Wikipedia:Teahouse

Sdkb, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

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

Page Translation tool Quiries

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

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

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

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

Tom Venning

Please could I have some help with the article Tom Venning. What is the consensus on creating other pages for newly elected legislators? Moondragon21 (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

What help do you need? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

"Elected legislator" at a national or first-subnational level: notable, no argument. That said, I would wait until all the votes have been counted. DS (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for Drafts Review and Approval

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

Could someone please review and approve the following drafts?

• Draft:Diriba Eticha Tujuba
• Draft:Genanew Gofe Gonfa
• Draft:Liviu Movileanu

Thanks in advance! Wieditor25 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I reviewed them for you, (declined) you thought the reviews "unfair' and blanked them, and have not disclosed your conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I clearly explained during the discussion that this is 100% not a paid article or a promotional piece, and that it didn't receive a fair review. It could add value to Wikipedia, if a fair reviewer take a time to review it. An a draft declined in one one second review, wow! We all have something better to do...

~~ Wieditor25 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a "paid article or a promotional piece", if you have a CoI you are still required to declare it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I did but since the reviewer had a different interpretation- just reviewed the article on ONE second, then I chose to revert. Wieditor25 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

And where did you do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not a reviewer, but it is obvious to me that Draft:Diriba Eticha Tujuba is not currently acceptable as a Wikipedia article, because as far as I can see it does not have one single source that meets the triple requirement of being reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42).

Most of the sources are from institutions connected with Tujuba, and so are not independent of him, and the ones about the MoU with AHRI are not about him, and in any case (since they are substantially the same) are clearly based on a press release, and so are fail the test of independence as well as the test of significant coverage.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. Until you can find and cite several (at least three) different sources which meet the requirements in WP:42, you will not have established notability, and your draft will not be accepted.

Questioning the integrity of the reviewer is not likely to strike other reviewers favourably, and removing your COI declaration because you don't like the review looks like petty spite. ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: They didn't just blank the review comments; they blanked the page. Isn't that {{Db-blanked}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct but I felt it prudent to leave it for another editor to decide, since my input is not appreciated. Theroadislong (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for Fair Review of Deletion Actions

A wiki user is opposing all my drafts/articles. I request a fair review of deletion actions affecting:

• Gambella University
• Selale University

These are accredited public universities in Ethiopia, similar to others already listed. The deletion rationale seems inconsistent with WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Wieditor25 (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Being accredited confers zero notability and the relevant criteria is WP:NORG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

If these articles are being considered non-notable, should we also review the other Ethiopian university articles and consider deletion? All follow the same format and notability level. Wieditor25 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's a definite possibility. That other articles exist does not mean that they were ever approved by anyone, or even if they were, that they may not meet current standards. Schools and universities are particularly problematic because the notability guidelines have changed over the years; it used to be that mere existence was sufficient, but that is no longer the case. They are now treated like any other organization. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes we should, feel free to list them. Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wieditor25: Do it yourself, if you're not just taking the piss and throwing a rhetorical grenade to deflect. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wieditor25: WP:NACADEMIC applies to people, not schools (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). And accusing Theroadislong (talk · contribs) of being unfair here while you yourself are attempting to canvass is pretty rich. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I still question the reviewer's fairness toward articles from certain regions, but it's not worth spending time.GL! Wieditor25 (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Then it's time you read, or re-read, WP:AGF. If you continue on your current path of making unsubstantiated allegations against other editors, you will end up with your account blocked from editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds kinda like a threat, though, against free speech. Wieditor25 (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Funny thing is, you don't have free speech here. You are required to abide by our community norms, which include not making such disparaging comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Wieditor25 Please also see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Please don't start a new section to continue the same request (I've now merged them here). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, I have reviewed the other editor's actions, and they seem very fair. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help request on behalf of a new user

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

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

Draft Review Request: Partido Piquetero Article (Political Organization in Argentina)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citing a tweet with no content

Hi there,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Should I Do If an Editor (Chetsford) Is Lying and Another Editor (Bonadea) Is Deferring to Them?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Howdy,

Recently an AfD nomination for an article on Christopher Mellon was successful. This nomination was made by @Chetsford.

I redrafted the article, and it was rejected by @BuySomeApples. Nevertheless, I solicited BuySomeApples' help, and we put in a bunch of work to vet suitable sources to satisfy Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Throughout this process, Chetsford was commenting on our drafting and sources (and in some cases actively lying about whether sources had been used in the previously deleted version). Based on a reference in my re-drafting efforts, Chetsford then put in an AfD nomination for The Sol Foundation. I suggested that this article should be kept in the AfD discussion, and I believe this attracted the attention of @Very Polite Person.

Very Polite Person then asked if he could help with the drafting of the Mellon article, and I agreed. They redrafted and submitted the article in a day.

Chetsford then commented on the draft, suggesting that it should be rejected on the basis of "SIGCOV problems." He listed out 9 sources that he deemed to have these problems.

Very Polite Person's redraft was met with a rejection from @Bonadea, with a justification of "Per Chetsford's source evaluation (supported by my own source checks) and the recent AfD outcome."

In response to this, I have written a rather large comment documenting Chetsford's mendacity in his "source evaluation."

If we intend to fully go forward and attempt to get this article published, how can we if one editor is lying and another is deferring to them?

Thanks so much,

Ben.Gowar (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

(AfC Comment). @Ben.Gowar, it was declined not rejected. You can still resubmit it for review if you think that Mellon is notable. Best Regards, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

If they are repeating this kind of behavior, I do believe you have the right to report them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents. Henihhi28 (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

NOTE: I don't really have more to offer as I primarily wanted to source things; I've said my peace for the moment. But... I think the problem here ultimately boils down to the fact that this part of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that has been the standard since we added it fifteen years ago in 2010 is that:

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"

For a reason I cannot understand, this WP:BLP forDraft:Christopher Mellon is being held to some sort of drastic standard that defies and without authority exceeds WP:BASIC. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain it. WP:BASIC does not free one from the necessity of meeting the standard of WP:SIGCOV for sources used to establish the WP:N of a subject. It simply affirms that multiple sources may collectively establish the substantiality of coverage. But each source used to affirm N must still crest the threshold of SIGCOV. In the case of Mellon, it doesn't matter if you have 10,000 articles that simply attribute 1-2 sentence quotes to him; these don't collectively transmutate into SIGCOV by alchemically mashing them altogether. I hope that helps but please don't hesitate to ask for further clarification. Chetsford (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Ben.Gowar - I apologize as I don't have time at the moment to read your entire note, but I note the first instance you raised of me "lying" is because I used the term "flying saucer" instead of the term "UAP" which is the term you apparently prefer. I'm not certain that necessarily constitutes "lying" anymore than someone interchangeably using the term "ultramarine" instead of "cobalt" to describe a specific shade of blue. Either way, I apologize if I used imprecise terminology in discussion and this offended you. But I hope you can take confidence that the term used I'm certain did not impact anyone's ultimate determination as the underlying issue was that the source in question lacked SIGCOV.
Insofar as my "actively commenting" on the draft, I'm an AfC reviewer and actively comment on many drafts, this one was no exception. (In fact, while I could have declined the draft myself, I proactively chose not to do so as I nominated the previous article for deletion and I felt it was necessary other editors look at your draft to make the decision to decline or accept it independently, which is ultimately what occurred.) This is a fairly normal and rote process of AfC. The only unusual part of this is that I have never seen non-AfC reviewers leave messages in the review section (particularly messages of such robustness) as you and VPP did. While not (I don't think) proscriptive, it is rather atypical. That said, if you feel I acted inappropriately at any point in this process, I encourage you to raise your concerns at WP:ANI. Chetsford (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Howdy @Chetsford,

You did not offend me. However, if you mosey on down to the flying saucer article, you will find the second sentence to be: "Not to be confused with Unidentified flying object." So, no: I do not take confidence in your certitude.

As far as other editors looking at "my draft," well, my draft wasn't submitted. However, given that you commented on the draft that was submitted before @Bonadea ever did, and given that Bonadea cited your comment as a justification for declination, I would scarcely call Bonadea's decision "independent."

My feelings about your conduct are not relevant. My arguments are. Ben.Gowar (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I removed that disambiguation hatnote because it directly contradicted the first sentence of the article describing it as a specific type of UFO. Sesquilinear (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ben.Gowar: Accusing another editor of deliberately lying is a form of casting aspersions. @Chetsford: is allowed to voice their own opinion on whether a source is trivial or not according to their assessment. If you, I, or any other editor disagrees, that doesn't prove anything except a difference of opinion. To contribute to Wikipedia, you have to adhere to its policies on Wikipedia:Civility, and that means no personal attacks. Making a post just to accuse another editor of lying and an AfC reviewer (@Bonadea: of not doing their job is unacceptable. I'd like for you to be able to keep on working on your draft, but while you're doing that you have to act appropriately. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @BuySomeApples. Based on the casting aspersions information page, I can accuse an editor of lying as long as I have evidence and level the accusation in the appropriate place. In this case, I was indeed asking what to do in the case of a particular editor lying (with the evidence cited). So, it sounds like I should have anonymized my inquiry. In any case, I will head on over to the administrator's noticeboard/Incidents.

Oh, by the way, the number of mentions of a given person in a given source is not a matter of opinion. Nor is whether a source has been used in a previous draft or not.

But thanks,

Ben.Gowar (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ben.Gowar: I don't think going to ANI will have the results you're hoping for, but go ahead. I'll let the other editors and admins continue helping you with your draft since I think I've given you all the advice I can. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I suppose no one can force anyone else to stop lying, not even the ANI.

Thank you for your effort anway,

Ben.Gowar (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated removal of links, but clearly not vandalism (?)

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

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

Can't access InternetArchiveBot

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

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

Medium (website)

Is Medium a reliable source? — ArćRèv • talk 07:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Arc Rev! Basically, Medium is a website which hosts user-made blogs. Anybody can write them and there's no editorial oversight, which means nobody officially fact checks the blog posts, and there's no guarantee users will correct the posts if they make mistakes. As such, it's considered a generally unreliable source by the Wikipedia community. You can read more about that here: WP:MEDIUM.

There's one exception to that - if the person writing the Medium post is a recognized subject matter expert talking about their field of expertise, or they're talking about themselves. For example, if a highly respected professor who specialized in Chinese film wrote a blog post analyzing a film from the 1950s, you might be able to cite that, or if a famous actor announced their birthdate on their blog, you could cite that. But that's about it, I'm afraid. You can read more on using self-published sources (like medium) at WP:SPS. (And especially note the part of the guideline which says you can't use self-published sources for information about living people who didn't write the source - lots of newbies get triped up on that, but it's an important part of our sourcing requirements for articles about living people. Can never be too careful there, you know?) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 08:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorting references

Hi, I am working on Draft:Aramean people, the references at the bottom carry the entire reference, whereas on other articles only the author, year and page of the source is mentioned, when highlighting over it, it shows the entire reference. How can I apply this to my draft as well?

Wlaak (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wlaak Your draft uses a form of referencing which is common on short articles where everything goes into a single set of references, usually with the template {{reflist}} at the foot. Some articles, including Arameans use an alternative which is best when the sources are books (listed out separately) and then a section where multiple templates {{sfn}}, which stands for "shortened footnotes" in the main text are gathered together. Either type of referencing is perfectly acceptable and if I were you I'd wait until the draft is accepted before worrying about changing the reference style. However, there is a third alternative for citing book, which is to use just one book reference and then place the template {{rp}} each time you refer to the same book, which allows you to specify the page range for that piece of information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Wlaak (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Sections aren't showing up

In the article that I am creating (Draft:2024–25 in European women's basketball) every league below Russia has been severely altercated and when I show a preview of an edit, it says the following: Warning: Post-expand include size is too large. Some templates will not be included. Also, at the bottom, it says broken ref. I am confused about this because my article, despite being big, is smaller than other articles I looked at for comparison and they all work. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @ILoveSport2006. It's not the size of the article per se but the number and complexity of templates used: either you'll need to simplify some of the tables, or split the article up. ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Am I allowed to split the article into a page 1 and 2, or will people moan about it? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

No, that is not permitted, ILoveSport2006. You can split the draft article into two drafts about discrete though related topics. Or, simplify your formatting especially tables, using similar articles as an example. Please do not describe other editors expecting you to do things properly as "moaning". Cullen328 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

You can split the draft article into two drafts about discrete though related topics, Can you please give me an example? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@ILoveSport2006: You cannot call them "page 1" and "page 2". It's an alphabetical list (apart from Pan European) so you could add ": A–K" and ": L–Z". This colon form is preferred at WP:NCSPLITLIST. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Like this: Draft:2024–25 in European women's basketball (A–K) and Draft:2024–25 in European women's basketball (L–Z) ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@ILoveSport2006: This form with parentheses is also acceptable at WP:NCSPLITLIST. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that, thanks! ILoveSport2006 (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

How do i add a heading to an article

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

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

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

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

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Can I link to the wrong edition in a citation?

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

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

What am I supposed to do if I think there are two different articles dedicated for the same person?

Hello everyone.

I recently came across an article for Balwantrai Mehta, I added the required information to this article, but while trying to verify some information, I came across a different article for Balvantray Mehta. The second article doesn't contain much information except the date of birth and the constituency that they represented. I believe that both these articles are referencing the same person. What am I supposed to do in this situation? Please help me out. Rohitm2000 (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rohitm2000, looks like someone has already fixed this for you. -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I did; converted it to a redirect. 😁 Kaasterly (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Rohitm2000 (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

And thank you for bringing it to our attention! Kaasterly (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

How do I leave Wikipedia and leave this account behind?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don’t really want to be associated with this account anymore. It has my old name and I just want a fresh start and I don’t want to beef with editors anymore, is there a way I can just delete my account and move on? Thanks TzarN64 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @TzarN64. What you're looking for sounds like WP:CLEANSTART, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen per it's criteria.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for though.

If you want to permanently abandon Wikipedia forever, you can request a courtesy WP:VANISH, if you're deemed deserving of one. Good luck with whatever you're doing in the future. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Well I keep making mistakes so I don’t intend on editing Wikipedia again for a good while so thanks for the offer I’m going too vanish and resolve my blocks at test Wikipedia. Thank you TzarN64 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@TzarN64, what you're looking for is WP:VANISH and WP:CLEANSTART. You're not presently eligible for the former, because you intend to keep editing, nor are you eligible for the latter, because you have an active restriction on your account. You'll have to appeal the restriction first. -- asilvering (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

How do I fix my 1rr TzarN64 (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You'll have to appeal it at WP:AN. Normally I wouldn't suggest doing that so soon after being unblocked. Hold out for at least another couple of months if you can. -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you aslivering. I think you’re one of the best admins here aside from seorge numbers whatever his name is. I think I’ll be leaving Wikipedia for a good while now TzarN64 (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If you're going to be gone for quite a long time - say, 3+ years again - you may as well just start with a brand-new account, like a clean start. Yes, that's against the rules, technically speaking, but no one will notice unless you do something stupid and obvious that links the two accounts. Be free. -- asilvering (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Given they made four socks to disrupt a discussion about their behavior on ANI... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. After this conversation and everything. -- asilvering (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You have to make efforts to demonstrate that you understand why you were given that restriction. You also ought not to worry about being able to revert multiple times, you instead need to slow down and listen to what people are saying is wrong. Why are you following certain users? Why are you nominating articles for Good article status despite repeated concerns? Why are you leaving warnings that don't apply? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

For example, I rarely revert more than once unless an edit is blatant vandalism, and even then, I usually seek intervention from an admin if it's constant and persistent. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• OP has been indef'd after a discussion on ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Keep – ARV Loshan Sports meets notability guidelines

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

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

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

How can I find drafts for a topic created by a specific user?

Hi, I am a user of Japanese Wikipedia. Immanuelle was indefinitely blocked here, and since then he has created many articles, templates, and categories on Japanese Wikipedia. These are suspected to be machine translations of drafts he created here. For example, he created "Template:徳川信仰（Template:Tokugawa Faith）", but this term does not exist. Our community is not a system where you write a draft first and then publish it as an article. Therefore, I do not know how to find drafts that seem to correspond to a certain article. Can someone tell me how to find it? I do not want to waste other users' time verifying works that were poorly created by users who do not pay attention to the accuracy of the translations. I hope that clarifying the source of these translations will simplify the process of these deletion requests. I need some help, please. These English expressions are my own speculation.

• ja:Template:五十猛神信仰（Template:Isotakeru Faith）
• ja:Template:一宮（Template:Ichinomiya Faith）
• ja:Template:ワタツミの子孫（Template:Descendants of Watatsumi）
• ja:Template:布留多摩信仰（Template:Furutama Faith）
• ja:Template:妙見信仰（Template:Myōken Faith）
• ja:Template:氷川信仰（Template:Hikawa Faith）

There are many other templates he has created for the Japanese Wikipedia besides the ones I have introduced here, but at first glance they contain a number of incorrect terms, so I do not plan to verify them one by one but will delete them all at once. This may be an unnecessary concern, but I am concerned that the questionable templates, categories, and articles he created here continue to exist. 呉野(KURENO) (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You can examine the user's edit history here, Special:Contributions/Immanuelle though they have over 55,000 edits. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Further to what @331dot said, @呉野, within the Contributions page, you can pick "Search for contributions", then select namespace "Draft:" and check "Only show edits that are page creations". This will give you only edits where the user created a draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

[1] and [2] might help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I appreciate your help.--呉野(KURENO) (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Question

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @Wlaak, and welcome to the Teahouse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GPS data for a college in Poland

Hi!

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

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

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

Best wishes and thank you in advance!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sydney Bogues - Draft Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The paragraph about his grandmother is unsourced.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I did. Apologies, PhoenixCaelistis.

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

New Page Patrol

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

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

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

Two Serious Questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the Wikipedia rule about not "point scoring" with your God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multiple Drafts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Formal close to an RfC so that discussion is not just bot archived

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a viable alternative to deletion for Miss Serbia by year?

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

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

Biography article reframed, how to best proceed?

This was declined because it didn't meet the academic criteria but i reframed for notability, media coverage and resubmitted...any suggestions on next steps or if this the best path? Re: Draft:Melvin Vopson. Weavingowl (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

(Don't answer this nosense) I Give Up On Wikipedia.

Nothing to see here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

What's the point of helping out and get your xontribution deleted in 5 seconds. See: Talk:Minecraft#Improvement Deletion. It is not an excuse to say that the admins/users/... havent seen / answered already since if the have time to revert changes, they defintelly have time to answer. No one should contribute to Wikipedia, A lot of Admins Are Corrupted . Help me please, as this seems the only logical space, In wikipedia. Mant08 (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC) This does not seem to be a genuine request for help, but an attempt to forum shop. You are required to assume good faith regarding the actions of other editors. Is there anything, specific and practical, that you do need help with? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC) With all respect, please see this page. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 20:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC) That you're not being told what you want to hear does not mean that admins are "corrupt". 331dot (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC) @Andy Mabbett @PhoenixCaelestis @331dot OK, indeed this is a missuse of the Teahouse. I am sorry to anyone for that. That was out of frustation, and improper behaviour. Also, I wasn't aware of the policy of not to mention disputes on multiple talk pages. The message was not in of malignant intent. I sent the message here as i wanted to ask help on how to participate on disputes, but this isn't needed since wikipedia already has a guide. I though the other editors were acting with a bad intent, so it was a "special" (sounds ridiculous) case, were wikipedia needed saving. Should i probably delete this before it gets archived? P.S.: @331dot Now reading my message I indeed sound spoiled. ):Mant08