Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

Melecie, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Most recent archives
1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

Hey, I've recently been manually translating articles from non-English Wikipedias into the English Wikipedia. I came across the Content Translation tool, but even though I already have extended confirmed rights, the tool doesn't seem to be working for me.

When I try to use it, it doesn’t translate any text or load anything on the English side. I’m not sure if it’s a technical issue or a permission-related restriction. Need Guidance! 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 07:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this section on its guide page. Easternsahara (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:Translate for additional tips. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I wondered if someone could assist ADITYAKUSHWAHA999 (talk · contribs). I think they have a question about a caste but I don't have the knowledge to answer them. This is in relation to the Kushwaha (surname). I reverted an edit where they tried to add someone, but now I think they have a different question? Thank in advance to which one of you kind editors takes a look. Knitsey (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was the question? Henihhi28 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Knitsey: From my understanding of Indian castes (I'm diaspora), ADITYAKUSHWAHA999 is saying that an unnamed editor described people who hold the Kushwaha surname as shudra (worker class in caste system), when Aditya says that Kushwahas are actually Kshatriya (warrior class; higher in rank in the caste system than shudra), and says that they have proof that Kushwahas are kshatriya instead of shudra. They go on to claim that the editor refuses to accept their edit request because they hate the Kushwahas for some reason. Perhaps a warning about casting aspersions would be in order? Grumpylawnchair (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://ncbc.nic.in/Writereaddata/635367176167888209_Advice%20No35.pdf

Please see the link above. Quite clearly, the Kushwahas belong to the OBC (Other Backward Castes) basis, at the very least. They do not belong to the Kshatriya category basis, both historically and societally. This is as per official government of India documentation. Hence, my suggestion would be not to be specific about the 'Shudra' category which is both psephologically, and societally, irrelevant, but instead denote the surname as OBC as has been observed by the National Commission for Backward Castes Rohanvyavaharkar (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm working on a draft article titled "Partido Piquetero" (a political organization in Argentina), and I would appreciate feedback before I submit it through Articles for Creation. I followed reliable sourcing policies, avoided overreliance on self-published sources, and included national media references (like Página/12 and Tiempo Argentino). Could someone please review the draft and let me know if it's on the right track for acceptance?

Here is the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rennis970/Piquetero_Party

Thanks in advance! Rennis970 (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems good, although, you do have many red links; red links are links to an article that doesn’t exist, so I suggest you remove the [[]]s around the “links”. Henihhi28 (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I added a cn since something was unsourced. Henihhi28 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henihhi28 it's probably best to refrain from advising people here, until you have more experience of editing. Theroadislong (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rennis970 you get feedback on your draft by submitting it for review. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong I don’t think that’s what they meant; they said if it was on the track and I do have a better understanding of editing now.Henihhi28 (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henihhi28 You clearly don't Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and it’s also clearly not appropriate to discuss this here. Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced editors like you. Henihhi28 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Is there anything else that doesn't have sources for at this time? Rennis970 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else is good, you still have red links in the electoral summary though. Henihhi28 (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red links are acceptable; see WP:REDLINK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rennis970, To submit it place {{subst:Submit}} in the source code of the page. Happy Editing, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rennis970 You appear to have linked to a source for ref #7 which is a illegal (?) copy of a copyrighted book hosted on wordpress. It would be much better just to cite the book itself as it has an ISBN. Wikipedia does not allow links like that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

As tweets are able to be posted onto Twitter with no content so long as there is some form of media (images, videos, polls, etc.), how does one cite a tweet onto an article that has no text? In my case I am trying to cite a tweet from a musician that has only posted a picture in the tweet but no content. Leaving a tweet citation with no content (a.k.a. |title=) returns an error as it is required, however I am unsure of where I go from here.

Thank you! Spifory (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, tweets are considered to be primary sources and Wikipedia requires secondary sources. See WP:OR and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Easternsahara (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Spifory. Why are you wanting to cite this tweet? As Easternsahara says, it is rarely appropriate to cite a tweet; but it is also rare to cite a picture, as it is unusual for a picture to be able to verify a claim in an article (which is pretty well the whole purpose of a citation). ColinFine (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, apologies for the late response to you and @Easternsahara, in my case I wanted to cite a tweet made by Playboi Carti on his Whole Lotta Red album where another person mentioned the release for one of its singles, and as they mentioned that the single's cover was firstly posted to Twitter, I wanted to add a citation with the actual tweet as currently it only cites two music articles.

> On April 14, 2020, Playboi Carti began teasing the single "@ Meh" by sharing its cover art on Twitter, with the track officially released two days later on April 16 as the anticipated lead single for Whole Lotta Red.

I would like to add a citation to this bit with the actual tweet in question Spifory (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t best to cite a social media source as I’m pretty sure Wikipedia:Reliable sources speaks out against this. Henihhi28 (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there's no rule on this. I'd say just put |title=[Image] or something similar. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although you must give us more context to determine if this is appropriate. Twitter users are generally not considered reliable or secondary sources. Easternsahara (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can use {{Cite tweet}}, but you will have to decide on an appropriate value for |title=, as described above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An IP-only user (50.101.200.217) has been editing dozens of Wikipedia pages of various celebrities of the link removing links to districts, towns, and boroughs, instead just linking their larger area (e.g. removing London boroughs and replacing the link with London). This is not vandalism, obviously, but seems from most FA and GA I have seen to not be standard practice, and thus, it seems it should be reverted? Is the most efficient way to revert them one by one, or is it a minor enough thing to just leave be? The editor continues to make these edits and by the looks of their contributions history and talk page would not notice a message given. While I believe these changes to be in good faith, the user appears to have a history of vandalism. Insight appreciated. CollinDChase (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of WP:GEOLINK. This is not proper editing, but report seems over the top, manually changing a persisting editor seems futile, and a warn seems like it would not be seen. CollinDChase (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is always to try to engage them on their talk page with escalating messages -- either personalized or using templates. Engaging with user talk page communications is absolutely one of the table stakes expectations of being a wikipedia editor. Thus, if you or others have already repeatedly contacted them and they don't respond to messages at all, it's appropriate to escalate to WP:AN or WP:ANI. You can look through current and archived discussions on those boards to see how similar issues tend to be discussed and resolved. -- Avocado (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already been on Wikipedia for over 10 days now, but I still can’t access InternetArchiveBot. Just wondering—what could be the issue? — ArćRèv • talk 04:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Arc Rev, Apologies for late reply. If you have been on Wikipedia for over 10 days and still can't use InternetArchiveBot, the issue likely isn't the time since registration but rather user permissions. Why you might not have access yet may be Account age alone isn't enough InternetArchiveBot typically requires that you have autoconfirmed status and account must be 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits. InternetArchiveBot doesn't work like a user-run tool. You can't access it directly in most cases.You can request a bot run on a talk page or use the URL at IA Bot interface if you're in a project where it's available.You may not be editing a namespace where it functions automatically. InternetArchiveBot mainly works in article space, not user sandboxes or drafts (unless requested). Further, You can try using the bot via:https://ia.wikibots.org/ Or you can probably ask for a bot run at Wikipedia:InternetArchiveBot/Requests. I guess. Fade258 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258: A day later, I was able to run the bot. But I noticed that not all the references in the article I asked it to analyze were archived—only a few. Is that normal? — ArćRèv • talk 23:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

help i am trying to make an article but I don’t know how to make a heading. Help would be appreciated:) BobbleObill (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When editing a regular page, there should be a dropdown to the right of the undo arrows and to the left of a bolded, underlined, and italicized "A". That dropdown allows you to change what type of text you're using - paragraph, headers, subheaders, etc. This is how you should be able to make a header. If you need further elaboration, just let me know. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you BobbleObill (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @BobbleObill, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia

Writing an article without first finding suitable sources is like building a house without surveying the site or digging foundations - if you manage to get the house built, it will probably fall down, and your work will be wasted.

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) 09:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok BobbleObill (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:YFA for how to create and then submit a draft for review. IT does appear that you have successfully created a draft at Draft:Mumbo Jumbo (YouTuber), but it will need references before being submitted. David notMD (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using this book as a source, but this version is available online. It doesn't have everything I need, unfortunately, so I can't just swap it, but I'd still like to link to the free version. Is there a way to do this, but also indicate that it's technically the wrong version? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to do is create two different citations for each edition of the book. However, the version you are using (4th edition) is fully accessible via WikiLibrary. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – ARV Loshan Sports is a notable Tamil-language sports media platform, widely followed in the Tamil-speaking community, especially among Sri Lankan and Indian sports fans. It has been operating for over 5 years, and its founder Ragupathy Vaamalosanan is a veteran media personality with more than 30 years in radio broadcasting. The platform is regularly cited in independent sports news reports and has gained recognition through social media and regional media outlets.

I have added reliable sources to the article, The subject passes Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines due to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Niroshanraja (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Niroshanraja. This comment does not belong at the Teahouse but rather at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARV Loshan Sports, where you have already commented. Cullen328 (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am working on Draft:Aramean people, when it comes to the Aramean people, they were often called Syrians by Greeks and Romans, thus many sources speak of a Syrian people's history without mentioning "Arameans", is it possible to address this application of the Syrian name to the Arameans (there are many sources addressing this) in a specific section and in other sections such as Antiquity and Early Christianity, so that we can work with sources only mentioning Syrians, not Arameans and still write of them in the Aramean people draft, such as in the Byzantine period (this period, the Syrian name was in full swing)? Because, like earlier stated, Syrian came to mean Aramean, (also evident in the Bible translations, Hebrew --> Greek).

Basically apply information from sources X to source Y? Ex. source X states Arameans came to be called Syrians, and source Y speaks of Syrian history, can we therefore make the connection that source Y speaks of the Arameans (prior to name shift) and include it as a source about Aramean people (but writing "Syrian", not Aramean).

So can we apply information from one set of sources to another? For example, if one source explains that the Arameans came to be called Syrians, and another source speaks about the history of the Syrians, is it acceptable to connect the two and treat the second source as referring to the Arameans before the name shift? In other words, can we use sources that speak only of "Syrians" in the historical sense, as long as we clarify that "Syrian" was the name later applied to the Aramean people, and still include such sources in a draft about the Aramean people, while keeping the original wording "Syrian"?

hope you guys understand what i mean, i know it sounds confusing, even my text could be better explaining the dilemma but i do not know how else to put it.

Wlaak (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Wlaak, and welcome to the Teahouse

I don't think you can do this. The first line of WP:SYNTH isDo not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Others may have a different interpretation. ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wlaak! This sounds like a massive headache, and I'm really sorry you have to deal with it. Just at a glance, what you're describing seems like synthesis, which isn't allowed under the "original research" policy. Although reliable scholarly sources say that the Greeks and Romans called the Arameans Syrians, where synthesis enters the picture is determining this on a per-source basis. If contemporary source X uses the term "Syrians" and later source Y says that source X meant "Arameans", then I see this as uncontroversial and non-original research (you would simply have to somehow keep source Y coupled with source X whenever source X is used). However, I don't think you can blanket this unless there's compelling evidence in multiple contemporary, scholarly sources that say that when Greeks and Romans said "Syrians", they always without exception meant "Arameans". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @ColinFine @Fade258 @TheTechnician27 for the help, what i have done is written of "Syrians", as the sources state, I haven't changed to Arameans.

i've in order stated that Syrian came to mean Aramean in sections about Antiquity and Early Christianity etc. and now in the Byzantine section, i am only writing "Syrian" if the sources mention "Syrian".

am i allowed to write of Syrians in a article about Arameans? considering it would be WP:SYNTH to take info from one source and apply it to interpret what another source meant? basically the Syrian source not mentioning Aramaen makes it ineligible/unrelated/irrelevant for Aramean article? Wlaak (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wlaak, given that the naming itself is contentious, you'll need to be especially careful here. Your example,Ex. source X states Arameans came to be called Syrians, and source Y speaks of Syrian history, can we therefore make the connection that source Y speaks of the Arameans (prior to name shift) and include it as a source about Aramean people (but writing "Syrian", not Aramean). only works if all Arameans came to be called Syrians, and no Syrians who were not previously known as Arameans exist at all. Do you see the problem? I'm basically restating what TheTechnician said, but it's important. If it doesn't work this way, and my understanding is that it does not, you're instead going to have to be careful about your implications. It would probably be fine to talk about Syrian history in an article on Aramean history where there is overlap, but all of that will be subject to challenge from editors who disagree that it's relevant, and you'll need to be as clear as you can be to contextualize the information so that readers aren't misled. -- asilvering (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i understand, of course not every single Aramean came to be called Syrian, but the majority did and this is the academic understanding of the term Syrian.

could you give example of how i need to put it so that i can write of Syrians? for example, so far, i have already written of Aramean history in antiquity and Early Christianity, and it mentions how Arameans were referred to as Syrians (it also mentions the Bible translations, Greek authors such as Strabo, Eusebius, Posidnoius) etc. there will be a section specific to the name change as well.

if you have time, could you please check the section about Byzantine Periods? how i have written of it as, if that is okay, specially under Ottoman periods, all censuses wrote of "Suryaniler" (Syriacs), Keldaniler (Chaldeans), and Nasturlier (nestorians/assyrians), (last two irrelevant to the draft in terms of Syriac/Aramean history)

its really unfortunate how Aramean came to be Syrian in academics Wlaak (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wlaak sorry, I'd better avoid getting too into any of this content since I've been dealing with this business at ANI as an admin. General advice I can do, but I'll have to bow out of specifics. But if any other teahouse hosts want to get involved, please do. -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i understnad, i have one question tho, is there a guideline or a rule of how many sources you need per section/paragraph/sentence? or can i write a entire section based on one source? Wlaak (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can write a whole section based on one source, sure. Sometimes that's all you've got. If there's only one source holding down a section, that tends to suggest that it's not "due weight" - ie, that we shouldn't cover that section in so much detail. More sources tends to be better in general, up to a point. (eg WP:REFBOMB) -- asilvering (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, the source states that the Syriacs are the Arameans of antiquity and then goes on to write about these Syriacs (not writing Arameans), am I allowed to write Syriac-Arameans or does it stricitly have to be Syriacs only? Wlaak (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the source has something so direct as "the Syriacs are the Arameans of antiquity" I think you're justified in using "Arameans" the whole way through if that's appropriate to the article you're writing. Other editors might disagree, and you may need to come to some other kind of consensus - maybe I'd disagree if I had read that source! - but from your description of it, that's well within "editors are allowed to use their brains". -- asilvering (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wlaak, I think Yes, with proper sourcing and context, you can use sources that refer to “Syrians” in an article on the Aramean people, as long as you clearly explain the historical naming overlap based on reliable academic sources. This is best of my knowledge and It may differ from person to person. Fade258 (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

[I hope this is the right place to ask this question?]

I am working on an English translation of Polish article about a College in Jelenia Góra. I do not know why, but I cannot set the GPS data properly in order for the Infobox to show a map. Can somebody help me, please?

The link to the article in my draft is here: User:Kaworu1992/KANS

Best wishes and thank you in advance!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaworu1992: Is this what you want? Deor (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deor, I made some changes on coordination. Is that ok? Please take a look. Fade258 (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaworu1992: Well, the coordinates in the draft now don't seem to be those of the academy, and they certainly don't match the address given in the infobox. I think the coordinates I used are the correct ones. Deor (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when you translate articles from other Wikipedias, you must provide attribution (normally in the edit history); how to do so properly is described here. I've done it for you for this draft, but please do this in the future. Grumpylawnchair [ALT] (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaworu1992, I have made a changes on coordination. Have a look there, this is what you want. Fade258 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates in the draft stated out (albeit entered incorrectly) as 50.54 N, 15.44 E. Fade258's edit changed them from 50.914, 15.730 to 50.9033 N, 15.7397 E.

Clearly, something—regardless of formatting—is amiss. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, From your above message, Did I made mistake in changing coordination? Fade258 (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. But two of the three sets of coordinates must be wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which coordinates? IMO, It looks better than previous one. Fade258 (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm trying to publish an article on the past. It is Draft:Sydney Uriah Bogues

Can anyone give me a little insight on how I could have it moved to the article space?

Thank you! Artnascar7 (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Artnascar7. Based on your reviewer feedback, it unfortunately does not appear that the article is in a state to be published to mainspace as of now. The feedback provided is that you need sources—not more sources, but better sources. Unless your article has adequate coverage of Mr. Bogues,and not merely passing mentions or user-generated content, then the article will be ready for mainspace. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As PhoenixCaelestis said, If the article is not fit for publishing into the mainspace, it should not be moved. This is just a friendly reminder that moving an unprepared article could cause the article to be deleted. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Artnascar7 Specifically, FamilySearch is not considered a suitable source. See the table at WP:RSPS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is great information. I'll try and use the documentation alternatively. Thank you for the response! Artnascar7 (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @PhoenixCaelestis. Most of your sources seem to be primary.

Note that a Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Official publications like census records do not count - see 42; but sources do not have to be online. If you can find a book from a major publisher about Bogues, or that treats Bogues at some length, that would serve as one of the acceptable sources.

There are also some odd phrases that do not belong in an encyclopaedia article. For example, the lead describes him as a "modern thinker": what does that mean? Is it an established phrase for a particular intellectual viewpoint at the time? If so, cite a source both for the phrase, and for his identification as such. If it is not an established phrase, but somebody's evaluation of him, then it does not belong in the article unless it is cited to a specific independent reliable source.

Evaluative words like "quaint" do not belong in an article, (again, unless cited to a reliable independent source).

"Acccording to oral tradition" is unacceptable as a source - cite a reliable published source which discussed the tradition, or remove the claim. Even if you are able to cite the traditional claim about his grandfather, I cannot see how the (unsourced) claim about the rank of Clan Macduff, or mention of its crest, are relevant to an article about Bogues.

The paragraph about his grandmother is unsourced.

Any claim including "it would seem" is inappropriate - either cite it to a reliable source, or remove it.

I suspect that your most effective (and certainly most efficient in terms of your own and others' time) course from here will be:

1. Find at least three reliable independent sources with significant coverage of Bogues - as I said, these do not have to be online.
2. If you cannot find such sources, give up, as you will be unable to write an acceptable article (the Wikipedia jargon is that you cannot establish notability for him).
3. If you have the sources, then throw away your existing text, and write a new draft that summarises what those reliable independent sources say.
4. You may then add limited uncontroversial factual information from primary or non-independent sources, but they still need to be reliable sources.

This likely will not include much of the material you currently have (which is why I suggested starting from scratch), but unless you can find a suitable source for it, it doesn't belong in the article anyway. ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to ping Artnascar7? PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Apologies, PhoenixCaelistis.

I intended to ping @Artnascar7 in my long reply above. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can you apply to join the New Page Patrol? What are the requirements? Nvagda (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nvagda, User/editor will need to have been registered users of the English Wikipedia for at least 90 days and have made at least 500 non-deleted edits to the main (article) space. You can further check it out here. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nvagda: Please see Wikipedia:NPP and Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Obtaining the user right. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A) Wikipedia Says On Edits And Page Creation To Be "BOLD", as long as it is in good faith. My Question Is, When Creating A New Wikipedia Page That Is Not An Article And Is For Example A "Template:" And Especially Under "Wikipedia:", does it still apply?. I am asking this since i want to recreate the Teahouse In Yhe Greek Wikipedia (Yes I Am Aware This Is The English Wikipedia, But Wikipedia Rules Apply Everywhere), do i have to infrom an Adminsitrator and if especially in this Xase A Beuracrat For That, or Can I be "BOLD"? (Also, Here is My EL Wikiepdia Draft What Do You Think?) I want to create the Teahouse In Order To Make A Help Center For New Users.

B) (More Relevant) As you can see, my English Wikiepdia Edit / Contribution Log Is Mainly Asking Questions On The Teahouse. How can i find things to when, all the wikipedia articles in The English Wikipedia are 100%, and if i can do any changes it would change the format of the page and probably other users will be annoyed. For Example, The Page Anaemia, has The Types Of Anaemias Not Clearly Sepeated, And If I Moved Them From "Types", It will be Distruptive. So what can i do in this Wiki? Also, can i do changes like for Anaemia, Controvesional achnages, or should'nt?

Thank you anyone in advance!. Mant08 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mant08: No, Wikipedia rules do not apply everywhere. Each Wikipedia is its own project with its own standards and practises. We cannot answer questions about el.wp (Greek Wikipedia). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mant! Regarding creating the Teahouse on the Greek Wikipedia, I will note that policies and guidelines across Wikipedias are not necessarily shared (thus we cannot speak for the Greek Wikipedia). I would suggest that 1) it would be a good idea for the Greek Wikipedia to have something like this, but 2) it may be a good idea to ask an administrator to see if anything like this already exists and if not, what it ought to be called. I think being BOLD and attempting to create this may bring about the change you seek, but please also be mindful that, without existing consensus, it can be just as easily reverted. Also be mindful that a lot of work has to go into maintaining the Teahouse, else it may only frustrate new users who don't receive a response.

When making substantial changes on a Wikipedia that is not in your native language, it is usually good practice to ask on the article's talk page and generate consensus first – simply because Wikipedia is difficult on its own, let alone in a second language. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As to (B), "all the wikipedia articles in The English" are far from perfect! Try the WP:Task Center for ideas. Note that articles here relating to medical topics have very strict sourcing requirements: see WP:MEDRS, so that's an area where you would be wise to use the article's talk page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Everyone For Your Answers!. Mant08 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a rule or subsection about not writing things to win points with your God, NotQualified (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @NotQualified. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Could you give us more details? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through the rules a year ago and I recall one that explicitly called out religious people who try and secretly spread religious propaganda or suppress criticism of their faith. I remember seeing it in "Wikipedia is not censored" but I don't see it there now. NotQualified (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @NotQualified, With the best of my knowledge and If I take your question rightly then, Wikipedia discourages writing with the intent to please a deity or promote religious views. All contributions should aim to summarize what reliable sources say, not express personal or spiritual motives. Mainly it focuses on neutral point of view. Fade258 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was something along the lines of "Wikipedia is not censored and is allowed to offend people. Do not edit articles to try and score points with your deity by secretly spreading religious propaganda." NotQualified (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NotQualified, Wikipedia is governed by a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, which means content must be present fairly, proportionately, and without bias including religious bias. Editors must not use Wikipedia as a platform for apologetics, or religious promotion. Fade258 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion Not it but close. NotQualified (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NotQualified , the essay WP:NOTHERE, subsection "Trying to score brownie points outside of Wikipedia", includes "...Examples include edits to articles related to one's religion intended to score points with one's deity(ies),...". Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, thanks NotQualified (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RNPOV? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any god hands out brownie points, but you certainly accrue good karma but adhering to Wikipedia's rules. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you founding a new religion? NotQualified (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

helixism 2, babyyyyyy consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 19:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There might already be an option for that. See Bluerasberry's recent item (video format) in The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bri and yes I am quite serious! This is a great religious option for Wikimedians! Bluerasberry (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everyone, if I want to work on multiple drafts at the same time, is it best to create another sandbox subpage (e.g. User:Username/sandbox2) or create a draft Page as subpage of my user page (e.g. User:Username/Page_title) or just a draft page (e.g. Draft: Page_title)? Thanks for your help! Orlandov123 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Orlandov123! I've personally seen all three variants used by different editors, and I don't believe there's any policy stating which you should use. Go with what you think is best for the draft, I suppose. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! thanks @PhoenixCaelestis! Orlandov123 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orlandov123, I personally would (and do) use multiple pages in Draft space, as in my opinion, it is more collegial and collaborative in that editors may find your drafts more easily if they are in Draft space, and feel less inhibited about helping out, especially if you add {{Draft|join-in=yes}} to the top of your draft.

Another advantage to adding it to Draft space, is what if while you are working on your draft, someone comes along unaware of what you are doing and creates the same article directly in mainspace? If you work in Draft space, this is less likely to happen. Here is why, by way of example: there happens to be a Draft called Draft:French hospitals out there. Let's suppose you come along, completely unaware, and decide to create French hospitals (a red link) directly in main space. Go ahead—click that red link now, and watch what happens. See that big, pink, banner notice at the top? That will lead you to the draft you didn't know existed, and now the two of you can work on it together! That's a big win.

You have the right to work on drafts in a WP:User subpage, like your sandbox or other subpages of your user space if you wish. Other users will be less likely to find your draft there, and if they do somehow find it, most editors will be less likely to touch it there, even though all pages at Wikipedia belong to the community. And there is nothing special about the subpage name /sandbox, it is maybe easier to remember if you are working on five subpages at once, but feel free to name your userspace draft User:Orlandov123/Iron trade and work on it there, if you wish. But if someone creates Iron trade directly in main space, they will not be notified that your userspace draft already exists—that only works for drafts in Draft space.

There is even a hybrid approach which is kind of cool, because if you stick around for a long time, it makes it really easy to find all your drafts, even the ones that became articles years ago. That works like this: create your article in Draft space, and then create a user subpage as a WP:REDIRECT to the article in Draft space. This way, all of your drafts and articles will always be easily findable just by looking at all of your subpages: Special:PrefixIndex/User:Orlandov123. (Alternatively, you could create a page like User:Orlandov123/My_articles, and just list them.)

All in all, I would use Draft space, and maybe the hybrid approach or a subpage list to maintain a handy list of all your pages. Hope this helps; if any of it seems confusing or you need help with it, lmk. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does one request a formal close from an uninvolved closer of an RfC? See this one that was archived without a formal close due to time. It should be formally closed by an uninvolved closer but I am not sure how to formally request that. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: Please add the discussion to WP:Closure requests. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was told just recently that it might already be there. I was not previously aware of that page.

Thanks CX zoom Iljhgtn (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Iljhgtn, it's ok to let the archiving happen. The closer can un-archive it when it's time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will that delay or lengthen a close? Is that standard practice? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice. I can't comment on how it will affect close timing, but closes frequently take long enough that preventing archiving just bogs down the active page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think another editor said that it may never close. Is that also possible? That such a sizable RfC could just go unclosed with no uninvolved closer at all closing it? Ever? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does happen, but posting at CR makes it much less likely. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think someone said that it is already posted over there. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article Miss Serbia by year has been unreferenced for over five years. I'm seeking advice on whether there is a viable alternative to deletion. I don't see another good article for a redirect, for example. Just leaving stuff like this unreferenced indefinitely doesn't seem like a good option. I would discuss with the article creator, but they were blocked as a sockpuppet, and I don't see any other major contributors. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added an introductory sentence and imported some references from Miss Serbia. I agree that it's in a very poor state though and I'm not planning on looking for more references. It's probably fine as a standalone list aside from being woefully out of date. If you want advice on what to do in similar situations... All I can advise is find similar articles and see if an acceptable level is achievable. -- Reconrabbit 19:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was declined because it didn't meet the academic criteria but i reframed for notability, media coverage and resubmitted...any suggestions on next steps or if this the best path? Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Melvin_Vopson Weavingowl (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Melvin Vopson for convenience -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Weavingowl, if you get declined again, my advice would be to give up on it for now and come back to it in a few years. He has tenure, so he's very likely to continue to publish and thus eventually meet the WP:NPROF criteria. If the draft is deleted, an admin can recover it for you in the future. -- asilvering (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at adding a image of a blp in their infobox, but those are the hardest for me to understand the copyright, creative commons, and other restrictions. I have read the relevant policies, but I still am confused. I searched for "all creative commons" licenses with a bing search, and I think I found some, but could someone please help verify if what I am seeing can be correctly uploaded and used. The blp I am looking at is: Amy Peikoff Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.dk/search?q=Amy+Peikoff&sca_esv=973c07562d464363&udm=2&tbs=sur:cl&source=lnt&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjsr9PIqY2NAxXlLRAIHXTSBNkQpwV6BAgCECA&biw=1280&bih=676&dpr=1

Nothing on Google so far Trade (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to ignore Bing and search Flickr or YouTube instead Trade (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find anything on Flickr or YouTube? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How it works is as follows: because the subject is alive, unless 1) the owner of the image's copyright has expressly placed it under a compatible license (listed here), or 2) the image is provably in the public domain (for specifics of the US public domain specifically, refer to the Hirtle chart), we can't use it. If no license is ever given, then (except for some old images discussed in the Hirtle chart) the image is by default all rights reserved for whoever took the image. It is therefore entirely possible that no compatible image of her currently exists. As Peikoff appears to be a highly public figure, it's likely possible to ask her yourself (we have a form for that around here somewhere), although as the US' far-right rabidly distrusts Wikipedia, it's questionable if she'd agree. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading up on grammar and some different things recently and I was curious about so called "passive voice" writing and the different forms of "voice", which is considered the correct "voice" and could someone point me to the best MOS on this that exactly supports the policy and subsection of what the best voice is to use for the entire encyclopedia please? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one I know of is at MOS:PASSIVE which is just a footnote. Generally, the passive voice is preferred here. While I don't agree with Steven Pinker on everything in this lecture, I think he does a good job here of describing why the passive is often so important. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally, the passive voice is preferred here." Oh? That's news to me. (I for one have no general preference.) ¶ The footnote to which TheTechnician27 points us is well-meant, but dubious. It starts: "The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing". I can't think of a single form of writing for which it would be inappropriate. Whether it would be a good choice for a particular clause depends on what it is that you want to put across to the reader in that clause. ¶ Iljhgtn, one thing you have to remember when reading up on the passive is that some of the people who get worked up over use of the "passive" [note the scare quotes] don't even know what the word means in the context of grammar. The article "English passive voice" is well meant and has some good bits, but it's confusing. If you have twenty minutes spare, skip that article and instead go straight to Geoffrey K. Pullum's "The passive in English", which cuts through miscellaneous myths about the passive and gives you the straight dope. (Within it, "passice" is of course a typo for "passive".) ¶ If you don't want to devote the time needed to read and digest Pullum's article, then my advice is not to worry at all about whether or not to express something via what you (rightly or wrongly) believe is passive. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what the confusion is here, but in terms of passive and active in Wikipedia articles, the two "voices" put their emphasis in different places. "Smith built an organ in the church of St Stephen" places the emphasis on Smith (it is the natural answer to the question: "what did Smith do?"). It's the natural choice for an article about Smith. "The organ was built by Smith" places the emphasis on the organ (it's the natural answer to the question "Who built the organ in St Stephen's church?"). It's the natural choice for an article about the organ or the church in which it stands. Elemimele (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons there is an Taiwanese user whom one of the admins are trying to communicate with. Unfortunately said admin cannot write Chinese

If any Wikipedians here could translate his talk page message in a way that the Taiwanese user can read it would be appreciated Trade (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may get better assistance over on the Chinese-language Wikipedia. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 23:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Local Embassy#Chinese ("Chinese" referring to the language, not the country) exists on this project, for that purpose. Try there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious request, please do not scroll away. On the Penis talk page, User:Ludichris1 raised his concern that User:Autisticeditor 20 vandalized the page by removing thousands of bytes worth of information. There have been good faith contributions in between his edits and the present, so what action should be taken? Is there a special template that can be placed on the page or something? Easternsahara (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ES. I can't think of any templates that specifically apply here. Something I noticed that should not be reinstated until it can be cited with reliable sources is the subsection on 'Humans'. This violated WP:V which itself is disallowed, but it's especially important for medical reasons that everything we say about the human body is verifiable. Also, vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and it's not what Autisticeditor 20 did to this article; at worst, this would be disruptive editing. Checking the talk page archives, AE20 never discussed these changes at all, which makes me surprised they were never reverted. Looking at the article prior to AE20's edits, I think they threw the baby out with the bathwater and effectively destroyed it, and I'd be more than happy to help if you want any specific advice or work done. Maybe if I edit this and Douglas Spink in quick enough succession, I can have the most disastrous RfA in Wikipedia history if I ever apply in the future. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi so. Some are my conservations are getting bloated and I want to clean some things up, but want to keep some of my achievements and recent conversations. I find setting up the a OneClickArchiver very confusing. I tried, but it did not work.

Can someone help me please and thank you? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Historyguy1138, Have you tried by enabling Javascript for OneClickArchiever by using this code mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SD0001/OneClickArchiver.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');. Copy the above code and paste here Fade258 (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried something like that before, and I just tried again, but I am not getting an archive option on my talk page. Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have left my message in your talk page. Please check it out. Fade258 (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for help improving my draft article, especially with formatting and choosing reliable references that demonstrate notability. I would also appreciate guidance on how to get the draft reviewed and eventually published in the main article space. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ARhinotales_Gamedev_Studio&oldid=prev&diff=1288270389 Borishalikov (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borishalikov, formatting is a relatively minor matter. You say "As of 2025, Rhinotales has a core team of approximately 30 professionals working full-time on Critical Shift." How do you know this? And though I've read the sentence "Rhinotales is actively involved in the development of Kazakhstan's gamedev ecosystem" I can't deduce any real meaning from it. (Just what does the active involvement comprise? What's a "gamedev ecosystem"?) -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Borishalikov, Thank You for your contribution. I have checked your draft and looks good but you need to add independent and reliable references and please remove social links from external links per social and also you need to reformat the writing style. Fade258 (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Borishalikov, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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. What you know about the subject is not relevant, unless the information is verified in reliable sources.

For this reason, writing a draft before finding suitable sources is mostly a waste of time and effort. It is like building a house without first building foundations or even surveying the plot: the house will probably fall down.

You do not have any useful sources: the two in English do not even mention Rhinotales, and the Russian ones just mention it in passing.

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) 10:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rhinotales Gamedev Studio needs better refs. David notMD (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Together with others, we wanted to draft an article for the History of Tourism. It is not supposed to be published yet, but something went wrong, and it was accidentally already submitted for publication. Is it possible to move it to the draft space? Thank you for your help. LouCharlotte (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like User:LouCharlotte/History of Tourism was accidentally submitted for review, but as it has been declined by the reviewer and is in your userspace, you can continue to work on it at your leisure, just don't press the big blue "Submit for review" button until it's ready. I'm not sure why you removed all of the draft content after it was reviewed – work-in-progress is explicitly allowed on user subpages. Some additional advice: @Timtrent said the draft looked like the outline of an essay or magazine article, so please read § Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and ensure that each contributor to this draft logs in as themselves before editing, so that everyone's contributions are properly attributed. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I also added a hint that this is a userspace draft. I deleted the previous contents, because they were the first attempts at writing and formatting in Wikipedia, but nothing 'final' to be published. The other users practice writing their contributions in their personal sandboxes and then later copy them into this sandbox. Thank you. LouCharlotte (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LouCharlotte, why do you say that you plural wanted to do such-and-such? And whether you're singular or plural, why not work to develop what's currently the "History" section of the "Tourism" article? -- Hoary (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wrote 'we' because this is a collaborative project of a university course on the History of Tourism. https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/University_of_Padua/Course_'History_of_Tourism'/home

As more than 20 people are writing contributions, I was told by an experienced Wikipedia editor that these additions would be too many to add to a section of the general article on tourism. On the German Wikipedia, there is an extra article on Geschichte des Reisens, that's why I thought, we could create an English-language main article on the History of Tourism, too. But if the course can add several subsections to the History section of the Tourism article, I would prefer that over creating a new article! Thank you. LouCharlotte (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_des_Reisens LouCharlotte (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If more than twenty people are going to work on a history of tourism, then yes, the result is likely to be a lot more bulky than would be suitable for one section of the article "Tourism". First, move the draft out of your userspace, to Draft:History of tourism. Then the students (your students?) will be free to work on that. Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you. I wanted to move the article out of my userspace into the draft space, but I didn't have the permission; that's why I opened this question. Do you perhaps know how I can move it to the draft space, or whom I have to ask for it specifically? Thank you for your support! (And yes, my students) LouCharlotte (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it has already been moved. Good. Another tip for you: "=Precursors to Tourism=", at the start of a line, is converted to HTML "<h1>Precursors to Tourism</h1>". But the software (Mediawiki) that Wikipedia uses converts the name of the article to h1, and there should be no more than one h1 header in any page. Also, headings use "sentence case" (capitalization that would also be suitable for regular body text). Therefore not "=Precursors to Tourism=" but instead "==Precursors to tourism==" (which Mediawiki would convert to "<h2>Precursors to tourism</h2>"). -- Hoary (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism is a B-class rated article with extensive content on history and various types of tourism. If anything, your group - with each student having their own account - can consider working on improving the existing article. Or, if committed to "History of Tourism", start by copying that section of the existing article with references into your draft. (Copying within Wikipedia is allowed as long as the Edit summary clearly states where the information was copied from.). After doing that, work on providing more information - referenced!! - on the historical aspects of tourism. As an example of an article linking to a sub-topic article, see Zinc and Zinc in biology. Also, learn how to properly use a reference more than one time. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creation and design Moonwars3646 (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moonwars3646 Hello. Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of local heroes doing some real grassroots work that impacts hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. However, due to the nature of the media, especially in India, they tend to get only a little bit of attention. I feel like Wikipedia can play a role in helping these people spread their mission and also bring more people to contribute financially and through volunteering efforts. Wikipedia will help in platforming their work (community-based, secular, grassroots volunteerism) but in light of the 'significant personality/notability' parameter on Wikipedia, how would one go about getting these local heroes the recognition they deserve, basis simply the impact they're having locally? Rohanvyavaharkar (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohanvyavaharkar Per design, this is not WP:s purpose, articles about people that fail WP:N would be seen on this website as promotion. The purpose of a WP-article should never be to help someone spread their mission. But the internet is vast, and there are other places to do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires that people and other subjects meet the criteria at WP:N. We only write about people who get more than "a little bit of attention", by definition.

Your best course of action would be to try to get your regional or national press to write more about them; or to get your authorities to give them awards. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rohanvyavaharkar See WP:NOBLE; Wikiepdia is not for telling the world about the good works people do- that's exactly what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all the responses. As a former journalists, we have a peculiar situation in India, where a lot of 'notable' people tend to come from a very specific social background with privileges and networks that allow for their 'notability' to be enhanced. This includes actors, politicians, 'entrepreneurs' with barely any substance to their name. I don't want to cast aspersions but WP is rife with examples from India where the real impact on ground has been minimal. I know we can't fix everything but a lot of transformative work, therefore, does not get recognised. E.g. There is a soft ban on coverage of a social activist working on environmental issues. The Freedom of Press aspects apart, the bar for such individuals to reach notability is much higher than someone who, for example, has played a bit part in a commercial film that barely registered a blip at the box office. I don't mean to demean people's achievements but it also seems like notability can be 'fixed' in a media controlled market like India? Rohanvyavaharkar (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bit parts wouldn't meet WP:NACTOR. If you see articles where that's the only claim to notability, they should be proposed for deletion. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To speak to your larger point, yes, Wikipedia is skewed towards things that there are a lot of easy sources for and that get a lot of attention(like actors/musicians). However, verifiability is a key part of Wikipedia. We can't give topics with less coverage more attention or a pass on policies merely to elevate them. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your interest in bringing stories about India’s local heroes to light is commendable, @Rohanvyavaharkar. Where you might want to focus for a while instead of Wikipedia for now, however, is Western media. Human- interest articles and stories of breakthroughs in remote places anround the globe are often published there. Even world-class publications like The New York Times has run quite a few stories on local heroes, including Indians, over the past few years.

As word begins to spread in good solid sources about the work of some of these local heroes, then you can come back to Wikipedia and write articles about them that you can’t for now because of their lack of notability.

Whether you approach Indian or Western media, though, you may need help from others with some journalism or public relations background in “pitching” article proposals in such a way that editors easily see their value for their unique readership. If you’re feeling bold, perhaps you could even find a few allies in journalism schools. आपको कामयाबी मिले Augnablik (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. I've given up on Indian media, but the global media suggestion is worth a shot for sure! Rohanvyavaharkar (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rohanvyavaharkar. Wikipedia editors are well aware of the unique shortcomings of many Indian news organizations. Please read WP:NEWSORGINDIA for the details. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I tried to create an article which got rejected because it lacked notability for creation. However, I have another idea for an article which I would like to have a go at. I was going to do this through my sandbox, but my old article attempt is in my sandbox, and I'm not sure how to 'clear' the sandbox to make room for my new attempt at another subject.

If I could have some assistance with navigating a way to have a fresh start at a new article, that would be great. Thanks! Forester56 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You can just edit your sandbox to remove the content that is there currently, or if you want to preserve it, create an additional sandbox, like User:Forester56/sandbox 2. You can even just click on that and begin editing.

A better way to create a draft is to use the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'd like for someone to review my draft before I resubmit it for publication. I added more than 10 reliable sources and followed the guidelines. Appreciate your feedback or direct changes on the draft!

Draft:Miles Greenberg

Thank you! AnnaStaub (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AnnaStaub Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are essentially asking for a pre-review review, which duplicates effort- the best way to get a review and feedback is to submit your draft. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also respond to the conflict of interest inquiry on your user talk page, thank you. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AnnaStaub, I'm not qualified to provide a review; but here's a pre-review. The reviewer who declined your draft last time was hoping that you'd provide better references, rather than more. It's the quality of the sources that matters, not the quantity. You need to cite reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of the subject. I've checked the first five. The 1st and 3rd are about his work, not about him. The 2nd and 4th are about what he said, and so are not independent. None of those help to attest that he's wikinotable. The 5th however does help. Maproom (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many paragraphs can I copy paste quoting a book in talk page SolderUnion (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is copyrighted then none preferably. My apologies, I read your question incorrectly, on talk pages copyright doesn't apply unless you abhorrently violate it. Easternsahara (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly acceptable to quote material while discussing it on a talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easternsahara, I am sorry but both of your answers are incorrect. Our restrictions on the use of copyright restricted material apply everywhere on Wikipedia, including article talk pages. The general principle is to quote the minimum amount of copyrighted material necessary to make an important point. The material must be attributed to the source and set off by quotation marks or by Template: Blockquote. Cullen328 (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. This is very vague. Can it be 2 pages if this is the minimum to conduct a summary? SolderUnion (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard-and-fast rule. Try to include the least necessary. If you still overdo it, someone will point that out. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. SolderUnion (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: MOS:SANDWICH

I'm asking because the taxobox can be pretty long sometimes, making it difficult to fit images into relevant sections without sandwiching text between it and the taxobox. Bloopityboop (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bloopityboop. The answer is "yes, but not rigidly". Looking at articles that use {{taxobox}} there seem to be ways of reducing the impact of such images. Palaeospondylus uses a small image on the left for an image in text affected by the infobox. Oxymonad uses a larger image centered beneath the text to avoid sandwiching the text.the text. That article also uses | image_upright = 0.4 in the taxobox code to narrow the image and thus narrowing the width of the infobox. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following this discussion about the infobox at Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The situation is: in a conflict infobox, someone under "Commanders and leaders" is dead, and it's unclear how to label them. Their cause of death per the Russian government would be under natural causes ( #), but sources question the reliability of the Russian government's attribution. Other symbols I see (here) are also for specific causes of death. Is there a generic way to label dead people in the infobox when the cause of death is unclear? Placeholderer (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to all,

Does this meet notability under WP:MUSICBIO or need trimming/structure changes before going live: User:Ivhutt/Oz Noy Ivhutt (talk)?

Much appreciated, Ivhutt. Ivhutt (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ivhutt. To me, your lead section comes across as name-dropping. A musician does not become notable simply by playing alongside more famous musicians. Please read WP:NAMEDROPPING. Cullen328 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Cullen328 was suggesting you read WP:NAMEDROP. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cullen328, for clarification. Ivhutt (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you, Bazza. I'm reading it. Ivhutt (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The longer link was red, but I have now made it a redirect to the same target. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I was going back and forth on this, but was lead by John Scofield's and Nir Felder's articles. Should I keep fewer collaborations or drop them altogether? I do think too muchh is too much, but being involved repeatedly with the "best out there" also gives credence to your own proficiency. Thank you. Ivhutt (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cullen328. Ivhutt (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that article has decent sourcing and the guy is probably notable by our standards, but the namedropping throughout is a bit offputting. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The full name is Wikipedia:Meaningful examples in pop culture. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drmies. I'm on it. Ivhutt (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, Ivhutt. And follow my lead in that copy edit I made. The hard part is that for a lot of sidemen (you know that's in large part what he is) there's not always a lot of biography to write cause you don't have the sources to write actual text, so do the best you can--if you can write a paragraph of uncontroversial biography based on a mediocre source, that's still better, because then you have a body in which you can incorporate the better sources that merely say "he plays a nice solo on this woman's album", you know? Looks more like writing, less like namedropping. Good luck. I love Mike Stern by the way. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait you're affiliated with the guy? Ask him for the newspaper articles, not just the reviews. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Drmies. I am affiliated with him (and declared it) and I do have physical magazines, tons of them, mostly abviously guitar-related (Guitar Player, Premier Guitar, Guitar World, Guitar Technique, Vintage Guitar, Guitarist, etc, aside from Relix, Downbeat, AllAboutJazz,...). I tried to include the most notable sources (Boston Globe, NYT, LAT, New Yorker).

Your reasoning makes complete sense to me. I will do what you suggested. Ivhutt (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivhutt, I would like to offer some additional suggestions. First of all, a reference is not necessarily better just because the source is widely famous. In this particular case, a reference to in-depth coverage in Guitar World is vastly more useful than a brief passing mention in the New York Times. On to your mention of modeling your draft on two other articles, please note that John Scofield is a start-class article and Nir Felder is a stub-class article tagged as having significant problems. Using such articles as models is roughly analogous to copying the work of a C student and a flunking student. Instead, you should model articles on Good articles and Featured articles. Vince Gill is a Good article and Jimi Hendrix is a Featured article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone inserted tags into 2 of my articles, i went to his discussion-site and asked friendly what he didn't find sufficient... he deleted my post and didn't answer. I asked again, why he is so unfriendly, he deleted my post again and didn't answer. I now deleted his tags because it is only his personal opinion - but i'm very frustrated. What is wrong with editors here, if they are unfriendly on purpose??? Why then do they at all "work" in my articles? I find this a very disturbing experience and wished one could do something about the behaviour of this editor. Naomi Hennig (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Hennig, that editor was fully entitled to delete your message without answering it -- but it does seem an odd thing to do. You asked politely enough; surely your question merited at least a laconic response. The editor also made minor improvements to the one article I looked at. (Both articles are easy to find from your list of contributions.) I think that yes, in some ways the article does resemble a résumé. This is not a condemnation of the article or even of some of its sections; I've made first suggestions in Talk:Regine Schumann#Like_a_résumé?. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted the following page for review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sloggatt/sandbox

Originally I Submitted this and they moved it to drafts and then deleted because of lack of citations. I have created this one to only include the cited information from the New York Times as well as readily available Veterans information and have included references. Can someone experienced take a look and move to the main page after review? Sloggatt (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sloggatt (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sloggatt, Sorry to confuse you. I was the editor who reviewed the current page. I don't know who deleted the old one. The page was not deleted, I am not sure what you mean. It was declined, mainly for not showing that Sloggatt met the criteria for biographies. Another requirement is significant coverage, the NYT article alone wouldn't satisfy this. The vet memorial is great but still not enough by itself. His late wife's obituary wouldn't help establish his wiki-notability. I hope that makes it clearer. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sloggatt, no article, draft or other page written by you (as "Sloggatt") has ever been deleted. You seem to have abandoned your creation Draft:Arthur Hastings Sloggatt. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

_{@Hoary, Thank you! Checking the page history it seems they meant it got moved to the draft space. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}[reply]

I want to request a scope change for List of lakes to make it into List of lakes by country. This is because a Lists of lakes already exists, it is much more comprehensive than this list and this list doesn't really offer anything. Easternsahara (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I've started to use vector 2022 and clicked the hid on the appearance bar(this one). How do I get it back? OwlLemons (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]