add in-line references but I need to get the body of the text started.
Hi @MMcD Investigator. I am a bit confused, as you seem to have written a draft at Draft:David_W._Johnson_(archaeologist)? Is this not the draft you are talking about? You have created that draft successfully via the articles for creation process. It has not yet been submitted for review.
It's normal to get a Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title warning when you go to create a page for the first time: your personal Sandbox does not exist until you have created it. Click Create source to bring up the editor for the page, then write some text in the editor and then click Publish page... to create the page and save what you wrote.
Wikipedia editing works quite different to editing in a standard word processor like Microsoft Word, which is maybe why you are having trouble.
Hi! I’m a new editor and I’ve created a draft update for The Chennai Silks article using reliable third-party sources. The draft is here: User:HireshM/sandbox
I posted on the article’s Talk page, but haven’t had any helpful feedback. Could someone help review and guide how I can get this content moved into the main article?
Hello. Others have tried to engage you on the talk page but you have not responded. As you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid directly editing the article(contrary to what Rafaelthegreat claims) but you may use the edit request process on the talk page. Please engage with those there. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that proposing a wholesale rewrite is unlikely to succeed- as most of us are volunteers who have limited time to invest. Please propose incremental changes, one at a time. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Daniele Ganser
Courtesy link: Daniele Ganser. I guess we could - can you provide reliable source stating that's one or the things he's known for? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 13:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Done. That page move required an administrator and I am an administrator. I verified that "Sunjay" is the most common spelling of his name in English language sources, and moved the page accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
