Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

Jayanthi Kumaresh

Hello,

I am trying to understand what about the content on this page (Jayanthi Kumaresh) appears promotional. It earlier was indeed so (unintentionally) and has hence been edited to present a more neurtral tone and amply supported by citations. The tagger has indicated that there is still lots of puffery. Will anyone kindly help me review and edit the article to adhere to the wiki standards. Thank you.

Shyamala. Shyamalswiki (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Phrases such as represent India’s Musical Heritage and promote Indian classical music; rigorous Veena training; renowned violinist; excelled in sparkling glee; gave a sold-out concert at Sydney Opera House all come across as promotional. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

“excelled in sparkling glee" is a quote from a review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but a cherry-picked quote. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There are about 150 or so links where I do a google search and I am trying to figure out how to make an article about the subject using content from those sources. So, should I just be quoting lines from each of the articles - I thought, we could make factual statements and then give citations supporting it. Can you kindly pick one line out of the article and show me a rewritten version as a sample so I can understand what is wrong ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I have removed some of the content you pointed out as appearing promotional. Kindly review. If it appears ok, what would be the next step to get the promotional tag removed ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Also can you explain what in the name of the wikipedia is this? Darbar.org says she was one of the youngest veena artist to receive A-Top grading from All India Rad. Wh67890 (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It is basically quoting a line from the website darbar.org .. Is there a better way of saying this ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Ask yourself if this is how we write informations in Wikipedia or is this way any Encyclopedia is written, the way you replied it without acknowledging the error, I think you need a course on how to write articles. Wh67890 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Kindly do not be offended. I am here in the teahouse to learn and seek the advice of experts like you. I am asking, I am unable to understand what the error is, what is a better way of saying this ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Since you are commited to do it, why dont you try WP:RS, WP:Notability, WP:Article and WP:Verifiability. These are like constitution here in Wikipedia, reading them will help you getting familiarised with the idea of editing Wikipedia. Wh67890 (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I went through notability already and made a few edits based on that. I will go through the other links you have provided. Thank you for your time and effort. Shyamalswiki (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Just for asking: Are you connected to the subject somehow? Wh67890 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I am a fan of her music and while looking for something found that her page was really old. So, I am trying to put my best foot forward and get it up to date. Shyamalswiki (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Veena Artist I think not notable Santalipedia (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Also She is one of the youngest veena player with A-Top grading[cite the source for your claim] is only best version I can advise to you. Also Read some other article that share similarities with you but are in A-class or B-class phase, it will also help you to understand how to write a better encyclopedia.Wh67890 (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I have made a similar edit and a citation was already there. Thank you for the pointer and suggestion. If you find any other sections with scope for improvement, kindly let me know. Shyamalswiki (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

What is A-class / B-class, how can I find such articles ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

this might be confusing: A class and B class articles that are neatly written, but not the best standard articles like featured or GAs. These articles follow almost all the rules and criteria that in Wikipedia needs; such as but not limited to, citing, reliability, notability, expansion et cetra. You cannot find them but it is shown, what class that article is of, in the top of the artile just below the title but only if you have enabled this in you gadgets menu.

these are some of the articles related to musics and BLP in your country (india) with A and B class criteria:

1. [Ravi Shankar] actually a good article.

2. [Raga] Wh67890 (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I saw some of your pointers in the article and I have gone back and added more citations that I could find. I have more content to add but would like to wait until the current content is in the clear and we can remove the promo tag. In the mean time, I saw some of the citations got added with an auto tag and now some are being repeated. How can I fix this and prevent it from re occurring ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Do not wait to make an article better. Promo tag will automatically be removed by one of us if you refine your article.

I will not be here since i am busy. So here are some advice. Expand it, improve lede section so that reader understand the spot just liWikof success. ipedia is not just awards collection. Read WP:What Wikipedia is not.You don't need to verify everything but you need to verify sentences that makes claims. Wh67890 (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Understand the subject not just list of awards. Sorry my keyboard got jammed.

Wh67890 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much again for the invaluable advice. what did u mean "lede section" ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Lede section is the first section you see in article, such as in your case, it is the whole section just above early life and education. Wh67890 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Lede section summa rise most important things that you see in the article . And sometime, with care, you can add extra information but make sure lede section is just summarise it. Wh67890 (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:Lede section Wh67890 (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

If the lead section looks ok now, can we remove that warning from the article ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you kindly elaborate what you mean by "not notable" Shyamalswiki (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Some of the sections are marked as citation needed - “A Thousand Stars”.^{[citation needed]} Jayanthi Kumaresh has also released several albums with multiple themes and presentations. - Is it ok to include the you tube link as citation ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

No youtube links are not used in Wikipedia, don't use them. Wh67890 (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The other links that show up are also similar - apple music, shazam, spotify etc. What is a way to add a citation here then ? Shyamalswiki (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

uhm. Since we don't allow these sites because they are not "WP: Primary source. Only options are:

1. Published articles from music magazines (e.g. Rolling Stone), reputable websites (Billboard), or industry databases (Discogs).

2. Record label or artist official press releases, album booklets, or liner notes.

3. Interviews, reliable news coverage, or historical archives.

Make sure they are not biased and promotional everything else is good. Wh67890 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Wh67890 is not quite correct here – a YouTube video can be perfectly fine as a source, for instance a news report published by a reliable news organisation, a lecture by an acknowledged expert published by a major university, or a documentary produced and published by a reputable publisher. It is all about who has published the video – and to be clear, the absolute majority of everything published through YouTube is not going to be useable as a source, but it's not true that YT is never used. Now, if you were thinking about using YouTube videos of Jayanthi Kumaresh's performances to support statements in the article, that is not ideal since such a video is a primary source, and Wikipedia really prefers secondary sources in most situations. Note also that a link to a YT video can never be used to support a claim about how many views or follows or likes the video has. As for Apple Music, Spotify, Shazam, and similar, those are primary sources, and not useful for Wikipedia's purposes since they only show that a song or an album exists; in addition, links to streaming services or websites that sell products should always be avoided because Wikipedia doesn't want to send its readers off to commercial websites. Hope this makes sense. --bonadea contributions talk 18:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

thanks for noting the mistake. Actually yes you can use Youtube in certain cases but its very rare and only if no other sources (secondary sources) are available. For example Shyamalswiki can use this link [] to cite directly one about her (subject's) channel OR her (subject's) piece of music, only for proving the existence through official sources, such as in this case the link leaves to her official Youtube account. Link however can be used like this “X, Interview with Artist Y,” YouTube, timestamp 3:45, Official Channel, Published Jan 2023." is appropriate. Also you can not use any unofficial Youtube channel even if it includes her (e.g. fan, promotional et cetra). But this is done carefully, thanks again. Wh67890 (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for offering more clarity Bonadea and Wh67890. I will then proceed to use her channel link when mentioning her albums. I have also expanded on the lead section and hopefully am getting better at writing it. Any feedback for improvement is highly appreciated. Shyamalswiki (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a remainder, please if you can find, use some secondary sources too , just for sake of reliability. It will take more pain but it will worth it. Wh67890 (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I see your comment regarding this line "unique blend of music, animation " .. that was directly taken from this article's subtitle https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/music/veena-exponent-jayanthi-kumaresh-wins-over-young-listeners-with-her-new-live-show/article69601036.ece

Why do you say that it has to be removed ? What other places do you see in the article that seem promotional? Shyamalswiki (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I have added more expanded content to the sections mentioned and also added more details and citations. Appreciate any feedback for improvement. thanks Shyamalswiki (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Title change on a article

i found a article going by the name "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around does it make any sound" and i found the name to be too long and complicated and that it would likely reduce the performance of the article and wouldnt help if people are searching the topic under a different name or a likely suitable title. Are titles like these ok and are encyclopedic or a title change is in order for this article Narventer (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Narventer Per Talk:If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest_and_no_one_is_around_to_hear_it,_does_it_make_a_sound?#Requested_move_7_April_2024 it seems to be the current consensus. Consensus can change. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

There are several redirects from shorter titles. It's a famous thought experiment I may have heard dozens of times and it doesn't have a short name so the title seems appropriate to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

What does "reduce the performance of the article" mean? Longer loading time for the article? I really doubt that is a problem. --bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

i meant to say that people wouldnt be able to find the article beacuse of its twisted name and hence reduces the performance or the efficiency of the article to be on search results Narventer (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

That is why we use redirects, such as If a tree falls in a forest.

Also, a Google search for "If a tree falls in a forest" (with or without quotes) finds the article as the first result. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

alright makes sense

quick question tho does this nominate for the longest article name or something Narventer (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere near; try Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

i havnt been on this website enough Narventer (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I've seen talkpage headings in much the same style. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

how to get article locked my client wants their article locked from edits

my client Gameloft wants their wikipedia article locked from edits anyone know how to get it locked 2601:19E:4381:A500:2415:82BF:97A7:ECA9 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:BOSS. An article shouldn't - and likely wont - be edited or changed because of the wishes of the subject or an editor paid by the subject, and such a paid relationship must be disclosed. If there is a legitimate reason that the article should be locked from edits, such as frequent vandalism, then the articles talk page is probably the best place to request that. Others could probably help you more with making that request. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Gameloft. IP user, in addition to WP:BOSS that TheDowningStreetCat links to above, you should ask your client to read this policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Articles are protected ("locked") to protect the encyclopedia from disruption, and one common type of disruption is that somebody wants to make sure that the article about them contains no criticism, or that it is written in a very positive tone. That is not Wikipedia's purpose, and if this article were to be "locked" it would be to protect it from inappropriate edits such as this one. --bonadea contributions talk 10:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I note that you recently edited the article. As they are your client, you are required to abide by our WP:PAID policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

If your client wants "their" article (it's Wikipedia's article about them) locked, they've misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia.. Thank you for the warning. Maproom (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

So, could somebody do this split which will honestly be very messy?

Please see this for more context

The articles on chinese firefighting are an absolute mess and have made the entire situation very confusing. In fact, the national fire and rescue administration article was originally meant to be for the China Fire and Rescue(the firefighting force, bit like how the US navy is under the department of the navy), but somehow ended up being about the post-2023 agency instead, ironically making the article older than the agency.

For whatever reason, whoever decided to change the topic of the original article moved it instead of splitting it, causing the horrible situation now where the NFRA article is somehow about both the NRFA and China Fire and Rescue.

Those are very very different things, and should be split; could somebody please do it for me as it likely could be very messy.(If you know Chinese, read the chinese articles, they have managed it pretty well)

Additionally, articles on the ministry of emergency management fire and rescue bureau and ministry of emergency management forest fire bureau should also be made. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"National Fire and Rescue Administration" is certainly a misleading title. Maproom (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

NFRA is the agency, not the firefighting force. A split would certainly be needed. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Quoting two speakers as if they were one

Does Wikipedia have a policy about quoting two speakers as if they were one?

The Shooting Brake entry has this quote:

A body style with "a very interesting profile. It makes use of the road space it covers a little better than a normal coupé, and also helps the rear person with headroom. ... The occasional use of the rear seat means you can do one of these cars, even if such a wagon lacks the everyday practicality of four doors."

This makes it sound like it's quoting one person.

But the original looks like this. I've boldfaced the parts that were quoted in the Wikipedia article:

It is not your basic two-door hatchback, a body style with different proportions: the hatchback tends to be squatty, while a shooting brake is sleek and has “a very interesting profile,” in the words of Peter Horbury, executive director of design for North America for the Ford Motor Company.

“It makes use of the road space it covers a little better than a normal coupe, and also helps the rear person with headroom,” Mr. Horbury added. “Especially in America, every member of the family has their own car. The occasional use of the rear seat means you can do one of these cars,” even if such a wagon lacks the everyday practicality of four doors.

Most of the Wikepedia quote is from Peter Horbury, but the last part, "even if such a wagon lacks the everyday practicality of four doors." appears to be an addition by the original article's author, Willian Diem of the New York Times.

Should a Wikipedia quote make that distinction, or does it not matter on the prinicle that it is all a quote from that NYT article? Greg Lovern (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Greg Lovern: Wikipedia should not attribute to the NYT (a reliable source) statements made by Mr. Horbury (who he?). Maproom (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Greg Lovern, you're right to be wary of any simplification that obscures the distinction between what person A writes (by themselves) and what person A writes (quoting person B). And it's understandable that you're a little rattled by Mr.choppers' reversion (polite though it was) of your informatively summarized edit (see the history). I haven't looked at the NYT article, and I'll assume that your quotation of it above is correct. It's not obvious to me that

"[...] The occasional use of the rear seat means you can do one of these cars," even if such a wagon lacks the everyday practicality of four doors.

distinguishes between what Horbury says and what Diem says. Mightn't it instead distinguish between what Horbury says (quoted directly) and what Horbury says (quoted indirectly)? However, before puzzling over this, let's pause for a moment. Whether or not it's mangled, the item "It is not your basic two-door hatchback [...] executive director of design for North America for the Ford Motor Company" is presented in the WP article as an ingredient of the/a definition of shooting brake. However, it doesn't look to me like a definition, or even an ingredient of a definition. I'd cut it (and very likely also cut more besides, though I haven't checked). -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I just now read the article, and I would argue that this sounds like Diem paraphrasing Horbury. But that's not 100% certain and I agree with Greg above that the quote is a touch problematic.

Moreover, what is certain is that the quote is included in a list of descriptions of a shooting brake - but to me it sounds more like Horbury expanding on the agreed on definition, its purpose and design and so on. After having read the article I think including it as a "different definition" is somewhat specious and only serves to muddy the waters. The same article also contains the words The shooting brake, however, is a luxury coupe with a squared-off back which is a much more relevant quote.

I would also like to add that Diem makes a misleading statement when he says that the German word for station wagon is "touring or variant"; those are merely BMW's and VW's marketing terms for their wagons, which are called Kombi in German.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Castlevania and Castlevania: Nocturne

In the list of vampire television series there are errors and omissions in Castlevania.

The original Anime Castlevania had 4 seasons, not 3, and 32 episodes.

Castlevania: Nocturne is not even listed and began in 2023 and the second season began in 2025 with a total of 16 episodes.

I can't edit because I'm not a coder.

Could someone please correct.

Thank you.

Debra Normand Dnormand (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Dnormand. You can edit it yourself - there certainly shouldn't be any coding involved. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

If what you're worried about is wikitext markup, then you can also switch to the visual editor, which looks more like a regular word processor. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Admin age

Do administrators on Wikipedia have to be 18 years old? What do they typically have? Super Salty (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Super Salty there isn't a minimum age requirement to become an administrator. It is far more important to have extensive experience in many areas of Wikipedia editing and maintenance. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Because of the amount of experience required, I think it follows that admins would have to be at least four or five. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 03:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Four or five years on wikipedia, I assume. I don't recommend infantile administrators. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

"Infantile" would be a pleasant upgrade from the things some admins routinely get called. DMacks (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

While we have had admins in the past who were under 18, in many cases we do not know, have no way of knowing, and no need to know, an individual's age. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, admins don't have to give any personal information like name, age or nationality. If they had to give enough information for somebody to examine an age claim then many good candidates might refrain because identifying information could be leaked. See e.g. List of people imprisoned for editing Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Anything is possible Cwater1 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Btw I’m on an alt account so I don’t give away my age on my main one. Super Salty (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Submitting a fresh page

Hello. I have edited pages, and my edits have been accepted. I have now created a new page, following all of Wiki's guidelines. It is in my SANDBOX, and has been, for over a week. Wiki has accepted the formatting.

I'm not sure if there is something further I should do to get it uploaded. Overlawed (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Overlawed Hello and welcome. I have moved your draft to Draft space; it's okay to use your sandbox, but it's better to have drafts in draft space. In the future you can use the Article Wizard to create a draft. The draft is now at Draft:Prabha Sridevan.

I added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft for review, but before you do, I would format the references so that they are not bare urls- please see referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Overlawed, three points. (i) I quote: "We have dealt with this in detail only because we are of the opinion that...." Who are here referring to themselves as "we"? (ii) Is "husband's income � wife's income" perhaps supposed to read "husband's income ÷ wife's income"? (iii) Put references immediately after periods, commas, etc (and not immediately before them). -- Hoary (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Declined article regarding muffler nuisance laws in the Philippines

My article regarding muffler nuisance laws in the Philippines was declined due to unreliable sources. I am referring to actual laws and pending legislation in my article. Can someone help me point out why this article was declined, thanks! Dhogberg1 (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Draft:Muffler_noise_regulations_in_the_Philippines Dhogberg1 (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dhogberg1 I see you've chosen to perform one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, writing a successful article, as your first goal. This generally isn't advisable, as you really need to have some level of experience with Wikipedia's policies to be successful. It's advisable to perform some tasks first, as these will provide you with some easier things to do so you can get more experience before making your first article.

As for the article itself, the issue is more that there aren't any references. Wikipedia articles require sources that are WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY and which primarily focus on the topic at hand for an article to be published. These are core principles of article creation. The article you drafted has no citations, it uses external links presumably to the regulations themselves. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This is noted. So if a reference to a senate bill posted on a government website is not sufficient? Are the government websites in themselves sufficient? How do I prove that these are the applicable laws? 143.44.145.171 (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You're missing the point- (and remember to log in) you need to summarize what independent reliable sources say about these laws, not what the government says about them. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so I will need to find reliable sources confirming that the laws issued by the Philippine government are actuel laws issued by the Philippine government and not made up on governmental (.gov) websites? I understand that verification is crucial but the reason I am doing this is because of the lack of information presented to the public regarding actual laws regulating the use of loud mufflers. As a result, 99% of the delivery riders believe they are allowed to modify their motorbikes and make them noisier, when this is in fact illegal. As a result many residential communities are suffering from constant nuisance day and night with very limited tools to fight back, despite the fact that this behaviour is regulated by law. Dhogberg1 (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Dhogberg1. Independent sources that confirm that these are actual laws, are probably not going to cut it. Notability must generally be based on sources that meet all three of the criteria in golden rule: that they are reliable, that they are independent/secondary, and that they contain significant coverage of the subject.

You would need several reliable independent sources that talk about' the laws and bills. That discuss the arguments for or against, or the process by which they have been arrived at, or how they are being taken through the legislature.

If you have a reliable source saying that there are many drivers breaking the laws, it might be appropriate to discuss this in the article.

There are two things that you need to beware of, however:

1. You must summarise what individual sources say. You many not add any sort of argumentation or conclusion, even comparing two different sources (you could say that source 1 says X and source 2 says Y, but should not discuss that difference or recommend one of the views over the other). Putting any argument, discussion, or conclusion that is not found in one reliable source would be original research, which is forbidden in a Wikipedia article.
2. Make sure that you are not trying to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed when linking to another page or article on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia articles primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic, and you are just summarizing what primary sources(the Filipino government) say about this topic. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all of your input @Rambley, @CommissarDoggo‬‬, @331dot and @ColinFine‬. I am starting to realize the very basics of how this site works and completely agree with it. The articles are meant to provide verified facts, unbiased but true, as opposed to someone's opinion backed up by selected facts from a particular angle. With that said I will continue my research in order to improve my work before attempting to publish this article again. Dhogberg1 (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dhogberg1 And even if you succeed in getting a Wikipedia article, it won't stop the 99% of delivery riders who illegally modify their motorbikes and make them noisier. That will take a different approach. Blackballnz (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

So far, I’ve been doing the groundwork myself, handing out leaflets, talking directly to riders, and attending meetings with LGUs (local government units), law enforcement, and the police, but progress is slow. Even among "educated" individuals, including some police officers, there’s a surprising lack of awareness about the relevant legislation. As for the riders (mostly young males), they simply don't care. Laws, rules, and regulations don’t interest them. Their behavior seems to be shaped more by habit and culture than by any respect for public order. The noise they create, regardless of the time of day or night, doesn’t seem to matter to them, and not to those tasked with enforcing the law. What does seem to matter is that their 100cc mopeds sound like spitfires, roaring through residential streets as if that’s somehow a point of pride, never mind the families they disturb in the process! Having said that, many of the residents here in my village, local and foreign, appreciate my efforts and would like to see a change just like me. I mean, the laws are already there, we have the enforcers as well (guarded checkpoints at every entry/exit) so we simply need to get them to enforce these laws consistently. Every rider we educate and/or prevent from entering our village is a win. Do you have any other good ideas on how to tackle this problem? Dhogberg1 (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Trust me, it’s incredibly frustrating to have motorbikes roaring past your home, generating 75-95 decibels in a purely residential area where the legal limit is 55 dB. What makes it worse is that most of these bikes are clearly fitted with visible aftermarket exhausts (easy for anyone to identify) yet they’re still allowed to pass through guarded checkpoints 40-50 times a day, even during the night! The more accurate information I can share to support and highlight both local and national laws, the better. This issue ultimately comes down to one thing, enforcing the laws that already exist! Dhogberg1 (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

eBay as a source for a signature?

The commons file for the signature of Swae Lee is sourced from an eBay listing for a signed copy of a record - I'm not familiar with the source guidelines for Wikimedia Commons but this feels rather unsubstantial. Have checked WP:RSPS but it isn't listed, so just seeking some advice here. Thanks! Epsilon.Prota ^talk 13:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Epsilon:Prota.

(I have replaced your URL by a Wikilink to commons).

I agree that that does not seem a reliable source to me. We don't normally accept sales sites as reliable anyway, but there's nothing to prove that it was Lee that signed that album. ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 09:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Unable to get approval

Hello, I am trying to publish about Siva Kandula, but why getting rejection always?

Draft:Siva Teja Reddy Kandula

Could you please help me? Sivateja16 (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Sivateja16 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you took a picture of Mr. Kandula, what is your connection with him? Is he your boss?

You have almost no sources in the draft; a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person, showing how they are a notable person. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I see on your user talk page that you say you have known Mr. Kandula for many years; I would suggest that you disclose this as a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User apparently requested deletion of their draft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

How to remove a citation

How to remove a citation which refers to a primary source of information Aita04 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Aita04, I wonder why you would want to? A secondary source which specifies its own primary sources seems an excellent thing to cite. Can you give details? Maproom (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

How can we help you if we don't know about which article are you talking ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I have a question

If it were to be translated into English, would the Cantonese Wikipedia article for Jack Massey Welsh be a good Wikipedia article based on the text and sources? I'm asking this question because I know about the "beef" that the Wikipedia community has with any mention of Jack Massey Welsh on Wikipedia, considering that even the draft pages for Jack Massey Welsh and JackSucksAtLife (though not Draft:JackSucksatLife) (Welsh's main YouTube channel) are salted. Seeing then that the Cantonese Wikipedia has an article for Welsh made me curious whether there is a chance for Jack to finally have his own article on the English Wikipedia. Could someone please read through that article and check the sources? I really want to know. Crocusfleur (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Crocusfleur: We don't have a "beef" with him as such; the issue is his fans pretty much spammed us with badly-written and fatally-undersourced biographies, which left us little choice but to salt/protect any page they were editing. Given that most of us here on the Help Desk can't read Chinese, I would suggest editing the JackSucksatLife draft to try and bring it up to par; a good draft that can pass the AfC process is in itself a reason to lift the salting. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I should then perhaps try to contact some of the users in Category:User yue, to get the required competence for the answer to my question. Although, I would just like to remind anyone who may want to take on my task but doesn't speak Cantonese: You can of course put the article through Google Translate, and reading the sources won't be an issue, since all sources except a single Russian one are in English. I should probably contact someone in Category:User ru to read that source. Crocusfleur (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The problem with that is that most East Asian languages, Chinese included, tend to be heavily context-dependent, and running it thru automated tools (such as Google Translate) results in a "blind idiot" translation that either makes little sense or says the complete opposite of what is actually being implied in the text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If he isn't notable enough to get onto the notable people list at Bishop Auckland then he's pretty non-notable. The bar isn't very high at BA. - Roxy the dog 17:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, he has no connection to southern China/Hong Kong/Macau, but it seems he is notable enough to have his own article in Cantonese. Also, maybe the reason for him being not notable enough to get on the notable people list at Bishop Auckland is that he doesn't have his own Wikipedia article, and the reason for that is that every attempted article written about him thus far has been very poorly sourced. This is why I brought this up, since I was curious whether the Cantonese Wikipedia article about him is good enough to be translated into English. I wrote this here in hopes that anyone who speaks Cantonese, English or Russian would check the article and its sources to see whether said article can warrant being translated into English Crocusfleur (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If somebody has an article in en:Wikipedia, Crocusfleur, then this doesn't mean that the article demonstrates sufficient notability for it to exist. Perhaps the article fails to do so but is only read by employees/relatives/fans; perhaps its failure has only been noticed by people lacking the time and/or effort to do anything about this. The existence of the en:Wikipedia article certainly doesn't mean that if expertly translated into language xyz it would satisfy the requirements for xyz:Wikipedia. I can't think why articles in yue:Wikipedia would be free of analogous problems. To be fair, it's been seven years since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Massey Welsh and seven years is enough for many people to acquire (Wikipedia-defined) notability; also, the most recently deleted version of the article reads as if written by a very young editor, innocent of the requirements for Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Once you've digested it, here, in this thread, please provide links to three of the best sources about Welsh. Probably someone will then comment on their adequacy. (Not me, because I know very little about criteria for notability of Youtube "personalities".) -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Of course @Hoary. I understand. Notability on Wikipedia and notability outside of Wikipedia are two very different things. If someone has 4.62 million subscribers on their YouTube channel, then they can easily be seen as notable outside of Wikipedia. But per WP:YN, that won't fly on Wikipedia. No matter how many subscribers/views someone has, they won't count as notable on Wikipedia unless they have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (as you said). My argument was simply "enough people from around the world care about him to attempt to write an article about him in their Wikipedia (in this case, Cantonese)." This means that he is a topic that could warrant revisiting (even if all previous attempts to write an article about him have failed), since many people would love to read a Wikipedia article about him. Also, if there was a good, well-sourced Wikipedia article about Jack Massey Welsh, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be included in the notable people segment of the Bishop Auckland article. Crocusfleur (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on declined draft: Zack Zook

Hello Teahouse editors,

I’m requesting feedback on a recently declined draft for a biography on Zack Zook, an arts administrator, curator, and nonprofit leader based in the U.S. Virgin Islands and formerly Brooklyn, NY. The draft was declined with the note that it lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, but I believe it includes multiple qualifying sources that establish notability.

Most notably, The New York Times published a dedicated article on the closing of BookCourt, the independent bookstore founded by Zook’s family, which includes multiple direct quotes from him and detailed context about his management of the store and its cultural legacy (NYT article link).

Additional independent coverage includes:

• A Publishers Weekly profile focused specifically on Zack Zook and his work at BookCourt, describing him as a “passionate bookseller” with notable industry influence
• A feature in Brooklyn Magazine naming him one of the “100 Most Influential People in Brooklyn Culture”
• Coverage of his nonprofit 81C Arts and its programs in Virgin Islands Daily News, St. Thomas Source, and WTJX (PBS affiliate in the Virgin Islands)
• A live CNN interview with Anderson Cooper following Hurricane Irma, offering broad public visibility and context about Zook’s leadership role in post-storm recovery

I’ve disclosed my conflict of interest as the subject of the article and welcome neutral input or recommendations on improving the draft to meet Wikipedia’s standards.

Draft link: User:Baranauma/sandbox

Thank you sincerely for your time and consideration. Baranauma (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Of all the sources in the article, which three meet all of the criteria listed at WP:42? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Baranauma, the sources you list above are not well chosen. The first is based on what Zook said, and so is not independent. The second uses the word "passionate", which will trigger many editors' bullshit detectors. Maproom (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

There are a problem with at least three sources. I think that my message would be sufficient to explain the problems.

If necessary , I can continue if you ask.

"* A feature in Brooklyn Magazine naming him one of the “100 Most Influential People in Brooklyn Culture”"

Do you understand that this magazine is a local magazine ? It's maybe a "reliable source" but I don't think that this is an evidence of a "significant coverage".

"* Coverage of his nonprofit 81C Arts and its programs in Virgin Islands Daily News, St. Thomas Source, and WTJX (PBS affiliate in the Virgin Islands)"

This is not centred on him. What I read is about "81C Arts" and not him.

"* A live CNN interview with Anderson Cooper following Hurricane Irma, offering broad public visibility and context about Zook’s leadership role in post-storm recovery"

This is an interview. Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks to me as if BookCourt is more likely to be notable than ZZ is, though I haven't spent more than a minute looking into the matter. But meanwhile, Anatole-berthe: "Do you understand that [Brooklyn Magazine] is a local magazine?" Actually Brooklyn Magazine is now merely a website. Yes, it's local -- but do you understand that Brooklyn has a population of circa 2.6 million? Brooklyn is a long way from Podunk. More to the point, "[two/three-digit number] most influential people in [place]" is a reliable if tired space filler in a slow news month. What has the influence been? -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

These information about "Brooklyn Magazine" are interessant. Thanks !

I understand that "Brooklyn" has a population of circa 2,6 millions. The area is approximately 250 km² (96,5255 sq mi).

Also , I understand that this place is one of the "Boroughs of New York City".

The capital of my country is "Paris" and there are circa 2 millions of people living there (The only place of France with at least 1 million of inhabitants).

The area is approximately 100 km² (38,6102 sq mi).

Brooklyn has more inhabitants than Paris and the area is bigger.

I don't think that there are a publication similar to "Brooklyn Magazine" concerning one of the "Arrondissements of Paris" (Similar to Boroughs of NYC).

If this magazine is merely a website. It can be accessed in the whole world. Thanks again for infos about this publication that I didn't knew. Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Adding a reference to article on Thermodynamics

I came to this page because I was unable to cite a reference in the Wikipedia article on Thermodynamics, and I found a link leading me here. In 2020nI wrote an article on the history of thermodynamics, which analyzes many of the original articles from the point of view of a practicing (but now retired) physicist. It contains useful information and would like to cite it in Wikipedia but the references to the Wikipedia article on Thermodynamics have been autoprotected. The article is given below, and is Open Source, and should be easily downloaded as a pdf. Saslow, W.M. (2020).  A History of Thermodynamics: The Missing Manual, Entropy 2020, 22, 77; doi:10.3390/e22010077 www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy WMSwiki (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello WMSwiki, what difficulty are you having exactly? I can see that you made some edits to the article Thermodynamics shortly before asking this question - so I'm struggling to understand what the problem is. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, if you are the WMS in question, then perhaps read WP:SELFCITE before you decide to make the edit. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

First, thank you for responding. Indeed I am trying to self-cite.

The article in question, which cost me a great deal of effort, currently has well over a hundred citations, according to Google Scholar, so I think it should be considered legitimate.

However, the Wikipedia referencing is protected. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermodynamics&action=edit&section=25. I was unable to contact the autoprotect enabler MadScientist, perhaps because I did not root around enough for how to do so, but I am also aware of how easy it is to give unclear instructions. WMSwiki (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

WMSwiki, I took up your invitation to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermodynamics&action=edit&section=25 . What I read there was ==References== {{Reflist|2}}. This didn't surprise me at all. It means: "Add the heading 'References'; and under it (and in two columns), dump all the references that editors have provided above." It's rare for this section to need editing. You need to add each reference immediately after whatever the reference is for. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@WMSwiki: See more at Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Wish to create a new article

I wish to create a new article about a person who influenced the movie theater industry. I have extensive references. Are there people who would want to to do this for me? If not, how should I get started? I am a good writer and understand HTML. Thanks for your suggestions. Bouncy99 / Peter Bouncy99 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Bouncy99, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

The first thing I will say is that it is unlikely that somebody will come forward to create an article for you - not impossible, but unlikely. You may request an article at WP:RA, but the take-up there is very small: really your only hope would be to get the intention of somebody who is already interested in that area, so perhaps posting at the talk page of WikiProject Film. But even there I doubt if you are likely to find somebody.

So if you want this article, your best bet is to create it yourself. Unfortunately, a knowledge of HTML is not relevant, and being a "good writer" is only somewhat relevant, as Wikipedia requires different skills from most writing.

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.

One final comment: since you have posted this request here, it is quite likely that somebody will approach you offering to write an article for money. I very strongly advise you not to take them up. Such people are not in any way endorsed by Wikipedia - they are tolerated as long as they comply with our regulations for paid editors - and many of them are scam merchants: see WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative reply and suggestions based on your experience. I am 81-years of age and feel I don't have the patience or "time" to go through this learning experience. The article is about this man my grandfather, whose work needs to be documented -- it had an enormous impact on the movie business in the 'teens and 1920's. I guess that realistically, I need to find someone to help or "partner" with me - either paid or volunteer. I do have extensive references. Thanks again. Bouncy99 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

To add to the response above, while it is heavily discouraged for inexperienced editors to go straight to article creation, it is not entirely impossible, so you can still try. It is best for you to make a draft and submit it to WP:AFC for review. Good luck with your future work. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think your best chance is, as Colinfine suggests, to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, providing several (at least three, but few enough that people there may actually look at them) good references. These should be reliable (not the Daily Mail) independent (not written by him, or his busness associates, or his employer) published sources. This^[1] is an excellent example, no doubt you're already aware of it. Maproom (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I put a response at User_talk:Bouncy99#A_WP-article_about_Sydney_S._Cohen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Biographical data directly from the person?

Dear Friends.

I would like to give Shannon Appelcline a infobox person. I gained biographical information directly from them. However, how do I do so in order to avoid accusations of my own research? Should I just write "Personal correspondence with Shannon Appelcline" inside of ref tags? Or maybe we are doing such things in some other fashion? Is it really allowed?

I would appreciate some advice ;-)

Best wishes

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. To be in an article, information must be found in a reliable source that can be verified, typically an independent source. Primary source information is only acceptable in certain circumstances.

We cannot independently verify your personal correspondence with Shannon Appelcline, nor is it publicly available(i.e. in a library or public database) so it cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Friend.

That kinda sucks, to be honest x_x And yes, I would Google the information myself- with the problem it is not available anywhere online :/

Can I at least upload their photo on Wikimedia Commons (I have an allowance to publish it using Creative Commons license)? Working with just their photo and some basic information would be minimum I could do - not as "fun" and detailed as what I had in mind, but at least I could do something, right?

Best wishes

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If they publish some basic biographical information online (on their own website or social media account), such as when and where they were born, that would be an acceptable source for that information on Wikipedia (WP:ABOUTSELF). jlwoodwa (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If you took the image, or can otherwise show its license is compatible with Wikipedia's, you may indeed upload it, see WP:UPIMAGE. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kaworu1992 Assuming that pic you uploaded is a selfie, the way you did it is not good enough. If you are in contact with him, you can point him to Wikipedia:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If you are acting on behalf of the article subject, or are their friend or colleague, please see WP:COI.

If you did not take the picture, see c:COM:THIRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Rollback and undo

What is pseudo-rollback and normal rollback, and how are they different from one another? --pro-anti-air (talk) --pro-anti-air (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pro-anti-air – The term "pseudo-rollback" may refer to Twinkle/RW/UV's "rollback" or "rollback-like" revert. Essentially, "pseudo-rollback" is a form a rapid reversion that technically uses MediaWiki's undo tool. Any autoconfirmed user can install Twinkle/RW/UV and use "pseudo-rollback". Normal rollback requires the rollback permission to use; it can be requested at WP:PERM/R (but likely requires a substantial anti-vandalism record, perhaps using pseudo-rollback). — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 01:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

But what's the difference? --pro-anti-air (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pro-anti-air – In a nutshell: any autoconfirmed user can use "pseudo-rollback" (with Twinkle/RW/UV), whereas you need the rollback permission in order to use "rollback" or "true rollback". In your case, you can use "pseudo-rollback" as you are autoconfirmed (and extended confirmed at that), whereas you can't use "true rollback" yet as you lack the permission as of the moment. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 01:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

How do I wikilink to a section of an article?

Specifically, "Museum Mile" in Fifth Avenue. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Maurice Magnus. You can create a section link with [[Page name#Section name|displayed text]], see more at WP:ANCHOR. So in your case, you would write in wikitext: [[Fifth avenue#Museum mile|display text here]], and change 'display text here' to be whatever you want the hyperlinked text in the article to say. You can also use the section link template: {{Section link|Page name|Section name}} which formats the link with the § symbol, which is also explained at WP:ANCHOR. Hope this helps. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I used it twice in Manhattan. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Request close

How do I request close on a page move discussion? I looked around but I can't find a forum to find a noninvolved editor to close my move discussion. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The Requested-moves queue keeps track of what is >7 days old (the usual timeframe for RM), and several editors tend to patrol that list. However, there is often a backlog at any given time, so I'm not surprised if things that are ripe for close sometimes do not get handled promptly (especially if they are complex, or there are other complex ones that suck up those editors' time). Which one are you discussing? If it's a straightforward request and clear consensus with reasonable participation in the first week, I can take a look. DMacks (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Histmerge policy guidance

Hi, Teahouse hosts. I recently declined Draft:Philip Anthony Silva on the basis of the subject already having his own article at Phil Silva. However, the article itself on Phil Silva was created on 14 June, whereas the draft itself was created much earlier on 4 June. Comparing the article and the draft at Special:Diff/1295817777/1295821182 yields some content similar, but I'm not too familiar with the policy on HISTMERGEs. Could someone please point out the next step in how to resolve this? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 02:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Such actions require the use of admin tools, so ask at WP:AN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing – Thanks for letting me know. I'm also aware of WP:RFHM. I guess the question here really was: is it suitable to request histmerge (as this probably seems like a case of WP:PHIST)? — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 11:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:AN is the place to ask. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there a tool to search for text in the history of an article?

The Capitalism article used to have a section on Stakeholder Capitalism which lights up a web search. I can't see it for many years. Is there a tool to find the last entry before an edit removed a heading? Or is there some way to generate the revisions for an article such that one could use a script to find text in the history of an article? Or maybe there is such a tool already? Bodysurfinyon (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Bodysurfinyon. It sounds like you're looking for WikiBlame. You can find a link to it on the history page of each article (or other type of page). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bodysurfinyon: When you look at a Wikipedia article history (or talk page history or any non-automatically-generated page history) you will find a list of External tools somewhere above the revisions listing. There is a link 'Find addition/removal' there, which brings you to the WikiBlame page with some fields pre-filled. --CiaPan (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

my early article is rejected help me

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and I recently submitted an article titled "Iran–Israel 2025 conflict". It was declined because the topic is already covered. Can you please help me understand which parts are already available? Also, can you suggest a unique or missing topic I can write about? And lastly, what’s the best way to properly add reliable sources? Thank you! 🙏 Shahmeerhayyat (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Please see Referencing for beginners to learn about referencing.

There is already an article about June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Also know that editing about Israel can have special rules, I will notify you of these on your talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit has been removed repeatedly

About the Population Europe Page.

The page of Population Europe (which is a network of leading Universities and research institutions throughout Europe, hosted by the Max Planck Society as a public institution and funded mainly from the Max Planck Society, the German government and the European Commission) has been heavily outdated (the last entry was in 2013) and therefore needs an update. That is why the whole text was removed and a new one added. I see that the usage of the link to the homepage is truly disproportionate, that can be easily adjusted. Since as a public research organization we have no commercial interest whatsoever in mind, this editing is meant purely for the factual correctness and not advertisement.

I am a student assistant at this organization, so I need to disclose my connection, which I will do in the edit summary or via the {connected contributor}. I apologize for unintentionally missing this before!

As for the inline citations, I will do my best to work more cohesively! Also, there was no intention of adding inappropriate external links, could you point out which one causes a problem?

Is there a possibility to let an edit be checked before uploading it, in order to see errors or insufficiencies before and have the opportunity for adjustment? Since my first attempts at editing have been removed (without further explanation), I would like to be on the safe side in order to not be banned in the future. Thank you for your time,

RikaBieligg (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi RikaBieligg, thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest. In theory, because of your COI, you should submit edit requests to the article's talk-page rather than editing it directly. The only exception would be things that are totally non-contentious. If you do choose to edit the article, I would suggest making lots of small edits so that if anyone disagrees, they can revert (and discuss!) the individual changes, rather than reverting the whole lot. You will need to make sure that everything you write is neutral in tone (don't try to advertise the network), and backed up by sources independent of the network. If you find that the vast majority of what you're writing is sourced to the network's own press-releases, then the information is probably not suitable for Wikipedia. If you make edit requests on the talk page, it is best to say exactly what you want to be included/deleted, with clear sourcing. But having given all these caveats, thank you for updating; it's good to make sure our articles aren't stuck in a time-warp. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Reasons were given in the Edit Summary of the removal, which can be seen on the page's 'View history' tab here: they were in the form of 'rv' for "reverted' followed by links to two Project pages which covered the infractions involved.

See for much more detailed explanations the posts now made on your own Talk page, and note that Wikipedia does not allow Promotion of any subject, regardless of whether it is non-commercial and/or a 'good cause': 'promotion' does not only imply a commercial motivation. Sections of the Project page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause are applicable to your situation.

Hopefully you will first study in detail the various links you have been given about editing on Wikipedia before trying again, which you are welcome to do within our policies and guidelines. I suggest you start again by finding Reliable sources that are independent of your organisation, and adding material summarising only those (difficult for someone with a CoI), one step at a time so disinterested editors can assess each change separately – a wholesale replacement allows only a blanket acceptance or (more likely) reversion, as you have already experienced. I hope this helps! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.137.14 (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

to be fair, RikaBieligg's first big edit was reverted with no explanatory edit-summary; the second big edit was reverted with "unexplained removal of text", so they then did the edit again with a long edit-summary, only to be reverted with some acronym-spaghetti. Ah well, it happens. Communication is hard. Elemimele (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Communication is easy. Persuading people to communicate is hard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Poitín

Poitín

I appreciate the welcoming comment, and apologise for not ensuring 'that alll sources cited are independent of the subject, non-promotional and secondary.

I should be grateful to receive your interpretation, on a suggested replacement narrative below, twhich is endeavouring to fully take into account the above requirements.

Suggested replacement narrative.

'On the 27th of March 2024 poteen history was made following the 27 countries approval in the EU, of Decision 1/2023 of the Joint Committee established by the Withdrawal Agreement, when HMRC then authorised a UK poitin maker to export production to the EU using exclusively Irish distillate over 80% vol. with the Commodity Code commencing No. 2207, subject to guidance in the agreement.

N.B. EU domestic produced poteen product was not authorised.

https://knockeenhillsspirits.com/information/

'On the 27th of March 2024 poteen history was made following the 27 countries approval in the EU, of Decision 1/2023 of the Joint Committee established by the Withdrawal Agreement, HMRC then authorised UK poitin maker Knockeen Hills Spirits Ltd to export poteen to the EU using exclusively Irish distillate over 80% vol. with the Commodity Code commencing No. 2207, subject to guidance in the agreement.

N.B. EU domestic produced poteen product was not authorised.

For authorisation see:-

https://knockeenhillsspirits.com/information/

Thank you. --AlanStibbe (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@AlanStibbe all edits on Wikipedia must comply with being non WP:PROMO which this product placement does not comply with unfortunately. I included some helpful links on your talk page ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Fixing named references in transcluded sections

Working through Category:Pages with duplicate reference names, I came across 2011 Waikato Bay of Plenty Magic season, which uses LST to transclude sections from 2011 ANZ Championship season which details the semi-finals and finals. However, these sections include named references that are not defined within those sections, so when transcluded to the 2011 Waikato Bay page, it throws errors saying that these references are not defined. What would be the optimal way to fix this? In my mind, being able to somehow define the references in the 2011 Waikato Bay page without displaying them so that when the sections are transcluded they can access said references would be the easiest fix. Weirdguyz (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Why did my article get deleted?

Asking Travisscotterfan (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about the rejected Draft:Julian Tran? That is an unsourced piece of text while according to WP:BLP all biographies of living persons must be sourced with reliable, independent sources. The Banner talk 12:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

To add to this, your draft did not actually get deleted. It is still there, as linked above. GoldRomean (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Should the "draft" be moved into a sandbox since it's completely made up? --Onorem (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yikes. If it's a hoax, it can probably be nominated for deletion (G3). GoldRomean (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Its not a hoax, just don't have any sources right now. Julian Tran isn't really listed anywhere, I don't even know why. Travisscotterfan (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

If there's no sources anywhere, then it can't be on here. If you don't have sources, don't try writing the article.

"Notable" means "enough sources exist". DS (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

In-depth coverage

What is in-depth coverage? Priotyleft123 (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Priotyleft123 Welcome to the Teahouse. There's no firm definition but WP:SIGCOV, which is part of an important guideline says addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Usually, this would be several full paragraphs. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, you mean big coverage? Priotyleft123 (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

No, not really, a list of episodes of a long running TV show might be "big" in terms of size but wouldn't be considered in-debth. Think looking at something closely, in detail, at multiple angles, a sign that someone has thought hard about it rather than just acknowledged its existence. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Why Did My Draft get rejected

So my Draft that being Draft:Nathan Sage 1 was Rejected, The reasoning is that I I didn't have enough routine in my article, So How many Articles do I need in order for it to be routine enough for it to be accepted? Fad8229 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fad8229: You completely misread the comments by the reviewers. The issue is that all you have is coverage related to his campaign. You need to prove his notability with sources that cover anything EXCEPT his political campaign. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what they're saying, Just add more to the page other than his political Campaign, I see that though and now I will add to it. Fad8229 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

But make sure that all, or nearly all, that you add, is cited to sources completely unconnected with Sage, @Fad8229.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I already have sources that have no connection with Sage. But maybe I'm missing something. Fad8229 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Fad8229. Those sources I have looked at (I haven't looked at all of thenm) all seem to be largely quoting what Sage says - they contain very little independent material. Please read the third sentence of my reply above. ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Welp Guess I'm going to have to delete the draft. Fad8229 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to deal with it anymore. Fad8229 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Other issues notwithstanding, it's not good to start the biography of a living person with "Nathan Sage was..."; It sounds like he's dead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yep, fixing that. Also what other issue so that I can fix. Fad8229 (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Help with AfC

Hi! My recent AfC submission (Draft: Kevin Donahue) was declined for lack of notability. I made some updates, including the addition of two citations that I believe help meet the notability standards - one of which is a profile piece by Washington Post. Before I resubmit, I was wondering if someone could provide input on if you think this works/meet the expectations? I don't want to resubmit and risk deletion if it still does not work! Thank you! Presleyconnor (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Deletion is highly unlikely. The purpose of submitting for review is to get the kind of feedback you are requesting. Please do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

School logo upload help

So recently, I had to take my high school's logo down from Wikimedia Commons because I wasn't sure about the copyright status. From there, I uploaded it to Wikipedia instead under a low quality, non-free fair use license for now until I get further permission. I filled out all the rationale parameters and was just wondering if I did so correctly. But the only source I have is the logo on a wall at my school, so I hope that suffices. In the meantime, I will ask permission from a school official because I still want the high quality version uploaded and readily available.

Here's the file: File:Springdale Jr-Sr High School PA Logo Transparent.PNG

Thanks, Cv822 (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cv822: You're largely wasting your time unless you point the school at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. Wikipedia is the one who would need the permission, and we emphatically will not seek it as it flies in the face of our goal of a free-content encyclopaedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The school may not want to make its logo available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution; this could mean theoretically that someone could, for example, print it on clothing and sell the clothing, and the school would not be entitled to money from the sale of its own logo. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a very good point but recently I went to a community street fair and there were people selling clothes like shirts, pants, and hats with the school logo (a different variant of it that can be found on Maxpreps) and I don't think they were a part of the school. One woman was my friend's mom. Cv822 (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

These other people you speak of either had permission to use it, or they didn't and are open to legal action from the school.(I don't know which) Certainly the use of its logo is up to the school, though. The person who gives permission needs to have the authority to do so(it might not even be the principal, maybe the school board). 331dot (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cv822: Doesn't stop the school from allowing them to do that. The difference between selling school merchandise and putting the school logo on Wikipedia is that the people selling school merchandise are not hosting the school logo on their servers for anyone to see and potentially use; Wikipedia is and we're not going to seek permission for it beyond our more restrictive interpretation of fair use/fair dealing laws. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Help for completing a BLP

I recently made an article David Lamb, possibly a British philosopher, and strangely enough there was not a single source for completing their BLP, such as the birth date, almost no CV information, except mention of University of Manchester, in publications. (not to be confused with , their namesake). Given the number of reviews, possibly passing C#1 per NACADEMIC, the article's worth expanding, but there was no other sources online. So any suggestions for finding more sources (If any) is most appreciated. Xpander (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Xpander1, personal details such as date of birth are generally unimportant in BLP articles, and might cause issues with WP:BLPPRIVACY. I think the best way to expand the article would be to describe his works and what the reviewers thought of them. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Helpful Raccoon, Birth dates help to distinguish between namesakes, either in wikidata or in other sources, just to clear out who we're talking about. as in this case, there are quite a few namesakes in the same field. Plus CV information such as education, dissertations, list of publications helps to orient the article as a whole. Xpander (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Colouring "Does Not Exist" topics red?

Links to topics that do not exist seem to be coloured green when surely they should be coloured red.

See Draft:Great Toilet Battle ----MountVic127 (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @MountVic127. That link looks red for me, as expected (WP:REDLINK). Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

That link is also red for me, MountVic127. Most likely, the problem is with your settings or your browser, as opposed to Wikipedia itself. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Funny, gotchaইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Is Cain Culto “notable” enough to write an article on?

Hi. I’m wondering if the musical artist Cain Culto is notable enough, per Wikipedia’s standards, to have an article written about them? It seems to me that they are notable enough, based on this short article, but I’m not sure if that’s enough to justify a Wikipedia page. YaMighta (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

He might be notable in the future, but I suggest that one link is not enough at this time. Bduke (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there any extra steps needed for this split

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Articles on Chinese firefighting are awfully inadequate and confusing for full context

So, I plan to split the National Fire and Rescue Administration(post-2023 agency in currently in charge of the force) article into a seperate one about the China Fire and Rescue(the post-2018 firefighting force; bit of a Ministry of public security - People's Police or Department of the Navy- US Navy situation). However, China Fire and Rescue is already a redirect to the NFRA for some reason, so may I ask if there are any extra steps in regards to splits where the destination is already a redirect?(better yet, could somebody do the split for me?) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

A suggestion for the 0-4-0 article

On the article about the 0-4-0 wheel arrangement, I noticed Iceland wasn’t included. Iceland doesn’t have railways, but there used to be one within the capital city of Reykjavik. The Reykjavik Harbor Railway was a narrow gauge railway that was constructed in 1913. It had two 2ft gauge 0-4-0 tank engines built in the 1890’s by the German company Arnold Jung Lokomotivfabrik. These two engines were known as Minør and Pioner. The two engines were used to haul goods along the harbor, such as coal, minerals, and other material. Both engines are preserved today. Should we incorporate Iceland into that article?

For more info on the Reykjavik Harbor Railway, see Rail transport in Iceland 199.192.122.199 (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like it's the sort of addition that might be useful for the article, ideally with sourcing explaining what you've written. At the very least, you could add it in a WP:SEEALSO section as an interim measure. CMD (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Believe me, this is actual info. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It's unlikely any content will be added without a source. See WP:V. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

File: 090625 Minoer.JPG

This is what Minør looks like.

File: RHR-Pioner.JPG

and this is what Pioner looks like. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, Tarlby, I’ve noticed you have commented on my talk page. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Be bold ????

Hello, I read that Wikipedia says be bold and move pages if needed. But when I try to move, someone reverts it back. And when I open a move request (RM), no one is replying. Then what is the point of be bold if moves are not allowed or always undone? Should I move pages or not? I'm a bit confused.ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@ইমরান ভূইয়া: the guidance is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You boldly moved the page, another reverted. Discussion is the correct response; can you show where you have tried to discuss things? I was not immediately able to find it.

Additionally, you have moved a lot of pages. Please slow down a bit. Also remember that an official name is not necessarily what a Wikipedia article should be named; the WP:common name should be used instead. MKFI (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@ইমরান ভূইয়া, remember to be bold, but not reckless. It is definitely recommended that you contribute where possible, try to do so at a reasonable pace. Moving a page is also a more significant page than many edits, and should be done with special care. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Cricket

Does anyone here know where I can discuss or ask for changes regarding articles about cricket? There are no responses on the Wikiproject Cricket Discussion page.ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Confict of Interest

When I edit articles about films, one editor keeps asking me, "What is your connection to those films?" Why is that? Is it not possible for one editor who is passionate about movies to also be passionate about sports?ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You asked "Why?" at User_talk:ইমরান_ভূইয়া#The_RajaSaab and had a reply. In general, people will sometimes ask this because because WP:COI-editing is a problem on this website. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Check this out as well. User_talk:ইমরান_ভূইয়া#Conflict of interest

Only for Cricket Experts

Nickname in infoboxes

Why are there so many media-related nicknames in cricketers' infoboxes, and why is King Prince Boom Boom Afridi included? Famous footballers do not have nicknames in their page infoboxes. I am not against the stokesy things in Ben Stokes' article, but it should not have been either. (IMO)ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Online abuse in sport

I was quite shocked by this article this morning and tried to find a WP article in which this sort of thing is discussed, but failed to. I know it goes on, but the extent to which it happens, and the connection to gambling, was something that surprised me. Other than the victim's article, where more generally is this on WP? Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham There's a general article at cyberbullying, with a sidebar on various forms of discrimination which links to many other related articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Michael D. Turnbull. I did look there first, but none seems to be helpful on sport, specifically. I will try from the sport end. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The article on sports betting is not very good. It might benefit from a section on this sort of abuse. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking that. I notice a huge amount of abuse is directed at sportspeople, but this seems more serious, somehow. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft : Timothy Hannem

I see this draft was declined : Draft:Timothy Hannem

But I don't understand, it says it needs :

"in-depth sources"

"reliable sources"

"secondary sources"

"independent sources"

The majority of references at the end of the page link to french newspapers who are reliable, secondary and independant sources. Why are these references considered "not reliable", "not secondary" and "not independant" ?

The newspapers mentionned in the references are very well known in France, just take a look : Le Parisien, L'Express, Le Monde, Libération, 20 Minutes (France).

Thank you for your help. 147.161.152.126 (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Do more than one of them have in-depth coverage of the subject? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@CSMention269: Who declined the article and presumably speaks French? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking at some of the sources, I think that the main problem is that they are not independent of Hannem. They seem to be based on interviews. What Wikipedia needs is evidence that people have read his work and reviewed it, or that it has influenced people who have no connection with him. This is summarised in our notability for authors criteria. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

"What Wikipedia needs is evidence that people have read his work and reviewed it".

His most known book has 183 reviews on Amazon (search for "Urbex", published in 2016). He has also has a "press" on his website, featuring many reviews or interviews. https://www.glauqueland.com/presse

As for the sources of the draft :

The first source is taken from his second book.

The second one is a review of his blog.

The third is an interview.

Sources 4 to 9 are independent reviews of his books, but also interviews since he responded to the journalists’s questions.

Source 10 is a video from the editor of “Canevas”

Source 11 and 12 are reviews an and also an interviews.

147.161.152.126 (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Martyn Huw Williams

I have just created a page for Martyn. This is the first time I have created a page on Wiki so I may well have made some elementary errors in the presentation and required information and referencing. The immediate feedback I got was it was not notable. Martyn is a well-known broadcaster in Wales as a rugby commentator and is also the author of several books. I have listed the books together with their ISBN numbers. Any advice as I how I should proceed from this point would be much appreciated. CofiCaerdydd47 (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@CofiCaerdydd47 A brief look shows me that your draft has muddled sourcing. You will need to re-do it after reading this guide to how to do references correctly. Wikipedia has very strict requirements for biographies of living people and drafts which don't conform will rapidly be declined. As you realise, the main aim of your draft will be to show how Williams is notable. There is some more advice in this essay. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks Mike. This was my first effort at my first article so lots to learnt I guess! I will follow your suggested links CofiCaerdydd47 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking for help refining “Career Beginnings” section on David and Stephen Flynn article

Hi all, I’ve been working to improve the David and Stephen Flynn article, which is quite sparse and currently lacks balanced coverage of their early business story. I recently rewrote a neutral, well-sourced “Career Beginnings” section in my sandbox and would love some feedback before proposing it again for inclusion.

I’ve tried to stick closely to Wikipedia’s policies on tone, neutrality, and reliable sourcing (Irish Times, Irish Examiner, etc.). Previous efforts were reverted with concerns about promotional tone and perceived overuse of AI assistance, so I’m approaching this revision with extra care and openness to feedback.

I’d really appreciate any thoughts on how to improve the draft or better approach consensus.

Thanks so much! — User:Calmsea123456 Calmsea123456 (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment on layout of article

Hello,

I received a comment that "Comment: See WP:Markup for how to mark section headings, and see WP:Layout for general information on the layout of articles. Section headings are delimited by equal signs (=), which are used to construct the table of contents of a page. Please edit this draft as specified before resubmitting."

Are you able to provide further clarification about what that means?

Thank you, Michelle MHDE 2025 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

wrong url

Hi! Please help. I started an article in my sandbox, and also published it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EPXa/sandbox

It should correctly be published under the following URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_microphone

I do not find the right way to change that. Please help me in this matter! Thank you! EPXa (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Request for help with Notability Assessment

Hello - I’m requesting a second opinion on the decline of the draft article for Cyan Ta'eed (Draft:Cyan Ta'eed). The draft was declined with the rationale that the subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria due to insufficient coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

However, I have provided multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, including profiles in major Australian business publications and interviews that explore her work and impact as a co-founder of Envato, as well as her role in other ventures. She meets all the criteria of a noteworthy person since she is an Australian business woman on a variety of "rich lists" around the world.

I fully respect the review process and understand the need for neutrality and reliable sourcing, but I believe the decline may have been made in error or possibly via an automated or overly strict process. I’m asking if other experienced editors could please take a look and offer an additional perspective. Thank you. JazzyOxygen (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)