Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Kyoko Masaki Submission page rejected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok I understand. I will need to continue researching Wikipedia help files. Just a personal note. Kyoko passed last Monday, but I actually feel lighter doing this project. Thank you... Kyoko Masaki (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

How can u make a redirect

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

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

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

@Noam Elyada: Wikipedia:Redirect has general help but I wouldn't spend time on it now. You can do that if it's actually published. The opening sentence alone ("the third war forced upon Israel") may turn off many reviewers. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sounds like something to just take to page movers and/or admins' talk pages, then. thanks consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Website of subject in infobox of BLP

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @GrabUp, there is ongoing discussion about this at the talk page of the subject matter. There does seem to be some confusion still with some editors calling for, "...a RS indicating that Ulbricht has full control of the website"...and that without this then supposedly, "...it should not be included in the infobox."

I think this is setting a different standard for this particular BLP than we use for other BLPs and "official websites" to be included in the infobox. Am I mistaken here? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Moving Draft articles?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll remove the motto from the article and keep it in the infobox because it's a part of the standard Template:Infobox rowing club. I was told that I should just cut the lists of coaches and board members, as it will require frequent updates, so I'll just have it be a description of the positions of the board and the head coach(es). I'm really grateful for all your help! Pixzzl (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll probably remove the lists and just have the board members section without the names, and rewrite the coaches section to have the girls and boys head coach only, similar to Oakland Strokes page. Pixzzl (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Not allowed to talk on Talk pages

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

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

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

Jidanni, even if your objective is to alert people to the dangers of sucralose (not what a talk page is for), you can do better than that. Give a link to an article in a reputable publication. The findings of a Google search can depend on the reader's search history, the location of their IP address, and maybe other things. Maproom (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

All I know is I'll take Sucralose#Possible health effects with a grain of sucralose, sure beats the health effects of salt. I'll stick to Wikipedia for my sources. Jidanni (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Help getting a page unlocked.

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

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

@SanDiegoDan I think you can use deletion review for this. in WP:DRVPURPOSE, it states "Deletion review may be used (...) if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" which this seems to fall under. I'd suggest creating a draft that meets Wikipedia's policies, ready to move, so an administrator can reasonably unsalt the page and move the draft into article space. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 20:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Job or Fun or Help or Desire or Interested

are you guys here on Wikipedia for a Job or just fun, or Help with building encyclopedia, or Desire of editing, or interested on Wikipedia??. just a question 👐. KPopMachine (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @KPopMachine. It can Depends on the person, they maybe can do this for fun or just to volunteer. Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 21:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

KPopMachine, please see Wikipedia community#Motivation. -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Why is Biographies of a Living Person important?

I get its a living person but why do BLPs have such strict guidelines and requirements for NPOV, no original research, and verifiability? I really don't understand the need that "wikipedia has to get every thing about a living person right" mindset. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Because living people can be harmed by false information being spread about them on one of the most visited sites on the internet. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: See Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident for the origin of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

SimpleSubCubicGraph, at first glance your question looks innocent; but coming on top of this thread and this one, your participation threatens to be a net drain on other editors' time. If you still don't understand BLP policy or don't agree with it, please avoid editing such articles, and instead work to improve some of the very many articles here that are not about living people. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary I am not trying to drain anyones time, a huge portion of WP articles are contentious topics, BLPs, and pages that require ECP. I legitimately, inside my brain do not understand why BLP is so strict. I want to learn how and why Wikipedia policies are what they are today so I can make good edits. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Simple solution, SimpleSubCubicGraph: Edit articles that aren't BLPs. -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

SimpleSubCubicGraph, MrOllie's reply above is accurate, but not the full story. Living persons can sue Wikipedia if we make defamatory claims without substantial evidence. Maproom (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

SimpleSubCubicGraph, the premise of your question is misleading. Please be aware that Verifiability and No original research and the Neutral point of view are our three core content policies and they apply to all 6,948,107 articles on Wikipedia. Those policies are enforced more rapidly and stringently on biographies of living people but they apply everywhere. Cullen328 (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

BLPs are often tainted by information from the subjects themselves - including interviews and press releases - also from paid agents and unpaid associates and celebrity fans. Such bias can also include removing content seen as negative to their reputations (or adding negative content that is false). Hence, strict standards. Medical/health articles are also held to a strict standard (see WP:MEDRS) because misinformation can potentially harm people. David notMD (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

First time dealing with a COI edit request

Resolved

I've just answered an edit request made by an editor with a conflict of interest and I'm not confident that I have complied with the WP:COIRESPONSE guideline, particularly: "Make sure nothing important is missing. Responding editors should do their own search for independent sources. Do not rely on the sources offered by the paid editor." I have searched for reliable sources on the topic other than the ones provided by the COI editor, and I am unable to fully assess the reliability of the sources. I am also unsure of the reliability of the sources provided by the editor because of various issues. If someone can assist me with assessing my response to the edit request, it would be highly appreciated. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 22:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Talk:Trendyol § History ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle & Fade, looking at the edit request that you answered, it looks like you did due diligence at checking the information and gave a reasonable response to the request. I think you did a good job there. Anytime that you're uncomfortable with an edit request or your ability to evaluate the sources, just leave it for someone else to do. Schazjmd (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality Concerns in the Greek Genocides Article

Hello everyone,

The Greek Genocide article faces a neutrality concern from me. The existing version of this article displays a Greek nationalist viewpoint together with a Western media tradition that favors the autochthonous Greek nationalism instead of following Wikipedia's fundamental neutrality mandate. These are the article’s specific problems supported by evidence:

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Greek_genocide

Attribution and Terminology: The article currently supports Turkish nationalist figures as the direct perpetrators behind the genocide through its comparison of the Turkish Nationalist Government to a “Kemalist” regime which implies a system of command from one central authority. Research conducted by Stanford J. Shaw in his book History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey and Edward Erickson in his studies demonstrates that state-directed involvement in violence did not occur during this period as most operations emerged from local irregular militias and warlords. Using Kemalist as an official label to describe the governing body distorts Turkey's democratic development by presenting it as a totalitarian dictatorship although the country was forming its government in the aftermath of Ottoman decline.

Selective Sourcing: The present article heavily relies on supportive sources for its one-sided viewpoint while insufficiently showing neutral perspectives. The existing narrative of Turkish guilt from Western and Greek sources finds documented evidence in British archives alongside studies from the International Association of Genocide Scholars that present diversified information about communal warfare during that chaotic period.

Violation of Neutrality: Wikipedia's NPOV policy collides with the biased selection of sources and the application of emotional language which results in historical factual misrepresentation. For a neutral article to meet its standards the present scholarly disputes about responsibility should be noted and major perspectives must receive proportional representation based on their scholarly prominence.

This article's neutrality should be examined because I want to work on content revision with others. All statements require proper backing from balanced reliable sources together with the use of strict language neutrality. Ludusian (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Ludusian. The proper place to discuss this matter is Talk:Greek genocide where editors with interest and expertise in the topic can respond. The Teahouse is not the place to iron out content disputes but rather a place to ask and answer questions about editing Wikipedia, and about its policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay thank you I will take the discussion to proper place Ludusian (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Doubt about the relevance of interlinks to non-English-speaking Wikipedias

Greetings ! I have doubts about putting interlinks to Wikipedias others than "Wikipedia in English" concerning articles being lists of first names.

I am thinking for example of the "List of Irish-language given names".
I would like to do that but I don't know if it's an acceptable behavior. We are talking about articles being lists. Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Doubt about the relevance to what of such interlinks, Anatole-berthe? And, if we put Breton aside for a moment, why not link (via Wikidata, of course) from List of Irish-language given names to fr:Liste de prénoms irlandais? (How might doing so not be acceptable behavior?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Is my article well-structured?

Hello!

I am currently writing a draft about Shamate, and I would like to know if you think the article is good structure-wise because I'm still not very confident about my abilities. Obviously there's no content yet, but fret not, I will soon start actually adding content to the article, because I first edit it off-wiki.

Thanks, QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 08:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

P.S. by off-wiki I mean I edit it on a markdown file on my computer. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 09:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

QuickQuokka, it's hard to judge the structure when there's almost no content. Also, the lead should summarise the content - and therefore be written once the body of the article is almost complete. Maproom (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

New disambiguation issue

Would someone please advise on how to apply disambiguation edits (or page) for my new article on Warren Brandt the artist vs Warren W. Brandt the university president. Thank you! Remando (talk) Remando (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC) PS I see I also broke that article's Categories :( Remando (talk)

Hello, Remando. I believe that the artist is probably the primary topic and that disambiguation can by handled by hatnotes. Cullen328 (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hatnotes are amazing! 🤯 Thank you, @Cullen328! ~~ Remando (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

One more question, if I may? When I type "Warren Brandt" into the main Search Wikipedia bar, only the first article, Warren W. Brandt previews. Is there another adjustment I can make so that both articles preview? Remando (talk)

Remando, that search term is controlled by a redirect page. Since you and I agree that the artist is the primary topic, I just edited the redirect page so that it now leads to the artist not the university president. If another editor disagrees, it can be discussed then. Another option is to remove the (artist) disambiguator and have the biography of the artist just be titled "Warren Brandt", and let the hat note help readers looking for the university president. Cullen328 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Bless you! I'm happy to leave as you've edited it -- OR remove the (artist) disambiguator -- whichever you think is appropriate. ~~~ Remando (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: It's a crazy coincidence but both Warren Brandts worked at SIU Carbondale. No family relation that I am aware of, but the artist was there as art dept chairman from '59-'61 while the other was president there from '74 to '79. This coincidence does not define them, but I suspect it confuses some who are researching SIU Carbondale history. I have wished the artist had a middle name as well, to help differentiate, but in my research on him, he does not have one. ~~~ Remando (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Question about names in citations

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China § Question about names in citations

 – QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

I'm trying to cite this article by Veronica Wang Jingyi, but I don't know what to put for the |last= and |first= parameter, because I think that "Wang" is the surname of the author.

So do I format it like |last= Wang |first= Veronica Jingyi like so:

Wang, Veronica Jingyi (2016-07-28). "How China's White-Collar Workers Are Co-Opting Blue-Collar Punk". Sixth Tone. Retrieved 2025-02-02.

or do I simply use the |author= parameter like so:

Veronica Wang Jingyi (2016-07-28). "How China's White-Collar Workers Are Co-Opting Blue-Collar Punk". Sixth Tone. Retrieved 2025-02-02.

Thanks, and sorry, because I am really not accustomed to Chinese naming conventions... QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi QuickQuokka. You might want to try asking about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China because most likely it's something that someone else has brought up before. Perhaps even check that talk page's archive because there could be something there about it. There's also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) which provides some guidance that might be helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

How many citations is too many?

Hello!

I am currently writing an article about Shamate, and this is what I have for the lede section:

Shamate or SMART is a youth subculture and fashion movement originating from factory workers in 2000s South China. It is characterized by eccentric makeup, hairstyles and clothing.

Is 12 back-to-back citations too many? Is there any guideline against having so many citations next to each other? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, 12 is too many! Quality over quantity. Use just a few in the Lead. The others can be used in the body of the article if those provide different views or detailed information on this youth subculture. David notMD (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of a citation is usually to provide verification for one or more claims in the preceding sentence or paragaph: nothing else. (I've put "usually" in for caution: I can't think of any exceptions).

It follows that putting more than one citation at the end of a passage is justified only when the passage contains more than one claim, and the claims are not all verifiable in a single source. ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka Yes there is, WP:OVERCITE. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Notes

References

Task Force Creation

How would I go about creating a task force? I had the idea for a one revolving around Stephen King under WikiProject Horror, but I'm not sure how to start. Help? LeGoldenBoots (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@LeGoldenBoots I assume that the editors who might be interested in joining such a task force will already be watching the talk pages of WikiProject Horror, so that's where I suggest you post your idea, giving enough detail about what the TF would actually do. Then you can subsequently begin the work and see if anyone joins in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Alt accounts

So I've read over Wikipedia's policy on legitimate alt accounts, but one thing I'm not clear on is whether or not I would be allowed, say, to have an alt account to edit articles I don't want to edit on my main. For example, I am understandably uncomfortable editing articles that are, shall we say, NSFW/fall under WP:NOTCENSORED. Would creating an alt account solely for editing...such pages be a legitimate reason? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

You cannot have an unannounced alt account, I think. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 19:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I know that, but I am asking if what I listed in the last two sentences in my original message would count as a valid reason to create an alt account. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 20:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, RedactedHumanoid! The following is my interpretation of policy only and I don’t claim to speak for all users in what I say. With that disclaimer in mind, I think such an account, though not explicitly allowed by policy, would not fall afoul of policy as long as you are very careful not to use it for any inappropriate uses. For instance, I would especially stay away from contributing to the same discussions with both accounts at all just to be safe even if you’re not hiding your dual-account status – though that’s less likely to be an issue if they handle completely separate topic matters.

Unless you really need to avoid it, I would suggest disclosing as normal in some manner. Policy states Individuals operating undisclosed alternative accounts do so at their own risk and against the recommended operating processes of this project; it does also state Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, unless where doing so would defeat the point of the account, but I don’t think an account like you’re asking about is as likely to fall under that category.

It would probably be best to wait and see if other experienced editors have other thoughts, but I think the main issue is to avoid any illegitimate uses. I don’t think editing other articles is, on its own, an illegitimate use, though.

Hope this helps! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Yeah I've been skeptical of creating an alt account for such purposes because the guidelines for legit alt accounts don't talk about the reason's I'm specifying. I think I'll wait to see what other editors might have to say as you suggested. Thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd roughly agree with that assessment. The whole policy is not so much about legitimate alt accounts, but illegitimate ones. Understanding the inappropriate uses is the key to understanding the policy. With a 'privacy' account, which is what this appears to be, obviously stating the owner may go against that purpose, but it still may be useful to state that it's an alt. Keep your edits strictly segregated, and just don't do anything controversial (in the Wikipedia sense). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

By strictly segregated I assume you mean only edit articles that the alt account is intended to edit, and not articles that I would normally edit here on my main account? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Don't cross the streams.[1] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

zzuuzz's point is never use more than one account to edit the same article or Talk page. David notMD (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

How to handle incorrect graphic elements?

Ok, so on the Heron page, there is a map purportedly showing the worldwide distribution of herons. Clicking on the image, it is "own work" based on a book, which is a lot more intanglible than a newspaper source with a numbered link. However, the map is wrong. Just heading over to the article Grey heron one can see its distribution map, showing it a breeding bird or resident of areas not on the first map.

Now, it seems like I should raise this point on the article talk page instead, but my main question is not about the herons really. Its more about the WP:BOLD thing. My bold response would be to just delete the image, but that seems a bit extreme. Ribidag (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ribidag The map is copied on Commons and very widely used in other-language Wikis as File:Heron_range.png, so I think you should take your concerns to Commons. The original uploader is now long retired. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

on quoting stuff from other languages

let's say i'm using a source on something. say then, that it's written in some weird fictional language, and says

"O trabalho de Pedro Pepeca, por mais engraçado que seja, sofre de uma falta de variedade. (...) Se tu viu um, tu viu tudo."

transl. "Pedro Pepeca's work, as funny as it is, suffers from a lack of variety. (...) If you've seen one, you've seen it all."

in such cases, if i want to quote it, is it fine to use a literal translation, or is it better to just not directly quote it at all? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Consarn. WP:NONENG says "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations". ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

in the specific case this is about (this review of tattoo asssassins, which keen eyes will notice is written in spanish), it seems the extent of my knowledge of spanish (which admittedly begins and ends at knowing portuguese) would be enough to translate "grotescamente planos" (used to describe that game's stages) as "grotesquely flat", which is so unambiguous that machine translators defaulted to that being portuguese

thanks consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Are these good templates and should I make more?

Template:SPI-puppeteer-note

Template:SPI-discussion-note ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 19:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Why do we need such template if we already have {{uw-socksuspect}}? ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 03:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

They have both cases. A sock warning, and a warning for the puppeteer. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 03:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated both on WP:TFD as similar template exists.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 03:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I literally already knew that. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ (he/they) Talk to me 05:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Stumbleannnn Duplicate templates are often viewed as a maintenance burden. I pretty frequently come across templates where the original author hasn't been active for a decade or more, and so bugs get reported on the talk pages but never fixed. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Writing an Article around an athlete

Hello Teahouse community of Wikipedia, hope you are spending quality and academical times as always!

This is your colleague Mustafa with other served account.

Today I have a question of making an article viewed on Wikipedia, how can i quicken the review process, thanks?

Here is the link of the edited article pending: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:MustafaAldahabi/sandbox MustafaAldahabi (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @MustafaAldahabi. Your draft has been reviewed, and declined, probably because most of it is unreferenced.

Where did you get the information from? If from a reliable published source, wholly independent of Hani, then cite it. If not, then it probably doesn't belong in the article.

More importantly, you need sources sufficient to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which your draft certainly does not at present.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Colin for sharing those useful thoughts and contribution tips with me.

Now that I have all data written and displayed.

The problem is with citing and indicating external link only, or using extra paragraphic by mentioning reference notions 'notions found related with other Wikipedia articles and such?

Thanks! MustafaAldahabi (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The phrasing of this draft, MustafaAldahabi, is promotional. It reads like a press release. Do not attempt to impress readers. Instead, try your hardest to inform readers. -- Hoary (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

And more, MustafaAldahabi. The draft has three references. Each of the three is to something with a specific title, in English. Yet each is linked to the top page of a website. One of these three turns out to be in Arabic. The other two are offline. -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

"Combined footnote" help

I am in the process of making Pixels (2015 film) a good Article but one of the requests on the review page was:

• use a combined footer text instead of separate captions.

This is what is being addressed (and I do not know how to "use a combined footer text" so if anyone could show me how that would be great thanks): {{multiple image | width = 250 | align = left | image1 = Pixels - NY Subway Entrance - Side View.JPG | caption1 = Movie prop for ''Pixels'' in [[downtown Toronto]] | image2 = Pixels - NY Subway Entrance - End View.JPG | caption2 = Prop for NY Subway entrance has no stairs. }} 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

To editor Yovt: If this is what you've currently got:

Movie prop for Pixels in downtown Toronto

Prop for NY Subway entrance has no stairs.

you can change it to this:

Movie prop for Pixels in downtown Toronto for a New York subway entrance.

Cremastra (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Yovt, building on the suggestion above, you can also swap "width = 250" for "total_width = 500", to make the images the same height:

Movie prop for Pixels in downtown Toronto for a New York subway entrance.

The documentation for Template:Multiple image is pretty confusing (perhaps because it can do so much?). I think the "captionx" parameters are really only used to identify images; any kind of description of explanation is usually placed in the overall "footer". Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Article for creation

I wrote and submitted an article for creation in December - Draft:Ancora Holdings Group But I cannot find it on the AfC list of articles pending approval. Did I do something wrong in posting for approval? How can I find out if I posted it correctly? Or if I have to do it again? Thanks. Benetsee (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Benetsee: I might be missing something, but it doesn't look like you ever submitted your draft for review. Did you create your draft using Wikipedia:Articles for creation or did you just create a page in the draft namespace yourself? If you did the latter, you would've needed to manually add the template {{AfC submission/draft}} to the top of the page, and then click the blue "Submit" button when you're ready for it to be reviewed. Do you remember doing any of that? If not, then you might've mistakenly assumed that any draft you created would automatically be submitted for review. FWIW, if you look at the page history for the draft, you'll see that an editor named Justiyaya is currently "reviewing" it; so, perhaps you'll know more in a little while once they've finished. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Benetsee Hiya, I moved it to mainspace. I don't think the draft was submitted. Most of your sources looks good, I've removed some that wasn't good enough and fixed some tonal issues. Good work! Justiyaya 02:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Article for creation help

I submitted this article, Printables, to the Articles for Creation, got a response, but don't know where to start. I'm trying to find reliable sources and add credible information, but I just can't see enough of it out there. What can I do now? MrGumballs (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I have searched a little about that company but i found zero information on reliable and credible ground. maybe that company is not a notable one.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 03:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Would it just be better to almost just forget about the article until it becomes notable enough to find credible sources? MrGumballs (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like it may be too soon. You're going to want to find more secondary sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll wait it out. I'm mainly waiting for one giant milestone in the website's history. MrGumballs (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @MrGumballs. Writing an article without first finding adequate sources to establish notability, is like building a house without first surveying the plot to make sure it is fit to build on, or building foundations. Even if you do decide it is fit to build on, you're probably going to have to go back and underpin.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. It's the same idea as making a stance on an argument or point of view before evern having any prior knowledge on it. Except on Wikipedia it's more of a neutral point of view. Thank You! MrGumballs (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Citing US legal sources

Hello. I made an edit on United States DOGE Service wherein I replaced a link to an executive order on the whitehouse.gov page to one in the federal register, as the latter is a more reliable source etc. The only problem is I am quite unfamiliar with citing US legal sources on Wikipedia, so I just plugged a bunch of values into cite:journal and went with whatever came out (its citation 1). If I'm honest I'm not very happy with winging it with sources and just going with whatever looks right, so I was interested if someone could help me answer the following questions: 1. is it preferable to use a PDF or website link? In my citation I linked a PDF of the EO published in the federal register, and I'm not sure if this is better or worse than using a web page version of it 2. Is this style of citation acceptable on Wikipedia, or should I seek to use the templates in Template:United States legal citation templates for uniformity? 3. Other than those templates, is there anywhere else where I can find information on citing legal sources on wikipedia? Its always seemed like a bit of a struggle to know whether youre citing something correctly or not

Sorry for the long post, these issues are just bothering me, and sorry if the questions are dumb. notadev (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The questions are legitimate and I can see where you're coming from. I would say, with the format you have, a PDF compared to a website link wouldn't matter, unless one of the sources contained more information than the other, in which you'd use that one. Also, if you would like to go through the hastle of finding a template, it would be neater, garnering more reliability in the article. If you're looking for citing sources help, I'd recommend reading through this page thoroughly for a deeper more directed analysis on citiations. MrGumballs (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I guess my question about web page vs PDF was more concerned with preventing link rot, but I think since they’re both US federal government links it should be alright in that regard? I think using the proper templates would be better, but I feel like I come across them so little that they seem more like a novelty… that my might my prejudiced view though notadev (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

NotADev, there are many ways to properly format a reference. The specific technique is secondary. What is most important is how the reference displays to readers. The whole point is to present the fullest and most accurate bibliographic information to the reader. That includes the title of the work linked to a URL when available, the author(s), the publisher, the date of publication, the page number if relevant, the ISBN number if it is a book, the name of the publication if it is a newspaper, magazine, journal or reliable website, and in select cases, a brief quotation. Personally, I take great pleasure in crafting accurate, well-formatted references and when I do my final proofread on one, I feel good about it. All that being said, it is best practice to follow the established citation style on decent quality articles if you can do so. Cullen328 (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@NotADev, this is unrelated the citation formatting question, but readers are more likely to click the links in a citation if they are PDF links. No idea why, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

It's easier for people to open PDF's than websites. Also, take a look between a PDF and a website. Often, I find that naturally I'm inclined to open a PDF because it naturally looks more credible. This doesn't mean it is more credible though at all. MrGumballs (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

COI request for review: Tencent Cloud

I have previously submitted a COI request on the Tencent Cloud Talk page, using the COI template as advised but have not received any assistance so far. As a follow-up, I wonder if any voluntary editor would be interested to review our request there? Greatly appreciate the help. TencentCommsYeran (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi TencentCommsYeran. It looks like when you originally posted your request you used the {{Help me}} template instead of the {{Edit COI}} template, which is probably why you've not received a reply yet. Even though you tried to remedy this after the fact, your request still seems a bit malformed and more of a discussion than a request. Perhaps the best thing for you to do might just be to start again with a new request. This time I suggest you follow the guidance in Wikipedia:Edit requests and keep your request a simple as possible. The users who help answer such requests are volunteers just like everyone else who edits Wikipedia, and they might pass over requests with lots of moving parts that seem like they might be time consuming to sort out. You might get a faster response if you break your request up so that you're only asking one thing per request instead of trying to do a major rewrite of the article in one fell swoop. There are instructions on how to use the "Edit COI" template on its documentation page; so, just follow the instructions there. You could also try asking about this at WP:COIN, but again trying to request too much at once might lead to your request being passed over by those not willing to try and sort through everything. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Taoiseach and President of Ireland ?

Hello, do you know the reason why on Wikipedia the page of the Prime Minister of Ireland kept the Irish name (Taoiseach) but the page of the President of Ireland has the English name (sorry English is not my native language !) We are having a discussion on WP:FR about the renaming of Taoiseach. Thank you for your help, best regards, Pierrette13 (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Because Taoiseach has made it into English[2], while the President still uses President[3]. CMD (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Pierrette13 You can see a previous discussion at Talk:Taoiseach#Just_call_it_Prime_Minister_in_the_Title. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

draft page

how to move draft page to article Jagirani110 (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Jagirani110, are you asking about Draft:Jagirani? For a standalone article the threshold on Wikipedia is explained at Wikipedia:Notability. This is a higher bar than having sources to show the information can be verified. As the summary at the top of the page says, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

yes asking jagirani draft Jagirani110 (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Jagirani has a submit for review 'button'. This will submit it for a reviewer to make a approved or declined decision. There is a constant backlog of drafts submitted for review. The system is not a queue, so it can be as fast as a day or as long as months before a reviewer makes a decision. If declined for a stated reason, the draft can be improved and submitted again. David notMD (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Do not submit until you have added more text.David notMD (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Lewis Nitikman

•  Courtesy link: Draft:Lewis Nitikman

Hello, everyone. Please, delete this draft. See discussion: [4] СтасС (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.--СтасС (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Please assist with my draft of BOLP

Hi, please assist with pointing me in the right direction where the citations of my draft are concerned. On of the reasons the draft was declined was due to submission being improperly sourced. I have gone through the list of citations to ensure that they were extracted from reliable sources (ie: News organisations, Notable publishers, Official Government websites, reputably recognised websites etc). I am not sure which of the citations are considered unreliable. I would greatly appreciate any guidance. I am in the process of reviewing neutral encyclopedic tone. Thanks in advance.

Draft: Tsitsi Masiyiwa Substantiator (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Substantiator There is unreferenced content. I did some copyediting to align the draft with Wikipedia guidelines. David notMD (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Multiple accounts?

I'll cut to the chase: If an existing Wikipedia user has to create an additional Wikipedia account, one affiliated with an educational institution/university for training, Wiki-drive, etc., using their name and ID/enrollment number, and they wish not to disclose that on Wikipedia for anonymity (albeit they do not have an issue just specifying the existence of that good faith account), how are they supposed to go about the process? Are there any disclosure rules or guidelines for such a scenario? Thanks, Dissoxciate (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dissoxciate. This kind of thing is covered in WP:SOCKLEGIT. If someone is using alternative accounts in a way that keeps each account separate and distinct from the other, they might go unnoticed; most people, however, exhibit a tell when they edit, and it's possible someone might notice a similarity between two accounts even though the accounts might be being used for entirely different areas of Wikipedia. It's important to understand that Wikipedia is pretty much a self-regulating honor system; so, the more transparent someone is about any alternative accounts they're using, the less likely they'll find themselves perhaps being accussed by others of doing something inappropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Marchjuly! I understand the case of tell and tone, and how it's advisable to be as transparent as possible about owning multiple accounts. I went through the information provided under WP:SOCKLEGIT. My final question, however, is, so long as the user mentions or discloses the existence of an alternative Wikipedia account within the lines of Sockpuppetry policy on their userpage, without explicitly disclosing the name of said account, there shouldn't be an issue vis-a-vis having multiple accounts, right? Dissoxciate (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Doubts regarding Article

Hey I've been creating new mainspace articles mostly on floods and other disaster, examples of articles I created are --- Floods in Algeria, Floods in Angola, Floods in Niger etc, this time I'm focusing on to create for botswana My doubt is Droughts are more common there so shall I create an article including all the events, though I'm not sure for the clarity as of my knowledge it would change the path of readers and topic, Need guidance!! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Droughts are a bit harder to define than floods (see Drought and the list link), and where do you stop? Floods in..., Droughts in..., Fires in..., Earthquakes in... Tornados in..., Hurricanes in..., etc.? David notMD (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Should the general articles be just changed to Natural Disasters in... for conformity and formality. Or would this just mean that people would have a harder time to find the answer to questions on Wikipedia? MrGumballs (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed user?

How can I make an edit to a semi-protected page that requires an autoconfirmed user? https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Anarchism Eliswinterabend (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Eliswinterabend. You can make an edit request here. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

You are auto-confirmed (4 days, 10 edits), so you should be able to edit the article directly. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

How to format names of historical figures

Hello there, I was looking at the article for El Ballestero, and I noticed that Hannibal's name formatted with just his first name, and not as Hannibal Barca. I noticed that this is true also on Hannibal's page. Help would be appreciated. VibGans (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)