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

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Finding articles to improve

Is there a better way to find articles to improve on? I mainly just click random article from the menu and that's that. Justjourney (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I do know wp:tasks Justjourney (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Also it depends on the type of improvement you're trying to do, which can range from simple tasks like copyediting/categorization/fixing citations to more advanced stuff like expanding articles or curating new pages. Depending on what you're interested in I can definitely offer advice/suggestions. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 02:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I guess for right now I would want to fix small things, but bigger things I'd leave off for later. Justjourney (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

For me, the home page was helpful in finding articles to copyedit. Categorization I haven't done much, but WP:Tasks is helpful in that regard. If you're interested in fixing duplicate citations, there's a script I can link you to. Let me know if any of those sound interesting, or if you'd prefer something else like anti-vandal work. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 05:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm fine now, thanks for the advice. Justjourney (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Community portal is a great place to learn about productive tasks that need to be done. Cullen328 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

One way that works for me is browsing wikipedia until I find something in need of fixing Mgjertson (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

What is box-header

I was just experimenting on editing portel template in my sandbox, to understand the format working in source editing format, someone suggest me to use user:____/sandbox/header Within templet.

I am a new editor I did not know much about this thing can you explain me this, which may help me to contribute in Wikipedia in a better way.

Thank you 獅眠洞 (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello 獅眠洞, could you link to the place where they suggested this? Experimenting in you sandbox sounds like a good place to experiment. I am not sure what the editor was suggesting based just on your post. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Rijjiii, it's here I am new, that's why little afraid to provide link,

Because in original template, most of things are not present in source editing format, which make me curious, so I start experimenting in sandbox. Find how it is possible. 獅眠洞 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@獅眠洞, yeah, that is understandable; Wikipedia can have pretty tense vibe. Before giving a long explanation, I want to make clear that the kind of experimenting that you are doing is fine, and I don't believe that anyone was trying to stop your experiments.

Are you asking about the move from "Draft:(My 獅眠洞-sandbox)" to "User:獅眠洞/sandbox-3"? A page in the draft namespace is supposed to be a rough a version or work-in-progress towards an article. Since (My 獅眠洞-sandbox) will never be an encyclopedia article, an editor moved it to the user namespace. You can draft and create new content in either the draft (Draft:) or user (User:) namespaces. Both will hide the material from the searches and make clear that it is not (right now) a part of the encyclopedia. There are two potential benefits to using the draft namespace. First, it encourages other editors to join in and help out. Second, it allows other editors who might be thinking of creating the page to see that someone is already working on it. Since neither apply to this experiment, it should be in the user (User:) namespace.

Also, I don't know if you are aware, but any page in the draft namespace has to be actively worked on or moved into the actual main namespace of the encyclopedia. If you leave a test page up in the draft namespace for more than a few months without working on it, there is a bot that will delete it. I'm going to also explain transclusions for portals in a bit, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@獅眠洞, here is a technical explanation for the "user:____/sandbox/header" links that appear in your sandbox:

Anything placed inside of double curly brackets {{like this}} will be transcluded from that page. You can include the namespace when transcluding. For example, {{Wikipedia:Ignore all rules}} will give output, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". If the transcluded page is in the template namespace (Template:), you do not have to include the namespace. So {{Template:Example}}, {{Example}}, and {{example}} all output:

This is an example of a template. For help with templates, see Help:Template.

If the transcluded page is on subpage of where is it is being transcluded, you don't have to use the namespace or the main page's title, just a slash. So {{/box-header}} used on Portal:Islam will transclude Portal:Islam/box-header. When used on Portal:Free and open-source software it will transclude Portal:Free and open-source software/box-header. In your sandbox, {{/box-header}} is creating a red link because the subpage does not yet exist. Portals typically rely very heavily on transclusion in a way that articles do not.

Everything after a pipe character (|) inside double curly brackets is a parameter that is passed to the transcluded page (usually a template). Anything inside of triple curly brackets {{{like this}}} can be replaced by the equivalent parameter for the rendered output. Parameters can be named parameters like {{ cite comic | title=[[Bone (comics)|Bone]] | date=July 1991 | publisher=[[Cartoon Books]] }}. In this case, the values behind the equal sign will replace the parameter names in the template. So for example, July 1991 will replace {{{date}}} on the rendered page. Parameters can also be unnamed or numbered like {{abbr|1st parameter|2nd parameter}} or {{abbr|1=1st parameter|2=2nd parameter}}. When there is no name give after the pipe, it is treated as "1=", "2=", and so on. In the case of {{/box-header|Introduction}}, "Introduction" will replace {{{1}}} or {{{1|}}} in the transcluded subpage. Because the subpage does not yet exist for your sandbox, there is no {{{1}}} for "Introduction" to replace, and it is just discarded for the rendered page.

I realize that's kind of complicated, but as you continue to experiment, it makes more sense. In addition to asking at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, you can post technical questions about Portals or transclusion to WP:VPT. And feel free to {{ping}} me or leave a message on my talk page if you have more questions, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I mistakenly say recommended, it was added in my experiment section, so I was confused at that time. by someone. 獅眠洞 (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@獅眠洞: {{/box-header}} transcludes a subpage of whatever page it is on. When the page was moved to a different location, it pointed {{/box-header}} at a different subpage location. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello i wanna change my sandbox name.

Hello i've created my own article about my video game, i really wanna change the name tho, I don't like the User:/Your_User/sandbox

And i really wanna make it live.

Thank you.

-Armend Armend XD (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

As you are autoconfirmed, you are able to change pages names by moving a page with the button on the right side of your screen. There are more instructions at HELP:MOVE which can give a step by step tutorial. If you are having trouble, please feel free to leave a reply and I can take a look at it, cheers! Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 11:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

thanks tho, it sucks u have to wait ur acc has to be 4 days older >_< Armend XD (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Please know that your draft is far from being an acceptable Wikipedia article, as it does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. You also have a conflict of interest, please review that policy. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd also recommend reading Help:Your first article as well. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 12:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks! Armend XD (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much my article is now moved! Armend XD (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I've moved it to draft space, Draft:Shine Private Basic School. It is not yet suitable as an article, for the reasons I stated above. You also need to formally declare your conflict of interest, see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

y'know what I'm gonna delete it. Armend XD (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I've worked so hard making this :/ Armend XD (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform here; I would suggest learning more about Wikipedia via the tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

alr Armend XD (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

should I submit the draft?

I'm just a young editor and created about a article about my video game ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Armend XD (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Unless independent reliable sources have given your game significant coverage (typically in the form of a review written by a professional reviewer) it would not merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Consider taking a look at the task center to find other ways to begin editing. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand any of this and it's just a visual novel

and ofc horror >o< Armend XD (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Armend XD Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something, especially something that we ourselves have created. Wikipedia articles tell what others that have nothing to do with a topic say about it, not what those associated with the topic say about it(such as the creator of a game). I might suggest that you read this page with a parent/guardian/custodian, and that may help you understand what exactly it is that we do here. If you just want to tell the world about your game, you should use social media to do that. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks!

(No harassment but(redacted)) Armend XD (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Do not post personal information about yourself in this very public place. Bad people could see it and use that information to harm you. I again strongly urge you to read this page with your parent/guardian/custodian. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't really do that kind of thing cause it's weird Armend XD (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm done reading it!

By the way, can you read the article I made, if there is something offenses, (sorry my english is bad) tell me! Armend XD (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything in it that is offensive.

Your English seems okay to me, but if English is not the main language you use to communicate, I would suggest editing the version of Wikipedia that is in your primary language. You might be more comfortable there. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

wanna meet at the talk later :D Armend XD (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

By the way can...I move it now? Armend XD (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

No. It still doesn't have enough reliable sources to be suitable for mainspace. Please spend some time working to improve it, and then submit it for review by AfC. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 16:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Wait I have to languages?

(Sorry i'm just a young kid editor and don't understand these literally I'm tf dumb) Armend XD (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Wait i have to add langauages?*

(im a fast typer sorry) Armend XD (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm just gonna make a video game character article until I can move my main article,

I shouldn't make a post about this,

didn't know some of you bitch's made it draft, shitmedia Armend XD (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about the frustrating experience, Armend XD. This is a common enough problem for new editors that there is an essay explaining how and why these articles get stuck, Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. To have an article on Wikipedia, the subject of the article (not the article itself) must meet Wikipedia:Notability. On reason for this, is that is not possible to meet our standards for content, like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, without independent reliable secondary sources. Say for example, the only serious coverage about your game said something to the effect of, "It's dangerous, it promotes gambling, it's addictive, it takes no skill, and it even causes seizures, so it's like physically harming our children." That would be a very extreme viewpoint to take on a videogame, but there are legit news articles that cover Pokémon in this way. For Pokémon, it's no big deal because the content can be balanced with other viewpoints. That's not possible if there is just one source either promoting or condemning a subject. Also, if you have any connection to the subject of an article you are creating, it will receive much more scrutiny. There is an ongoing issue, where people try to use Wikipedia as PR.

For your article, there are several things you can try:

1. If WP:RS do exists (maybe in Kurdish?), cite those.
2. If the sources do not exist, nothing done to the article will make the game notable. You'd have get copies into the hands of WP:RS and hope that they offer coverage in the future.
3. You could also post your draft to smaller wikis that focus on video games and visual novels. (like https://vndb.org/)

Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Then what should I do? wait 5000 years so I can publish it?

PLEASE HOW THE FUCKING SHOULD I DO THAT?

I AIN'T BEEN ON WIKIPEDIA FOR 10318230918 YEARS Armend XD (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

sorry :< Armend XD (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Armend XD, for inclusion into Wikipedia, your videogame basically needs to be known in the wider world. Unfortunately, if your article is published as it stands, it would quickly be removed from Wikipedia for concerns listed above. So yes, you'll need to wait for others to decide whether your game is important (notable). — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 19:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

so I need to wait if my game is important (you said)

that would of course take a year cause it's new .-. Armend XD (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the last place to write about a topic, not the first. Your game will need to get reviewed by professional reviewers, before it can merit an article. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

ok! Armend XD (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

i got a warning comment in my article, "scoot_creep"

what the heck? Armend XD (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Saveafox Pages

hey Can i make the following Pages?

Saveafox

Finnegan fox

Dixiedo Fox

List of Saveafox's Pets

Mikayla Raines Douglas15amor (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

https://www.saveafox.org/ is a non-profit organization, so you can try by creating and submitting a draft (see WP:YFA). I really, really doubt that individual foxes Finnegan and Dixiedo could rate articles, and ditto for a list of named foxes. David notMD (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Correction! the frase "Finnegan and Dixiedo could rate articles is supposed to be "Finnegan and Dixiedo could have thier own articles" also these foxes are really famous but i understand your point. i dont think famous foxes will have thier own articles. Douglas15amor (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Douglas15amor: Help:Your first article has advice, but in short you will need to demonstrate that the subjects meet our notability criteria. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Be aware that you would not 'own' the article. A quick search identified quite a bit of bad press about Saveafox that people could add to said article in a Controversies section. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Making edits to cut an oversized section

This concerns this article: That All Shall Be Saved

The Reception section has already been noted in the talk page to be overly long and detailed, and the final summary contains a criticism of the book's critics by the author. Overall, I feel that this section is both over-sized while simultaneously being somewhat too favorable to the author.

As a result, I'd like to replace it with a much shorter paragraph remarking that there were both hostile and positive reviews.

This is a pretty big change though, so I was wondering if anyone could lend me some advice on how to approach removing and replacing a section like this? Or indeed, if this removal might not be justified in the first place.

Also, if someone could tell me if the very first paragraph is already sufficient, thus meaning I only need to deal with the excess of responses, that would be great. LucasG2001 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, surgery so readical should first be proposed on the Talk page of the article. One problem is that the creating editor has not been active for six months, and so even an invitation may not yield a response. Personally, I agree that a large table of Hart's responses to critics does not belong in the article, nor his summary paragraph at the end. David notMD (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. That's... quite a thing. The removal would be very justified. Go ahead and make the changes, explaining what they were in your edit summaries, and enter the WP:BRD cycle if someone reverts you. If you end up in an argument with another editor about it, feel free to come back here for advice on how to deal with that. By the way, you might be interested in joining WP:BOOKS. -- asilvering (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for your guidance, it really helps clarify the best course of action. Do you know how I can ping the main creator, Brftphoto, so he gets a notification about my comment on my latest edit on the talk page? LucasG2001 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

There are many ways to do that, but the easiest is to type {{u|usernamegoeshere}} (everything from the { to the }, including those symbols, and of course swapping in the username you intend to ping). -- asilvering (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that.

If you're not too busy, would you mind taking a look at the article's talk page? I'm not sure if my comment covers all the necessary bases. LucasG2001 (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk page comment is fine. I notice that the article still says "see table below", not sure if you're still working on it or if you forgot to remove that bit? -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I've just gotten rid of it. Thank you for your attention. LucasG2001 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

best practices using press releases as sources

As noted at WP:PRSOURCE press releases from organizations are often non-independent and self-published. Press releases are often WP:SYNDICATED at other news sites or used as the basis of other news stories at outlets with minimal editorial practices ("churnalism").

My question is the range of types of facts for which press releases may be viewed as reliable sources when independent published alternative sources are not available. Obviously, a press release from an organization saying "our organization is the best" is useless, but there other cases where I'm thinking a press release could be a reliable source for encylopedically-relevant information. For example,

- basic facts about the organization, like their name, relationship to subsidiaries, number of employees, location of an office or other operating site, etc., that the company itself almost certainly knows more about than an independent source would and doesn't really have an interest in somehow mis-stating or exaggerating

- sometimes information from press releases or other self-published documents shows up in a setting where an organization has an interest in ensuring information is accurate, for example, an IRS government form 990 for a nonprofit operating in the US. That seems to increase the reliability of self-published non-independent information even if in the example, the government probably shouldn't be considered to be an independent publisher of the information

- objective facts, like "our organization" "did X" or "participates in X" (as opposed to "is the best at X", or "will do X in the future", or "thinks X is really important" or ...) ProfessorBioTech (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @ProfessorBioTech, and welcome to the Teahouse. Does the list of criteria in WP:SPS answer your questions, or are you looking for more? ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:SPS is helpful, thanks @ColinFine

I suppose what I'm trying to calibrate on is the exercise of caution in press releases specifically as a type of self-published source. WP:SPS says:

"...Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources...."

For releases from organizations that have been around a while and have a significant set of interests in providing accurate information about themselves, there is some basis for reliability, and of course the organization is a subject matter expert about itself. So understanding the main issue in the types of examples I'm focusing on being lack of independence, if it's hard to find the same information independently published elsewhere, probably OK to cite the press release until the info becomes available from an independent source. ProfessorBioTech (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Stubs

Is there a wikiproject dedicated to improving stubs? I just feel that Wikipedia should strive to improve all of their articles, even stubs. Vestrix (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Kind of. There's Wikiproject stub sorting that works directly with stubs and that can help you find a category of stubs that you might want to work with. There are tons of Wikiprojects like Wikiproject military history, Wikiproject Biology and Wikiproject Religion to name a few, and they all work with stubs in their subject areas. I would check out Wikipedia:WikiProject#Finding a project to help you find one you're interested in, good luck! Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 19:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!! Vestrix (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

An incorrect edit from another review made to my draft

An edit by someone with Wikipedia was made to a draft I am working on. The edit was incorrect so I removed it. I wanted to discuss the edit with the person who made it and went to his talk page. However, I could not find it on his talk page. Any advice? I am relatively new at this. HarvResearch (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @HarvResearch, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's always helpful to specify (and preferably link) the article or draft you're talking about, and identify the other editor if there is one involved; otherwise somebody who wants to answer you has to go and do some detective work. I take it you're talking about Draft:Jim Simon (writer)? But I'm not sure which other editor you're talking about, as I can't see anywhere where you have obviously reverted somebody else's edit. Are you talking about the IP editor (i.e. without a username, just a long string of digits)? You can't ping IP editors; you can leave a message on their talk pages (that IP user's talk page hasn't been created yet, but you're welcome to create it and leave a message). But leaving messages for IP users is a bit hit-and-miss, because many IP's are dynamic, so if the same person edits tomorrow or next week, their IP will have changed, and they'll never see the message on the old IP's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Hyju HarvResearch (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I reverted it for you, anyone can remove incorrect edits unsupported by the source. Theroadislong (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Previous draft

Hi All, I would like to find out whether my previous draft could be edited by someone else. It shows that it has been deleted. Can it be restored? Ro55e5 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, anybody can edit any draft. Sometimes people will ask the creator of the draft first, but that is a matter of politeness, not a rule.

Which draft? You may be able to ask for it to be restored (see wP:REFUND) but it depends why it was deleted. ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Deleted as it had not been edited for 6 months. My question is whether if anyone could do it and get it published as it was brought to attention that the filmmaker has been getting numerous emails from companies offering their Wikipedia services. Draft : Vikram Dasgupta Ro55e5 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ro55e5, Draft:Vikram Dasgupta has not been deleted. The fact that you have been trying hard to get the draft accepted without success suggests that Dasgupta does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - it doesn't prove it, but it suggests it. If that is the case then nobody can get the draft accepted, and anybody who tries is wasting their own time and that of anybody else who gets involved, such as reviewers.

If it is true that the filmmaker has been getting numerous mails (as Hoary asks, how do you know that? ) they are scammers, and the filmmaker should be shown WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok noted. I later got to know through an acquaintance.Thank you. Ro55e5 (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Ro55e5, another editor could edit Draft:Vikram Dasgupta. How do you know that "the filmmaker has been getting numerous emails from companies offering their Wikipedia services"? -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok noted. I later got to know through an acquaintance.Thank you. Ro55e5 (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Remove a mentor

my mentor has been USELESS.Im a new editor and my assigned mentor has been ignoring me and i only asked 2 questions.Both of which he has ignored. its been more than 2 months and it always says hes been active but he doesn't reply. My mentor is rusalkii Starmaglclove (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Starmaglclove, your questions appear on User talk:Rusalkii/Archives/2024/December. They are (i) "How can i create an article?" (ii) "How do i protect an Article?" My responses: (i) Please see H:YFA. (ii) What's called "protection" is exceedingly rare. You're probably referring to some level of "semi-protection". See WP:Protection policy. Even semi-protection isn't appropriate so frequently. Which article seems to need it? -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk bots

I figured this is probably the most fitting place to ask. As seen sometimes on Special:AbuseLog, there are a lot of burner accounts or IPs who go to random talk pages and start new sections with brief snippets of text. I know this is a known problem, but has anyone figured out what the deal is with these bots? I haven't seen one that posted anything obviously promotional. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 23:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

A first guess is, trying to "game the system" to rack up edits to get the account autoconfirmed. Since any admin can just revoke it if someone in fact does that, basically just wasting theirs and everyone else's time. Slowking Man (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

IPs cannot become autoconfirmed, so that can't explain all of those edits. -- asilvering (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

In the past I have blocked a lot of those IP's with bots behind them. A lot of them made no sense, but were probably making a first edit to see if what they entered stayed around. Some were blatant promotion, but others were search engine optimisation. Others were probably trying to enter into conversations with users. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Please your assistance

Hi, This link does not work for me, due to my place restrictions. May you tell me if this link is exist? What is the author full name, and when was it published? Thank you, _Dgw|Talk 23:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm in the UK and it isn't working for me. But that doesn't mean much, I get that frequently. Not much help, sorry. Knitsey (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. If the USA editors say that it does not work, I will remove the source. _Dgw|Talk 23:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dorian Gray Wild I'm in France and it does seem to work correctly.

I get "‘Arabs voting in droves’: Elephant in room now part of Israeli election" dated "03/17/2015". Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It works in the United States. Or my part of it, anyway. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 23:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! What is the author full name? _Dgw|Talk 23:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It's wrote "Tony Karon" but I don't know if this is his full name. Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It is fine! Thank you. _Dgw|Talk 23:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It works. adding as archive-url. Thank you everybody for the prompt assistance. _Dgw|Talk 00:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft article

I want to create a draft article (Monkeytype), but it says it has previously been deleted, because of the draft being abandoned. Even though I didn't create the original draft, can I just start a completely new draft? Justjourney (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You can make it under your user page. User:Justjourney/The name of the article. _Dgw|Talk 00:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney it's fine to create a new draft which you intend not to abandon, however if you want you can request the undeletion of the original draft at WP:REFUND/G13 so you can continue to improve that one. Yeshivish613 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney, there wasn't much there, but I've undeleted the draft from before, so you now have something to work from. -- asilvering (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Even though I didn't originally start the article, I can still work and improve on what the previous editor did? Justjourney (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you can. _Dgw|Talk 00:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Feedback about the draft

I have added some information, and some citations, although I am not sure if the sources I've cited are reliable. Can someone please help? Justjourney (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney, those sources are fine, but what you need to get through AFC is sources that show the topic is notable. Have a look at WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS for general tips on article writing, and WP:GNG for the actual guideline you need to follow to be accepted. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Help improving my article

Hi! I recently created the article Groton Hill Music Center as a part of a class I'm taking, and am looking for assistance with improving the article. I will be visiting the Center to take photos of the halls this week. I am specifically looking for help with duplicate citations. Oliviaoestreicher (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I gave you an example with the source: "Groton music center unites students, educators, and music lovers". _Dgw|Talk 01:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Oliviaoestreicher (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The tag at the top refers to how to use named references. I cleared about 30 duplications, but a lot more need to be addressed. When done right there is one use of a ref by full name, preceded by superscripted letters that go to the other uses of that ref. David notMD (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Oliviaoestreicher the article looks great, I fixed up the rest of them and added an infobox. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all! -Oliviaoestreicher — Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I am a new editor: any recommendations for pages I should edit

I completed the tutorial and now I know the basics of editing Wikipedia. Are there any pages that are in need of editing? Thanks in advance GeorgiaAllTheWay (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Fewer than 2% of the approx seven million articles in English Wikipedia are rated Featured Article or Good Article. (Ratings are shown at top of article Talk pages). The remainder can probably be improved. David notMD (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

On a more practical note, use Search Wikipedia (upper right) to find articles on topics that you have knowledge about. Read for errors and omissions. Fix stuff. If you are adding new content add a reference at the same time. David notMD (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, GeorgiaAllTheWay, a huge number of them. If you find this hard to believe, then here (in this thread) point us to three that are neither "featured" or "good", and then somebody here will point out problems in one or more of the three. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but the 3 articles that I found that are neither featured nor good are: Wi-Fi, Dragon, and Microsoft Windows GeorgiaAllTheWay (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll take Microsoft Windows, GeorgiaAllTheWay. This obligingly has a template at its head saying that material needs to be cited. So: cite the material! In a little more detail: the lead alone has ^{[citation needed]} twice, and just as oddly it has 14 references. It may seem perverse to complain about both the lack and the provision of references, so I'd better explain that the lead of an article normally summarizes the body of the article: it's the assertions in the body that need referencing in the body; a summary in the lead of those assertions needs no referencing in the lead. So what you can do is check whether the lead represents the body, and whether the body is properly referenced -- if (or so far as) the answers are yes and yes, then both the references in the lead and the complaints in the lead about lack of references can be removed. The best way to fix this is to check the referencing throughout the body; and when that's done, properly check the quality of the lead and remove most, perhaps all, of the referencing from this. ¶ Beyond this, jumping here and there in the article shows me oddities aplenty. For instance: Sticky keys and filter keys are a huge vulnerability of windows. It can allow someone to run any command on the lock screen, including making themselves administrator, just by changing the name of cmd to one of those two programs. I'd guess that "windows" means "Windows" (the subject of this article), but perhaps it actually means the windows that are used by Windows. What are "sticky keys", "filter keys", the "lock screen", the "two programs", and "cmd"? (And which version(s) of Windows is this about?) ¶ And I've hardly scratched the surface of this article. -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

GeorgiaAllTheWay With Wi-Fi, Dragon, and Microsoft Windows you have in my opinion set your sights too high. Very popular articles - those viewed hundreds of thousands of times a year - tend to have editors who have chosen to "watch" them, meaning every time they log in, they are notified that the articles they watch have been edited. Work by new editors tends to get reverted if not up to highest standards. Same applies to controversial articles, for example your two edits to Second Trump tariffs, soon gone. Again, I recommend articles about less 'hot' topics that are a deep interest of yours. Could be plant species, airplane models, the place you live, etc. And P.S., Improving existing articles is a far better path for a new editor than trying to create a new article. David notMD (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@GeorgiaAllTheWay: Take a look at Wikipedia:Cleanup and Category:All pages needing cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep all of this in mind GeorgiaAllTheWay (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

XfD closing

Sorry, having read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TurboSuperA+ closes, I've been a bit spooked considering I've switched from participating in discussions to try and facilitate closes (in XfDs in general), since I believe the latter to be more efficient in clearing up a backlog. Just in case, would anyone (preferably those with experience in XfD) be so kind as to look over my closes (and possibly other work) as well? Cheers, it's lio! | talk | work 02:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@HKLionel, happy to, but as someone who closes XfDs myself, I'd say that the biggest problem for RfD and AfD is a low number of participants, not closers. -- asilvering (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, apart from closing, I try to facilitate discussion as well by pinging previous participants when an alternative proposal has been suggested that could reach consensus. Also, I'm almost never involved in XfDs that are still in the 7-day discussion period (I only vote/close overdue ones). it's lio! | talk | work 04:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I only vote/close overdue ones - I certainly hope so!

Looking at your contribs, I see a recent FfD that I think you probably shouldn't have touched (just leave it, though, unless someone challenges it). I don't see a lot of evidence of experience with copyright and files in your contribs, so along with that one in particular not being a great close, I don't think you have enough experience there to step into NACs yet. For CfD, I'll tag in @HouseBlaster for an opinion.

Otherwise, I don't really see many closes, so if you've got any you're curious about, can you link them? Mostly what I'm seeing is relistings. And I would advise that NACs avoid relisting in general, which is not to say that any of your relists were bad. -- asilvering (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! There tends to be a lot of unanimous CFDs, so it is an excellent training ground for NACs. On the other hand, we definitely need thoughtful participation as much as we need closers there. If you have specific closes you'd like me to give feedback on, I would be happy to do so :) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster: many thanks! Here are all the closes I've done:

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 19#Bisexual actors by nationality

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 19#Decade establishments by country

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Category:Artworks in the collection of Howard University

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Category:Murdered American gangsters by criminal organization

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Category:Sinhalese queens regnant

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 21#Conflicts in early years

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 21#House categories

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Snehasish Sarkar

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 10#Law of fives

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 February 19#Template:Hurry Up Tomorrow track listing

I know that I've still got much to learn, so your feedback is much appreciated! G'day, it's lio! | talk | work 03:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright! I've only looked at the CfDs because that is my specialty and you are better asking an admin more familiar with the norms at the other venues for those. I agree with them all in result (or at least, I agree that the choices you made were within closer's discretion). Some notes: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 21#House categories definitely could've used an explanation; I think !vote-weighing definitely came into it and a recommendation for further discussion at appropriate venues (e.g. RM or renominating Category:Beni Alfons, as was done independently at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 2#Category:Beni Alfons). I also commend you for avoiding WP:RELISTBIAS; it is a common pitfall that you have avoided. And as a very minor nitpick, I normally place my pings to participants asking for their thoughts on novel suggestions or information after the latest relist to make it easy to follow the "timeline" when scanning the discussion. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your advice! Unfortunately, I am not as familiar with discussion venues as I'd like to be, so that didn't come into mind. Many thanks to Marcocapelle as well for the renomination; I will keep future consequences in mind in future closes. I'll also take your last suggestion to heart. Have a great day, it's lio! | talk | work 04:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: For the FfD close, I know I have no experience in copyright or file-related stuff, but I believe I was following procedure for a general XfD discussion - 7 days had (long) passed with no relistings, one strong vote for keep by someone who hadn't edited for a week, so I don't think that consensus could be established. I believe I am following the instructions at WP:FFDAI, so please let me know if you have any further concerns regarding this particular close. Many thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 02:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll say this as gently as I can: if you're nervous that you've been making inappropriate NACs, and someone tells you that you should probably avoid doing them in an area you're not familiar with, the winning move here is to avoid doing them, not to explain that you thought you did the right thing. I know that stings and that it doesn't feel like helpful feedback. But, well, look at how unpleasant that ANI thread is for the editor involved. Even if your closes are completely appropriate, you can get dragged pretty hard at DRV or ANI by people who are opposed to the idea of NACs in general. Tread lightly, at least until you think you'd come out of an ANI punch-up looking better than the other guy. -- asilvering (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course I know that, but I was hoping you'd provide an objective response to my explanation. Please don't mistake this for stubbornness - I mean, if I didn't ask here, you wouldn't even know about my FfD close, ha. Still many thanks for your help and advice. G'day, it's lio! | talk | work 02:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

EZ2b

Have you ever looked on ITunes and spotted this person I mean I wonder why we don’t make an article about them I mean they only made one song and the instrumental for it I know that Lordofcallofduty (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

One reason, Lordofcallofduty, could well be that this person isn't "notable". -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:NMUSIC explains what makes a musician Wikipedia-notable (and not). David notMD (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox synthesizer, parameter 'inventor'

The article Hammond organ / Infobox / source code contains a parameter "inventors", but it does not show up in the box in the article.

As far as I understand it, this is, because the Template:Infobox synthesizer does not have such a parameter -- yet.

Could someone, please, add the parameters "inventor" and "inventors" to Template:Infobox synthesizer?

Steue (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Steue, you can propose that edit with an edit request on the talk page of that template. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, asilvering, I will do that.

Steue (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi! Can anyone please fix archiving in my talk page? I have tried to do it and Lowercase sigmabot had archived about 3 of my messages. But now, the messages older than 30 days are not being archived by the Bot. I'm not really good in Wiki markup so if somebody can explain the procedure, I'd be grateful. Thank you! Warriorglance(talk to me) 05:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Warriorglance. A name has been fixed in the archiving code.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Thank you! And just asking, what is the difference between Lowercase sigmabot and Miszabot? Warriorglance(talk to me) 17:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Warriorglance: User:MiszaBot is deactivated and hasn't edited since 2011. Another bot operator took over the task with Lowercase sigmabot III. It uses the original MiszaBot archiving instructions so it's consistent and doesn't have to be changed on pages which were archived by MiszaBot. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

</ref> or <ref/>

Hello why does <ref/> work normally in sandbox but gives error in article mainspace? Thanks Moribundum (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Moribundum, and welcome to the Teahouse. You'll have to be more specific about the problem you see.

The following may help: </ref> is a closing tag, and has no meaning unless it is paired with a previous opening <ref>. On the other hand <ref/> is a shorthand for <ref></ref>, i.e. an empty reference. As far as I know that last has no meaningful use, but with a name (<ref/ name=fred> <ref name=fred />) it is very common, to reuse a named reference. Does this resolve your problem? ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine: To invoke a named reference, the forward slash goes at the end: <ref name="example" /> —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You're right, Tenryuu. Thank you. Corrected above. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Alabama Barker

 Courtesy link: Alabama Barker

I honestly don’t think this page should exist. I’m genuinely confused about the Wp:Notability and concerned for the privacy. Not everyone needs a Wikipedia page WereWolf (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@WereWolf: Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PRESERVE. WereWolf (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see the notability of the article subject as notability is not inherited; WP:AFD should be the way to go here as I do not see a speedy deletion or WP:PROD would pass unopposed. Lectonar (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Would same apply to her brother Landon Barker, or does he have a legitimate music career? David notMD (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps a tad more notable (music and some acting). Imho both would be more than ok as redirects to Meet the Barkers, though. Lectonar (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand that she is or was signed to Republic Records but I honestly do not know if that warrants an article WereWolf (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Anthony Fantano just released a video about the “feud” just now on YouTube WereWolf (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

valid verification sources

Can material from the website of an environmental 501c3 nonprofit be used as a verification source? Thanks Judsonnewbern (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. It would help to know what exactly you're trying to do. Please also understand that on this global website many may not know what "501c3 nonprofit" means. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to use material contained in slides from a presentation that has been presented at several city and statewide Environmental conferences. The presentaion does not contain any copyrighted material and the slides and materials can be freely used elesewhere once on Wikipedia, but it has not been pubically released in a publication. The presentation is posted on an environmental nonprofit website in the public domain. Judsonnewbern (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Judsonnewbern, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the materials have appeared on a publicly accessible website, then they have been published. But they are copyright unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary. Whether the website belongs to a charity, a non-profit, or a commercial organisation, has absolutely no bearing on these questions.

When talking about copyright "public domain" is a technical term that means a great deal more than "available to the public". ColinFine (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Judsonnewbern: the answer to this also depends on what you're wanting to verify with the said slide deck. If it's some purely factual, non-contentious factoid like year the organisation was founded, then yes, you can probably support it with a primary source like that (if you really cannot find a better one). Whereas if it's a statement like "we are the best-governed environmental organisation for ten years running", then clearly we couldn't take their own word for it, whether it's their website or corporate brochure or presentation slide deck supporting that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

makes sense - thanks very much - Judson Judsonnewbern (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you please add more women who died of AIDS on the list of HIV Positive peopele?

If you could please add in the following to the list of HIV Positive people, I would greatly appreciate it.

1. Nisha Noor Nisha Noor AIDS - YouTube

2. Lisa Melendez Lisa Melendez: A Legacy of Talent and Tragedy in the Film Industry - YouTube

3. Sandra Brea Sandra Brea AIDS - YouTube

4. Satiny Miranda andre holstein homenagen a satiny miranda - YouTube

5. Keizy Maria Keizy Maria fotos - YouTube

6. Lesego Motsepe Lesego Motsepe - YouTube Trevor Lafoe (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Trevor Lafoe: We generally can't use YouTube as a source. (To cite a YouTube video, it has to be produced by an outlet we'd consider to have editorial oversight and uploaded to that outlet's verified channel; this is to limit the chance the content has been taken from elsewhere.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

How about this, Then?

Lisa Melendez (1964-1995) - Find a Grave Memorial

Lisa Melendez: A Legacy of Talent and Tragedy in the Film Industry

Lisa Melendez - Biography - IMDb

dead pornstar list Trevor Lafoe (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Those are not valid sources. IMDB is user generated. That leaves aside that you need more than a source, you need articles about them. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that you propose this on the talk page of the article, as you already have for one of them. I haven't checked but they will need to have Wikipedia articles, or at least the prospect of such, in order to be added to a list. Such lists only have members of the topic that have Wikipedia articles, it's not for documenting every possible member of the list that might exist. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

If you could actually link to the YouTube videos, rather than alluding to them, then another editor could assess the quality of them as sources. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

We don't need to do that. Per consensus at WP:YOUTUBE, YouTube videos simply aren't considered reliable, as they're typically self-published sources. They're really only usable when they're already a reliable publication. guninvalid (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Are there instructions for creating and adding narration to articles?

I'm interested in creating audio recordings of a few Wikipedia articles. Is there a protocol or best-practices I should follow, and how would I add it to an article? guninvalid (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @User:Guninvalid. WP:SPOKEN might be of interest to you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that's it. Thank you! guninvalid (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Should I create a new article?

I just enjoyed a video (PBS Eons: Why Wasn't There A Second Age of Reptiles?) about the "fungal infection-mammalian selection hypothesis": the hypothesis that the rise of mammalian megafauna after the K-Pg mass extinction instead of re-emergence of reptilian megafauna may be due to the competitive advantage that warm-blooded mammals had with respect to defence against fungal infection.

I came searching wikipedia to find out more abou tit and was surprised I couldn't find any mention here (based on searches for "fungal infection-mammalian selection hypothesis", "fims hypothesis", etc.). I think that this hypothesis is notable as it has been covered in popular science media (ex: PBS Eons video above and also Radiolab's Fungus Amungus episode) as well as being of general public interest.

I would be glad to start working on creating a new article for it, but before I do I'd like to make sure others think this is a good idea. I have had issues in the past with creating new articles and having them proposed for deletion and I'd rather not invest that effort if it's considered to be not notable or not worthy of an article. What do y'all think? — sligocki (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @sligocki. If you would like, you're welcome to try making an article! But if you want your article to stay on Wikipedia, I would recommend you put your article through the articles for creation (WP:AfC) process, along with the guidelines for creating your first article. In short, please ensure that your article is based on reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks, and best of luck on your draft! guninvalid (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sligocki, and welcome to the Teahouse. I endorse what guninvalid says. I doubt if anybody here can tell you whether it is a good idea or not, unless they do what is the first part of your job: looking for and evaluating sources. Was the video you refer to made by, or with, the people who advanced the hypothesis? If so, then it is not independent, and cannot contribute towards notability. Similarly for the Radiolab episode.

You really need to find several secondary sources (which those might be, but popular science accounts of new hypotheses are usually not, in my experience), before attempting this. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I'm working on a draft now and we'll see how it goes. These sources are independent (nobody working on the hypothesis works for PBS Eons or Radiolab). Could you clarify what you mean by "popular science accounts of new hypotheses are usually not [secondary sources]"? Do you mean that they are primary sources? Or that they are often not "reliable" sources? I assume that PBS and Radiolab would both be considered reliable sources given that they are serious fact-checked journalists and not just arbitrary internet creators. Does that sound right to you? — sligocki (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sligocki. I mean that they are often made with the originators and proponents of the theory. The question is not whether the people working on the hypothesis works fror the publisher, but were they involved in making the programmes? If so, then those are primary sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Moving from user to template namespace

Several other people and I finished up User:EF5/Tornado navbox a little while ago, but we were wondering if there's extra things that need added before it's moved to the "Template:" namespace or if that's even allowed from the "User:" namespace at all. — E_F⁵ 19:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's nothing special you need to do - just move it. If I'm wrong, it's not like it can't be reversed or fixed, so go for it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Went ahead and did this.... saw it just sitting there and remove the images as per WP:NAVIMAGES.

• Template:Tornado navbox

Moxy🍁 20:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Moxy and Asilvering! — E_F⁵ 22:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Lost old man and I need help

I'm a lost old man and I need help. I recently made an edit that was moved, and I saw a banner saying it was awaiting approval for up to two months. Now I can't find it in my contributions or the page history. How can I locate it? I am finding it impossible to navigate wiki. Some of you young guns help me across wiki street. please and thanks, was i supposed to put a link here. Wasn't sure which link. ButtonWarren (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring to Draft:Raphael Warren? It looks like in this edit you deleted the Articles for Creation template, which I'm guessing was an accident. As for the link at the end - are you referring to a signature? It looks like that was added for you, but if you want to do it yourself just put ~~~~ at the end of your message. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@ButtonWarren, it looks like you've had your question answered, but I've also dropped by your talk page with some helpful links. If you haven't already read WP:PRIMER, you might find it helpful. As far as navigation goes, though, there's no real substitute for experience. Feel free to come back here if you get lost at any point. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Question about edits

Hello everyone! I am a new to editing on Wikipedia. I recently created a page that was approved. Two editors made edits that don't seem correct to me, so I'd like to hear the thoughts of folks here. One editor removed a section on "Presidents" and left this comment: "There is no value added in the inclusion of the recent Past-President's section. No one anyone other than a SAP member would want to know who these folks were and they can be found on our existing website." Another editor removed the Mission Statement. Because I am new, I am unsure if these are valid deletions or not? I would greatly appreciate hearing the comments on more experienced editors. Thank you! Greendhalia19 (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Greendhalia19, your edits were returned. _Dgw|Talk 03:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Greendhalia19 (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Greendhalia19 The American Psychological Association has 54 active divisions, 11 of which are existing Wikipedia articles, some of which list past presidents, some not, so arbitrary. Separate from that, I recommend you Move the current title to the proper title of Division 29. David notMD (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense I'll try to figure out how to do that. Thanks Greendhalia19 (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Greendhalia19, and welcome to the Teahouse. From your description above (I haven't looked at the edits themselves) I agree with the other editors. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources say about a subject: what the subject itself, or its associates, say or want to say is almost irrelevant. Mission statements and the like are never appropriate, unless they have been written about by independent commentators. And while uncontroversial factual data like names of officers may be sourced from non-independent sources, I would always ask, "If no independent sources have written about this, does it belong in an encyclopaedia article?" Current officers probably do, and any past officers who are notable in Wikipedia's sense; but otherwise, past officers usually don't.

Please don't be discouraged by this: Wikipedia works on consensus, not rulings by some authority, and we learn by trial and error. Please see WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ColinFine thanks for the thorough explanation. What you say makes sense. I'm still figuring this out, it's a lot to learn! Greendhalia19 (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

What is Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts? When is it acceptable? Mast303 (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Pls see WP:MULTIACCOUNT Moxy🍁 03:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Template

Hi, is this template suitable for this article? (I have not finished the article yet). _Dgw|Talk 03:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

No @Dorian Gray Wild, the article is just about a statement, which are usually better off without an infobox. Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dorian Gray Wild: You might use Template:Infobox phrase. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for Springback Binder?

Springback Binder has no sources, so obviously needs help. But what kind of sources would I even be looking at here that would establish a binder's notability?

I'm not really expecting there to be news articles about forks, but I don't think that's a good reason there shouldn't be an article about forks.

So...are there notability guidelines for objects? I can't find any. How do I determine an object's notability?

I see a failed proposal for products, and astronomical objects, which depending on one's location in the universe this could maybe count as, but that's for a different message board.

Thanks! Delectopierre (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Delectopierre, it's notable if it has been written about in some depth. The write-up doesn't have to purport to be "news". Also, see WP:GNG. The article's creator was editing here as recently as January, so you could ask on their talk page. And there do exist books devoted to stationery; you could search for "springback binder" via your preferred search engine but also in the books and magazines at the Internet Archive. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I did search it online and found a lot of product listings, but nothing written about it. I've read GNG, but honestly, I don't think I could get 'Fork' to pass GNG from scratch. Delectopierre (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Delectopierre, forks have an important place among cutlery. A desultory look for books on cutlery design quickly told me of Bauer, European Cutlery Design; Brown, British Cutlery; and Moore, Cutlery for the Table. (And I'm sure there's more.) I haven't attempted to look into any of the three, but it's unlikely that all three are junk and that there aren't usable alternatives. -- Hoary (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Delectopierre, if you do not want to read entire books, there are plenty of reliable shorter sources discussing forks in depth, such as this article from a food museum and this article from another museum and this article from Slate and this article by an author of a book about household objects and this article from the California Academy of Sciences and this article from the appropriately named Museum of the Home. Forks are notable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary@Cullen328 Thank you both. This is helpful. I need to remember to go past internet sources only more often. Delectopierre (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

... which is why we have an article Fork. However, finding good sources for springback binder, the original question, I agree is a bit more challenging. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to go through all the results, but a Google Books search for "springback binder" has results that at least aren't people selling the things. Deor (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this US Government publication, although old, has a decent section on these binders, which could easily be used as a source for our article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks. Yeah, I wasn't trying to argue that the forks article shouldn't exist. It self evidently should. I was only trying to get at the difficulty I'm experiencing with GNG WRT springback binders. But I see your point that the notability of the objects are vastly different. Delectopierre (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

User warning level

I've been working on anti-vandalism for a couple days now. I probably should've asked this earlier, but what is an appropriate user warning level for the first warning on a talk page? So far I've been using the following:

• 1 for something that looks like vandalism.
• 2 for something I'm certain is vandalism.
• 4im for something that I'm certain is vandalism and contains offensive/explicit content or is extremely disruptive.

Anerdw (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Anerdw, that's a pretty decent view for someone new to anti-vandalism, and isn't too far from the templates' intent. Level 1 is intended to signify good faith, level 2 makes no assumption of faith (good or bad) and levels 3+ are reserved for bad faith edits. You can find more information here: [[2]]. If you'd like some additional guidance with anti-vandal work, consider signing up for WP:CVUA once you've made some more edits. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 08:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Looking for articles to improve

Hello all,

I've been a wikipedia enthusiast long before I decided to create an account, but now seems the time to do so.

Is there a way to find out which pages are in need of improving/editing?

Many thanks :) Tomclayton13 (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tomclayton13, absolutely! Wikipedia has many thousands of articles that have been tagged with a maintenance tag, showing they require improvement. Have a look at Wikipedia:Task Center#Maintenance which outlines all the different categories of tags and links to the relevant articles that need improvement. qcne (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Tomclayton13, what Qcne says is true, but most of the articles that haven't had a maintenance tag attached to them could or even should be improved. Please see the diverse responses above to a similar question to yours. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Citations in first paragraph

Hello everyone,

I have noticed that some pages start with a very short summary paragraph that has very few or no citations. The information in that paragraph is expanded upon and well-cited later in the page. Is that preferred for Wikipedia pages? I'm trying to find the style guides regarding this and I can't seem to find them.

Thanks! Greendhalia19 (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Greendhalia19. Welcome to the Teahouse. That opening paragraph is called the lede or lead. For more information please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Greendhalia19 Yes, the first part of an article is called the lead, or sometimes "lede", although Wikipedia uses the term slightly differently than newspapers do, as we are not trying to be sensational there but merely give a short neutral summary of the article. The link gives more details, which includes saying that citations are not always necessary, although allowed, especially for biographies. You can tell if a lead is badly written if it has citations not also present in the main body of the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Greendhalia19: The style guide you were looking for is MOS:LEADCITE. It states as long as the information is properly cited in the body, one should attempt redundant citations of the same information in the lead and the body. Usually, it is better to cite the information in the body and allow the lead to just summarize the information. cyberdog958^Talk 12:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! This is very helpful Greendhalia19 (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Shantavira @Michael D. Turnbull @Cyberdog958

(I just figured out how to @ folks) Greendhalia19 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

From my experience, lengthy articles, especially in the medical/health arena, often have lengthy Leads with references. I think that the expectation is that casual visitors may not get past the Lead, but also may want to find a handy redirect to a referenced authoritative source. An observation I've made before - if one opens a oft-visited health topic such as Vitamin C and clicks on View history, and within that, Pageviews, and selects Last year as the span to see viewing data, the result has a sawtooth pattern with fewer views on weekends. I assume the higher weekday views represent student homework assignments. David notMD (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Interesting! Different lengths are better for different readers and use cases. Greendhalia19 (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

How to add link to Wikipedia article in a different language

On the Kramatorsk article in notable people section Valeriy Herovkin is on list of people but it does not link any article to him. Herovkin has Ukrainian article but I do not know how to link these... I only know how to make these external sites. How do I properly link these? Красный Октябрь (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Like this: Valeriy Herovkin (achieved via {{Ill|Valeriy Herovkin|uk|Геровкін Валерій Євгенович}}). (However, lists of notable people are normally limited to those people who already have articles in en:Wikipedia.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! (I did not put him on list, I just saw he was on list and article was not linked) Красный Октябрь (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Sumita Misra image size

Hi, could someone have a look at Sumita Misra? Recent edits have enlarged the size of the image and I'm not sure how to resolve it. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done. The image name was put in the Name field and was linked. This has now been corrected. Yeshivish613 (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Yeshivish613. Tacyarg (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

How do I use Sfn?

Hi!

I've noticed that some Wikipedia articles have "Sfn" citations. Can anyone tell me how to use them in the visual editor (by the way, I skimmed Help:Shortened footnotes, but sadly I got a little lost there)? Moonshane1933 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I would never use that reference formatting, and would recommend sticking to the cite templates as used in the visual editor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

"Disappearance of Madeleine McCann" page

Greetings fellow Wikipideans,

I have been an avid Wikipedia user for many years. I contributed sparingly in its' early stages and then just became an avid consumer. Recently I found myself looking into the case of the disappearance of Maddie McCann, after many years. I looked up information online and thought I'd see if Wikipedia had a page regarding the issue, and of course, it did. As I started reading, I couldn't help but feel, given the information that I have, that the issue was being presented in a carefully biased way. I took the time to read through the talk page, and realised I wasn't alone: many users have been pointing out some of the same frustrations I had for years and years, and the receptiont hey got was not a welcome one. It seems that the article is mainly under the care of 1 or 2 editors who don't seem interested in addressing the situation from an equidistant position. I was wondering if and how this situation could be addressed, namely by having other editor's input.

It just seems to me that Wikipedia should be careful about how it presents itself. Neutrality is supposed be its' mainstay, and I feel in this case, it very much not the case. I will ask you to take a special look at the lead and how the case is being presented to the average, unsuspecting Wiki user.

Thank you for any replies.

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Pedro161982 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Pedro161982 You are free to offer your input on Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It's difficult to respond to a "this is biased, fix it" grievance. All sources of information have biases; Wikipedia presents the sources to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves when determining what they think or believe.

If you believe that a passage of the article is biased, please detail the specific issue on the talk page. If you feel the sources presented are not being accurately summarized, again, please detail how on the talk page and how you would correct it. If the sources are accurately summarized, but are in error, you will need to take that up with the sources first, or offer more current sources with more current information here that can be worked in somehow.

Neutrality is often mistaken for "all sides must be presented equally", which is not what WP:NPOV means. (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). Information should be presented in proportion to how independent reliable sources present it. Wikipedia does not present all sides equally if sources do not. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you've been to the talk page already; that's where this should be handled. If you believe other editors are violating policy, you should first attempt to work that out with the other editors on that page; failing that, you can go to a forum like WP:AN and detail which behavioral policies have been violated(but your own behavior will be examined as well). 331dot (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm new to the inner workings of Wikipedia, so I am trying to figure out exactly how to address this and any other situations that might arise in the future. Thank you for the reply. Pedro161982 (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Worth reviewing Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Disputes on Talk pages of contentious articles can be civil yet prolonged to the point of annoying the participants and driving away any editors less committed to the disputed content. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass also applies. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I have read your suggestions and I am not quite sure how it aplies to this case, but for general purpose and guidelines I appreciate your input. Thank you. Pedro161982 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Since creating your account on March 3rd, 21 of your edits have been to Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. So, yes, I meant my comment for you now, specifically, not the general future. David notMD (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and...? I commented on an article that I felt needed some polishing. Is there something wrong with that? Like I said, I read and appreciate your input. That is all. Pedro161982 (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Per WB:SCHOOLS, should school articles that aren't notable be deleted?

As editing school articles, I realized that a large number of them aren't notable, or mostly rely on sources from the school website for information. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, should articles (specificially high schools) that aren't notable/have enough reliable sources be subject for deletion? Examples include Kailua High School (which I subjected for deletion) and Mission Valley High School. Theadventurer64 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Theadventurer64: The usual course of action for a nonnotable school is to redirect it, either to the school district of which it's part (if there's an article about the district) or to the town in which it's located (it helps if the town's article mentions the school). Deor (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good; If a majority of school articles don't meet the criteria for notability/reliability, then could a mass deletion/redirection be done?Theadventurer64 (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Theadventurer64: see Wikipedia:MULTIAFD for how to nominate a group of articles for deletion. Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Theadventurer64: I recommend following the steps of WP:BEFORE before either nominating an article for deletion or redirecting it. Deor (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Publishing a draft

I have prepared a draft article - biography of a living person - but when I try to Publish the article, the system responds that no article with the title I have assigned (the name of the person) exists. How do I get a draft out of my sandbox into review? Veridia (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

You click the "submit your draft for review!" button in the box at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

As you took a picture of her, do you have a connection with her? Is there any particular reason you hadn't edited in 19 years before today? 331dot (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Veridia: as far as I can tell, you don't have a sandbox. But your user page, which ought to be about your own actvities on Wikipedia, has a template saying "This is the user sandbox of Veridia." Maproom (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I've moved it to Draft:Elena Macevičiūtė. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

You were there just ahead of me, @331dot ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

A feature suggestion

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § A feature suggestion

I don't know if this is the right place to make it, but I have a feature suggestion for Wikipedia (and hence MediaWiki). Feel free to share/repost this if this is not the right place, because if you just tell me the right place, maybe I won't get (or even be?) around to... yadda, yadda, yadda. Anyway:

It would be interesting to have a "suggested edit" feature, whereby users —any users, experienced or new ones— could draft and suggest individual edits they're not too sure about and that they thus maybe don't want to immediately go live. Currently this staging can be done on the Talk page, but a "suggested edit" feature would provide another, possibly more direct mechanism. Once the suggestion is made, any other users could accept the edit – or just let it linger. Obviously, the longer any suggested edit lingers, the more likely the attempt to accept it would generate an edit conflict, at which point the suggestion would need to be manually worked in. This would be somewhat similar to —but also different from— the Wikipedia:Pending changes feature. "Suggested edits" could be submitted for any article, even by users who do have the right to just full-on edit the page. Perhaps the submitter of the suggested edit could even set a threshold i.e. this suggestion needs to be voted for by at least n other editors to go live. This feature would basically be an instrument of self-restraint and confidence and consensus-building, which could avoid some potential for controversy and friction and eventually overbearing "policing" altogether. It would set apart edits that really clearly should go in, and go in right away, from those it's quite reasonable to disagree on. Because once those are conflated, that can tempt overbearing policemen to treat constructive contributions very non-constructively. So I don't know, maybe a technical fix like this could avoid any such friction, and reduce opportunities for would-be self-appointed policemen to reach for the foot-guns. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

a better place for this would be WP:VP Mgjertson (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Equations in refn

Evidently, using an equal sign in the text of a footnote triggered by {{refn|group="note"|text} doesn't work if "text" contains an equal sign. How can I get around this? Johsebb (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Via Template:=. -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Johsebb. You can either use {{=}} as suggested above or a numbered parameter |1= as suggested at Template:Refn#Errors. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Map

How would I get a map into an article. The map is not in the commons so I was curious of Wikipedia's policy for taking maps from online. Vestrix (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is of strict observation of copyright. If it is very clear that a map is in the public domain (as this term is used legally, not conversationally), or the copyright holder expressly copylefts it according to a license acceptable to Wikimedia Commons, then you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons; otherwise, you cannot. Which map do you have in mind? -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This is the map I was hoping of adding. If there is any way to zoom in on Assel, which is a small town in the southeast, then that would be the part I need Vestrix (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You link to an image file. (You made a markup error, which I've corrected.) Unsurprisingly, this is uninformative about its copyright status. Where did you find the image file? If within a web page, then what's the URL of the web page? -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that you're approaching this the wrong way: one that, however well intended, is likely to end in frustration. I recommend a reading of Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Source materials (and perhaps other WikiProject Maps materials as well). -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok thank you Vestrix (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Please note you can use Wikipedia's in-built open street map if it is good enough, either in the map parameter of an infobox or using Template:Maplink. Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

PD .gif?

Hi. I'm trying to be more careful about the licenses of images I upload, so I thought I'd ask whether this satellite loop is in the public domain. — E_F⁵ 00:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

If it's produced by NOAA, it's public domain. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Until NOAA is defunded and all its buildings sold off (sigh). David notMD (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

song sample durations

is there a limit to how long a sample of a non free (copyright) song can be? I want to upload one around 33 seconds long because thats what fits well YisroelB501 (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no hard numerical limit, rather the controlling policy for length of non-free sound samples is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy point 3b which states:

• Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low-resolution, rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples#Guidelines states :

• Copyrighted, unlicensed music samples must be short in comparison to the original song. As a rule of thumb, samples should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter.

If you want to use one that is longer than 30 seconds you can, but you need to explain why a shorter clip cannot fulfil the same encyclopaedic purpose as there is a very strong presumption that longer than 30 seconds is not required. "It fits well" is not a sufficient reason. A sample that is longer than 10% of the song's length will be appropriate only extremely rarely.

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is the best place to get advice about non-free content, but if you want specific answers it is best to include specific details about the media you want to use (which specific song, which specific 33 seconds) and where you want to use it (which section of which article). Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Need Help With bettering my article

Draft:BHUNNA ; The sources I have for the individual primarily highlight their production credits and mentions in major articles as a producer. The individual is signed to Sony, with two Platinum plaques and two Gold plaques certified by the RIAA. However, I am uncertain about how to establish their credibility on Wikipedia effectively. I believe I need assistance from experienced users to guide me through properly formatting and strengthening my citations. RhythmWordsmith (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Snare Drum (character)

Can I make a page about her? TackyWiki (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Do reliable sources describe or comment on her in depth? -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Change Name

Hello I wanted to know how we can change our account name. I want to change my account name. Sikh History78 (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You may do so via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Sikh History78 (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Notability and Independent Sources for Academic Journal Article

Hello,

I'm working on an article about Veterinary World, a peer-reviewed journal indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Central, EMBASE, CAS, and CABI. While the journal meets indexing criteria, I'm facing issues with establishing notability.

A bibliometric analysis of Veterinary World was removed due to concerns about a "close connection," but the authors of that study are not affiliated with the journal. Would a bibliometric study published in a university journal qualify as an independent source?

Additionally, Veterinary World is listed in the libraries of major universities such as the UAB, University of Washington and Cornell. Could this help establish notability?

I’d appreciate any guidance on whether these sources meet Wikipedia’s notability standards for academic journals.

Thanks in advance! Riyazsher (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You have already asked about this here [3] and received replies. Did you not like the answers? Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the previous responses, but I’m still trying to understand how Wikipedia applies the independent sources requirement for academic journals. I understand that WP:NJOURNALS is only an informal essay and not binding policy. However, I am focusing on WP:GNG for establishing notability. Veterinary World is indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed Central, and a bibliometric analysis has been published about it by independent researchers (unaffiliated with the journal). Additionally, it is listed in major university libraries like Cornell and the University of Washington. Given this, would it qualify under WP:GNG, as it has received significant independent coverage?

I’m trying to ensure I follow Wikipedia's guidelines correctly and would appreciate further clarification. Riyazsher (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on Notability Standards for Academic Journals

I am seeking clarification on how WP:GNG is applied to academic journals, specifically why Veterinary World was declined while many BMC journals remain despite having similar sourcing.

Currently, these BMC journals have articles on Wikipedia despite primarily citing internal sources, publisher pages, and indexing databases:

• BMC Bioinformatics
• BMC Biology
• BMC Biomedical Engineering
• BMC Cancer
• BMC Endocrine Disorders
• BMC Ecology and Evolution
• BMC Genomics
• BMC Health Services Research
• BMC Medicine
• BMC Microbiology
• BMC Plant Biology
• BMC Public Health
• BMC Systems Biology
• BMC Veterinary Research

Most of these articles do not have independent secondary sources (e.g., news coverage, critical reviews) and rely almost exclusively on Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and publisher websites.

If Veterinary World is being rejected under WP:GNG, then why are these BMC journals accepted under the same circumstances? Either:

1. All these articles fail WP:GNG and should be reevaluated for deletion, or
2. Veterinary World should be reconsidered as it meets the same standard of notability.

Additionally, an admin flagged Veterinary World for COI, but there is no connection between the article’s contributors and the journal’s editorial board. The content is neutral, factual, and based on publicly verifiable data. Can someone clarify why this tag was added?

If Veterinary World needs additional sources, could you specify what kind of coverage is required? Since academic journals are typically covered in indexing databases and bibliometric studies rather than general media, what standard is being applied here?

I appreciate guidance on resolving this inconsistency. Riyazsher (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Veterinary world. David notMD (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest you discuss this at the AFC Help Desk, instead of using multiple forums. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Several examples that you listed are poorly referenced Stubs, so the fact that those exist as articles doesn't help your position. And really, each article has to stand on its own merits. References 4-8 confirm VM is indexed, but are not ABOUT the journal in any length. David notMD (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)