Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

February 8

My information is wrong

Hi, there is a Dutch page of me, because I’m an actress in the Netherlands, but the information on it is wrong. It has the wrong birthdate and place where I was born. I am born on September 23rd 1972 in Huntinton, NY, USA. Can this be corrected please? Thanks, best Nina Deuss Ninadeuss1 (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Ninadeuss1, this is the helpdesk for English Wikipedia, the helpdesk for Dutch Wikipedia is nl:Help:Helpdesk. I have removed the date of birth from nl:Nina Deuss because the article did not give a source for it. TSventon (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ninadeuss1: Please use "articles" when your talking about articles, not pages. Pages are social media name that no meaning on here. Only use articles when your talking about article. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 20:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

scope_creep, every Wikipedia article is a web page. And many Wikipedia pages (such as this one, "Help desk") do not purport to be articles and are not articles. Ninadeuss1, NB Huntington, New York (nl:Huntington (New York)) has a ⟨g⟩ in its name: Huntington. -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

To add to @User:Hoary's comment: if a speaker of another language comes to a help desk seeking help in removing a piece of misinformation, I don't think scolding them for their choice of vocabulary is, well, helpful. Musiconeologist (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Warmly seconded, Musiconeologist. (By contrast, feel free to scold me, scope_creep. If an indignant condemnation is sufficiently amusing, I repost it on my user page.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not scolding anyone I can assure you and i'm sorry if it is sounds like that. I worry that underlying nomenclature of Wikipedia is slow changing in a way that is perhaps to our long term detriment. In saying its a web page is true, everything is a web page on the web, but it is like saying a car is an engine with an axle and wheels. Its not the same and its not the same. Language and way folk speak, changes, which is a natural thing, but we have a particular set of procedures, policies, essays and so that makes up Wikipedia, which defines what is what, what is an article, the nomenclature. When we change that it is difficult for newbs to adapt and slowly moves us from what is considered natural for us. The underlying reality slowly changes. Article term is always never mentioned now in talk conversations, because social media is now set on page. It is not a page, it is an article. Please use it when refering to it as such. scope_creep^Talk 07:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I understand your point, and I'm sorry if my own comment came over harshly. It's important that people realise that an article isn't a profile page but an encyclopaedia entry. (The Dutch article about Nina is basically a one sentence introduction plus a filmography, so nothing like a profile page. Maybe two sentences if I'm misremembering.)

I have my own worry, about the kind of first impression that newcomers get of how welcome they are, and whether they then stay. I was coming from there. It's easy for someone's first few interactions to consist purely of various people telling them everything they're doing wrong.

Musiconeologist (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Article and acronym identification

Evening folks!! Does anybody know what this is "W. M. of the Royal Society of Natural Scientists in Moscow". Is there any article on Wikipedia on this and what does the W.M. mean. Its concerns the Dionýz Štúr article. Also what would the "Natural Sciences Association for Styria in Graz" be, if there is an article on here. scope_creep^Talk 18:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I have responded at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Article and acronym identification. TSventon (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Answered at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Article and acronym identification. scope_creep^Talk 14:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

2017 wikitext editor is broken

Hi all, is it just me? The 2017 wikitext editor that I'm used to using just recently seems to have disabled the ability to edit references (this page would not let me upload a screenshot, but the contents of a citation between <ref> and </ref> tags shows up in green and can't be clicked on or edited).

I'm at a loss for why this is occurring, could someone enlighten me or is something wrong with my setup? Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This was part of a WP:THURSDAY update. The ref tags are highlighted in green now presumably so it's easier to spot them, but I personally haven't had any issues clicking on and changing them. You might be able to get more answers from the people who hang out at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try there. It looks like it does let me edit but the cursor is not visible - I'm on Firefox, but I see a similar visual bug in Safari. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

February 9

update confirmed-protected edit request ?

I have a pending c-p edit request on the Alison Weir (activist) page which consists of a request to move a large segment of text from one section to another. As my edit request has languished there so long, the text in question has gone through some editing including some deletions. Am I permitted to edit the request to update it to the current version? Kenfree (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kenfree: I would think you should probably strike or withdraw your initial edit request as no longer relevant and create a new edit request. A more experienced editor in edit requests may correct me, though. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Skarmory, thank you for your reply. I would happily follow your suggestion if it were the case that the new edit would receive prompt action, but you see, if that were the case then this problem would never have arisen in the first place. In point of fact the edit request was submitted a month ago, and has happily worked its way up to sixth place in the backlog. I really don't want to add another month+ to the waiting time to get this edit acted on, so unless you have another idea, I guess I'll just have to leave things as they are, and let whichever editor acts on it when it finally reaches the front of the backlog queue sort it out... Kenfree (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kenfree: your 11 January 2025 request has been discussed at length since 14 January and two other editors disagreed with it. It could probably be closed as not done. You could also add a reply withdrawing the request and continue the discussion about individual claims in later sections. TSventon (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

They may have disagreed with it, but neither formally acted on their disagreement, and one of them demurred in deference to other editors who might have a deeper understanding of the issues involved. I still feel that these contentious allegations about Weir properly belong in the "Controversy" section, so why would I withdraw the request? At some point it will reach the front of the backlog queue and hopefully a fresh observer will take some action on it... Kenfree (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to transclude an article lead but not the hatnote at the top?

The lead for the article Torino scale starts with a hatnote: This article is about Torino scale concept. For current ratings, see List of objects with non-zero Torino ratings When the lead is transcluded in to List of objects with non-zero Torino ratings the hat note is bogus. Can it be excluded? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I've not really played around with this, so my apologies if I'm just showing my ignorance, but would putting <noinclude></noinclude> round the hatnote do the job? It's going to be unwanted wherever it's transcluded, I'd have thought. (There's information at wp:PARTTRANS.) Musiconeologist (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! As it turns out another editor removed the source hatnote, so I don't have the problem now. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Links to websites without content

Is there a template for indentification of links that go to websites without any content? (e.g. this link and its mirror on the Wayback Machine, which are used as references for the article on The Coffin of Andy and Leyley) Yyannako (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

That link does load for me, after a very long wait, and eventually produces a page with the right title. So it's not a {{dead link}}, which is what I'd use if it really did go to an empty page. But there might be a better template that I'm unaware of. (There's a list of related ones in the See also section of the {{dead link}} page.) Musiconeologist (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't go to an empty page per se, but the content is "Error Reference: Store_9511701_undefined

Loading chunk 4268 failed.

(missing: https://store.fastly.steamstatic.com/public/javascript/applications/store/events.js?contenthash=6ee5147628ca625579b3)" which isn’t exceedingly useful as a citation. Yyannako (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah. I got a cookie popup which I rejected, then actual content about the subject, but after a very long wait. It appeared just as I was about to leave the page. There was a heading The Coffin of Andy and Leyley, and some text about it that I didn't read in detail, all on top of a large background image. It was a very graphics-heavy page. Anyway I think it's an unreliable link more than a dead one. Musiconeologist (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

February 10

Parsing down overly detailed article

I'm looking at the article on Nolan Higdon and it seems overly detailed relative to the notability of the subject. The article subject is a scholar and author and the article lists every news outlet he's been on, discusses three of his books, and covers his various views with citations to various op-eds he has written or articles he has been interviewed for. Roughly one third of the references are to things he's written. This seems egregious to me, and may be indicative of COI editing.

How do I determine how much of this article is worth keeping? Truthnope (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

He's an academic. Academics teach and write. Foremost (often but not always) among what they write are their books. It seems entirely right to me that an article about an academic should briefly describe his or her books and summarize the reception they've received (always citing reviews and the like, not mere blurbs). The list of his other publications doesn't seem too long to me, but I find it unlikely that no DOI or other link can be found for any of these. (If inclusion of a piece by him in a list isn't worth the effort of searching for a link and providing it, then the piece itself isn't worth listing.) I noticed the "references" to things written or cowritten by him. A number of these -- perhaps most of them, but I haven't bothered to look -- really aren't references and shouldn't be presented as such; they should instead be notes (easily created with Template:Efn). -- Hoary (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi all, Is there anyone available to help me with my article? I need help with citations, and getting them is a little complicated, but I will appreciate anyone with experience at creating wiki pages. Botband78 (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I can help! running over to the article now! Thebest8382 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link Draft:Paul Rantao. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Orange Mike,

Thanks for your quick response! Can I reach out to you tomorrow? It is currently 01:05 am my time. I'm looking forward to speaking with you. Thank you, again! Botband78 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Botband78, OrangeMike only provided a courtesy link to the draft. It was @Thebest8382 that offered to help. ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that, thank you! I will reach out to @Thebest8382 Botband78 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Why do wikipedia lists need references?

Hi, I'm was working on adding references, but one thing has me befuzzled, and I can't find info about it online. Why do wikipedian articles about lists, need lists?

For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regional_airlines

This article clearly is just categorizing airlines by region, and each link is hyperlinked to its main article, yet it requires references according to the template?

Unless the template is wrong or something, how could I find references? Thebest8382 (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

It needs references so that it can be verified as true. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 03:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Thebest8382 The guidance is at WP:STANDALONE. I think that the issue in this case is that there are no general citations showing that anyone has discussed regional airlines as a group in reliable sources. Such sources would be cited at the top of the list article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Thebest8382 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

RfCs

Is there a time limit on RfCs or are they only overcome by other RfCs? Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I suppose you are talking about a closed RfC? It all depends on WP:CONSENSUS; and consensus can change, especially if there's new arguments, or there's new information coming up. As it is, I wouldn't restart an RfC only some weeks after the last one was held. To be more precise, we would need more information about which page you're talking. Lectonar (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

For example, there was an RfC [1] at the Julian Assange article in 2020. It was about keeping a sentence in the introduction. This sentence is long gone. Does this matter? Time has passed, and there are many intervening events. Or should there be a second RfC to remove it?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Need help importing Lua modules to my wiki

I've imported LUA modules to my wiki, but I still receive "not found" errors when I import templates. Here's an example:

https://bgr.sgk.temporary.site/index.php/Module:Yesno

I'm receiving an error saying that the Module:Yesno is not found, despite having imported it. If anyone can tell me what I need to do to resolve these errors, I would appreciate it. Humanipedia (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a question about the mediawiki software, not about the English language Wikipedia. see [2]. -Arch dude (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Humanipedia: Comparing Special:Version#mw-version-ext and https://bgr.sgk.temporary.site/index.php/Special:Version#mw-version-ext, you are missing a lot of things the English Wikipedia has. You can do without a lot of them but ParserFunctions is needed by a large part of our templates, e.g. #switch in Template:YesNo. https://bgr.sgk.temporary.site/index.php/Module:Yesno should be based on Module:Yesno, not Template:Yesno. Modules and templates use different languages. There may be other problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much.01:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC) Humanipedia (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Marlborough College

Please, could the 1891 black and white photo be placed up earlier (up higher) in this article to reflect its historical nature, with the contemporary photos underneath it. I cannot seem to be able to rearrange the order. Thank you in advance. Srbernadette (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I fixed it in this edit. There were two newer images placed at the very top in the source code but they didn't appear until after the infobox on the right. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Long waiting time for wiki page approval

Hello,

My page was declined and I've updated it since but no one has checked it yet. How long should this take as it's been over a month? Draft:Jakob Hallgren: Revision history - Wikipedia Thank you. Roxanabovia (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxanabovia (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

You need to resubmit {{subst:submit}} Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Roxanabovia: Just a bit of advice that you'll want to review the specifics over at WP:NPOLITICIAN regarding politicians, and WP:NBASIC regarding people in general. Also, it's far better to have 3 excellent, secondary, reliable sources that actually talk about the person, as opposed to hundreds of words and citations that simply assert basic facts or trivial information (confirming employment, etc). People can spend many hours of their week putting together a page that does not meet those two requirements above, and no amount of editing will fix the issue. TiggerJay (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Roxanabovia. As @Jimfbleak stated, you didn't actually re-submit for review. Click the big blue Resubmit button. However it is worth noting that due to the backlog there is a wait time for review of up to 3 months. qcne (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

In its current form, Draft:Jakob Hallgren has problems because it is written and sourced like a résumé. This is a common problem with draft articles. If it was reviewed again today it would probably be turned down for article mainspace.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Roxanabovia I'm not sure what you are trying to show in the "Media" section but filling it with external links is not the way to go. See WP:External links for the guidance: we cite sources and use external links (usually) only in a separate section at the end of the main article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Roxanabovia Am I right in thinking that this began as a translation of the Swedish article that you've also worked on? If so, you also need to include an acknowledgement of that, for copyright reasons. (It's so work by the editors of the Swedish original is attributed to them here.) There's information on how to do it at help:Translation#Attribution. Musiconeologist (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Roxanabovia, the photograph of Jakob Hallgren is described both as from UI (his employer) and as your "own work". I infer that you are a fellow-employee of UI. If this is so, you have a conflict of interest when writing about him. Do I misunderstand? -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

How to?

I'm trying to add a list of Edwin Tunis's books to the article about him. When I try to space it, the titles go AAAAA, not A [line] A [line] and so on. What am I doing wrong? Chrijeff (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chrijeff: If you've got a list, use list markup:

• One
• Two
• Three

See Help:List. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

How to cite different pages of the same publication correctly using the cite tool in visual editor?

Hi all

I'm working with a subject matter expert on creating new articles for different species and we have an issue and I'm not sure where to ask for help exactly. We want to cite the ame publication multiple times in the article, but we want to cite different pages of the publication for each fact we add. Is there an accepted best way of doing this? We can add multiple page numbers to a reference but I can't work out how to tie a sepcific use of a reference to a specific page number. I guess I could include them as different references and have one page number for each use but that doesn't seem right. I remember something about nested refs but I'm not sure if that's the correct approach and now I can't find the instructions for it.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

{{sfn}} does just that. For each {{sfn}} template, all you need is the author surname(s) (first four only when there are more than four), the publication year, and |p= or |pp= for pagination. {{sfn}} will create a link to the long-form reference ({{cite book}} etc).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Rp is a way, but I don't know how well it works with VE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I have been hassling the guys working on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMDE_Technical_Wishes/Sub-referencing for a long time. If anyone is able to get it moving I think it would be useful for a lot of people. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

February 11

Does cross checking supposed locations with satellite imagery count as original research

I occasionally cross check wikipedia coordinates or locations with satellite imagery to fact check it, I have been told that this is "original research", can somebody whether this counts as original research Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac I often do that myself. I don't see how it could be construed as original research. In fact Wikipedia:No original research#Acceptable media specifically permits a straightforward reference to a map. I suggest you discuss this with the objecting editor. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Please link where you were told this so we can see the circumstances. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

User talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim propaganda on Facebook pageviews

This redirect made its way to Xtools TopViews, where it suddenly got a million views in a day. I can't find any news coverage of this, and the views are almost exclusively mobile. Both of those typically mean there's some automated activity. The desktop views spike around the same time, and there's a slightly sharper-than-desktop rise (peak of 150 views/day) in spider views. Facebook's (the redirect target) views do increase somewhat the same day, which I didn't think was typical of bot views. What (if knowable) is happening here? JayCubby 02:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what's happenned. I have some hypothesis in mind but I don't think one of these is true.

I don't think what's happenned will be knowable a day. Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

My other possible theory is that a link was shared around, in, say Pakistan (I assume Pakistan is like India in the sense that the vast majority of users are on mobile devices). However, Wikinav doesn't work on redirects and I don't know how to dig through the referrer data dumps where the answer might lie. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter. JayCubby 14:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

this was published by Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 18 January, so that or something similar could have been shared over the following days. TSventon (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, though I still don't understand why the redirect gets ten thousandfold more views than the target. Maybe this has to do with how redirect views are counted? JayCubby 15:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I am speculating, but the number of views for the redirect suggests that if a link was shared, it pointed to the redirect. TSventon (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

something about hillary jocelyn wolf

wikipedia, when are you going to put in age 48 at your bio for hillary jocelyn wolf?

because she had her birthday a few days ago on friday.

and i don't think you shouldn't update the info at her bio her just because she's not appeared in any movie for the past 33 years. Robby mercier (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I fixed it. The page needed to be purged. --Viennese Waltz 08:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk page formatting

Hello,

On Talk:Coal in Turkey my new entries are getting put inside an old box - can anyone think them outside the box please? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 Fixed! The table in Talk:Coal_in_Turkey/GA1 was missing an end (|}) Ultraodan (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of Fair Use Image

I recently uploaded the logo for the Northern Lakes Conference to Wikipedia as part of the article under Fair Use provisions, pending my contact with the creator for permission to use. I heard back from him yesterday, and he gave me permission to use the logo in the article. I would like to delete the current logo and re-upload with the proper permissions. How do I go about doing this? Moserjames79 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Northern Lakes Conference

You can use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard to upload a non-free file. Note that images here must be reduced in quality; if you don't or can't do this manually, a bot will do it automatically. There isn't an image on the article right now, so don't worry about that. Be sure to fill out all of the boxes and ensure you have a valid fair use argument.

Note that photographers allowing their work to be used "on Wikipedia only" or some variant is not enough to use the image on Commons; images must be freely licenced, including for unapproved and commercial use, to be put on Commons. See more at WP:NFC. Departure– (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Recently posted draft article (Fred Tomlinson Choirmaster)

Today i submitted the article mentioned above, and received a comment that I had not apparently inserted any references. I tried to open the article to edit it to include the references that are in the draft. Unfortunately I couldn't access the submitted draft. I went back to the article and amended the style of referencing. Can I now submit the edited draft or should I try again to access the submitted article and edit it within Wikipedia? If so, can you please tell me how to do it? I also need to know how to add some photos but do not have copyright on them. Could you please suggest how I do this? Many thanks. Geoff Blow Geoff Blow (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Fred Tomlinson Choirmaster. Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia.

That said, you would need to know the copyright of the images involved in order to know how to upload them. If you cannot determine the copyright, you must assume you can't use them. See WP:UPIMAGE for more information.

I would suggest that you see Referencing for Beginners and edit the references in accordingly before submitting. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Geoff Blow. It's a bit hard to work out, because you haven't yet done your citation in one of the usual Wikipedia ways, but I think that the great majority of the draft is cited to the book "History of Rossendale Male Voice Choir". You don't give a publisher, but as far as I can tell, that is published by the choir itself.

This means that it is a self-published source, and in Wikipedia's terms it is neither a reliable source nor an independent source.

Such sources can be used in a limited way, as explained in the first of those links; but the bulk of the content of an article must come from independent, reliable sources (see WP:42), and in particular such sources are required in order for the subject to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - without which, no article is possible.

The BBC documentary you mention is probably a reliable source, but depending on how much Tomlinson and his associates were involved, much of it may not be independent in the sense required.

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.

Creating an article should start with finding several sources that meet the conditions in WP:42, and if they cannot be found, the project will not be successful however hard you try. Writing without first finding such sources is like building a house without building the foundations, or even surveying the plot to make sure it is fit to build on: at best, you are going to have to go back and underpin everything.

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. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)