Wikipedia:Teahouse

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Tea)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


a question edit

hey guys - does anyone remember the videos called strawberry shortcake sets the school on fire and charlie brown gets a gold card? they've become lost media and i'm trying to hunt them down at this point 2A02:8084:EA4:2B80:9982:222D:A1B5:AD5 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP! And welcome to the Teahouse, though your question does not reflect Wikipedia. You could try other sources though! Neko Lexi (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you 2A02:8084:EA4:2B80:3C9F:A882:2CE4:B4F1 (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Np. Glad I could help Neko Lexi (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#a_question_to_some_people
i got no responses here - any ideas? 2A02:8084:EA4:2B80:6C46:BBB:D875:B623 (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like anyone has not got to you yet. Be patient and someone will get to you eventually, sometimes it just takes a while because other people are busy and might not respond in a few minutes. I always go do something else while I'm waiting for a response. Maybe try that Neko Lexi (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what other things is there so i can ask? i'll be patient 2A02:8084:EA4:2B80:252F:94D5:1624:8FB9 (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it looks like someone got to you, check your question Neko Lexi (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wait my time is wrong, April 20th is tomarrow Neko Lexi (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
when do u think it was posted? Emotionaldam (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neko Lexi, "tomorrow" is a relative concept that depends on which time zone you live in. Wikipedia is a worldwide project. "Today" for you could be "yesterday" or "tomorrow" for other editors in other parts of the world. Wikipedia, as a worldwide project, uses Coordinated Univeral Time or more specifically UTC+00:00, which is the time zone for the United Kingdom, Portugal, and many West African countries. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'll check 2A02:8084:EA4:2B80:6961:A248:89BD:3C83 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Advice on Revisiting a Redirect Decision for 'Collision at Rainbow Bridge' edit

I was excited about a new page I created called Collision at Rainbow Bridge. However, another user redirected the page to Rainbow Bridge. I did not know at the time of creating the article that there had been a prior discussion about leaving this topic as a redirect. That discussion took place a couple weeks after the collision and when information was still changing.

Several months have passed since then, and I think that new developments and additional information have stabilized and that the topic is notable enough to warrant its own article. I had put in a lot of time and effort to gather reliable sources and create the page. Could someone please advise on how to initiate a new discussion about this redirect, such as where to do it? Should I open the discussion on the talk page of the redirect, and is there anything special I need to include in the message to ask for input?

I'd also like any thoughts on whether trying to reopen this will succeed and is worth doing.

These are the relevant link:

Link 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collision_at_Rainbow_Bridge&redirect=no

Link 2: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Rainbow Bridge explosion

CipherSleuth (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CipherSleuth, as I see it, somebody was driving recklessly at high speed and sadly, the driver and their spouse were killed. That is sad but it happens all the time. The only unusual aspect is that the crash happened close to a border crossing. I fail to see why this incident deserves a freestanding Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. In terms of notability, the incident was initially treated as a terrorist attack. The President of the United States, the Governor of New York, and the Prime Minister of Canada were all briefed on the incident. It led to the closure of every major border crossing in the area, the cancellation of flights at Niagara airport and the suspension of Amtrack Service. It also was not a case of reckless driving. The driver likely lost control due to a mechanical failure that prevented him from breaking. There have been recent news articles about recovery of the black box in the car and attempts to subpoena the car maker for records. So, to my mind, the incident is notable and not the case of a simple car accident - three sentences about it in the article on Rainbow bridge does not seem sufficient to me. Hence my question about opening it up for another discussion. CipherSleuth (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guideline for an article about a specific event is WP:NEVENT. Have there been published reports or works about the collision since the week it happened? Reconrabbit 12:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Reconrabbit. Thanks for linking to WP:NEVENT, which is helpful. I think there is an argument that the collision meets that the guidelines, given that it was so unusual in terms of its impact on the region. There were also political reactions to it and commentary on misinformation as to the cause.
In terms of sources, I cited 20; most were published the week of the incident, which I acknowledge weakens my case for a standalone article. But I do cite 4 articles, including two within the last couple months, that touch on the cause of the accident and the investigation. For now, I am housing a draft of the article here: Draft:Collision at Rainbow Bridge.
This was a time-consuming lesson not to work on creating an article without realizing that there was already a talk-page discussion about it (which I unfortunately never came across). But maybe at some point I can get it published. CipherSleuth (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues attempting to verify a claim edit

Hi there. I've been working on the page Money Money 2020 for a little bit now, and I was trying to find a source for the claim that Roy Miles produced the music videos on the "Disease is Punishment" DVD so I could possibly remove the "claims need verification" disclaimer. From my research, there's only really two sources I can find; a Discogs listing[1] with the credit on the back, and an Amazon listing[2] with the same. I'm wondering if either or none of these are reliable sources? If not, I'm unsure how to verify this claim, even though I know it's true. Thank you! Beachweak (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beachweak Discogs is not a reliable source since it's user-generated (see WP:DISCOGS), and neither is Amazon per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Amazon. If you can't find a way to add the claim, even though you know it's true, you can't add it on Wikipedia. We require everything to be sourced to a reliable source. If you can find a reliable source that supports that claim, you can add that information. Cheers Relativity ⚡️ 23:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply! That clears up a lot. Beachweak (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing blatant Misinformation and Original Research edit

I found a couple of misinformations on the Djong (ship) page, where they distorted the information from the source to change the narrative and present a false information, so i fact checked it through the source and found that the information was usually about Chinese but instead they used it to pass it off as Javanese descriptions, can i just edit it out or do i need a consensus? considering that other way of consensus lead to nowhere (as in, no one had or willing to fact check anything) Merzostin (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Merzostin: You can just edit it out, but if someone restores it, use the talk page to follow the process outlined at WP:DR. In fact, you can pre-empt that by mentioning on the talk page why you are removing it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Editor edit

Im looking for some help on a wiki page im working on. I was told that the footnotes weren't formatted properly but I can't see where to fix that. Thank you! ShaneMatthews (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to attach the link
Draft:Fitch Means ShaneMatthews (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ShaneMatthews: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your citations aren't inline, so you should move them to the end of the information they're sourcing. Another problem that a reviewer has noted is that the tone of the draft isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys for your help. Still getting the hang of writing in a "dry" manner. I may have to outsource to get an idea of the language that should be used. ShaneMatthews (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ShaneMatthews. Your draft says that Means is known for his soulful vocals, introspective lyrics, and captivating stage presence. Who says so? Why should any reader believe that? Is that the personal opinion of User:ShaneMatthews, or did a reliable music industry publication say that? If a reliable source said it, then put it in quotation marks and properly cite the source. If that is your personal opinion, leave it out. No original research is a core content policy that applies to the personal opinions, assessments and critical judgments of Wikipedia editors. Our role as Wikipedia editors is to accurately summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic, without injecting our own opinions. Cullen328 (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much this was super helpful! ShaneMatthews (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Usage edit

  FYI
 – made new section ayakanaa ( t · c ) 19:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need info on using photos found in Wikipedia (and the need for permissions)for a book I have written. 2601:586:CD00:7F90:856A:E8B5:6A2F:10DE (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. You asked the same question over at the help desk earlier today - there is an answer there: Wikipedia:Help desk#Use of Wikipedia photos. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New here :) edit

Im looking for help on a wiki page im working on for an enterprise which is doing good work, how do I prove that the references are indepth, reliable, etc? While it is first draft, I'd love to hear your suggestions on tone and language to work on it further. Healingvibes (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Healingvibes, and welcome to the Teahouse.
You probably won't want to hear this, but the reason you don't know how to evaluate the sources is that you have plunged straight into the challenging task of creating an article without first spending time learning the necessary skills. It's like saying "I've done a bit of carpentry, so I'll build a house" without practising basic skills like surveying, or familiarising yourself with the legal requiremnts for a house. Naturally, you are likely to feel out of your depth.
I always advise new editors to not even think about creating a new article until they have spent several months making improvements to existing articles - especially, finding sources where these are lacking - and learning core principles such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability.
Frankly, Wikipedia doesn't care whether your enterprise is doing good work or not (we have plenty of article on really bad things as well as good ones): what it cares about is whether there is enough independent reliable published material to base an article on - remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
So, anything written or published by, or based on the words of, the subject or its associates, does not contribute to establishing notability. Anything (like the Journal of Ethnic Foods article) which does not even mention the subject, is worthless as a source for an article. You need to find places that meet the description in the previous paragraph above: where people who have no connection at all with Last Forest, and have not been given information on behalf of Last Forest, have chosen to write about it. See Golden rule for more about evaluating sources.
One more question: when a new editor comes along, and immediately starts trying to create an article about a particular organization, they very often turn out to have a connection with that organization, and to not be aware that promotion (i.e., telling the world about something) is forbidden in Wikipedia. So, I ask directly: do you have a connection with Last Forest? ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation footnotes edit

Hello Teahouse Team, I am seeking guidance to help publish my article (first-timer here). I submitted my article and received a message stating I need improvement regarding citation footnotes. My submission included linked citations and numbered citations. Will you please help me understand the footnoted citations? Are these required? Here is link to my draft submission Draft:Adetokunbo Omishakin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adetokunbo_Omishakin Thanks so much! Transportation17 (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation17 see Help:Footnotes (which was linked in the decline reason). Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 19:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sungodtemple! Transportation17 (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperlinks are not allowed, and your draft, Draft:Adetokunbo Omishakin, has no references. David notMD (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 
Button that turns unsourced claims into sourced ones.
Hi Transportation17 it looks like you resubmitted your draft without adding any citations at all, so it just got declined for the same reason. If you take a took at an existing article on a comparable topic (such as Pete Buttigieg) then you'll see how there are inline citations in the article backing up the claims it is making with reliable sources. Since you're using the Visual Editor, all you need to do is click on Cite (it looks like the image to the right) when you you get to the end of a sentence. You'll need to have, at the very least, three different reliable third-party sources before this article gets accepted. And as David said, you'll need to remove the external links from the article body as well. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! This is the most straightforward response I've received, very helpful! So to be clear, I am NOT allowed to use hyperlinks? I'm a bit confused about this because I see hyperlinks throughout Wikipedia all the time. I will use the "cite" button you referenced, thank you. But no hyperlinks? Please differentiate between references, hyperlinks, citations. And, specifically, which I need to apply. Thank you! Transportation17 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the reader's perspective, a citation is what appears in the main body of the text - in a wikipedia article that normally appears as a number like this[99], other contexts often looks like (author YEAR). The reference is what they see at the end (either in footnotes, endnotes or bibliographies depending on what type of thing they are reading) which gives full details of where the information came from. Every citation "points" to a reference; so the reader, wondering why an auhtor is making a certain claim can be directed to where they got that information from.
From the editor's perspective it doesn't really matter which is which because you create them both at once - the numbering and creation of the footnote is more-or-less automatic - so you'll see people say citation and reference interchangeably.
References will pretty often (not always) contain an external link. But in the main body of an article, except in a very few circumstances, only internal links (links to other wikipedia articles) are used. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, you mention 'hyperlinks': in an article (or other page such as this one) these also include links to other articles in Wikipedia, which are there to further clarify and inform readers but cannot be used as citations since Wikipedia itself, being user generated, does not qualify as a Reliable source. 188.220.144.58 (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete a User Subfolder? edit

Hi, I recently completed WP:TWA and now there exists a "user subfolder?" of User:Pauliesnug/TWA/{a bunch of other files}. How can I recursively delete all the /TWA pages? Thanks! pauliesnug (message / contribs) 20:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, paulinug, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Users cannot delete pages, even their own user pages, but what they can do is put {{db-author}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top, and an admin will be along tod delete the page.
I don't know whether they can delete the whole structure in one go, or need to do each page separately (I'm not an admin); but I suggest you put that in the top-level page, adding a note clarifying that yes, you are asking them to delete the whole structure. ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you pauliesnug (message / contribs) 02:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this talk page (and article edit notice) get the WP:A/I/PIA templates? edit

First, disclaimer: I requested protection for the page way back then(diff1, diff2) specifically as enforcement, because people were warring about the topic that I can't talk about, but I hadn't carefully read that I was supposed to have added the templates first.
Reasons for asking:
1. This is not the primary topic of the article, but it is the topic of both a section already in the article and a section people tried to add to the article.
2. There had been a discussion in the talk page that was started by an IP and had been responded by 1 non-extended-confirmed account (and 2 EC accounts), there also was an IP yesterday using insults.
I don't plan on answering questions, as this is already a restricted topic, if you feel this question by itself already violated the remedies then please feel free to revert it, but also please fix my mistake if it should have been templated, thanks. – 2804:F1...83:ADC7 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources Question edit

hey guys,

I'm a newbie working on my first article but unfortunately just got rejected due to not having reliable sources.

I realise this is a very basic question but just wondering if there's a good way of figuring out what a reliable source is.

Draft:Pauline Nguyen

The person I am attempting to create a page on has appeared on TV programs and has a number of articles discussing her in respected newspapers. She has also published books. Is there any way of knowing what I can use from these sources?

Would it be valid criteria to discuss the subject purely as an author considering she has published many books?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Dom Dviva (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dviva. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes the significant coverage that published reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic say about the topic. The references in Draft:Pauline Nguyen are either interviews of Nguyen or things written by Nguyen. None are independent. So, the issue is not how you frame her career. It is the lack, so far, of fully independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source that helps to establish the notability of a topic will have three characteristics. It will be reliable, it will be independent of the topic, and it will devote significant coverage to the topic. All three are required. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'd also like to add that there's a quiz on wikipedia that you can take to see how much you know about reliable sources.
there's also a pretty sizeable list of sources on wikipedia that are either allowed or outright blocked for use of sourcing. paper2222 (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Cullen328 Thanks so much for the response. I understand what you are saying.
However, when I look at other wikipedia pages I quite often see features and interview style articles being used as sources. Just so I'm clear is it that these can't be the ONLY sources that are used but can be quoted here and there provided there is enough independant info online about the person?
Really appreciate your help :)
Dom Dviva (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2024 (UTRyuC)
Dviva, your understanding is correct. The first and most important task, by far, for a Wikipedia editor writing a new article is to establish that the topic is notable by citing the type of high quality sources I described above. Once notability has been established, then reliable non-independent sources can be used for routine, non-controversial details like date and place of birth, schools attended, marriages, children and so on. But nothing evaluative or contentious. Please read WP:ABOUTSELF. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox edit

I've been editing this page and this page. They have the exact same line in the infobox: First appearance - Star Wars. The source code is exactly the same, but the words "First appearance" display on two lines on the Chewbacca page, and on only one line on the Darth Vader page. Any idea why this is? I prefer the Vader formatting, where the text doesn't continue onto a second line. Wafflewombat (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really looked at this for a while, trying various things including tweaking image size, and changing following fields, but couldn't find the issue. Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the generated HTML, and it appears to be the same in both cases; so this is down to the browser's layout algorithm, and is not in Wikipedia's control.
For some reason, it is allocating the widths of the two columns in the table differently in the two cases, but I can't see any particular reason. I thought it might be to do with the length of the lines in the second column, but I can't see anything obvious. ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting help edit

I added an entry about Sarah Woodhead to Timeline of women's education for the year 1873, but I can’t get the formatting right. Can somebody fix it for me please?100.11.62.252 (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – 2804:F14:8092:9F01:F56F:2C15:5C83:ADC7 (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!!100.11.62.252 (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apte surname page edit

hi i have a question regarding this page and i would like to know where i could find more sources unfortunately i only have a book written in 1914 and a website as a source and would like to be assisted in editing Apte surname page proffesionally Aptearnav (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aptearnav. That article Apte is what is called a "set index" article. See Wikipedia:Set index articles for more information. "Apte" is a surname. Every entry in that article should be a Wikipedia article about a person with the surname "Apte". No one who is not the subject of a Wikipedia article should be included. Wikipedia:Write the article first explains the concept in much greater detail. Cullen328 (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks, i am guessing that i can add information about genealogy/family tree and the sub group and tradition that they follow? Aptearnav (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Aptearnav. Yes, the page linked by Cullen328 says A set index article (or SIA) lists things only of one type, and is meant to provide not only navigation, but information as well, so you may add information about the family. Please make sure that anything you add is cited to a reliable source. The book published in 1914, and the website, may or may not be reliable sources depending on who published them, and in what circumstances. ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki project edit

I have created a draft WikiProject for the Food and Drink industry in England as I think that the main article and related articles could with this project improve, expand and hopefully see articles within it meet the WP:GOODARTICLE criteria.ChefBear01 (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then, ChefBear01, you might link to this draft. -- Hoary (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the draft WikiProject Draft:WikiProject food and drink industry in England. ChefBear01 (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary:, I would like to invite you and anyone that wished to join to the above WikiProject.ChefBear01 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem going live edit

Hey guys,

I'm a newbie when it comes to Wikipedia editing so i would like to ask you if you guys can help. I wrote a wiki page 5-6 months ago and it still is in my sandbox unable to go live for a reason! can you guide me on what i should do ?

Mistakefinder77 (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go through the articles for creation process by submitting it for review. Looking at the sandbox page now though, I can fairly confidently say that it is not going to pass that review process; it doesn't have any citations at all and only a couple external links, which is a really big no-no on Wikipedia.
Until you have any reliable citations on that page to source the information on there, it will not pass. CommissarDoggoTalk? 08:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
would you be interested in helping me a bit more? i really need this to go live! Mistakefinder77 (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can help you out on specific questions relating to the article, but I can't make it for you if you get what I mean? You've chosen to make an article at around 33 edits, something people usually do for the first time after a couple hundred edits or most likely more.
What I'd personally recommend is to do some stuff from the task centre like citation hunting to learn more about how to cite, that should help you with making your article. Additionally, see WP:YFA for how to make articles. CommissarDoggoTalk? 09:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yea i get it ofc you can't write it for me! i just needed some help on what to do. Citations and then going live i guess ! thank you so much Mistakefinder77 (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft appears to have been copied from the subject's website and therefore constitutes a copyright violation. I've consequently requested speedy deletion. There is now information on copyright posted on your talk page; please read it. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, best thing I can tell you is to look up X article name in the news tag of Google. That'll give you a very good idea of whether a topic meets notability guidelines. If there are no relevant and reliable sources there, you likely don't have enough to make an article.
When I look for sources through that method, I don't find any. That is a problem, and a pretty major one at that.
And, yes, as DoubleGrazing said, a likelihood of copyright violations that high is another really big problem, and unfortunately not one you can really come back from as there are no good sources on the channel and thus no way to replace that copyrighted information. CommissarDoggoTalk? 09:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mistakefinder77, you wonder what you should do. Your first task, I think, is to acquaint yourself with the idea of an encyclopedia. Carefully read some "Good Articles" (articles recognized as "good" via a semi-formal process) in a subject area of interest to you. (If computer games, then try some of these.) Then, as has already been suggested, work to improve existing articles, of course always citing reliable sources. Only then consider creating an article afresh. This may sound difficult. It is difficult. If it's easy, either you have an extraordinarily aptitude or (far more likely) you're doing it wrong. -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks a lot guys hope i will be able to do it ! Mistakefinder77 (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mistakefinder77: you also need to disclose your conflict of interest before attempting to create another draft on this subject. I've posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In summary: Your draft was Speedy deleted for copyright infringement, your first choice for a User name matched your proposed topic (a Youtube channel), you did not declare your being either paid or conflict of interest on your User page, and you admit you could not find any independent published content about your proposed subject that could serve as references. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover permission not working edit

I have 'page mover' rights on Wikipedia but cannot move an article to overwrite one of its redirects, I get the error: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid." Why do my permissions not override this error? Thanks, – Olympian loquere 09:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can only overwrite redirects that only have a single revision. See Wikipedia:Page mover#delete-redirect. —Kusma (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. See also WP:Page_mover#Page_swapping on how to install a script to automate round-robin moves instead in such cases. Polyamorph (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! Best, – Olympian loquere 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance Needed: Wikipedia Page Update Query edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Same question posted at Wikipedia:Help desk#Assistance Needed: Wikipedia Page Update Query. Since someone has already responded there, I'm closing this to avoid any confusion and to keep the discussion in one place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Help Desk,

My name is Nina, and I'm reaching out for guidance regarding updating the Wikipedia page for Envac. I work as a digital marketer at Envac, and I recently attempted to update the page using information from our company website. However, I received an email stating that all my changes were removed due to copyright concerns.

Could you please advise me on the correct procedure for updating the page? Do I need to provide any documentation as an Envac employee to verify the information? Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your help.

Best regards, Nina (NINASALEHI2024) NINASALEHI2024 (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dave Harris (baseball) edit

Hello. Need your help on this. Go to above article, scroll all the way to bottom of article where the two references(#s1&2) are. Can you make a separate Reference section above the external links section? I am lost on this as I see nothing in the edit window on how to do this. Thank you for your time.Theairportman33531 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for you, but if you ever need to, you just have to add the template reflist, see WP:REFLIST. Põhjapõder (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Have a good day.Theairportman33531 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About copypasting edit

I stumbled upon the article Yeyi people of which the history section is a blatant copypaste from a book. I was wondering as to how to proceed since I have never had to deal with such an issue. Should the edit simply be reverted? Especially given that the formatting has not been adapted to Wikipedia (introduced with this edit). How should I generally proceed? Thanks Põhjapõder (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting this, Põhjapõder. I've removed and hidden the copyright-violating content. There are instances where content from an external source can be reused on Wikipedia, but since our content is published under a license that allows re-use under certain conditions, in general we need affirmative evidence that content that we re-use is also published under a compatible license. If published content isn't clearly compatibly licensed then we have to assume that it isn't, and content that violates copyright has to be removed as quickly as possible for legal reasons. If you've identified text that might violate content, you can tag the section with {{copyvio}} - this template is a little complicated but you can click the link for instructions. If an entire page violates copyright and there is no way to remove it or revert to a "clean" version, you can instead add {{db-copyvio}} to the top, which flags the page for WP:G12 speedy deletion. And if you're not sure, there is the copyright noticeboard where you can list a page for our resident copyright experts to review. You can find more information on copyright at Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copyright violations, and you might also be interested in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Cheers! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the explanations and links, the whole thing is much clearer now! Põhjapõder (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a sandbox edit

Hello. I would like to ask what is the easiest way to delete an alternate sandbox of mine. I remember asking an AI about it but I forgot what it is. Underdwarf58 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the only one that has edited the page, you can add {{db-self}} to the top, and an admin will either delete the page or explain why they can't. For more info see WP:G7. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Underdwarf58 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Underdwarf58: my mistake, the relevant guideline is WP:U1. G7 also works but U1 is specifically for pages in your own userspace. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding SVG images without being rescaled to square edit

Draft:Strict Fibonacci heap

How do I ensure that SVG images do not get resized to 1:1 ratios? I tried the four different image modes, but none seemed to work. Inputting a custom size still forces the image to be square. Is it necessary to convert the image to a bitmap format? That would be undesirable since bitmap images are not easy to edit (e.g. translate text in the image). IntGrah (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IntGrah: commons:File:Rank-list and fix-list in strict Fibonacci heap.svg says "Original file ‎(SVG file, nominally 512 × 512 pixels, file size: 6 KB)". That means our software thinks you uploaded a square image and will display it as square no matter what you do. Other uploads at the time like commons:File:UniBE31 IBMPlexSansKR-Light.svg don't have the problem. I don't know details of the SVG format and cannot say whether the error is in the uploaded file or our software. Try changing something in the image and upload it again at commons:Special:UploadWizard, or maybe ask for help at commons:Commons:Help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Williams (baseball) citation issue edit

Hello. Go to above article, scroll down to Chicago Cubs, second paragraph, where the sentence ends ...failing to drive in a run in his last 15 appearances, citation (reference#7). I cant link up the URL to Retrosheet, it might be a bad link, I have had problems with Retrosheet before. Perhaps you can fix it. Thank you for your help.Theairportman33531 (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The link used a lower case "l" and it should have been an upper case "I" (lwillb vs Iwillb) -- very hard to see and nearly drove me crazy trying to find it! LizardJr8 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was driving me nuts as well. Tried numerous times. Thank you for your assistance. Have a good one!Theairportman33531 (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to cite pages from a book. edit

I have cited a book as shown here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hiroshi_Yamauchi&oldid=1220410268) and I was wondering if you could tell what I need to write in the code to add a precise page. Maxime12346 (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Maxime12346: the {{Cite book}} template takes an optional page= parameter (or pages=, if citing more than one). The value is then simply the page number(s). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help regarding infobox image format edit

Hi, I am here to seek assistance in matter regarding to determine the issue with infobox image format on the city related articles. See my previous discussion: Talk:Hyderabad#Infobox and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#City related articles infoboxes and now here: Vijayawada, where this particular user Toddy1 insists on sticking to a particular format when it is not mandated anywhere and also comes up with a interpretation that the infobox project mandates not to have seven images. In my opinion and the previous discussion, there is no particular format and the users are left to their interpretation of the image format on the infobox: [Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 203#Putting captions in galleries in infobox]]. If at all I am wrong in this matter, I will just refrain from editing further. Please guide me and thank you in advance. Please ping me when replying. 456legendtalk 17:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@456legend: Please follow the process outlined at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. 456legendtalk 01:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Wikipedia edit

URGENT

I need to speak with an Italian Wikipedia administrator immediately. As soon as possible. It's really important. Thanks 151.47.245.144 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to go to Italian Wikipedia. CommissarDoggoTalk? 19:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CommissarDoggo No. I'm blocjed there 151.35.113.55 (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't help you with blocks on the Italian Wikipedia, you will need to handle this there using whatever process they have to do so. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot They haven't any. 37.163.91.235 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot This is why I would like to speak privately with an Italian admin 37.163.91.235 (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is unlikely that there are any admins of the Italian Wikipedia who will be here and see this message. Sorry.
it:Wikipedia:Revisione del blocco looks like where you need to go. ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one here will be able to help you. If you are unable to get help at Italian Wikipedia, then I am afraid you are out of luck. Mathglot (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that the English Wikipedia is the "Master Wikipedia" or the "Dominant Wikipedia" or the "Boss Wikipedia" is widespread but false. Each language version is autonomous, and the administrators on the other language versions do not accept English language Wikipedia editors trying to tell them what to do, so we don't. They are perfectly capable in almost all cases of running their own Wikipedias. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential conflict of interest edit

Hi all,

I‘m associated with an organization . Are there any circumstances under which I may edit the Wikipedia article about this organization?

Cheers

Michael Claus Michael Scharpf (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Claus, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for coming here and asking.
There are a few contexts in which that is allowed, but generally not: it depends on the nature of your association, and on the kind of edit.
See the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide first. Note that if you are in any way employed by the organisation (including as an unpaid volunteer or intern, and even if editing Wikipedia is in no way part of your job) then you are regarded as a paid editor, and the requirement to make a declaration, and the restrictions on editing, become mandatory. ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Claus Michael Scharpf: See also Our FAQ for article subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia "Contents" floating icon edit

How do I remove the floating "Contents" icon from the upper left side of the Wikipedia page? It always blocks the text that I am trying to read. Thank you. 65.129.42.118 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Are you talking about the  ? It's been a while since the default skin (Vector 2022) was implemented, but you may want to create an account or reduce your browser's zoom level for this site; the former should allow you to relegate the icon to a sticky header. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting "pull quotes" to reflect critical consensus edit

Is there a policy in place for selecting pull quotes to reflect critical consensus on a piece of media?

This came up in regard to a movie (Problemista - Wikipedia) but its something that will have an effect on NPOV for many, many articles.

It's common to have a section of an article summarizing the "reception" of a movie, book, or album -- and that section often consists of a handful of selected quotes from hopefully notable and representative critics. But it's quite easy to suggest a negative critical reception by selecting (as happened in this case) three negative quotes about a move that, in fact, received generally positive reviews.

Is there any established guideline for this? It seems like common sense, but it would be nice to have the support of a formal policy.

Distingué Traces (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. If I understand correctly, the Reception section for Problemista recently was a single paragraph detailing "generally favorable" reviews according to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic; then, an editor added three more paragraphs of unfavorable reviews.
As I understand it, the relevant policies here are WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. It would be undue weight if three of the four paragraphs of this section were about unfavorable reviews if overall the film received generally favorable reviews. The same logic would apply if all unfavorable reviews were removed from the article.
How I would recommend solving this issue is to add back maybe one of those three removed paragraphs. You could research and add another paragraph of favorable reviews to make the section overall "generally favorable." Mokadoshi (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there is a policy about this, and it is the Neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic both report that the film has generally positive reviews, and both are reliable sources as described at Wikipedia:Review aggregators. Accordingly, it is a violation of NPOV for an individual editor to add quotes from three negative reviews because that clearly skews the section in a non-neutral direction. I also posted this on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I post a correction to a published article? edit

Article in question

United States Navy Nuclear Propulsion

My EDIT In the early days of the Nuclear Power program (1960's) the Navy was accepting other ratings as long as they attended and passed the courses at the Navy Nuclear Power School and passed the operational experience at the various 'Hulls' such as S1-W for some submariners and A1W for the USS Enterprise. They accepted IC-men (Inter-ship Communications Technicians, BT's (Boiler techs). In one case they accepted an AT (Aviation Electronics Technician) as a reactor operator (RO) on the USS Enterprise. They refused to give the men a special 'Nuclear Rating' as it could possibly lead to problems in foreign ports of call.

How I know this - Personal Experience

I entered this information as it was missing from the Enlisted Ratings lists on your article. I don't know how to site a source as this was my field of endeavor in the Navy Nuclear Program from 1964-1971. I was the AT in question, serving as a Reactor Operator on the USS Enterprise (CVA(N)-65. The only proof I have are my various documents issued during my tenor and my DD-214 upon discharge. Admiral Rickover gave me permission to keep my Aviation Rating while serving as a Reactor Operator.

Thank you for any guidance you may have

David Vann 2601:80:C502:D4F0:8CE4:9437:F990:2F50 (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Unfortunately, your personal experiences, no matter how accurate, are not valid article content. Information must be in a published reliable source that can be verified. Private documents also aren't acceptable sources. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Establish a new historical person edit

I understand we are a organization of volunteers.

I have waited years to be able to document a decade of railroad inovations and now that I am able I seem to be going in cirfcles.  I have edited seemingly without issue.  My primary addition seems to be mostly working but I get no feedback.

If I create a new entry should I wait for a repy or what?

Is there any way to repair errors?

None of the help options [teahouse, community, help, etc] help; just send me in circles.

I am MarkWHowe, I am publishing Isaac B Howe in my 'sandbox'.  I have no idea if this is even seeable by anyone.  'sandbox' ???? MarkWHowe (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How will I even know if anyone resopontds to this?? MarkWHowe (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you're starting an article in your own sandbox, it won't be seen by anyone unless you initiate the articles for creation process, which would involve moving the article to the draft namespace and submitting it for review. Are you able to provide a link to your sandbox article? lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 04:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Courtesy link: User talk:MarkWHowe/sandbox
Mathglot (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, MarkWHowe:
  • Sign talk page comments, but don't sign drafts.
  • Place a reference immediately after the proposition, or set of propositions, that it verifies (and not between the subject and predicate of a sentence).
  • All that your draft says about Isaac Bridgman Howe is that he "was the original Superintendant" of such and such. The rest is about the such and such, not about him. How was his superintending significant? If he was significant in some other way(s), then how?
  • Please read WP:PERSON, carefully.
HTH. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MarkWHowe As to what can be 'seen', posting here at Teahouse brought people to look at your Sandbox. There is really no other way any editor would have stumbled upon it. If at a future time you submit an expansion of what you have so far to Articles for Creation as a draft, then in time (days to months) an experienced reviewer would decide if it deserved to be an article. More content and more references will be needed to confirm that Howe was a notable person. David notMD (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given your User name, are you a descendent of IB Howe? David notMD (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" I have edited seemingly without issue." Well, no. You made sizable additions to three railroad articles without including any references. All of that - as explained on your Talk page - has been reverted. This is not to say that your additions were not true, only that Wikipedia requires references. David notMD (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Lambert and Jo Lambert edit

Hello, I noticed Joanna Lambert was proposed deletion recently. I started to add new citations. After in which I noticed it is a duplicate article to Jo Lambert in the main space. I am not sure the protocol, should they be merged? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear to be a duplicate, it was moved: Joanna Lambert. I guess you were editing it while it was moved? – 2804:F14:8092:9F01:F9F8:9351:41E7:923 (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is showing as two different articles for me; with two different names, and a different number of citations? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are two articles about the same person, and yes they should be merged. Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the histories of the 2 pages(Special:PageHistory/Joanna Lambert and Special:PageHistory/Jo Lambert), the PROD now shows as having happened on Jo Lambert, not on Joanna Lambert like you remember. The citations on Joanna Lambert were added in your edit, before that is only the redirect left behind from the move. – 2804:F14:8092:9F01:F9F8:9351:41E7:923 (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to figure about Reliable Resources edit

hello, i am new here and trying to contribute in Wikipedia by editing and citing. How to find out that the references I've added is reliable or not? GrooveGalaxy (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GrooveGalaxy. There's some general information about the types of sources Wikipedia considered to be reliable found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is also a list of individual sources whose reliability is often asked about found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources that contains a brief assessment of various sources. Neither of the two pages I've mentioned, however, covers every possible situation and every possible source; so, if there's a specific source that you're not sure about that's not covered by those two pages, you can ask for an assessment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I write a second draft article for review in my sandbox when it contains a redirect to my first article? edit

Hi, Some time ago I wrote a draft article (Shot peen forming) in my sandbox and had it reviewed. It was then accepted as ok and the corresponding wikipedia page created. I'd now like to write a second article. Can I do that in my sandbox without affecting the "redirect" notice in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CSK45Kays/sandbox&redirect=no

Alternatively, where could I write a draft of my new article so that it can be reviewed? Thanks CSK45Kays (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CSK45Kays. In theory, you could do that but in practice, it would be messy and confusing for new page reviewers and eventually, for yourself. In practice, you can create an unlimited number of new sandbox pages tailored to your specific needs, in the form of User: CSK45Kays/sandbox/A or User: CSK45Kays/sandbox/XYZ or whatever you choose to be memorable to you. I cannot begin to count how many sandbox pages I have, but when I look at them all, they make sense because I have given them logical names. Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cullen328 (talk) and thanks for your quick reply. Have now created a new sandbox page. Thanks again. CSK45Kays (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, CSK45Kays, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Ask questions here at the Teahouse any time you want. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add birth date without numbers edit

I am trying to enter a birthdate without the precise day in the template in this article but it breaks for some reason and I don't know how to fix it. What do I need to enter for a birth date without a precise day ? The article in question : Fusajiro Yamauchi Maxime12346 (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maxime12346. What is your reason for not wanting to give the precise date of birth? Is the current date inaccurate? You can not use "unknown" in an infobox unless the parameter in question accepts "unknown" as valid input. If the data requested by the infobox is unknown, then just leave that field blank. Cullen328 (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something like Template:Birth based on age as of date might be what you're after. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error restored 25 times edit

Block evasion by an LTA.

Someone who knows when a U.S. presidential term ends and what a president might do just before leaving office needs to take a look at Mark Geragos. In that article history, an error has been restored 25 times. Related reverts on other pages warrant attention as well, but I won't rehash that now. 45.236.107.86 (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mark Geragos has been "semi-protected" for well over a month, and has shown no sign of edit warring since. If you believe that the content is now erroneous, then you're welcome to make an edit request at the foot of Talk:Mark Geragos. Be sure both to specify the precise change you want, and to point to reliable sources for any proposed addition. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did that, there and on other pages. I wish people would just focus on actual content. 45.236.107.86 (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that edit was made by you, then you are admitting that you are circumventing a block. Don't do that. ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actioning a consensus edit

I admit, I didn't invest that much thought into it, and some people were confused by the wording of it, but a while back I opened a RFC at Talk:Somalia regarding the map being used. Is it possible to get someone to action it? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

under 'Somalia showed as controlling Somaliland' Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help edit

I am Nilpriyo. Probably start editing Wikipedia from 2020. I love Bengali and Hindi serials very much. I know almost everything about Bengali serials. So I have created the page of various serials by reliable source. I have mostly created Bengali serial pages. Especially Zee Bangla, Star Jalsha, Colors Bangla and Sun Bangla I have produced and edited almost all serials. Besides Star Plus, Colors TV, Zee TV I also like serials very much. .But I don't know much about the serials of these channels so I can't edit. Not only that I have also created pages for various actresses. If someone gave wrong information on Bangla Serial page, I would have removed it. I always used to edit the things I knew. One day there was a complaint that I was paid by the channel so I mostly made serial pages. This complaint was first made by someone called The Banner. Later after the salary complaint was settled he made another complaint that I am editing COl. Which I knew nothing about. Later after getting the link I understand about the matter. I am editing what I know so what is the relationship with COl here?? The Banner kept repeating that complaint after many persuasions. Even after the reliable source is added to the serial page I created, the intentional page votes for Delete. In the meantime, I wrote in favor of delete vote on the page I created, or I am promoting as a person from the Marketing Department. Now from The Banner another person named CNMall41 is saying in my name that I do Col Edit. Tell me how long will I tolerate these false accusations. Repeatedly such false allegations threatened my Edit. I am currently busy with my studies so I can't spend time on editing. So I don't know how long I have to endure such complaints. A few days ago I created this page called Astami. Where reliable sources are linked that pass WP:GNG coverage. It was drafted [[3]] by him on the complaint of salary, Col. It would be great if someone could help me with this. Nilpriyo talk 12:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a wikipedia page for a fiction film edit

I'm trying to create a wikipedia page about a new film (link here) I have added a number of sources that have been deemed unreliable and I therefore cannot get the page approved. I'm confused about what qualifies as reliable, as this is about a fictional film and takes quotes directly from established news sources that report on the film and interview its filmmakers. Any help is greatly appreciated! Moviemaniac18 (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Interviews with the filmmakers do not contribute to notability as they are not independent sources(though they can be used for other purposes). IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is user-editable. The film itself can be a source for its cast and crew. Typically an article about a film should discuss reviews by professional reviewers/critics, I don't see any.
You also have several unsourced passages. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship edit

I wish to know who is my Mentor. Any help? Fugabus (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is me. What do you need? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]