Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, 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

links

when there is an entity with location in the name, should I link both for example los Angeles (link) police department (lapd link) or just one los Angeles police department (lapd link)? Michael21107 (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Michael21107 - just link the one, overall, description. We try to avoid two links next to each other, as WP:SEAOFBLUE and Los Angeles Police Department is the specific article you are trying to link to - Arjayay (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

ok thank you Michael H 16:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

HI Arjayay, firstly i apologies for interrupting here but i have a query with this context, while doing it can we say WP:SEAOFBLUE as an edit summary or should explain it? If yes then what should we say ? (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Love2read&write - If you are just adding a link, I would just describe it as "adding Wikilink". If you are changing two adjacent links to one, I would describe it as changing Wikilinks as per WP:SEAOFBLUE - if the reader does not understand, they can click on the WP:SEAOFBLUE and read the guideline.
Some editors interpret WP:SEAOFBLUE very strictly, i.e. the links must actually abut (excepting punctuation as is clearly allowed in the guidance), others are more interested in the general principal of reducing unnecessary links. There are 18 discussions about WP:SEAOFBLUE in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking as seen here. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

who invented the shark cage

THE SHARK CAGE WAS INVENTED BY JAMES M ELLIS OF PORT LINCOLN SOUTH AUSTRALIA PATENT NUMBER 4166462. Margesson (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. We are here to answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question? 09:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC) JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE CLEARLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SURFACE CAGE SHARK DIVING ( STATIC CAGE ATTACHED TO BOAT ) AND SELF PROPELLED SHARK PROOF DIVING CAGE. Margesson (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Margesson and welcome to the Teahouse. You should make suggestions and raise your concerns at the article talk page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

When you make your suggestion, Margesson, it's likely to be taken more seriously if not EXPRESSED IN CAPITALS. (And of course it must come with a reliable source.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hoary.

Thanks for your advice. Can you tell me if there is a company that can assist me in person to edit Wikipedia. I live in Adelaide South Australia.  Regards Margesson Margesson (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hoary.

How do i attach to Wikipedia the patent papers for my shark proof diving cage.

Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If you are James M. Ellis, you can see at Shark_cage_diving#Self_propelled_version that they're already there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hoary.

You ask for information from a reliable source.

Australian National Maritime Museum- Signals Winter 2019 number 127

heading--Covering Your Tail.(inventing the self-propelled cage)

The book named AB YARNS History and folklore of the South Australian Western Zone Abalone Fishery, compiled by the abalone industry of south australia heading-The Evolution of the shark Cage. Credit James Ellis.

My cage is used by most of the divers in the abalone industry in south Australia and western Australia

would you like newspaper articles?

Can I attach videos and photos?

Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Margesson We don't need any of that. The citation is . All that is missing is the page number(s). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mike.

Page 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 in AB YARNS and page 58 59 60 61 in the Signals magazine.

Another interesting article is in The California Abalone Industry ( a pictorial history ) page 177

How can i attach videos and photos?

Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Margesson Media such as video and photos are uploaded/stored on our sister project, Wikimedia Commons and then the filenames can be incorporated into articles. The issue is copyright. You may only upload material which you took with your own camera or which is known to be licensed (in writing) with an appropriate Creative Commons license. For the moment, I suggest you ignore that aspect and just make suggestions for improving the article via its Talk Page, using the sources we have discussed here. You are considered to have a conflict of interest because of your invention and so should not edit the article directly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Changing a wrong title (without Greek letters) to a correct one (with one or more Greek letters)

I asked a similar question before, probably in 2020, in my early days of Wikipedia editing. However, I can't find the discussion now, so I repeat it now with more detail.

There are a huge number (certainly hundreds, maybe thousands) of articles about enzymes that have major errors in the titles. For example, the article on Glucan endo-1,3-β-D-glucosidase is headed Glucan endo-1,3-b-D-glucosidase. There are others where locants that should be in italics are not, for example, the article about endo-α-N-acetylgalactosaminidase is headed Glycopeptide alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase. There are others where the title starts with a lower-case letter (not counting prefixes), for example the article on α,α-Phosphotrehalase is entitled Alpha,alpha-phosphotrehalase. (Notice that Alpha (A) and alpha (α) refer to two different Greek letters, of which only one is correct.)

In principle I should be able to use Move to correct these, but for the ones I have tried the system rejects them. For example, if I go to

Alpha,alpha-phosphotrehalase

and enter

α,α-Phosphotrehalase

as the new name, with Misspelled as the reason, pressing Move page gives

You do not have permission to Move, for the following reason:

The page "Alpha,alpha-phosphotrehalase" cannot be moved to "Α,α-Phosphotrehalase" because the title "Α,α-Phosphotrehalase" matches an entry (?!(User

Notice that I didn't write "Α,α-Phosphotrehalase"; the system just changed it. I don't have any idea what (?!(User means. Also it's not true: there is no article called Α,α-Phosphotrehalase.

I can just about accept that writing D for D and N for N are just a typographical niceties that can perhaps be ignored. But writing α as alpha is much worse, and writing it as a is utterly intolerable, because they change the meaning from correct to incorrect.

I wondered if it was just that one can't have Greek letters in titles, but it's not that, for example the article on α-aminobutyric acid is called α-Aminobutyric acid, as it should be.

When this came up before (in 2020?) it was fixed by someone higher up in the Wikipedia hierarchy than I am, but for hundreds or thousands of articles with wrong titles it would be impossibly cumbersome to use that solution for all of them. Athel cb (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I think there are two issues at play here: (1) Wikipedia article names must start with a capital letter, for software reasons, so α gets turned into Α. {{lowercase title}} can be used to make the article show a lowercase title, see IPhone. (2) The other issue is that you seem to have run into an edit filter designed to curb some abuse (we do not allow most users to change article titles to mixed-script titles). You can ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, citing the naming convention WP:CHEMPREFIX to support your request. My apologies that you have run into such difficulties helping Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I visited Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests as you suggested, but I don't think I adequately explained what I was trying to do, and why. Unfortunately the entire discussion there has completely disappeared, leaving no trace. I don't know where it has gone.

I think I understand now how to include Greek letters, italics and small caps in new pages, but I'm not trying to create new pages, just to use IUBMB-approved names for ones that already exist. Athel cb (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Move the articles you can as directed, keeping a list of the ones you can't. Then come to WP:RM/TR and we can clean up the rest. RM/TR is not the place for moves that can be performed by regular confirmed users. To move a page, use the "Move" tool at the top of the page under the Page menu. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

And the answer to the italics question is the same as the lower case one Athel cb: article titles can't have italics, but can be displayed with them, using the template {{italic title}}. --ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

That's useful to know (together with { {lowercase title} }). Is there a template to allow Greek letters?

I was especially interested in "article titles can't have italics, but can be displayed with them," as it implies that what the user sees is not necessarily what the computer sees. It would be an enormous help to be able to change the title the user sees without changing any links or anything else. Athel cb (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As was already mentioned, {{lowercase title}} will do the trick. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you're asking whether you can change an article title like "Alpha,alpha-phosphotrehalase" to "α,α-Phosphotrehalase" without a page move using templates? The answer to that is no, that change requires a page move. To minimize confusion, the display title of an article (what the user sees) must resolve to the same article as the actual title (what the computer sees). WP:DISPLAYTITLE has more info if you're interested. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Athel cb: {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} is the only way to change the displayed title in MediaWiki so it can by definition make all changes which are possible. You can preview a page with {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} to test whether the wanted change is possible. Templates like {{lowercase title}} and {{italic title}} work by calling DISPLAYTITLE but all such templates can only make limited changes and they cannot be combined. Many chemical names will require DISPLAYTITLE. It accepts some markup like <small>D</small> and ''N''. The initial letter can be changed from uppercase to lowercase but not other letters. It cannot change between Greek and Latin letters but Greek letters can be in the real page name. DISPLAYTITLE only affects the page heading. The real page name without DISPLAYTITLE modifications is shown in other places like searches and categories. An initial α unfortunately becomes uppercase Greek Α which looks like a Latin A. It's a different character but almost nobody will see that. Don't use ugly hacks like starting a page name with a non-displayed character so α becomes the second character. It causes too much confusion, e.g. when users try to link the page, and it's not good enough to make redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding a sentence

I want to add, "According to an Islamic scholar, if a Muslim man makes sexual advances on one of his wives, she has to oblige him anytime, anywhere." to the Rape_in_Islamic_law#Marital rape section of the Rape_in_Islamic_law article. Will it be acceptable?-1Firang (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC) 1Firang (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm wondering whether the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source on such matters. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @1Firang. The place to discuss such an addition would be the talk page, Talk:Rape in Islamic law. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but that seems like a very serious claim to be attributing to a single cleric. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Given that there are presumably many Islamic scholars in the world, highlighting the view of any one in particular needs justification (e.g. widespread coverage in secondary sources), otherwise you'll risk falling foul of WP:UNDUE. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Accidental copyvio

I accidentally copied content from Wikipedia to another wiki without attribution. I quickly realized it, added attrubution, and RevDel'd the original edit (I'm an admin there). Is that all I need to do? 206.204.236.108 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Should be, yes! As long as attribution is provided, that's all that is required under CC BY-SA 4.0, which all text on Wikipedia is licensed under. The other wiki might have other additional policies, but what you've described is fine from a copyright perspective. Tollens (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! 206.204.236.108 (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure you even needed to Revdel it: on Wikipedia, it's generally reckoned that realising after the event and adding an attribution is adequate. But what you've done should certainly be fine. ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Not Understanding

I have a modest amount of edits on my talk page & for the most part I am not understanding why reverts are written & why cautions are being made about not being a forum, not being social media & off-topic material being deleted. Independent reading is just making me more confused. I'm not even sure if there is any way for me to get help with this. So, you tell me, what should my next step be?Shallotpeel (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Shallotpeel.

I imagine it's where you have written on Talk:Days of Our Lives and Talk:General Hospital your personal opinions about the TV shows, and ended them with "If you should wish to discuss this you can find me at the FB group SOAPS: THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY or alert me to it & we could talk here.". .

An article Talk page is not a place to talk socially about the article subject: instead it is a place to discuss improvements and changes to the article. Have a read of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more information.

It is worth noting that Wikipedia is not a social network or a forum. There are plenty of places on the Internet to discuss with fans of Days of Our Lives and General Hospital, unfortunately Wikipedia is not one of them!

Does that answer your question? Qcne (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I'm not sure that it does answer my question, no. I don't think I am writing personal opinion. I think I am imparting subjective factual information. I can see not using that end line about future discussion & in fact did use it only once & then stopped using it. In light of that the repetition about there being places to discuss, etc. is just redundant, especially since I run one of those places & participate in others. I'm not interested in the editorial process here for discussion. Shallotpeel (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Shallotpeel. You say "I'm not interested in the editorial process here for discussion": As mentioned the Talk pages of an article are to discuss the editorial aspects of an article, so if you have no interest in the editorial process then Wikipedia may not be the right place for you I'm afraid. My apologies if I am not understanding what you mean by that comment.

If you do have sourced facts for the articles, feel free to Wikipedia:Be bold and add them to the article yourself.

Best, Qcne (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear. I'm trying to say that I'm attempting to be part of this editorial process to make changes, to impart information rather than talk about some topic for the sake of chatting. I'm very interested in the editorial process for correcting wrong information or adding new information. As for being bold & adding myself, I feel so inexperienced & unsure of myself, I guess. Thank you. Shallotpeel (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, no worries, sorry for misunderstanding :) I think it's normal for people to feel unsure about editing Wikipedia for the first time but that's why Wikipedia:Be bold is a policy in itself. As long as your additions are sourced and in a neutral tone, you should be fine! Qcne (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm retired & have a great many health issues, one of which is Parkinson's which is why I live in a Personal Care Home. Anyway, my time is my own but I am over-committed to voluntary online activities & I never catch up. Because of this I have decided to forego learning this editorial process. Should I do anything to close this out? Shallotpeel (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Shallotpeel At the Talk page of Days of Our Lives you wrote article-type content about Pat Falken Smith. It was deleted more than once. I agree that it was wrong place. Given that there is an article about Pat, referenced content about her can be added there. While the DOOL article does not list her as a writer, there is a link to Days of Our Lives producers and writers which does. David notMD (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, on the Talk page of General Hospital you added lots of content (deleted) about facts and your thoughts about what is and is not in the article. Again, wrong place. If you have referenced correct information it belongs in the article. An exception to making article edits directly is if you have a conflict of interest or paid connection to the topic of the articles, in which case you are instructed to declare your COI or PAID on your User page and request changes to the article on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

DAYS/Pat Falken Smith: My concern was that some writers are included in the main article but she is not. I don't see how it could have been deleted twice when I only submitted it once. Why is the main article the wrong place? And how could I know that? She is included as one of the most important writers in most texts.

GH/Spin-off or sister soap/The Young Marrieds: I am aware of no other text that makes this claim. If it had been such it definitely would have been in the gold standard text, Schemering, and it is not. By timeline it doesn't even make sense that it could be. So, as correct information it should be included but was instead deleted?Shallotpeel (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Shallotpeel WRONG PLACE!!! You were creating new content on the Talk pages of the articles. The place for new content (appropriately referenced) is the article. David notMD (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. Shallotpeel (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

whats the story with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

i learned of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources today, but i dont get how something gets on there or off of it? who decides what is a "reliable source" and what isnt reliable? once listed as unreliable, is that source "depracated" for ever? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, entries there are the result of a consensus discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. And no, it doesn't have to be forever—if a formerly deprecated source has cleaned up its act and started getting it right, and they've now shown a solid track record of that, it's likely that a new discussion would have consensus to reverse the deprecation. (The reverse is true as well, of course—if a previously reliable source starts printing garbage, their classification can certainly be revised downward.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

how is the consensus defined? that would have major ramifications for a source i bet Iljhgtn (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

another question. is the consensus ruling from that page binding? do all editors across wikipedia then need to abide by that ruling and never use that soruce? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

it seems like it does not reflect actual policy of wikipedia, if that is correct Iljhgtn (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

For information on consensus and the process for it in general, have a look at WP:CONSENSUS. As to whether it's binding, a deprecated source should indeed generally not be used, but there may be rare exceptions to that (such as if the deprecated source were being directly quoted in the article about the source itself, then we would need a reference to it in order to properly attribute the quote). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

cool beans, i will read more on that Iljhgtn (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus in Wikipedia is normally determined by a Request for Comments. I have sometimes thought that a secondary meaning of the acronym RFC is Request for Consensus. At any given time, there is usually at least one RFC in progress at the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the reliability of a source. That is how consensus is determined, and Consensus can change, because the reliability of a source can change. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

basic articles to copy

are there good examples of basic articles to use as templates when writing a new article from scratch? i may try that at some point. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Good examples of basic articles in which subject area, Iljhgtn? Incidentally, in your most recent edit, you remove a chunk ("Much of Manville is in a low-lying flood plain...") that has been marked as needing a citation for under a year, is unlikely to be promotional or otherwise objectionable, and (if verifiable) is clearly of importance; but you add a lot of material that strikes me as very minor and that surely will soon become obsolete. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

add material? i didnt add anything, only corrected for minor things on that one Iljhgtn (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

subject could be anything, biographies seem popular Iljhgtn (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Iljhgtn, I now realize that you cut some unneeded line breaks and it was these that gave me the wrong impression that you'd added dreary lists of functionaries. So, biographies. Here's the biographical article I most recently created. It's far from a stub and far from a Featured Article. I think it's pretty good, of its kind, but I could well be biased. Incidentally, I'd never heard of GSG until I read about Ethel Jacobson (a similarly-sized article I created), and I'd never heard of EJ until I read about Morris Bishop (a more substantial article I did most of the work for). Reading for articles about people brings up more names unknown to Wikipedia: most of these are of people who aren't notable, but not all. And even for those who are notable, I don't think the bio-articles of most are at all popular unless their subjects appear on US or British TV or in Entertainment Weekly or People or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

that helps, thanks Iljhgtn (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You might try looking through WP:Featured articles, which contains a list of articles deemed to be some of the best on Wikipedia. Often, each subject area has a fairly typical structure that you could base an article on. Tollens (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

i will start small, are there featured stub articles? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

No - featured articles are always fairly sizable. When creating a stub, it is important to keep the notability and verifiability policies in mind - if a stub does not demonstrate notability or has very little verifiable content, it is likely to be deleted. Stub articles typically are not separated into sections and only explain what the subject is and why it is significant - there isn't really a template that could be used. Tollens (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

None of these are stubs because by definition a stub lacks important details and Featured Articles are reviewed for comprehensiveness. Still, here are the shortest Featured Articles on several relatively simple topics:

• Miss Meyers, 680 words of prose
• How Brown Saw the Baseball Game, 693 words of prose
• Nico Ditch, 778 words of prose
• Hurricane Irene (2005), 793 words of prose

Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

helpful exampples thanks Iljhgtn (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Can I - as an employee of a 10-yrs old startup, create a wikipedia page for the company?

As the title suggests, I am an existing employee of a start-up company. It's been around for slightly over a decade. We are looking into creating a wikipedia page for the company.

If there's not really much media mentions (i.e. newspapers, magazines, etc), can we still proceed ahead? So really there's two parts to the question.

Thank you very much! WangXian97 (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are allowed to create an article about the company that you work for, however please read WP:COI. The most important thing that you have to do disclose your conflict of interest. You can do this by following the instructions at WP:DCOI. However, your article must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, in this case WP:GNG and WP:CORP. If there is not enough coverage in the media to pass the guidelines, then it will not be accepted. Even if there is enough coverage, having an article on Wikipedia isn't always a good thing. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@WangXian97: Welcome to the Teahouse. As an employee of said company, you will need to disclose your paid relationship with your company on your user page at User:WangXian97. Please understand that Wikipedia does not exist to promote companies, that you are strongly discouraged from creating one yourself due to your conflict of interest, and that you should use the Articles for Creation process if you decide to do so anyway. Also understand that if an article about the company is approved, neither you nor your coworkers will have any control over what content goes on there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Bear in mind that (assuming that your company meets the criteria for notability, and you have made the required declarations) you will need to forget everything you know about the company and write an article based only on what those independent sources say - even if you disagree with what they say. ColinFine (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Also you ask: If there's not really much media mentions (i.e. newspapers, magazines, etc), can we still proceed ahead?

Two points within that:

• Crucial to any article are references in independent, reliable sources to establish "notability", as Wikipedia defines that term. See WP:NOTABILITY. If they don't exist, then the article is very unlikely to be acceptable. Don't start the process with proposed text; start with finding those sources. See WP:BACKWARD.
• "We": your account must be personal; only you should use it; other associated people should have their own individual accounts. And "we" might suggest an insider/PR/promotional frame of mind. Instead, it might be helpful to consider yourself a detached outsider, e.g. as a journalist, or (for example) as a potential client looking not only for good things but also for weaknesses.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Two articles need major revision but both are apparently locked. How may I get the necessary permission to edit these articles?

Australian Cattle Dog

Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog NoreenClark (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@NoreenClark: Welcome to the Teahouse. You should be able to edit either of those pages as you are autoconfirmed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You have been asked on the talk pages of the articles Australian Cattle Dog and Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog and your Talk page to cease editing these articles because of your attempts to change content using your self-published books as references. Same for information you describe as coming from unpublished interviews you conducted. Same applies to Robert Kaleski and Halls Heeler, per the conflict resolution about your COI. Your only recourse is to propose changes on the article Talk pages and ask for an independent reviewer to decide. David notMD (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

How to move out of the sandbox??

Hi there, I have drafted an article in the sandbox, however I can't submit it as the title is stuck on my user name 'User:Heatdeflect/sandbox'. Apparently the title was meant to pre-fill. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong? Heatdeflect (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Heatdeflect/sandbox Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Heatdeflect There is a "submit" button at the foot of the draft which will allow it to be reviewed. Before doing that, please remove all direct external links in the main body text: see WP:EL for the reasons why. You have used citations for providing information on your sources, which is the correct way to do that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning

There were three IP addresses who vandalised the page Office. I have since reverted them. Do I need to warn the IP address(es)? And if yes, which on do I warn, how do I warn them, and which warning level should I use? Mox Eden (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

What vandalism, Mox Eden? I see stunningly incompetent attempts by this person in Indonesia to spam, but no vandalism. What am I missing? -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for three days; I hope that the would-be spammer will lose interest in Wikipedia during this time. I wouldn't bother with warnings for this kind of behavior: I've no reason to think that the perp would be interested in any warning, and my time is valuable. -- Hoary (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Page translation

If I see a good page in non-English Wikipedia, can I just translate it to English? Or it would be copyright violation? Thanks. Soorch (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. It's not a violation as long as you provide attribution. See WP:HOWTRANS for guidance. Note that each language version of Wikipedia is separate, with their own editors and policies, and as such what is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Which language would you translate it from, Soorch, and how's your ability in that language? -- Hoary (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary I occasionally come across pages in Spanish and other languages that are not on the English Wiki, but I have now realized that the issue here is not so with the copyright, but with their quality in terms of verifiability. It may be easier to re-write an article from scratch, but using good Spanish sources from it, I think. Soorch (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly right, Soorch. Happy editing! ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Mistakes with DYK nomination

Hello! I have made mistakes with the formulation of a nomination of a page I created for DYK. I can't figure out how to edit the nomination. Can I just put in a fresh, better constructed nomination for the page I created or will that gum up the works somehow? I have only put in one DYK nomination before and am very inexpert at it. Thanks for any help and my apologies for a too vaguely worded question about this which I posted earlier on the WiR project page.Balance person (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Balance person Answered at the help Desk. Please don't post in two help locations as it just duplicates effort. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Business

How do I structure my article and make it more business related, neutral and not an essay type. Saleen99 (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Saleen99/sandbox Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi@Saleen99

Your article as it stands would be more appropriate for a blog post or LinkedIn post - not an encyclopaedic article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles only summarise what existing independent and reliable sources say about a topic. Your article currently cites no sources.

It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article, and Wikipedia:Five pillars which detail the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.

I would suggest looking at our existing article Business-to-business. If you would like to make additions to that article you are free to, but every fact and statement you add needs to be backed up by independent and reliable sources. This is so anyone can verify that the statements in your article are accurate.

Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Saleen99!

In addition to what has been said above, I'd like to point out that creating new articles is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia. It requires working knowledge of almost all content-related policies & guidelines. It can be very frustrating to start with something that most likely will not be successful, and new users are discouraged from creating new articles for that reason.

Instead, I'd recommend that you start with easier tasks and familiarise yourself with editing (and all its conventions) organically. Check out The Wikipedia Adventure for an interactive introduction to editing. One of the best tasks for newcomers is copyediting; find articles on a topic you're familiar with (or just go to a random article), and look for places where you can fix grammar, spelling, or add useful links to other Wikipedia pages. Also, feel free to ask any further questions here or on my talk page. Happy editing :) Actualcpscm (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank for the useful information, I'll work on the articles and editing. :) Saleen99 (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I would further point out that Wikipedia already has an article on the business-to-business market. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

How can I upload an updated photo on Wikipedia?

How can I upload an updated photo on Wikipedia? Emilyrwood (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Emilyrwood, welcome to the Teahouse. Since the only article you've edited here is Jeff Duncan (politician), I assume you're referring to a photo for that subject. Any photo uploaded to Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons, where most photos are hosted) would need to be appropriately licensed, or it would be a copyright violation. The easiest way to get a freely licensed photo is to take one yourself - you would then be the copyright holder and could license the photo appropriately. The alternative is to find a freely licensed photo elsewhere, download it there, then upload it at Commons with a link to the site where the free license can be found. Here is a link to the Upload Wizard on Commons: Commons:Commons:Upload Wizard.

Again, please do not upload any image to which you do not own the copyright, unless it has explicitly been released - in writing - under a free license. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Loading speed

Previously, my editor wouldn't load as it was stuck about two-thirds of the way. How can I prevent this issue from happening again? Thanks, Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 15:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Tarantula. For questions about how the software works, rather than about the business of editing, you're more likely to get a useful answer at WP:VPT than here. ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Moving a page

After making edits to Hood Army Airfield related to this location have a new name, it feels like moving the page may be appropriate. I am wondering if the best practice is to always open a discussion for a move, or if there are some pages where it is ok to move forward without that. If opening a discussion is best in this case, what art the steps to take for that? - Odin (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:OverlordOdin. It's never a problem to open a discussion if you're uncertain (or even if you are fairly certain). The processes for doing it yourself and for starting a discussion are at Wikipedia:Requested moves. In this specific case, I think it could go without discussion, since it's the same topic that itself has simply changed names but otherwise continued to be as it was. DMacks (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for Expedited Review of Revised Wikipedia Page - due to some serious issues

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I have recently crafted a new Wikipedia page about myself. Unfortunately, it was initially rejected due to perceived bias and a lack of external references.

I have meticulously revised the content to ensure neutrality and added a wealth of external citations to meet Wikipedia's standards. I'm keen to know how I can resubmit my revised page for further evaluation.

The urgency behind this request is significant. Currently, an online search of my name yields the profile of an individual involved in serious criminal activities; alarmingly, my photos are associated with this profile. This unfortunate mix-up has begun to adversely impact my reputation and professional opportunities, with speaking engagements being rescinded due to the misunderstanding.

I would appreciate it if you could expedite the acceptance of my updated Wikipedia page and share any additional advice that might help resolve this pressing issue.

Thank you for your understanding and assistance.

Kind Regards,

Dr. Sabeel Ahmed Sabeeldawah (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sabeel Ahmed - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Also Draft:Dr. Sabeel Ahmed - Wikipedia profile. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

What web searches do is not a concern of ours, you need to take that up with them. If you submitted the draft again it would be quickly rejected as it means almost none of the requirements to be included on Wikipedia. I have tagged it for deletion as it was just a fluff piece obviously written by the subject or a team member. I would suggest you work on other things. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Sabeeldawah, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, your draft - which is not currently submitted for review - has many issues which make it currently unsuitable for publishing to mainspace. There are no inline citation, only a list of references at the end, and none of those references seem to establish that you are notable as Wikipedia defines it. There are also many formatting errors, though those are easier to fix. The sources are the primary concern here. Also, you should review WP:COI, and perhaps WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. You may want to lodge a complaint with Google (I assume that's the search you referred to). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Recreating it at Draft:Dr. Sabeel Ahmed - Wikipedia profile was not a terribly good idea, @Sabeeldawah. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sabeeldawah (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no way to request an expedited review- this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and many thousands of people would love to have an expedited review of their work.

In this case, however, your draft was clear promotion. I feel bad for your situation, but this is not a concern of Wikipedia. If you do not meet our criteria for an article, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, there cannot be one about you. It's also not a good idea for you(or anyone associated with you) to write about you, see the autobiography policy. You will have to contact Google or other search engines if you are being confused with an unsavory person. This is not a problem unique to you, with eight billion humans on this planet. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

In the course of blocking for being only here to self promote, I found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sabeeldawah/Archive. FYI if any of the sleepers return. Star Mississippi 16:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Urban Legends and Unreliable Sourcing

Hi all! I've been thinking about editing the article on The Island of the Dolls but I'm having trouble finding reliable sources to describe an important facet of why the island is noteworthy in the first place: urban legend. The accounts available online are contradictory and often from one off clickbait sPoOkY articles, and I'm not sure how to address or include this information properly! Should I describe each variation/offshoot I find and use a qualifier like, "some contradictory accounts report that..." or something? Should I include only the aspects that are shared amongst a majority of the retellings (this strikes me as an example of independent research but I could be wrong)? Or should I abandon any attempt at describing the stories altogether? Thanks so much for your help *<:^) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Goodlucklemonpig, welcome to the Teahouse. Have you managed to find any reliable sources which address these urban legends? It's often a tricky thing to do. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Truly no ¯\_ツ)_/¯ The most reliable online source I've found is the NY Post, which is... not reliable haha! The rest are from sources not even listed on Wikipedia. @Esowteric made the suggestion of looking for books, and I've found a few (seemingly obscure) titles that aren't self published, although unfortunately I can't really afford a wiki article book buying spree at the moment! Thanks to both of you for your help! Not sure where to go from here, so any further advice would be much appreciated! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Have you checked out Project Gutenberg and the Internet Archive's library? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah SUCH a great call! Found a few books on Internet Archive, which I assume is a good place to start! Thanks so much!! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

One thing I often do is search for a phrase on Google, then switch to the Books tab; show a result, type in another phrase from that book, and use that for a standard Google search. If I don't get a result, I manually type some of the content into a text file; if I do find a long quote elsewhere, I copy and paste that into a text document. And a lot of the time, I just go and buy the book. :) eBooks are handy, because they allow you to copy a fair amount of content. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Editing to add: That's also a great idea! I started off with Google books, but the previews were teensy tiny, so not much I could include. Anyways, after a quick skim of the available literature on IA (mostly mentions in "Scariest Places" collections, Atlas Obscura etc.), the legends are still pretty varied in their retellings. So, back to the original comment, is there a recommended approach for how to address contradictory information? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Goodlucklemonpig, generally the rule is that if two equally reliable sources give contradictory reports, include both versions; if some sources are markedly more reliable than others, stick to the more reliable ones. But in this specific case, keep in mind that a Wikipedia article shouldn't go into too much depth about the specifics of such legends; you should focus on why they're important and their effects, not the details of the legends themselves. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Goodlucklemonpig. Have you searched for (non-self-published) books on these subjects? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This has all been extremely helpful, and I think I have a clear(ish) idea of where to go from here! Another quick q before I go: the article itself needs a significant rewrite, and I'm wondering if there's a way to create a sandbox draft for review? Or is that only for previewing new articles? It'll be my first major contribution, so I want to make sure it's up to snuff! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Goodlucklemonpig, you could create a sandbox draft to work on things (review Copying within Wikipedia first), but AFC is only for new articles, not updates to existing articles. I'd recommend not doing a huge rewrite in one go, though. Better to make changes at the live article in several chunks, so that if someone wants to revert or discuss, you both can focus on that particular chunk instead of wiping everything out. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Notability question

Hello editors! Longtime reader, finally starting to get my feet wet editing articles. I noticed the Minnesota Timberwolves' lead assistant coach Micah Nori doesn't have his own page. There's several secondary sources that cover him in detail: here, here and here, for starters. Before I start the process of putting it together, should I be worried from a notability standpoint? Any help is appreciated! Tingggg (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tingggg Hmm. From what I can tell, those sources are pretty local in nature, so they might be an obstacle to notability. In any case, I recommend that you start a draft at Draft:Micah Nori to get an idea of what the article could look like. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU Thank you for responding! That makes sense. Tingggg (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Help

Hello editors i have drafted am article before 5 days now today suugest me to talk with some editors and tell them help with the article fixing etc is there anyone who can help me . Angiemcc2023 (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Angiemcc2023, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume this is Draft:Sheikh Asif? You submitted it for review ten days ago. What I notice immediately is that you have 23 citations, to support nine (count them) pieces of information about him. This makes it look as if you are desperately trying to pack it with citations, to make a reviewer think that he meets the criteria for notability. But that is likely to achieve the opposite effect.

If one of the citations for a piece of information is solid (that is, if it meets the golden rule for sources), then that is all that is needed. And if none of them do, then I'm afraid that a hundred poor sources do not add up to one single good source.

I've only looked at three of your sources - the first three that are in English. But it is immediately obvious that they are not independent, but mostly retelling his own words. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

I suggest you look critically at each of your sources, and remove any that do not meet the golden rule. If that leaves you no sources, then you will know that he probably does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and not to spend any more time on this draft. If there are some, write an article from those high-quality sources. And at the very least the article should tell us (from those sources, not from what he says or what you know) why we should take note of him. ColinFine (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The final source, which like the others is not independent but based on what Asif has said, has him referring to "the largest food chain in London called Zabka". Really? Maybe the largest Polish food chain in London. Maproom (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Where can I find a book of tree varieties

Varieties of trees Charles Grantville (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Charles Grantville, welcome to the Teahouse. There are many sources listed in the reference section for Tree. You can check there, or perhaps the folks at WP:RD/S could recommend something with a good overview of the subject, if you post your question there. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

redirected page

i just made my first redirect i think of Argentinians to ARgentines. Argentines. is that acceptable to do? did i do it correctly? thanks Iljhgtn (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, Argentianians is syntatically correct and is acceptable as a plausible typo of Argentinians. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft Page In Review - Corrected All Suggested Revisions

I have created a page to present the nobility and accomplished accolades of an individual.

The page is in draft and submitted for review. It has been sitting in idle for several months and everyone that made notes after it was submitted have disappeared. I have revised and made corrections according to the suggested input.

All statements are sourced with appropriate citations. I have added appropriate tags and WikiProjects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gray_Leadbetter

It seems that this should be a slam dunk. I dont understand what is taking so long. Any help is appreciated. Manderson619 Manderson619 (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@manderson619: there are 4000 drafts pending for review. that's why it's taking so long. lettherebedarklight晚安 05:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Manderson619, you might reasonably object that one major reason why there are 4000 drafts waiting is that it's taking so long. Another reason why there are so many drafts? Because the number of people reviewing these is so very much fewer than the number producing them. There'd be little need for drafts if only article creators (i) already had non-trivial and successful experience in improving existing articles, and (ii) were free of the seemingly widespread delusion that Wikipedia is a free-of-charge PR outlet. That matter aside, I put a few minutes into (very lightly) editing your draft. As for the task of reviewing it, I'll leave that to somebody who knows more about motor sports than I do. -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Manderson619, some parts of this seem obscure to me. Example: "At the time, her family was not familiar with the intricacies of racing, so she was able to follow her neighbors to support her." This would make sense: "Her family was not then familiar with the intricacies of racing, but she got neighbors to support her." However, I'm unsure whether it's what was meant. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Manderson619, and welcome to the Teahouse. I notice that you begin above with I have created a page to present the nobility and accomplished accolades of an individual. Please note that while that may be a laudable aim, it has no part writing a Wikipedia article. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view: they must not praise (or criticise) a subject in Wikipedia's voice in any way.

You can certainly list the accolades, provided you can cite independent sources for them. But no Wikipedia article should ever describe its subject as "noble", or any other value judgment. If a reliable source, wholly independent of the subject, describes her as wonderful, or noble, then you may directly quote and attribute the source ("John Doe said in the Observer that ...") and add a citation. Equally, if an independent reliable source attacked your subject, you should probably say so, even if you strongly disagree with them.

I mention this because achieving a neutral point of view can be difficult about a subject you think highly of. ColinFine (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Drafts for edits?

New editor here. If I want to make substantial edits to an article, like reformatting sections or adding lots of new information, how do I draft those? I only see the option to publish edits from the Wikipedia article editor. Thanks! Flipped script (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@flipped script: there's no drafting edits here, though you can use the show preview button to check what your edits will look like. lettherebedarklight晚安 05:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Flipped script: You can work on the proposed changes in your sandbox. RudolfRed (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Flipped script My suggestion would be to start small if editing the article. Add a paragraph or two of new information (well cited, of course) and publish that. Then add the next portion and so on. Don't try to do a wholesale edit that makes massive change all at once because if another editor objects (our bold, revert, dicuss cycle), their response is likely to be to revert all your work. It is quite likely that some of your changes will be uncontroversial while others may need discussion to reach consensus. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I have often done multiple, modest-sized edits to an article - at times more that 50 - in the process of raising an article to be worthy to submit to a Good Article review. A common error is to add content, meaning to add the referencing later; another is to remove referenced content without an Edit summary explaining why. David notMD (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael D. Turnbull and David notMD! Breaking edits up and publishing incrementally makes a lot of sense. Should I wait a certain amount of time before making each edit to give other editors a chance to review it? Flipped script (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

My thinking is don't bother. You did not mention an article name, but if not high profile or many watchers, your edits may not draw timely comments. David notMD (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Notability check

Would a Wikipedia page on an NGO, its objectives, principles, structures, outreach, funding etc. be notable? It focuses on agricultural rural development in Sub-Saharan Africa. The NGO has been funded by FAO, European Commission, USAID and is in close partnership with Heineken so it is a substantial organisation. 2A02:A03F:646F:B700:A0C3:D165:6D41:4436 (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NORG. Is it written about in The Times, The Telegraph, CNN etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

IP editor. The items you have listed seem like those one would see on the NGO's own website. What Wikipedia needs is what other commentators have been saying about them that meets these key criteria. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Can I earn money from here?

This once where I though that. If I dedicate my life here editting, keep contributing, focusing on what could I contribute. Can I earn enough money from this? in return. To pay my rent, my internet connection, meals etc. I just thought what if this could be a valid job for my future. Morrowind 14 (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No, you cannot earn money from this. 119.245.86.251 (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Morrowind 14: All Wikipedia editors are WP:VOLUNTEERS; there are no Wikipedia employees who are paid for their efforts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Morrowind 14 Wikipedia does not pay contributors. If you choose to offer Wikipedia editing services for clients, you must comply with the paid editing policy and declare it. It is permitted, but most will look upon you skeptically. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to add that if you ever want to earn money from editing, anywhere, you will be expected to pay a lot more attention to spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

In any case, regarding dedication: potential clients would probably be looking for someone with a proven track record. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

In other words, Wikipedia is not a job. Cwater1 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Colorizred text

I‘ve just seen this article and its colorized track listing, it‘s on Pigments (album). I know Wikipedia has a Manual of Style but is there some sort of guideline against colorizing text like this? I saw it and thought it may be an issue to colorblind readers, and that there may be a guideline that says not to do it. Can this be removed? I don't know how to remove codes. Thank you. 2A00:20:B004:FC51:1A9:78D:167A:B7F (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing the mistake, I removed the colors from the tracks. The guideline is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Color. All I did was remove the enclosing {{color}} template. Apmh 13:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Article on google search

Good morning,

I am having some trouble with the publication of my article. Is there anything I have to do to get my article on the google search.

I have some issues with the verification even though I have all my citations. Hoping to hear from you all soon.

Thanking you, QMEC

QESMUNB (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, QESMUNB and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you mean Draft:Quartermain Earth Science Centre? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I just moved it to draft space to protect it from being deleted. I also left a comment. The draft fails WP:CORP and the references fails WP:Golden Rule requirements.

Also, this is not Google, this is Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not control when an article appears on Google's search results. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@QESMUNB, your username and the way you sign your post indicates that you have some sort of connection to this organization. Please review WP:COI and/or WP:PAID. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

My Article is rejecting

i have wrote an article about anim8r - CSS animation studio project.this project is mine.i'm publishing this project at june 22,2023.can you guys help me to edit and finish this article.because i'm new to here.

Draft:Anim8r Rizmyabdulla (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Rizmyabdulla, welcome to the Teahouse. Your article cites no reliable, independent, secondary sources which could prove that this software is notable - not surprising if it's only just been released. Until someone else publishes coverage of your software, there is nothing to build an article on. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok,thanks Rizmyabdulla (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No Notifications

I haven't been receiving any web notifications, even though in my preferences I have them turned on. Is there something I am missing, such as some opt-out thing somewhere else I might have accidentally turned on? I'm specifically looking for the web notifications at the top right, which shows the last one from two months ago... Captchacatcher (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Captchacatcher The set-up is at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo so you should check there: and you should have been notified by my entry here. There are also different notices from Captchacatcher mentions, which this should also trigger. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Yes, I received a notification, thank you. I believe I was not subscribed to another talk page before, and I found where to see my watchlist. Captchacatcher (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

UK image copyright question

I'm thinking of scanning an image from an English concert program from 1972 in order to include it in an article. It would fall under public domain use here in the US according to the Hirtle chart, but I'm unsure whether it is protected by copyright in the UK. Any help or advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24 The UK rules are on Commons at c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom. It will depend a bit on whether the image in the programme had a specified author. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:BaagadBillaa Declined

Hi,

I found the draft called BaagadBillaa which is declined two time. The first when it was declined, it is written that 'It is not necessary to add citation in every word' and and time 'Need multiple reviews by reputable critics. Also, The Times of India is considered a weak source because they are known to take payments for promotional articles.'

So I wonder that Almost for all Gujarati Films The Times of India is Reliable Source and all are published however for this article why it's decline and stated that the source take payments for promotional articles? In that case what is actual reliable source? How it should differ under same same category i.e. Gujarati Films? If you can let me know I can try to improve it however as per my knowledge it's meeting Notability Criteria.

Thank You! DevilTheOptimizer (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, DevilTheOptimizer. Please read The Times of India#Paid news and Paid news in India. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Cullen328 Thanks for your prompt reply. I have gone through this article. However, I still have a questions regarding the reliability of sources for Gujarati films on Wikipedia. As far as I know, The Times of India is widely considered a reputable source for news and information, and they have published articles about numerous Gujarati films. It seems inconsistent that The Times of India is generally considered reliable for other Gujarati film articles, but not for the specific "BaagadBillaa". If such case all article which are live and having Times of India link might promotional? If so why it's considerable? How can we differentiate it? DevilTheOptimizer (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

DevilTheOptimizer, I recommend that references to The Times of India be removed from all film and entertainment articles, and replaced with references to more reliable publications that do not run paid news. We have 6,675,834 articles and many of then have various problems. You can read the assessment of The Times of India at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @DevilTheOptimizer.

It's worth remembering that Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists. Just because other articles use The Times of India as a source doesn't mean that that is a good thing! In fact, if you would like to Wikipedia:Be bold and find alternative sources to replace The Times of India on other articles, that would be much appreciated.

Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I made a bot but my edits aren't saving

The types of contributions I'd like to make on Wikipedia are adding inflation context to dollar-related facts using the inflation template. Look at my contributions to see some examples of that.

I made a bot to automate this, and the bot runs successfully and says that changes to the article text have been saved, but when I look at the article I don't see any change.

I've tried using the Python libraries pywikibot and mwclient. I've tried using a standard username/password login, a bot password, and oauth keys.

Does anyone know what could be going on? Chrett (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Chrett. You must submit your bot for approval. Read Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group for complete information. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chrett: I think Cullen meant to link to Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Approval_process.

You will first need to get consensus for the edits the bot would do. If I understand correctly, you intend to add the {{inflation}} template to any dollar amount found in any page. I am not sure that would be considered desirable for the community. (I would be mildly in favor, if it is feasible; after all I am a big proponent of {{as of}}. But that’s just my opinion.)

Then, you need to get through the bot approval where technical objections can be raised. In particular, I fail to see how you would get the year at which the given factoid should be anchored - for instance, in this edit your addition of the template contains start_year=1988, which you obtained through human judgment, reading the sentence in context. How would the bot know this?

Now, I grant you NLP is a thing, and "finding if the current sentence contains a year" is probably somewhat easy (compared to cutting-edge NLP anyway). But still, that requires some nontrivial programming, and some testing to check any false positives. The bot approval process is designed to refine that sort of thing. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Names and titles for 16th-century nobility

Hello, I have been working on a set of articles centered around Catherine de Parthenay, who is also known as Viscountess of Rohan, Princess of Rohan, Catherine de Parthenay-Soubise, and Madame de Rohan-Soubise.

As I have worked on the article, and referencing related articles, I am realizing that using a surname, which in this case I take to be Parthenay doesn't seem to be quite right. It seems that other articles reference the persons first name + of / de, etc. + the common name, which in this case is "Catherine de Parthenay" or "Catherine de Parthenay, Viscountess of Rohan". This is a bit complicated when there are several people on the page with similar names, like Henri, Duke of Rohan. There is a Henri I and Henri II of Rohan, as an easy example. There are sometimes secondary titles that distinguish them from another similarly named person.

I couldn't figure out what project would be the best to ask this question, so I came here. My question is, after the initial use in the intro, how should a person be referred to when surname (or first name) is not practical?

Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna, care to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Legal threat?

I received this message on my talk page a bit ago, and after a moment of confusion realized it referred to this edit from a couple of months ago. I stand by the edit - I don't think the inclusion of the samples meets the contextual significance requirement for music in an article - but I'm more concerned with whether the comment could be considered a legal threat that needs to be reported. This is a first for me, so any advice is appreciated, thanks! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not an assigned Teahouse person, but I have run into this kind of thing before. It sounds like this is a content ownership and conflict of interest or close contributor person issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That article needs a lot of work, there are hardly an citations and is clearly created for promotional purposes. I just applied a BLP tag to the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It has the adverstiment tag. Cwater1 (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The article for Rvssian does. Cwater1 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I also added Talk:Nikki Hornsby#BLP tag. I don't mean to "pile on", but the key issue, I think is that article shouldn't be around in it's current state, and perhaps not at all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the initial talk page comment about the unsourced addition to Rvssian is not the issue - that was a mistake that I rectified. The message in question is the one from the IP who mistakenly replied to that comment rather than start a new section (which they subsequently did). And I'm not as concerned about the article as whether the comment from the IP consists of a legal threat. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I get that. This IP user is pretty much a one article contributor... for an article that isn't cited... and does not own that content. I am happy to add notification / tags to their user page as a first time warning.

It's most likely that they are trying to prod someone into doing what they want them to. The thing is, they don't have legal standing, since Wikipedia content isn't owned by its contributors. It automatically goes into the public domain.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I see now. Cwater1 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, you puzzle me with the last part. If you're saying that what's contributed to Wikipedia is thereby contributed to the public domain, no, certainly not. As I write this, I am told that I "irrevocably agree to release [this] contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL"; and the CC BY-SA license is very different from the CC0 go-ahead. However, if our minds [yes, I include my own] are addled, perhaps it's because of the original objection: "IF you are licensed by law to remove please refer to that legal section for reasoning unless respectfully it’s your emotionally based decision." I've read this several times but it still leaves me quite mystified. And as for the bigger picture: Yes, this is a PR piece unconvincingly masquerading as an encyclopedia article. -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hoary I assume they mean if I removed the samples in accordance with some law or statute, to please say which law it is, otherwise I should admit that it was an 'emotionally based' edit. What sounds like a threat is the "the legal source of cjp-nhrecords wants to know...will contact you" bit. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary and DrOrinScrivello: Yes, there are finer points in Wikipedia:Public domain - and you definitely have a better grasp on that. My point is that most COI/ownership issues occur when someone puts something on Wikipedia and thinks it should stay there - that's not how Wikipedia works. And, especially not so if it's non-cited content about a living person.

What I should have said was, I am not a lawyer, but I have run across this issue before. I tagged the article and the talk page that the article should be significantly cleaned up or nominated for deletion, I hoped that I was taking the heat off the one deletion (i.e., leave the issue alone for now and see if they are interested in removing uncited content (which was what was deleted) or not.).–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Downloading Images

I have a question. Can images from Wikipedia be downloaded? I know most has the free to use. I don't intend to download anything at this time. Just a question. Cwater1 (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the key question is can you download an image from Commons (which is where most images on Wikipedia come from). That can be done. Just click on the image. You'll see a Wikipedia url, but click "More details" and it will bring you to the commons image.

The files on Wikipedia, and not on commons, are non-free fair use images (like for logos, deceased people).–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Updated how to get to commons.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I was wondering. Thanks! Cwater1 (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1: Not all images uploaded locally to Wikipedia are non-free content, but many are. How you may reuse a file largely depends on how it's licensed. For more information on this, see c:COM:REUSE and WP:REUSE. One important thing to remember is that just because you find an image on Wikipedia or on Commons, that doesn't mean it should've been uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons, ot that it's correctly licensed. Both the Wikipedia and Commmons communities do their best to make sure images are licensed correctly (or at least as correctly as possible), but there are no 100% guarantees and you are ultimately responsible to make sure the licensing of the files you want to download and use is correct. See WP:General disclaimer and c:COM:General disclaimer for more on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Taz: Quest for Burger

Quick question: Is there any way to improve the draft for Taz: Quest for Burger in order to resubmit it as an article for creation? LegalizeAnythingMuppets (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I could be reading this wrong - totally possible - but are you asking to move it to an article for creation, rather than fixing the draft where it is?

There's clear guidance on that page of what needs to be done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If it's a concern that it might take awhile to get feedback while in Draft mode, I'd be happy to review the article after changes are made. If you could ping me or post a note on my talk page, that would work.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Brazilian spelling (also south and central America)

Does Brazil use USA spelling or UK spelling for the sake of English Wikipedia? I know they use portuguese as their language..

actually this question now extends to all of south and central america. Should the spelling for EN WP be USA or UK of various things? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like per MOS:TIES there's not a specific variant prefered for articles about Brazil. Any variant could be used, so long as its usage is consistent within the article (and if a variant is currently in use, it should be retained). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

what about guatemala, mexico, panama, honduras, chile, argentina, belize, guyana, etc etc Iljhgtn (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Same answer (MOS:TIES). For countries where there's a specific variety of English in common use, articles about that country or topics directly related to that country use the dialect. In other articles, including articles about countries that do not specific varieties of English in common use, any variety can be used, so long as it is used consistently within the article. In existing articles with an established English variety, it should generally not be changed.

If there's debate as to whether a specific variety should be used on an article, the article's talk page is the typical place to discuss and gain consensus. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

help with first submission

I am submitting an article for review. I am asked to provide a draft title. When i do that, the UI says "Please check draft title. No such draft exists." What am i to do? HalfManLion (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

HalfManLion, the correct draft title should be User:HalfManLion/sandbox. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Tx HalfManLion (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Who is the capital of ussr?

Moscow 2600:1700:2A14:8250:1851:C0C5:3602:F3F2 (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, the Teahouse is for asking about how to use Wikipedia. For general questions like yours, you can learn about that at USSR or by asking at the WP:REFDESK. RudolfRed (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Rejected for G11: promotional material

Hey Wiki community, I have attempted twice to post an article on a recruitment software company called UseVerb. It keeps being rejected because it is too promotional. I'm not sure how I can write it any less promotional? I don't use any promotional language, I only state the functionality of the product and features, but do not make any comments about it being superior or producing any certain results. It is very neutral. I am also not affiliated with the subject.

I have referred to how other similar pages have been written, such as LinkedIn and HubSpot and have followed same structure and tone of voice? I feel like it's being rejected solely on the basis that it is a commercial company?

The page is speedy deleted instantly, so I cannot share it for you to review. But you may be able to see it here: User talk:Therealslimwikieditor

I have asked for help/further from the people who rejected it and they have just told me to ask here.

Thank you for your assistance!

Therealslimwikieditor (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

pinging @Deepfriedokra and @Fancy Refrigerator, who deleted and denied the AfC recently respectively 💜  melecie  talk - 04:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Therealslimwikieditor. Hi. Please see WP:NOTPRICE. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 06:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@331dot: for third opinion if you are available. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Therealslimwikieditor Hello. The draft just tells about the existence of the company and the features of its products, and two of the sources are the company itself. You summarized the information fairly well(though without inline citations, see WP:REFB), but that's not what is being looked for. An article about UseVerb must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company and what makes it important/significant/influential, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. We don't want a mere description of what the company does and what its products do, we want to know what others wholly unaffiliated with the company choose to say about it. This does not include the company website, press releases, staff interviews, or announcements of its business activities(like the release of a product or acquisition of a competitor). 331dot (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Therealslimwikieditor, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not an admin, so I can't see your deleted draft. But I'd be willing to bet that, unlike LinkedIn and HubSpot, your draft didn't have the multiple indepedent substantial sources that are an absolute essential to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

It's as though you're saying "I built my house to look just like that one over there, but it's fallen down": what it looks like can be fixed, but if you have not surveyed the ground and checked that it is stable, then it won't stand up. In Wikipedia terms, "surveying the ground to check it's stable" is "finding the necessary sources to establish that the subject is notable. ColinFine (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for an article to be checked for B class

Hello everyone! I recently created Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 and had it copy-edited earlier this month. I think it is B-class worthy right now, but since I am the editor who created and conducted most of the edits on the article, I would like to ask if someone else can check it to see if it is B-class. Thank you in advance! WeatherWriter (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: You might want to try asking for such an assessment on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed at the top of Talk:Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 because those WikiProjects are likely where you're going to find editors interested in the particular aubject matter who have a pretty good feel for their respective project's assessment criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

cs1/2: deprecated & replacement paramaters list?

is there any special page for complete list of cs1/2 deprecated or replacement  of parameters? రుద్రుడు చెచ్క్వికి (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Editing approval

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sridevi Here I edited twice and still getting rejected in spite of attaching the necessary link with it . At first a senior Wikipedian rejected it because I didn't attach any source but after the attachment he approved it and send me a welcome message but another Wikipedian changed it . I can see there are a lot of places in that page where it should be edited and deserves addition. Now if the editing gets rejected again and again how will I proceed ? SANKURDAS (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi SANKURDAS. Disagreements between editors over article content are generally best resolved by discussing the matter on the article's talk page as explained in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. So, what you can do is start a discussion about the content you want to add at Talk:Sridevi and explain why you think it should be added. This will give others a chance to comment and allow Wikipedia:Consensus to possibly be established on whether the content should be added. One possible reason that I could see for your edit being removed is that you tried to add the content directly to the lead section of the article. As explained in MOS:LEAD, the lead section of an article should generally summarize the main points of the article that are covered in the body sections of the article; in other words, the lead section shouldn't really be the only place where something is mentioned (even if supported by a source). Another possible problem with the content could be that referring to a single source referring to Sridev as the "Last Empress" of Indian cinema might be considered placing too much emphasis on that one single source for Wikipedia's purposes. In that particular writer's opinion Sridev may be the "Last Empress", but that particular writer's opinion might not be significant enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. There might be other reasons why your edit was undone, and the best way to find out what they are for sure would be to start discussing the edit on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sir , be concerned about the name which is taken , She is "SRIDEVI" not "SRIDEV" .I might not mind in others' cases but here ....and thanks for your suggestion. SANKURDAS (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting a change to guidelines

I intend to propose a change to some guidelines, namely MOS:ARABIC. What do I do? Do I open an RfC in that page's talk? 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Festucalex In your case I'd start with just starting a discussion at the talkpage. Rfc is generally meant as a "next step." It may come to that, but that's not a given, perhaps your proposal will seem obviously good to people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Creating articles

Please anyone can create article about Baburam Gautam and Sirjana Danuwar in Wikipedia 182.50.66.177 (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP Editor.

Only people who are Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed users can create articles in the mainspace. However, anyone, including users who are not logged in, may create and edit Wikipedia:Draft articles.

If you'd like to create an article about Baburam Gautam and Sirjana Danuwar, please follow the below guidelines. You need to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover Baburam Gautam and Sirjana Danuwar in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:

- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.

- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.

- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.

- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.

- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.

Remember that your article should be written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that Baburam Gautam and Sirjana Danuwar would not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject.

Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

How many news articles are needed for the creation of new Wikipedia page

I want to write an article about a person, but it got failed. Now, I want to know that how many news articles Wikipedia needs for verification. Narendra7302 (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Narendra7302.

To be able to pass the Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold, your Wikipedia article should have at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject. See Wikipedia:Multiple sources for some more information. You can use primary sources for basic facts (such as a date of birth).

Note that your sources also must be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website. You also can't use User-generated content as a source, for example IMDB or another Wikipedia.

If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that they would not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article.

Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Narendra7302 and welcome to the Teahouse. If you're talking about Draft:Sidhraj Singh, then the reliable sources mentioned above also need to give significant coverage to the subject of the article, in this case Sidhraj Singh. Also, please don't delete the details of previous AfC submissions (the coloured box/boxes and comments at the top of the draft). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Taz: Quest for Burger

Hello, can someone who has watched this film help in writing of a plot summary, production, and/or critical reception? I AFC'd the article but was asked by the submitter to help which I cannot adequately do. 1TWO3Writer (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)