Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, 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

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

PROD Grodno FEZ

 Courtesy link: Grodno FEZ

Hello Teahouse, How does one go about PRODing a page? The page in question has no citations and doesn't seem to have any significant contributors xtools. The article isn't notable, at least in my opinion. Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @CF-501 Falcon. I added a section to Belarus about its free economic zones (there are six) and redirected Grodno FEZ to that section. A redirect is an alternative to deletion. Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd. Thank you. I wasn't sure what I could do, but I am glad it has been fixed. Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon: For future reference: To nominate a page, place the {{subst:Proposed deletion|reason=reason for proposed deletion}} tag at the top of the page. You should notify the article's creator or other significant contributors by adding the {{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Name of page}} tag or other appropriate text to contributor talk pages.

PS I suggest giving Twinkle a try, which helps automate this and many other common tasks, and is widely used by experienced editors. Also, another option is to merge the page, if you don't think the topic warrants its own article, but you believe some of its content may be useful in an existing article. Cheers! --Slowking Man (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

List of all government COI editing

Can I see a list of all the times the government has edited wikipedia with the intent of fluffing up their articles on their country and striking down controversies? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

SimpleSubCubicGraph, Presumably you mean the U.S. government, but actually it doesn't matter for the purposes of your question. I'm not sure I've ever seen a list like that, and in any case, this is a Help venue typically for beginner questions on editing Wikipedia. I have occasionally seen discussions on Talk pages of individual articles where a checkuser may have noted that an IP used to edit the page came from the House Office Building, for example, but never anything like the list you suggest, and I doubt one would be provided for you, for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, if you wish to pursue this further, I suggest you move this discussion to WP:VPT, where there are people present with the knowledge to extract such info from the logs, but I strongly doubt it's going to happen. Sorry I couldn't answer your question. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: Such questions are better suited at Reference desk/Miscellaneous or VPT as suggested above. Regards, 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 07:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph You might find something of interest in these articles: Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, Wikipedia coverage of American politics, Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Wikipedia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Censorship of Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

There is also a lot of coverage on the WP:Wikipedia Signpost. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Lead section

So how long should the lead section generally be? and is this considered fine? thanks. 🍫 TheBrowniess (talk) (contribs) 🍫 02:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, TheBrowniess. The function of the lead section is described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. In brief, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Lead sections of articles about discrete, relatively narrow topics can be brief, perhaps a paragraph or two. Lead sections of longer articles about highly complex topics can certainly be longer, and that applies to this article. A common rule of thumb is four paragraphs and this one is five paragraphs. I am not saying that is too many because I have only passing familiarity with the topic. So, if you want to reduce the length of the lead section, keep in mind the purpose of that section and trim carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll add that even though this article's lead ostensibly has quite a few paragraphs (which should probably be condensed down since it's jarring to read), the lead itself only has 400 words. This amount is completely normal for a lead section, let alone one about an entire country that lasted a century. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it better now? 🍫 TheBrowniess (talk) (contribs) 🍫 01:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Considerably. At a glance, it looks like you did a great job! I'd have to read the whole article and check the sources to establish its factual accuracy and verifiability (one of the major reasons why I think not having citations in the lead is a really bad idea even if it's not against guidelines), but in terms of the breadth of its coverage and its overall style, it seems to give me a solid overview of the subject. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Fandom Foundation (TV series)

Hello, is Fandom a valid source for minor recurring characters?
Examples are She-Bends-Light and Josiah in the Foundation (TV series). A link to these characters in the episodes may help the reader. I may also link to Who Are the Spacers in 'Foundation'? I guess that Fandom is more specific than the press, which may go wherever it wants.
Additionally, what is better: "Beggar" (Foundation (TV series), S01E06) or "Beggar's Lament"? Thank you, _Dgw|Talk 12:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dorian Gray Wild: Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, Fandom is not considered to be a reliable source due to its content being user-generated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Dorian Gray Wild. For more information, read WP:RS in detail on what qualities a reliable source has. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tenryuu and @Tarlby explained you "fandom" isn't considered to be a reliable source.

If you want to write articles about minor reccuring characters.

Ask yourself the next questions.

1.Which characters are notable ?

2.Are there secondary sources about those who are notable ?

3.Sources are independant ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

How to handle discrepancies between sources?

As I've said above, some of my sources are conflicting, but not just on the founder of the subculture, but also the number of them. Some sources say 200,000, other's say 2 million, the third says over 10 million...

How should I approach this in my article? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 14:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

There's a related essay at WP:When sources are wrong which has some useful advice. It would be original research (not allowed) for you to decide which source is "correct", but you can attribute the various numbers to their specific source, assuming you have no way of telling whether one source is more reliable than others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

... one advantage of Wikipedia articles is that they can be updated when more authoritative secondary sources have discussed the issue. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Mike,

Though you’re responding to @QuickQuokka, I was interested in the topic because it addressed the same issue I’d just run into, and I found the resource you mentioned fantastic. It’s set up in such a useful way, providing:

— Alternative methods we can address a challenging editing situation, clearly described and enumerated

— Great case studies in which we can see the value of applying those alternatives Augnablik (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Assuming the sources are relatively equal, something like "estimates range between..." might be the way to go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Deviant Ollam notability

The last discussion was here, with the sources being judged as borderline. There is new coverage that probably counts as significant; does this cross the line into “probably notable”? FortunateSons (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @FortunateSons. I can only see the beginning of the article without registering, but it doesn't look promising to me. Does the article contain several paragraphs about Ollam specifically, that are not simply reporting their words? If not, then it doesn't help. ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

You’re right, it’s only in context, there isn’t much content about him specifically FortunateSons (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

So much source material from interviews, podcasts, recordings of classes, published articles and books. Would this be considered under WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC? Universities and colleges don't necessarily teach marketable and useful skills like this. Deviant Ollam is notable for bringing skills/techniques into the realms of cybersecurity and risk management. Just Al (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Need help with my first draft..

Hello, here's my first draft for Wikipedia, revision was declined. Anyone here can help me improve it or provide guidance? Much thanks.. Draft:Lel Smits Auda159 (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Please read Help:Your first article. Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 02:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Is the draft NOTABLE? What make it not nortable though? Auda159 (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You should ask the reviewer. I notice you re-submitted it for review without actually adding any examples of significant coverage, rather, you removed some puffery and unsourced sentences. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Auda159, here on Wikipedia, we use the word notable in an unusual way. It's not used of articles, but of their subjects. For a draft to be acceptable as an article, it must establish that its subject is notable, by citing in-depth discussion of her in several reliable independent published sources. It's possible that a subject is notable (because such sources exist), but the article is unacceptable (because it fails to cite such sources). I've checked a few of the sources cited in your draft – they were all about interviews with Smits, and so not independent. What Wikipedia wants is what other people have said about her, not reports of what she has said. A couple of minor, easily fixed, issues with the draft: references should follow punctuation, not precede it; and section headers should be in sentences case, not headline case. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Need to Remove Redirect

Hi, I just moved my first Article to the mainpage and have added a redirect unintentionally, can you please help me remove the redirect and add get my article back.

Thank you! Asian.red (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

To editor Asian.red: Not to worry! I've gone ahead and tagged it for deletion for you. Your draft article is located now at Draft:Manuel Laurio Fortes.

Please note: if you have a close connection with Fortes, you should disclose this information. In particular, if you are being compensated for working on content related to them you must disclose this. If any of this applies to you please read this page.

In any event, I recommend you take a look at Your first article and this page, and consider giving The Wikipedia Adventure a try. And you're always welcome to ask for assistance here at the Teahouse, or at my talk page, or go to this link and put {{helpme}} followed by your question, and someone will come by to assist. See Help:Contents for an index to Wikipedia's info and help resources. And thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia! --Slowking Man (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Asian.red Now at Manuel “Wowo” Laurio Fortes, Jr. and nominated for deletion. The process typically takes 7-10 days before a decision is made. You can improve the chances of the article being kept by providing properly formatted references for all content. At present, there are no valid refs ABOUT Fortes. See WP:42.David notMD (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI

Now at Wowo Fortes and kept as a clearly-notable politician. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Making Lists

I am trying to make a list for the orthodox churches in america and i've been including a source for each church's founding date. I'm not even halfway through just one of the different organizations of the church and I'm already at over 100 sources. I think there may be up to 2000 such churches in America, should I hold back on finding sources for each building? Alexthegod5 (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

To add to that, when is it appropriate to split lists into smaller lists? I could make a list of churches for each state, but some states could end up having around 4-5 and not necessarily enough to warrant its own page. Alexthegod5 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Alexthegod5. I suggest that you limit the list to notable Orthodox churches that are already the subject of a Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria for some guidance. Cullen328 (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I support Cullen328's suggestion, but just to note that per the first point at WP:CSC, links to articles that don't yet exist "are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future", demonstrated by references to sources amounting to significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry@Cullen328 Thank you for the information. I've seen articles and lists like this and this one. It may be a longer list to list every orthodox bishop in North America but is certainly possible. What are your thoughts on creating a list for each state as opposed to the entire United States? Alexthegod5 (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Alexthegod5, I took a look at List of Eastern Orthodox bishops in the United States and Canada, and immediately saw that it is almost entirely unreferenced and been tagged for that policy violation for 15 years. List of Eastern Orthodox parishes in Alaska has similar problems. Both lists are massive failures of Verifiability, a core content policy. Please do not create more unreferenced or poorly referenced lists. Cullen328 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Noted. I didn't create either of those two lists. Alexthegod5 (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

But you brought them forward as examples of the type of content that you hope to create, Alexthegod5. Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Not exactly, I've created other content, but not any lists. Thank you for letting me know, I'll be sure to avoid making content like that and I'll bring up other articles if I see they are similarly formatted Alexthegod5 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You might want to look at List of twelve-step groups as an example of a list that consists only of organizations that already have their own Wikipedia articles. See also WP:WTAF. That is a requirement for inclusion in that list, as you can see from the talk page requests about including non-notable entities. Yours could be the same; list only churches, bishops, watever, that are notable. A good way to start is to list those that already have Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Incorporating images into articles

Hey there,

Can someone let me know how to add images into articles? And I’m guessing there’s more to it than just the technique—are there any rules or guidelines I should be aware of? KiltedKangaroo (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@KiltedKangaroo There is an extensive help page at Help:Pictures. Our manual of style has some advice you'll find at WP:Manual_of_Style#Images and important policy (e.g. regarding copyright of the images) at WP:IMAGEPOL. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello,@KiltedKangaroo. Please go to your picture, and click "use this file" beside the wikipedia logo. And go to WP:IMAGEPOL If yoru image is copyrighted. Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 02:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Article reference of trusted sources

Hello everyone, i created an article that i couldn't find in wikipedia and searched however i couldn't find so i spare my time to create it myself. Anyway my article is declined due not enough and reliable sources. So here my questions:

Is it what matter reliability of source or how many references areticle has, what i mean for example 1 reliable and authoritative reference or two many blog posts. Well i guess one reliable source is enough for an article. Khcaliy (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Your draft Wikilinked to Global Offset Table. That article has references properly incorporated into the body of the text. See WP:42 for general advice on quality and quantity of refs. Blogs should not be used as refs unless from a valid source. David notMD (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Quality matters far more than quantity. Three high-quality references that comply with WP:Golden Rule can be enough to make a draft worthy of publication, but 100 references to blogs, forum posts, youtube videos, interviews, press releases, and other low-quality sources, are worthless for establishing notability of a subject and publishability of a draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Reel Trailer Getting High Quality Sources

Currently struggling with getting a high quality source in regards to my reel trailer article. There are plenty of blogs and articles from for-profit companies explaining what it is. But finding high quality sources is proving to be a considerable challenge. In input or help would be greatly appreciated. Cornbredphilospher (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cornbredphilospher, welcome to the Teahouse. The page is Draft:Reel trailer. If there are insufficent sources for a full article then it might be a subsection in Trailer (vehicle)#Type which already has sixteen. Then Reel trailer could be redirect to the section so it's easy to find, similar to Baggage trailer. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Cornbredphilosopher Please don't use multiple forums to seek assistance, as this duplicates effort. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Noted! Thank you for pointing that out. Added a subsection to main article "trailers" about cable reel trailers. Your help has been MUCH appreciated. Cornbredphilospher (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Referencing or linking to a telegram channel

Hi, I am working on an article about a pioneering journalist who ran a newspaper in 1937, I discovered a telegram channel actually has uploaded issues of the newspaper, they have a twitter page where they advertised the publication but no other way to get these newspaper copies I could find. I think it would be neat if readers of the wiki can have a link to check out the newspaper or at least be made aware such thing exists, but it didn't feel right linking to the telegram channel or the twitter post. I considered just mentioning the copies have been uploaded to the internet without linking to them maybe people can hunt it down?! I also considered just putting an image of the newspaper front page but couldn't figure out how the copyrights on that would work. Any suggestions? Tashmetu (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tashmetu: You would not be able to cite Telegram (no editorial oversight) or those scans (copyright violation). Use {{cite news}} and cite the scans as offline sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I wasn't planning on citing the newspaper itself, since the article is more about the journalist, just thought it can be a cool thing to add as an external link maybe. But now I think I'll just let it go. Maybe one day some reliable source will write about it and it can be included then. Tashmetu (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tashmetu: Have you looked whether the paper is available through Newspapers.com? You should be able to get access through The Wikipedia Library. See WP:NEWSPAPERS. --Slowking Man (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried it now and it's not there, unsurprising since it is an Iraqi Journal that ran for 6 months in 1937. Niche doesn't even begin to describe it! Tashmetu (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tashmetu: *whistles through teeth* Well that's a bit different then—you should have mentioned that to begin with! That newspaper may have an expired copyright by now (be in the public domain), in which case you could upload the scans to Commons! Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Iraq: The takeaways here: if the paper was produced by some sort of legal business "corporate entity", it is definitely out of copyright. If the whole paper was solely their work as a solo kind of thing, then if you know when they died you can calculate it out; if they died prior to 1979 it's free-and-clear. (If it was a joint work but they didn't formally incorporate any business it gets iffy; it depends on the year of death of the last-surviving author.) --Slowking Man (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I did say it was from 1937 in the original post but yeah I think it didn't occur to me that the newspaper is now in the public domain, thanks for the heads up! I'll look into it. Tashmetu (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

How To Page Publish

Sir, can I publish this page? Do I need to add anything to it? Draft:IAC News Gaziismail (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gaziismail: You state you are affiliated with IAC News but have not properly disclosed your paid editing per the terms of service. You have asked this same question here and other places multiple times and still your draft does not show that the organization you are affiliated with is notable to have an article and it does not reference any reliable sources. cyberdog958^Talk 16:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Basic question

Helpful people at the Teahouse! I have only just noticed (!) that on any given page, in the list of references below the article, some are mostly written in blue and others in red. Is it because some are primary sources (Maybe the red ones) and some secondary (maybe the blue ones? I am not talking about red links and blue links in the body of articles. I understand them. Thanks! Balance person (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Balance person: Red references are malformatted. Colour isn't used to distinguish a source's provenance. (It could also be the cite includes a link to a non-existent Wikipedia article; those show up as red.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Balance person: Please always give an example so helpers don't have to guess. My first guess would be normal red links to non-existing Wikipedia articles but if you know this feature then it might be something else. If there are red errors then only the error message should be red. If you see a lot of red and cannot guess the cause then it might be something added by your own browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah! Sorry PrimeHunter (talk) I forgot to do that. But if you look at the page for Margaretta Williams just for a nice short example, and scroll down to the references section, you can see that some of the words are in blue and, on my screen, some are a kind of raspberry pink! Just wondering why? Thanks. Balance person (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Balance person: Thanks for the example. That's not red but screens and vision can vary. The color means your browser has already visited the links. All our guesses were wrong so I hope you remember the importance of an example. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah! I see. Thanks. Balance person (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

How to Add the Description for an Article

Hello! I am currently writing an article on the Davis Fire. I would like to know how to add the description you see when you search something up in the taskbar (e.g. 2024 Calendar Year) Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hurricane Wind and Fire: That is the short description and is added by the template {{short description}}. You can either add the template directly and write one as shown on the page about short descriptions I linked, or you can add one using this gadget. cyberdog958^Talk 17:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Cyberdog958 Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Category misplacement

There was this new page Elliot McGinnis, I see he is placed in the category of FBI agents, but he is placed in the list of 'E' while his last name being McGinty. And I was wondering that I could not adjust it (I mean placing the subject from 'E' to 'M'. Instant History (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Instant History Go for it! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Instant History: I guess you were wondering how to do it. It's done with {{DEFAULTSORT:McGinnis, Elliot}} to fix all categories at the same time.[1] See more at Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, Thank you very much! Instant History (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Claim a blocked account's username?

Is it possible to claim a username from a blocked account? When I first selected this name, I checked if @Pierre_Delecto was available. It was not, so I reversed the order.

I just realized that in fact, that user was banned for sock puppetry (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Pierre_Delecto&redirect=no) which is, I suppose ironic, given their username.

Is it possible for me to claim that username, and if so, how would I go about doing so legitimately? I would obviously disclose the change and or that I have multiple account names, and would only edit from one of them. Delectopierre (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You could request to usurp the name, though I'm not sure how that works when the desired name is blocked. It also depends on how long the account has been inactive. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The Pierre Delecto account was blocked "because the username, Pierre Delecto, matches the name of a well-known, living person", so the editor requested a rename. Schazjmd (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Delectopierre: Your account was created in 2018. User:Pierre Delecto was renamed in 2019 and the username is actually available today. However, Pierre Delecto is a well-known alias of a public figure Mitt Romney and nobody but him should have it as username (see WP:IMPERSONATE). I guess you're not him and then your.variation of the name is already very iffy. I would not draw attention to it with a rename request. You risk losing the name you already have. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Pierre Delecto is a well-known alias of a public figure Mitt Romney I didn't know that! I just figured it was the name of someone famous that I'd never heard ot. Schazjmd (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that I said ‘when I selected the username’ not

when I created my account. I had a good reason to do what I did last year.

Regarding your other point, it hadn’t occurred to me that it would be impersonating. As someone who followed that story in real time, it was funny to me, and wouldn’t have occurred to me that anyone would assume Romney would use that name after it was uncovered.

Either way, I’m fine letting sleeping dogs lie.

That said, the consensus is that it’s too

close to impersonating, I would rather change it than willfully impersonate someone else. Again it just didn’t occur to me that anyone would actually think it’s Romney. Delectopierre (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

On mobile so can’t edit properly. Should have read “That said, if the consensus…” Delectopierre (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I’m looking at the wrong page. I thought the user was banned for sock puppetry. Delectopierre (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Delectopierre: The user was first blocked as Pierre Delecto, unblocked after a rename, but later blocked again for another reason. There is a block log [2] but it shows the current username for all entries so it's confusing in this case. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Delectopierre (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Would the Roblox website be a reliable source?

The page in question is the page on roblox for Pressure (a roblox game, can't link it here cause it's on a blacklist), I am trying to use the Created date, along with the Genre there which should be reliable as from my knowledge these dates are supplied by a Roblox automated system that tracks this kind of stuff. 1250metersdeep (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 01:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @1250metersdeep. I suggest you look at WP:N. Articles won't be accepted if the subject isn't shown to be notable, which means that it must be covered by multiple reliable sources. Before trying to add such content to an article, I reccomend you review what reliable sources you actually have to use before you end up wasting your time. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

resolving COI properly

Hi: I recently revised an article on playwright Mary Hall Surface. I admit I did not fully understand the COI rules. I do know Ms. Surface tangentially through the theatre community, though we don't have a close personal relationship. I'm still not sure if this is a COI. If it is, I could use some help properly disclosing it and then figuring out how to get the COI flag removed. There is a lot of info on this, I know, but it's a little overwhelming and I don't want to cause more issues in trying to fix this one. Thanks for your assistance. RHcreate (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

You more than tripled the length of the article (before another editor cut huge amounts), and this appears to be the only article you have been working on. For now, the COI tag should stay. Over time, other editors may make significant contributions, and the COI tag removed. You could add refs for the content that is flagged for lack of refs. David notMD (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up to Date of birth privacy concerns?

I added the reference, I think i did it correctly. I am sorry I was told before I did not need to add the reference on burial locations, I added them before on the Locust Valley Cemetery's Notable Interment Sections & the references were removed but all additions were kept. Maybe I misunderstood. Bobbykelleyfl (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Bobbykelleyfl. Those additions should have sources, but they need to be reliable sources. Findagrave is not considered a reliable source (see WP:RSPFINDAGRAVE). If you can find other, more reliable sources, please add those. Ultraodan (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Find a grave may not be 100% accurate, but in this case it is a very reliable source. In regards to Locust Valley Cemetery I am the cemetery historian, I have access to all the records, and I photographed his grave myself. I have his grave photo does that help you? Bobbykelleyfl (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Request for Feedback on Draft Article

Hello everyone,

I have created a draft article: Draft:Rim Jallouli

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could give me an opinion on it and share their feedback before I submit it for review.

Thank you in advance for your time and help! Ahmed.hentati (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I"m not going to review it, Ahmed.hentati, but I'll say that my at-a-glance reaction is: I don't notice the citation of anything that promises to be an in-depth description or discussion of Rim Jallouli. So I wonder how she is notable-as-defined-by-and-for-Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Ahmed.hentati The best way to get feedback is to submit it for a review, asking for a pre-review review is redundant. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ahmed.hentati Please remove the external links in the main body of text. Readers expect to see citations that verify the content but there should not be links to top-levels of external websites there, as explained at WP:EL. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Removed some of the external links. Her being a founding dean may qualify for notability. David notMD (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Global watchlist

Hi everyone,

I know this isn't really about editing, but I am acutally not sure where else to post this question: is there progress being made on using the GlobalWatchlist extension on Wikipedia to have a unified watchlist across different wikis (all Wikipedia but different languages)?

It seems like there is on-going development work on the extension itself, but I am not finding anything recent on its use for Wikipedia?

Thanks a lot in advance!

Best, Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Julius Schwarz: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) could be the right place to ask this. Cheers, 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 13:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated, good sir! Julius Schwarz (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Kyoko Masaki Submission page rejected.

I really want to understand how to improve the submission to be accepted. Is there anyone that could revise or assist me in editing the page. User:Kyoko Masaki/sandbox#Community Volunteer

One point is adding references... Computer skills are not my best point. Can I please ask for a mentor, to assist me..

Thank you Kyoko Masaki (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Kyoko Masaki Hello. The good news is that your draft was declined, not rejected- rejected would mean that you could not resubmit it. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

You seem to be writing about yourself- this is highly discouraged, though not forbidden. Please read the autobiography policy.

You have basically posted your resume- not a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you and how you are a notable person as Wikipedia defines one. You have no sources at all, actually. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

You can learn more about adding references by seeing Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. For the information. 1st, this page is not about me, it is about my wife who passed away on Monday 27th of January. I understand a number of Wikipedia writer or revisers keep saying that it is discourage to write about myself and I agree. But, honestly this is about my wife. This page was originally started by the Local Hyogo prefecture government. But, their writing skills are different. More complimentary I think. So, I took over. 2nd in relation to the references, thank you I can do now. Also, I think I would like to add some pages to Wikipedia because there are many references that are on found on Wikipedia. 3rd. I have added reference now. can I ask someone to check? and give next advise. And lastly, the last 4 awards are all outside sources, I maybe its better to remove them?

Thank you again for the information on adding references it was excellent. I will start again tomorrow... Kyoko Masaki (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear of the loss of your wife. I might gently suggest that you change your username so that it better represents you, you may do this via Special:GlobalRenameRequest. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Would it be better to start a different account and them continue? Kyoko Masaki (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

You may do that, but then your prior edits would not be associated with your new account. You could still go to and edit the draft you created, but your edit history would then be spread among two different accounts. Renaming your account would transfer your edits to your new username. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. I will look at the link you gave me. Special:GlobalRenameRequest. 331dot (talk) Please remember I am not that good at computer skills. But, thank you for helping me. I appreciate your kindness. Kyoko Masaki (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your loss, @Kyoko Masaki. One of the things that makes it very difficult to write successfully about yourself or people close to you is the core Wikipedia principle of verifiability. Effectively, this means that absolutely nothing that you know about your wife should appear in the article unless the information can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I completely revised your draft at User:Kyoko Masaki/sandbox to have sections that are used for biography articles. Local and minor awards are not taken into account for establishing notability but can be mentioned; I addeda Recognition subsection for her honorary PhD. Please understand that it is unlikely that a reviewer will consider her actions as a cancer support group volunteer as Wikipedia notable. David notMD (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Help with My Declined Draft – Bala Ramajeyam

Hello, Wikipedia editors,

I recently submitted a draft for Bala Ramajeyam, the founder and owner of G Square, but it was declined. I would appreciate guidance on how to improve the article to meet Wikipedia’s notability and content guidelines.

Here’s what I need help with:

1. Understanding the reason for the decline and how to address the issues.
2. Improving references to establish Bala Ramajeyam's notability, including a correct and reliable source confirming he is the founder and owner of G Square.
3. Ensuring the content meets Wikipedia’s neutrality, verifiability, and reliability standards.

I’d be grateful for any feedback or advice on how to resubmit successfully. Thank you in advance for your help! Bella Nevis (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bella Nevis The man problem seems to be that you are describing what Ramajeyam has been saying about himself. To show how he is notable as defined by Wikipedia, you need much more about what others who are completely independent of him have said about him. These sources need to be independent and reliable and have significant coverage, as described by our golden rules. Also, as you are being paid for your contributions, you must make the more stringent declaration about this, as described at that link. Declaring a COI is not enough. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Bella Nevis. The thing to realise is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Bella Nevis (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

How can u make a redirect

I’m making an article called the Siege of Jerusalem (1967) but I wanna add redirects,And no I'm Not talking about the “{{Redirect serveral|Siege of Jerusalem)” I want to add like a Redirect like “Redirect to:Siege of Jerusalem” Here’s the name of the Article Draft:Siege of Jerusalem (1967) Noam Elyada (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Noam Elyada, welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Siege of Jerusalem (1967) starts with "Draft:". That means it's in draftspace which is not part of the encyclopedia. We don't make redirects or links to drafts in the encyclopedia. They are also excluded from searches by default. It's a deliberate decision to hide drafts from our readers. Draft:Siege of Jerusalem might point out your draft but I guess that's not what you want. If somebody happens to find their way to the non-existing article Siege of Jerusalem (1967) then we have a feature which automatically shows there is a draft by that name but that's all. It's not meant for readers but for editors who might be planning to create the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok but when I publish it how can make a redirect Noam Elyada (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

How to get a page published?

Any advice as to how to get a page published quicker? It's currently in the drafts section. Inspector General who was recently fired in the US. Mlenner869 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Why are you in a hurry? See WP:There is no deadline. In the meantime, you can clean things up, for example Wikipedia doesn't use title case in headings. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Michael J. Missal. Neither being appointed as an IG or being fired necessarily makes a person Wikipedia-Nnotable. David notMD (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Does emailing a studio count as OR?

I emailed the studio behind Freewave Lucifer F-ck F-ck F-ck to get confirmation about how the album should be spelled under Wikipedia technical restrictions (It's meant to be F<ck F^ck F>ck, which won't display properly). If I were to get a response, would renaming the page based on that response be OR, even if the response was public? JarJarInks^{Tones essay} 15:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@JarJarInks: Welcome to the Teahouse. It wouldn't be OR, but it also wouldn't be verifiable if they replied to you. Even if it became verifiable (e.g., if the studio issued a public statement), it would most likely be considered a primary source, which has very limited use on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I know that primary sources aren't often used, but would this qualify as a verification of a basic fact? It's just for the display title on Wikipedia (DISPLAYTITLE doesn't work with brackets). JarJarInks^{Tones essay} 15:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It would not if they replied to you through correspondence due to verifiability concerns. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that the concept of verifiability means the reader can verify information, not just editors. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Travel guides as sources

While going though orphaned articles I found Green Tangerine, which is sourced entirely from travel guides. My first instinct was that these are insufficient to provide notability, but I was unable to find specific guidance in Wikipedia:Reliable Sources or Wikipedia:Notability. Zygmeyer (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It was PRODed a few hours after your comment here. Sarsenet (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

One sentence medical article

What's the best place to post a note about a one sentence article? I've come across Cetraxate four years ago and left a note at its talk page—with no effect. Is it a good idea to make a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine? --CiaPan (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

More content was added. Then it was deleted. Today, @Reconrabbit restored deleted content that was attributed to a sockpuppet account. History of article edits are here. Just Al (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

If it seems important to get attention on an article, then finding a bigger audience is probably for the best. I restored that information (altered slightly) because it seemed useful and appeared factual based on the source I could read. Reconrabbit 20:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Refs 1 & 2 do not meet WP:MEDRS standards, as first is an animal study and secone is a clinical trial. There are more recent clinical trials with mixed results, but via a PubMed search, last of those was published in 2006, suggesting replacement by better drugs. David notMD (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

CiaPan Cetraxate gets on average one viewer per day. Not worth the trouble of starting an AfD. David notMD (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

on technical/uncontroversial/generally not very debatable cases of moving stuff without redirects

"stuff" in this case being "(version x)" redirects, like olivia harrison (version 2)

in cases like that one, where a redirect evidently exists as an unfinished or botched move and has little to no substantive history, would opening an rm as an uncontroversial technical request be the better option, or should it be tagged for g6 or something instead? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 17:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Consarn I don't entirely understand what you're asking. G6 would seem to apply to the redirect, but I don't see why you'd want to move the redirect page, via an RM or by other means. Are you referring to moving a page without leaving a redirect? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

the latter seems to be the more common result, though it doesn't actually seem to matter a lot. for example, this redirect was deleted, while this one was moved without a redirect

though considering how inconsequential this is, i wouldn't be surprised if the answer to "which is the correct option?" was "yes" consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I'd ask the RMT regulars if they can complete the pageswap. In your first example, you can tell them the pageswap of Olivia Trinidad Arias and Olivia Harrison was incomplete, leaving behind page history and a confusing redirect at (version 2) instead of the Trinidad Arias title. Rotideypoc41352public (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Website of subject in infobox of BLP

I have seen the "official websites" of various subjects in the infobox, typically at the bottom, of various BLPs. I am currently engaged in a talk page discussion about Ross Ulbricht and what seems to evidently be "the official website" for the subject is freeross.org. Images have been used from the website by reliable sources before too, but there is no secondary source that I can find that clearly says in exact language that, "the official website of Ross Ulbricht is freeross.org." Is that really necessary to that degree of precise language? Does every BLP with their own personal website on it have to have a secondary source saying exactly "this XYZ.com is the official website of XYZ person."? That seems to be a high bar for just including a website on an infobox of a BLP when freeross.org appears to be the official website both by its own clear declaration, as well as its use by a reliable source as a source for a clear image as cited above. I only take this comment here and beyond the talk page discussion happening here because I was not sure of the policy in this case and wanted some added uninvolved minds to take a look. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: The official Twitter account of Ross Ulbricht, linked this website, that’s a signal that they are associated with this website. GrabUp - Talk 19:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello from the talk discussion! There may not be any official policy governing this specific guideline so it may just be up to editor consensus. I would prefer it not be in the infobox, and I've left it in the External Links section as a compromise of sorts. Template: Infobox Person does say it should be an official website, and of course Wikipedia-wide guidelines like WP:BIO and WP:V still apply. But at this point it might just be editor preference. For what it's worth I'd prefer it not be there, and I've probably broken WP:1RR enforcing that, but if someone else wants to re-add it at this point, I won't put up a fight. guninvalid (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Guninvalid: We have guidelines about this. Read WP:ELOFFICIAL. GrabUp - Talk 20:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and inclusion as the first link in external links and the infobox is supported by policy, "The official website should be included in infoboxes such as infobox company, and by convention are listed first in the External links section.", not mere preference, which if we were going by anyway, I would prefer that it is listed in the infobox as it had been as the stable version for well over a year or more prior to removal by editor Guninvalid. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

What are some reputable gaming sources

Sources I can use for video game articles 1250metersdeep (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

To editor 1250metersdeep: I don't edit in this area, but it looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library have some guidance. Cremastra (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, 1250metersdeep! Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources for a description of good practice for sourcing video game articles followed by a list of some sources. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Moving Draft articles?

Hello, I'm a new wikipedia user. I'm currently working on a draft for a rowing club. The article is in the drafts section because I started it before I was an autoconfirmed user, but now I am. My problem is I uploaded the clubs emblem, and I was informed by a patroller that non-free images not used on published articles are on the list for speedy deletion and will be purged after seven days.

My question is if I am allowed to move my article from the draft space to the main space (once it's actually ready, which will hopefully be soon), because I'm autoconfirmed now, and am able to start an article without having to go through the drafting process? Sorry if what I'm saying sounds silly I'm still a little confused on the terminology and I'm still learning, feel free to correct me. Pixzzl (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Pixzzl, it depends if you have a conflict of interest with the organization. If you are, for example, affiliated with it, you should instead use articles for creation instead of moving it to mainspace yourself, so that an editor without a COI can review it. You of course always can use that process, and I highly recommend it for new editors even if they have no COI—it will still get a review from a substantially more experienced editor, and if the article has problems, you'll just get advice rather than seeing it up for deletion. That said, the article contains a lot of inappropriate and rather promotional material, and that's probably due to a fundamental problem—it relies mostly on sources from the organization itself. An article should primarily focus on what reliable and independent sources say a subject, not what they say about themself. If there is not a substantial quantity of such reference material about a subject available at all, the subject is not notable and it would not be appropriate for there to be an article about it. Currently, the sources cited in the article do not show notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I was on the border as to whether or not to declare COI in the talk-page because I am from the same township, however I'm into rowing independent of the club. I will declare one now.

Is the promotional material you reference the blob of italicized text in the founding section? If so, that's just there for citation. I also have a some sources I haven't added but have used, and I've stored the links in a comment. Those sources are my proof of notability, it's a couple articles on the club that I've found. I also believe the club is notable enough to be moved to the mainspace as last spring, the club had their men's varsity eight place 8th place in the USRowing Youth Nationals. Alongside that they had a women's U16 varsity boat place 12th. The clubs they raced against all contain wikipedia pages, like Oakland Strokes & Gillin Boat Club/St. Joes Prep.

Thank you so much for your help! Pixzzl (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, those are certainly better. Try to work those into the article (editors won't really look for sources in hidden comments; I know I certainly didn't think of that!), and cite those, sticking mainly to what they said. Definitely that long pull quote needs removed, everything except the initial mention of the organization's name should have bolding removed, and probably the motto being in both the infobox and article is a bit much. Unless any independent sources have commented on the importance of their board and coaches, then that, too, is probably excess detail and a bit too reminiscent of the organization's own site. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, as to the image—don't sweat it if that gets deleted or get in a rush because of it. If the article goes into mainspace eventually, it can just be reuploaded at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, alright. This is good to know. I will keep the article in the draft space for now as I work on writing it. Pixzzl (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I recommend deleting the list of coaches and the table of board members. Otherwise that information would need to be updated freqently. Readers of the article can be directed to the club's website instead, via an External link. David notMD (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Not allowed to talk on Talk pages

I put a comment on a talk page that got erased and I got warned just like Talk pages were Article pages. Jidanni (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion related to changing the article. Encouraging people to use Google to find out information about the topic isn't related to changing the article, unless it is in some way that isn't clear. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Jidanni, the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss specific actionable proposals to improve the article. It is not to spout off about a Google search you conducted without even mentioning any reliable sources that you discovered that could actually be used to improve the article in the context of suggesting specific changes. Cullen328 (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Help getting a page unlocked.

Last year I created a page for Serenity Cox a well known Canadian performer. After 6 months it was flagged for her not being notable enough, and after a debate (with many agreeing she was) it was deleted. 9 months later there has been much more press coverage and award wins and I would love to revamp a page about her. Unfortunately it is currently locked and require an administrator to unlock it. Can anyone help me out on how to navigate getting this unlocked? Here is a recent article dedicated to her for a noteworthy source: https://avn.com/news/video/night-shift-real-life-hotwife-serenity-cox-goes-pro-with-vmg-178673 SanDiegoDan (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@SanDiegoDan: You can create it in Draftspace, then submit for review. You'll need WP:AW. If the article is accepted at AfC, then someone, normally the reviewer, will ask for the WP:SALT to be removed. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)