Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly. Alternatively, you can contact an experienced editor by visiting your homepage and clicking "Ask your mentor a question about editing".

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

One template documentation page used on multiple templates?

Hi! Template:AI-generated/doc is used on both Template:AI-generated and Template:AI-generated inline. Some of its text seems to be made to change depending on which template it's being used on, but a lot of it isn't, even where it only applies to one of the templates.

For example, the "Template:ChatGPT" redirects here text appears on both templates, Template:AI-generated inline#How to use has incorrect instructions (saying to place it at the top of the article, rather than after the suspicious sentence), and the example in that section uses {{AI-generated}} even though it's on Template:AI-generated inline.

I'm not sure what to do about it, but could someone please fix that? Thanks! 2A00:807:D3:B2CD:7445:39E3:B45E:3EE3 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Feel free to populate Template:AI-generated inline/doc.

Thank you for flagging this issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Video links for author

In the Career section of the article on Anne Applebaum, two boxes titled "Video Links" duplicate a standard external link (to C-Span) at the end of the article. Should these video boxes be retained? Pac Veten (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Pac Veten, I suppose that the idea of the editor(s) who provided the boxes was that the boxes should appear close to the description/mention in the body text of the books/issues/whatever that Applebaum discusses in the total of three videos that are linked to in those boxes. This arrangement is unusual in Wikipedia (usually taken as a minus), though I suppose it's helpful (a plus). The three videos presumably -- I confess that I didn't check -- can be found linked to from that C-Span page (or its continuation) that's one of the external links at the foot of the article. However, that C-Span page (with its continuation) links to a lot more than three of Applebaum's videos. I can understand how you'd think that something about this isn't entirely satisfactory; however, nothing about it strikes me as worrisome. So I'm disinclined to make any change (but open-minded about changes made by others). Uh ... if you'd like to improve this article (which already is pretty good), then I suggest attending to the references currently described simply as "Blob". (Did an editor perhaps intend these descriptions as temporary placeholders but then get distracted by other matters and forget about them?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The question is whether these video boxes are promotional? Pac Veten (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Addition of Pakistani news broadcast channel, GTV News (Pakistan) to Wikipedia.

I want to add a Pakistani news broadcast channel, GTV News (Pakistan), to Wikipedia. Kumailabbasseo (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kumailabbasseo, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

In most cases, the only way to "add something to Wikipedia" is to write a well-sourced and neutral encyclopaedia article about the subject.

This is an exciting and rewarding thing to do; but it is challenging, especially for new editors, and is probably very different from anything you've ever done before.

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) 22:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

How do you know that anything on Wikipedia is true?

"Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?" Bee6680213 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Bee6680213. It looks like you've copied and pasted your question from someone else's question. There should be answers there. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The content is sourced with secondary sources. Sources make that we can verify. Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Quite recently, I encountered two extremely serious errors. One error that had been added very recently provided misinformation about medication that could potentially result in death. I fixed that one. The other error gave misinformation about the law, which potentially could result in a 15-year prison sentence for someone who relied on that. An IP editor added that piece of misinformation over 10 years ago. BTW, chatgpt will provide the same misinformation if you ask it the right way. I've left that error in place. You might think they would have some process to ensure such edits get checked, but as you now know, that's not the case. Fabrickator (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Who is "they"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bee6680213. How do you know anything is true? This is not merely a question about Wikipedia. If you ask Wikipedia users, we will readily agree that Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source, for several reasons. First, anyone can edit and you may catch an article at a time when someone with an axe to grind or simply vandalize has changed the reading to something untrue and unverified. Second, the verifiability policy means that we try to refer readers to sources that are considered reliable but often those sources fail to provide truth. This reliance on external reporting means that biases in that reporting will also show up as bias in Wikipedia articles.

The collective action of thousands of editors will tend to drive the content towards something resembling truth, but a reader wanting to know the real truth about a subject will still have to look at the references and make up their own mind. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is worthless. That is the nicest way I can put it. There's a huge amount of information, there's a lot less "hype" than you might get from a straight web search. And (for better or worse) there's a certain "level" of plausibility (though this is perhaps the most dangerous aspect. ... If a random website says something is true, you might be skeptical, but if Wikipedia says it, then you're likely to accept that it's probably true.)

The ability to check citations is of somewhat questionable usefulness. Sources are not required to be online, and if they are online, they're not required to be free. Now if it's something that has no practical effect if it's right or wrong, then these objections are not especially valid. I identified a couple of very serious errors (in terms of potential for harm) within about a week, and I'm not going around searching for errors or even looking at more than just a handful or articles. One error had just been inserted a couple of days before I discovered it, and I fixed it. The other has been there for ten years, but I chose just to note the error on the article talk page. I would suggest that the notion that all these editors have the effect of "driving content towards the truth" is perhaps a dangerous one. Fabrickator (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Not a single source is perfect with 100% true You can click on a random guy's blog and get the same false information as you may find on Wikipedia. Obvious vandalism and disruptive editing on popular articles are almost instantly reverted, but on more niche articles, having the skills to spot misinformation can be useful DankPedia (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The whole point is that this is not some random guy's blog ... Wikipedia is supposed to be better, because it supposedly cites reliable sources and there are other editors looking over these edits made by other members of the Wikipedia community, all in an effort to maintain its accuracy. What I'm saying is that this can be delusional. Erroneous content gets added, whether done maliciously or not, and the reality is that nobody takes responsibility for the result. Fabrickator (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:TRUTH. We don't claim that anything presented is the truth. We're only as good as the people who choose to help and have the time to invest in poring over the millions of articles to make sure they accurately summarize the sources provided. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This effectively misrepresents the issue and the situation. For one thing, the Wikipedia general disclaimer (footnoted at the bottom of every article) states

The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized, or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.

This rather strongly suggests that the problem is limited to content which has recently been changed, which leads us to weasel wording, described as:

vague, misleading, or ambiguous language intended to give the impression of meaning, truth, or authority without actually making a clear or verifiable statement

which really challenges the legal validity of WP:TRUTH. And oh, by the way, the same policy also states (tongue in cheek):

Where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong.

This being a reference to the apparent claim that everything has been checked against reliable sources, yet this is not true even if you allow for the fact that not everything will be immediately verified. Fabrickator (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTRIGHT: we can try to make it as good as possible, but can't guarantee anything.

The purpose of the Teahouse is to get help with actually editing Wikipedia, not a general forum for discussion. DankPedia (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Ditto

"Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?"

hi Jirapatch Pruksanusak (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jirapatch Pruksanusak This same question was asked and answered a few topics above. Please check out those answers and ask again if you have more questions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Truth and Wikipedia

"Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?" Chanarat.TRI (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

SASS Where is Donation button?

While I have donated to WIKI before I am having trouble finding the "Donate" button again :-( :-( :-( ----MountVic127 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, it's here - https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give Louis (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@MountVic127 You might be interested to first read up on Wikipedia finances. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Crossed out edits

Why are some edits crossed out? Is it a copyright thing?

--pro-anti-air (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pro-anti-air. STRIKEOUT markup is used on talk and discussion pages when a user needs to change what they said, but enough time has elapsed that it would be a problem to simply remove or edit over the relevant text. You would, for instance, use it when someone has already responded, so as to keep the context of what they were responding to. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean in the View history tab, some edits are crossed out and cannot be viewed.

--pro-anti-air (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, those ones are edits/revisions that have been deleted or suppressed, generally for legal or safety reasons. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Pro-anti-air copyright violations are just one reason certain edits will have been made unavailable to view. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Edits can be hidden (they are still there and can be seen by admins; or in severe cases only oversighters) for a number of reasons. In addition to the above-stated copyright violation, these can include:

• Defamation
• People posting others' personal information
• Individuals accidentally posting their own personal information
• Spam
• Illegal content (chiefly CSAM)

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Does this article satisfy NPOV

Modifications have been made to this article. I feel it is written in NPOV, but since I wrote it, I would like to get other opinions from others. DankPedia (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

It's already at AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedily kept. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Roblox games and Wikipedia articles

I suppose that this has most likely been brought up before, but why do only 3 roblox games have Wikipedia articles? So many of these games should be notable for setting records or having controversy.

Lets give an example for the setting records part, Grow a Garden just hit 6.5 million players playing the game at once. The update is only an hour away. That has to be the most CCU of any video game of all time. Why does Grow a Garden not have a Wikipedia article yet?

For the controversy part of this argument, Pet Simulator has been known for being basically child gambling, NFT scandals, creating brand new marketing strategies used in other games, and having some of the most addictive gameplay ever. (and to top it off, a McDonalds promotion.)

The fact that Galarian Corsola has an article but Roblox games that have done some insane stuff (for better or for worse) don’t have articles is kinda crazy to me. Toketaa^talk 13:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Toketaa. Notability on Wikipedia can be a strange concept. Factors like player counts don't contribute to notability. What does matter are secondary sources providing in-depth information on the subject. Without these sources, no such article can be published, because there would be no verifiable information to create an encyclopedic article.

You can try finding these sources yourself if you wish. There's always a chance the article hasn't been created because simply no one wanted to create it yet. Good luck. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 14:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I just created the article for Grow a Garden as there was sufficient coverage of the game in reliable sources. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

To give an example of what the other users have said, The Henry Stickmin Collection has no (English) Wikipedia article despite being very popular. If it receives enough coverage one day I might create the article as I quite like the series, but I don't think that's the case yet. Popularity does not confer notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Have a nice day :) –The Sophocrat (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Add ROBLOX Frosaken

Add ROBLOX Frosaken GinoFCHq (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Sources? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Forsaken ROBLOX GinoFCHq (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Sources? (We're not citing the experience itself.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. FORSAKEN has to meet WP:NVIDEOGAME to have an article on Wikipedia. ^EF⁵ 16:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation Tool

I'm trying DisamagBot but not showing on tool option. Cwater1 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

It is not apparent which tool you mean. Please clarify. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I tried enabling the tool that allows me to fix disambiguation links. User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist Cwater1 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Copying Wikipedia article from other online encyclopedias

In my first task as an editor, Wikipedia gave me the challenge to find a citation in an article about Katyusha rocket launchers. (Katyusha rocket launcher)

While looking for the information, I came across two other sites and nearly cited them until I realized the text of the articles were 100% identical to the Wikipedia entry: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/33152# and https://handwiki.org/wiki/Engineering:Katyusha_rocket_launcher

What is Wikipedia's policy on authors publishing an identical article on other online encyclopedias? Inquisit345 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:REUSE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Trying to Find Good References for a Topic with None

Saw a new state highway sign in my town and wanted to write an article on it (it is a newly resigned highway. There are no articles or sources of any kind on it. Any good ways to find sources for such a situation. Thanks! JeepLibertyIsBestCar (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Subjects must meet WP:N to warrant an article here. It sounds as though the highway does not - but it might in future, so keep looking for sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion page

No matter which Wikipedia I go on, I can't seem to find a page for general discussion about the Wikipedia. Are there any pages like that, since I know the Teahouse is for help. AtTheTownHouse (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of possible venues for discussion "about Wikipedia" – is there a specific question/issue you have in mind? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

suggestions, i guess AtTheTownHouse (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

AtTheTownHouse: Suggestions about what? Can you be more specific? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

nevermind, I'm not really sure. if possible, could you end this discussion in some way or another? AtTheTownHouse (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

AtTheTownHouse: Not a problem. It just occurred to me that the community portal might have some pointers if you have a general idea what you're looking for. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

AtTheTownHouse, there are six different Village pump pages for open discussion. They are Policy, Technical, Proposals, Idea Lab, WMF and Miscellaneous. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hello! :D Do the Smithsonian magazine and New Scientist websites count as reliable sources? Thank you! NectarLupine (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello NectarLupine, and welcome to the Teahouse. Questions about specific publications, as a whole, asking if they can be considered reliable are misguided. Yes, some of the articles published by those magazines or websites might be considered reliable sources for some purposes. But you always have to evaluate a source in context and that depends on more considerations than where it was published. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

In general, yes, though some caveats apply, such as self-publication, if the author is also the subject of the article where you wish to cite the work.

As always, we can only comment generally, unless you provide specific example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Too overwhelming?

Trying to setup a page, (andy.tookey) but rejected due to a lack of links/citations? Have tried going through the site but its too overwhelming! Can I just change wording to go to a hyperlink or something? Must be hundreds of verifiable articles on line about the topic i'm adding. Also want to add more info with the links to make it verifiable but honestly this is all new to me and i don't know where to start! Andy.tookey (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Andy.tookey Hello. User:Andy.tookey is your WP:USERPAGE, it's meant to write a little of who you are and what you do/want to do on Wikipedia.

Making an acceptable WP-article without knowing how to edit WP is hard. A common advice is to "just" edit for a while first, to try to get a hang of this place.

That said, your first hurdle is "Can a WP-article about your chosen subject be written at all?" Start with reading WP:BACKWARD. If you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem!", move on to WP:YFA. If your choice of topic fails WP:N, the article will not be accepted. If you decide to go ahead, you need to learn how to add references correctly, WP:TUTORIAL can help with that. This is crucial, and I can't stress that enough. Really. If you intend to write about a living person, read WP:BLP. If you intend to write about yourself (WP:COI), the short advice is "don't."

Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Andy.tookey, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes, Wikipedia can be overwhelming, and especially if you plunge straight into the deepest part of it by trying to create an article. 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.

One thing I would point out: your words "Trying to setup a page" suggests to me that you are thinking of Wikipedia as like aocial media, where you set up a page "for" somebody or something, and it belongs to that somebody or something, for them to say what they want. Wikipedia is utterly different from this: the appropriate phrase is write an encyclopaedia article about somebody or something - 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 exclusively 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. ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

How to add outlined map to wikipedia

I want to add outlined maps from open street map like This and This one to some of the national parks and protected areas like Sariska Tiger Reserve but the outline is not showing on wikipedia. These articles have outlined maps on openstreet maps. Wikiwizardinho (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for submission

Hi! I’ve created a draft article on Neeraj Jangra at User:MediaScope2025 but I’m not autoconfirmed yet. Can someone please help move it to the Draft namespace as Draft:Neeraj Jangra for submission? Thanks MediaScope2025 (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@MediaScope2025, it's now at Draft:Neeraj Jangra. I would note two things: first, you have not cited any sources. For an article to be accepted, the topic should be notable. That is generally achieved by having at least three reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. There's useful information about how to choose good sources and avoid bad sources here. Second, the draft has external sources linked from the text body, which is generally not permitted (see WP:EL). You should move them to the External links section. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, @SunloungerFrog. I appreciate the clarification. I’m currently in the process of gathering reliable, independent sources with significant coverage and will update the draft accordingly. I’ll also make sure to move all external links from the body to the “External links” section as per WP:EL guidelines. Your guidance is very helpful as I work on improving the draft. Cheers! MediaScope2025 (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

If that's what you're doing, then you're doing it backwards. You should first gather the sources, then draft the article based on those sources. I suggest you try that next time. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia as sources

If Wikipedia isnt a reliable source since a page might be vandalized, can we use a revision of a page to cite sources?Iwillpeeonadime (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is never considered a reliable source. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Iwillpeeonadime Any decent article will itself have sourcing for the statements it makes. Transfer these to the new article after checking they do say what you have summarised. Of course, you can WP:WIKILINK the previous article as well if that will help readers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Requesting help from a neutral editor for article on Muhammad Aman Ullah

Hello, I’m Muhammad Aman Ullah.

I am the subject of a draft Wikipedia article based entirely on reliable, independent sources such as Amnesty International, The News on Sunday, Associated Press, and others. I’ve already disclosed my conflict of interest (COI) on my user page.

Because I’m directly involved in the topic, I’m requesting assistance from a neutral editor who could either review or help create the article to ensure neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia standards.

If someone is willing to help, I can provide a complete draft and list of references.

Thank you very much in advance for your time and help. M.A.U-Mr.Human (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Though it is inadvisable for you to write about yourself(see the autobiography policy), you may submit a draft for review using the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@M.A.U-Mr.Human Welcome to the Teahouse. Please would you provide a link to the draft article to which you are referring. There is no Draft:Muhammad Aman Ullah, and the subject of Mohammed Amanullah is deceased. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ve created the draft here: Draft:Muhammad Aman Ullah (activist). I welcome any feedback or improvements. M.A.U-Mr.Human (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Your draft is lacking independent, reliable soruces for many of its statements. It will not be published without them.

See WP:FIRST for guidance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy. I’ve now revised the draft with inline citations for each key statement, referencing reliable third-party sources including Amnesty International, AP, The News on Sunday, and Free Inquiry. I appreciate any further feedback. M.A.U-Mr.Human (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I've applied some fixes. The best way to get further feedback now is to submit the article for review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy, for your guidance and improvements. I’ve submitted the draft for review as suggested. I appreciate your time and support throughout the process. M.A.U-Mr.Human (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@M.A.U-Mr.Human I've made some minor additions to your draft. At present, cites #3 to #5 don't link correctly to any webpages: they give errors. Your draft will certainly be declined if that isn't fixed. Use the template {{cite web}} and see also the basic help page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Want help

 Courtesy link: Kumaoni Rajput § Clans

I want help to add waldia caste in kumaoni rajput clans list SATENDERA72 (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Please be bold, and do so. You will need to cite a reliable source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Can they?

I was reading WK user page guidelines and I saw something strange, "Wikipedia is not your personal homepages" and you cannot promote your social medias. But, [this user] correct me if i am not sure, does uses the promotion. I do not know this person but I just came upon his account and noticed the disorder. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wh67890 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Regular contributors are—reasonably—given leeway to mention their external accounts. The issue is when people are here solely or mainly to promote themselves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

That Makes sense. Thanks Wh67890 (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wh67890 I don't think that is a problem the relevant part of the guidance at WP:UPYES is You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language. However, if a link to your home page is the only thing on your userpage, this may be seen as an attempt at self-promotion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for clarifying. Wh67890 (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Reading the policy @Mike Turnbull linked, it says "Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia." is banned. Basically, don't put an ad for your small business. But linking to social medias is fine, I think. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

request to pubblish sandbox draft

Hello! I have written a biographical draft in my user sandbox and would like help moving it to the article mainspace. Here is the draft: User:WikiMuralsNati/sandbox. Could someone please review it and help me publish it? Thank you! WikiMuralsNati (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @WikiMuralsNati. I have dropped some comments that'll help you on the draft. You may also want to review WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for advice about writing about yourself. It is not recommended. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

draft translation thing

back when i didn't have enough edits to use the translate feature on wikipedia i translated Draft:TNT (Chinese boy group) manually. it already had three languages so i translated it to english. it eventually got relegated to the draftspace due to its notability being called into question. i have enought edits to translate it normally but thats kinda weird since the manual stub got rejected. i don't really know what to do with this draft at the moment Plastixfy (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Plastixfy, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The different language versions of Wikipedia are independent projects with their own policies and standards. This means that just because there is an article in one Wikipedia does not necessarily mean that the subject will meet the standards for another Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is one of the strictest on citing sources and notability.

As far as I can tell using Google Translate, none of the three sources cited in the draft meets the triple requirement of reliability, independence, and significant coverage of the group (see WP:42). Without several sources which do meet all three criteria, it is not possible to establish that the group is notable, and no article is possible in English Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense. Thanks Plastixfy (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine I just added some more sources. Could you please check if meets the criteria yet? Plastixfy (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Archived links

Why do some pages have references with "Archived from the original on ____" links and some don't. See for instance Pope Francis, which has the majority of references archived on various dates. Is this something that ideally should be done to every reference possible? And what is the best way to use this feature? Thanks. PhilipCheesesteak (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @PhilipCheesesteak, we archive links because the "host", the current website/link, may stop hosting that content or change what is at the URL. Help:Archiving a source has some great information. My preferred method is to run the InternetArchiveBot (link here) with the box ticked for "Add archives to all non-dead references". Happy editing, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 23:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

How do I remove a "COI" paragraph from a wikipedia page?

Someone - NOT ME! - wrote a long biography of me on Wikipedia. With help from some terrific wikipedia editors, I added some information, and corrected some spelling and mis-information. However now there is a large paragraph at the beginning of the Bio stating: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." But nothing on the "talk page" deals with this issue, and I can't find out how to get rid of the COI designation... I didn't initiate or write this long biography of me - but it is very nice and I'd like it to stay but not sound as though it is not viable please??? PLEASE HELP!!!! THe site is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Bloemink&action=edit

THANK YOU! Barbara Bloemink (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Barbarabloemink, welcome to Wikipedia. The talk page is used to communicate with other editors about that article. That tag was placed there by an editor who believes that there may be a Conflict of Interest. Another unrelated editor can remove the tag if they disagree, you may not. It is there to let others know that it may need some work. Hope that helps, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 23:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Barbarabloemink, I removed the tag with the edit summary This article is the result of collaboration between several highly experienced independent editors with disclosed input from the article subject. See lengthy talk page discussions. The tag is not appropriate without a detailed explanation on the talk page. Please use formal edit requests on the talk page in the future, instead of editing the article directly. Deverting vandalism is an exception. Cullen328 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Podcasts

Does Wikipedia allow the sole source of a statement in the text to be a podcast without a transcript? An example is note 19 of Abraham Lincoln and slavery. I wanted to see if the source cited in note 19 supports the statement in the text, but I will not spend time listening to a podcast to do so. With a written source, one can do a word search and quickly determine whether it supports the statement in the text. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a requirement that to use a podcast as a source, a transcript must be available. Just as there is no requirement that sources be in English(WP:NOENG) or more generally no requirement that a source be easy or free to access. If you want to verify a source, you need to do the work needed to do so- whether it's listen to a podcast, go to the library to dig a copy of an old newspaper out of its archives, or fly to another country and learn its language. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Listing humorous vandalism

On my user page, I was considering creating a list of funny vandalism that I've seen on Wikipedia, but I don't know if that would be allowed as it might come across as encouraging vandalism. Would this be allowed? --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 23:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Not-cheesewhisk3rs. That would probably not be allowed. (WP:BEANS) Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay then. I've seen multiple users do it though, does it get removed from their pages if they list interesting vandalism? --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 23:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Opinion from other editors could be different. I've certainly seen others agree with my assessment. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

How do you add links to articles?

I want to know how to add links to articles. 174.45.1.236 (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello IP. When editing the source code, surrounding text with two brackets will make it a link. For example, typing [[this]] would make it become this. If you want to change the destination, typing [[that|this]] becomes this. Help:Linking has more information. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

About article class assessments

Hello!

I was wondering how frequently articles are assessed for quality and have their classes changed. I've been making contributions to an article in an attempt to increase its score as much as possible (I don't know if I've done enough to increase it from C-Class to B-Class yet, though) and wanted to know about the process behind it.

I'm assuming that it has to be done by certain select people and can't be changed by any editor, but I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure.

Thank you! Reverosie (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Reverosie. There are only two class ratings that are really important and involve multiple editors and a formal process. Those are Good articles and Featured articles. To be frank, almost no active editor cares whether one specific article is rated C or B, and the distinction is highly subjective. Those decisions are made by any individual editor including you. Some editors are reluctant to upgrade articles that they have improved, but personally I have no problem with editors doing that. If you mention which article, I will take a look. Cullen328 (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! The article is Baldwin IV of Jerusalem and I've been working on improving it since I made my account. I'm wondering if it would be worthy of B-Class (Good class in the future), but since I'm the one who made these edits I'm highly reluctant to change the article's status myself. Reverosie (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

See if the article complies with Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria. If not make changes to improve it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I do think that it does, but I don't want to be hasty since I made a lot of these improvements myself. I'm still new to Wikipedia and I'm therefore still learning the written and unwritten rules :) Reverosie (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Although technically not its purpose, a lot of editors post articles whom they want an independent editor to assess or do not have time to assess themselves at WP:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment, if you're really worried about bias (a good thing!). Personally, the article needs a copyedit for essay-like wording (such as During the regency, it became clear that the king was indeed affected... - "indeed"? "became clear"? etc. before becoming B-class. If you wish, you can request a copyedit at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, though it may take a while. Thanks for your improvements! GoldRomean (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the feedback! This is what I was wondering! I'll make these edits to the best of my ability and make the article more concise. Then, I'll see if it qualifies. Thank you so much again for clearing this up for me. Reverosie (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

It's been done! Reverosie (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

What if the image isn’t copyrighted?

I would like to upload a photo that I own that pertains to a wiki, but I don’t know if it would be allowed or not since it isn’t a copyrighted image. Jawsss (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jawsss: Depends on what you mean by "own". Normally the person that took the photo owns the copyright. And the default is that it is copyright. So if you took the photo, you own the copyright, and have the right to release it under a CC-BY license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

By “own” I meant I bought it. The photo is about 80 years old now, and the photographer is most likely dead. Jawsss (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

A photograph from 1940 is not yet old enough to be in the public domain because of when it was taken.

There are circumstances in which photos can be used under a fair use justification, regardless of their copyright status. See WP:NFC. These are quite restrictive rules, but if they apply, the photo may be used. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

On Tulsi Gabbard switching parties

Would Tulsi Gabbard fit on the List of United States representatives who switched parties?

Tulsi Gabbard ran as a Democrat from 2002 to 2022, then as independent from 2022 to 2024, then Republican from 2024 onwards. Would she fit on this list, or does she need to have switched parties while in the House of Representatives? ALittleClass (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)