Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Merging to a list article

Hi. I think that this article is outdated and no longer meets the relevant notability criteria. But the subject is included in a list article, which is fine, so I was going to propose to merge the two. Is this appropriate, and is there anything I need to know about a merger proposal that has a list article as the destination page?

Also, in the merge template itself, I was going to link to a specific section of the destination page. Is that correct? — Matuko (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Matuko Generally policy is that Notability is not temporary - If a person has been the subject of significant coverage then they are considered to be notable forever - there is no need for there to be ongoing or up to date coverage. At a quick look the article appears to be well sourced and to contain enough coverage to probably pass a notability criteria. (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. My question was really a technical one about the protocol, or the general mechanics of, merging into a list article with multiple sections. I'm not really asking about the notability issue here, though I'm not sure the article passes the notability criteria for criminals, specifically. I was planning to bring the issues to the WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography talk page first, before proposing a merge or any other action. I just thought I'd use a specific example. Matuko (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding class to new article

I noticed that the talk page has changed for new articles. Where do I assign class, importance, and wikiprojects now? MauraWen (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC) MauraWen (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thinks "Eh, what?" But it seems that you're right, MauraWen. Instead of "editing" a blank talk page, it seems that you now "create" a new talk page. And this is where you plonk the WikiProject templates, presumably in just the same way you've previously done. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Hoary I think I understand. When I am prompted to create a new talk page, adding the typical talk page info (wikiprojects, class, etc) to the description box makes sense. What would you recommend that I put in the subject field? I want to be consistent with creating all my future talk pages. MauraWen (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MauraWen, you don't need a header -- I mean, something like the "== Adding class to new article ==" above -- for this purpose. Indeed, a header is unusual, and I wouldn't be surprised if some guideline somewhere asks you not to use one. In my perhaps minority opinion, WikiProject templates have a low signal-to-noise ratio, and I recommend that you compact them. Here -- ((WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|1= ((WikiProject Photography |history=yes |class=Start |importance=High)) ((WikiProject North East England |class=stub |importance= )) ((WikiProject Finland |class=stub |importance= )) ((WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=stub|a&e-work-group=yes|needs-photo=|listas=Konttinen, Sirkka-Liisa)) ((WikiProject Women artists|class=stub)) )) -- is what I'd call a good example (from Talk:Sirkka-Liisa Konttinen): the visual clutter is compacted; what each says remains available for those people who opt to read it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary Thanks! This morning it appears that the subject line/header is no longer required. That makes it easier for me. MauraWen (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MauraWen When you're on a non-existent talk page you can also use the "create" tab in the upper right, which opens the old style editor. (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article with some errors and non-neutral language.

Hi again. I was categorizing articles when I came across Bayinnaung's Bell Inscription. It has some grammatical errors and a sentence that doesn't conform with Wikipedia's neutrality. Example: 'But the copied of the texts and the translations were so much mistaken.'

I know I could do it by myself, but I'm a bit too nervous to attempt that. So the reason I'm here is to ask how to put up that little text at the top that notifies anyone who views the article about the errors and the lack of neutrality, and that they could help by editing it.

Thank you everyone. TheFaeryMuse (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steel yourself, TheFaeryMuse. Attempt that. Fixing grammatical errors requires a minimal amount of steel. When you've fixed them (and the sky hasn't fallen on you), fix the neutrality problem. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TheFaeryMuse, and welcome to the Teahouse. The worst that can happen is that somebody disagrees with your edit and then reverts it: then you can have a discussion about it per WP:BRD. If you really don't want to try, the things you are talking about are WP:Maintenance tags (which contains a list of the common ones). ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about editing that article, if the OP is reluctant, but I am baffled how to improve "hanked in the middle of a road". I will stay far away. (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source, it wasn't hanging in the middle of the road, but was taken from the temple or pagoda of Gaudama muni near the old stone fort in Arracan city. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 13:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, FaeryMuse, you can also describe your concerns about accuracy and neutrality at Talk:Bayinnaung's Bell Inscription. But I encourage you to jump in and make some changes! Not sure how notable the inscription is in the grand scheme of things. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 14:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone Pelagic, Hoary, ColinFine. Thanks for responding. I'll try to edit it, but like Pelagic pointed out, I'll first find out if it's notable. Also, I'm not exactly sure how to comment in these. I just tapped the edit button, typed under your messages, copied the format that links the commenter's username and talk channel, and changed it to link to mine. Is there a better way to do this? Thank you. BTW I use mobile. TheFaeryMuse (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes

How can I see the next page of Recent Changes? (past 500) – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovemydoodle There is no next page, recent changes is limited to 500 results. (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i think that it might be because the complexity of dealing with that dataset makes such feature unsuitable to become a part of mediawiki. perhaps you would like to check out WP:OLDSCHOOL while you wait for someone more experienced to give you a better answer. (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle To prevent the page using too much server time - getting and filtering a list of contributions in real time is computationally expensive. (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing how SQL works, selecting the next 500 could be messy, but selecting the top 500 older than a given time would be efficient (so long as the revision time is indexed, which it should be). It would be nice to review older recent changes and see what slipped through. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 11:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

loss of ability to edit

I edited the biography of a living person, David Paulides. When I clicked to publish my changes, something happened and my edit tab disappeared. The editors who were working on the article were listening to a man @Abe Cunningham who was very insistant that the subject of the biography have an arrest for a misdemeanor included in the article. This arrest happened over 25 years ago, and seemed so trivial to me, more of a misunderstanding. The subject is a sixty six year old author. I said that it doesn't improve the article to put that embarrassing arrest detail into the article, that it harms our subject who has said that he has lost income because his wikipedia page was so incorrect and negative (even the description on this link is wrong. He's known worldwide for his Missing411 investigation of missing persons, not Bigfoot.) I did my best to advocate for the subject's privacy, removed the arrest information, pointed out that even the statue of limitations for a misdemeanor in California is only a year, and looked into the very old sources being used. Abe Cunningham, who was extremely keen to get the arrest into the article, had even sent away to get the income, pension, and details of David Paulides career as a police officer. It seems so suspicious to me, like this person had a personal grudge against David Paulides I believe that I was right in erring on the side of removing the damaging arrest information. I don't think it was right for me to lose editing priveleges for that. Please pardon me for being so wordy here, and thank you so much for your help. Can I get my edit button back? I'm marikotambini

please no mobile view. David Paulides - Wikipedia Marikotambini (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marikotambini: According to your block log, you are currently not blocked, and in-fact have never been blocked. So, please explain further if you want a better answer. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
between my talk and my read tab at the top left of the page i used to have a tab labeled "EDIT." That tab is now missing. I don't know of another way to edit an article. Marikotambini (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an explanation, but I will ask, first, whether the editor is editing from a mobile device. Second, what they are describing sounds as if their interface has changed in some unexpected way. Since they say, "please no mobile view", I wonder whether they are on a mobile device and are (reasonably) trying to use Desktop View, and something has gone wrong. User:Cullen328 - You are the expert on editing from a mobile device. Do you have further questions to troubleshoot this problem? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Desktop on mobile does occassionally load improperly and the edit tab is not visible (or moves to the more tab), but a simple reload of the page resolves this visual glitch. So, basic troubleshoot, have you tried reloading the page and seeing if the edit button returns? If edit button does not reappear, does it apply to all articles or only that particular page? Slywriter (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marikotambini, Slywriter is correct. Sometimes when editing with a mobile device on the desktop site, the various editing tabs can get scrambled up. I can clear that problem by clicking on the Watchlist tab. The "Edit source" tab will then return to its normal spot. As an administrator, I can confirm that you are not blocked in any way. Because of ongoing problems with vandalism, the article has been semi-protected indefinitely. Marikotambini, please do not edit against consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marikotambini, the editor that you are complaining about is User:Able Cunningam, rather than Abe Cunningham, who is the drummer of the Deftones. Able Cunnigham made six edits to Talk:David Paulides in December, 2020 and then stopped editing. Accuracy is important. Cullen328 (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, Cullen328, thank you for your time. if I might again advocate for the author who the article is about. He entrusted me with making best efforts to improve the article. The negativity and covert implications in the article makes Mr. Paulides look bad, and there is lost income as well. I can give many reasons and sources why if that's necessary. If I ask for reconsideration for the semi protected status, is that allowed? Also, if Mr. Paulides requests the page be deleted, will starting that process be futile? I'm sorry to be asking this, and I will abide by what you tell me.
It looks like I have no experience from the red name, but I have done a lot of editing on other wiki if that counts for anything. Previously many others besides me have tried to remedy the problems on Mr. Paulides page with no success. There's a lot of anger and frustration going back years from past editors who sought to make corrections that seem urgent to anyone who knows Mr. Paulides work. It's confusing and baffling trying to deal with both editing within the rules, and trying to find solutions. I had hoped to convince the editors working on the page that there are falsehoods and incorrect information in the article. I'm now trying to work more effectively than I have before in presenting both information and reliable sources. Mr. Paulides has said that he can't understand the impossibility of fixing a few falsehoods, but at this point it does seem impossible to me. Again thank you so much for your patience and help. With respect I will act as you tell me to do. Marikotambini (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marikotambini You say that you are making changes to an article at the request of the article's subject: This means you have a Conflict of Interest (click here) and you must follow the instructions at that link. As for the arrest: if things like arrest records are incorrect, that's one thing, but if an arrest actually happened, and there are reliable sources, and you want to remove that "embarrassing arrest detail ... [which] harms our subject", even if there is lost income: Please read BLP which explains the kinds of things that WP cares about: it may sound harsh, but WP isn't concerned if a well-referenced piece of info embarrasses the subject or not. The article is not for the subject's benefit, but rather, for the benefit of its readers. Now, if the arrest was for something minor, and it was a long time ago, then maybe the article doesn't need that info. But the changes need to follow WP policy, such as UNDUE, rather than an embarrassment reason or the wishes of the article's subject. Hope this helps, and please read COI linked above. Thanks. (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, BLP is not the policy that says an article is not for the benefit of its subject. I can't find the policy I had in mind; maybe someone else will chime in. Sorry for the confusion. (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking off Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, which is an essay asking the reader to think twice about whether actively striving to get an article of them onto Wikipedia is in their best interests. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said it badly. I emailed David Paulides and said that I had made one change on his biography page. I said I could possibly try to make more. He emailed back that if I could it would be helpful. That is the only communication with David Paulides I've ever had. I don't know him or anyone of his family or acquaintances. I don't know him at all. I know his work. That's it. I have no stake in doing this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marikotambini (talkcontribs) 00:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marikotambini Sorry if I misunderstood your relationship with him; I just went by He entrusted me with making best efforts to improve the article. (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ty, reloading the page didn't fix it. the loss of the edit tab applies to all pages. Marikotambini (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. It's simply that I don't have a cell phone. That's why I wanted to be sure to say "no mobile." I looked through my preferences and didn't find a fix for the problem. I can tell you that I lost that tab suddenly, and it was as I clicked "publish" for a change I made. ty so much Marikotambini (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marikotambini, if you have lost the ability to edit all pages, how are you able to edit this page? Cullen328 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible they're using the Reply tool at the ends of comments. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Leaving that issue behind and responding to being told not to edit David Paulides Biography because "Because of ongoing problems with vandalism, the article has been semi-protected indefinitely. Marikotambini, please do not edit against consensus." Who granted such consensus? That is what a long string of people who clearly see the falsehoods on this page would like to know. Editors who have been trying to get the page corrected for years, including, according to David Paulides, some senior wikipedia editors, hit a brick wall. The biography page of David Paulides is being used by a "debunker" to debunk bigfoot and David Paulides. It's not the biography of a living person. It doesn't give any true information whatsoever about David Paulides. David Paulides is not in the bigfoot business. He had a former interest in bigfoot years ago. However, eleven years and ten books later he has almost nothing to do with bigfoot. By far he is known worldwide for The Missing411. The bio states that bigfoot is what he is known for. That is false. Also, that investigation is not as the page claims, a "conspiracy"[1] That business was added by wikipedia. It doesn't come from David Paulides. It's up to wikipedia to prove that claim and give their sources for whatever conspiracy they imagine is going on. “The book[s are] just the stories of the missing, no hypothesis on cause is included"</ref> [2] Upon requesting that the word, conspiracy, be removed, the editors working on the page decided that the word, conspiracy, improved the article and left it in! It is illogical. If there is no theory there can be no conspiracy.

Insistantly twisting together two, years-apart careers is incorrect and misleading. These are not the only reasons why the article is incorrect. The person who wrote the bulk of this page and had enough pull to get it protected status is the real vandal. Due to false information wikipedia is costing this author income approximately once every two weeks or so from people who say they saw the wikipedia page and therefore don't want to do business with Mr. Paulides. I know that an encyclopedia is not for the benefit of the subject. However, I don't think wikipedia's purpose is to do the subject harm, either, which is what all the wrong information does, not a matter of anyones opinion, but incorrect, misleading information. Does removing the word "conspiracy" sound like an opinion? No. At the very most essential level of the work is the persistant statement by David Paulides that he has no theory about why people are going missing. Even when pressed hard, four times in a row in his interview with Art Bell of Coast to Coast AM, he stated definitively that he doesn't know why and doesn't have a theory. I referenced this above. The above reasons are why not being allowed to edit this page against consensus makes me wonder who this consensus is. All of wikipedia's road blocks to correcting this article mean nothing. The article is faulty and incorrect in every possible way. Debunkers should not use a biography as a platform to discredit every bit of an author or scientist's work. I'll disclaim that I don't know David Paulides, am not acquainted with any of his friends or family, and live five states away from where he lives. I don't know him at all. I've communicated with him by email once. I don't have any personal stake here. If you intention in asking me the question from above was not to open this door, please pardon me. Following all the requirements of those before me has gotten them nowhere. Marikotambini (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marikotambini, consensus reveals itself though the policy based input by experienced editors, not by drive by criticism by new editors who show zero understanding how of Wikpedia's policies and guidelines actually work in practice. An acceptable Wikipedia biography summarizes what reliable sources say about the person and their entire life and career. We do not remove the indisputable fact that a person was once self-publishing stuff about Bigfoot being real just because the person has now moved on to self-publishing musings about unexplained disappearances in national parks. If this person is notable, then we will summarize what reliable sources say about his entire life and career. If reliable sources describing this person are pubishing falsehoods, then your gripe is with those sources, not with Wikipedia. If you can persuade those sources to withdraw or clarify what they have published, then the Wikipedia article can be modified accordingly. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong, or to whitewash an article because the subject is complaining that his income is being adversely affected because we are accurately summarizing what reliable sources are saying about him. Please read Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans and WP:FRINGE. We will not back down. Cullen328 (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Question about primary sources vs very loosely on-topic secondary sources for BLPs

The Technoblade page states that he had adhd, and previously the only sources stating that were two tweets from the subject before his death and an article that mentions his adhd in passing. An edit purged most of the primary sources, leaving a super indirect secondary source about twitter drama, which seems to be more about angry mobs either attacking or defending Technoblade over a deleted tweet he made years prior to the drama.

Pinknews is considered a reliable source and was the only reliable secondary source found talking about Technoblade's adhd, which is fair, and the article is remarkably unbiased, but I feel like an article about angry mobs talking about the subject instead of the actual subject is super awkward. I tried replacing it with other sources that unfortunately also only mentioned his adhd in passing but were actually about Technoblade instead of angry twitter people, which were removed for being unreliable.

I'm now considering if reinstating the twitter sources would be reliable since they come from the subject himself, according to WP:V, Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves. However, I'm also wondering if because of the lack of any meaningful secondary coverage, it would be better to simply remove the mention of his adhd, or if it should be kept since it was one of the few personal details Technoblade revealed before his death. I know this may come across as forum shopping, but I would like to know how to deal with this type of situation for future reference on other pages. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about the recently deceased are subject to "BLP" constraints. I suggest that you post this question at WP:BLPN. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image alignment

Been having a bit of trouble with image alignment. Let's say I've got a whole chunk of text above followed by a smaller section. I'd like to have my image push up into the larger chunk since it's kinda free space (whereas having it protrude downward would just mess up the organization). I had thought it was vertical alignment but that's just for in line images. I attached a few crude images of what I'm trying to accomplish.


In those images, the first one is what my wikitext looks like now. You can see that the image is associated with the second section/heading. But it protrudes down too much. The second image is what I'd like it to do. The space above is fine to push the image up into. But the problem is, it'd basically mean anchoring the image wayyyyy above section 2. So if the page ever does fill out with more text, the image could move pretty far and won't be "anchored" to section 2 anymore (naively optimistic but leave me alone). Plus, if anyone currently wanted to edit the picture and is editing in source mode, they'd wonder where the heck the image is because it's 5 or 6 lines above the start of section 2.

So is there any way to keep the image anchored to section 2 but push upward instead of downward? I know that pushing upward would be cutting into the previous "section" but with subheadings it's not as obvious or jarring when that happens, compared to when you break down through a full heading's lower edge. I know that using ((-)) is an option but I don't want there to be tons of dead space below section 2 when there's usable space above it. Can anyone give me some pointers? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where you place the image inclusion text, is where it will 'anchor' the top of the image. If you want it higher, you simply have to place it higher up in the wikitext. There is no way to anchor the bottom of an image. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDJ Ohhhh....Well, I guess I should've asked earlier, would've saved me several hours of frustration *sigh. But thank you, I appreciate it! Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria on Wikipedia for a biography

Hi I need help on an article I'm trying to publish. The article is as follows: Draft:Elisa_Gold. A user advised me to ask here. The article is not approved, I think mainly for the sources, but are really many and in my opinion valid. The same article is already present on wikipedia es: . I wonder why it is not considered valid here on wikipedia en. Give me your opinions / advice. Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diegoferralis Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that each language version of Wikipedia is its own independent project, with their own editors and policies. As such, what is acceptable on one version isn't necessarily acceptable on another. The English language version tends to be a little more strict with regards to notability and other things. You must show that she meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, by summarizing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the sources you offer seem to just document the existence of her work, and are not significant coverage of her personally. What are the three best sources with significant coverage that you have?
If you are associated with Ms. Gold, please read conflict of interest. If you work for or are a paid representative of her, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diegoferralis, this is strange stuff (as Theroadislong has already pointed out). We read that she's a "singer, television personality, dancer, model and businesswoman". Which business? "After making herself known, Elisa Gold found herself participating in a long list of programs that have been broadcast in different parts of the world." In what capacity did she participate? "Positioning herself as an artist, De Panicis had the opportunity to be the protagonist of different magazine covers" I clicked on one link (the Vietnamese one) and got the impression that an art director had positioned her as a model. What am I missing? -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a google translation of es-wiki article, done without attribution and without proofreading the resulting text. Slywriter (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your interventions. @Hoary if you check all the sources mentioned carefully you will notice that: he has participated in several famous TV shows. For example, in the Mujeres y Hombres program she was the protagonist. There are many sources for his holdings. As for singing, he made several songs collaborating with various artists. As for the fashion world, those listed are all the covers she posed for as a model. As an entrepreneur, there is probably very little. My difficulty is precisely where it would be appropriate to place it, carrying out at least 3 activities that according to have the same importance. @Slywriter I agree that everything should probably be written better. Diegoferralis (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Translation. It's not as simple as probably should be written better. First, attribution is required when translating content from another language Wikipedia. Second, pure machine translation is considered next to useless for en-wiki as browsers can already do that and it adds little to the encyclopedia. If you wish to use the machine translation as the foundation for writing a draft, you need to take the time to cleanup the text so that it makes sense in English. Note: none of this is an assessment of the notability of the subject. Slywriter (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply Diegoferralis (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand correctly, Diegoferralis, "Positioning herself as an artist, De Panicis had the opportunity to be the protagonist of different magazine covers" means no more than "De Panicis modeled for various magazine covers". -- Hoary (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Why doesn't every language edition of Wikipedia have a mobile view option? Hgh1985 (talk) Hgh1985 (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgh1985 They should do, it's enabled for all wmf sites! Can you tell us which project you're having the issue on? (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will my article be granted if I add sources?

I have prepared an article for Wikipedia with proper information from sources like INDIA BOOK OF RECORDS,TELEGRAPH INDIA,Alternative Record UK,Guinness Book,THE TIMES OF INDIA . Information are collected from the official website.

Is my article prepared from these sources reliable enough to be granted by admins ? Because earlier my article was rejected suspecting that I'm promoting someone although I'm not concerned with that topic nor the person. Baruah ranuj (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baruah ranuj, it'd be easier to answer your question if you provided a link to the draft you're asking about. In any case, the Times of India is not a reliable source, it publishes whatever people pay it to. Maproom (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Provide Link

Please give me the link of the page where I can submit draft article for article of creation submission Baruah ranuj (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baruah ranuj Hello and welcome. I have added the appropriate information to your draft to allow you to submit it for a review, just click the button in the box I added. This information is provided automatically if you use Articles for Creation to create a draft. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is my article perfect to be added in wikipedia? What you think Baruah ranuj (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a chance right now to thoroughly review it; if you submit it for a review, a reviewer will look at it carefully and make a determination. This will not necessarily happen quickly, but it will happen. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions and page restrictions

Is there a tool I can use that will pop up a "HEY DUMMY, READ THE DS PAGE RESTRICTION NOTICE" if page restrictions are in effect? I have luckily avoided accidental trangressions, but today I was surprised to learn I've just never noticed the 24 hr BRD restriction at Donal Trump. My bad, like a lot of regulars the templates get tuned out eventually. I'd like an opt in tool to help overcome this bit of my human nature. Do we have one? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


please review my draft

I have posted Today Baruah ranuj (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Baruah ranuj: Please be patient. Someone will review it in time, but we have a long queue. ((u|Sdkb))talk 13:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You also skipped AfC for two biography articles you created on 5 July, neither of which in my opinion reach Wikipedia notability. Lurin Jyoti Gogoi was a student leader who lost an Assam election. Gyanendra Pratap Singh appears to be a mid-level police officer in Assam. WP:NPP may revert both to draft or else delete. David notMD (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info in gray box on top of draft

The gray box that shows up when I open the draft I'm working on contains some advisory bullet points, but I can't tell if they're specifically about perceived issues with my draft or if they're general notes for every draft. When I click on "edit," the box expands with more notes of advice, but only one notice keeps popping up, about finding sources. I don't yet have library access, but if anything, I've already over-sourced some of this, and I'm not done referencing.

So I'm curious about how to address the following issues if they are showing up specifically for me, because I don't think I've violated any of these rules.

I might have a potential issue with copy-paste, but the situation is that I copied a page into a Word document to follow the layout and style almost three years ago when I knew far less and couldn't even figure out where to find a template. I wiped all the original information and wrote a completely different entry, and when I finally decided to try turning it into an actual draft, I lifted my copy and pasted it into the draft page (using visual editor). I also pasted in a couple of large tables that were built from the ones I copied, but have none of the original info. I'm afraid that might read as a copy-paste of material from sources, but that wasn't my intention at all. There is no duplicated info; I just used the structure. If that's an issue, how do I fix it without having to rebuild my entire page — because I'd rather leap off a bridge at this point. I haven't even added the photo and infobox. I figured I'll cross (or leap off) that bridge after I get all the other ducks in a row, including cleaning up my footnotes, etc. I'm hammering away at this thing, still trimming and refining to meet what seems like an ever-moving goalpost of rules and guidelines. I know I'm getting there, but I've been staring at those bullet points and thinking, "I get the message, and I'm not guilty!" I've got a journalism degree and decades of experience as a writer and editor. The last thing I would ever dream of doing is plagiarizing, and I'm very careful about attribution. I also know the difference between a neutral point of view and a slanted one (and I can spot promotional, self-serving or editorialized copy a mile away). So am I just being paranoid or what?

TexasEditor1 (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a default message. If you look at your draft (I took the liberty) notice that gookygook on the first line. When you see those double curly brackets and you don't know what that's about you can replace the curly brackets and type this in the Wikipedia search bar Template:AFC submission Don't include the parameters, just the first part. This will take you to Template:AFC submission where you can read how it works. Notice the parameter "t". That calls a default bit of text that you see in the grey box from Template:AfC_submission/draft. Good luck with your article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article was rejected, not an advertising purpose

Below mentioned article was rejected by wikipedia team and saying "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia."

however this article is just for non profit organization and they are working for nationwide Weather, climate & environmental issues.

please resolve this issue and give me some suggestions

Draft:PakWeather Network Owaishdr1 (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Owaishdr1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As it seems that this is your organization, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures.
It seems to be that you have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves and what they do, and where mere existence merits inclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability. The definition of a notable organization is written at WP:ORG. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. We aren't interested in what the organization says about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the organization choose on their own- and not based on materials from the organization- to say about it. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Owaishdr1 This draft is not written in the correct format for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - articles should be written in a formal and scholarly tone, so structuring an article as "questions and answers" is inappropriate. Text like More than 15 young weather and nature lovers who work secretly, actively, and devotedly to promote Weather & Climate change awareness make up PakWeather's team reads like something listed from a press release or an advert, not an encyclopaedia article. Furthermore you have not provided any sources showing that this organisation is notable enough to qualify for an article (WP:NORG) or which can be used to verify the text (WP:V). Please read WP:Your first article for guidance on how to write a page, and if you have any conflicts of interest please disclose them as required. (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some translation

I did some translation of a page in my sandbox and was hoping to get some feedback before I add it to the actual page.

Here's the link:

 Chagropango (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the main problem is that we already have a page El Corte Inglés and although your sandbox is now a much larger article, there is no indication where you obtained the material (i.e. following WP:TRANSLATE you need to acknowledge editors/other-language-Wikipedias elsewhere whose work you translated). I suggest you add parts of the material from your sandbox in increments to the existing article, giving credit in edit summaries if the parts you are adding are translations. That way, other editors interested in the English version of the article will notice what you are doing and can comment on individual edits if needs be. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the suggestion. Do you mean I should look up who added the text in the Spanish original and then credit them when I add something to the English page? Chagropango (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chagropango That level of detail isn't necessary, and in many cases the text will be written by multiple people anyway. all you need to do is use an edit summary like
Content in this edit is translated from [[:es:El Corte Inglés|the corresponding article]] on the Spanish Wikipedia, please see that article's history for attribution
which provides the required attribution and a link to the original. (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, good to know, thanks Chagropango (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A user reverted my edits based on rv sock

Help [[2]] a user is deceiving editors by removing content based on rv sock. My edit however differs from a recently blocked sock see Talk:Warjih people, yet a user (Magherbin) is using that pretext to push his version. YonasJH (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the GWI Wikipedia Page

Hi all,

I'm an intern at GWI (I believe I properly disclosed this on my user page), a target audience company, and I would like to update some of the company's information on its wiki page because much is outdated. Recently, I updated the logo and some key outdated facts about the company on its wikipedia page (e.g., removing "key people" that haven't worked at the company for years). I am still trying to change the title of the article about GWI, though, because the wiki article is still entitled "GlobalWebIndex". This name is old as of 2018, and the company now refers to itself as GWI, wishing to distance itself from the old name for which GWI is an acronym. "GlobalWebIndex" is a misleading/inaccurate title for the article--all of its users/clients as well as the public know the company as GWI, and if you look at its website, you will not be able to find "GlobalWebIndex". If it were not for the current wikipedia page as it stands, there would be no concern for brand inconsistency. This is all to explain why I decided to make an effort to update the page.

Does anyone have any advice for moving this page or resolving this issue? Unfortunately, "GWI" already exists as a redirection page. However, "GlobalWebIndex," like I said, is 4 years out-of-date, and is confusing for anyone wishing to learn about the company. Is there any way to move "GWI" to "GWI (redirection page)" and move "GlobalWebIndex" to "GWI", perhaps?

Thanks for your time--any assistance or advice would be greatly appreciated.


Alexgwi (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexgwi Hello Alexgwi, welcome to the teahouse!
Since you have a conflict of interest I would advise against moving the page yourself, instead please use the Requested moves process. If you believe that moving the page is uncontroversial then you can use the Technical requests subpage to ask that someone move the page on your behalf. If you think the move would be controversial then please follow the instructions on the Controversial moves subpage to open a discussion about the article title. (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Just went over to the Technical requests subpage and submitted a request. Thanks so much! Alexgwi (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexgwiTo answer the other aspect of your question, since GWI already exists as a disambiguation page the company page cannot also exist at that title. If you want the article to start "GWI" you have two options - either demonstrate that the company is the clear Primary topic, in which case the existing page will be moved to GWI (disambiguation), (i.e. show that when someone searches "GWI" they are overwhelmingly likely to be looking for information on GlobalWebIndex and not the other things listed on that page), or you can propose to move the article to a disambiguated title, like "GWI (company)". Moving the existing disambiguation page is almost certainly going to be a controversial move that requires a discussion. (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense. Out of curiosity, how does one typically demonstrate that when people search "GWI" they are overwhelmingly likely to be looking for the company? Is there like search data that one would have to present, for instance data that would show that when people go to the disambiguation page, 98% of the time they click on GWI (the company)? Alexgwi (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexgwi There are no hard and fast rules for what you are looking for really, each case gets argued on the basis of available evidence. Things like google ngrams, the relative page views of the articles (available at, and the clickstream data from the disambiguation page (available at are all reasonable things to consider, but people may also point to things like long term significance, e.g. the primary topic of Jiren is the ancient Ethiopian capital city rather than the dragon ball character, despite the latter getting many more pageviews. (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ this is fascinating and super helpful. Thanks so much again for your time! Alexgwi (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recover deleted draft

Hello, how can I retrieve my draft that was deleted for copyright claims? I would like to modify two paragraphs that I think got hit.

Draft:Hathor Network - here's the link to the deleted draft Pxx05 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Pxx05, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you wish to recover a copy of a deleted draft, contact the deleting administrator, in this case, MER-C. Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pxx05 The advice given is incorrect. Pages that are deleted due to containing copyright violations cannot/will not be restored. The only thing you can really do here is write another draft, making sure you avoid introducing copyright violations. Text must be written entirely in your own words - do not copy from or closely paraphrase your sources. (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I was referring to recovering a copy of a deleted page via email from a admin, not undeletion/restoring a deleted page. Sorry if that was not made clear! HenryTemplo (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still no. The draft was inappropriately promotional as well. You need to start again and cite only reliable sources (namely mainstream financial media). MER-C 16:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tv Episode Articles

Would an article like When Betty Met YETI meet GNG? The sources don't support anything other than "this episode aired and these people liked it" and I'm not sure how reliable those sources are anyway. There are so many of these types of articles on WP and I'm never sure whether to AfD them, redirect them, or whatever else. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it meets GNG. But the question isn't that of whether the article meets GNG; it's of whether, if anyone were to bother to attempt to improve it, the article could meet GNG. To answer that question, one would have to look in Google or similar. I for one find that a depressing prospect: so many other uses for my limited time seem far more worthwhile. -- Hoary (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, Username, that earlier response of mine doesn't seem at all helpful. I suppose I'd put some effort into finding good sources, and, if I succeeded, would forget about the article and those that seemed similar, but, if I failed, would bring up the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Let people there discuss notability. Actually I'd be inclined just to turn the thing into a redirect, but I'm sure that doing so would trigger much time-wasting indignation (some of it possibly even justified). -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I spent a whole week cutting down plots for American Horror Story, but most of those articles had at least an attempt at encyclopedic coverage. This is a glorified episode recap w/ a token gesture toward real world perspective. I think I'll try redirecting a few and see what develops. I tried something similar for Heroes and it got people to take a serious look at some of the more egregious articles. Thanks! Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New user account set to bully and harass?


This new editor called @SolihullResident96: is attempting to try and intimidate and control me in what I can and can't edit. They are trying to make out they and another user (of unknown origin and doesn't exist). Is trying to say leave this page alone and your a troll account set about offending. I think this user should be given a warning of not to bully or harass other editors. Is this sort of thing allowed? DragonofBatley (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonofBatley No, their behaviour and the comments they have made about you are completely unacceptable. I would suggest warning them about personal attacks ((Uw-npa2)) and ownership of pages ((uw-own1)). If they continue to make those kind of comments, consider reporting them to WP:ANI. (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User: Appreciate your reply and I'll look to add those two warnings linked. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonofBatley A little bit of advice for the future: your responses to their comments are less than helpful [3] [4], responding to incivility with more incivility just makes the situation worse. Be the bigger person, just remove the comments and warn them without stooping to their level. If you were to take this to ANI I expect that a lot of the regulars there would now see it as "two people making nasty comments at each other" rather than "newbie making ridiculous personal attacks at an established editor" (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will just remove their comments and place a warning on their talk page. Thanks for the advice DragonofBatley (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first higher living organisms to survive orbit in outer space: Able & Baker OR Belka & Strelka?

I feel like I'm going crazy, so many source keep saying that Belka & Strelka Soviet space dogs were the first to be recovered alive. But Korabl-Sputnik 2 was on 19 August 1960 (Belka and Strelka's mission) while Jupiter AM-18 (Able & Baker) was 28 May 1959. They all came back to earth alive. As one is monkeys and the other dogs, they are both higher organisms, right? Why does everywhere, including Wikipedia keep saying they the one in 1960 came first. The American source ( says they traveled some 480 km (300 miles) up which is into orbit, while what I've been able to read in English about Russia is saying ( 306 by 339 kilometer orbit. Lover of Blue Roses (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[I'm new to Wikipedia, if this is the wrong place to post my question, please let me know.]

Edit: Okay it seems that Belka & Strelka were the first to reach *orbit* rather than sub-orbit. This is not a height above earth, hence my confusion as both pass the Kármán line, but a speed needed to complete one orbital revolution (and become an artificial satellite) or reach escape velocity. It seems very strange to me that one should be considered the first animal in space to be safely returned and not the other as both were in space. Would editing to mention that one was the first in space, and the other the first in orbit, (and then recovered) make sense?

I believe that the first animals in space were fruit flies (if using the Karman line, [source], [source 2], [source 3]) P.S. I'm pretty sure that your question is fine, as long as it sticks to the central topic of creating and maintaining an encyclopedia (WP:FORUM). I could be wrong, though. Qoiuoiuoiu ( talk ) 21:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lover of Blue Roses Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This question could probably have gone to the reference desk or to a WikiProject in this field. The Teahouse is for new users who have troubles with editing and the like.
Asparagusus (interaction) 17:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article i'm working

Hello, i would like your opinion on an article i'm working on about network radios and i would also appreciate help with finding WP:RS.

OGWFP (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OGWFP At present, your draft has no sources at all, so you have some way to go! There is a template you may find useful, which I've added here and you could copy to your sandbox as you work further on the draft. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, OGWFP, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that your draft shows that you haven't yet understood what Wikipedia is. It looks as if you've starting writing what you know about something: Wikipedia isn't interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet) knows about anything. What Wikipedia is interested in is what has been published about a subject in reliable sources: that's all. The difficult task of writing an article starts with finding reliable sources about a subject, and then writing a neutral summary of what those sources say. In particular, any kind of argumentation, conclusions, or advice (as in your "advantages and disadvantages" section) is absolutely not acceptable: if you find one or more sources that discuss the advantages and disadvantages, you can summarise their arguments and conclusions, (even quote short passages if it seems appropriate, attributed of course), but putting your own conclusions and recommendations is original research, and not permitted. Please see your first article. ColinFine (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help With Page Being Reported Improperly

Hi I'm a fan of the band Dead Posey - Recently after making minor edits, their wiki page was flagged with this message at the top of the page:

[[This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (July 2022) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (July 2022)]]

How do I go about getting this off their page properly?? I've "cited" all sources on their wiki page. There is no biased view or revising history to my knowledge. I've assumed most bands "fans" are the ones that create and work on their wiki pages, so I'm confused by the sudden "flagging" of this wiki page when nothing out of wiki guidlines/rules is going on. From what I've also seen on wiki, most contributors are working on pages that they're fans of in regards to people, places, organizations etc. I feel I've been wrongly accused of not working within wiki guidlines/rules especially since wiki is based on "good faith." Theres no proof of doing anything wrong and I'd appreciate some help/backup from the wiki pros. All I'm trying to do in this case is update a bands page that I'm a fan of and to state again I've worked very hard to cite everything on this page properly. Any help with getting the wiki patrol off my back would be greatly appreciated. - User: PoeWritesThings ;) Poewritesthings (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could have notified Praxidicae about this request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, separately tagged by P and User:Rosguill. Ask both. David notMD (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Poewritesthings: I haven't looked at all the sources, but I see at least one press release. Sources that are not independent weaken the subject's claim to notability. I also marked a dead link. Everything needs to be sourced. The influences section for example is now unsourced. As far as the tone, maybe look at other music articles and see how they are written. Lastly, you're better off calling articles articles instead of pages. That can irk people here, since this isn't Facebook or Myspace. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help and knowledge much appreciated. So if I cite a source that orginally was a press release from what appears to be from the bands press team thats considered a non source to cite correct? Has to be a 3rd party article written about them, yes?
As far as getting the "The article has multiple issues etc" taken off the top of Dead Posey wiki how do I get that to happen? I know now I'm not supposed to remove it myself. Just trying to get the page it a good spot so any bit helps. Thank you again for your time. Poewritesthings (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Poewritesthings: You have to address each of the two issues flagged. The tone can be improved with a rewrite. The notability can be improved by showing that independent media organizations wrote about the band, and the coverage can't be routine. Since the press release was released by the band itself, it doesn't help show notability. And of course a self-published source isn't always reliable. You can sometimes get away with using one to say something like "The band announced in a press release ..." but that doesn't make the band notable. WP:NBAND might help. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense about getting sources that aren't "press releases" so I've started to update some of the cites to stronger sources I'm finding online.
As far as a rewrite goes to make the tone of the article stronger - the bands I've seen on wiki have similar language on their articles, if you have any additional tips on how to word things better with whats on the article now I'd appreciate it. I'd love to punch it up so this article is in good standing and the "Article Issues" box at the top removed.
In regards to a "fan of a band" working on wiki articles, if everything is true and cited properly that shouldn't be an issue correct? You have been very helpful, thank you. Poewritesthings (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poewritesthings, even with 100% perfect sourcing, content may be unsuitable for inclusion, so the answer to the last question in your message is "no". Relevant policy sections are "WP:UNDUE" and "WP:ONUS": It is possible to create a biased, non-neutral article by including just verifiable information, and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you for clarifying. I'm confused because I've seen a-lot of other bands articles specifically that look a-lot like the Dead Posey article and I'm not seeing a problem with this one over others. I've always thought wiki is a place that gathers info from online sources about a person, place or thing. It seems like theres a bit of gatekeeping on wiki that I wasn't aware of. I thought I've been neutral on this article but it seems like some contributors on wiki have it out for this article for in my opinion no good reason. If you have any contributors names you know of that like to contribute to band articles specifically could you please let me know their names for me to reach-out to them. This band specifically has enough reputable sources and career and deserves a wiki article among other bands at their level seem to have, hence why I started it. Again, thank you for your time and your thought out responses I greatly appreciate it. Poewritesthings (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This response I just wrote above is meant for "TimTempleton" Poewritesthings (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Dead Posey and Tony Fagenson you messed up the refs by moving ref content that was under References into the body of the article, but not using the ref names that had been previously used in the body of the article. Hence all the red at the bottom. David notMD (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to verify that reFill is being used from your account

Hello, Teahouse hosts. I'm about to use reFill, but I need to verify: how can you find out if you are using reFill under your account, and not as an IP editor? Is it that you simply have to go to toolforge:refill signed into Wikipedia, or is it something else? Thanks. — 3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS — 22:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @3PPYB6! When you use reFill, it ends up sending you back to Wikipedia, where you actually save the edit. So, you'll see the usual "You are not logged in." warning. Bsoyka (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability advice for rejected article at Draft:Luke Toki

Hi, I'd like to ask for advice for Draft:Luke Toki, which I'm very close to WP:ABANDONing. I keep on getting the same editor at WP:AFC declining my draft, although they continue to contradict themselves when they state that "additional references meeting these criteria should be added" but also that "adding more references is often not useful" in helping to establish notability. What more can I do? Does this WP:BIO draft have any hope or is it better to just abandon it? Happily888 (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those two things don't contradict each other exactly. The first one specifies references meeting those criteria. It looks like you've been adding more references that are the same type/quality as the ones that were already present in the article, so that doesn't help show that the subject is notable. As for whether there's anything you can do, I'll leave that to others more familiar with this genre of biography. -- asilvering (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Happily888, and welcome to the Teahouse. You might find it helpful to read the essay WP:Citation overkill. ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why my article deleted

My recent draft:sujit das is deleted . What's the reason and how to improve it to be granted by admins ? Baruah ranuj (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Baruah ranuj! Welcome to the Teahouse! Your draft was not deleted, just declined. The reasons are listed on the draft itself and your talk page. Just read through those messages to learn what needs to be done to improve the draft. Happy editing! Bsoyka (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Baruah ranuj, you say: London World Records University awarded him an honorary doctorate for his outstanding achievements on 27 February 2013 at a ceremony held at the Indira Gandhi Kala Kendra, New Delhi. I don't know about 2013, but this enterprise currently calls itself "World Records University". I'd suggest retaining the quotation marks: we wouldn't want readers to mistake it for an actual university. And of course the assertion must be reliably referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary I don’t think we should use that at all as it’s not a real university. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller, I wouldn't use it either. -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HoaryI have cited sources from Guinness Book of World records as you know and many sources. I don't the criteria but all data are correctly mentioned. A few mistakes may be there that you have showed me. So there is nothing to specify as a reason for pending the article.Baruah ranuj (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Baruah ranuj, you have been told "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Yet even now, the longest paragraph has no references whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary I have removed that one.@Baruah ranuj:

Wiki admin

Are Wikipedia admins paid ? Baruah ranuj (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are unpaid volunteers like everyone else. Paid staff do not edit or make editorial decisions in that capacity, and can only take administrative actions under specific circumstances. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article not indexed on Google.

Hi. AnderNigro (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AnderNigro Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It takes time for search engines to index pages, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on 331dot's answer, new articles are indexed when 90 days have passed or a new pages patroller has reviewed them, whichever comes first. There's more info on that at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol watching blue lashes.svg
Courtesy ping: AnderNigro —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revising references.

I have edited the page Collaborative fiction and condensed the new entry that is entitled The Painted Sky and the Shining Light into an entry under Australia where it should be. I have not as yet deleted that entry that stands alone because I can't duplicate the references 24 and 25. Can you let know how I can edit these. I don't want to generate new references but keep these two numbers. Thank you in anticipation Debbie Robson Lakelady2282 (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lakelady2282, I've moved the two references for you. It's now up to you to delete the now unreferenced Painted Sky section. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Thank you so much. Will do now. Lakelady2282 (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre Talk page phenomenon

I just added a new section to the Talk page of the Film noir article (the newest one, "Vulgar auteurism", at the bottom of the page). A reference section from some other article magically appears in my post, but there is nothing but my text when I enter "Editing Talk". Can someone help me remove that unwanted text? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. If a page cites sources, and has no ((reflist)), they all get listed at the end of the page. The solution is to add ((reflist|talk page)) where the list of references would be useful. Maproom (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


hello, I would like to know if there is another place for editors to hold a debate or to reach a consensus other than the articles talk page. My reason for asking is... Someone edited Millie bobby brown page and added that she is a model, after a while another editor removed it. So I opened a talk on her page for editors to debate and come to a consensus if she is a model. The level of ignorance I saw was overwhelming because non of the editors understand wikipedia policy of reliable sources because I showed several links that verified that millie bobby brown is a model and that she is signed to a well known modeling agency img models, she has modeled for brands like Louis Vuitton,vogue and other brands she is listed on website as among models. With all this I mentioned and showed sources verifying it editors are still in doubt that she is a model whereas she is listed as a producer when it is only one movie she has produced in her acting career. So I would like to know if there is any place in Wikipedia I can report or bring up a debate aside from a pages talk page because editors are no longer responding and participating. Or is there any help desk or admin/admins that I can refer the matter to so that they can look into it. cheers.Uricdivine (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Urlcdinive, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:Dispute resolution explains things you can do when a talk page discussion cannot reach consensus. ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uricdivine, you've discussed the issue extensively at Talk:Millie_Bobby_Brown#Modeling_career, and failed to convince any of the three other editors who disagree with you. So now you're hoping to find another discussion forum, where there'll be people who agree with you. I wouldn't hold out much hope. Maproom (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine can you please break it down and tell me where I can go? Because a lot of information is there and I tried reading but I got lost after 5 paragraphs. @Maproom your correct I failed to convince them because neither of them wanted to be convinced. And yes am looking for a forum. Why am so keen-on this topic is because I can't understand why information that is sourced and verifiable isnt changing there mind for me I think is a personal vandeata or issues the have with her maybe the don't think an 18yrs old should have so many titles.... Am so keen on this topic because my links covers both Wikipedia reliable source policy and notability policy but the seem to show a blind eye also like I said she has produced only 1 movie which is enola Holmes but she is listed as a producer whereas her modeling career is ignored without reason. So please I would like to know if there is anywhere an admin or high and seasoned editor can look at my links and claims if it meets Wikipedia standard for inclusion. Uricdivine (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Unless there is a reliable source to prove that she is or was ever a model, then your dispute could keep going on in a loop forever. As said above, WP:Dispute resolution has a guide to dispute resolution, but because you “got lost after 5 paragraphs”, I don’t think that would be of much help to you. The “dispute” you are having is mostly just you and uninvolved editors (plus the one person at the bottom saying that they believe you to be right). If you’re not going to use the resources other editors have provided for you, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Asparagusus (interaction) 16:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the dispute resolution. And yes I do have reliable sources supporting my claim.cheersUricdivine (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible to add to the title of a previously published article?

I noticed that the existing title of an article isn't extensive enough to cover everything involved (which is just one more item). Is there any way to add to the title while not otherwise change the title itself? Augnablik (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Augnablik, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia page titles are changed by moving the page. Your account is autoconfirmed, so you should have that action available to you - but if the change you want to make might be at all controversial, I recommend discussing it on the article's talk page first, and get consensus. ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is an "article's talk page"? Augnablik (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every article has a talk page, though in some cases it hasn't yet been created. In the skin I use, there's a tab labelled "Talk" at the top left. ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting citation numbers to update

As I'm working on edits for a long article and want to be sure I have a copy of my work "just in case," I have a Microsoft word file into which I copy my edits as I go, section by section. Although the text is copied accurately, the citations in the copied text usually (though not always!) start numbering back at 1. There seems to be a way within Word to update citation numbers, but it's not working for me — unless I'm doing it wrong.

o Is there a way to avoid citation numbers changing if we copy our edits into an outside application like Word?

o Even more basically, is there a way to save different versions of our edits in Wikipedia itself, in a work area just for an individual editor? Augnablik (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Augnablik and welcome to the teahouse!
  • the citations may be resetting back to [1] since you're editing a section. in section previews only the citations present are included in the numbering instead of all of them. do they still show up as [1] even after publishing changes?
  • you can save your edits in your Sandbox (yours is located at User:Augnablik/sandbox) and work on it there! although if you save your edits there, everyone will be able to see it, although that probably won't be a problem as everyone will be able to see your edits anyway once you publish it at your main destination, and people rarely view sandboxes anyway (unless they're checking on your work).
happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Melecie. I didn't know it was possible to save edits in our sandboxes!
As for the question you asked me, the numbers wouldn't change in my published version unless I copied from Word back into Wikipedia ... which I'd be a little leery to do unless someone overwrote everything I'd published and I wanted to re-post my version. (But then, of course, I'd want to avoid a war and work out a peace treaty.) Augnablik (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright image

How to know whether particular image from website can be published in wikipedia or not ? how to know whether it has has copyright laws or free to use ? Shwetamits (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Shwetamits and welcome to the teahouse! firstly if neither the site nor the page itself has copyright information, assume it's copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. if there is copyright information in the site (check pages like "about" or "licensing", or find the word "copyright" or "license") then compare the license of the image with the list at File copyright tags/Free licenses. if it appears there, you're good to go! if it doesn't, unfortunately it cannot be uploaded here. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shwetamits: Hi and welcome. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, that is, it contains content that is free, with limited exceptions. We can upload a file to Wikimedia Commons or locally if it allows both commercial use and derivatives. However, if the content isn't free, it may still be usable under a claim of fair use when uploaded locally. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 16:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image upload from public domain

I wanna upload an image from a public domain Dipr assam.This is the image link. To upload it in commons , which option to select after selecting this is not my own work. I didn't see any option of license of India . Then what to choose? Baruah ranuj (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before we proceed, Baruah ranuj, please point to evidence that this is, as you say, in the public domain. -- Hoary (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Baruah ranuj, and welcome to the Teahouse. Why do you think that that image is public domain? I cannot see any statement to that effect, and on it says Material featured on this Website may be reproduced free of charge after taking proper permission by sending a mail to us, which is not the same as public domain. ColinFine (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a Disambiguation example?

On Tens (disambiguation), it lists a link in the "Other" section for the cartoon series The Emperor's New School just because its abbreviated form is TENS, but the title on its own does not have the word "ten" in the title nor the number 10 in numerical form, so is it really an example? Turboplate (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Turboplate. I don't understand your question. That DAB page is for "Tens" not "Ten" or "10", so why would "TENS" not appear there? ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Turboplate means that TENS is not an official or well-known abbreviation for The Emperor's New School and it doesn't appear in the article. The Google search "TENS" "The Emperor's New School" finds so few and poor examples that it does seem questionable to me per WP:DABACRONYM. It was added by an IP in 2007.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Management Sciences

Who is the Local president in china And who is he the councillor (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Shantavira|feed me 11:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place for new editors who have questions about editing Wikipedia. As said above, we have a reference desk where there are a few categories of which you can ask your question, or you could search this in a browser.
Asparagusus (interaction) 15:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits

Hi, i need help. An editor named "Alototus" keep reverting my edits on article named " Deoghar Airport" where he keeps adding layover/ connecting flights to airlines and destinations page. I think only direct flight that operates from airport should only be there. It is obvious that airport will interconnected via each other by some connecting flights that doesn't mean that editor should keep adding those lenghty list. Any help to fixed this will be highly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashthomsom (talkcontribs) 07:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already asked and answered on the Help Desk. Please do not cross post. Shantavira|feed me 12:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with my article

The page was on draft I don't know why somebody moved it I anyway I had already received this G11 tag and in fact I had it rewritten in an unbiased way and it seemed to be going in the right direction so I'm asking if you can put the page in draft as it was before. A lot of administrators are telling me about the notability to me it seems (comparing me to other podcasts and other pages) that mine is fine that way... I would really like to have a clear answer or practical explanation of why my article is not going well because I try to test and it doesn't work so please if you can can give me an answer?

The page is on draft of the page named on my talk page... I don't want to write the name because it will get in the google search list Jdtw2022 (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links Italian wine podcast and Draft:Italianwinepodcast. Theroadislong (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giant snails

How do I request that someone update a page? (In this case, to update the history of the snail being found again in Florida - the page makes no reference of it, only says Florida declared them gone in 2021) (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Do you have a reliable published source stating that the giant snail is in Florida? If so, and if you don’t want to add the information and reference cite yourself, you can go to the Talk page of the relevant Wikipedia article, give the reference cite (such as - name of article, name of publication, issue date and page number) and state that the article says giant snails have been found at this location, could someone add it to the article. Best wishes on your Wikipedia work. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy: Lissachatina fulica appears to be the species that was eradicated in Florida, several years ago. An internet search on Lissachatina fulica and Forida yields newspaper websites posting that snails have again been seen in Florida. David notMD (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosted Wiktionary

Hello, I'm having trouble for speedy deletion of many articles on a wiki which hasn't had any administrator not even an active one. I'd like to request for adminship as well but don't know where to start. I'm active on there wiki (km Wiktionary), trying to prevent vandalism as possible. I wish to start being interface admin but afraid not meeting criterias. How should I either request for admin of other project wiki for assistance or becoming an admin myself with provided advices? Thank you. Pichnat Thong (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pichnat Thong, welcome to the Teahouse. See meta:Steward requests/Permissions. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Meta:Requests_and_proposals#On_other_wikis PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ratan Darasha Tata

I wanted to add Ratan Darasha Tata to the industrialist Zaoroastrians of India. He was born on 9th February 1937 in Bombay and died on 3rd July 2022 in Vienna. Traudl1 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of people on Wikipedia are only for people who have a Wikipedia article about them. Ratan Darasha Tata does not have a Wikipedia article so please don't add his name to any list. Shantavira|feed me 16:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Online/Offline template status

Hello, I am looking for a template which shows If I'm online or offline that I can add onto my userpage. Thanks. Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinoz1: Welcome to the Teahouse! This is theoretically possible, but you would have to update it yourself every time you want to show up as online or offline. I did so myself for some time, but quickly lost the motivation to update that page multiple times a day, so I got rid of it. If you really want to give it a shot, just make a page like User:Dinoz1/Status and transclude it as needed. Happy editing! Bsoyka (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your very polite and helpful response! Have a wonderful day! Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinoz1: We do have templates ((User status)) and ((User Status)) but our software has no automatic feature to show the status so users have to indicate it with edits. That's impractical and few users do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also User:StatusBot. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a redirection page

Has the policy on creating new pages changed (specifically redirection pages, but probably the same applies to others)? In the past, if I wanted to create a new page the system would allow it without formality, most recently (20th June) a redirection from Harden-Young ester to Fructose 2,6-bisphosphate went without problems. Now I need to redirect from enterobactin synthase to 2,3-dihydroxybenzoate—serine ligase. As the IUBMB recommended name is enterobactin synthase that's what people can be expected to search for, but they won't find it unless they try 2,3-dihydroxybenzoate—serine ligase instead. However, when I tried to create a page it said "The page "Enterobactin synthase" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered". OK, but is it really necessary to go through a review? How long will it take? Has the policy changed in the past three weeks? Athel cb (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Athel cb! Interestingly, someone else asked a very similar question a few days ago, here. Perhaps those replies will help (I wonder if something has indeed changed recently... ). (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The wording changed 22 June [6] but you still create the page by clicking the red link with the page name. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for these responses, which were very helpful. The discussion to which you directed me described exactly the same problem as I was having. Clicking on the red link had the desired effect, and there is now a page Enterobactin synthase. Athel cb (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad

I wish I could edit an article, but all of the articles are already edited. I don’t want to create a article because I’m not confident enough. What should I do. :( RandomDude6 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RandomDude6 It would be an extremely rare thing for an article to be 100% complete and not need any changes. There are over 6 million articles here. You could click the "random article" button continuously to see if ones that need work come up. You can visit the community portal which has tasks that need to be done. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, RandomDude6, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can also find a WikiProject that interests you. WikiProjects focus on specific kinds of articles; not all of them are active, but their project pages typically include goals and resources at least. You can use this to find articles you'd like to work on – many lower-traffic articles need plenty of work, including things that are easier to do as a newcomer, such as spelling and grammar fixes and integrating with more links. Hope this helps! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you RandomDude6 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block Policy

Can you get IP blocked? RandomDude6 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @RandomDude6. A lot of IPs are blocked for vandalism or unconstructive editing. Special:Blocklist lists some blocked users, including IPs. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 20:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on notoriety and self-publishing

Hello, I am new to the Wikipedia community and looking for feedback if I would qualify (based on notoriety) for a personal Wikipedia page. I have growing visibility in my scientific field and I’m a public face in Hawaii and in national media for public health and political advocacy. I have recently been honored with some prestigious recognitions (things like 40 Under 40 lists, State Legislative honors, and a large public award coming soon). My concern is that I share the same name of another individual who is also growing in notoriety but for opposite political views and there have been some mistaken associations. Would my profile be appropriate for a Wiki page?

“Jacob (Jake) Schafer is an American epidemiologist, humanitarian aid worker, science communicator, and public health activist. He is known for his work in responding to disease outbreaks and other health emergencies, notably pandemics. He is considered an emerging leader in the field of global health security and public health development.” Of course, I have several public secondary sources and magazine profiles on me to source.

Please let me know your thoughts. DisasterEpi (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome. Please be aware that nobody has a "personal" article. The subject of the article doesn't have much control over the article's content. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 21:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DisasterEpi: Welcome to the Teahouse. I invite you to read the essay Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and understand that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. It's best to let an uninvolved editor (one that doesn't have a conflict of interest with you, paid or otherwise) find those sources and write about you from scratch.
Also, subjects suitable for Wikipedia are determined by the encyclopedia's definition of notability, not notoriety. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. Could someone please add the colors here to the template I am making at User:BeanieFan11/2022 Birmingham Stallions. Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BeanieFan11. I have done it with titlestyle = ((Gridiron primary style|year=2022|Birmingham Stallions)).[7] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia so unfriendly to new editors?

I'm a new editor, but a long-time reader. What prompted me to write this was a Wikimedia banner asking to report to Wikimedia (UK chapter I think) examples of blatant underrepresentation of women in the articles. The banner seemed absurd: of course women (and many other groups) would be underrepresented as long as new editors that try to do edits different from spelling corrections are harassed when they write anything that doesn't fit average editor's worldview, no matter how neutral with regards to the sources the edit is.

As I've started editing, I've encountered two very strange practices and, although I couldn't find them in the list of perennial policy proposals, decided to ask here why they still exist. These practices seem very counter-productive, and seem like something that would've been discussed many times previously.

BRD is a well-kept secret. This would sound strange to any experienced editor, but as a new editor, you won't learn about BRD easily. Sure, you might stumble to the policy accidentally, but more likely than not you wouldn't know about it - and its essential to productive contributing to today's Wikipedia. After I registered, someone added a welcome message to the talk page with two dozens of links to various policies and essays. Even if I were to read all of them - I don't think BRD is amongst them.

Why isn't BRD policy made prominent to new editors on sign-up? Why is there no notification for new editors saying something like "your edit just was removed by other editor - if you think it should be in the article - please create new section on the article's talk page"?

I've tried editing Wikipedia a while ago and was discouraged by immediate removal of my first edit. I only was able to figure it now only because of a conversation with someone from Wikimedia who explained how policies work. I'm sure some of contributors who are seen disruptive may not really understand how BRD works - and there are definitely a lot of people who tried to edit in good faith and were discouraged after a near-immediate revert. I know a few personally.

Harassment under the guise of BRD. There are editors who write little, but would do a lot of reverts with comments like WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, or something like 'sourced'/'per consensus' if they're reverting a removal. Obviously, any of such comments sounds like a fair concern, and I'm sure most of such editors are acting in a good faith. However, there is an issue with the practice.

'Discuss' means to initiate a conflict with another editor on a public forum and many simply aren't comfortable with this. Many would prefer to let it slip. (A funny example I was able to correct was a statement along the lines of "John Maynard Keynes blamed Russian and Jewish natures for mass murders in the USSR" added to WP a decade ago. Of course Keynes didn't write this, besides being married to a Russian, but the statement remained in two articles for a decade because removal of the statement was promptly reverted as 'this is sourced', sounded so plausible, and no editors felt bold enough to challenge the addition in talk for a decade.) But I guess that's the nature of BRD, which is massively valuable for Wikipedia.

Where it becomes problematic is there are editors who abuse reluctance of others to discuss. They would do reverts but won't reply when asked to explain their position on the talk page. My impression is that such reverts are usually done in a good faith, but (judging by their frequency) often without evaluating the referenced source - just because the edit doesn't fit the editor's world view. Some of such editors aren't shy to claim such motivation directly in talk or an edit comment. Whereas editor who adds content needs time to write it and to challenge deletion on talk page, deleting editor doesn't have to spend any time thinking of the revert: worst thing that could happen is being challenged on the talk page, which could then be ignored without consequences. I think its obvious how this harms editors from underrepresented groups, and why they describe this as harassment.

What I don't understand is why, for example, an editor could be blocked for adding spam systematically, but doing a few deletions with meaninglessly short comments and refusing to substantiate them on the talk page would result in a warning at best? Surely both are equally destructive? PaulT2022 (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulT2022: Wikipedia has processes for when an editor does not reply, yet continues to revert; are you having this issue? --VersaceSpace 🌃 00:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VersaceSpace thank you. Asking about a slightly different situation: when an editor reverts something once, then doesn't reply and doesn't attempt to revert re-added content again; then they might revert something else in the same article, and the story repeats, or go to another article and do reversions there etc. So there would be a pattern of deletions without clear reason and intent to discuss, but no edit warring. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulT2022: edit warring only takes place on one article. There are some exceptions to that but its very uncommon for edit wars to take place through several articles. In my view, however, statements like WP:OR and WP:UNDUE are perfectly acceptable reasons to revert something. If someone doesn't get what that means, they could simply read the links. --VersaceSpace 🌃 00:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VersaceSpace I apologise if I was unclear in describing the situation. Obviously, there's no issue with using WP: acronyms in edit comments. However, I've seen WP:OR used when the OR wasn't obvious - followed by refusal to explain how the source could be summarised in the view of the editor who claimed OR. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PaulT2022, in those cases, that's someone breaking the rules. --VersaceSpace 🌃 01:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulT2022. At its heart, Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also a never-ending discussion about the sum of human knowledge. There are going to be some outgoing and friendly people, and there are going to be some less-so individuals. But there’s no way around that, because most of us (I presume) are trying to help the site, not hurt it. WP:BRD isn’t going to work every time, but you can try to resolve the problem by going to the resolution noticeboard. There’s always going to be some sour eggs here, but we have to work with them nonetheless. But if they persistently aren’t willing to discuss their actions, then they might have to be sent to the WP:Drama board. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden errors

In John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry, footnote 64 omits the "d" in "published, and footnote 56 omits the space in the initials "E.P." I can't find these errors when I go to "edit source." Can someone please help? Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest making an Edit request on the article talk page to bring attention to this issue. I unfortunately primarily use the visual editor, so I am not sure how to fix the citation. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Maurice Magnus, welcome to the Teahouse! I fixed the first problem in this edit (I had to do a search for where the ref was defined). I'm not so sure that the second problem is actually a problem - note that John E.P. Daingerfield deliberately does not have the space. Why that is, I don't know; it may have been a convention of the time. Studying the sources, and/or a discussion on the talk page, might clear things up. (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing a Wiki Article

I have been working on a Wiki Article. It currently in my sandbox. I would like to get input and share with the community. What do I do? Fireman Creative (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Fireman! I suggest moving your sandbox content into a draft and reviewing the article to make sure it meets the manual of style. You should certainly read Help:Your first article before doing any of these things though. When you think it is ready, submit your draft through the Articles for creation process. It will allow other editors to assess its quality for publication. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bits of it look suitable, Fireman Creative, but much of it is a text dump from elsewhere. Even if there's no copyright-related impediment to reproduction, the material doesn't suit an encyclopedia. So cut, cut, cut. And a tip: instead of multiple references to "Dawson, Charles (1889). Our Fireman. Pittsburgh, PA: Henry Fenno", have just one, with no page number. Call it repeatedly, each time supplementing it with the "Rp" template for the page number(s). -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this worthy of an edit?

Someone has been following me around saying that a man should always be listed before a woman. I'm confused by this. It's clear that either the man or woman can get listed first, since there are many articles that have either one first. The page I edited previously did not mention the parents. I added a new sentence to include the parents' names. It read:

"She was the daughter of Klara, née Kammer, and Theodor Gotzmann, a director of the Reichsbank."

The person who has been following my edits changed it to:

"She was the daughter of Theodor Gotzmann, a director of the Reichsbank, and his wife Klara, née Kammer."

Not only does it sound worse and flows awkwardly now, it's splitting up their names. Klara and Theodor Gotzmann reads easier than Theodor Gotzmann and Klara. Putting his profession at the end is easier to read as well. However, someone changed my edit simply because he believes the man should be first. I'm confused by this and I think this is destructive. It's a useless edit for personal reasons, and it distrupts the flow. Is this harmful editing? It's scary because he is threatening to block my account when literally all I did was add "Maria and Thomas Holl" to an article. He is threatening to block me from editing because it's apparently important that I say "Thomas Holl and Maria" instead. I didn't even notice. I have put the father's name first in my edits when I thought it made more sense. I don't know what to do. I need to make sure putting the father first is not a wikipedia rule that I'm breaking, because that is what the person is telling me and saying he will block me for.

Emmy Gotzmann is the page. Thank you for all your help. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Helpfulwikieditoryay: The only block threats I see are for edit warring and possibly using alternate accounts inappropriately. Don't engage in an edit war. Its clear that things are not going well between you and the other editors. I suggest staying away from these types of edits until things cool down and then restarting the discussion to get consensus on your proposed changes. RudolfRed (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped editing on pages where he reverted. He didn't gain consensus, but I'm not going to continue editing. I don't think he's saying it's edit warring, because I haven't touched those edits in several days and I told him repeatedly I won't again. He randomly accused me of using an alternate account. The problem I have is the specific edit he made on the page I linked. I need some guidance on that. I don't know why he keeps reverting my edits. The specific thing he threatened to block me for was including "Maria and Thomas Holl" in an article. That's what I'm confused about. He is saying I'm "reversing" the order of the parents, because he believes a man needs to be first, when I did not reverse anything. Thank you for your reply. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpfulwikieditoryay the user you are speaking of appears to be User:DrKay, an administrator. Judging by the other editors commenting on your talk page, I suggest that you listen to the advice of others because further problems could be interpreted as WP:Disruptive editing. If you feel like your actions are being unfairly judged, please tell the editor that you feel as such civilly. Try and diffuse the debate at the article talk page. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest?


I'm interning with a well-established company and planning to write a very neutral, unbiased wikipedia article about them so that there's more readily available information about them online. The article is not intended to be promotional, but simply the nuts and bolts of their origins as a company, their most notable accomplishments, etc. Is it okay for me to write this page at all? They're a very notable company in their field, which makes me feel that wikipedia would have something to gain from a well-written article about them too.

Other questions:

Would I be able to include information that lacks a source external to the company itself? Or, does that sort of information need to be published elsewhere before it's usable?

How might I go about declaring my conflict of interest? Bstro18 (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bstro18, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for coming here and asking, rather than just plunging into doing this.
First, please notice that "so that there's more readily available information about them online" is promotion, as Wikipedia uses the term. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about things, it's for summarising what the world has already been told about things.
Having said that, you are allowed to try this: but you might find it harder and more frustrating than you expect.
First, as you say, you have a conflict of interest: in fact, you are regarded as a paid editor, (whether your internship is actually paid or not), and it is mandatory to make a declaration as specified in that link.
Then you should read your first article, and seek the reliable independent sources which are required to demonstrate that your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - if you can't find them, then give up and don't waste any further effort.
If you find the sources, create a draft and start writing. You will need to forget everything you know about the company, and write based only on what those indepdendent sources say - even if those sources say things that you and your employers don't like. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Decline of Page

I Have created a new page of an Upcoming Movie named Naar Ka Sur and have provided the required references as well but still it got Declined. Why? Whizofficial (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As explained following the "decline" notice:

sources need to be placed after the content they support

That may be moot, however. Have you considered whether this film would meet the notability guidelines for enwiki? Fabrickator (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further, Whizofficial, the text you have written is promotional. "Naar Ka Sur has already received so much of love and appreciation from the audience that they are showing their excitement about the trailer and the song." If a published source, wholly unconnected with the film's production and promotion, has said this, then it could appear in an article, appropriately quoted and cited. Otherwise, such language does not belong in any Wikipedia article.
Also, given your user name, and the fact that your only edits in Wikipedia appear to be to promote this film, I need to ask, what is your connection with the film? If you are in any way connected with it, you need to be aware of the guidelines on conflict of interest. If you are in any way paid or employed in connection with this film or its producers or publicists, then it is mandatory to declare yourself as a paid editor. ColinFine (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]



I've been having an issue with the Testex article. First, full disclosure: I'm an employee of Testex and work on the article on their behalf (I have also disclosed the paid editing on my user page). I want to create a proper article - not some marketing text - and thus put a lot of work and effort into composing a well-sourced text based on reliable secondary literature. This is my text. I've already made the changes to the existing article, but an editor reverted it and told me that I should make suggestions on the talk page instead of making large-scale additions to the article itself. There seems to be no Wikipedia policy that supports that, so what shall I do? I have proposed my edit on the talk page but no one has reacted, and I frankly don't know what's wrong my text addition. I'd really appreciate any help, feedback, or criticism, because I wish to improve the text in case that it contains errors or doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policies. Best regards, --Gotthard175 (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotthard175 Please review the conflict of interest policy, specifically this portion which states "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" and "you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the request edit template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed" 331dot (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gotthard175. You probably would be better off following the advice given in Wikipedia:Edit request and making smaller easy to assess edit requests instead of trying to get the article essentially rewritten in one fell swoop. The users who tend to help out with edit requests are probably not going to want to read through a total rewrite trying to figure out what's different. It's also probably going to be seen as inappropriate and possibly not very respectful to ask a reviewer to toss out the current version in favor of the one you've written no matter how good your intentions are per WP:BABY since essentially you'd be asking for a de-facto deletion of all of the edits made by others over the years. It's fine to suggest specific improvements to the existing article, but it's also probably wise try to WP:PRESERVE as much of the existing article as possible. It might already be a "proper" article for Wikipedia's purposes and just needs polishing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing categories

Hi! I've recently started working a bit on categories for members of academies and learned societies. Typically the category is called "Members of the <name of academy or society>" and this might be in the category "<name of academy or society>" together with other pages related to the academy/society. This makes sense I think, but today I came across an academy that only has a category "<name of academy>" where both the main page and members are listed. I would like to create a new category "Members of the <name of academy>" within the existing one and then move all the members to the new category. It's less than 20 people so it is not much work right now. Is this considered okay? SakurabaJun (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SakurabaJun. You might find some general guidance on this in Wikipedia:Categorization or you might try asking specific questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. You could also try being WP:BOLD and create a new category if you think it needs to be created; if someone comes along and disagrees with you, then perhaps you can figure out what to do then through talk page discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Yesterday I tried to get the article Cryptography newsgroups speedy deleted under the lack of notability web criteria. This was removed because the article was too old. Now I still think this article should be deleted, but I don't really know how to proceed; is it better to be on the safe side and do AfD? Or is it so uncontroversial that PROD would be fine?

I feel like its hard to know if the deletion of an article is uncontroversial without initiating deletion. Stowgull (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is not appropriate just because the article desn't cite any sources. As the admin said, please use WP:PROD or WP:AFD for an article that is 18 years old (when Wikipedia rules were a lot less strict). It is usually preferable to try to find sources than simply delete such an article. Shantavira|feed me 10:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

deleting wikipedia user account

please guide me to delete my duplicate user account Plannerakc (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plannerakc Hello and welcome. It is not possible to delete an account, for technical and legal reasons. Simply stop using and abandon your duplicate account. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


How to convert Wikipedia English references to e.g. Portuguese language? Regards, Wname1 (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wname1, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not clear to me what you are asking. Are you asking about translating a Wikipedia article to add it to pt-wiki, and wanting to know how to convert the references? If so, you'll need to refer to pt:WP:CITE. If it uses a citation template, you'll need to replace that by the corresponding portuguese template: see pt:Categoria:!Predefinições para referências.
If you mean something else, you'll have to clarify. ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an example: on the English espresso page there are 46 references ( ) each of the references I must translate once each time, as in "Wikipédia:Livro de estilo/Cite as fontes", yes? Wname1 (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, yes. There may be tools that can help, but I don't know about them. Perhaps there is a bot on the pt-wiki which you can request to help you. ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wants to create a page

Hello, Can anyone help me to create a page Satheshrm (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Satheshrm, see WP:YFA for guidance. Keep in mind that the article has to be sourced with reliable sources. Kpddg (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. All the sources are reliable. and this is for a famous celebrity in the indian music industry. I need to create a page for him. Can you create the page? Satheshrm (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Satheshrm, you can use our article wizard to create an article. Please ensure that you have read the relevant policies such as Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. --Bears (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a draft. Is this correct format? Can you help to complete this? Satheshrm (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Satheshrm, there is no need to bold so many sentences, doing so for only the name in the first sentence is enough. The draft does not have enough reliable sources and inline citations, other than The Hindu. And references should not just be passing mentions. Also check whether the subject is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Further, maintain a neutral point of view and avoid WP:PUFFERY. Kpddg (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Satheshrm - Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not to be co-authors. That said, for Draft:V.V. Subrahmanyam, I removed the bolding and created sections. The rest is on you. David notMD (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Satheshrm: I would strongly suggest reading Easy referencing for beginners, as there are no inline citations (which are needed). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

uploading a video

HI I need assistance on how to upload a video 아미나 추바히로 (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

아미나 추바히로, Have you seen this? -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 아미나 추바히로! To upload your own or a freely licensed video, go to Wikimedia Commons and go to the upload form at Special:Upload, or read the instructions at c:Project:Video#Uploading a video. Please note that it should comply with Commons' project scope. If you want to upload a non-free video, please read Wikipedia's non-free content criteria first, then upload directly on Wikipedia using the File Upload Wizard. As Hoary said above, though, Commons only accepts WebM (.webm), Ogg Theora (.ogv), or MPEG1/MPEG2 for video clips. Thanks! — 3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS — 12:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upload a picture that is my work but also published on other websites

Hi! How can I upload a picture that is my work but is already found on articles? How can I proove it is my work? Followyoursoul (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Followyoursoul. What do you mean by articles? Do you mean Wikipedia articles? If it's already being used in Wikipedia articles, then there's no reason to upload it again. How did other people obtain your work? Did you grant them permission to use it? Did you post it somewhere online first and they got it from there? They had to have gotten it somehow and what you're going to likely need to do to establish it's your own work is to somehow prove that they got the work from you in someway. One way of doing this would be to establish that you did publish the picture somewhere before anyone else started using it. Another way might be provide some evidence in which these other people state they got the picture from you. You might also want to take a look at c:COM:Own work and WP:COPYVIO#Information for copyright owners for reference as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Legislation and/or Laws

How can an editor quickly and conveniently cite legislation? I am asking because, I was editing the UK politics page, looking to update information on Northern Irish election dates, and the only source I could find describing Northern Irish election dates was the Northern Ireland Act 1998... 30 chapters in. My solution to this was to just cite the entire Act and leave the chapter and section numbers in my edit description, is the proper way to do this or is there a better way? ApatheticName (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ApatheticName – I think there is a better way. If the legislation is a book, you can use ((cite book)). There will be a |chapter= field, where you will simply type "30". You can also read Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners for more information. Thanks! — 3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS — 12:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There exists Template:Cite legislation UK for that. Note that Chapter (=47) has a specific meaning, different to that used above. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, zzuuzz, for that. 😅 — 3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS — 13:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And who knew, we also have an article about it: Citation of United Kingdom legislation. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in my sandbox.

I want to create a new article concerning a former president of Delaware State University. I created a couple of other articles last year -- my first time as an article creator. I did so by writing in the Sandbox. I clicked on the Sandbox to start the article I now want to create, but I found that the Sandbox is a redirect page for one of the previous articles I wrote last year. How do a establish a fresh sandbox to create the new article? Cholmes58 (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cholmes58. It's your sandbox, so you could just go in and blank it or place new material into it before "publishing changes". However, if your intention is to create a new draft article, I'd suggest using the WP:AFC process whereby you create the draft in the area normally used for new stuff that needs to be reviewed before acceptance into the main encyclopaedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


can you be IP blocked for plagiarism? RandomDude6 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor can be blocked for persistent copyright violations, if that's what you mean. Shantavira|feed me 13:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Wiktionary

Why can't we link words to Wiktionary, words that might be unfamiliar to general readers but don't have Wikipedia articles? Is it for technical or philosophical reasons? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with ((Wikt-lang))? ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects#How_to_link. Shantavira|feed me 15:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page

It is my great pleasure to talk to you. I want to make a Wikipedia page for my company. May I know the procedure. Sumitgigde (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumitgigde: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. If an article is written about your company, you will have no control over it. An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sir I want get link from Wikipedia. May I know the correct way Sumitgigde (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your company is not notable and your attempts to spam it on talk pages is disruptive. Please stop. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GALE IDs in newspaper citations

In the article London's last tram week, there are citations to references from The Times newspaper, among others. I obtained these references from non-digital copies of the newspaper in my local public library. I later found that the newspapers in question are available in digital form in the GALE on-line database. So I tried to add the relevant GALE IDs to the citations, using the example in the Template:Gale documentation as a model.

Here is how one of the citations now appears:

I have two questions. (1) Is this a reasonable thing to do - given that not everyone will have access to GALE (it needs either a paid subscription or access via a library or institution; I accessed it via the Wikipedia Library)? (2) Does the format look right to you? I couldn't find any examples in other articles to compare it to.

Thanks in advance for any advice. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Marchmont, (1) yes, (2) yes. A Gale (or ProQuest or Project MUSE, etc.) link to a restricted source is useful to some readers; the absence of it isn't useful for anyone. Schazjmd (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]