Wikipedia:Teahouse

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? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly. Alternatively, you can contact an experienced editor by visiting your homepage and clicking "Ask your mentor a question about editing".

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

make article

i may be slow but how do you make an article Conesfortheworld (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Conesfortheworld, I've left a welcome message on your talk page with some links. Help:Your first article might be of use? Knitsey (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Conesfortheworld, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to 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) 21:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

With all possible respect to ColinFine, I would give contrary advice and encourage you to create the article you're interested in, after carefully reading the policies he linked. The majority of quality content added to wikipedia is contributed by new editors, and if what you want to do is create a new article - and that article is appropriate to wikipedia - you should absolutely do it, following wikipedia policies. Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Use of sources

Can a television advertisement be used a source for dating a products availability to a decade when you can not find the exact release date of a product Sharnadd (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sharnadd, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think this would be acceptable: in my view it would be original research. ColinFine (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sharnadd Wikipedians can be remarkably good at finding sources if you give them key pieces of information. So, you could mention that you want to get an approximate date by posting on the talk page of the article, if it has lots of watchers, or maybe in one of the WP:Reference desks. One possibility would be to find a published newspaper advert for the product and cite that as a date it was certainly available. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

great advise will do that thanks sure it must be out there somewhere Sharnadd (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine and Michael D. Turnbull: The difficult thing about this situation is that this information from the advertisement seems to have just gone unnoticed from people that have written about ketchup chips. I did a lot of research when I was trying to make this a GA and even after. I read a book about Canadian snack food history. I went through every mention of "ketchup chips" at newspapers.com. I haven't come across this before and it's important because it throws another country into the mix for "had this the decade it was invented" (people are unsure about whether they were invented in Canada or the United States first, just that it happened around the same time). It's frustrating when sources seem to have an obvious blindspot but there's not really much one can do about that other than hope someone does actually write about it someday. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes this sort of product will have associated patents which could be used to get approximate dates. However, Google Patents doesn't seem to have any useful hits for the keywords ketchup + chips. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

And the English company that did them in the 70s got taken over by walkers 20 years ago Sharnadd (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes the only.patent that comes up with anything is a British one to add flavour to crisps and that's from 1938. Tomato is listed with a lot of other things and nothing to say the product went public Sharnadd (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure that it is frutrating; but Wikipedia holds to its standards for WP:verifiability: if you can't verify it (and, more to the point, if a reader in another continent in two years' time has no way of verifying it) then it shouldn't be in the article. ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine: I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, there's two discussions on my talk page related to how I don't think this content can be included for that reason (and also because of OR concerns). I'm not entirely sure Sharnadd fully understands that there's not much that can be done at this point, though. I was just trying to sympathize that such an experience can be frustrating. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I fully understand that a newspaper article and a primary source can not be used for information. Yes it is frustrating as there must be an actual date out of there of when they were released in the UK in the 70s. Sharnadd (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sharnadd: Okay, I'm glad to hear that we mostly appear to be on the same page now. Primary sources aren't prohibited entirely, though. Otherwise that editor above wouldn't have tried to see if a patent existed. It's the synthesis aspect that matters here. The ad in the source doesn't give a date for when they introduced ketchup chips. Hopefully that makes sense?

I hope you don't find that information too discouraging. Feel free to ask me (or come back here to the Teahouse) if you're having trouble with anything in the future... I notice that a lot of people have left templated messages on your talk page but sometimes a more human touch can work better. I remember what it was like to be a newish editor, even if was ages ago by now. But that general sense of confusion and not knowing if I was doing things right or not isn't something I can easily forget. Perhaps your experience is different, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Article ready for review??

hello, I have been working to get a page together on an Australian poet, Jim Gordon.( Draft:James Gordon (poet))

I have been working with Fritzmann2002 as a mentor but have not heard from him for quite a while.

My last message to him was to ask if he could have a look at the latest draft and advise if he thought it was ready to be put up for review - would be happy for some feedback on this as it's been sitting around for a while now.

many thanks

RomeoHT RomeoHT (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It's fascinating, RomeoHT, but I regret to say that the references are formatted most oddly. I thought I'd have a go at explaining what has gone wrong and how to fix it, but I quickly realized that I was too tired to do this effectively (or perhaps to do it at all). I encourage some other person here who both (i) knows their way around referencing and (ii) can devote twenty minutes or longer to diagnosis and explanation, to have a try. Once the references are fixed, there's some humdrum editing work to be done. (As an example: You'd call the subject "Jim" when needing to distinguish him from one or more others surnamed Gordon. Otherwise, he's "Gordon". Thus not "Leigh is holding Jim's scrapbook" but instead "Marchant is holding Gordon's scrapbook". Though of course if you quote something that refers to him as "Jim", you leave this as is.) After the needed work has been done on this draft, it should qualify as an article (and a very readable one too). -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@RomeoHT For general referencing help, see this page. You are going to want to use a lot of {{cite news}} templates for the references from The Irrigator. I believe that that newspaper has been digitised and it would be great if you could link out to the digital copies for your references. Several references cite letters. I'm afraid that these can't be used unless published somewhere (even if in an obscure library). Verification by readers is a key Wikipedia policy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The Irrigator is available at newspapers.com:

• "The Murrumbidgee Irrigator Archive". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2025-05-29.

Peaceray (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Draft talk:James Gordon (poet). It seems that among the linked data sources, he was better known as Jim Grahame. The draft should be renamed to that name. Peaceray (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

RomeoHT, on Draft talk:James Gordon (poet), I've posted a recipe for fixing the references. -- Hoary (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

New article for review

I would like couple of reviews for my first article draft on my user page Dahej Bhavnagar railway sea link bridge, from editors with civil/mechanical/physics background having high regards for original ideas. Kingcircle (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Kingcircle. Your userpage is not the appropriate place for developing new content. Your userpage is to tell other editors about your accomplishments and plans as a Wikipedia editor. Instead, you should move this content to your personal sandbox space or to draft space. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

What part of Wikipedia:User pages makes you think that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia Article Wizard directed me to develop my article draft on my user page. Kingcircle (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kingcircle. One of the references in the draft is to a Wikipedia article. Please note that Wikipedia isn't a considered a reliable source for the purpose of writing other Wikipedia articles. See WP:CIRCULAR. If there are sources cited in the existing article that verify the material (and you've checked that they do), then you should cite those instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I have cited both, besides the Wikipedia article I have cited is also about transportation between the same locations which are in my article. Ghogha is a suburb of Bhavnagar. The existing article is about existing Ferry service and my article is about future rail road bridge. The existing RO RO Ferry service ran in to trouble due to siltation problems from river near Dahej. So they had to abandon the Dahej port and shift the operation to Hazira in Surat which is way south. Gujarat state government also ran into financial problems due to ferry service operation. I am not citing Wikipedia article as a reliable source. But I must cite it for the reasons given above. Kingcircle (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no "Must". Do not cite Wikipedia (except in a handful of rare instances, on articles about Wikipedia). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I will not cite Wikipedia article. Kingcircle (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I have removed reference to Wikipedia article. Kingcircle (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, Andy Mabbett and Cullen 328. Thanks for reviewing my article. I added one ref. to Western Railway document and moved the draft to the mainspace. I still have one question. Am I suppose to remove the COI lable or leave it like that. Kingcircle (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

That template belongs on your user page, not in an article, so you need to reinstate it at User:Kingcircle (which currently directs to Dahej Bhavnagar railway sea link bridge due to the fact you started the article on your user page). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Difference between Ping and "reply to"?

Hi all. I am new to Wikipedia, and was wondering what is the difference between "Ping" and "Reply to". For instance, if I am discussing an article for improvement with a Wikipedian called "X", which is better- @X: or @X: [In visual, both are appearing as @, but in source they both appear different]? Kindly advise. Or can we use both? I tried searching if this question had been asked before, but could not find it? Thanks.Neotaruntius (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Neotaruntius {{ping}} is actually just a redirect to {{reply to}}, meaning they're the exact same template. Which one to use is entirely up to you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

CanonNi Thanks. I did this simple experiment, which probably will appear very basic to experienced Wikipedians like you [for me it would solve a very basic question]. I went to source code twice in turn and each time wrote your name [CanonNi] and then added "reply to|" and "ping|" turn by turn. Both times, your name appeared as a hyperlink in visual format! This means both are synonymous. Is that a right understanding? Kindly explain. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Not quite. In order to use a template in source mode, you need to use double braces ( {{ ) instead of brackets ( [[ ). So for example, in order to use the template to ping me, you would type {{ping|CanonNi}}. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

CanonNi I also discovered that there is a 3rd way to alert a Wikipedian (For example, in your case @CanonNi). Thus we have {{Ping|X}}, {{reply to|X}} and @X. Maybe you would like to throw some light on this? Or may be there is a page dedicated to understanding these subtle uses. Appears very confounding to beginners like me. Thanks for your inputs. Neotaruntius (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

On talk pages where you can use the "Reply" option when responding to someone's previous comment, there is an icon that pops up on the right (a head-and-shoulders with a + sign). If clicked, that provides a drop-down list of all the people who have previously commented on that thread. Hence I can @Neotaruntius mention you and generate an alert but the software doesn't use a template: it places @[[User:Neotaruntius|Neotaruntius]] into the text. From that, you'll guess that typing the same string directly works fine provided you also "sign" with four ~ (tilde) characters. The reply tool is useful because it does the conventional indenting and signing automatically. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Yes, this is a marvelous lead. I used "(a head-and-shoulders with a + sign)" and got 3 names in drop-down list. That is a wonderful lead. Excellent education, Thanks. My question regarding using @ still remains.Neotaruntius (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They are synonymous but your experiment doesn't guarantee this, it merely makes it plausible. There could have been circumstances where they behaved differently. When you write {{ping|X}} you are using Template:Ping. The heading of that page is "Template:Reply to", and a little below it says "(Redirected from Template:Ping)". It is this redirect which guarantees that they actually are synonomous. By the way, the notification is caused by having any user page link in a signed edit so you will also be notified by this edit when I just write User:Neotaruntius near the end without using a template. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Honestly, it is getting a bit mind-boggling for me. Let me digest this flood of information gradually. Thanks to @CanonNi@Michael D. Turnbull@PrimeHunter [This drop-down list is wonderful]. Neotaruntius (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Time to get a GA reviewer

Hello!

I've nominated an article to become a Good Article, and I was wondering how long it usually takes to get a reviewer. Looking at the page, some articles got reviewers within 48 hours, and others had to wait multiple months. Are there any ways to get a reviewer quick? I was also wondering if articles with more viewership are prioritized at all in the process.

Thank you! Reverosie (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Reverosie: Hello! There's no sure way to get a reviewer to review a GA quickly. Right now, there are 728 articles in the Good Article nominations queue that need to be reviewed, and the oldest review is from September. But, as you said, sometimes reviewers take a look at an article fairly quickly—I tend to prefer shorter articles, which make for easier reviews, for instance. Try posting a message on the talk pages of any WikiProjects that relate to your article, but otherwise there's not a whole lot you can do to speed up the process. Don't worry, it will be reviewed, but it takes a little patience. Cheers ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply! I'm just a bit worried about getting it before July when I'll be far less active on Wikipedia for the entire month. I already posted to the relevant talk pages, but this is my first time doing this, so it's a bit scary :) Reverosie (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Reverosie. Nominations are reviewed when a reviewer actually wants and is prepared to review. Complicated, long, and/or articles with offline sources take longer for someone to take up the task because they take more effort. The longest I've ever seen a nomination take in the backlog is like 4 months. As you've been told, alerting some WikiProjects can help more people be aware of your nomination. Good luck! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! The article is 50,000 bytes. Is that too long for it to be taken up quickly? Reverosie (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Reverosie: Just from a quick skim, it's not horrible—about average size. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh good! I was a bit worried about that :) Reverosie (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Virtually all of Baldwin IV of Jerusalem is sourced to a single book. This was published by Cambridge UP. Cambridge UP has an excellent reputation, but I can think of at least one turkey that it has perpetrated. I think that if I were nominating this article for GA, I'd try to think of a discreet way of pointing to a favorable review (in an academic journal) or two of this book. OTOH I'm pretty incompetent with GAs, so my suggestion shouldn't be taken as worth any more than you've paid for it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! I'll see what I can do about that + try to add more sources :) Reverosie (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Reverosie, sometimes it can take a while. Right now, there are over sixty unreviewed nominations from 2024. I've waited almost a year before.

At a glance, I see a couple of things you may want to go through while you're waiting. First, double-check the public domain images on the Commons. They should all have an accurate reason for being in the public domain. Also, look through the article for any really subjective language. For example, the article says that the kingdom flourished spiritually. To meet WP:NPOV a reviewer might ask you to get more objective on statements like that. Two straightforward options to transition from subjective to objective, are to attribute the evaluation (who says it flourished?) or give tangible examples (how did it flourish?). If I'm being unclear, you're welcome to ask more questions.

I hope that helps, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! I'll get to this as soon as I can (I'm reviewing a different good article myself at the moment with a mentor) Reverosie (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Definition of "all editors" for RM discussions

In WP:RMCOMMENT it says "All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move."

If the page in question is ecr protected, does the editor have to be extended confirmed in order to participate? Mikewem (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mikewem. Welcome to the Teahouse. An editor does not need to be extended confirmed to participate in discussions regarding the page move. I think, If the page is extended confirmed protected it implies restrictions only on editing directly to page, not to participate in related discussion and editing its talk page. Fade258 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR A. 1. says they may use Talk only to make edit requests. I don’t want to strike things that shouldn’t be stricken, but I also don’t want to leave them up if they’re not supposed to be there. Mikewem (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

You're absolutely right on that but In my opinion, proposing a move request also can be considered as an edit request. Fade258 (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

But participating in discussion for controversial moves? Mikewem (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Counter vandalism

How to patrol recent edits to counter vandalism in a faster way? Like seeing the diffs already to determine if it's vandalism or not. Currently, I have to manually click the diffs button to identify the vandal before deciding whether to revert it or not. — ArćRèv • talk 22:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Consider using Wikipedia:Twinkle. It's a gadget that speeds things along, and streamlines adding a warning to talk pages. Clicking the diff button is still required though. If you use filters, you can filter the edits based on what the computer believes are "bad faith". For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges?goodfaith=likelybad&hidebots=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&inverttags=1&limit=50&days=0.04166&urlversion=2 Ashwin060 (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

+1 on Twinkle, I don't personally use it but it's also worth looking into Huggle (you need rollback permissions to use it, however). For your specific question, I find WP:NAVPOPS super helpful, which displays a preview of a diff when hovered over so you don't have to actually click on it. You can enable it by going into preferences → gadgets. (@Ashwin060 ping becuase not sure if you know about this and it could be helpful for you too if not). Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I didn't know about that -- TIL.

Best, Ashwin060 (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

A bit of an odd situation

Hi, I was doing some edits on Michael Palance, but didn't log in (by accident, I should probably add some sort of note associating myself with those IPs), specifically as 2601:647:6880:8f3b:1032:e37f:e724:c055 and 2601:647:6880:8f3b:b152:ab9c:eb89:cf89. I don't know this person or have any personal bias. However doing some quick research yields that he is a person who has controversies around him. I added a section about this. However it seems he reverts any edits that portray him in poor light no matter what, claiming they are "libel". I reverted his revert, adding a quick note explaining it wasn't, in fact, libel. It seems he then logged out (is this just blatant sock-puppetry) and reverted the edit with the same edit message ("libel"). I started a discussion on the talk page, but I doubt it'll get much response given this person has only ever edited his article. It seems most of what he does is revert any negative claims about him. I am wondering about what should be done in this situation?

Ashwin060 (talk) Ashwin060 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted the content in question. If he reverts again, let me know and I will take care of it. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 01:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

And he has: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Palance&diff=prev&oldid=1292996031 Ashwin060 (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks NightWolf for dealing with it, to actually answer your question, those types of things, when not clearly vandalism (that would be WP:AIV), usually go to WP:ANI, which is what NightWolf did. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure I'll do that in the future; I haven't gotten into a similar situation before. At any rate the page has been protected, but the subject's last socks' edit has to be reverted.

This issue is resolved since the page is protected now. Ashwin060 (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Making an Article

I’ve made many articles here, but most have been through red links and the Help:Your first article page. Is there any way to just make an article without the hassle? ’’’PhilDaBirdMan’’’ 01:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @PhilDaBirdMan. You can type your new article's title in the search bar and click the red link in The page "Example article" does not exist. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. ’’’PhilDaBirdMan’’’ 01:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @PhilDaBirdMan, Welcome to the Teahouse. This is my personal view as I actually follow this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TITLE : you can replace TITLE with your desired article title as this takes you directly to the article editor. You can then write and publish it makes sure that it meets the notability standards. Fade258 (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, will try that. ’’’PhilDaBirdMan’’’ 01:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirect italic

Hi. Why Abhay Bhargava and Priyasha Bhardwaj title is in italic format? As I didn't did any mistake while creating it. Fade258 (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fade258: That would be because they contain the template:R from television program which would assume that the redirect title is a television program that should be styled with italic. However it appears that the redirects are actors. The redirects should not use that template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank You ! I have changed the templates on both the redirect and it works now. Fade258 (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Outdated List

I found this list that is outdated and obsolete. Should I archive it or merge the contents into a more comprehensive page? I tried editing it, but it requires basically a rewrite. I am now wondering what I should do with it. Also are autoconfirmed users allowed to archive lists/articles? KimAtSTEM (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, KimAtSTEM. There is no requirement that an article be up to date, although updating articles is a good thing to do. With seven million articles now, it is inevitable that many articles should be updated, but should is not the same as must. Archiving is a process that applies to talk pages and noticeboards, but does not apply to articles, and list articles are articles. Obsolete is not a concept that we apply to encyclopedia articles because notability is not temporary and even outdated articles are of historic interest and provide the basis for expansion and improvement. Merging is a possibility if there is an appropriate target. See WP:MERGE for details. Making the article "go away" is not an option unless it never should have been created in the first place, which seems unlikely. The least you can do is express your concerns in detail at Talk: Train routes in the Netherlands. You could then tag the article with Template:Update. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

How to improve this article?

Hi, the 2024–25 in European women's basketball (A–K) article that I created has been nominated for deletion. But NOBODY is telling me how to improve it and it is frustrating. Can anyone tell me what is wrong with it? I have already asked twice on the AFD talk page but nobody has replied with anything useful. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ILoveSport2006. Two editors have given you feedback. You perceive that their replies were not useful, but they see things differently. Those advocating deleting an article are obligated to make arguments based in policy, and those who want to keep an article have the same obligation. No one is obligated to satisfy you, though, even if you capitalize words out of frustration. Read their remarks carefully. You may be missing things. Cullen328 (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The advise you are talking about is so vague. What am I supposed to do with that information? I need something more specific. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@ILoveSport2006: We don't usually use this format with numerous unrelated leagues (except being in the same continent) in the same article. There was advice to create separate articles, meaning for each country/league. Like 2024–25 Liga Femenina de Baloncesto, but it doesn't have to be so detailed. Then each article can be added to relevant categories, and the two long lists can be reduced to one page with links and Pan European competitions. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC).

Thanks for the more specific advise. So you saying if I simply make a page for every league then people won't delete the pages even if they are small articles? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@ILoveSport2006: If the league is professional then it should be OK per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Individual seasons but I cannot promise what others may do. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Request to move

User:Borispugo/sandbox Borispugo (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. New accounts cannot directly create articles(which is what you seem to be asking to do). You need to submit your draft for review. I will shortly move it to draft space and put the appropriate information so you can submit it. However, you should not submit it yet, as it is completely unsourced. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it is a notable organization. Please see Your First Article and maybe use the new user tutorial.

If you are associated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Draft is now at Draft:Transform! Europe. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. No, I am not affiliated with this organization. I have added some reliable sources and submitted the article for review. Borispugo (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence user?

@PRDM 9: seems to be translating content from other wikipedias (French, Spanish etc.) on pages relating to Peru, but, like on Pachacuti, he seems to not pay attention to the article he's editing. He added information already in the article and added two sources, one was a review of the source he wanted to cite, the other is weirdly formatted. He seems to translate very slowly, one paragraph takes several edits. 80.187.83.20 (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

User conduct issues are best discussed at WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Question About Talk Page

Hello admins/editors,

I have a question regarding the Talk page. Are users allowed to delete their own Talk page, or is admin approval required to do so? Thank you. Aona1212 (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Aona1212: You can edit your talk page and remove the current content. GMG^talk 12:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Anona1212, I think users are generally not allowed to delete their own talk page. However, they may blank the page. Deletion may requires administrator action and is subject to Wikipedia deletion guidelines. Fade258 (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

By "deleting," I mean removing all the content (or selected parts) from my Talk page. Based on what @GreenMeansGo mentioned, I believe I’m allowed to edit or remove the content myself. Anyway, thank you so much for the clarification. One last question, does this also apply to other versions of Wikipedia, such as those in other languages? Aona1212 (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes you're allowed to edit or remove the selected content yourself. Probably yes, but I am not sure for that. Fade258 (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, @GreenMeansGo and @Fade258! I appreciate your time. Aona1212 (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Fade258, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes you are allowed to remove most content from your own user talk page, though it is recommended that you archive instead: see WP:UTP.

Each Wikipedia project is independent, and has its own policies. I would expect that other Wikipedias have similar rules about user talk pages, but I don't know: you would need to check each one. ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ColinFine, Apologies for late reply and thank you for your feedback. Fade258 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I can’t Log In!

So, unfortunately, I was logged out of my account, and whenever I try to log in, the following text message appears: “There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking.” It also further mentions that it may be due to my cookie settings. Well, I can’t access that due to this exact problem. If anyone could help me, I’d be very thankful. BTW, my account is “Long-live-ALOPUS”. 2405:201:550B:B035:4D53:E7E5:E095:579 (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Clear the browser cache and try agian. Fade258 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I’ve tried it, and it still isn’t working... what can I now do? 2405:201:550B:B035:4D53:E7E5:E095:579 (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Do a hard refresh (ctrl + F5) and try again. If that doesn't work, try logging in from a different device. WP:VPT might be a better place for tech issues like this. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I use an iPad, and I don’t have a PC. 2405:201:550B:B035:E97F:4EF2:5810:DF76 (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

On an iPad or iPhone, you can refresh a browser page by dragging your finger down the screen until a spinning circle appears, then let go and the page should refresh. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I tried it, and it hasn’t worked! I believe it’s because I’ve completed one year of being an editor, but if that’s the case, it wouldn’t explain why I’m able to log in with my mom’s phone... 2405:201:550B:B035:558D:AC4E:10A7:1B6C (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

What should I do now?! Nothing is working... 2405:201:550B:B035:CC34:4198:F447:A17 (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

But instead of the English Wikipedia, I’m able to log in to the Arabic and Hindi Wikipedia p, as well as Wikispecies... 2405:201:550B:B035:E97F:4EF2:5810:DF76 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

You may be able to delete the cookies in Safari on the iPad. But I do not know how that is done. That should properly log you off. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, I want to log IN. And, I can’t p, and IDK why... it just rejects everything and says it incountered a problem. I’ve deleted the cookies, but nothing is working. 2405:201:550B:B035:FC82:3345:E73B:F763 (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

i want to submit article about my client

i do this two times both of the times guys my article is rejected Directmedia12 (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Directmedia12 your draft (Draft:Hurshch) does not cite any independent reliable sources (the only source is the guy's own website) and is promotional in tone. This does not establish notability. Also, since you're being paid to write this, you need to declare it by following the directions at WP:PAIDHOWTO. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Directmedia12. Feedback on the drafts has been left, explaining why they were declined, but the bigger issue here is that you haven't declared that you're working for clients, which means you are in breach of Wikipedia's terms of use. Please see WP:PAID on how to proceed. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, what is your relationship to the account User:Bro Abdullah? DMacks (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Directmedia12. 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.

Also, I suggest you explain to your client that you need to do some training before you will have the necessary skills to create a Wikipedia article. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Help with review request

Hi! I created an article draft about "Axtor (Argentine visual artist)" and requested a review 18 days ago, but no one replied. I just want to know if the request is still active or if I did something wrong. I used reliable sources like Rolling Stone and La Nación.

Thanks in advance for your help! Axtorino (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Axtorino, Draft:Axtor (Argentine visual artist) has never existed, and your account has no edits other than this one. Did you create it under a different title or using a different account? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

...or do you perhaps mean your contributions to the Spanish Wikipedia? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@CanonNi @Zadkiel420 Thanks so much for the help! I just realized I created the article in the Spanish Wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Axtorino/Borrador

I’m still new and learning the ropes, but I’d really love to publish it as a full article. If you have a moment to check if it meets the criteria (I used sources like Rolling Stone and La Nación), I’d hugely appreciate it.

You’re both absolute GOATs 🐐 thanks again! Axtorino (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

When is it ethical to say you "made" an Article?

It doesn't matter in any grand scheme, but just to pat yourself on the back and that sort of thing. For instance, I keep for myself an easy set of links to pages I've worked on the most on my user page, and I bold the ones I feel OK saying that I, myself, 'made' as of the time I added them to the page. A couple of context examples:

• Spore drive. Did not exist at all. I started and built the page from scratch. I feel safe saying I 'made' it.
• Saru (Star Trek: Discovery). In 2020, it was a <2k stub that was redirected, then I built that. I feel ok saying I 'made' it.
• Christopher Mellon. Had been a poorly written mess, killed at AfD, I rewrote from scratch and passed AfC. I feel ok saying I 'made' it.

Those are easy. I 'made' them, all with slightly different starting positions--didn't exist, redirect, AfC after AfD (for Mellon--I took over the AfC from another user and did not use their draft at all; cold restart).

Howevere, is it ethical to say I made these next four like the first three? I'm not so sure at all, and I'm inclined to say no, as I technically took them and expanded them:

• Abigail Becker -> how I found it at this link. 5,398 bytes to 16,254 bytes over 120 edits (75.9%).
• Born secret -> how I found it at this link. 3,658 bytes to 20,438 bytes over 89 edits (80.9%).
• Invention Secrecy Act -> how I found it at this link. 6,690 bytes to 37,579 bytes over 173 edits (85.6%).
• Sentient (intelligence analysis system) -> how I found it at this link. 2,606 bytes to 27,724 bytes over 566 edits (95.9%).

Like I said--it hardly matters, but I think about it now and then for the silly little bolding. How's the ethics work out on this? How much of the article needs to be you to fairly say you made it? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Very Polite Person. Me personally, I don't really care, especially since you authored the majority of these articles. Terminology that I prefer better than "made" is that you "authored" most of the article, especially if you have 70% or higher authorship. Makes it clearer what you mean, imo. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with what Tarlby said above, you could also use "wrote" as a less-formal substitute for "authored". PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Be bold attempt fails.

If an attempt to be bold turns out poorly, should I seek help from other editors about the bold edit that I'm trying to make? 1isall (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @1isall. If your bold edit "turns out poorly" (for example, being reverted), don't hesitate to ask questions or help. Things should be easily fixed here, so don't worry. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I meant that when the edit is published, the final result doesn't look good, and then I have to revert it myself. This recently happened at Life Is Strange (video game). 1isall (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

You're always welcome to ask others for help. The WP:PREVIEW button is a useful tool to see how things will look before you publish it live. And your user sandbox is a good place to practice and leave work-in-progress chunks while you and others figure out the details before you copy them into an actual article. DMacks (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I never thought of using a sandbox. I think doing so would be a good idea to see what works and what doesn't. Thank you! 1isall (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I see no problem with asking for help. That's what us other editors are for. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Sandbox to draft

Herbert W. Bateman IV/sandbox has been created and finished. Yet, it’s been suggested to go by way of creating a draft before uploading the article for evaluation and publication. How might I do that with losing the 80+ hours already spent writing the above page? Respectfully, Herb Herbert W. Bateman IV (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Herbert! I just added a draft tag to the top. You should be able to submit the article through Articles for Creation by hitting the blue button that says "Submit the draft for review!" I will note, though, that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Not completely disallowed, just discouraged. You will not only need a source for every claim your article makes, but you must also write from a neutral POV and declare a conflict of interest. The links here should give you a good overview, but also check out this page that is specific about the guidelines for writing about living people. Best of luck! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Herbert W. Bateman IV (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Herbert W. Bateman IV. To add to what Phoenix said, bear in mind that 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.

This means that, once you have found the required independent reliable sources, you will effectively need to forget everything you know about yourself, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say - and don't forget to include any critical comments from the sources. Do you see why writing about yourseif is difficult? ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Your comments are most helpful. I’ll make sure my comments are very neutral. I’ve listed various sources that evaluate my publications. I’m still looking for where to place the self-disclosed comment about being the author of the article. Herbert W. Bateman IV (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

That would be on your userpage. Click the red link with your name at the end of your messages, and it should lead you to make the page. Just copy the disclosure notice there and fill out the fields! 20:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC) PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 20:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

How to show a subject qualifies for a wikipedia article?

Hi! I recently submitted this article: Draft:Chris Christodoulou (Composer). I expected to get rejected, and I totally understand the LLM issue listed. What I am having difficulty figuring out though is how the sources I had weren't enough to qualify as a significant person. I feel like that is something that can't really be cited - people know him for his music from the games he has composed for. How exactly do I signify he is "significant"? Don't get me wrong, I know he his, but I just don't know how to show/cite that. Nordlaw2 (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

An interview is not an independent source, as by definition it is the person speaking about themselves. The other two sources you offer may not be reliable sources. Notability is demonstrated for a subject as WP:BIO describes, see the basic criteria. If you are asserting they are a notable music composer, you could also show they meet the narrower notable composer definition. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Nordlaw2. I have dropped some comments on your draft. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

For the draft to have a chance of being accepted, it needs to cite multiple sources that meet all three of the criteria described in Wikipedia:Golden Rule. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

An edit we can't come to an agreement over

Hello! Recently, an edit I made to Tally Hall was reverted. Following WP:BRD, I discussed this with the user who reverted my edit but we haven't come to an agreement yet. I'd really appreciate more users to give feedback on this because I don't think it's being resolved as we both have our reasons to believe which version is better :) --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 20:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Please follow the process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Publish translation

Hi everyone! I have written an English translation of the Persian Wikipedia article about Matin Alavi, an Iranian water polo player.

The draft is here: User:Matin2025/Matin_Alavi

The original Persian article is: fa:متین_علوی

I have added the attribution properly and I’d appreciate it if someone could help me review and move it to the mainspace.

Thanks a lot! Abolfazlsadr (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Abolfazlsadr, and welcome to the Teahouse.

As far as I can see, none of the sources you cite meets the requirements of being where somebody wholly unconnected with Alavi has chosen to write in some depth about him and be published in a reliable source. Without any sources that meet such criteria, your draft cannot establish that he meets the notability criteria of English Wikipedia, and no article is possible. Note that different language versions of Wikipedia have different policies and procedures, and that English Wikipedia is stricter than most about notability and verifiability, especially in articles about living people. Please see WP:translation. ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The World Aquatics site might be useful to verify the claim of notability, however, if only the link went to the correct page instead of the front page of the site. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Please check it again Abolfazlsadr (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Nothing to check. The links are still bad. One doesn't work, and the World Aquatics link still goes to a page that isn't specifically about the article subject.

See Wikipedia:Golden Rule. If you cannot find multiple sources that meet all three criteria, then you should probably give up on this topic, as Colin Fine suggested. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi, I'm honestly new to doing anything aside from minor edits so I thought I'd ask about this here. I came across Rūjiena Municipality the other day and noticed the 'See also' section actually linked to an article on the current administrative divisions of Latvia rather an article on the 2009 divisions. Whilst I was fixing it, I noticed that Administrative divisions of Latvia (2009) is a redirect to Administrative divisions of Latvia when it seems like it would probably be better suited to Administrative divisions of Latvia (2009–2021). What is the appropriate action to take in situations like these? Thanks. SodaGeyser (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@SodaGeyser: You could boldly change the redirect for Administrative divisions of Latvia (2009). Administrative divisions of Latvia (2009–2021) was created about 12 years after the redirect, and a lot has happened since them. A discussion could be held on a talk page, eg Administrative divisions of Latvia or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latvia but may only be needed if someone disagrees with your change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Should I change the image on the Internet screamer section?

On the page about jumpscares, there’s a section about screamers, a famous and legendary kind of jumpscare found on the internet. Alongside wanting this thing to have its own article, I have just decided to replace the image for the section. Should I? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe you're asking about Jump scare, and within it, "Internet screamers". The first thing to ask yourself is: What is the copyright status of the image that you propose to use? -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

this is the media I tend to replace it with 199.192.122.199 (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that you asked on Talk:Jump scare, but I see that you have already done this. (Sorry, I have no idea who/what Soetermans is/are.) Wait and see what response you get. (Be prepared to wait a week.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, Soetermans? Well, he’s an editor who reverted 4 edits made by me, all because they were unsourced. They WERE actual examples of other screamers, though. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh and get ready to see a lot an angry Sohom DATTa and other users in that section. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

How long does it take

after becoming an editor before you are allowed to create pages?

Or is that not how things work?

Just curious and excited to be here. Thanks for any info in advance! HOTROD213LA (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@HOTROD213LA: Welcome to the Teahouse. Editors are not allowed to create new pages in articlespace until they're autoconfirmed; that is, until the account is at least four days old and has at least 10 edits. New users are discouraged from creating new articles directly in articlespace. Common suggestions here include observing for a few months before attempting to do so and using the Articles for Creation process. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@HOTROD213LA hi. You need to be autoconfirmed (made at least 10 edits and have an account that's 4 days old) to create new articles. You account was created just two days ago, so you'll have to wait a bit before you're autoconfirmed. In the meantime, you can create drafts and submit them through the Articles for Creation process. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.. I am doing a lot of editing. I just wondered how long before I could create an account. I appreciate the info and will surely slow my roll- but the info is much appreciated! HOTROD213LA (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Was "account" a mistake for "article"? If not: you already have an account (which is User:HOTROD213LA), but you have not yet created your User page, which is why your account name appears in red.

You don't have to – many users choose not to — but if you do want to just click on that red name, type anything at all, and you will have created it. As to what to put in it, see the link I made above, and if you like look at other peoples' User pages (click on their names in blue) to see what theirs look like. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.154.147 (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

RIGHT ON.. will be working on that tonight. much appreciate all the help as I hope to become a contributing member of Wikipedia and help make the site as good and complete as I can help make it. HOTROD213LA (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

all that said and I do not see the button needed to build up that account.. But I share keep looking.

Everyone have a great weekend! HOTROD213LA (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

boy- lotsa soda today- sorry to be so wound up. Should I make my user profile read

like an entry? A resume? Bulletpoints? Any ideas as much appreciated! HOTROD213LA (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

HOTROD213LA, you should not make your user page look like an article. You shouldn't make it look like a résumé. But you're free to say something about yourself as an editor. Many editors like to list the articles they've started, made "Good", made "Featured", saved from deletion, etc. One thing I don't remember ever seeing is a list of articles the editor has caused to be raised to "A" class; there's a rare goal for somebody, perhaps you. (And indeed you're free to skip the whole thing. Trappist the monk is an extraordinarily vigorous contributor, but he -- I infer masculinity from "monk" -- has never created a user page.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

right.. Thank you. I wont make it read live a CV or promotional bio.

I used to write for music magazines for around 8 years 1989-1997

but really don't think that matters here. I will try to find a way to read others pages so I get some idea...

Can you read someones profile by clicking on their name?

thank yuo all again-- much appreciate all the help HOTROD213LA (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @HOTROD213LA, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.

Something in your first question suggests to me that you have the idea that the best way to contribute to Wikipedia is by creating new articles. I remember twenty years ago when I was a new editor, looking desperately for a topic I could create a new article about.

But now I know that that's not the only, or necessarily the best, way to contribute to Wikipedia. I have made nearly 27 000 edits, but only ever created a handful of articles.

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) 14:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Here are some guidelines for user pages: WP:User Page and here are some cool stuff for inspiration: Wikipedia:User page design guide I can do stuff! (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, HOTROD213LA, normally (but not always), you can read somebody's user page (if they have one) if their name is linked and if you click on it. Recent examples, in more or less chronological order: Matin2025, Abolfazlsadr, ColinFine, Anachronist, SodaGeyser, Tenryuu, CanonNi. -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Aircraft in fiction fix?

I just added that I saw the F-117 was featured in the movie The Philadelphia Experiment 2 and when I saw the article on the F-117 I saw it wasn’t mentioning the appearance of the plane in the movie so I added that it appeared as The Phoenix in that film is it okay? Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Lordofcallofduty Your edit doesn’t seem to have any citation! Wikipedia doesn’t allow unsourced claims or personal observations. I’d suggest adding a reliable source, or it will be removed. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 04:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I got attacked by an LTA. What should I do?

The WMF-banned LTA sockmaster and troll Andrew5 attacked me on my user page, User talk:85.62.9.154 by putting a level 4im vandalism warning template This is one of his most common behaviors. I immediately reverted the edit after I got the message. What should I do next if this happens again? 81.36.103.201 (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

IP editor. The other IP in use has been blocked. Any further behaviour of this type should be reported immediately to WP:ANI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Cambio di nome

it:Utente:GrawkTheCubeGuy/Sandbox potete cambiare il nome a "Mr. Man"? Grazie. GrawkTheCubeGuy (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @GrawkTheCubeGuy. This is the Teahouse for English Wikipedia. Try asking at it:WP:SI. ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

sorry yeah, i meant can you please change this article's name to Mr. Man? Thanks (here's the article https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:GrawkTheCubeGuy/Sandbox) GrawkTheCubeGuy (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@GrawkTheCubeGuy: Welcome to the Teahouse. As ColinFine pointed out, this is the English Wikipedia; the Italian Wikipedia is a separate project. You need to communicate with someone on the Italian Wikipedia, not here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

draft J-Corry (rapper)

The article about J-Corry needs to be here because he is a big important person/artist. Active for over 30 years. His discography speaks for itself. I have the same opinion, there should be many more references. Somebody should put pressure on those magazines and labels to put J-Corry in the spotlight. His rap catalogue speaks for itself. There also need to be pictures for the wikipedia entry, I'm looking if I'll find matching ones. The article about J-Corry stays on wikipedia, because he has over 1 million fans. He is a public figure. I've found some good references but I don't know if they do qualify for wikipedia, J-Corry is also an artist in the Wu-Tang team what's real big he's a Wu-Tang Affiliate, so he is also featured in that multi rap promo network Wu-Tang Familia: 108000 subscribers youtube network I think that's proof enough. https://www.youtube.com/@WUTANGFAMILIA/ https://www.youtube.com/@WUTANGFAMILIA/featured

Here's another reference with J-Corry evidence, a couple of his albums are listed on this musicshop site: https://www.discogs.com/artist/5371216-J-Corry https://www.discogs.com/label/1100071-Murdah-Records 2A02:1210:8EDA:F100:9A02:39F5:2C67:2150 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

wikipedia page J-Corry (rapper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:J-Corry_(Rapper)

move it from draft to official

The man has made 13 albums and 600 mixtapes, that's the best reference if you ask me. 2A02:1210:8EDA:F100:9A02:39F5:2C67:2150 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, IP user, but nothing you have said there has any relevance to Wikipedia, and your draft is nothing like a Wikipedia article.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Listings don't do it. Availabilty on distribution channels doesn't do it. Numbers of downloads or subscribers or fans don't do it. Anything written or published by the subject, or his associates, doesn't do it.

Until you have found several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42, you will not have an article, and you will be wasting your time and everybody else's in trying.

By all means persuade some independent critics to write in depth about him, and be published in reliable sources: if that happens, then an article may be possible. But not until then. ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

IP user, exactly which criteria in WP:MUSICBIO does this rapper meet? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

other editing suggestions

What are some other ways to help improve wikipedia that most of you participate in on a regular basis? Copyediting? Reverting vandalism? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Copyediting, reverting vandalism, finding sources (there are many articles with "citation needed" tags), reviewing draft submissions (if you have qualified to be a reviewer), responding to edit requests (see Category:Wikipedia edit requests, especially Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests), new page patrolling (there's always a backlog), commenting on WP:AFD nominations. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

IMO, there are hands-down two tasks to spend your copious available editing time on. One is inter-language links. These alert the reader to the availability of an article which doesn't exist on enwiki but does exist on some other language wiki. Users won't think to go look around on other wikis (or in many cases, even be aware of how to use wikidata for this purpose). By adding interwiki links, you facilitate access to the non-enwiki articles.

The other really worthwhile thing to spend your time on is urls (whether in citations, references, additional reading, or elsewhere). You can hardly avoid discovering broken links, at least if you make a habit of clicking on them. If we had bots that were doing this job effectively, I presume I wouldn't always be coming across non-working links (assuming that they were fixable). Resolving broken links (especially if your goal is to find acceptable links that actually allow you to access the content) can be very tedious. OTOH, it's satisfying when you find one.

These are both outright wins, with nobody arguing that your article topic isn't notable or that your sources aren't reliable. Please message me directly if you are looking for tips on performing these task or have other related questions. Fabrickator (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Help.

“Hi, I’ve drafted a neutral, sourced article about an emerging Nigerian singer named Roxy Layne. I’d appreciate it if an experienced editor could review or help me format and submit the article through the Article Wizard.” Whoisrenyin (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I have moved your draft page from your talk page to User:Whoisrenyin/Sandbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Whoisrenyin, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please see my reply to a previous question on this page.

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) 21:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Making a aricle

How do you make an article? Randomizemyusername (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Not as exemplified in your list of contributions so far. Welcome to Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia. We hope that an encyclopedia is what you're looking for. If it is, just look for the links that Wikipedia has helpfully splattered around this very page (e.g. "Learn to edit"), click those that seem useful, read them, and digest them. If you have questions about what you've read, feel free to ask here. -- Hoary (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)