Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1253

Archive 1250

Archive 1251

Archive 1252

Archive 1253

Archive 1254

Source dispute?

Resolved

 – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 13:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Sparkle & Fade, and I am working on the article Baldwin's Tower. While sifting through sources, I notice several sources seem to cast doubt on whether or not Baldwin IX died or was imprisoned there, with a relative balance between them. I'm not sure exactly how to go about this, and a second opinion would be appreciated. Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 05:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Which sources exactly are contradictory to each others ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The first source ("Archaeologist Uncovers 13th Century Monastery Dining Room in Bulgaria's Veliko Tarnovo") and second source (Bousfield and Richardson) both explicitly say Baldwin died or "ended his days" there, while the Sofia Globe only attributes his death location to be the tower itself. The Balkans, a historical book by William Miller from 1896 with a passage about Baldwin's death, leaves his death location ambiguous. But after searching through Google Books, this book says he probably died there, three other books don't mention his death and only his imprisonment, this history book only say she was imprisoned in the castle and the tower got it's name from it, this 1888 book only says Baldwin was said to have been imprisoned there, among others. No idea how to go around it, and I'm not sure if I should move this to the Help Desk or not. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 06:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if "Help Desk" can be useful.

It's wrote on the "Help Desk" "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."

I think you should use "Talk:Baldwin I, Latin Emperor" even if I think it's unlikely you get an answer.

You can also try one of the Wikiprojects concerned by this article.

Are you saying some sources said he died in "Tarnovo" when others said he died elsewhere or not mentionning his death at all ?

If all sources that are mentionning his place of death say. This is "Tarnovo".

Does they mention exactly the same place in "Tarnovo" or a different place in the same city ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle & Fade I forget to say that you can read the next lines on "Help Desk".

"If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!"

[...]

New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places)." Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

anatole-berthe, it's generally preferred if you don't put excessive breaks in your lines. Back on topic, I felt like moving it to the Help Desk because I am no longer a 'newer editor' and thus this page is not targetted for me. Again, the dispute is over whether Baldwin IX died in the tower or not, or if he was verifiably imprisoned there. I'm saying some of the sources died in the tower while others cast doubt on it, meanwhile others cast doubt if he was ever imprisoned there at all (using words like 'probably', 'allegedly', or attributing it to legend). That's all, thanks! —Sparkle and Fade (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Sparkle and Fade, how about something like the following? It is commonly said that Baldwin was imprisoned in, and eventually killed in, the tower.{{Efn|Some sources report this as fact.<ref>First source</ref><ref>Second source</ref> Others hedge with "probably", "allegedly", or similar.<ref>Third source</ref><ref>Fourth source</ref> Others again dismiss it as mere legend.<ref>Fifth source</ref><ref>Sixth source</ref>}} -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was just worried because I wanted to avoid weasel words and I was also unsure of what to do. Thanks again, Hoary! —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 13:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

My Draft submission

Hi All,

I am new to Wikipedia, and was wondering if someone could review my draft submission for me. I am having some difficulty getting this over the line.

Thanks! David Change (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

David Change You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending; please be patient. Asking for a review on top of submitting it will not speed the process, which is entirely volunteer-driven. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, like I said, I am new to this and just checking. I am not trying to speed up the process. Rather to ensure my draft is as best it can be, prior to a further review of my draft.

Thanks! David Change (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I made a few modest changes that may improve the odds of it being accepted. Also restored the second Declined notice, as these must remain while a draft is being considered. David notMD (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this, much appreciated. David Change (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Paul Calvert (whistleblower) now accepted by a Reviewer. There will be a delay possibly as long as three months before a search engine such as Google will 'see' this article, but a search within Wikipedia will find it. I added your article to the list of people at Paul Calvert. David notMD (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to request Un Deletion of a page (Through a discussion or elsewhere)

Hi! I am actually interested in creating a Redirect for a page that was previously deleted. The article is Gordon Centre which was deleted in 2016. I was wondering, if I created a redirect, would it meet Wikipedia's Speedy Deletion Criteria? I previously did it on 2026 Indian Premier League due to being previously deleted, but it was rejected due to being about article rather than redirect. Is there a way to open a discussion about the article to Un Delete it and change it to a redirect possibly? Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere, it wouldn't be CSD'd if what you created was a redirect. Just go ahead and create one if you like. -- asilvering (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering Good news. I have just discovered Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It might be the harder way, but it is my preferred way of doing it. You might be a bit shocked, but I am willing to wait. Should I do that? Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No. You don't want the content undeleted; you just want to create a redirect. So create the redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering I suppose your message dated "APRIL/20/2025" at "05:44 UTC" is a reference to "Be bold" concept. Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No, not really. It's not a particularly bold action to create a redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering I forgot to mention that I was going to request it be a redirect. My idea was, should we un delete the content and change the page to a redirect, or just create a seperate article with no a seperate page history. Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No, you should not undelete the content and change the page to a redirect. You should simply create the redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering For what reasons? Anyways, I might nonetheless open a discussion on another article that the page is related else to request un deletion of content and change it to a redirect. I will notify those who were involved in the deletion discussion if I do. Basically what I am considering discussing is whether it should be Un Deleted, or a Redirect should be created on a new page with no similar page history. Note: The Page that was deleted had no copyright violations. I am still discussing my options. Thanks for your collaboration. Basically what I am considering asking is: Should the redirect have the page history in it or not? Thank you for collaboration Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere, please be considerate of other editors' time. There's no need for any of these discussions. Please just create the redirect. The redirect does not need the page history in it, since the redirect won't be using any of that page history. Restoring that page history, even under a redirect, would be vacating the result of the previous AfD. An admin isn't going to do that, except in very limited circumstances. This isn't one of those circumstances. -- asilvering (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Translated Plagiarism -- Unsure what to do

Hi! In the page Feast of All Saints of Russia, at least one section seems to have been directly copied and translated from the original Russian source, only linked on the Russian-language version of the page (https://www.pravoslavie.ru/2367.html). Specifically, the paragraph ending in "(11, 74, 12, 275)" in the English-language "Origins" section is directly copied from the link, with just minor rephrasing. I'm not sure what to do here, as the plagiarism seems to be fairly clear but the extent is hard to determine and rewriting the page is beyond my capabilities. Is there somewhere I'm meant to report it? How would I go about this? Thedoglover12 (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thedoglover12, you should list the article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and follow the instructions there. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 11:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thedoglover12, you don't need to put this up at WP:CP, since it's pretty clear-cut. You can request revision deletion of the offending material yourself. There's a very helpful user script for that at User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel. Basically, you need to remove all of the offending content first - simply edit the article, highlight all the copied stuff, and press delete, nothing complicated. When you do this, leave an edit summary like "removing translation copyvio from https://www.pravoslavie.ru/2367.html". Then, use that userscript to put in a revdel request. You need to highlight every diff that has the offending text in it, from the very first insertion of the material up to (but not including) your own edit where you removed it. Thanks for catching this, and let us know if you run into any trouble. -- asilvering (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

LP or EP

Hello. I am wondering if I should change the page Timewave Zero (Blood Incantation album) to be classified as an EP, instead of a studio album. The band themselves seem to consider it an EP, and in my opinion I think the most important distinction between what makes an LP or EP is what the artist themself considers the project to be, but of course that is only my opinion and may not align with Wikipedia's policy. The band made a post on Facebook around the time of the project's release calling it an EP, but I know that's not exactly the most encyclopedic source. In terms of secondary sources, I can only find one source explicitly calling it an EP, which seems to be from a lesser known publication. So given all of that, I think it's safer if I just leave the page as it is, but I am wondering if anyone would think it's valid for me to change it, again mostly given that the band themselves refer to it as an EP. Thanks. Ackyducc (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ackyducc! Wikipedia differs from many other situations in that we consider secondary sources better than official ones (for a similar situation, see WP:OFFICIALNAME). The reason behind this is that it removes the potential for bias from the source, which isn't so important in this situation but might be in others.

You mention one secondary source that calls it an EP but not how many secondary sources call it an album. How many are there of those? If none, I'd say it's safe to change it to EP. But if most secondary sources use album, I'd leave it be. Hope that helps!

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 17:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Most secondary sources do seem to use album, so I'll probably just leave it be. If I see more secondary sources calling it an EP I might switch it, but for the time being it's probably more in line with policy to leave it how it is. Thanks. Ackyducc (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

"Album" is defined as a collection of recordings, so even an EP would be referred to as an album. Once upon a time, there was no such thing as an EP; there were LPs (albums) and singles. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of secondary sources I can find for other EPs often just refer to them broadly as "album". Some do specify EP but it's not universal. As much as there's not very many sources explicitly calling that release specifically an EP, there's not very many specifically calling it an LP either. I'm still not sure how widely agreed it would be if I changed it, but like I said a lot before, the band themselves have referred to it as an EP so I feel like that's the best source we really have on this. I'll probably wait to see if there's more discussion or a pretty solid consensus before I do any changes personally. Ackyducc (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sdkb The Wikipedia practice of sidelining primary sources should be used judiciously. Taking information about an event from someone's diary would definitely be suspect, but when it comes to an originator providing information about themselves or their work, the primary source is going to be best. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Really, Ghost writer's cat? So we should take a publisher's word for it when it says that a book, EP, album, movie or whatever is "groundbreaking", "epochal", or whatever; and indeed the word of "breatharians" for the benefits of "breatharianism", the word of the press secretary of a head of government for that head's insights, wisdom, public-spiritedness, etc? -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary As I said, the information should be used judiciously. No need to get excited. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

User Talk or Article Talk?

When you're having a disagreement with another editor about an article edit, is that better discussed on the User Talk page or on the article Talk page? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Ghost writer's cat. I'd say the article's talk page, since its purpose is to improve the article and solve disagreements. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s such a good question, @Ghost writer's cat — helpful in not just the early stages of our Wiki editing but even after emerging from a few skirmishes.

I look forward to seeing all the replies you get, as I think there could be several different suggestions depending on the context of the disagreement. Augnablik (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the useful replies above, if you reach an impasse between yourself and one other editor on the article talk page, you can request a third opnion to get a tiebreaking view. See Wikipedia:Third opinion for more information. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend WP:DISPUTE for more information about how to act when in a disagreement. It highlights an important dichotomy between content and conduct disputes. If part of the disagreement is over conduct (e.g.: you insulted me), that part is best taken to a user talk page. Anything focused on the article's content is best at the article talk page. My experience matches Augnablik's: many experienced editors could benefit from more thought about the best place to have a disagreement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Ghost writer's cat: Firefangledfeathers nailed it. Nutshell version: article Talk page to discuss the words (and images) in the article, user Talk to discuss editor behavior. One exercise you can try: if you are on the article Talk page discussing improving the article, see if you can avoid using the words you or your in your comments. This is not an ironclad rule, but if you find yourself using you a lot, you should stop a minute, and think about whether your comment is really about the article content, or about the other editor. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate all the feedback. Very helpful. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Notification for an alt account for privacy

Hi all,

Recently, I have wanted to edit articles and add images related to the place I live, but I've resisted doing so because I don't want to reveal my location. So, I'm considering creating an alt for that purpose. Having read through WP:SOCKLEGIT, this appears to be a permissible use, as long as I disclose it and don't engage in true sock behavior.

So my question - what's the correct way to disclose this? Obviously, I don't want to have a link between my two accounts, as that would defeat the purpose. What I'm thinking is to have a chunk of text on both of my accounts stating that I have 2 accounts for privacy reasons and that I'm happy to privately disclose the identity of the other to admins or checkusers with a valid reason. Would that be enough? I'm open to suggestions. 9yz (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

9yz, I suggest that you send an email to the Arbitration Committee disclosing your plan as soon as you register the second account. If anyone asks if you have another account, you can just reply "yes, and I have disclosed to ArbCom". Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 gotcha, I'll do that. Do you think I should still include some amount of text on my userpage(s) stating I have an alt? 9yz (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

9yz, if you choose to do so, I suggest that you say essentially the same thing with completely different wording on the two user pages, and avoid editing the same articles. That would make it more difficult for another editor to make the connection. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 yep, that was my plan! Thanks for your feedback. 9yz (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I suddenly found myself with an "alt" account after I got my original account Amatulic renamed. That account is still there, although the user page and talk page redirect to my current name. I do disclose it on my user page in the first paragraph. But... there doesn't seem to be anything preventing me from using that old username in certain circumstances, like when editing from a public computer in a library or some similar situation where someone could gain access to my current account. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

U5 Speedy Deletion

Hello, I was looking at DaRealHaribo user page and I believe that it falls under WP:U5 for speedy deletion as the use has not contributed outside of their userpage and it appears to be more of a personal webpage. The only other mention outside of Wikipedia that I could find was this Youtube account so it doesn't meet WP:N either (its currently also in a draft state here). However, I don't want to accidently nominate something for deletion. Please advise. Thanks. Thewindbird (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

U5 or G11 might be appropriate. Or provide a polite warning {{subst:uw-advert1}} on the talk page and see if that editor cleans up the user page. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Thewindbird (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

How can I encourage responses on an AfD submission?

I’ve made a submission to AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Ability with Innovation) that’s received no responses.

I’m not on a tirade to get this page deleted or anything, I’m more just curious about the process of AfD. This article came up in my newcomer tasks and when trying to find sources to improve the article, I thought the subject matter may not be notable. I’m making this thread(?) not to get the article deleted faster, but to figure out if I did anything wrong/suboptimally when making the AfD submission.

Are there things I can do to make it easier for others to participate in the discussion? Are there reasons nobody has replied to my submission yet, or am I just unlucky? SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion is listed on the AFD page, where people can see it and decide to comment, or not. If it doesn't get much participation, it would get re-listed. You could also help people out by explaining why you think the subject isn't notable. Did you do a search for sources, and if so, what did you come up with? As it is now, you're asking others to do the work for you to verify that the article qualifies for deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You’re right - I misinterpreted the convention and thought (wrongly) that the proposer should mostly stay out of making arguments.

Is it acceptable for me to edit the submission? Or should I make a new comment (sorry, I’m unsure of terms) with additional information? SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Depends on what you are changing. A new comment would be clearer. Currently when someone sees it they don't see a clear reason why it is not notable. Maybe a source assessment table (if interested use User:DannyS712/SATG.js) or a specific deletion reason would draw more attention. Happy editing, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I've added a comment with more detail as to why I think it's worth considering deleting.

Hopefully this will make it easier for others to participate in the discussion! SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, you can edit the submission to add context and clarification, and also respond to the comments of others who participate. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Tips

There are a lot of Wikipedia articles about do's and don't's, I'm fine with any tips, but I'm mostly looking for any tips that I should know for editing and vandalism. So are there any tips that I should know that aren't listed on those articles? GiftedGirI (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @GiftedGirI, would this be of any interest to you? Knitsey (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@GiftedGirI Do you think that you need more ressources that the useful ressource mentionned by @Knitsey ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes! That seems to be what I am looking for and thanks for the input! GiftedGirI (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I am good for now but if I do I will let you know :) GiftedGirI (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@GiftedGirI: there is Wikipedia:Tips. They can be a bit old and include much more than editing and vandalism fighting. If you click this link it should take you randomly to one of the over 1000 tips from there. Or you can visit {{totd-random}} and keep clicking "fetch another" (you will have say "Yes" to purge the page each time). Commander Keane (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice! - GiftedGirI GiftedGirI (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

"Michela Wrong" - Promotional language?

I was referred by Wikipedia's internal suggestion tool to the page for "Michela Wrong", saying: "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (July 2018)." I am struggling to find the promotional/biased language (aside from, maybe the "over 20 years" bit which seems like we should just have a date of her first article). I see in "Talk:Michela Wrong" one editor was concerned than an account was created to promote her work about 14 years ago, but she seems like a prominent journalist and author to me. Can any experienced authors offer perspective/guidance on this? ErrataNonGrata (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, as I'm looking through the page's history it looks like there have been substantial rewrites, source additions, etc. Would this be a candidate to have these flags removed from the article? If so, how would I handle a similar situation in the future? ErrataNonGrata (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I would start by looking to see who added the template, and look at what they discussed on the talk page. If they added it without any comments, you can leave a comment on the talk page asking for their rationale. Iknowyoureadog (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Michela Wrong. The image in her infobox shows her, apparently at a book launch, promoting her own book. This is fair enough, but may give an impression that the article is promotional. I have aimed to correct this impression by cropping the way the image is displayed. Maproom (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I removed the tags, as they dated to a time (2018) when the article only had three references, and was shorter. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you, this was really helpful for me to watch and learn. ErrataNonGrata (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about finding sources for old information

I have a question about the article I'm editing right now: Draft:Nick Rogers

I have been working to find sources to reference all of the awards and recognitions mentioned in the article but a lot of them are old school print only documentations which are really difficult to source today. How do I go about referencing sources for this kind of information as well as any other information where it might be hard to find direct online secondary sources? SlavaLi (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @SlavaLi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Finding sources is hard - I think we've all been there. The good news is that, on Wikipedia, you are allowed to use offline, print-only documents that aren't availible online. They have to be reliable and independent, of course, but they're fine. You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Offline sources. In this case, however, I have access to a website called Newspapers.com, and I've been able to find some of those sources online. It's late for me, but I've left links to them on the draft's talkpage. Hopefully they come in useful! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have the person's CV and Biblio that's about 56 pages long as well. Would this be an acceptable documentary source for some of the recognitions and awards mentioned in the article? SlavaLi (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

CVs and other sources published by the subject can, in some cases, be used for limited information. Articles shouldn't be sourced primarily to self-published sources, and self-published sources can't be used to cite any claims that are potentially self-serving or aggrandizing. Where exactly that line is can vary a little. For example, it would normally be okay to cite somebody's personal website to back up a birth year. However, you can't use it for awards or prizes. You might be able to use it for things like job titles, so long as there's no reason to doubt the source's authenticity. I'd try having a look at older newspapers or journals first, as well as reviews of the books he co-authored. (If such reviews exist, of course). Those will be what you need to prove that Rogers is notable by Wikipedia standards. Once you've established that, you can look at older publications by the colleges and journals he worked for, to establish that yes, he worked for them during certain periods of times. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

SlavaLi, missing from the first response to your question, but present in the second one is that although print-only and offline is okay, the material must be published. That is a crucial distinction; even if offline and print only, it must be possible for someone to find and access the print document if they are willing to spend enough effort to do so. So, something in the bowels of the archives in the Cairo Museum, yes; but a letter written written by Robert Oppenheimer to your grandfather when they worked together on the Manhattan Project and locked away in your storage space, not okay. Mathglot (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

SlavaLi Citing his journal articles (most of your refs) is not counted as establishing his Wikipedia notability, although for academics it is appropriate to have a Selected publications section which references 5-10 journal articles. And a subsection if any books authored.

Original research

If you have a reliable source that states "A = B", and another reliable source (or even the same source in a different location) that states "B = C", can you state in the article "A = C", citing both sources, or would that be considered original research? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Typically no, as per WP:SYNTH. However, certain things like routine calculations, images, and translations and transcriptions are exempt from that rule. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian It sounds like YES, it IS considered original research, aside from those exceptions. Did I understand that correctly? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Requesting Help with Creating a Page About Swimming Industry Companies

Hi everyone,

I’ve been working in the swimming industry for several years now and have developed deep knowledge about various swim brands, clubs, and companies that contribute to the sport. I recently attempted to create a Wikipedia page to share this information and highlight some of the key companies in the space.

However, my draft has been declined twice, and I’m not entirely sure what I’m doing wrong. I understand Wikipedia has strict guidelines for notability and reliable sourcing, and I want to make sure I'm following them correctly.

I’d really appreciate help from someone more experienced to guide me in shaping the article the right way. My goal is to contribute useful and verifiable information to the platform—not to promote, but to inform.

Is anyone available to help me review and improve the draft? Or point me in the right direction to get support from a mentor?

Thanks in advance! Dennisaxim (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:FINIS, Inc — jlwoodwa (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, That's the draft I was mentioned. Draft:FINIS, Inc Dennisaxim (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Dennisaxim, most of your references are reprints of press releases sent out by the company. A couple are links to the company's own website. The Bloomberg reference is simply a run-of-the-mill database entry. What is required are several references to reliable sources completely independent of FINIS that devote significant coverage to FINIS. There are currently no such references in the draft. What, if any, is your relationship to FINIS? Cullen328 (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply — I understand your concerns. I don’t have any direct relationship with FINIS. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a swim coach, and my intention was to share my personal experience and knowledge. I initially planned to write about swim methods, techniques, and the equipment brands commonly used in training, hoping it might be helpful to other swimming enthusiasts.

While researching, I noticed that some of the brands I currently use already have Wikipedia pages. Since FINIS didn’t have one, I decided to start with it as my first contribution. I do plan to work on articles related to other swim products as well in the future.

Are there any recommended tools or methods to help find valuable, independent sources? Or if possible, could you help me rephrase parts of the article to better align with Wikipedia’s standards? Dennisaxim (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 could you help me? Dennisaxim (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry, Dennisaxim, but no amount of rephrasing can transform a non-notable topic into a notable one. You are far more familiar with the range of sources that cover swimming related companies than I am. If you want to write about this topic, it is incumbent on you to find high quality independent sources to use as references. Cullen328 (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 ok. I think where I'm struggling is determining whether the sources I've collected are valuable or not.

Are there any tools to help filter or evaluate the reliability of sources? Or any best practices you recommend for finding and assessing high-quality sources? Dennisaxim (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Dennisaxim, there are three tests that must be applied to a source to determine whether it is of any value in contributing to the notability of a topic, which can also be described as the eligibility of the topic for a Wikipedia article. The source must be reliable. The source must be completely independent of the topic. And, the source must devote significant coverage to the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328, ok I got it.. thanks for your time. Dennisaxim (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to look for articles flagged under the same maintenance template?

I'm hoping to help edit articles and thought it might be helpful to review a series of articles flagged for the same thing. Is there an easily accessible tool that will let me do that? I've done lots of searching but only found guidelines. If not, is there an easy way to get to the Wikpedia suggested articles for editing that shows articles with templates? ErrataNonGrata (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

See Template:Backlog status Moxy🍁 03:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@ErrataNonGrata There are several tools which help find articles with a given cleanup template but the one I find most useful is WikiProject Cleanup Listings because it subsets the listings into topic areas so I can focus on topics I'm interested in. You can download the lists into a local spreadsheet for sorting if you want. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of GrandViewResearch.com as a Source for Wikipedia

Hi, can we use content from GrandViewResearch.com as a source on Wikipedia—is it considered reliable and accepted by the community? Dennisaxim (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dennisaxim that website is not mentioned in the archives of the reliable sources page but it is used already 73 times in various articles, so I would say it is OK in general. Of course, as with all sources, it depends on what information you want to back up with that source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Translating an Article into Chinese

Error Message

Desired Language

Hi! I'm working on translating the article "Zero Population Growth" into simplified Chinese, but I wasn’t able to publish the translation because it says I'm "not experienced enough to publish translations." Does anyone know why this is the case and how to resolve it? Thank you very much! Zli39 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zli39 According to your global contribution log, you have only made 3 edits on zh: Wikipedia. If you had only that few here on en: Wikipedia, you would not be autoconfirmed and likewise would not be able to create articles directly. You'll need to ask at the zh: helpdesk or teahouse whether the rules there are the same as they are here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Wrong Date

On the current English home page, Main Page, under the "On this day" it states that in "1725 – J. S. Bach's cantata Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, was first performed on Easter Monday." If you click on the link for the cantata, it shows it was first performed it on 2 April 1725. April 2 is correct. If would like to know what happened on April 21. Beatles777! (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh wow, good catch. Put this in the main page's talk page under "Errors in 'On This Day' ". PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 11:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Beatles777!. It was composed for Easter Monday which was 2 April in 1725 but today in 2025. The different date is why it says "first performed on Easter Monday" and not merely "first performed". PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ooh, for some reason it didn't occur to me Easter Monday was on different days, haha.. silly me. 12:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC) PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something crucial, but even though it was performed on Easter Monday in 1725, it still should have been on an April 2nd OTD, no? It's a short list of things that happened on April 21st, not Easter Monday generally. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Probably, but it's still a mater for Talk:Main Page, not here, to decide. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

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

---

It strikes me as incongruous that we are allowed to cite sources in non-English languages on the English Wikipedia. How can we verify information if we can't read it, or if it's not even accessible to us? Is this discussed somewhere? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is discussed at WP:NONENG. There is longstanding consensus that non-English language sources are completely acceptable, though it's preferable to cite English-language sources when possible. However, removing access to non-English language sources would decimate much of our content bout anything outside the Anglosphere. They're treated a bit like offline sources, in that respect - while of course online, easily accessible sources are better, sometimes we just have to take it on faith that other that these high-quality source say what other Wikipedians are telling us it does. Besides, many Wikipedians speak multiple languages, and you can often get a rough idea as to whether a source verifies the content through the use of machine translators (though they should be used with caution). GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian Thank you for the link, but that only states the policy—there is no discussion or explanation. I am skeptical of the "take it on faith" idea because it goes against all the policies on notability, verifiability, reliable sources, etc. It's specifically because this has been designated an English Wikipedia, where the articles, comments, etc must be in English, that it's contradictory to allow sources that are not readable by the population this Wikipedia is intended for. It's not only a matter of verifiability; often I'm referring to the source because either the statement has been badly written and therefore isn't clear, or because I'm hoping to find an expanded discussion of the particular statement. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

For policy pages like that, most of the discussion will have been on the talk page. [1]. As you can see, this has been discussed before. On a personal level, I do get your point about foreign-language sources being harder to verify. They are. The thing I do disagree with you is the idea about trust- the vast majority of good articles (and probably Good Articles) use offline sourcing that may not be easily accessible. And yes, sometimes that backfires. I do a lot of CCI work, and I absolutely run into issues with source falsification or mistranslations that are much harder to pick up on because the sources were offline or not in English. However, the benefit (more information!) does ultimately outweigh the costs. Or, at least, it has so far. And, ultimately, I'd rather check articles against online foreign-language sources than offline English language sources. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a source be free or easy to access; you or anyone is free to learn a language in order to be able to review a source. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Not helpful. Using that reasoning, why bother with an English Wikipedia at all? Why not let people write in whatever language they choose? I expect better assistance from an admin. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ghost writer's cat, I can't read x language but some editors can. The project relies on that fact that those editors are competent. x language sources are going to cover their area/topics much better than English sources (which may be biased). The odds are a American source isn't going to cover a chinese politican (who meets WP:NPOL) at all or will do it poorly. Why not let people write in whatever language they choose?, They can? There are ~341 active wikis. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon This isn't just about editing, it's also about reading the articles. I wouldn't expect to find non-English footnotes with additional information in an English-language book, which is essentially what this amounts to. And no, in the English Wikipedia, we cannot write in whatever language we choose. As I stated below, if I want to read an article in Swedish, I'll go to the Swedish Wikipedia. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect to find non-English footnotes with additional information in an English-language book That may be your experience but it's far from universal. As I trained in European and Asian history I was always reading English-language monographs and textbooks which referenced primary and secondary sources in other languages, and yes, I could read and verify some of these myself. Maybe this is not done in the areas you work in, but you can't generalise this to every subject area covered by the encyclopaedia. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

+1, A well written book will have local sources. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

As with paywalled sites or ones that are no longer online, sometimes we have to look at things from a different angle. If you go through the history of the article you should be able to work out who added the info. You can then look at their userpage, talk and other contributions. If they are a much checked editor, with Featured and Good article content, then you can take some reassurance that much of their other content has gone through scrutiny, and you are pretty safe to trust their work. At the other end of the scale if their talkpage has a plethora of warnings about misinterpreting sources and eventually a retirement or block, then reverting an edit you find implausible but can't check can be reasonable. Of course much of Wikipedia will be somewhere in between those extremes. If the other language source is easily available and you don't trust the person who used it, you could try finding a Wikipedian who speaks that language and ask for their help. A query on the talkpage of the relevant Wikiproject, might work, or you could go looking to see who has the relevant userbox on their userpage (Template:User fr is the French one), check if they have edited recently, and if so ask for their help. ϢereSpielChequers 20:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Google Translate. It is helpful to me for reading sources in other languages. Not so good for some Middle Eastern and Asian languages but quite good for European languages. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That works only for material that's on-line. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I think your arguments may be about effort? If there is a dusty old book in stack at a remote library that has great knowledge for an article and a Wikipedian is willing to get there, I think we should use it. It is going to take a lot effort to verify facts from that source. It takes a lot of effort to learn a new language to understand a source, but machine translation, OCR or your multi-lingual colleagues can help. The want for only viewing information in articles that can be verified in English from freely (as in beer) available online sources is reasonable, but that is currently not Wikipedia's model. Given the licensing, anyone is able to fork English Wikipedia to make a project those goals, but you are unlikely to get support from the Wikimedia Foundation. One of the Foundation's goals is to let people write in the language they choose (there are over 300 language variants) and there is the Abstract Wikipedia project as a first step towards unification. Commander Keane (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Commander Keane As to your last point, we are not allowed within the English Wikipedia to use whatever language we choose.

People keep responding with, essentially, "That's how it is." That's not addressing my question. The question is why?? This is the English Wikipedia; the information should be in English. What's the objective of that rule? I assumed it was to provide a Wikipedia for English-speaking people, but it's not helpful if the source is in another language. If I wanted to read articles in Swedish, I'd go to the Swedish Wikipedia. Everything else here is required to be in English, so why do the sources get a pass? It doesn't make sense. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I can't explain it any better. You may have to accept that your desire is too limiting for everyone else. The information here is available in English, if you are not willing to put in effort to look at the sources in other languages that is on you. It is helpful for the others that are willing, and they out number you. The reason is that the collective knowledge of the world isn't recorded purely in English language sources. Commander Keane (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Commander Keane "not willing to put in effort to look at the sources in other languages" isn't a fair assessment, nor a fair assumption. There's an overly-general assumption in the responses here that the sources are all going to be available on-line and translatable. They're not. If someone uses as a source a physical book, written in another language, that's on a shelf somewhere in the world, you are correct that I'm not willing to "put in the effort" to find the book, get possession of it, and then have it translated. I challenge your statement that there are "others that are willing, and they out number" me. (I'm dismayed just by the number of editors who argue over an edit without even checking the source material when it's only a click away.) For all the policy, guidance, templates, essays, and what have you here on reliable sources, verifiability, notability, etc, things sure get loose when it comes to sources that the majority of us aren't even expected to be able to access. I'm amazed there hasn't even been any discussion on this, apparently no more than a couple sentences of explanation in total. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see. Maybe your issue is trust then. If you don't trust user-generated content like Wikipedia then you should ignore the text and just read the sources listed at the bottom that are accesible for you. Wikipedia is a project that provides the sources, so you are free to read them and generate your own understanding about a topic instead if you wish. I trust the Swedish speaking Wikipedian visiting that dusty libary shelf near Stockholm that is bilingual, you don't. That's fine. Maybe there is an essay on trusting Wikipedia somewhere. English Wikipedia has over 6,000,000 articles and is a top 10 website, so I would say others put more faith into it than you and perhaps that is so obvious that it isn't documented. I trust that when Ghost writer's cat makes an edit based on an online, available, English source that it is okay. And I can check it if I am in doubt or I trust others will check even if it off-line and in another language. You are proposing a source-limiting fork of Wikipedia that may have been tried before, I'm not sure. An alternate project that trusts experts instead of users to write an encyclopedia would be Britannica. Commander Keane (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ghost writer's cat, the incidence of references to offline paper sources in obscure languages is very low. The English Wikipedia is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world. It is not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Our bilingual and multilingual editors are an enormous asset to the project, and they should not be disrespected so cavalierly. It simply would not be possible, for example, to write comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of Japanese history and culture without summarizing Japanese language sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I resent your assertion that I've been disrespectful—there's no evidence of that whatsoever. I'm only pointing out the incongruity that all articles and discussion must be in English yet the sources are not held to the same requirement. Why restrict to English only? Have non-native English speakers been disrespected by being required to write their articles and comments in English? To your last point, are you suggesting there is not comprehensive coverage of Japanese history and culture in English publications? I have serious doubts about that claim. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ghost writer's cat, your highly idiosyncratic views on this matter are out of line with longstanding consensus. Your argument boils down to an ill-informed view that the monumental work by editors who write English language summaries of reliable sources in other languages ought to be removed from the encyclopedia, and that is disrespectful of those exceptionally valuable editors. You try writing a Good article or Featured article on a significant Japanese topic using only English language sources, and see how far you would get. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Please stop with the personal attacks. I've not suggested anything be removed. I started this section by asking for any existing discussion on this topic; I see there is none, which means there is no "long-standing consensus". If you have only opinion and no concrete information to share, I respectfully request that you don't comment further. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how Cullen's comments were personal attacks, but whatever.

Anyways, yeah, Cullen's right. Good luck trying to get enough English sources for Altanbulag, Selenge to reach Featured Article status That's not going to happen. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ghost writer's cat, There is consensus. @GreenLipstickLesbian, gave you a link in their response. If you want another link of the talk page discussion look here. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

And definitely try it on a not-that-significant topic! I spent a decent amount of time working on Hanako (elephant). I used English-language sources where possible, but it relies very heavily on Japanese sources. Because, surprise surprise, English-language newspapers do not report on a statue of an elephant being erected at a Japanese train station, or license plates being created in honor of the elephant. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ghost writer's cat, don't you dare tell me not to comment further. I will comment where I want and when I want. I engaged in no personal attacks. I criticized your idea, not you. I know nothing about you but I consider your idea deeply flawed and will continue to say so as long as you articulate it. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 My "idea" is a question and a request for discussion, either past or present. If that's your concept of a "deeply flawed idea", which you will continue to shut down, then this Teahouse is pointless. Good job. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ghost writer's cat, I am afraid you have the wrong way. The Teahouse is for helping new editors not holding discussions on established policy. There are more appropriate forums, such as the Village pump or the talk page, for holding discussions on policy. Note: If no one objects, it may be best to close this and move it to a more appropriate page. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Archiving; Talk:Curt Weldon

We have archived Talk:Curt Weldon however there is no link to the archived wikipage, can someone fix this.

Also, the same issue with Talk:Rhyl

Regards Guiy de Montfort^talk 13:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Like this? There are a few ways and layouts, but this one is easy:) DMacks (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, that works. Guiy de Montfort^talk 16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Needed something to contribute to Wikipedia

I’m a new user that joined on Wikipedia. And I already started editing on this site. Can you please share something that I needed to contribute to Wikipedia? I’ve been trying to figure out on how to add info to sections. Clubtoon112 (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The task center is a good place to check out if you're not sure how to contribute. It breaks stuff down into difficulty levels based on editor experience. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Explain on community, not the writing only. Clubtoon112 (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're specifically asking for. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s the Wikipedia community. Not just the editing. Clubtoon112 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Below writing, is the community on the task center. Clubtoon112 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Banned from XTools

Hi everyone, I got a message when I try to use XTools that says; "Your access to XTools has been blocked due to apparent abuse or disruptive automation. If you are a bot, please use our public APIs instead, which are optimized for this purpose: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/XTools/API For inquiries, please contact tools.xtools@toolforge.org". I do not know what to do I have never spammed XTools or anything. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@History6042 See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#XTools_down?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about Article of Creation

Hello!

I submitted an article (Rebecca B. Alston) for review, and it has been accepted. I have two questions: 1) what do I need to do to resolve the conflict of interest banner that is still on the article? 2) When will the webpage itself be created? I searched it manually and it seems to not be created yet. Archfusionpro (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The article (or webpage) Rebecca B. Alston certainly exists. (Its section headers are all in headline case, they ought to be in sentence case.) Maproom (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Archfusionpro The COI banner is there probably because the text contains such gems as "Bio Forms communicates a distinction from her earlier geometric work while retaining a subtle indication of geometric vocabulary, moving towards more fluid, exploratory forms that reference organic decay through viral compositions. These works elucidate a dynamic microcosm rendered through a unified approach merging painting and drawing techniques." which are not cited to a source and read like as if written by someone with a COI. Clean out all such material and the COI will be less obvious. As to "search it manually", do you mean you tried to use an external search engine to find the article but failed as it hasn't yet been indexed? That's because, although the AfC process is complete the article has not been reviewed by the new pages patrol and won't be available to search engines until it is, or 90 days have elapsed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. As for the sentences in regards to the example mentioned, these are found in sources that have been listed and included. Does each sentence have to be cited to said source? When this is completed, will the COI banner be removed? As to "search it manually", I meant via the Wikipedia search, not Google! The explanation makes sense, I appreciate the follow up! Archfusionpro (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Content like "These works elucidate a dynamic microcosm rendered through a unified approach merging painting and drawing techniques" cannot be included in Wikipedia's voice you need to use quotes and state who said it. It is YOU that has the conflict of interest and you should be using the talk page to request edits, not editing directly. Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible for you or someone else to review and rectify said edits (such as verifying/properly citing sources and creating pull direct quotes from the curator that wrote several pieces about her, similarly to the quote from Dr. Pat Pinson)? I have been under the impression that this space was to do so to circumvent editing directly. I am a bit confused because there was the mention in a prior interaction to "clean out all such material". Archfusionpro (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Archfusionpro We have a policy for biographies of living people that all material likely to be challenged must be cited to an inline source. It isn't enough to have a source somewhere in a biography that does in fact back up the information: it should, for example be at the end of each relevant paragraph and if it is a quote then it must also be stated who used these exact words (with quotation marks). I didn't make any assumption about which editor had the COI but if it was you then you should now only suggest changes via the article's talk page, perhaps using the edit request wizard. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Theroadislong should have ensured that the promotional fluff was removed before accepting that draft. I would not have acccepted it in that state. Feel free to clean it up. The COI tag is not going to be removed until an uninvolved editor reviews the article and deems the tag no longer applicable.

As a COI editor, you may remove promotional material, revert obvious vandalism, make minor corrections to spelling, grammar, numbers, names, dates, etc. and you may add citations to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Anything more substantive than that, you should propose on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The role of an AfC reviewer is to accept drafts that have more than 50% likelihood of surviving an AfD. It is a very low bar. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes...thank you Ca for explaining this, users sometimes mistake the role of reviewers, we are not here to ensure that drafts are perfect, but that they stand a good chance of surviving an WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

A draft doesn't have to be perfect. But a reviewer should also not approve a draft, no matter how notable the topic, if the purpose of the draft is promotional, as this was. That should be cleared out before approval. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect... there is no requirement for reviewers to remove promotion, that is not part of our remit. Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and moved to mainspace. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say reviewers are required to remove promotion, I said the promotion should be cleared out prior to approval; it doesn't matter who does it. Also, AfD isn't the only consideration. We are all required to abide by Wikipedia policies. Reviewers, also, are required to ensure that drafts they approve don't violate core policies, especially if the draft includes passages that are flagrant violations. WP:NOTPROMOTION in this case forbids the use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. There are two ways a reviewer can address the problem: clean up the draft prior to promoting it, or decline to promote it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Anachronist Check the article history I accepted the article and then I edited it for neutral tone, removing unsourced hagiographic content and unsourced puffery. Theroadislong (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You certainly did, and that's great, but you did miss a couple of things quoted above. Although that was a mistake, I am not without sin myself to be casting stones; I can say confidently that I probably make more mistakes than other experienced editors. I'm just sayin' I would have made the draft acceptable before accepting it or I would have declined it, but the cleanup got done and that's the main thing. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You clearly think you could have done a btter job, perhaps you need to become a reviewer, we need many more the back,log of drafts is getting ever larger. Theroadislong (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Who knows if I would have done better. You did a good job removing the most egregious stuff but you missed a couple of things. We all make mistakes, heaven knows I do. And yes, I do on occasion patrol new pages and review submitted drafts; both areas are backed up. I'm also an administrator, and there's no end of messes to clean in that role as well. For years I've been feeling that Wikipedia has grown too big for the small crowd of active editors that we have. I keep seeing the same small handful of usernames I trust over and over (you're among them). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft: Gerald Louis Burke

Somehow my draft article has been tagged as "Biography" by someone, but it's actually about his life as a medical researcher and his discoveries and works.

Is this the result of a normal WP classification process? Henrilebec (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Henrilebec: do you mean your pending draft Draft:Gerald Louis Burke? (Please link to the article/draft you refer to, so it's clear what you're talking about, and so that others don't have to go looking for it.) This is a biographical article, since it is clearly about a person; you say as much yourself ("about his life"). Also, where are you saying it has been "tagged"? Why is any of this a problem, in your view? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm not an experienced editor and I hadn't placed that tag, so I was curious where it came from. Henrilebec (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Henrilebec: I guess you refer to [2]. It's a normal process and it's certainly a biography so there is no problem. Pages can have multiple WikiProject tags. I don't see good reason for {{WikiProject Academic Journals}} but I have added {{WikiProject Medicine}}. PrimeHunter (talk)

Fair use for an image of a prayer card published in France in 1935 and scanned in a book published in France in 2007?

I have been working on the article Jean-Mohammed Abd-el-Jalil and would like to upload an image of his priestly ordination card from 1935, which is notable and unique because it features Qur'an verses. The only source I have for it is scanning an image of it from the book Massignon - Abd-el-Jalil : Parrain et filleul 1926-1962, a edition of the letters exchanged between the subject of the article and his godfather, Louis Massignon. Would uploading a scanned image of the card for the article fall under fair use? M.A.Spinn (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, M.A.Spinn. Wikipedia's policies on use of Non free images are stricter than the legal doctrine of Fair use. That being said, the image you describe probably meets WP:NFCI #4 as long as it is accompanied by referenced critical commentary describing how unique the card is. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The prayer card, and therefore a 2D image of this 2D item, might be public domain (completely free, not a non-free fair-use exception). Do you know where he was ordained--France, or Morocco, or somewhere else? Is the creator of the card itself actually known (would this person have done it himself, or someone in particular among his mentors, or just the work of some anonymous administrative person in the church)? Are you able to link to the book's page where the scan is? Depending what creative elements (if any) vs plain-text it contains might also be relecant. DMacks (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The ordination took place in Paris in 1935. I'd have to double check but I don't think the artist signed the card and it has no copyright notice on it. I can source the page from the book it is scanned from and the book itself sources it to the Franciscan Archives in France. So what we're dealing with is a scan of a scan of archival material from the 1935 with no author or copyright notice listed. The creative element is Arabic calligraphy combined with Christian iconography. M.A.Spinn (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Best I can determine is that it would be free in France but not free in the US. So it cannot be placed on commons (not free in both original country and US), and it can be placed on enwiki (US host) as non-free fair-use. It could also be placed on frwiki without restriction now. On January 1, 2031, it becomes PD in the US, so it could be placed on commons, used on all wikis, and not require fair-use handling. How's that for chaotic? DMacks (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It works for my purposes! M.A.Spinn (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Referencing questions

Hello! I have a question regarding referencing. I've been clicking the "random" button on Pages with broken reference names and trying to clean up said broken references if I feel I'm able to. While doing this, I've come across several scenarios where I'm not sure how to proceed, and I would appreciate some guidance.

• Zond program contains a broken reference that is defined in Zond 7, linked right above the broken reference. In this case, the book is available on Google Books, and supports the information given.

• Filibuster (military) has a broken reference to a YouTube video. While the video appears related, YouTube is not a WP:RS (and from my skim of the video, the quote its given next to doesn't appear in it).

• A while ago at 2027 in spaceflight, I believed I was able to identify a broken reference name from context clues in the name, but I didn't think the information in that article adequately supported the information it was next to (in conjunction with the other source provided for that item in the list, there was also some discussion on the talk page, but the editor who added the reference never responded).

In these example cases, I've had enough information (available book, video in a language I speak, enough passing familiarity with a topic) to either know the source supports the claim or have concerns about it. My instinct is that it would be appropriate in these cases to fix the reference name, even if I have concerns, but I'm not sure.

I guess in general, in cases where a source can be identified as the source the inserting editor intended, but it's not adequate in some way (unreliable, questionable relevance, etc), or I can't personally verify the information it's claiming to support (offline source I don't have access to, language barrier, etc), is it better to leave the reference broken for a better equipped editor to handle, or fix it despite the potential concerns? NovaHyperion (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Asking for advice on a recently declined article

Hello! An article I submitted was recently declined, and the feedback received was regarding notability of the subject and that the article reads more like an advertisement (there were also some edits needed but I think I've addressed those). Can I ask for more clarification on the notability part? I'm surprised the subject is not considered notable, he was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for his work co-hosting a podcast that has gained international recognition, among other successes. Can I ask for more details so I can make the necessary corrections and submit a better version of this article for reconsideration? Thank you for any advice you can provide. Kinfolx1114 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 16:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Kinfolx1114/sandbox Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Kinfolx1114 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kinfolx1114, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked at your draft, so I'm answering in general terms: what somebody is or does, does not of itself contribute to notability as Wikipedia uses the word. Notability mostly means "Enough independent material about the subject has been published in reliable sources to base an article on".

Some kinds of activity or achievement - such as winning a major prize, or being appointed to certain posts - create a presumption that the person is notable, but we still need the reliable independent sources to base the article on. Winning a Pulitzer Prize is probably in that category, but only being nominated for one is not. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @ColinFine! Thank you! The official definition of notability makes me feel that he is qualified, just from coverage in reliable independent sources. But I appreciate that being nominated for a Pulitzer is not, alone, a reason. I'll take a second look and make sure I linked enough resources, I thought I had but will check again and see if there are opportunities to improve. I know you haven't read the draft but if you get a chance to glance and form an opinion on notability, I would appreciate the feedback. Thanks again Kinfolx1114 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Kinfolx1114: the first sentence of your sandox lists seven activities that Thomas has devoted himself to. But it never makes it clear which of them (if any) he's notable for. It repeatedly states that he's been in prison, but it never explains what he was found guilty of. (Yes, I'm aware that in the US, being imprisoned depends on skin colour and the ability to afford a good lawyer as much as actual guilt – but the reader still needs to be told.) Maproom (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Maproom, thank you for that feedback! This is helpful, I'd like to ask two follow up questions: The first sentence mentions that he is most known for his hosting of Ear Hustle podcast, but the other titles are less notable but referenced. (for example, 'writer' is backed with citations of published work, 'curator' is cited with an article covering curation at the Museum of African Diaspora, etc.). Would it be more appropriate to say the notable role first and then mention the others? Or do all activities have to be notable to be mentioned? Also, you mentioned that the reader needs to be told (re: details of his experience in the criminal justice system), is it a requirement for the article to be considered? Again, thank you! Kinfolx1114 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant to tag you! @Maproom Kinfolx1114 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Kinfolx1114: so he's best known for his role in Ear Hustle. The body of the article explains that he's its co-host. The first sentence of the lead should state that he's its co-host, and that is what he's principally notable for. His other activities can be mentioned later.

The body of the article reminded me of Gogol's novel Dead Souls. At the end of one chapter, the central character is travelling freely through the Russian countryside. At the start of the next, he is in prison, with no explanation of why. This is not a literary device by Gogol; it's because he inadvertently destroyed his manuscripts for some missing chapters. There's no requirement for the article to explain why Thomas was imprisoned, but it seems odd to omit it. Maproom (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Students

I found a really nice job for student editors (psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, medicine, or the history of science and medicine): writing a new section History of Functional neurological symptom disorder. See: Talk:Functional_neurological_symptom_disorder#History_rewrite. Is there any way I can tell anybody about this? Lova Falk (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lova Falk I suggest you try leaving a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

A new article

Hello! I would like to create a page on the music artist The Stupendium. I would create it but I don’t have the time nor do i have the info. If some people would like to help me i will create a draft and put it here. (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Boeing747Pilot, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but if you're not able to put the time into finding the essential reliable independent sources required to establish that The Stupendium is notable, then it is very unlikely to happen. While it's not impossible that somebody will see your request and want to work with you, it's not very likely: why should a volunteer editor want to? (Maybe if somebody else here is a fan).

In its present state Draft:The Stupendium has zero chance of being accepted, because it has only a single source, whose reliability is disputed (see WP:GENIUS), and does not really have significant coverage of the artist.

Please see your first article. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes i am aware of the fact the article is very short. I don’t plan a submitting it within the week or maybe even the month. I have a lot to do and will put as much time in as i can. And i know The Stupendium is known. I will put more sources in and hunt to find anymore. (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

See WP:BACKWARD. You should write the article forward, by finding the sources first before you even start. Don't worry about the time it takes. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thats a really good idea because info is useless without a source to back it up! Thank you! (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Dries Verhoeven: can I move?

I've created a draft article for the Dutch artist Draft: Dries Verhoeven. Since I have 'autoconfirmed' status, I believe I'm able to move the article to mainspace. Would that be appropriate at this point? I feel the article is essentially complete now.

Before doing so, I'd appreciate having someone proofread it to catch any issues I might have missed. Could anyone suggest where I might find someone willing to review it?

Floriano95 (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Floriano95 Hello and welcome. You've already submitted the draft for a review; if you want feedback on it, or someone to check it for errors, you should allow the review process to play out.

I can say that you should remove the external links from the "chronologial overview" section; if these are intended as references, you should format them as references instead, but they seem to just be links to his own website to document the existence of his work; an article about him should not merely list his entire portfolio, but works that are discussed in reliable sources independent of the subject. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, a section on Selected works with just a few listed is more appropriate for Wikipedia than a long list. David notMD (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. In my research before creating this page I found a lot of English-language wikipedia pages of Dutch artists with long lists, such as Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker and Renzo Martens, Ivo van Hove. So my assumption was that this is common practice. Floriano95 (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I will remove the references to the artists site, and add references to theaters the shows played at. That is what you mean right? Floriano95 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to go back to questions I have asked at the teahouse?

I cannot seem to navigate my way back there to see historical questions and your responses. Thank you. LBDon (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

In general, old questions are archived. The navigation box for the Teahouse archive is at the top of this page.

If you want to go to older questions, I know of two ways: If you still remember the Headline of the question, you could search it in the search archives box at the top of this page. Or just browse through the archives in general via the links there.

The alternative, if you want to go back to one of your previous questions is going via your contributions page. Click on any of the headlines for your questions in brackets. That will either take you to appropriate section, or it will open a box with a link on your screen if that section has already been archived. LightlySeared (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

And another way: If one of your sections on the Teahouse is archived, the bot that does that should leave a link to that section on your talk page. LightlySeared (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, LightlySeared! LBDon (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@LBDon: On the right side of the page, under the box with the table of contents is a box that says "Most recent archives". In that "Most recent archives" box, there is a search box. Try searching your username, and your previous questions should come up. Alternatively, here is a link to your previous posts here. Cheers, and happy editing! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Relativity. LBDon (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Help removing what seems to experts as personal viewpoint/not encyclopedic tone

Timothy Snyder

Views on threats to democracy and pursuit of freedom [edit source]

This message appears: This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (April 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Could someone please give five or more examples of some text that does not appear to be appropriately encyclopedic? In a perfect world, I could make changes that would allow for the removal of this comment.

The comment came after a recent update of about nine new paragraphs. Initially in 2022 there had been concerns that I addressed, and I am not sure how the newer text became more of a problem.

Thank you for your kind guidance!

The more specific you are, the better. I understand the principle of encyclopedic tone, but am sure that the text is an exceptionally faithful report of what Snyder has said, and can provide the original text as needed if that helps to reveal any bias introduced at my end. LBDon (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @LBDon. This tag was placed by @JooneBug37 (as can be seen by viewing the article history), so it would be good to directly ask him why he placed the tag, and to continue discussion on the article talk page.

At first glance, this section seems disproportionately long: the article should mainly describe what independent, secondary sources have said about Snyder, instead of simply restating his own words. It also blurs opinion and fact with extended paraphrasing, implicitly describing his own views as true statements, e.g. False emergencies to disguise lawless policies and destruction of official records work not only against the security of Americans, but also against our freedom. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

AWESOME, helpful raccoon. I will do that. LBDon (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @LBDon. Please remember 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) 22:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine. LBDon (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Cut the Views on threats to democracy and pursuit of freedom section by 90%. David notMD (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, David notMD. LBDon (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

As a followup to the question I just asked...

It would be possible for me to footnote every single sentence in the recent update, but there would be the same footnote after every single line in any one paragraph. There is absolutely no personal interpretation/editorial content added (by me) though I did avoid quoting every single sentence because the exact wording is not a quotation. Typically, as you can see, a single paragraph corresponds to a single public statement by Snyder.

I am sharing this because it may eliminate one or five rounds of back and forth:) LBDon (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

LBDon, if, typically, a single paragraph in a draft or article summarizes or quotes a single public statement by the subject of that draft or article, it's probable that something is very wrong. If each utterance is so percipient, courageous, outrageous or gnomic that it brings commentary from reliable sources independent of the subject, it might be permissible to summarize that commentary in a whole paragraph. But concision is a virtue. -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Hoary, you are quite a writer! LBDon (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for Investigation

Hello Teahouse Community,

Good day! I’d like to request an investigation into two specific users — Careybull and 71.229.251.189 — who have been making salacious edits to both the Peebles Corporation and R. Donahue Peebles pages. Upon reviewing each user's contributions, I noticed that they have only edited Peebles-related pages. For instance, if you check the Peebles Corporation article, you’ll find edits from 71.229.251.189 that include improperly cited references, altered context while still relying on the same source (rather than supporting the changes with a new one), and several unsourced updates. Meanwhile, Careybull’s edits appear to lean more toward the whitewashing of referenced information.

It appears that both users may be using the platform with the intent to manipulate or distort Peebles’ credibility. If you could look into this matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, and I look forward to your response. ~~~~ Axeia.aksaya (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really suited for the Teahouse; user conduct issues are discussed at WP:AN(though you must notify anyone you bring there). 331dot (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Axeia.aksaya (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Editing an infobox

I'd like to edit the monument infobox template but would like to make sure I do it correctly. I want to move the coordinates parameter to be more consistent with other infoboxes (building, protected area, etc). When looking at the code for the monument infobox template, particular items are numbered as label2, label3, label4, ... and similar. I can manually make the changes such that the numbers remain ordered but this seems like the incorrect way to do this. Is there a recommended method for adding an item. For example, it seems that the 'coordinates' label should be inserted after the 'location' label in the monument infobox template.

Would appreciate redirection if this is the incorrect channel to pose this query. High five. Tiled (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Best to bring this up at Template talk:Infobox monument, That said there is a sandbox for testing edits Template:Infobox monument/sandbox. Play with the sand box then post at Template talk:Infobox monument. Moxy🍁 16:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Notification for an alt account for privacy

Hi all,

Recently, I have wanted to edit articles and add images related to the place I live, but I've resisted doing so because I don't want to reveal my location. So, I'm considering creating an alt for that purpose. Having read through WP:SOCKLEGIT, this appears to be a permissible use, as long as I disclose it and don't engage in true sock behavior.

So my question - what's the correct way to disclose this? Obviously, I don't want to have a link between my two accounts, as that would defeat the purpose. What I'm thinking is to have a chunk of text on both of my accounts stating that I have 2 accounts for privacy reasons and that I'm happy to privately disclose the identity of the other to admins or checkusers with a valid reason. Would that be enough? I'm open to suggestions. 9yz (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

9yz, I suggest that you send an email to the Arbitration Committee disclosing your plan as soon as you register the second account. If anyone asks if you have another account, you can just reply "yes, and I have disclosed to ArbCom". Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 gotcha, I'll do that. Do you think I should still include some amount of text on my userpage(s) stating I have an alt? 9yz (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

9yz, if you choose to do so, I suggest that you say essentially the same thing with completely different wording on the two user pages, and avoid editing the same articles. That would make it more difficult for another editor to make the connection. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 yep, that was my plan! Thanks for your feedback. 9yz (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I suddenly found myself with an "alt" account after I got my original account Amatulic renamed. That account is still there, although the user page and talk page redirect to my current name. I do disclose it on my user page in the first paragraph. But... there doesn't seem to be anything preventing me from using that old username in certain circumstances, like when editing from a public computer in a library or some similar situation where someone could gain access to my current account. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

U5 Speedy Deletion

Hello, I was looking at DaRealHaribo user page and I believe that it falls under WP:U5 for speedy deletion as the use has not contributed outside of their userpage and it appears to be more of a personal webpage. The only other mention outside of Wikipedia that I could find was this Youtube account so it doesn't meet WP:N either (its currently also in a draft state here). However, I don't want to accidently nominate something for deletion. Please advise. Thanks. Thewindbird (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

U5 or G11 might be appropriate. Or provide a polite warning {{subst:uw-advert1}} on the talk page and see if that editor cleans up the user page. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Thewindbird (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

How can I encourage responses on an AfD submission?

I’ve made a submission to AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Ability with Innovation) that’s received no responses.

I’m not on a tirade to get this page deleted or anything, I’m more just curious about the process of AfD. This article came up in my newcomer tasks and when trying to find sources to improve the article, I thought the subject matter may not be notable. I’m making this thread(?) not to get the article deleted faster, but to figure out if I did anything wrong/suboptimally when making the AfD submission.

Are there things I can do to make it easier for others to participate in the discussion? Are there reasons nobody has replied to my submission yet, or am I just unlucky? SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion is listed on the AFD page, where people can see it and decide to comment, or not. If it doesn't get much participation, it would get re-listed. You could also help people out by explaining why you think the subject isn't notable. Did you do a search for sources, and if so, what did you come up with? As it is now, you're asking others to do the work for you to verify that the article qualifies for deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You’re right - I misinterpreted the convention and thought (wrongly) that the proposer should mostly stay out of making arguments.

Is it acceptable for me to edit the submission? Or should I make a new comment (sorry, I’m unsure of terms) with additional information? SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Depends on what you are changing. A new comment would be clearer. Currently when someone sees it they don't see a clear reason why it is not notable. Maybe a source assessment table (if interested use User:DannyS712/SATG.js) or a specific deletion reason would draw more attention. Happy editing, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I've added a comment with more detail as to why I think it's worth considering deleting.

Hopefully this will make it easier for others to participate in the discussion! SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, you can edit the submission to add context and clarification, and also respond to the comments of others who participate. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Tips

There are a lot of Wikipedia articles about do's and don't's, I'm fine with any tips, but I'm mostly looking for any tips that I should know for editing and vandalism. So are there any tips that I should know that aren't listed on those articles? GiftedGirI (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @GiftedGirI, would this be of any interest to you? Knitsey (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@GiftedGirI Do you think that you need more ressources that the useful ressource mentionned by @Knitsey ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes! That seems to be what I am looking for and thanks for the input! GiftedGirI (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I am good for now but if I do I will let you know :) GiftedGirI (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@GiftedGirI: there is Wikipedia:Tips. They can be a bit old and include much more than editing and vandalism fighting. If you click this link it should take you randomly to one of the over 1000 tips from there. Or you can visit {{totd-random}} and keep clicking "fetch another" (you will have say "Yes" to purge the page each time). Commander Keane (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice! - GiftedGirI GiftedGirI (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

"Michela Wrong" - Promotional language?

I was referred by Wikipedia's internal suggestion tool to the page for "Michela Wrong", saying: "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (July 2018)." I am struggling to find the promotional/biased language (aside from, maybe the "over 20 years" bit which seems like we should just have a date of her first article). I see in "Talk:Michela Wrong" one editor was concerned than an account was created to promote her work about 14 years ago, but she seems like a prominent journalist and author to me. Can any experienced authors offer perspective/guidance on this? ErrataNonGrata (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, as I'm looking through the page's history it looks like there have been substantial rewrites, source additions, etc. Would this be a candidate to have these flags removed from the article? If so, how would I handle a similar situation in the future? ErrataNonGrata (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I would start by looking to see who added the template, and look at what they discussed on the talk page. If they added it without any comments, you can leave a comment on the talk page asking for their rationale. Iknowyoureadog (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Michela Wrong. The image in her infobox shows her, apparently at a book launch, promoting her own book. This is fair enough, but may give an impression that the article is promotional. I have aimed to correct this impression by cropping the way the image is displayed. Maproom (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I removed the tags, as they dated to a time (2018) when the article only had three references, and was shorter. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you, this was really helpful for me to watch and learn. ErrataNonGrata (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about finding sources for old information

I have a question about the article I'm editing right now: Draft:Nick Rogers

I have been working to find sources to reference all of the awards and recognitions mentioned in the article but a lot of them are old school print only documentations which are really difficult to source today. How do I go about referencing sources for this kind of information as well as any other information where it might be hard to find direct online secondary sources? SlavaLi (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @SlavaLi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Finding sources is hard - I think we've all been there. The good news is that, on Wikipedia, you are allowed to use offline, print-only documents that aren't availible online. They have to be reliable and independent, of course, but they're fine. You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Offline sources. In this case, however, I have access to a website called Newspapers.com, and I've been able to find some of those sources online. It's late for me, but I've left links to them on the draft's talkpage. Hopefully they come in useful! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have the person's CV and Biblio that's about 56 pages long as well. Would this be an acceptable documentary source for some of the recognitions and awards mentioned in the article? SlavaLi (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

CVs and other sources published by the subject can, in some cases, be used for limited information. Articles shouldn't be sourced primarily to self-published sources, and self-published sources can't be used to cite any claims that are potentially self-serving or aggrandizing. Where exactly that line is can vary a little. For example, it would normally be okay to cite somebody's personal website to back up a birth year. However, you can't use it for awards or prizes. You might be able to use it for things like job titles, so long as there's no reason to doubt the source's authenticity. I'd try having a look at older newspapers or journals first, as well as reviews of the books he co-authored. (If such reviews exist, of course). Those will be what you need to prove that Rogers is notable by Wikipedia standards. Once you've established that, you can look at older publications by the colleges and journals he worked for, to establish that yes, he worked for them during certain periods of times. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

SlavaLi, missing from the first response to your question, but present in the second one is that although print-only and offline is okay, the material must be published. That is a crucial distinction; even if offline and print only, it must be possible for someone to find and access the print document if they are willing to spend enough effort to do so. So, something in the bowels of the archives in the Cairo Museum, yes; but a letter written written by Robert Oppenheimer to your grandfather when they worked together on the Manhattan Project and locked away in your storage space, not okay. Mathglot (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

SlavaLi Citing his journal articles (most of your refs) is not counted as establishing his Wikipedia notability, although for academics it is appropriate to have a Selected publications section which references 5-10 journal articles. And a subsection if any books authored.

Original research

If you have a reliable source that states "A = B", and another reliable source (or even the same source in a different location) that states "B = C", can you state in the article "A = C", citing both sources, or would that be considered original research? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Typically no, as per WP:SYNTH. However, certain things like routine calculations, images, and translations and transcriptions are exempt from that rule. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian It sounds like YES, it IS considered original research, aside from those exceptions. Did I understand that correctly? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Requesting Help with Creating a Page About Swimming Industry Companies

Hi everyone,

I’ve been working in the swimming industry for several years now and have developed deep knowledge about various swim brands, clubs, and companies that contribute to the sport. I recently attempted to create a Wikipedia page to share this information and highlight some of the key companies in the space.

However, my draft has been declined twice, and I’m not entirely sure what I’m doing wrong. I understand Wikipedia has strict guidelines for notability and reliable sourcing, and I want to make sure I'm following them correctly.

I’d really appreciate help from someone more experienced to guide me in shaping the article the right way. My goal is to contribute useful and verifiable information to the platform—not to promote, but to inform.

Is anyone available to help me review and improve the draft? Or point me in the right direction to get support from a mentor?

Thanks in advance! Dennisaxim (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:FINIS, Inc — jlwoodwa (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, That's the draft I was mentioned. Draft:FINIS, Inc Dennisaxim (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Dennisaxim, most of your references are reprints of press releases sent out by the company. A couple are links to the company's own website. The Bloomberg reference is simply a run-of-the-mill database entry. What is required are several references to reliable sources completely independent of FINIS that devote significant coverage to FINIS. There are currently no such references in the draft. What, if any, is your relationship to FINIS? Cullen328 (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply — I understand your concerns. I don’t have any direct relationship with FINIS. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a swim coach, and my intention was to share my personal experience and knowledge. I initially planned to write about swim methods, techniques, and the equipment brands commonly used in training, hoping it might be helpful to other swimming enthusiasts.

While researching, I noticed that some of the brands I currently use already have Wikipedia pages. Since FINIS didn’t have one, I decided to start with it as my first contribution. I do plan to work on articles related to other swim products as well in the future.

Are there any recommended tools or methods to help find valuable, independent sources? Or if possible, could you help me rephrase parts of the article to better align with Wikipedia’s standards? Dennisaxim (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 could you help me? Dennisaxim (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry, Dennisaxim, but no amount of rephrasing can transform a non-notable topic into a notable one. You are far more familiar with the range of sources that cover swimming related companies than I am. If you want to write about this topic, it is incumbent on you to find high quality independent sources to use as references. Cullen328 (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 ok. I think where I'm struggling is determining whether the sources I've collected are valuable or not.

Are there any tools to help filter or evaluate the reliability of sources? Or any best practices you recommend for finding and assessing high-quality sources? Dennisaxim (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Dennisaxim, there are three tests that must be applied to a source to determine whether it is of any value in contributing to the notability of a topic, which can also be described as the eligibility of the topic for a Wikipedia article. The source must be reliable. The source must be completely independent of the topic. And, the source must devote significant coverage to the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328, ok I got it.. thanks for your time. Dennisaxim (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of GrandViewResearch.com as a Source for Wikipedia

Hi, can we use content from GrandViewResearch.com as a source on Wikipedia—is it considered reliable and accepted by the community? Dennisaxim (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dennisaxim that website is not mentioned in the archives of the reliable sources page but it is used already 73 times in various articles, so I would say it is OK in general. Of course, as with all sources, it depends on what information you want to back up with that source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Translating an Article into Chinese

Error Message

Desired Language

Hi! I'm working on translating the article "Zero Population Growth" into simplified Chinese, but I wasn’t able to publish the translation because it says I'm "not experienced enough to publish translations." Does anyone know why this is the case and how to resolve it? Thank you very much! Zli39 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zli39 According to your global contribution log, you have only made 3 edits on zh: Wikipedia. If you had only that few here on en: Wikipedia, you would not be autoconfirmed and likewise would not be able to create articles directly. You'll need to ask at the zh: helpdesk or teahouse whether the rules there are the same as they are here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Wrong Date

On the current English home page, Main Page, under the "On this day" it states that in "1725 – J. S. Bach's cantata Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, was first performed on Easter Monday." If you click on the link for the cantata, it shows it was first performed it on 2 April 1725. April 2 is correct. If would like to know what happened on April 21. Beatles777! (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh wow, good catch. Put this in the main page's talk page under "Errors in 'On This Day' ". PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 11:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Beatles777!. It was composed for Easter Monday which was 2 April in 1725 but today in 2025. The different date is why it says "first performed on Easter Monday" and not merely "first performed". PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ooh, for some reason it didn't occur to me Easter Monday was on different days, haha.. silly me. 12:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC) PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something crucial, but even though it was performed on Easter Monday in 1725, it still should have been on an April 2nd OTD, no? It's a short list of things that happened on April 21st, not Easter Monday generally. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Probably, but it's still a mater for Talk:Main Page, not here, to decide. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

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

---

It strikes me as incongruous that we are allowed to cite sources in non-English languages on the English Wikipedia. How can we verify information if we can't read it, or if it's not even accessible to us? Is this discussed somewhere? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is discussed at WP:NONENG. There is longstanding consensus that non-English language sources are completely acceptable, though it's preferable to cite English-language sources when possible. However, removing access to non-English language sources would decimate much of our content bout anything outside the Anglosphere. They're treated a bit like offline sources, in that respect - while of course online, easily accessible sources are better, sometimes we just have to take it on faith that other that these high-quality source say what other Wikipedians are telling us it does. Besides, many Wikipedians speak multiple languages, and you can often get a rough idea as to whether a source verifies the content through the use of machine translators (though they should be used with caution). GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian Thank you for the link, but that only states the policy—there is no discussion or explanation. I am skeptical of the "take it on faith" idea because it goes against all the policies on notability, verifiability, reliable sources, etc. It's specifically because this has been designated an English Wikipedia, where the articles, comments, etc must be in English, that it's contradictory to allow sources that are not readable by the population this Wikipedia is intended for. It's not only a matter of verifiability; often I'm referring to the source because either the statement has been badly written and therefore isn't clear, or because I'm hoping to find an expanded discussion of the particular statement. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

For policy pages like that, most of the discussion will have been on the talk page. [3]. As you can see, this has been discussed before. On a personal level, I do get your point about foreign-language sources being harder to verify. They are. The thing I do disagree with you is the idea about trust- the vast majority of good articles (and probably Good Articles) use offline sourcing that may not be easily accessible. And yes, sometimes that backfires. I do a lot of CCI work, and I absolutely run into issues with source falsification or mistranslations that are much harder to pick up on because the sources were offline or not in English. However, the benefit (more information!) does ultimately outweigh the costs. Or, at least, it has so far. And, ultimately, I'd rather check articles against online foreign-language sources than offline English language sources. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a source be free or easy to access; you or anyone is free to learn a language in order to be able to review a source. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Not helpful. Using that reasoning, why bother with an English Wikipedia at all? Why not let people write in whatever language they choose? I expect better assistance from an admin. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ghost writer's cat, I can't read x language but some editors can. The project relies on that fact that those editors are competent. x language sources are going to cover their area/topics much better than English sources (which may be biased). The odds are a American source isn't going to cover a chinese politican (who meets WP:NPOL) at all or will do it poorly. Why not let people write in whatever language they choose?, They can? There are ~341 active wikis. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon This isn't just about editing, it's also about reading the articles. I wouldn't expect to find non-English footnotes with additional information in an English-language book, which is essentially what this amounts to. And no, in the English Wikipedia, we cannot write in whatever language we choose. As I stated below, if I want to read an article in Swedish, I'll go to the Swedish Wikipedia. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect to find non-English footnotes with additional information in an English-language book That may be your experience but it's far from universal. As I trained in European and Asian history I was always reading English-language monographs and textbooks which referenced primary and secondary sources in other languages, and yes, I could read and verify some of these myself. Maybe this is not done in the areas you work in, but you can't generalise this to every subject area covered by the encyclopaedia. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

+1, A well written book will have local sources. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

As with paywalled sites or ones that are no longer online, sometimes we have to look at things from a different angle. If you go through the history of the article you should be able to work out who added the info. You can then look at their userpage, talk and other contributions. If they are a much checked editor, with Featured and Good article content, then you can take some reassurance that much of their other content has gone through scrutiny, and you are pretty safe to trust their work. At the other end of the scale if their talkpage has a plethora of warnings about misinterpreting sources and eventually a retirement or block, then reverting an edit you find implausible but can't check can be reasonable. Of course much of Wikipedia will be somewhere in between those extremes. If the other language source is easily available and you don't trust the person who used it, you could try finding a Wikipedian who speaks that language and ask for their help. A query on the talkpage of the relevant Wikiproject, might work, or you could go looking to see who has the relevant userbox on their userpage (Template:User fr is the French one), check if they have edited recently, and if so ask for their help. ϢereSpielChequers 20:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Google Translate. It is helpful to me for reading sources in other languages. Not so good for some Middle Eastern and Asian languages but quite good for European languages. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That works only for material that's on-line. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I think your arguments may be about effort? If there is a dusty old book in stack at a remote library that has great knowledge for an article and a Wikipedian is willing to get there, I think we should use it. It is going to take a lot effort to verify facts from that source. It takes a lot of effort to learn a new language to understand a source, but machine translation, OCR or your multi-lingual colleagues can help. The want for only viewing information in articles that can be verified in English from freely (as in beer) available online sources is reasonable, but that is currently not Wikipedia's model. Given the licensing, anyone is able to fork English Wikipedia to make a project those goals, but you are unlikely to get support from the Wikimedia Foundation. One of the Foundation's goals is to let people write in the language they choose (there are over 300 language variants) and there is the Abstract Wikipedia project as a first step towards unification. Commander Keane (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Commander Keane As to your last point, we are not allowed within the English Wikipedia to use whatever language we choose.

People keep responding with, essentially, "That's how it is." That's not addressing my question. The question is why?? This is the English Wikipedia; the information should be in English. What's the objective of that rule? I assumed it was to provide a Wikipedia for English-speaking people, but it's not helpful if the source is in another language. If I wanted to read articles in Swedish, I'd go to the Swedish Wikipedia. Everything else here is required to be in English, so why do the sources get a pass? It doesn't make sense. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I can't explain it any better. You may have to accept that your desire is too limiting for everyone else. The information here is available in English, if you are not willing to put in effort to look at the sources in other languages that is on you. It is helpful for the others that are willing, and they out number you. The reason is that the collective knowledge of the world isn't recorded purely in English language sources. Commander Keane (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Commander Keane "not willing to put in effort to look at the sources in other languages" isn't a fair assessment, nor a fair assumption. There's an overly-general assumption in the responses here that the sources are all going to be available on-line and translatable. They're not. If someone uses as a source a physical book, written in another language, that's on a shelf somewhere in the world, you are correct that I'm not willing to "put in the effort" to find the book, get possession of it, and then have it translated. I challenge your statement that there are "others that are willing, and they out number" me. (I'm dismayed just by the number of editors who argue over an edit without even checking the source material when it's only a click away.) For all the policy, guidance, templates, essays, and what have you here on reliable sources, verifiability, notability, etc, things sure get loose when it comes to sources that the majority of us aren't even expected to be able to access. I'm amazed there hasn't even been any discussion on this, apparently no more than a couple sentences of explanation in total. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see. Maybe your issue is trust then. If you don't trust user-generated content like Wikipedia then you should ignore the text and just read the sources listed at the bottom that are accesible for you. Wikipedia is a project that provides the sources, so you are free to read them and generate your own understanding about a topic instead if you wish. I trust the Swedish speaking Wikipedian visiting that dusty libary shelf near Stockholm that is bilingual, you don't. That's fine. Maybe there is an essay on trusting Wikipedia somewhere. English Wikipedia has over 6,000,000 articles and is a top 10 website, so I would say others put more faith into it than you and perhaps that is so obvious that it isn't documented. I trust that when Ghost writer's cat makes an edit based on an online, available, English source that it is okay. And I can check it if I am in doubt or I trust others will check even if it off-line and in another language. You are proposing a source-limiting fork of Wikipedia that may have been tried before, I'm not sure. An alternate project that trusts experts instead of users to write an encyclopedia would be Britannica. Commander Keane (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ghost writer's cat, the incidence of references to offline paper sources in obscure languages is very low. The English Wikipedia is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world. It is not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Our bilingual and multilingual editors are an enormous asset to the project, and they should not be disrespected so cavalierly. It simply would not be possible, for example, to write comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of Japanese history and culture without summarizing Japanese language sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I resent your assertion that I've been disrespectful—there's no evidence of that whatsoever. I'm only pointing out the incongruity that all articles and discussion must be in English yet the sources are not held to the same requirement. Why restrict to English only? Have non-native English speakers been disrespected by being required to write their articles and comments in English? To your last point, are you suggesting there is not comprehensive coverage of Japanese history and culture in English publications? I have serious doubts about that claim. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ghost writer's cat, your highly idiosyncratic views on this matter are out of line with longstanding consensus. Your argument boils down to an ill-informed view that the monumental work by editors who write English language summaries of reliable sources in other languages ought to be removed from the encyclopedia, and that is disrespectful of those exceptionally valuable editors. You try writing a Good article or Featured article on a significant Japanese topic using only English language sources, and see how far you would get. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Please stop with the personal attacks. I've not suggested anything be removed. I started this section by asking for any existing discussion on this topic; I see there is none, which means there is no "long-standing consensus". If you have only opinion and no concrete information to share, I respectfully request that you don't comment further. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how Cullen's comments were personal attacks, but whatever.

Anyways, yeah, Cullen's right. Good luck trying to get enough English sources for Altanbulag, Selenge to reach Featured Article status That's not going to happen. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ghost writer's cat, There is consensus. @GreenLipstickLesbian, gave you a link in their response. If you want another link of the talk page discussion look here. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

And definitely try it on a not-that-significant topic! I spent a decent amount of time working on Hanako (elephant). I used English-language sources where possible, but it relies very heavily on Japanese sources. Because, surprise surprise, English-language newspapers do not report on a statue of an elephant being erected at a Japanese train station, or license plates being created in honor of the elephant. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ghost writer's cat, don't you dare tell me not to comment further. I will comment where I want and when I want. I engaged in no personal attacks. I criticized your idea, not you. I know nothing about you but I consider your idea deeply flawed and will continue to say so as long as you articulate it. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 My "idea" is a question and a request for discussion, either past or present. If that's your concept of a "deeply flawed idea", which you will continue to shut down, then this Teahouse is pointless. Good job. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ghost writer's cat, I am afraid you have the wrong way. The Teahouse is for helping new editors not holding discussions on established policy. There are more appropriate forums, such as the Village pump or the talk page, for holding discussions on policy. Note: If no one objects, it may be best to close this and move it to a more appropriate page. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Archiving; Talk:Curt Weldon

We have archived Talk:Curt Weldon however there is no link to the archived wikipage, can someone fix this.

Also, the same issue with Talk:Rhyl

Regards Guiy de Montfort^talk 13:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Like this? There are a few ways and layouts, but this one is easy:) DMacks (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, that works. Guiy de Montfort^talk 16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Needed something to contribute to Wikipedia

I’m a new user that joined on Wikipedia. And I already started editing on this site. Can you please share something that I needed to contribute to Wikipedia? I’ve been trying to figure out on how to add info to sections. Clubtoon112 (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The task center is a good place to check out if you're not sure how to contribute. It breaks stuff down into difficulty levels based on editor experience. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Explain on community, not the writing only. Clubtoon112 (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're specifically asking for. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s the Wikipedia community. Not just the editing. Clubtoon112 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Below writing, is the community on the task center. Clubtoon112 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Banned from XTools

Hi everyone, I got a message when I try to use XTools that says; "Your access to XTools has been blocked due to apparent abuse or disruptive automation. If you are a bot, please use our public APIs instead, which are optimized for this purpose: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/XTools/API For inquiries, please contact tools.xtools@toolforge.org". I do not know what to do I have never spammed XTools or anything. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@History6042 See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#XTools_down?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about Article of Creation

Hello!

I submitted an article (Rebecca B. Alston) for review, and it has been accepted. I have two questions: 1) what do I need to do to resolve the conflict of interest banner that is still on the article? 2) When will the webpage itself be created? I searched it manually and it seems to not be created yet. Archfusionpro (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The article (or webpage) Rebecca B. Alston certainly exists. (Its section headers are all in headline case, they ought to be in sentence case.) Maproom (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Archfusionpro The COI banner is there probably because the text contains such gems as "Bio Forms communicates a distinction from her earlier geometric work while retaining a subtle indication of geometric vocabulary, moving towards more fluid, exploratory forms that reference organic decay through viral compositions. These works elucidate a dynamic microcosm rendered through a unified approach merging painting and drawing techniques." which are not cited to a source and read like as if written by someone with a COI. Clean out all such material and the COI will be less obvious. As to "search it manually", do you mean you tried to use an external search engine to find the article but failed as it hasn't yet been indexed? That's because, although the AfC process is complete the article has not been reviewed by the new pages patrol and won't be available to search engines until it is, or 90 days have elapsed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. As for the sentences in regards to the example mentioned, these are found in sources that have been listed and included. Does each sentence have to be cited to said source? When this is completed, will the COI banner be removed? As to "search it manually", I meant via the Wikipedia search, not Google! The explanation makes sense, I appreciate the follow up! Archfusionpro (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Content like "These works elucidate a dynamic microcosm rendered through a unified approach merging painting and drawing techniques" cannot be included in Wikipedia's voice you need to use quotes and state who said it. It is YOU that has the conflict of interest and you should be using the talk page to request edits, not editing directly. Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible for you or someone else to review and rectify said edits (such as verifying/properly citing sources and creating pull direct quotes from the curator that wrote several pieces about her, similarly to the quote from Dr. Pat Pinson)? I have been under the impression that this space was to do so to circumvent editing directly. I am a bit confused because there was the mention in a prior interaction to "clean out all such material". Archfusionpro (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Archfusionpro We have a policy for biographies of living people that all material likely to be challenged must be cited to an inline source. It isn't enough to have a source somewhere in a biography that does in fact back up the information: it should, for example be at the end of each relevant paragraph and if it is a quote then it must also be stated who used these exact words (with quotation marks). I didn't make any assumption about which editor had the COI but if it was you then you should now only suggest changes via the article's talk page, perhaps using the edit request wizard. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Theroadislong should have ensured that the promotional fluff was removed before accepting that draft. I would not have acccepted it in that state. Feel free to clean it up. The COI tag is not going to be removed until an uninvolved editor reviews the article and deems the tag no longer applicable.

As a COI editor, you may remove promotional material, revert obvious vandalism, make minor corrections to spelling, grammar, numbers, names, dates, etc. and you may add citations to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Anything more substantive than that, you should propose on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The role of an AfC reviewer is to accept drafts that have more than 50% likelihood of surviving an AfD. It is a very low bar. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes...thank you Ca for explaining this, users sometimes mistake the role of reviewers, we are not here to ensure that drafts are perfect, but that they stand a good chance of surviving an WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

A draft doesn't have to be perfect. But a reviewer should also not approve a draft, no matter how notable the topic, if the purpose of the draft is promotional, as this was. That should be cleared out before approval. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect... there is no requirement for reviewers to remove promotion, that is not part of our remit. Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and moved to mainspace. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say reviewers are required to remove promotion, I said the promotion should be cleared out prior to approval; it doesn't matter who does it. Also, AfD isn't the only consideration. We are all required to abide by Wikipedia policies. Reviewers, also, are required to ensure that drafts they approve don't violate core policies, especially if the draft includes passages that are flagrant violations. WP:NOTPROMOTION in this case forbids the use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. There are two ways a reviewer can address the problem: clean up the draft prior to promoting it, or decline to promote it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Anachronist Check the article history I accepted the article and then I edited it for neutral tone, removing unsourced hagiographic content and unsourced puffery. Theroadislong (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You certainly did, and that's great, but you did miss a couple of things quoted above. Although that was a mistake, I am not without sin myself to be casting stones; I can say confidently that I probably make more mistakes than other experienced editors. I'm just sayin' I would have made the draft acceptable before accepting it or I would have declined it, but the cleanup got done and that's the main thing. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You clearly think you could have done a btter job, perhaps you need to become a reviewer, we need many more the back,log of drafts is getting ever larger. Theroadislong (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Who knows if I would have done better. You did a good job removing the most egregious stuff but you missed a couple of things. We all make mistakes, heaven knows I do. And yes, I do on occasion patrol new pages and review submitted drafts; both areas are backed up. I'm also an administrator, and there's no end of messes to clean in that role as well. For years I've been feeling that Wikipedia has grown too big for the small crowd of active editors that we have. I keep seeing the same small handful of usernames I trust over and over (you're among them). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft: Gerald Louis Burke

Somehow my draft article has been tagged as "Biography" by someone, but it's actually about his life as a medical researcher and his discoveries and works.

Is this the result of a normal WP classification process? Henrilebec (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Henrilebec: do you mean your pending draft Draft:Gerald Louis Burke? (Please link to the article/draft you refer to, so it's clear what you're talking about, and so that others don't have to go looking for it.) This is a biographical article, since it is clearly about a person; you say as much yourself ("about his life"). Also, where are you saying it has been "tagged"? Why is any of this a problem, in your view? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm not an experienced editor and I hadn't placed that tag, so I was curious where it came from. Henrilebec (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Henrilebec: I guess you refer to [4]. It's a normal process and it's certainly a biography so there is no problem. Pages can have multiple WikiProject tags. I don't see good reason for {{WikiProject Academic Journals}} but I have added {{WikiProject Medicine}}. PrimeHunter (talk)

Fair use for an image of a prayer card published in France in 1935 and scanned in a book published in France in 2007?

I have been working on the article Jean-Mohammed Abd-el-Jalil and would like to upload an image of his priestly ordination card from 1935, which is notable and unique because it features Qur'an verses. The only source I have for it is scanning an image of it from the book Massignon - Abd-el-Jalil : Parrain et filleul 1926-1962, a edition of the letters exchanged between the subject of the article and his godfather, Louis Massignon. Would uploading a scanned image of the card for the article fall under fair use? M.A.Spinn (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, M.A.Spinn. Wikipedia's policies on use of Non free images are stricter than the legal doctrine of Fair use. That being said, the image you describe probably meets WP:NFCI #4 as long as it is accompanied by referenced critical commentary describing how unique the card is. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The prayer card, and therefore a 2D image of this 2D item, might be public domain (completely free, not a non-free fair-use exception). Do you know where he was ordained--France, or Morocco, or somewhere else? Is the creator of the card itself actually known (would this person have done it himself, or someone in particular among his mentors, or just the work of some anonymous administrative person in the church)? Are you able to link to the book's page where the scan is? Depending what creative elements (if any) vs plain-text it contains might also be relecant. DMacks (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The ordination took place in Paris in 1935. I'd have to double check but I don't think the artist signed the card and it has no copyright notice on it. I can source the page from the book it is scanned from and the book itself sources it to the Franciscan Archives in France. So what we're dealing with is a scan of a scan of archival material from the 1935 with no author or copyright notice listed. The creative element is Arabic calligraphy combined with Christian iconography. M.A.Spinn (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Best I can determine is that it would be free in France but not free in the US. So it cannot be placed on commons (not free in both original country and US), and it can be placed on enwiki (US host) as non-free fair-use. It could also be placed on frwiki without restriction now. On January 1, 2031, it becomes PD in the US, so it could be placed on commons, used on all wikis, and not require fair-use handling. How's that for chaotic? DMacks (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It works for my purposes! M.A.Spinn (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Referencing questions

Hello! I have a question regarding referencing. I've been clicking the "random" button on Pages with broken reference names and trying to clean up said broken references if I feel I'm able to. While doing this, I've come across several scenarios where I'm not sure how to proceed, and I would appreciate some guidance.

• Zond program contains a broken reference that is defined in Zond 7, linked right above the broken reference. In this case, the book is available on Google Books, and supports the information given.

• Filibuster (military) has a broken reference to a YouTube video. While the video appears related, YouTube is not a WP:RS (and from my skim of the video, the quote its given next to doesn't appear in it).

• A while ago at 2027 in spaceflight, I believed I was able to identify a broken reference name from context clues in the name, but I didn't think the information in that article adequately supported the information it was next to (in conjunction with the other source provided for that item in the list, there was also some discussion on the talk page, but the editor who added the reference never responded).

In these example cases, I've had enough information (available book, video in a language I speak, enough passing familiarity with a topic) to either know the source supports the claim or have concerns about it. My instinct is that it would be appropriate in these cases to fix the reference name, even if I have concerns, but I'm not sure.

I guess in general, in cases where a source can be identified as the source the inserting editor intended, but it's not adequate in some way (unreliable, questionable relevance, etc), or I can't personally verify the information it's claiming to support (offline source I don't have access to, language barrier, etc), is it better to leave the reference broken for a better equipped editor to handle, or fix it despite the potential concerns? NovaHyperion (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Asking for advice on a recently declined article

Hello! An article I submitted was recently declined, and the feedback received was regarding notability of the subject and that the article reads more like an advertisement (there were also some edits needed but I think I've addressed those). Can I ask for more clarification on the notability part? I'm surprised the subject is not considered notable, he was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for his work co-hosting a podcast that has gained international recognition, among other successes. Can I ask for more details so I can make the necessary corrections and submit a better version of this article for reconsideration? Thank you for any advice you can provide. Kinfolx1114 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 16:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Kinfolx1114/sandbox Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Kinfolx1114 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kinfolx1114, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked at your draft, so I'm answering in general terms: what somebody is or does, does not of itself contribute to notability as Wikipedia uses the word. Notability mostly means "Enough independent material about the subject has been published in reliable sources to base an article on".

Some kinds of activity or achievement - such as winning a major prize, or being appointed to certain posts - create a presumption that the person is notable, but we still need the reliable independent sources to base the article on. Winning a Pulitzer Prize is probably in that category, but only being nominated for one is not. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @ColinFine! Thank you! The official definition of notability makes me feel that he is qualified, just from coverage in reliable independent sources. But I appreciate that being nominated for a Pulitzer is not, alone, a reason. I'll take a second look and make sure I linked enough resources, I thought I had but will check again and see if there are opportunities to improve. I know you haven't read the draft but if you get a chance to glance and form an opinion on notability, I would appreciate the feedback. Thanks again Kinfolx1114 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Kinfolx1114: the first sentence of your sandox lists seven activities that Thomas has devoted himself to. But it never makes it clear which of them (if any) he's notable for. It repeatedly states that he's been in prison, but it never explains what he was found guilty of. (Yes, I'm aware that in the US, being imprisoned depends on skin colour and the ability to afford a good lawyer as much as actual guilt – but the reader still needs to be told.) Maproom (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Maproom, thank you for that feedback! This is helpful, I'd like to ask two follow up questions: The first sentence mentions that he is most known for his hosting of Ear Hustle podcast, but the other titles are less notable but referenced. (for example, 'writer' is backed with citations of published work, 'curator' is cited with an article covering curation at the Museum of African Diaspora, etc.). Would it be more appropriate to say the notable role first and then mention the others? Or do all activities have to be notable to be mentioned? Also, you mentioned that the reader needs to be told (re: details of his experience in the criminal justice system), is it a requirement for the article to be considered? Again, thank you! Kinfolx1114 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant to tag you! @Maproom Kinfolx1114 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Kinfolx1114: so he's best known for his role in Ear Hustle. The body of the article explains that he's its co-host. The first sentence of the lead should state that he's its co-host, and that is what he's principally notable for. His other activities can be mentioned later.

The body of the article reminded me of Gogol's novel Dead Souls. At the end of one chapter, the central character is travelling freely through the Russian countryside. At the start of the next, he is in prison, with no explanation of why. This is not a literary device by Gogol; it's because he inadvertently destroyed his manuscripts for some missing chapters. There's no requirement for the article to explain why Thomas was imprisoned, but it seems odd to omit it. Maproom (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Students

I found a really nice job for student editors (psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, medicine, or the history of science and medicine): writing a new section History of Functional neurological symptom disorder. See: Talk:Functional_neurological_symptom_disorder#History_rewrite. Is there any way I can tell anybody about this? Lova Falk (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lova Falk I suggest you try leaving a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

A new article

Hello! I would like to create a page on the music artist The Stupendium. I would create it but I don’t have the time nor do i have the info. If some people would like to help me i will create a draft and put it here. (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Boeing747Pilot, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but if you're not able to put the time into finding the essential reliable independent sources required to establish that The Stupendium is notable, then it is very unlikely to happen. While it's not impossible that somebody will see your request and want to work with you, it's not very likely: why should a volunteer editor want to? (Maybe if somebody else here is a fan).

In its present state Draft:The Stupendium has zero chance of being accepted, because it has only a single source, whose reliability is disputed (see WP:GENIUS), and does not really have significant coverage of the artist.

Please see your first article. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes i am aware of the fact the article is very short. I don’t plan a submitting it within the week or maybe even the month. I have a lot to do and will put as much time in as i can. And i know The Stupendium is known. I will put more sources in and hunt to find anymore. (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

See WP:BACKWARD. You should write the article forward, by finding the sources first before you even start. Don't worry about the time it takes. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thats a really good idea because info is useless without a source to back it up! Thank you! (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Dries Verhoeven: can I move?

I've created a draft article for the Dutch artist Draft: Dries Verhoeven. Since I have 'autoconfirmed' status, I believe I'm able to move the article to mainspace. Would that be appropriate at this point? I feel the article is essentially complete now.

Before doing so, I'd appreciate having someone proofread it to catch any issues I might have missed. Could anyone suggest where I might find someone willing to review it?

Floriano95 (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Floriano95 Hello and welcome. You've already submitted the draft for a review; if you want feedback on it, or someone to check it for errors, you should allow the review process to play out.

I can say that you should remove the external links from the "chronologial overview" section; if these are intended as references, you should format them as references instead, but they seem to just be links to his own website to document the existence of his work; an article about him should not merely list his entire portfolio, but works that are discussed in reliable sources independent of the subject. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, a section on Selected works with just a few listed is more appropriate for Wikipedia than a long list. David notMD (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. In my research before creating this page I found a lot of English-language wikipedia pages of Dutch artists with long lists, such as Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker and Renzo Martens, Ivo van Hove. So my assumption was that this is common practice. Floriano95 (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I will remove the references to the artists site, and add references to theaters the shows played at. That is what you mean right? Floriano95 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to go back to questions I have asked at the teahouse?

I cannot seem to navigate my way back there to see historical questions and your responses. Thank you. LBDon (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

In general, old questions are archived. The navigation box for the Teahouse archive is at the top of this page.

If you want to go to older questions, I know of two ways: If you still remember the Headline of the question, you could search it in the search archives box at the top of this page. Or just browse through the archives in general via the links there.

The alternative, if you want to go back to one of your previous questions is going via your contributions page. Click on any of the headlines for your questions in brackets. That will either take you to appropriate section, or it will open a box with a link on your screen if that section has already been archived. LightlySeared (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

And another way: If one of your sections on the Teahouse is archived, the bot that does that should leave a link to that section on your talk page. LightlySeared (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, LightlySeared! LBDon (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@LBDon: On the right side of the page, under the box with the table of contents is a box that says "Most recent archives". In that "Most recent archives" box, there is a search box. Try searching your username, and your previous questions should come up. Alternatively, here is a link to your previous posts here. Cheers, and happy editing! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Relativity. LBDon (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Help removing what seems to experts as personal viewpoint/not encyclopedic tone

Timothy Snyder

Views on threats to democracy and pursuit of freedom [edit source]

This message appears: This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (April 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Could someone please give five or more examples of some text that does not appear to be appropriately encyclopedic? In a perfect world, I could make changes that would allow for the removal of this comment.

The comment came after a recent update of about nine new paragraphs. Initially in 2022 there had been concerns that I addressed, and I am not sure how the newer text became more of a problem.

Thank you for your kind guidance!

The more specific you are, the better. I understand the principle of encyclopedic tone, but am sure that the text is an exceptionally faithful report of what Snyder has said, and can provide the original text as needed if that helps to reveal any bias introduced at my end. LBDon (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @LBDon. This tag was placed by @JooneBug37 (as can be seen by viewing the article history), so it would be good to directly ask him why he placed the tag, and to continue discussion on the article talk page.

At first glance, this section seems disproportionately long: the article should mainly describe what independent, secondary sources have said about Snyder, instead of simply restating his own words. It also blurs opinion and fact with extended paraphrasing, implicitly describing his own views as true statements, e.g. False emergencies to disguise lawless policies and destruction of official records work not only against the security of Americans, but also against our freedom. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

AWESOME, helpful raccoon. I will do that. LBDon (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @LBDon. Please remember 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) 22:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine. LBDon (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Cut the Views on threats to democracy and pursuit of freedom section by 90%. David notMD (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, David notMD. LBDon (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

As a followup to the question I just asked...

It would be possible for me to footnote every single sentence in the recent update, but there would be the same footnote after every single line in any one paragraph. There is absolutely no personal interpretation/editorial content added (by me) though I did avoid quoting every single sentence because the exact wording is not a quotation. Typically, as you can see, a single paragraph corresponds to a single public statement by Snyder.

I am sharing this because it may eliminate one or five rounds of back and forth:) LBDon (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

LBDon, if, typically, a single paragraph in a draft or article summarizes or quotes a single public statement by the subject of that draft or article, it's probable that something is very wrong. If each utterance is so percipient, courageous, outrageous or gnomic that it brings commentary from reliable sources independent of the subject, it might be permissible to summarize that commentary in a whole paragraph. But concision is a virtue. -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Hoary, you are quite a writer! LBDon (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for Investigation

Hello Teahouse Community,

Good day! I’d like to request an investigation into two specific users — Careybull and 71.229.251.189 — who have been making salacious edits to both the Peebles Corporation and R. Donahue Peebles pages. Upon reviewing each user's contributions, I noticed that they have only edited Peebles-related pages. For instance, if you check the Peebles Corporation article, you’ll find edits from 71.229.251.189 that include improperly cited references, altered context while still relying on the same source (rather than supporting the changes with a new one), and several unsourced updates. Meanwhile, Careybull’s edits appear to lean more toward the whitewashing of referenced information.

It appears that both users may be using the platform with the intent to manipulate or distort Peebles’ credibility. If you could look into this matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, and I look forward to your response. ~~~~ Axeia.aksaya (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really suited for the Teahouse; user conduct issues are discussed at WP:AN(though you must notify anyone you bring there). 331dot (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Axeia.aksaya (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Editing an infobox

I'd like to edit the monument infobox template but would like to make sure I do it correctly. I want to move the coordinates parameter to be more consistent with other infoboxes (building, protected area, etc). When looking at the code for the monument infobox template, particular items are numbered as label2, label3, label4, ... and similar. I can manually make the changes such that the numbers remain ordered but this seems like the incorrect way to do this. Is there a recommended method for adding an item. For example, it seems that the 'coordinates' label should be inserted after the 'location' label in the monument infobox template.

Would appreciate redirection if this is the incorrect channel to pose this query. High five. Tiled (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Best to bring this up at Template talk:Infobox monument, That said there is a sandbox for testing edits Template:Infobox monument/sandbox. Play with the sand box then post at Template talk:Infobox monument. Moxy🍁 16:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Major problems with the "Vinland" article.

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

---

There is a long-standing problem with the "Vinland" article. Some people are trying to claim that a consensus exists that places "Vinland/Wineland" in present day Newfoundland or New Brunswick. I edited the article this morning to better reflect the true situation that there is still a major debate underway over the true location of "Vinland/Wineland." In the 1965 book by Magnusson and Palsson, - "The Vinland Sagas", they reported that a "...majority of scholars..." had inclined to the view that Vinland/Wineland was in New England. See pages eight and forty-two. Their statement still holds 100% true today. The book is STILL being used today as a college level textbook. Bringing up this point about New England having more support among scholars apparently upsets many people who want to push the idea that "Vinland/Wineland" was confined to Canada. It is true that L'Anse aux Meadows in north Newfoundland is so far the only proven pre-Columbian European site in North America, but it has never been accepted by scholars as the true site of "Vinland/Wineland." One of many problems with identifying L'Anse aux Meadows as "Vinland/Wineland" is that wild grapes do not grow in Newfoundland. That has long been a major problem for academics who are also certain that "Wineland" is the only proper interpretation of "Vinland." The "Pastureland" interpretation has never been accepted by Icelandic scholars.... and the sagas are written in the Icelandic language. My question is this, - how to correct the "Vinland" article to report the true story... that the location of the area is still in dispute and that New England cannot, and should not be excluded from the "academic discussion"?? Rockawaypoint (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Those editors who have been watching the Vinland pages made it clear to you a long time ago that using outdated sources such as Magnusson and Palsson - that predates the original excavation of l'anse aux meadows is inappropriate as is the use of WP:SYNTH and self-published or unreliable sources that attempt to place Vinland in New England despite the absence of any credible archaeological evidence. The advice I'd give you now is the same advice I gave you in February: use current reliable sources. Your arguments mostly depend on a personal interpretation of the Vinland Sagas that assumes these are factual historical documents - this is a flawed assumption. Please stick to RS. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Your claim that Magnusson and Palsson's book is "outdated" is your opinion ONLY. The book is cited still,... today... sixty years after it was published!! I think you have a problem with this book because there is no doubt it is in the "authoritative" category and definitely a "reliable source." For you to try and say it is not reliable reveals a great deal here. The book is cited "all the time" today. It has long been considered a college level textbook. The 40 page introduction is considered extremely valuable and the translation is considered to be highly reliable,... maybe because it has been done by two highly respected Icelanders. You are also 100% incorrect in assuming... I am assuming anything. To try and say I assume "...these are factual historical documents" is ridiculous!! How long have you studied this topic?? What gives you such a wealth of knowledge about it? Do you think you are better equipped to judge Vinland/Wineland's location than Carl Ortwin Sauer? He is still considered to be the "Dean" of American Historical Geography. He placed Vinland/Wineland firmly in southern New England. Are you going to deny he is a "reliable source" in this topic involving Historical Geography?? Rockawaypoint (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate place for an extended content discussion. Nor is there any point in rewarming an argument that was thoroughly answered in January. If you have any new current, reliable sources to present that demonstrate literally any archaeological evidence of Norse colonization in New England please present those sources at the relevant page discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The book by Magnusson and Palson makes clear there is only ONE academic consensus about the location of "Wineland".... New England. And again.... do you think you have more qualifications than Carl Ortwin Sauer in the field of historical geography?? Rockawaypoint (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m off to bed, but it is true that this is just a rehash of an old argument by a single purpose ed. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

That is ONLY your opinion. You seem to have a very hard time acknowledging Carl O. Sauer took a firm position favoring southern New England as Vinland. He was probably the most qualified of all academics to say where Wineland had been. This paper from 2011, - "Sauer's Berkeley School Legacy: Foundation for an Emergent Environmental Geography?" says about Sauer, - "By almost any measure, Carl O. Sauer was one of geography's premier twentieth century scholars." Sauer is still highly reliable today. Come to grips with what he wrote about the Wineland controversy. Rockawaypoint (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is: if you cannot convince the other editors at Talk:Vinland, then you cannot "correct" the Vinland article. If you're told by almost everyone that you're saying the same things over and over again, then you've lost this one. The Teahouse is not where these article-specific discussions go; there's no benefit to arguing about Sauer here. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, that is really too bad. It is interesting in a way to see how narrowminded people can be when the subject of "Vinland/Wineland" comes up here and elsewhere. Same with how some people believe they are well informed but turn out to be only misinformed. Rockawaypoint (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The article's Talk page has location discussions dating back more than ten years. Peruse all that, and only then start a new discussion if you believe you have reliable sources to add to the debate. David notMD (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

There is NO consensus as claimed by Simonm223 that supports Newfoundland or New Brunswick as the "answer" in the Wineland debate. That is ONLY the preferred choice of a small group. The entire issue of Wineland's location is still up in the air... there is no "final conclusion" as suggested in the first paragraph. Even Birgitta Wallace, one of the Parks Canada archeologists at L'Anse aux Meadows, has written in Gwyn Jones' "The Norse Atlantic Saga", 1986 edition, that it "...is impossible to equate northern Newfoundland with Vinland." [see page 300.] Many other reliable sources say essentially the same thing... "Newfoundland is NOT Vinland." But Wikipedia's Vinland article is saying it is.

So where are the "reliable sources" that say New Brunswick or Newfoundland IS Vinland as reported in that first paragraph. It is NOT true. Rockawaypoint (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Then in 1988 they finished the initial excavation of l'Anse Aux Meadows. Archeological evidence trumps attempts to divine the setting of a hughly fictionalized account such as the sagas. But, again, this is not the right place for this discussion. And, again, we had this discussion to exhaustion in January already. Please provide reliable sources drafted after the major Archeological find at the appropriate article talk. Please do not tag me into the teahouse conversation again. Simonm223 (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Was my course of action correct?

I came across the user User:Titan Technology Corporation (Titan), and reported to UAA. Later, I found that the user overlinks quite a lot. So I welcomed the user, then templated the user for the overlink. Looking back, I think maybe welcoming the user and reporting to UAA in addition to templating them may come across as bitey. Is there a better course of action I could have followed? —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 03:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Mint Keyphase. I see no problem with that you've did. You can always write a personal message rather than template, but that is optional. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

How should I go about dealing with the edit the user had already made though? I am not too sure if a mass revert would be appropriate, especially considering the time passed... —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 05:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been searching through your edit history and don't know what you're talking about. Can you link it? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 15:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not actually go ahead with the mass revert per concerns above. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 03:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

You can revert them if the edits aren't appropriate. I see no problem. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Removing images from the Signpost

Hi. There was recently a Signpost article about WikiProject AI Cleanup that included some AI generated images that the project removed from articles. Some people on Commons now want to delete the images from there due to being out of scope but we can't because the images are technically in use. Which just seems like a weird reason not to delete the files but whatever. Does anyone know if there's a process for removing images from the Signpost or can I just do it? Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Ask at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost, perhaps? In the interest of preservation, you could add the pics locally to en-WP and put those in the Signpost article instead, thus "freeing" them for deletion on Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

AfC Help

Hi! I've submitted this draft on Koorai silk sarees to AfC:

Draft:Koorai silk saree

I'd really appreciate any feedback while it’s waiting in the review queue.

Does the article meet notability guidelines, and are there any issues I should fix in the meantime?

Thanks in advance! En.saravanan (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

En.saravanan Hello and welcome. You don't need to pipe a url into a link, the full title is all that is needed. I fixed this for you.

As you have submitted the draft for review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. We don't really do pre-review reviews as that's redundant. Please be patient, a review could take some time. Please allow the process to play out. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

My article received feedback and I responded to it

My article received feedback and I responded to it. I'm not sure what I should do now. Just waiting? Any advice would be helpful ErnaJansdottir (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, @ErnaJansdottir! Yes, resubmitting your draft after addressing the issues and then waiting is the best you can do. Please address any concerns reviewers post if your draft is declined: if you don't, the draft probably won't get through the Articles for Creation process. Hope this helps! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 13:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked in detail but your use of bolding is not in line with the guidance at WP:BOLDFACE: you have over-used it. Also, you should remove the external link in the main text, although it may be converted to a citation if it it backs up the information you mention. Finally, I would expect more of the specialist words to be wikilinked: e.g. photoplethysmograph. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it wrong to list apps relevant to a media franchise on two separate articles (the app developer article and the franchise article)? And are Google Play Store links to prove an app belongs to a developer "commercial spam" because they allow Wikipedia readers to directly go and download them?

I noticed the following edits at Outfit7 - [5] and [6], by another editor (an admin, Drmies). I reverted them because for the first one, the edit summary was "there's a main article for that", and I did not understand the idea that just because another article had that information meant it should be erased from this one. For the second one, I reverted it because they wrote "please write up text with reliable secondary sources, not spam links" and as per my understanding, a link showing that an app exists and belongs to a specific entity can be used as a reliable primary source and I did not see why it would be treated as a spam link. My own edit summary was "I don't understand what is wrong with listing the apps made by a company. And Play Store links showing an app was created by the studio are not spam by any reasonable definition IMO".

After I reverted it, it was reverted back by the same editor and they wrote in the edit summary "Talking Tom & Friends, the worst article on Wikipedia, already has that list. and yes, commercial links are spam. if you can't verify it properly, with secondary sources, maybe it shouldn't be in here". Now I am confused by the mildly blunt tone and also a bit offended (since I did spend a fair bit of time a few years back modifying much of the Talking Tom & Friends article, though in hindsight my own edits weren't great back then and now others have also altered it somewhat and now I don't have the time to trim and maintain it anymore), so rather than revert again and risk escalating things because of my emotions, I am opting to instead ask here regarding these two questions. What is Wikipedia's policy on repeating lists in two articles and what is the policy on Play Store links to prove the existence of an app in a list of apps by a company? Tube·of·Light 12:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

UPDATE: on my talk page, Drmies wrote, referring to my edit summary "Play Store links showing an app was created by the studio are not spam by any reasonable definition"--a commercial link where one can buy something, in this case an app, is the very definition of a spam link. I can understand their POV but I am not sure, if Play Store links are spam links, then by that logic shouldn't every URL for political parties, corporations, NGOs and so on be removed for being spam links that promote them? If not, what exactly are the guidelines on this? Tube·of·Light 12:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I can imagine a very strict interpretation of WP:SPAM that would treat many such links as spam links. And already you'll find that, for example, a press release from a political party website that has no independent third party coverage is often not considered a due reliable source for this (among other) reasons. But also there is a general perspective on Wikipedia that the presence of something on the website that may violate a policy is not a justification for including material that absolutely does violate policy. And direct sales links are spam by even the most generous of interpretations of that policy. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, but in that case what else can be used as a source for proving that the apps belong to the developers? Or should the app list be erased if no other source can be cited? And does that mean that by extension, IPad Air (6th generation) and most tech product pages should have the website parameter erased as it will lead to a direct sales link on most of them? Tube·of·Light 03:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources are ideally academic sources such as journals and books from academic presses. Failing that a reliable newsmedia outlet and other traditionally published books would be good choices. If an app is not spoken about by reliable sources it is likely not a notable app. As for IPad Air I really don't know having not looked at the pages in question. Simonm223 (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Right, got it. Thanks for the explanation, I was initially under the impression that because the apps were only listed without any description, a direct Play Store link was enough just to establish that the apps did exist and belong to the developers. Tube·of·Light 14:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Capital or lowercase?

Analog television encoding systems by nation:

  NTSC

  SECAM

  PAL

  No info

I recently made the template {{Analog television encoding systems by nation}}, but my question is, should the "No info" be capitalized or not?

Thanks, --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 15:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd say capitalized. See MOS:LISTCASE for guidance. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Content assessment of Barium Phosphate

Can barium phosphate (a page I have created) be upgraded to 'Start' class? Seckanon · talk · my edits 11:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Seckanon The guidance is at WP:ASSESS. I would be more convinced it was start class if it described at least one use for the chemical. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Is the given synthesis actually generally used? The ref says the actual process is more complicated than the net equation in the WP article and might really only be citedly applicable to a specialized physical form. DMacks (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Deciding notability and due weight for factual content in articles

Can anyone advise please which Wikipedia policies/guidelines cover how we should decide whether certain facts (not opinions) are notable enough or have enough weight to be added to an article? WP:Notability does not address this, it explicitly excludes it saying "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article". WP:Due weight is concerned with the relative weights of differing opinions, not the absolute weight of a specific fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

A sizable portion of Wikipedians will use WP:DUE to cover this, but the better NPOV section is WP:BALASP. There's not a lot of explicit direction, and this is very much up to editorial discretion and consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

DeFacto, if this is about the dispute at Talk:Elgin Marbles, then I agree that a neutrally written Request for comment would be the best way forward. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Let's Go! (2011, film)

Hello, Please, I need help for the correct title : Let's Go! (2011 film). Thanks Jacques Ballieu (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jacques Ballieu, requests for uncontroversial page moves which you cannot do yourself should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. However in this case this is the only film which is called Let's Go!, the others are without the exclamation point at the end, so further disambiguation is not necessary. Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I think when the user posted this asking for help, “Let’s Go! (film)” and “Let’s Go! (2011 film)” we’re both redirects of each other, and so they were asking how to get to the actual article. The issue has been fixed now. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 12:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe that was because Jacques tried sorting it out himself. Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

KAJ on Wikipedia

Hello, please advice if this is the right place to share this, or where should I reach out about our project?

We at Wikipedia:Projekt_Fredrika are excited about Finland-Swedish band KAJ (group) that will be representing Sweden in the Eurovision 2025. It is a great opportunity for Swedish Finland to get attention, and improve KAJ related articles on Wikipedia. Already in page views you can see that for example Ostrobothnian and KAJ's home municipality Vörå have received many times more views in March after the qualification event Melodifestivalen compared to the whole year before. We have made a KAJ project page for anybody that would like to join us in this theme, not just in Swedish and English, but other languages too: Wikipedia:Projekt_Fredrika/KAJ.

We also have especially notability related question for experienced Wikipedians. Perhaps @78.82.201.71 @85.76.164.54 @Apharius @Hej Simon @CeolAnGhra could give us some guidance and help? I have copied the questions here from the project page for easy commenting. Many thanks!

Asking for help from seasoned Wikipedians (on English Wikipedia)

Notability

• The group itself: Reading Wikipedia:Notability (music), KAJ (group) passes notability criteria in several ways:
  1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.: Yes, in Yle (2013-), Hufvudstadsbladet (2013-), Vasabladet (2009-)
  2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Yes, Bara bada bastu in Sweden and Finland
  3. Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition. Yes, they won Melodifestivalen 2025
  4. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network: Yes, on Yle
• The musicals (Gambämark, Botnia Paradise) are amongst the most successful in Finland; notability should be there
• Of the eight albums Gambämark and Botnia Paradise are the musicals; Kaj 10 is an extensive live production; the other six mark stepping stones in the past 15 years of the existence of the group; however, they have been almost unknown outside Swedish Finland until Melodifestivalen 2025, and judging their international notability is difficult
• Of the over one hundred singles by KAJ, Bara bada bastu is clearly notable. The other songs face the same dilemma as the albums (little known outside Swedish Finland until February 2025). However, not describing any of the songs might not be the best line of action. Jåo nåo e ja jåo YOLO ja nåo has already been entered and edited by seven different authors. Is it OK to enter other songs from the same category sv:Kategori:Låtar av Kaj, such as sv:Taco hej (me Gusta), sv:Pa to ta na kako? and others which may be coming up?

Encyclopedic style and tone

• On KAJ (group)#The significance of dialect and language to the group, there was a marker which caused us to do what we thought of as a thorough rewrite to make they style more encyclopedic. But the message reappeared. Any advice on how to further improve it?
• On Bara bada bastu#Media coverage in the United Kingdom, there is a similar marker although we had written the section "as encyclopedic as we could". Any advice?

Usage of quotes

• Also on Bara bada bastu#Media coverage in the United Kingdom, we got markers and . Indeed we had misplaced the quotes within the section, so that the quote referring to the Youtube recording ("primary source", we suppose) should be more prominent at the cost of the other quotes (from Daily Express and Metro (British newspaper). We reordered the references. Did we get it right?

Template

• Anything against creating a template Template:KAJ (group) like the one in Swedish sv:Mall:Kaj (humorgrupp)?

Individual group member articles

• Currently, Kevin Holmström, Axel Åhman, and Jakob Norrgård are redirected to KAJ (group). What are the requirements to create individual articles for them?

Sorry, I can't help with your main questions but on en:Wikipedia the advice (from WP:BANDMEMBER) says that Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability.. To do that we would fall back to the general biography notability guidelines, which might be met if there was significant coverage of solo albums, for example.Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:MUSICBIO is a more specialized guideline for individual musicians. It's the same as for a band as a whole. The main idea is, as Mike Turnbull notes, that the notability must be individual, not merely part of notable group (and vice versa). DMacks (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Mike Turnbull and DMacks! Cogitato (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Sanjib Bhattacharjee

Hello is this draft okay? Draft:Sanjib Bhattacharjee Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Flyhigh223! You have submitted the draft, the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Currently looking at it, going to update when done. – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 00:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Sparkle and Fade! Flyhigh223! (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies @Flyhigh223!, but I'm going to have to put the article assessment on hold because I'm currently handling disruption regarding a user right now. Once again, apologies, and I will update when possible. – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 22:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle and Fade that's okay! Please advise when done Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Age citation

Greetings. Can anyone please review the citation I used for the age of the person. Draft:Matthew Lani I want to know if the citation is sufficient. If not then I must just remove it Ashleyashville (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Of the two citations, one is paywalled so I can't verify it, and the Sunday Independent does not state his birth date. Where do you get his birth date from?

Also, your lead section is supposed to provide an overview of the body of the article and not discuss things that aren't in the body. I note that the largest section in the draft is about his arrest, and yet there is nothing about that in the lead. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Greetings. Thank you so much for replying.

1, age citations, so the media mentions of his age is based in 2023 when he was 27. Other citations were it mentions his full birthday wiki says citations are from unreliable sources. But I’ve opted to remove the birthdate for now.

2, also also added a brief about his arrest in the lead. Ashleyashville (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Would you please review for the last time Ashleyashville (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

At the top of Draft:Matthew Lani, Ashleyashville, we are told "Review waiting, please be patient." -- Hoary (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Personal Communication

Hi All: I have been encouraged to learn more here. I have been working on an article of a Football Club/Community - trying to set the history correct before the elders pass away. Sometimes I feel the need to use an oral interpretation gathered from these folk.

EXAMPLE: The club was founded by two Italian-Australian community leaders: 'Uncle Joe' Attanasio and Vince Calacoci, who created the team for the locality to come together at the weekend and not feel so homesick.^{[citation needed]}

I can prove they founded the club (League Annual Reports etc ) - but it 1960s was the "third wave" on Italian entry to Australia and that's what several respected sources have told me was the reason for foundation.

So My question is

Could a reference be put up (that won't get rejected) if it captures an Oral History?

Anyway any tips for re-phrasing etc would be most appreciated!

Best

SarfLondon20 SarfLondon20 (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@SarfLondon20: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1253. One of Wikipedia's core policies is verifiability, which requires reliable sources that can be checked by others and are published. "Oral histories" are not published and are not considered to be reliable for Wikipedia's purposes.

ETA: I should also add that if they themselves talked about it, they would be treated as a primary source, which has limited use in articles and cannot be used to establish wikinotability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

SarfLondon20, what started as oral histories can be published, whether verbatim, considerably condensed, or somewhere in between. Such publications can be cited, with care. But as Tenryuu says, unpublished material cannot be cited. ¶ The referencing of Draft:Brookvale FC is odd. As an example, the pair of sentences For over 50 years, Australian soccer has seen shifts in attitudes toward community and ethnic-based support. Brookvale FC epitomizes this positive progression. is followed by four references. But For over 50 years, Australian soccer has seen shifts in attitudes toward community and ethnic-based support. and Brookvale FC epitomizes this positive progression. are easily separable: the former could be referenced, and the latter could separately be referenced. Indeed, make that not "could" but "should". (Also, "positive progression" is problematic.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Wiki version of 'git blame'?

Is there any way to see the origin of a line of text in an article without going through the edit history one-by-one? It'd be super handy Sock-the-guy (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

There's the wiki-blame tool. Go to the history of any article. At the top there is a list of external tools. The first one listed, "find addition/removal" is the wiki-blame tool. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was looking for, thank you! Sock-the-guy (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

There's Who Wrote That, too. Tacyarg (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The other answer is 'git blame', either after transferring a wiki article into a git repo (see Wikipedia:Wiki-to-Git) or via the git-mediawiki bridge (available among other places as the git-mediawiki Debian package). DMacks (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thats fucked up to turn what I love (editing) into what I hate (software) {{sarcasm}} Sock-the-guy (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:) DMacks (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

How do multiple club parameter formatting work for football player's history?

Hi everyone, 

I'm currently working on adding the team history for a retired football player. Due to the player's long career with over 10 transfers, I need to use a specific format template instead of the standard 10-club section provided.  However, I'm not entirely sure how the formatting works in this case. Here's what the description says:

---

Club 1

The first (senior) club that the player has been contracted at. Up to 39 clubs can be added using the parameter names "clubs2", "clubs3", etc.

---

Can anyone provide clarification on how the formatting for these parameters works? Specifically, how do I use "clubs2", "clubs3", etc.? Can someone provide an example of how it should be structured?  Thank you in advance for your help! AjinGixtas (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Although I am not experienced much in such matters and am not sure what you mean, it's been a few days since your post so I would see if you can find examples using "What links here" or something like that. Also, if no one else replies, you could repost (here or in other forums), ask WikiProject Football, or try contacting maybe the template creator. Hope that helps. Cheers. GoldRomean (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Need help determining Notability

Hello! So I would appreciate help in understanding notability on Wiki, and if someone is willing, helping me put some artists on a page. I'm updating this page for my school project. And myself, and others (based on the history) have tried to add George Lundeen as a notable person. He is from this town, has multiple sculptures featured in the town, including on the city's seal, and his fame goes beyond the local town, he has sculptures in other countries and he runs an art school. But how do I justify he is notable? I can find plenty of information about him on the internet that appears to make him seem worthy, but since the content has a trend of being removed, I wanted to ask for help. If the answer is, that he isn't worthy, that's fine, but I would like to learn. Because someone added a list of people in the noteworthy section and I do not see how they are more notable--like this scientist Why is he noteworthy? Is it because he is dead? Or because he already has a Wiki page? Does having a Wiki page immediately justify you as notable? Thank you for any help you can provide NrmMGA5108 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much a requirement for an existing Wikipedia biography article before a person can be deemed "notable" for a town/city/university list. David notMD (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

NrmMGA5108, this seems to be about this edit in particular. Sample: "Holdrege has 11 sculptures throughout the town that have been created by 4 artists native to Holdrege. These artists global recognition and have sculptures placed at locations worldwide." (Perhaps better: "Eleven sculptures across the town have been created by four artists native to Holdrege.") Elsewhere in the edit: "The mission of the NPM continues to be..." (but Wikipedia isn't much concerned with "missions"), and "Our first displays appeared in the courthouse halls..." (I hadn't realized that Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation had displays in courthouses). But to your question: "But how do I [demonstrate (?) that George Lundeen] is notable?" By first creating a policy-compliant article about George Lundeen. Such an article must show that Lundeen is notable, as Wikipedia understands notability (which isn't how I, personally, understand "notability" and very likely isn't how you understand it either). -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@NrmMGA5108 To add Lundeen to Holdrege, Nebraska, "notable" isn't quite the WP-issue here, this is WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION. Basically, you need a decent source WP:RS, independent of Lundeen, saying Lundeen is from Holdrege. [7] looks ok by me, but you may know others. If you want to add stuff about his sculptures in Holdrege, you need sources for that too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

That said, IMO this guy is WP:NOTABLE, and I've started a draft on him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Newspapers.com has loads of articles on him. My favorite so far is Pearson, Rita (25 Jan 1998). "Deere deer dear". The Rock Island Argus – via newspapers.com.

owing to its title. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Has that one moved in the WP-library? I'll have to apply. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

This is so awesome of you @Gråbergs Gråa Sång! I appreciate you helping. And I know the people in Holdrege will appreciate it. I did have a relative who lives there take photos of the statues, but I haven't been confident in getting those added to Wiki due to the rules about artists owning their work, including photos. These are all in public areas, so I'm not sure? I can upload them or send them to you, if you think you can accomplish it. Side note--I have photos of the town on the page, and they'd look better if they were in the infobox, I but couldn't figure out how to do that. I've seen other towns that have them all in the infobox. If someone wouldn't mind helping me move them up there. They are on the page currently, just floating around below the infobox. Thank you! NrmMGA5108 (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

NrmMGA5108, you're asking about what's called "freedom of panorama" (FoP). Common sense says that yes of course you can take photos of sculptures in public places and can then publish these photos. But in legal matters, common sense is of little value, if any. In the US, FoP does not extend to sculptures and the like. Another point: if a relative of yours took photos of the town, then most likely it's that relative, and not you, who owns the copyright to them. And only the copyright holder can license them (or waive copyright), as Wikimedia Commons requires. -- Hoary (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure the The Eagle Has Landed (statue) photos should be on Commons per rulez, but perhaps that statue is federally owned or something. I'm not going over there to nominate them for deletion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding to a universities wiki page

I'm currently working on a university's wiki page, and I want to add the school's crest, but how would that be possible since it's trademarked? How do other universities add it without adding it to Commons? Or do they? LEDDallas (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey! You can add Logos/trademarked items, along as you have the company/universities consent, you can see more of this on the Media uploader! Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It would be very uncommon for a college or university to give us permission to use one of their copyrighted images. We typically just upload the image to English Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons) and use the image under fair use, especially if the image is the institution's seal or wordmark and we're going to use it in the article's infobox.

LEDDallas, you can upload an image to English Wikipedia by using the "Upload a non-free file" link in the File upload wizard (where you go if you click the "Upload file" link in the toolbar). Once you do that, you'll see that one of the option is "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." and selecting that will walk you through the process of providing the information we need to use the image under fair use e.g., the article in which it will be used, the source of the image. ElKevbo (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

True, but it varies on college, but ElKevbo explained it way better than I did. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

But the point that Elkevbo didn't explicitly make in response to your comment, @Valorrr, is that if you are using the non-free content criteria (aka "Fair use"), then consent is irrelevant and not required. ColinFine (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Name change.

Hey!

I'm currently working on an article about the modern Aramean people, similar to the pages that already exist on the Dutch, German, and Spanish Wikipedias. The Netherlands and Germany are home to many ethnic Arameans who identify as such.

Creating a page about the modern Aramean people has long been opposed by the same group of editors, but nothing prevents someone from drafting such an article.

Here’s my question. The current Aramean article is written entirely from a historical perspective, implying that the Arameans are extinct, something clearly disproven by modern realities. In my Draft:Aramean people, I show that Arameans still exist today. They are even officially recognized as a distinct ethnic community in Israel (see Arameans in Israel).

I proposed renaming the current Aramean article to "History of the Arameans" so that my draft could take the title "Aramean people" without confusion or contradiction between the two articles names. However, the move was reverted.

What are your thoughts on this? Wlaak (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Wlaak. I see that you have already been warned several times about working in this area, especially with a view which other people oppose.

In my view, asking this question here on the Teahouse without explaining that it is part of an ongoing dispute, is misleading. Please do not pursue it.

If you insist on continuing with this topic, I suggest you read dispute resolution carefully. ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea that a question was related to the ANI. I have been warned in changing said ethnicity on articles, as has the other participants in the ANI's. I was suggested that maybe a AfC would be the easiest way to go about this long decade dispute. Wlaak (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Wlaak. I have not looked at ANI: I am talking about the comments on your user talk page. From the comments there, you are clearly attempting to push through some changes to how you think this material should be presented, against opposition from other editors.

The way that Wikipedia works is by consensus - as soon as it is clear that others disagree with your position, it is your responsibility to seek consensus.

Pushing through changes according to your view in the absence of consensus is disruptive editing. Asking on a different forum for advice in how to push through such changes, without disclosing that there is a dispute in progress, is potentially also disruptive.

(I'm not saying that your position is wrong, by the way, or that it is right: it's not an area that I know much about. I'm talking about consensus - the way that Wikipedia works).

I would further suggest, from some comments on your user talk page, that you read WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. ColinFine (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, yes I know, I have learned that by now. However, those mentionings are related to a dispute with the same group of people that have opposed said topic for decades.

I was not asking how to push through these changes...? I was asking for your opinion/what is correct according to WikiPedia, as this is related to the draft I am working on, I have already started a proposition on the talk page of relevant article...

But nvm, I got the answer I was looking for here on AfC helpdesk. Wlaak (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Confusion

When I saw what Sabaton’s metal ripper song was about I originally thought it was about Jack The Ripper the infamous London killer can someone help clarify the confusion Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to a page for questions about how to use Wikipedia, Lordofcallofduty. You might try asking a question about song lyrics (?) at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I am still confused about everything Lordofcallofduty (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lordofcallofduty Maybe you should read our article about Sabaton and possibly Metalizer? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Archive URLs of various types

At Kraśnik I came across a page saved by a system I didn't know about, with (at least) 3 functioning URL options. The long URL I deducted myself by extrapolating from a sister page referenced by someone else, but I also found a shorter one.

1. What archiving system is this? It's not the Wayback Machine. Does Wiki accept them all? Apparently yes. But are such like this stable & reliable?
2. Any reason not to use the much shorter URL? It doesn't contain the initial URL, nor an archive date. However, regarding the archive date, I just used the one from the sister page, which isn't the correct one (20160828 = 2016-08-28, while the correct one is 2013-12-06), and it also works if I fit in the correct archive date (20131206). I also have no clue what the last 6 digits there represent (141609).

Valid options (checked all 3):

• https://archive.md/MAvTz
• https://archive.today/20160828141609/http://chelm.freeyellow.com/krasnik.html
• https://archive.today/20131206141609/http://chelm.freeyellow.com/krasnik.html

Thanks, Arminden (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I just saw that when using the long, extrapolated URL but with a corrected archive date, those last 6 digits self-adapt, the resulting URL being

• https://archive.md/20131206191536/http://chelm.freeyellow.com/krasnik.html

So at least 4 valid options. I'd prefer the shortest one, as it saves space, but is it stable? Arminden (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Arminden The advice at Help:Using archive.today suggests that you should not use the archive.md domain. The alternatives are more obvious to editors in Wikipedia as they contain the archive date as part of the URL. You should include these dates etc. in your citation as explained at WP:LINKROT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I had thought of all that, that's precisely why I asked, but didn't know where to look for an answer, let alone a concise & to-the-point one like yours. I'll make a note to search in the future for Help + [term], in this case: archive.today (the precise title "Help:Using archive.today" is less intuitive, one can think of many others, like "Help:archive.today", "Help:How to use archive.today" etc.). Arminden (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The first part of your query, ended with a colon, defines the namespace. The best namespace when looking for or guessing answers is often WP: relying on the search suggestions to get what you need. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Requesting to approve for a draft page of Pyin Khone Gyi

I have added a new page of Pyin Khone Gyi Village, Kalaymyo Township, Sagaing Region, Myanmar. Please let me know what time it will be approved and created. If there is needed to do more, please let me know and I would be appreciated. Thanks for your informations. Robertklay (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Pyin Khone Gyi. There's also a different version at User:Robertklay.   Maproom (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Your draft currently lacks the information needed to submit it; I will add it shortly. There is no specific timeframe for a review, reviews are conducted by volunteers working in their free time. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

lots of redundant content deleted David notMD (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

There is an article that I believe was deleted in 2018 that based on more recent events and history has more sources now than it did previously. I could start fresh, but if there was a basic article to go off of that I could restore and then build on, that would seem to me to be easier. How do I go about that? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

We can give a better answer if you tell what the subject is. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, this Liberty Justice Center. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn If. after reading WP:Articles_for_deletion/Liberty_Justice_Center you think that the topic would meet the notability guidelines, can apply for a WP:REFUND as described at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It did not appear to then from the history, but as of more recent sources becoming available, I think it would now. So the article would need to be updated a bunch I am sure, but getting that as a start would be a good draft to work from. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you I just did that then. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Um, you can't use WP:REFUND to restore articles that were deleted via an AFD discussion. You probably figured that out by now. Contact the deleting administrator Sandstein, who may be willing to restore the article to draft space for improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I did message that admin for that purpose exactly. My mistake in trying to first use this process of WP:REFUND. Should I delete this post now? Or wait for it to be automatically removed? Iljhgtn (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn, as now noted at REFUND, I do not object to a restoration to draftspace or userspace, but I do not perform such undeletions myself. Iljhgtn, you should seek to improve the article in draftspace and to submit it to WP:AFC. Sandstein 14:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Responded there as well, whom should I ask then for help in moving the now deleted article to draft space so that I may work on it there? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

UtherSRG restored it to Draft:Liberty Justice Center. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes I saw that already and have been working in it. The draft should have enough sources and new information to firmly establish notability so I have also already submitted the draft for review. The backlog seems to be pretty deep though. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor edits. I think it looks good.

You're experienced enough to take a small bite out of that backlog whenever you feel inclined. There's no position, appointment, or user right required to review submitted drafts. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I think those were constructive additions and changes. Who now takes the draft and moves it to the main space? Are you able to do that @Anachronist? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Anyone who is able to move a page can move a draft to main space. The only time you'd need an admin to help is if there's already something at the destination (like a redirect, in which case you'd put {{db-g6}} at the top to have an administrator delete it to make way for a page move), or if it's create-protected. I can help out there if needed.

A good thing to add to your Preferences is the AFC helper script, found in the Gadgets tab under the Editing section. It gives you a Page Review tool in your Tools dropdown at the top of a draft page. This lets you review drafts and put the correct tags on them. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I just added that on your recommendation. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Anachronist, the AfC pages seem to think that a would-be reviewer needs to be approved before jumping into the queue - WP:AFC/P. It certainly looks as though Iljhgtn would easily qualify, but I have seen editors being told to cease reviewing until they're on the reviewer list so I'm mentioning this for Iljhgtn's sake. StartGrammarTime (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how that's enforced. I've never been approved, I'm not on that list, and I recall reviewing AFC submissions before I became an admin. Maybe things have changed. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I added a request to be added to the list just now. Thank you @StartGrammarTime and @Anachronist. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Subpages

Can I make subpages for my user page, that lists my guidelines, essays, or plans? I know rules for creating user pages, what is good and bad. Does the same apply for the subpages? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@CreatorTheWikipedian2009 They are still considered user pages. Please see Wikipedia:USERSUBPAGE. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Are my essays related to Wikipedia then, and my "editing guidelines" are also related to Wikipedia (reminders), but sound like a project page? Is the latter forbidden? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

CreatorTheWikipedian2009, although I've read your newer questions three times, I still don't understand them. -- Hoary (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, can I make a subpage that lists my editing guidelines? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "your editing guidelines"?

Yes, you can put anything on a user subpage that would be considered appropriate for your main user page. That includes essays; notes about what you like to edit and your philosophical stances regarding Wikipedia; links to articles, guidelines, or project pages you frequently reference; example wikitext code you want on hand to copy/paste; etc.

You can also create user subpages for those things and for notes, drafts, and other work in progress -- for instance, I once created a userspace page consisting of a list of links to articles I'd come across that met criteria another editor had asked me to look out for, and shared that with them. (You may want to delete such subpages once their usefulness has ended, via WP:U1.)

Basically, like main user pages, user subpages are for anything you need space for that contributes to building an encyclopedia. The guidelines at WP:UP apply. There's a nice list at WP:UPYES of common appropriate uses of user pages, which also applies to subpages. -- Avocado (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, thank you. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

People who were once notable but without any sources online?

I have a genuine question and not about the artist Genuine (lol) it's about articles for people who were indeed notable at one time but have been forgotten by the Internet. One such case is the Puerto Rican hair stylist Junito Resto, who was all over television there in the 1980s and was the stylist of many stars. His death in 1994 was very well publicized, not only because he was famous but because of rumors about his health.But, on search engines, all I can find is mentions by his former wife Lily Garcia, a news reporter who should herself actually have an article too. Is there a website, or a way, in which I can find 1980s and 1990s articles about him on reliable sources so i could write about him? (and other people who were largely forgotten by history such as counts and countesses?). Thanks and God bless! Jeanette The Chat Line Star Martin (Here but please don't remind me, I know I am a loser!) 09:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @JeanetteMartin, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Themain answer is that sources do not have to be online: hard-copy sources are perfectly acceptable, provided they are reliably published, and so available in principle to any reader (even if the reader needs to order them from a major library that would be OK).

As to how to find the sources, that can be tricky, depending on how much time (and sometimes money) you're willing to spend. I suggest you look at resource exchange and in particular The Wikipedia Library. ColinFine (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I took a quick look at newspapers.com and there were no citations for Junito Resto, perhaps because only Puerto Rican newspapers published anything. How you would find such archives now, I don't know. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I found this, which is, admittedly, not much: https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.puerto-rico/c/6Wtj6iccnbw?pli=1 Jeanette She is crazyyyyy! Martin (loser talk) 15:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Which is correct - WP:RSP or automatic shading in reference lists?

On a Talk page I referenced two media bias rating websites. I included this comment in my post:

Note: Allsides is categorized as No Consensus (yellow shading) at WP:RSP, but appears as "Unreliable" (pink shading) in the reference list below. I don't know which is right. I intentionally did not use Ad Fontes or Media Bias/Fact Check b/c they are listed as unreliable at WP:RSP.

Do you know how to determine which is correct? Many thanks -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 00:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the automatic shading you're talking about comes from User:Headbomb/unreliable.js. Talking about All sides specifically, its addition to the script predates[8] the 2022 community discussion that found no consensus. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Enhance Declined Articles

Hello. Can you please review my new articles. Draft:Skyē (artist)

I saw it in review that I can ask for advises here. I hope you understand. Thank you. I_am_Bhadz (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@I am Bhadz I'm afraid that this article is likely to be too early for the topic to be notable. You have no content at all which is cited to the sort of sources we need, namely that are from reliable publications which are entirely independent of the subject and have significant coverage. I suggest you abandon this draft until such sources become available. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your response. I_am_Bhadz (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Twinkle partially triggering an edit filter

I'm not sure if it's that important but attempting to use Twinkle to notify someone about a contentious topic triggered an edit filter and didn't go through. It didn't specify what edit filter though. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't some specific policy regarding that before trying to do it again. Nahida 🌷 12:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like that filter provides a warning when anyone tries to add a contentious topic warning to a page. It shows up as edit filter 602. You should still be able to save the edit if you acknowledge the warning. -- Reconrabbit 14:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Nahida, triggering the edit filter is intentional. Read the content and follow the links, to determine if this user has received a contentious topic warning before within the last year for this particular topic area, and if they have, cancel out and do not publish another one. If you do, it may be considered a disruptive edit, which will count against you. Mathglot (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Understand. I've only given it once to an editor editing a specific topic who hadn't been notified so I'll keep that in mind. Nahida 🌷 18:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Is translating an article into Spanish allowed if the references are from sources in English language?

I am bilingual and want to know if an article originally posted in English language can be translated into Spanish if the references in the original article are from sources in English language? UncleAlb (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You'd probably have to ask the Spanish Wikipedia what their policy is(they are seperate from us), but I know our policy is that non-English sources are acceptable as long as they are otherwise reliable sources. I can't imagine the Spanish Wikipedia would be different in that regard. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I will contact them. Have a nice day! UncleAlb (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

added right to write «DREAM FOR SHARE-RUNNING TO THE SHOW»

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

---

Was the post read ability enough from upper to lower of this or better was From ´earth to sky´DARK bed of us MOMENTS to thanks or apologize! HKWDIOT26 (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@HKWDIOT26 I don't understand your question and your editing history so far suggests that you are not here to build the encyclopedia. Please only provide constructive edits. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This editor has been blocked because their contributions were gibberish. Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Translated by/Trans. by

Is there a preferred WP style in Further reading/Bibliography/External link sections when the translator is included? I couldn't find that mentioned in the Manual of Style. Mcljlm (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, one of the ways to check who it was translated by is the version history of the page, it may not be the easiest, but usually that's how to check it to my knowledge. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mcljlm: If you format a reference to a translated book by using {{Cite book}}, the output is "Translated by", so I don't think you can go wrong with that. "Trans. by" (or just "Trans.") before the translator's name, however, would be perfectly clear, and I'm sure no one would object. Deor (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Purging an article

What is affected in an article/page when you purge it? I want to ensure I am not deleting anything critical in said page. The specific article I want to purge is UTC-05:00 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9205:00). Somerandomguy55 (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Nothing is deleted. What's purged is the "cache" of the rendered article.

Articles are cached because rendering them takes a lot of computer resources. When an article is edited, the new version is rendered once, and that rendered version is saved to a cache that's used to serve all copies of it until it's edited. Then it's re-rendered and the new rendered version cached.

However, if a template the article uses gets edited, the article itself may not get re-rendered. Purging the article actually just purges its cache. The removal of the cached version forces a new rendering (with templates updated). Then that new rendering is cached and served. Just like editing forces a re-rendering; except purging doesn't change the underlying code of the page.

So purging doesn't change the page code at all. It just makes sure that what's displayed matches the page code and the latest version of all templates that are used. You can do the same thing in most cases by making a "null edit", which additionally purges some other caches involved in rendering other parts of the page. -- Avocado (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to undo an action in the text box of the "Edit source" screen, or retrieve the code from a page preview?

For whatever reason, while editing my sandbox in "Edit source" mode, I deleted all my text from the typing box. Since I had used the "Show preview" button recently, I still had a preview of the page as it would appear in "Read" mode above the typing box, but the version of the text with all the HTML code was gone. When you use "Edit source" mode, is there a way to activate an Undo arrow above the typing box that cancels your last action, as you have in a word processing software, or when you use Wikipedia's normal "Edit" mode? Or at the very least, is there a way that I could have retrieved the HTML version of the text from the "Read" mode page preview that remained above the now empty typing box? Thanks. Redacwiki (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia’s “Edit source” mode (wikitext/HTML editing) does not have an “Undo” button or version history available within the edit window itself. Once you delete content in the editing box and do not save, that deletion cannot be undone with an "Undo" button like in word processors.

Next time, please keep in mind-

1. The “Edit source” interface does not have a built-in undo/redo system beyond your browser's native undo.

2. Could You Retrieve the Wikitext from the Preview Above?

No — not directly. The preview is a rendered output, not editable wikitext. You could have right-clicked the preview and used “Inspect Element” (browser developer tools).

3. Before clicking "Show preview," copy all your current text (Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C) and paste it into a Notepad or text file as a temporary backup. There is no way to recover it through Wikipedia’s interface unless you had saved it previously.

ALso, There is a "Revert" button on Wikipedia, but it applies only in certain cases, and not to unsaved or in-progress edits.

Thanks, Have a great day at Wikipedia. IHitmanI (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

In most browsers, you can undo an edit in a text box by using the system Undo command (ctrl-Z in Windows and Linux, or command-Z in MacOS). CodeTalker (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I just tried this. Thank you so much. Redacwiki (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

A small point, Redacwiki: Although a very limited number of HTML tags and attributes can be used in "wikitext" (aka "source"), the HTML digested by your browser is very different from, and hugely more complex than, the wikitext. As an example, the wikitext pair == == is, simply explained, <h2> </h2>, but the latter are buttressed by a number of <div> </div>, the attributes/values of which do such useful tasks as tell the browser that text should be displayed left to right (dir="ltr"). -- Hoary (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to look for articles flagged under the same maintenance template?

I'm hoping to help edit articles and thought it might be helpful to review a series of articles flagged for the same thing. Is there an easily accessible tool that will let me do that? I've done lots of searching but only found guidelines. If not, is there an easy way to get to the Wikpedia suggested articles for editing that shows articles with templates? ErrataNonGrata (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

See Template:Backlog status Moxy🍁 03:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@ErrataNonGrata There are several tools which help find articles with a given cleanup template but the one I find most useful is WikiProject Cleanup Listings because it subsets the listings into topic areas so I can focus on topics I'm interested in. You can download the lists into a local spreadsheet for sorting if you want. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This is so helpful, thank you! ErrataNonGrata (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

VPN

What would happen if you edit without logging in and you use a VPN? No worries, I will always use one account (this) and edit when logged in. I was just curious. Cwater1 (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cwater1: VPNs are usually the subject of anonymous blocks on Wikipedia (most notably, Apple's iCloud Private Relay), to prevent precisely this kind of scenario. See WP:VPN for more information. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay makes sense. Sounds like Wikipedia doesn't want true "anonymous" edits. It was a question I thought of. Thanks. Cwater1 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Creating an account is actually quite anonymous:) Fewer people, and only highly trusted people, have access to the underlying IP info than editing with just a more-visible IP itself. DMacks (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Correct by DMacks, to be more advanced really the only people allowed to see IP's of registered users are called "Checkusers", if you wish to read up on it its at Wikipedia:CheckUser. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

You can't edit with a VPN on.

I have turned on a VPN while editing, but I always turn it off before I published the edit. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Reliable source help

Hello, I was wondering if I could use an musician's bandcamp page or discogs page as a source for a vinyl release of an album. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Please make yourself familiar with WK:Reliable_Source before making any source changes.

As for your concerns, please keep in mind-

Bandcamp may be used as a source for basic release information if it is the artist’s official page. However, it is a self-published source and should not be used for controversial or interpretative claims. Wikipedia demands a primary (second party) sources.

Discogs is a user-generated site and is generally not considered reliable for citing information in articles.

For reliable sources, use Journalists sites or Any Media sources that is reputable. IHitmanI (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

If you're asking about the release date or just a factual statement saying "X re-released Y album in vinyl format", then you may use the artist's Bandcamp site as a source. I advise you see WP:ABOUTSELF for more info. Thanks! – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 06:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for answering my questions! ErickTheMerrick (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Wrong date format

I have put the wrong date format for a new book by Sarah Moss Sarah Moss And I can't seem to go in and change the format. Thanks in anticipation. Lakelady2282 (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "i cant seem to go"? Is there any technical issue or you dont want to change it? Is book release date is wrong?

Can you be more explicit? IHitmanI (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The access date is given as "25/04/2025", and should be "25 April 2025". But correcting that doesn't fix the problem, there's something else wrong there. Maproom (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem was, but it seems fine now. I also removed {{redirect}}, since the disambiguation page doesn't exist. —Wasell^(T) 07:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about inappropriate citations

I have a question regarding the AJ Parr article I created. It is the second Wikipedia article I have created from scratch, the fist one was the article on Nancy Evans Bush. I saw the following notice on the AJ Parr article: "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent sources. (April 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

After reading this notice I read that Wikipedia recommends not using citations from Amazon and blogs, so I removed all of the inappropriate citations I had originally included from Amazon and one blogpost I had originally included. However, the notice is still there.

Since I still plan on creating a few other articles on people who are not presently included I need to get this straight. Why is the notice still appearing on top of the article after making these changes? Are there other citations that should be replaced? I would like someone with more experience to lend me a hand so I can do a better job next time. Thanks in advance and I hope you can give me some guidance. UncleAlb (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @UncleAlb! The notice was added manually (specifically by the user Omphalographer in this diff, and you may remove it yourself if you feel the issue has been adequately addressed. Hope this helps! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 18:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot PhoenixCaelestis! Have a nice day! UncleAlb (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Whereupon UncleAlb removed the template. But it remains richly deserved (as I explain in Talk:AJ Parr), and I have therefore restored it. (Meanwhile, AJ Parr's notability is not obvious to me.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hoary: Thanks for pointing that out. I eliminated the excessive references and reduced the text's overall length after reading your observation. Please review once more if you can. This is my second Wikimedia page and I am eager to learn, UncleAlb (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

New Articles

Assalamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu!

I would like to ask for step by step instruction and guidance in creating a new page or article here in wikipedia

jazakallahu khayran Sidicalcaluang (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sidicalcaluang Welcome to the Teahouse. There are full instructions at Help:Your first article. My advice would be to start by editing and developing existing articles until you find your way around. The English Wikipedia has a strong requirement that topics for new articles be notable as defined here and you need to aware that writing articles from scratch is not easy, nor even the best way to assist the growth of the encyclopedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

thank you very much, i would try to start first in writing it in msword before writing here Sidicalcaluang (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sidicalcaluang, and welcome.

You may write it in msword first, but that would not be my advice.

Writing an article begins with finding the reliable independent sources - I don't advise writig a single word of an article before you have found the sources - and then continues by summarising what those sources say, citing them as you go.

MSWord will not let you insert citations in the text in the way that Wikipedia needs them; so if you write your text in MSWord, you will have to go back and insert all the citations afterwards, rather than while you are writing. ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sidicalcaluang, as a still-not-far-from new editor myself, perhaps I can help you grasp a little more of the importance on a practical level of what both Mike Turnbull and ColinFine are saying in their recommendations.

1- To pick up on Mike's comments: When we come on board with Wikipedia, especially those of us with long histories of writing and editing, there's no way we can realize at first what a different world we're now part of. There's a huge amount of policies and guidelines to become aware of, like notability that Mike mentioned and lots more multisyllabled terms that he didn't. This includes even how to find those resources in the first place! Then too, there's a lot of unfamiliar Wiki jargon. To throw a few for-instances your way, just for starters, there's BLP, MOS, COI, RS, COPYVIO, AFC, and DIFF. If we plow ahead as newbies without quality time on the learning curve, our work simply gets rejected by editors on patrol duty. Not fun. Not to mention also, a waste of time.

2- To pick up on Colin's comments: As far as starting on actual Wiki article writing, your thought of doing it in MS Word sure brought back memories because that's exactly what I did ... and came to regret. All the time I'd put in on citations was for nothing. As Colin cautioned, the way they have to be done in Wikipedia is much different. I'd even say it's much easier — a least in the WYSIWYG Visual editor, toward which I'm prejudiced, though Source editor fans will be happy to tell you all the advantages they find using that. When you want to create a reference (footnote), you just press a button; up pops a form you fill out, depending on type of citation (book, website, etc.); press Publish; and voilà, there's your reference down below with all the information correctly formatted in Wikipedia's preferred style. Re-using the same reference is also painless.

Writing articles directly in Wikipedia also gives you the unique capability to create links that can take readers to other Wiki articles. So let's say you're writing on Easter customs and you mention hot cross buns. Aware that not everyone may be familiar with what they are, you can easily link the term to a Wiki article, like so: hot cross buns. I love being able to do this. It's opened up so many new ways I now write and even, at times, edit.

Well, Sidicalcaluang, hope you found a few helpful insights here ... and best on your Wiki journey, Augnablik (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Change name

How to change the name of an article? 9Ahmed9 (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@9Ahmed9: There are a lot of rules to do with article titles so the majority of moves requires a requested move discussion. This is a discussion on the talk page of the article where a proposer proposes a title they think the article should be changed to and why. Consensus of whether the article should be retitled to the proposed title or not can then be ascertained by people stating if they agree or oppose the new title. After usually about 1 week, someone will read the discussion and determine if there is consensus to retitle the page or to leave it as it is. You can see the steps to start the discussion here. cyberdog958^Talk 13:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Do I have to disclose these as COI?

There are quite some things that I am a bit confused on whether I need to disclose as COI. Do I need to disclose any of these, or am I fine?

1. I had a (now-deceased) great-uncle who served in the People's Armed Police, which i often edit articles about. However only knew about this after I edited for a while(I had edited the PAP article before I knew about this), and the fact I had a great uncle who was in the PAP is the only thing I really know about him, not even his name or unit, so I chose not to disclose this.
2. I plan to enlist in the PLANMC (or just the Chinese navy) in the future; I edit tonnes of articles related to the PLANMC and PLAN, but I don't think this counts as COI because I am not affiliated with them in any way.... yet. I have put this on the "intro to me" section of my user page
3. I'm currently a student in KGV school in HK. This is in the intro to me section, however not in COI, because i have only edited the article on my school one or two times and don't really see a need to edit it.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, I have distant relatives in the HKPF and HKFSD, but since all are distant relatives and I haven't made much changes to related articles(except for the Marine region, which none of my relatives are part of) so I assume I also do not need to disclose this. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I tried to answers in numbers according to your questions.

1. You don’t need to disclose your great-uncle’s connection to the PAP unless you edit deeply related topics.You only know minimal details about your great-uncle's service (e.g., no name, unit), and it's not something you've heavily edited about. There is no strong personal connection influencing your edits regarding the PAP, so it doesn't sound like a COI.

2. You should disclose your plans to enlist in the PLANMC in your COI section, as it could create potential bias in the future. While you’re not yet enlisted, planning to join the PLANMC means you may have a potential COI in editing articles about the PLANMC or the PLAN (People's Liberation Army Navy). Even though you're not affiliated now, your future potential affiliation could cause bias in your edits.

3. Editing your school’s article is not a COI unless you start editing it extensively or with a promotional tone. You’ve only made a couple of edits to your school’s article, and there doesn’t seem to be a significant personal stake in the content you're editing. A school affiliation typically doesn’t require a COI unless you're actively promoting the institution or involved in heavy edits. IHitmanI (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac: my advice would be to not reveal any details that may compromise your safety in the future. Particularly related to governments and the military. Commander Keane (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed; Particularly for the PLA. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Definitely won't add anything outside of what is publicly available, that's for sure. Even without the legal and ethical issues(and considering that I'm also personally against doing so), WP:OR and WP:YANARS exist. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac: I was not talking about adding article content with regards to your safety (you seem responsible, someone who is conscious of their COI and doesn't go out of their way to hide it is not a problem for Wikipedia). I was saying that expressing any political views, opinions or affiliations on your user page now, COI or otherwise, may affect your safety or career in the future. Say, for example, you mention you like a certain political leader somewhere and then you are assigned to a warship that attacks said leader's country. You have provided evidence of your treason potential. I am overly cautious about these things, but email the oversight team if you wish to have something suppressed. Commander Keane (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm currently fine.

I have thought about removing it but I don't think mine is the most controversial yet. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

My article is a biography of the notable Assamese writer Manoj Kumar Goswami, who received the 'Sahitya Akademi Award' in 2022 as an Assamese writer

Hi ,

This is my first article on Wikipedia. My article is a biography of the notable Assamese writer Manoj Kumar Goswami, who received the 'Sahitya Akademi Award' in 2022 as an Assamese writer.

My subject is also a senior journalist from Assam, who, in October 2007, as the editor of Dainik Janasadharan (A daily Assamese News Paper), joined a media delegation accompanying the late Dr. Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India, to South Africa and Nigeria.

Also, In 2025, he has been offered the position of Visiting Professor in the Social Science Department for the current year at Gauhati University, Assam.

Based on these, I started my article but has been declined. Please help me, guide me to make my article live.

ABGDJN (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Manoj Kumar Goswami (2)   Maproom (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ABGDJN, welcome to the teahouse!

Biographies of living people (shortened to BLPs) have very specific guidelines in order for them to be approved, which can be viewed here. Both your reviewers have requested that significant coverage (SIGCOV) has yet to be established. Many editors fall into a trap here and proceed to spam their draft with sources in hopes of getting it approved—alas, it usually fails. What instead I suggest you do is take a look at your sources. Compare them to the page of reliable sources. See what's on the chart, see what pops up when you type it in the archives. Do they have more than passing mentions in articles? Are all your citations considered reliable?

It may also help if you take a step back and examine why your topic is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. What are their major contributions? If these contributions are not notable, there is no chance that the person themself is.

It breaks my heart to see drafts by new users declined and see them giving up. Even if you decide this topic is not worthy of inclusion, maybe something else is. Maybe you read something in a book and decide to write an article on it—that's where my first article came from! Best of luck, PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

As a small addendum: I noticed the feedback left by your first reviewer on your talk page said that you should find more sources that prove his notability past 2024. I highly suggest you some time to do that, maybe you'll dig up something that makes him notable. Don't take your reviewers' feedback halfheartedly, it can genuinely help your article improve. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

"Retired" but not on vacation (editors)

I have seen some editors that claim to be "retired" on their user page/talk page, but then they are highly active. I don't know what is going on with those, and surely someone can do what they want as long as it isn't disruptive (for the most part), but has anyone else ever noticed that? Is that misleading? Makes it hard to know sometimes if they are open to taking suggestions or feedback on their talk page and working on building a certain page up collaboratively with that feedback and sharing the editing work. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Iljhgtn, I have frequently noticed such claims. They're better simply ignored. Click "User contributions" to see what, if anything, is going on. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Very often the user contributions show loads of recent and active editing, but the editor is "retired"... I am all for WP:AGF, but something seems amiss in those cases. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Sadly there is really nothing, we can do to our knowledge. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

A "retired" notice on a Wikipedia editor's user page should be taken with the same level of seriousness as an announcement that some classic rock & roll performer has "retired". Cullen328 (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Or Tom Brady? Iljhgtn (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Inasmuch as retired templates are used to attempt to dodge accountability, they don’t work. ANI, etc proceedings don’t give it any credence if editors’ behavior is to the contrary. I don’t think there’s any need to proactively take issue with people posting these templates as long as they’re not engaging in disruptive editing (and on the occasion that they are, it gets addressed through the normal channels) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. I just like to check the pulse of the Teahouse to see if I am alone in going crazy or if others had experienced something similar. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

A lot of people just don't pay much attention to their own user pages. A long time ago, I got fed up and took a wikibreak. Blanked my userpage except for a note that I wasn't around. Didn't edit for the better part of a decade aside from the occasional compulsive typo fix on an article I happened to be reading. Then during a period of enforced leisure, started editing again at an increasing rate without even really noticing it. Didn't really get around to updating my user page because there wasn't any sort of binary "I'm going to start editing again!" decision; and even if there had been, I wasn't really interested in declaring that to the world (because who really cares except me?). Besides, I might disappear again any day now... -- Avocado (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Incredible, well with an account named "Avocado" I can understand why you'd never quit for good. That sort of simple name simply isn't available anymore. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Just imagine the username of someone who will be saying the same thing about your handle 20 years from now! -- Avocado (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

"Wow 'Iljhgtn' I love your username "*signed* Iljhgtnqoweirwefnwelfnqwrnqewornq2e129482385y9247385sdfsetrwe" Iljhgtn (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Simple HTML interface for Wikipedia

Is there any skin like this available for Wikipedia? I know Monobook is close but comparing to this one it's still bloated. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi MinervaNeue, welcome to the Teahouse. The API siteinfo [9] says there is a skin called apioutput. useskin=apioutput shows it but there is no user preference to display pages in apioutput. You can select the old deprecated skins Modern and Cologne Blue by viewing preferences with that skin but it doesn't work for apioutput so I don't know a good answer. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Tbh Cologne Blue is kinda what I want. Still not close to "apioutput" but imho better than Monobook. Thanks! MinervaNeue (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like maybe you just want to disable CSS stylesheets entirely. I'm pretty sure there are browser extensions that can do that. Maybe even ones that can lock that in as a preference on a per-site basis. -- Avocado (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This won't look good because of the navbars and sidebars. I want something that looks close to UseModWiki or 2002 Wikipedia. MinervaNeue (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@MinervaNeue: not related to your question, but why is your user name the same as the mobile skin name: mw:Skin:Minerva Neue? Commander Keane (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

That's on purpose. MinervaNeue (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

O...kay. Why, though? Cremastra _talk 20:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It was not taken, as you can see. MinervaNeue (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Citing uncontroversial details, like a character's name, in a piece of media.

Hello.

For a while now, I've been adding character names and one line description to the "Cast" section of Wikipedia pages of various movies and TV shows; it's straight-forward stuff: turning a line like "John Smith as Jack" into something like "John Smith as Dr. Jack Smithy, surgeon at FooBar Hospital, husband of Karen Smithy."; a bit more descriptive with some, uncontroversial, details from the work itself. I do this as I know many people, myself included, like to use Wikipedia as sort of a media compendium to quickly reference details in a work of fiction while watching or returning to it after some delay. Obviously, my source for these additions would be from the content/text of media itself, like reading the book, watching the movie or TV series, or playing the videogame.

Recently, I was going about this, adding more character names and basic descriptions to the page for the TV series The Gardener as I was watching the series only to have some of my edits undone by another user because the full names for the characters I added weren't listed in a pre-existing cited news article that only contained the character's first names. I began looking into how I could improve my contributions: either stake my claim (so to speak) that these are uncontroversial details or cite the content of the media itself as the source. I consulted various citation guides on Wikipedia like Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources but nothing I found seemed to address the core issue of citing trivial but helpful and uncontroversial details like names of fictional characters in a piece of media. The closest I found was from this guide primarily pertaining to YouTube videos:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This prevents editors from engaging in original research. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Editors should not use a video as a citation to present their own interpretation of its content. If the material in a video only available on YouTube includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources, then that material may be undue and inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Primary sources, such as an episode of an editor's favorite television program, can easily be incorrectly used to create trivia sections. This should be avoided. Such sources should also not be used to create articles that include only the plot of television shows or movies without additional details found in secondary sources. Although concise plot summaries are usually appropriate, failing to provide secondary coverage puts notability into question and does not provide encyclopedic content.

Editors can use the {{cite episode}} template to cite specific television programs. The {{cite AV media}} template can be used for movies and other visual media. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, a link is not necessary since there is no distinction between using online or offline sources. As much information as possible should be provided to increase the likelihood of the source being accepted as reliable by the community. Including the minutes being referred to in a long video will make the source easier to verify by your fellow editors and the reader. Most relevant details can be found in the credits, any packaging, or through the Internet.

When citing books or unusually long journal articles, an editor should specify the page number(s). Similarly, some means of specifying the location of the referenced content from a video, called a timecode, is strongly encouraged. For YouTube videos, one can specify the start location's timecode by appending to the URL: &t=0m12s, described in more detail in various online posts.

I wouldn't describe basic details as an "interpretation" but rather an instance of the following guideline: "A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." I've looked into using the {{Template:Cite AV media}} mentioned above but it seems most tailored to legacy media, not a streamed miniseries like The Gardener, and I suppose it would necessitate providing a timestamp to an exact moment in an episode a character's full name or an essential detail about them is specified. This would all feel like significant overkill and a cumbersome barrier with little material benefit. I suspect there's a much less convoluted and more direct way of handling this, but my search hasn't found any help pages addressing this specifically.

So, my query is pretty simple: how should I go about doing this, if at all, in a way that will appease sticklers like Asqueladd (said in a friendly way) and hopefully let us continue to make Wikipedia a useful reference for essential details in a work of fiction? Anad0 (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Adam Linder Wikipedia's Page WP:Pyramid issue

Hi,

I'm currently working on Adam Linder Wikipedia's page (see: Draft:Adam Linder) and I would like to know how I could avoid the WP:PYRAMID issue. I didn't make it on purpose. I don't understand what I did wrong and I explicitly would like to know which lines are incorrect. Is there any lines that are WP:PYRAMID shocking ?

Thanks for letting me know.

Simononwiki1 (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't put irrelevant details in the lead section of the article. How he divides his time? Nobody cares. The lead section is for giving an overview of the main points of the article, so the reader knows how the subject is notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay thanks I modified the lead section. Besides this, is there only that sentence that made it WP:PYRAMID ? Is my wikipedia article ill-written or written in a way that people doesn't want to read it, because of not following wikipedia's rules ?

Thanks a lot for your time.

Simononwiki1 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Some of it still reads like the author has a conflict of interest. For example, the subjective interpretation "questioning the monetization" is stated as a fact in Wikipedia's narrative voice as if it needs no qualification or citation. Not only is it non-neutral, but it also violates the WP:BLP policy by not being cited to a source. The rest is OK. You have a verb tense error in the Awards section.

While he was won awards, he has also received a few lackluster reviews. Be aware that your client has no control whatsoever over any well-sourced but less-than-flattering statements that get into the article after it's published. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Translation software - relevant policies?

Y Issue resolved

What is the policy on editing using translation software? Are editors required to only edit in languages they know? Could someone point me to relevant policies?

Thank you! i know you're a dog (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You can use any translation software on wikipedia but just keep in mind that Wikipedia:translation says Translations from other-language Wikipedias are encouraged, but must be accurate and readable in the target language and Machine translation is allowed, but not sufficient on its own. You must review and correct the output to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Wikipedia:Machine translation says that if you just blind copy translation, it will be reverted. If you have problem in translation in any language, a strong suggestion is seeking Wikipedia translation community.

Are editor allowed..... they know?

No, actually you can edit in any language as long as you are professionally good at it. But practically it is advised to follow the language you are fluent in. Its not a rigid rule but a way to keep ingenuity out from article pages.

My personal opinion. Do not use LLMs for translation as they can change your words. Use a reliable sources before translation as per WP:RS IHitmanI (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. What about sources in other languages? i know you're a dog (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring to an article written in a different language, with sources cited in some other language? Such sources are acceptable on Wikipedia, as long as they are from reliable and verifiable publications. A source does not have to be in English simply because the article is written in English. The core requirement is verifiability, not the language of the source.

You can think of it like SIM cards from different telecom providers—they may vary in language or brand, but their core function is the same- internet and calls. Similarly, a reliable source in Spanish, German, or any other language can be used to verify facts in an English Wikipedia article, provided it supports the claim made.

This flexibility is especially important in the case of translated articles, where sourcing material in the exact target language may be impractical or unavailable. In such cases, citing reliable sources from the original language is both reasonable and encouraged, as long as the translation of the content is accurate and faithful to the original meaning. IHitmanI (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh that’s great to know, thank you.

What I actually wondered (but didn’t say, I need some sleep!) was can we use translation software to cite non-English sources for English articles?

Despite my mis-asked question, your answer was still very helpful, lest your effort be in vain. i know you're a dog (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thats great! You can use any language as source, as i previously said, any cite it with english pages. Wikipedia demands proof. And have a sleep! IHitmanI (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! i know you're a dog (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Iknowyoureadog, you can use translation software to assist your work, but it is still necessary to have working competence in both languages. Translation software still makes errors although it is getting better. An editor doing software aided translation needs to be able to detect and correct these inevitable errors, in a sandbox for example, before publishing the content to the encyclopedia main space. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually his question was about "Can i use other language source in English or different language article?" and its been already resolved. IHitmanI (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

No, IHitmanI, that was not the question. Cullen328 (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It was the question, (his message) What I actually wondered (but didn’t say, I need some sleep!) was can we use translation software to cite non-English sources for English articles? IHitmanI (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Cullen328, that makes sense. i know you're a dog (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

To give a concrete example: if you were planning on using a French source to back up a statement that John broke Jane's toy, you need to be aware that "il a cassé son jouet" translates equally well to "He broke her toy" and "He broke his toy" (because the possessive pronoun agrees with the object in French, not the subject, as it would in English). There are some language-specific ambiguities that machine-translation software cannot handle, because the ambiguity is fundamental to the language (English has them too: "a kid broke their toy" could refer to the original gender-unknown kid, or another group of kids with whom the kid was playing). Elemimele (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

That is a "beautiful" explanation, I liked it. IHitmanI (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s helpful. i know you're a dog (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I've done this once, before AI tools were available. I used Google Translate to read German sources so I could write the Paul Trappen article, which was on the German Wikipedia at the time but had no English counterpart. I used some of the content from that German article, but many sentences were unsourced. I basically rewrote it using what I could verify in the sources, and I searched for additional sources but didn't find any. It was a lot of work for such a short article. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Uncategorized redirect list

Is there some type of special page that lists redirects that are uncategorized (have no rcat templates)? I wanted to easily find some to categorize. DiamondFrxsh (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This is better asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. Not all redirects should be categorized. See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Many redirects are already in hidden categories since they contain an R template like {{R to scientific name|insect}}. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Ownership of a non-NPOV article

I tried editing, as have others, an article and there was a swarm of activity that reverted and defended that only their point of view should be reflected. I just looked at this article recently, but reading the Talk page and the edits, it has been going on for a long time. I'm not too sure what to do about it. Do I post on an admin board, submit some request for review? I really don't know what to do.StarHOG (Talk) 12:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Guessing this is about Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Article_overhaul_needed, you could try WP:APPNOTEing some relevant wikiprojects/noticeboards, try an rfc, or walk away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Question

Hi, for some reason I couldn't ask a question the last few times I tried. Anyways, I figured out how to create redirects over on Wikiquote. It's really easy in comparison. Can I make redirects using some special tool here or do I need to request their creation somewhere else? I'm obviously not an admin. TerrenceWals (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

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

You should be able to create a redirect since your account is AUTOCONFIRMED.

As far as I know there's no special tool for creating Redirects, but it's straightforward: see WP:redirect.

Happy editing. ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin. I will try tomorrow. I have already prepared a 2-page docx lol. TerrenceWals (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Problem regarding Cyprus

In Wikipedia articles, Cyprus is usually listed in Europe, but the problem is in this article because one user keeps on moving Cyprus back to Asia simply because the UN categorized it as so. Has there been any consensus regarding the matter in Wikipedia before? Underdwarf58 (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Underdwarf58. I think that a quotation from the lead of Cyprus is useful. Although it is geographically located in West Asia, its cultural identity and geopolitical make-up are overwhelmingly Southeast European. This is connected to the broader reality that the "boundary" between Europe and Asia is not clearly defined, and that a logical argument can be made that they are not two separate continents but rather one Eurasian continent. The concept of "continent" is a social convention not a factual matter. Please read Boundaries between the continents which says The modern border between Asia and Europe is a historical and cultural construct, and for that reason, its definition has varied. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Big Indie Pictures

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

---

I have created a draft article Draft:Big Indie Pictures, an American film production company. This company produced many acclaimed films. I invite to the Wikipedia Community and Editor to contribute to this Draft and to expand it with Reliable Sources. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: it appears that the author has since requested the draft be deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Since it declined immediately after submitting, so i request for deletion under G7. If you are willing to work on the draft you can refund the article. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Editing the profile of a public personality by request

Hello Teahouse community, I consult for actress/producer/nonprofit director Sophina Brown. We are submitting a grant application today that requires an online profile. Her Wikipedia page is ideal for this purpose, but it needs updated information: Sophina Brown I have her permission to update the page, but I don't want to get flagged for making major edits. How do I undertake this task correctly? Thank you! Meganhobza (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I must disappoint you; Wikipedia is not ideal for your purpose. We don't have "profiles" here, not a single one. We have articles, and they are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. A Wikipedia article is not for a person to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability.

If you want to write a profile, I'd suggest social media. If you intend to pursue writing an article, you will need to declare as a paid editor, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Pardon me, I missed that she has an article. You may propose edits to it via the edit request wizard. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Meganhobza. Thank you for disclosing your Conflict of Interest to us. Assuming you are being paid to do this, everything you need to know should be located at WP:PAID. To start, please create your user page and disclose who is paying you and on behalf of who, preferably using the template Template:Paid. It is heavily encouraged you do not edit the article yourself. Instead, create WP:EDITREQUESTs on the article talk page. Our guideline on WP:CONFLICTOFINTERESTs will have more information for you. Note that requests for the sake of promoting the subject will not be accepted. We are here to create a neutral encyclopedia after all! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Meganhobza While you are working on the biography, you might like to help in a number of ways. For example, encourage Brown to let you take and upload to Commons a picture: see WP:A picture of you. Also, if you can provide reliable citations where the article currently says "citation needed", that would be helpful: reviews of her performances in newspapers etc. would be ideal. The submission of a grant application doesn't sound worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article but if an independent source reports it has been granted, that would be good to add. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies -- and for the term article! For clarity: The purpose of the edits is not to promote Sophina or to mention a grant application. The information in her article is outdated. It doesn't include her most recent work in television, most of her work in theatre, and there's no mention of the nonprofit she founded and directs, Support Black Theatre. Also the language could benefit from a few copy edits. We just want to make sure the article is accurate and up to date. Ready with citations and photo. Appreciate the links; I'll familiarize myself with the helpful tools you've shared. FWIW, I have had a user account for some years now as a personal interest, not connected with my work. It was because I already have an account that I offered to edit Sophina's article for her. Should I open a separate user account to update her article? Given my conflict of interest, I'm happy to let someone else do it and/or filter the updates we have to offer. Your advice is appreciated! Meganhobza (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Meganhobza, it is neither necessary nor advisable to create a new account. Simply declare your conflict of interest and use the formal Edit request process. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I'm at the part where I declare my employer (as a grant writer, my consulting contract is with the nonprofit Support Black Theatre). Will this designation be applied only to edits I request for this article? When I go back to regular editing, will I need to undo the stated conflict of interest? Meganhobza (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Please put this template on your user page User:Meganhobza:

{{paid|employer=Support Black Theatre|client=Sophina Brown}}

Disclosure is mandatory, and the best way to do it is on your user page. You entered into a legally-enforceable agreement to make this disclosure when you created your account on Wikipedia. Do this before you make any further edits.

After you have done that, you may use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/Paid to propose changes to the article.

You should not remove that template from your user page. The fact that you may have moved on to other things on Wikipedia doesn't erase the fact that you were paid to work on one thing. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@331dot: "We don't have 'profiles' here" "Profile: Noun (countable) A summary or collection of information, especially about a person". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information. Many use the word "profile" as "here's all the information about this person". Wikipedia is a collection of articles that summarize independent sources. It's not semantics, but an important distinction to provide the right mindset, in my view. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOT is irrelevant to the point at hand; referring to a Wikipedia article as a profile is normal English usage. To suggest otherwise is the "wrong mindset". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"We are submitting a grant application today..." Really? Be aware that there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. If you want the article on your client updated, it isn't going to be a fast process. You would need to propose incremental changes on the article's talk page, and wait for your proposals to be reviewed by other editors and either implemented or declined. As 331dot said, Wikipedia is not ideal for your purpose. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Seeking guidance on COI compliance and potential block risk

 Courtesy link: Dianne Blell

Hi everyone,

I'm a new contributor and academic researcher working on an article about a woman artist whose work I’ve studied and published on. I’ve fully disclosed this connection on my User page and the article’s Talk page.

After receiving a first warning about COI and possible paid editing (to be clear, I am not being paid—I’ve personally invested time and funds to help preserve this artist’s archive), I complied fully: I updated my user page with all requested disclosures, acknowledged neutrality concerns, and stopped direct editing. I used the Talk page extensively to ask questions and request help.

I also consulted with my assigned new editor mentor (Toadette), who confirmed that I had followed policy. After posting disclosures, I asked the original editor whether I could revise the article for neutrality. When they didn’t reply for several hours, I moved forward with edits, working carefully with a mentor to ensure the changes were neutral and encyclopedic. Minutes later, I received a message warning me I could be blocked.

This has been very disheartening. I’m trying to document the career of a living woman artist who has had solo shows at a major NYC gallery, and whose work has appeared in The New York Times, Artforum, books, and dissertations. My intention is simply to tell her story—accurately, neutrally, and while she’s still alive to see it. I would truly appreciate a second opinion or guidance on how to proceed.

Please feel free to review my User Talk page for full context.

Thank you so much. Rachelmward (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The "COI" disclosures on you User page were vague (you did not specify the articles) and you later deleted even that much. More to the point, you created a trap for yourself. A person with a declared COI can work on a draft. However, once a draft is in main space (either accepted by a reviewer or moved there by the creator), the creating editor is prohibited from making further edits, and instead must propose changes on the Talk page of the article. I think this applies to Dianne Blell, Nick Weber (artist) and Darius Yektai. I am sure this feels unfair, as you are trying to improve the neutrality of the article in the hope that other editors will remove the tags, but instead your massive edits are being reverted. Regardless, stop editing those articles. Instead, abandon attempts to 'improve' or else propose specific changes as entries on the Talk pages. Going forward, take as a lesson to improve the quality of your drafts before submitting to AfC or moving to main space. David notMD (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

For the Nick Weber article, you created it and moved it to main space. An editor moved it back to draft. You submitted to AfC. It was declined. You moved it to main space again. And now it has multiple tags, and might even be at risk for an AfD nomination. Take all this history as a sign that you are not yet competent to move your drafts to main space. David notMD (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I have sent it to WP:AFD it is not at all clear how they pass WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"the creating editor is prohibited from making further edits" @David notMD: Please read our COI policy, which does not say this. There are restrictions, but nota blanket prohibition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

There is clear evidence of financial COI in at least two article creations, which has been shared with the functionaries. Additionally, citing one's own academic work, is considered self-promotion (I've removed that from the Blell article.) Netherzone (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"citing one's own academic work, is considered self-promotion" It can be, but is also permssible in some circumstances. See WP:EXPERT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Also the mentor TodetteEdit has stated that she assumed Rachelmward had disclosed their employer, but admits that she did not in fact check. User talk:ToadetteEdit#Question from Rachelmward Netherzone (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I am corrected: WP:COI states "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;" You could ask the editor who reverted your edits, on that person's Talk page, what they would consider permissible direct editing. David notMD (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Questions about paid editing

Who does paid editing and how to do it? How do they contact paid editors? And does Wikipedia has any role in this? If someone promises to pay but don't pay anything. Sistersofchappel (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is typically edited by volunteers. There are people and companies that claim to offer Wikipedia editing services; these have varying reputability, some are legitimate and comply with our policies, but some don't(I've seen some that openly say they don't comply with our policies and disagree with them) and many are scams. No paid editing service is endorsed by Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has no role in putting together paid editors with those seeking their services. It's up to those seeking paid editing services to evaluate the person/company offering the services before hiring them.

If you get scammed or cheated by a purported paid editor, that's something you will need to deal with on your own. Technically it could be reported to the authorities, but given the nature of the Internet it's hard to impossible to find and punish scammers and get your money back. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

If you aspire to be paid for editing, carefully read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. David notMD (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi 331dot I don't want to hire paid editor, it's opposite. Lets say after editing for many months I learn all rules of Wikipedia. Then how can I contact companies that need paid editors. And lets say I create article for their company and if they don't give me money. Sistersofchappel (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Sistersofchappel If you want to be a paid editor, you're going to have to figure out how to do that yourself. When you do, you will need to comply with WP:PAID for all your clients.

If you take on a client, perform the agreed to work, and they decline to pay you, that's a matter you will have to pursue on your own. Wikipedia cannot force a third party to pay you for services you render. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sistersofchappel, and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe I speak for many editors (though not all) when I say that in my view paid editors are tolerated because otherwise they would edit clandestinely. They are not encouraged. ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

oldafdfull is not linking to a discussion page

In March 2006 the Scintilla (software) article was nominated for deletion through the xFD process. There was a discussion with the result being Keep.

Subsequently, someone documented this on Talk:Scintilla (software) using {{oldafdfull|date=19 March 2006}}

At present, everything looks okay except that the word discussion that the template generates is not linked to the discussion thread. I tried to fix this by adding |page = Scintilla (software) and then |result = '''keep''' parameters to {{oldafdfull}} but those did not help.

I am not familiar enough with the xFD templates to adjust what's currently on the article's talk page so that the deletion discussion in 2006 gets linked. Thank you. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The reason |page=Scintilla did not give you the link you wanted is because there is no deletion discussion for the page Scintilla. The template automatically looks for an xFD that matches the name of the page where it's placed, but as you saw that also wasn't working. The problem was that the page had been moved (renamed) after the xFD, so its current name does not match the discussion-name. Fixed. DMacks (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I had not noticed that the article title had changed. That makes sense. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Template talk:Old XfD multi#Better handling of incorrect page parameter is my diagnosis of the confusion and proposal to handle it better. DMacks (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Help with move page

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

---

I wanted to move a page from my Sandbox User:KhoaNguyen1/Hanoi FC – SLNA Rivalry to mainspace, but I accidently messed it up and moved it to a user page User:Hanoi FC – Song Lam Nghe An Rivalry, I cant undo it because it dont let me to. Can anyone help me with this? Thank KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

It is done. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

thank you! I will be careful next time KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

No problem! Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 04:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

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

How to deal with talk page blanking of repeated warnings

Hello! Something that I'm sure has happened 100x before but never something that has impacted me specifically, is going on to another user's page to give them a warning, only to see that they have received numerous ones before now but have blanked their talk page to prevent them from being seen. I have two questions on how to deal with this: 1) Is it policy for me to un-blank their prior warnings, and 2) In the case of User talk:Lxbaguette, should they receive a block at this point? Guidance on either one of these questions would be much appreciated, cheers! Johnson524 05:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Johnson524 Hello! Per WP:OWNTALK, a user can remove such warnings if they wish, so you should not re-insert them. It is a taken to mean that they saw and read the message. Removing them doesn't mean they didn't happen.

If you report this user to WP:AIV, an admin might block them since they're being unconstructive and messing with BLP:s, or it might be considered a little to early yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thank you for the guidance! It is much appreciated 🙂 Johnson524 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata Statements

Why I can't edit statements of some posts of Wikidata? NathSt (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

In Wikidata, you might be restricted due to one of these issues:

1. New users or those with low edit counts may be restricted from making certain edits. If you’ve just joined, you might need to gain more experience or make edits to less-sensitive parts of Wikidata before you can edit more protected data.
2. Some statements might be protected or locked due to high visibility or sensitivity, such as statements related to controversial topics, and only experienced or trusted editors can modify them.
3. If you try to add a statement that conflicts with an existing one (for example, a contradicting claim), Wikidata may prevent the edit until the conflict is resolved.
4. If the item is under review or waiting for consensus, some edits might be restricted until a decision is made. You may need to wait for others to approve or for any active discussions to be resolved.

Have you tried Wikidata Help page? Maybe do so if you have'nt. IHitmanI (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@IHitmanI@ @Commander Keane Thank you all very much. It seems to work on the desktop. I tried on mobile, but even with the desktop option, it didn't work either. Thank you very much. NathSt (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@NathSt: also, Wikidata does not work well on Mobile view for some things. But on the same device you can click the "Desktop" link and everything should work. Commander Keane (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Either way I think it is much better to edit any Wikimedia services on desktop (or desktop browser) as they are stable there and you have way too many options than the non-desktop versions. IHitmanI (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Making the best article

I’m pimplescrote and (redacted)

how can I make the best Wikipedia article? Pimplescrote (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I would first suggest that you not post your exact location and other personal information in this very public place, for your protection.

Writing a new article is not the only or even best way to contribute. It's the most challenging thing to attempt on Wikipedia. You did use the tutorial, and that's good, but it's highly recommended that you first gain experience by editing existing articles.

You may, however, see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot. I am pimplescrote. Pimplescrote (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for name and for abusing editing privileges. David notMD (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposing an article you wrote for deletion

I have a draft article I would like to propose for deletion, but I don't know the proper template to do so. How would I propose my own draft article for deletion? 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ♰ 09:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Balsam Cottonwood! It should fall under G7 of the speedy deletion policy, "Author requests deletion". I'll put the tag on the top of the article for you. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of article

The article Iranian economic crisis was proposed for deletion — on its talk page — on April 27, 2025. The reason given was exactly:

not needed, Like I don't think the siutaion has goon bad enough for it to be called a crisis, seems like a big over reaction

Should this be removed? I would do it myself but I just want to make sure. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ♰ 09:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The PROD is in the wrong place (Talk page), when it should be at the top of the article page. David notMD (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Balsam Cottonwood The article seems well sourced to current commentary but could do with a lot of tidying up, as tagged at the top. Perhaps it should also be moved to a more neutral title rather than deleted. What do reliable sources call recent economic events there? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Recruit CRM

 Courtesy link: Draft:Recruit CRM

Hey there, I have only covered information in this draft that can actually be cited and all information corresponds to all cited sources including some verified ones like Forbes, Economic Insider, Marketwatch, Crunchbase and more, I am not sure why this was declined on the basis of not having reliable in depth sources. It would be great if someone could assist here or help me with editing this article further so that I can understand what issues were pointed out and how they can be fixed. This will also be a great learning point for me from anybody experienced in this forum, I have already raised this as a question in AFC help desk but getting some help from here would mean the world. Thank you in advance, Good day. Rectech enthusiast (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Unfortunately it looks like Recruit CRM does not meet our "notability" requirements. See WP:NOTABLE and WP:NCORP for more information.

We'd need independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Among other flaws, many of the references are dead. David notMD (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rectech enthusiast Others, like forbes.com may not be reliable and WP:CRUNCHBASE is deprecated. See those links. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

User Page

Hello... Can some body made arrangements on my unparalleled user page. Everything is upside down and I'm unable to looking and understand. Please made some arrangements and make it look good. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Misopatam Is it better now after my edit? If not, just WP:Revert it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Misopatam (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

When should I publish my draft?

So, currently working on Draft:List of Ministry of Public Security police officers killed in the line of duty.(similar list to List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty(which I partially copied on the template); And if you are asking why it is separate to List of People's Armed Police personnel killed in the line of duty, this is due to the chinese firefighters prior to 2013 being PAP personnel, so the PAP was half firefighter, half police.)

It is likely gonna take a very very very long time before it is complete with all of the information available.(and considering between 1949 and 2023, over 17,000 civilian officers died in the line of duty, it will likely take much much longer for ones much longer ago) Luckily, the ministry of public security publishes annual honor rolls which makes things much much easier(for the recent ones, obviously). Currently, I'm working on adding ones from the 2024 honor roll, however I have no idea of when I should actually publish it. Should I publish the not-so complete list now and continue working on it later, publish it after I am done adding instances from the 2024 MPS honor roll and continue later, or only publish it after I have finished it to the best i can possibly do(which is likely gonna be in the very, very far future)?

Additionally, if anyone understands Chinese and Uyghur, Kazakh, Yi or Tibetan, Can you also add the names of the officers of those ethnic groups in their native name(keep the transliterated Chinese name) and make sure my transliterated names are accurate(and correct them if they are wrong)? I mostly just cross referenced from the Tibetan name or chinese wikipedia uyghur name article along with google translate or just simply putting in Pinyin instead. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Redirect

So I am making an article on the Leeds Historical Society in Leeds, Alabama, but Leeds Historical Society seems to already be a redirect to the Historical Society of Leeds, England. Do I make an article like Leeds Historical Society (Alabama), or do I change the redirect to an actual page? Vestrix (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I would go the (Alabama) route, given that when someone looks up Leeds they usually expect England. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 00:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! Vestrix (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

AfD question regarding a cricketer.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Answered at AFD. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

---

Hello, I hope all here are well. My question is about the current AfD discussion going on here regarding cricketer Tanzeel Altaf. I was reading WP:NCRIC and then WP:OFFICIALCRICKET, and it is shown that Altaf played from 2011 to 2014 in the Super 8 Twenty20 Cup using information from ESPNcricinfo [10]. According to WP:OFFICIALCRICKET, the Cricket WikiProject deems having played in this T20 cup to qualify as having presumably significant coverage. So my question is, would this rule in WP:OFFICIALCRICKET make it so the page for Altaf would not be deleted, no matter if the ESPNcricinfo page was the only SIGCOV? Thanks all for your help, and have a wonderful weekend. Réunion! 01:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I had a go at answering this at the AfD. Reunion is aware. Commander Keane (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Help with Draft

 Courtesy link: Draft:Zurvan

Hi there, I created a draft for Zurvan, the Iranian divinity of Infinite Time. A Zurvan page was already created, which was redirected to the Zurvanism, because of that reviewer declined draft and suggested merging the content to Zurvanism article. But it is important to note that Zurvan was a significant divinity in multiple periods of Iranian religion. As a god of infinite time in ancient Iranian religion, a Yazata in mainstream Zoroastrianism, and as the creator god in Zurvanism, Zurvan had different roles and meanings across these stages. Therefore, it deserves its own article since Zurvanism article can only represent one period of time. How can I make the draft more capable of being published? Hirbod Hsp (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

You need reliable sources and more content. However, it looks like your draft can be merged with the article Zurvanism. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 17:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The draft says that Zurvanite theology regards time as "infinite" and boundless", but that "Ahura Mazda ultimately triumphs at the end of time". This will appear to some readers as a contradiction. Maproom (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hirbod Hsp I have no opinion atm on if these should be separate articles, but you should pick a better leadimage, see for example pics at Arimanius. Perhaps you can find interested editors in places like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zoroastrianism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Requesting Copyright Owner Permission To Use Image

I would like to add a facial picture to the following article Klavdia (singer), but i couldn't find any free licensed / public domain picture, so i found a picture used in this Article, with this direct Link. The picture seems to have an built-in caption referencing the photographer with copyright symbol, phographer's name, and a phographing company's website. The website doesn't show the pictures taken from the company, as it asks for costumer information. According To Wikipedia, i have to ask the copyright owner for permission, and more speccifcally if is it licensed if is it a free license / or on public domain and if not, based of (Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder). The problem is, when you click on the Email Template Page (Commons:Email_templates#Declaration of consent for all inquiries), it prompts the user to use a wizard tool, but in this case i want to provide the page for the copyright owner to fill out the template and send it back to me, according yo The Wikipedia Guide says, in order for me to check the license. What am i Doing?. Then if its correct i upload the image to wikipedia with mentioned tag, i ask the sender/copyrighter to forward the full mailling thread to the correct wikipedia page. Now, wouldn't this whole proccess discourage the copyrighter and also i am doing it all this correctly?, this is my first time. Any advice?

( I am aware of the "fair use" usage, but you can only upload it only to each wikipedia, and it isn't clear how to do it, and also i want to learn the procces, and upload to wikimedia, whcih can be use in other wikis, since the article is translated into multiple languages.

- Mant08 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The copyright owner should be the one to fill it out. They are the ones who are allowed to make the release, so it's best if they do it directly rather than you being their intermediary. For the record, non-free images of living persons are almost never allowed (usually fails WP:NFCC policy-point #1 ("no free equivalent...could be created..."). DMacks (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mant08 You'll need to be in touch with the copyright holder by email in any event. If you can't persuade them to do the upload, then you can do it on their behalf provided they are prepared to send (usually within one week) an email to the volunteers at Commons from an address that's clearly theirs. The VRT page you linked explains that you would mark the file with a "permission pending" template after you had uploaded it: and, obviously, you need to tell the photographer the filename you used so they can mention that in their email to VRT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mant08 Wikipedia:A picture of you could be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both / all for your advises. Mark Question As Complete - Mant08 (talk)

Is this sockpuppetry? (I don't know where else to post this)

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to put this in. Although I've been using Wikipedia for a very long time, I'm new to editing and don't really know my way around doing a lot of things. This is the first time I'm making a report on a user (or pair of users) because it seems like a person is referencing themselves and using 2 separate IP addresses to do so—so it's like sock-puppetry too.

In respect to the Wikipedia articles “Determiner phrase” and “Sentence (linguistics)”, users 37.111.139.131 and 37.111.136.23 seem to be sock-puppets, or at least related. For starters, their IP addresses both begin in 37.111.1, which means they’re both from Sindh region of Pakistan (Link, Link). They both reference the same website in their edits—“BACE Academy” (Link, Link). If you go to the web pages linked, in both articles, it’s the same author—Engr Sharif Kakar (Link, Link), who is also from Pakistan (Link).

I think it’s very suspicious that two separate IP addresses from Pakistan are citing the same website for information, the author of which is also from Pakistan. It might be the case that the author of this website is referencing their own work and doing it under different IP addresses. It doesn’t make it any better the fact that the articles on that website and the edits on the Wikipedia articles seem to have all been done this April.

Again, I don't know if I'm supposed to make a ticket somewhere or something, but if someone more experienced and knowledgeable than me could guide in the right direction or maybe take over from here, that'd be excellent.

Edit: I was only able to know they were the same user because they both put citations as a raw link in the middle of the articles instead of formatting as a little number surrounded by brackets. Languagelover3000 (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Whoever might be linking to that website, Languagelover3000, the content of that website is feeble. The page on sentences, for example, says that "Sentences are categorized into four functional types of sentences", which comes as a surprise until one realizes that what's meant is that the main clauses of English come in four syntactic types. (Actually in five, but let's not digress.) Presented as one of the four: "Imperative: Gives a command (e.g., “Close the door.”)". Summarizing all four: "Each type serves a unique role in communication, influencing tone and intent." Actually, no. "Get well soon", "Look after yourself", "Don't be shy", and "Go to hell" are imperatives, yet none is a command. Spoken with suitable intonation, "You will be here at 7 a.m." can be a command; yet it's not an imperative but a declarative. This website doesn't merit being cited for any fact/factoid about language. -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, a bit to say / ask here.

• So would you want to revert his edits / remove his content if they're unsubstantiated in your opinion?
• What about the fact that there were two IPs referencing the same author, and both the IPs and the author were from the same place? Is that not more concerning than the content they're adding?
• It seems then that the imperative mood has a bit more nuance in its meaning than simply being "commands". Wikipedia itself and Wiktionary say that the imperative mood can be used to represent a command, request or permission. As for the example sentences you gave, it seems that whether they are considered imperative or declarative sentences depends on how one analyses them—and on pragmatics of course. If we were to edit his content instead of deleting it, I think it'd be a good idea to include that. Or atleast to include that "some declarative sentences are imperative pragmatically" or something of that nature.
• ...5? What's the fifth one? I don't know.

Languagelover3000 (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Your Q1. Removing this stuff would get my approval. Would I want to do it? No, as I explain below.
• Your Q2. This doesn't concern me (at this point). If one IP were blocked and another IP was clearly evading the block, it would.
• Your Q3. Declarative, imperative and the others are syntactic terms. Their syntactic analysis is simple. "Get well soon" expresses a hope; the fact that it expresses a hope and not a directive (let alone a command) doesn't affect its status as an imperative. (Please digest A Student's Introduction to English Grammar before continuing.) "[S]ome declarative sentences are imperative pragmatically" is nonsensical. "Declarative sentences are also used for directives, questions, and exclamations" would be OK.
• Your Q4. Better to split "interrogative" into "open interrogative" and "closed interrogative", as the two are so very different from each other.

-- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

So, for Q3, I just realised that the article already tackled this starting at "The form (declarative,"... Languagelover3000 (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

When I said "...imperative pragmatically", I meant that some declarative sentences sometimes act as imperative sentences, in the sense of being a command or request. I should have phrased it better. Languagelover3000 (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

From its very opening sentence -- "In linguistics and grammar, a sentence is a linguistic expression, such as the English example 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog'" -- Sentence (linguistics) manages to convey to me that this is a truly bad article, and so it turns out to be. Little wonder that it attracts additional junk. I can't bring myself to attempt to sort out such articles, not least because I'm sure that a lot of the junk will be stoutly defended as backed up by "reliable sources" (junk sources peddled to gullible readers by otherwise respectable publishers). But back to your question, Languagelover3000. Pakistan is a very populous nation. Many people there have access to the internet. Would-be contributors to very many of Wikipedia's articles are not required to log in in order to do so. For many users of the internet, their IP numbers fluctuate. I see no evidence here either that the user of one IP number then uses another in an attempt to confuse, or that the person behind the IP numbers is the writer of these web pages. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not that I don't recognise Pakistan as a populated country or anything; it's that the user is referencing their own work. Look at the links I put initially and you'll see that the creation date of the web pages on the BACE Academy website and the edits on Wikipedia occur on the same day, suggesting that this author decide to put his information into Wikipedia right after publishing his content on his own website (repeating the links here: compare the date of this with the date of this and the date of this with the date of this). Yeah, perhaps the IP numbers fluctuated, but like I said, the fact that both editors are from the same place as the author doesn't help their case. Both editors even made the same editing mistake of putting the citations unformatted in the middle of the article. Languagelover3000 (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Languagelover3000, you should probably take this to sockpuppet investigations. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

See, I originally wanted to do that but didn't know how. I've now decided I won't do it anyway. There's a ton of rules that you have to abide by before you make a request, and one of them is that the user be "a) the same [person] and [also] b) disruptive", and... well, they're not necessarily disruptive (or I don't think so atleast). Also, it is possible for the IP addresses to just have fluctuated for the user. Regarding them citing their own work, I was unaware of Wikipedia's stance on citing yourself before making this question. Languagelover3000 (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind again, I found a third IP address "37.111.181.121". They're also from Pakistan, do the same raw-link-in-the-middle-of-the-article thing and they cite the same website. Languagelover3000 (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I would definitely say that's sockpuppetry to be reported. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 11:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yup, yup. After I found the third one, I just decided to go through with it. Languagelover3000 (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

(parting the tent door) Wow! "I'd heard of this place". deja vu moment TTITD

excuse me, but yeah,I remember now. circa 2002 Floating World deep playa Zendo Project? Some of you were in the tent there too. right? Can I sit in back here too? #participate #Teahouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oneluckydog1 (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, grab a pew. Polygnotus (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Would a user page that is built like an article that clearly is bogus with the sole purpose of doing that be against policy?

I am asking this as I found a user-page that is exactly that. It is titled "That Time I Got Reincarnated As A Big Fat Horse In The Middle Of Goddamn Saudi Arabia While My Entire Family Got Eaten By Catboys" (but goes under the user page name.) It might fall under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not but I am unsure of that. How did I find this? It's owned by a user on a website I used and thought I might see if they have a Wikipedia account. hi (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @NotABlanker. You can tag those types of user pages for speedy deletion under U5 criteria. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Iberian blackout?

I think it is article worthy NyanarWelden (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@NyanarWelden It is already at 2025 European power outage. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

'Neutral' statements

When does an objectively correct statement turn into bias? What if there's a less-than-good program or product, but it's described as a 'disappointing' or 'lackluster' despite it being those adjectives? When are things bias by omission / inclusion? BigBoiWikiWhale (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jacob Lee 6939: Hello! It sounds like you have a specific example in mind. What is it? Draft:Randall Standridge? Polygnotus (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of possible bias in 'my' draft, if anything this is me seeing where Wikipedia draws the line for bias.

I saw one whilst reading Next-Generation Bomber, '... the U.S. Air Force's aging bomber fleet'. This is an objective fact, but could be interpreted differently.

I had this same argument in Tommy Robinson with him being a member of a right-wing political group, but being identified as a extreme fascist. I had a remark about the direct mention of his prison sentence which I saw as bias by inclusion. (It was in the first paragraph which usually serves as a tl;dr)

sidenote:

my main issue in my draft is finding valid sources. Standridge is a less-than-renowned composer so I won't be finding any Reuters articles on him. The few I found are all probably biased.

~~~ BigBoiWikiWhale (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jacob Lee 6939 To answer your original question. This is a heavily discussed part of Wikipedia policy, described in detail at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Good ideas for an article?

I really want to write a good one, but I have absolutely no ideas. Could someone offer some? (make sure its notable and suitable for wikipedia please) Thank you, loserhead (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing a new article- the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia- is not the only or even best way someone can contribute. The vast majority of our nearly 7 million articles need some help. I'd go to the Community Portal where there are suggested things to do. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

331dot, thank you for the information. But I still want to make an article. loserhead (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Loserhead4512. Take a look at User:Cullen328#My redlinks where I list some topics that I think are notable. Other editors have successfully written several articles from that list. Here are some other ideas: The Billboard charts go back to 1913. Wikipedia has excellent coverage of hit songs from the last 60 years. There are many articles that can be written about hit songs from 80 to 110 years ago. There is a strong presumption of notability for state and provincial legislators, and Wikipedia does a pretty good job with those serving in the last 25 years. But there are countless legislators from the previous centuries who lack biographies. You could spend the rest of your life working on these areas. Cullen328 (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Cullen328, thank you! loserhead (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Loserhead4512 See Wikipedia:Requested articles for inspiration, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Loserhead4512: There are also some other useful lists of possible notable topics, depending on your interest: For instance, Women in Red has lists of women divided by Occupation, Geography, or time span; FloridaArmy has a list of American history topics that may be notable at User:FloridaArmy/Missing Pieces. If you let us know your field of interest, we can certainly find a relevant list that might be more specific to what you want to write about! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I will also stress, what are your personal topics of interest? Articles may be lacking on politicians, songs, artists, women, species, towns, etc., but if none of that makes your heart beat faster, why bother? I also always stress gaining experience by improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@David notMD why bother? Why not? If I want to write an article, does it matter what my personal interests are if it's a well written/accurate article?

I also always stress gaining experience by improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. I understand this, but I want to challenge myself instead of just staying in my comfort zone. If I never step out of it, I'll never learn. loserhead (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you like plants, or insects? One of the first things I did here was create a bunch of bug stubs, and they're all still there. Not the most exciting thing in the world but it was good practice. MediaKyle (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@MediaKyle Not really, but I wouldn't be against making an article on one loserhead (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

You have made close to 1,000 edits since starting your account, with a very low revert rate, and including, today, creating a draft, so, carry on. David notMD (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Freedom_Day_(South_Africa) still displays 2025 as next date

How does one change it manually? Or does the infobox update automatically with a delay? --SchallundRauch (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

SchallundRauchLike many such dates, the page needs to be edited (even a WP:DUMMY or WP:NULL edit) and saved. I just did that, and it automatically updated. - Arjayay (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Good to know, Thanks! --SchallundRauch (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It only requires a purge. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Can we please add Spouse beneath present holder?

Can autoconfirm user please add present wife of the title holder to Template:Infobox hereditary title Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

You have asked this at Template talk:Infobox hereditary title which is the correct place for this discussion. However you have not supplied any rationale. Why would a spouse be added? It seems irrelevant to me. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be very active there and Wikipedia suggested I post here to find autoconfirm users. Not sure why spouse wouldn't be relevant? There's title holder and heir, why not spouse? Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88 The heir is for hereditary titles. Spouses are generally not notable, and we try to keep information about non-notable people to an absolute minimum. For example, I always remove the names of non-notable children. Polygnotus (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Under British social custom, a wife is the legal and social equal of her husband in style and title. She shares his rank and assumes the feminine form of his title by courtesy but does not hold it in her own right. Therefore the spouse is normally relevant info. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88 Thank god we don't follow British social customs. Tea is deadly in large quantities. Cue "you will address me by my husbands rank" memes. Polygnotus (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88 - but the template is about hereditary titles, not courtesy titles. Maproom (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Kef (1705)

Hello everyone! I’ve been working on this draft for about a year, and I’ve ran into a bit of a roadblock. There’s only one single source describing the battle. And, as we all know, one source won’t suffice for an article. You can find the draft here: Draft:Battle of Kef (1705) TJ Kreen (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@TJ Kreen Hola! I am not sure I understand what the question is. Polygnotus (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I should’ve clarified. My article was rejected for only having one source, even though only one source covers the battle. So, I’m looking for help in finding more sources for the battle. TJ Kreen (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@TJ Kreen Hm that is a pretty specific request. The trick is usually looking at the history of related Wikipedia articles to try to figure out which editors are interested in that topic area and then checking their contribution pages to see if they are still active. Asking the WP:MILHIST project may also be a good idea. Polygnotus (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@TJ Kreen Also note that the battle is described over at Tunisian–Algerian_War_(1705)#Battle_of_Kef and since that isn't a standalone article the sourcing requirements are lower. Maybe expanding that section is easier. Polygnotus (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I have that section in my article already, but I appreciate the suggestion. TJ Kreen (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the parent article is the place for this kind of information if there isn't enough sourcing for a spinout. You can keep improving the content there if you find any more sources, and then spin it out if you end up with a sizeable chunk. -- asilvering (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Can we deploy the Score extension's vastly superior SVG output, please?

Hi, does anyone else actually

(care) about the Score extension? Sometimes it seems like I am operating in a vacuum. Progress on features has ground to a halt, and sadly it is being left to rot on the vine. There is a ticket for making it output SVG instead of poor resolution PNG images T49578, which has been open for twelve years; I merged code for it two years ago, and it's ready to deploy. If you care about music notation on Mediawiki projects (WikiSource uses it a fair bit too), we need to get the "deploy new version into production" ticket T385404 progressed. What are we to do? How can we get this done? I don't want everyone to pile onto tickets and harass the engineers because they're busy and it's nobody's fault, but perhaps a few upvotes and polite words of encouragement or offers to help on the ticket would work? It's so frustrating to have it ready to go to just languish in limbo for years. — Jon (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice, I think you might have more luck asking about this at WP:VPT. -- asilvering (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering thanks for the tip, cheers. — Jon (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Why no good lists?

So we got: Good articles, Featured articles, Good topics, and Featured topics, and then we have featured lists, but no good lists. Why not? TzarN64 (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Because people don't have much creative liberty when creating a list. Polygnotus (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for answering. TzarN64 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Michele Antonio

Does anyone know what country he was from when the 1527 last stand occurred? Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Michele Antonio of Saluzzo? If that article doesn't give you the answer, try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Oliver Sachs

Hello Teahouse community,

I actually wanted to add some information about some Central European impact and meteorite researchers to the German and English Wikipedia. I started with 'Sachs' because of his well-documented German Wikipedia page (see: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Sachs).

Here I have simply translated the German page into English and added the references accordingly. (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oliver_Sachs). I thought that the sources listed on Wikipedia (GND: 101129687X, VIAF: 170326124) would be sufficient. However, this does not appear to be the case. DoubleGrazing (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DoubleGrazing) rejected the entry with the comment: „No evidence of notability, and very insufficiently referenced.“ and referred to necessary entries e.g. in the ‘Web of Science’ or at ‘Scopus’. I hadn't had these databases on my radar before, so I'm really grateful to DoubleGrazing for pointing them out. He was also the one who referred me to the Teahouse community :)

Well, in the admittedly exotic field of Central European impact researchers and meteorite researchers, I would like to make one or two additions. In particular, there is a lack of English entries on this interesting and internationally recognised topic. I would have liked to simply start with one or two translations here, which can then be developed further via the community. However, I need to understand the rules of the game first. Let’s taktet he example of „Oliver Sachs“. Scopus lists him with 8 publications and 478 citations. Sachs began his career in environmental and climate research and later worked in meteorite and impact research. He is also listed in the Web of Science (Link: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/MYS-6182-2025). In the field of meteorite and impact research, but also in climate research, he has contributed to a number of highly cited papers, which, according to the citations, have now also found their way into teaching (for example https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11229). Where is my error in thinking? Did I quote or link incorrectly in the translation? I would suggest including the English version of ‘Sachs’.

The next thing I would have looked at was Dieter Stöffler's site (link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_St%C3%B6ffler). So far there is only a Spanish and Swedish translation. Scopus lists Stöffler with 12 documents (link: https://www.scopus.com/results/results.uri?st1=st%C3%B6ffler+dieter&st2=&s=AUTH%28st%C3%B6ffler+dieter%29&limit=10&origin=searchbasic&sort=plf-f&src=s&sot=b&sdt=b&sessionSearchId=31f098a0694967424b009596242da887). I have not yet found it on the Web of science. Does a translation into English even make sense here?

Maybe you can help me further?

Best regards

Meteoriten-Deutschlands Meteoriten-Deutschlands (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Please be aware that the German Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It appears most of the references on that article are to the subject's own work. To put it simply, the subject in this case should either pass WP:NACADEMIC, or have enough secondary, independent coverage to be covered under WP:GNG / WP:NBASIC. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Meteoriten-Deutschlands, your edit after DoubleGrazing's decline was really helpful. I'm not totally sure why it was declined a second time (I'd have accepted it as "enough to be worth a real deletion discussion at WP:AFD", myself), but you can ask the reviewer who did that and see what they have to say. Can you explain where you got the birthday from, though? Only the year is given at the link provided. Please see WP:DOB for why we're cagey about these.

Dieter Stoeffler looks pretty obviously notable to me, given the obituary linked on de-wiki ([11]). You'll want to find a citation that verifies that he won the Leibniz Prize. Having a look at the wikidata item, in this case Dieter Stöffler (Q15455295), can be helpful for looking for hints of academic notability. -- asilvering (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It's just not easy for me to look behind the wall. Maybe it's actually due to the topic of meteorites or impacts and Central Europe. Perhaps Germany and its data protection also make things more difficult. With this “Sachs”, a translation was still relatively easy due to the preliminary work of the various Wiki authors. However, this person is still alive. I had simply translated the date of birth from the German page. But you are right. The German National Library database only lists “1970-” . If a speaker is introduced in a lecture with his key life data, this is not enough. In the English translation by Christian Koerberl , which is still undergoing some revision, the same problem arises with the date of birth. Only a death (?) seems to solve this data protection problem. In the case of the deceased Riesgeologists (in German) “Stöffler”, "Gall", “Dehm” and others, this is much easier, as there is often an obituary from a university and the like. In the case of the current example “Sachs”, I would therefore have to delete the exact date of birth, because it cannot actually be proven? Let's stay with the specialists for the meteorite crater “Nördlinger Ries”, summarized as “Riesgeologists” (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%B6rdlinger_Ries). Many of them had several scientific focuses in their lives. Even undoubtedly world-famous people like „Shoemaker“ (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Merle_Shoemaker) or „Chao“ (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._T._Chao) had not worked exclusively on the impact craters of this earth.

In the case of the “Sachs” I started, it was obviously polar research. If I apply the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NBASIC here, the transitions are unfortunately fluid. Sachs" has written several published books (compare link: https://search.worldcat.org/de/search?q=au=%22Sachs%2C%20Oliver%22) and was involved in widely cited publications (link:https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=59240594900) then the WP criteria are not always clear. And yet a German-English translation like this, with an update if necessary, is also work.

I'm still not sure what to do with the “Sachs” I started. Maybe just delete it and give up the exotic project “Meteorite and Impact Researchers of Central Europe”? Or would it suffice to additionally update or link the sources with the databases of the German National Library, the Web of Science or Scopus?

Cheers, @Meteoriten-Deutschlands Meteoriten-Deutschlands (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you'd have to remove the exact date, though it's fine to keep the year. Academics with multiple published books are usually notable, since academic books usually get reviewed in academic journals - if you can find reviews of his work, that will help. Please don't put a translated title into the "title" field of cite book - that goes into the "trans-title" field instead. For those database entries, they're better placed in Oliver Sachs (Q116194073). -- asilvering (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Removal of Information

Hi Teahouse community,

Not sure if you can assist. I've been editing a page on a figure from medieval England and added info to what was already there about that person's siblings as it wasn't complete. Having just gone in to amend it, entire paragraphs (written by myself and I assume the original person who started the page) have been removed. The person who deleted the info (I found that out by looking at the editing history) felt that a person's siblings are of no interest, which to a certain degree I agree with but both me and the originator wrote their names and who they married, so readers can form a larger picture of the person concerned and the interlinking of medieval aristocratic families. I just want to ask - who decides what should be included on a page? As it stands - to me the page now looks incomplete.

Many thanks. JuliusJasper (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@JuliusJasper, can you link us to the article in question, please? -- asilvering (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry - here it is:

Margaret de Bohun, Countess of Devon. JuliusJasper (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

A sample of what was removed is this description of a younger brother: "Edward de Bohun who married Margaret, daughter of William de Ros, 2nd Baron de Ros, but had no issue. Like his twin brother, he was a close friend of his cousin, Edward III. He died a heroic death attempting to rescue a drowning man from a Scottish river while on campaign." I don't know what this tells us about his elder sister (the ostensible subject of the article). -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The paragraphs are a mix of what I wrote and what was already there. Should all of it be deleted though? A polite request to amend would IMO be more appropriate. JuliusJasper (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

That would be very weird, actually. We want editors to be WP:BOLD, after all. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

...See also the WP:BRD cycle. Polygnotus (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, the simple answer to your question in general, "who decides what should be included on a page", is "the editors of that page", basically. If editors disagree, like in this case, the first step is to go to the article talk page and discuss why you think something should or should not be included. (Of course, you can also just shrug and go do something else; you're not obligated to follow through with the dispute.) That's something of a simplification, but you'll never go wrong by starting a talk page conversation.

In this case, I can say that I agree with the removal of this content - it really is quite a lot about people who are not the subject of the article. Now, if you have a secondary source about Margaret that talks about how all of this is relevant for her biography in particular, you might have a good argument for including it. As it stands, I think a simple sentence like "Her parents had x other children, including [a list of them, wikilinked]" would be helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. The problem is, is that not all of what was deleted was what I wrote - clearly the person who started the page had found out quite a bit that I hadn't known about, so I can't answer for much of the info that was removed. Ironically I logged on to amend some of it. The problem is many contributors give their time for free on here out of goodwill (inc both the writing and research) so helpful and respectful editing of pages would be appreciated. JuliusJasper (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

All of us give our time here for free out of goodwill. This kind of editing is fundamental to the Wikipedia process, and no one has done anything wrong here, nor have you been treated unhelpfully or disrespectfully as far as I can see. If you're worried that the content has vanished forever, don't be - you can recover anything from the page history, unless it's been revision deleted, which only happens in very specific circumstances (and hasn't here). -- asilvering (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Re the info can be retrieved - a lot of the info that was removed didn't belong to me but to a previous contributor, hence I'd be wary of putting any of it back. I understand that everyone is on here of their own volition but it would help if some of the editing was more constructive and that is probably down to the individuals concerned. I post less now than I used to, in part because I don't have the time to get involved in why something was done (unless I've made a genuine error on a page which has happened). JuliusJasper (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Content doesn't belong to any of us. Please see WP:OWN. -- asilvering (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Some idle questions about sourcing

Can, say Encyclopedia Britannica contain citations from Encyclopedia Britannica? Can an article about the Greek wiki cite diffs on that wiki for a statement about literal changes to that wiki? Etc. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 11:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I think those would be primary sources, which should be used only with care, as encyclopedic articles are mainly based on secondary sources. Britannica is usually a tertiary source, but they would be primary regarding their own activities (see also WP:ABOUTSELF). The second example might be especially tricky, because only descriptive statements of fact that can be verified without expert knowledge (such as experience looking at diffs) can be supported by a primary source. Perception312 (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Just a Question

Hello to all wikipedians out here. I was wondering if it was possible to merge I-1K; I-2K; I-3K ; I-4K and the I-6K pages. The Pages by themselves are too small and sparsly referenced that i belive a siingle INSAT (satellite bus) page might be enough to contain all thier articles. Is my reasoning compliant with policies and if so, how can i start the work to merge these pages? RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@4-RAZOR 01 If a merger were warranted, why not just expand the existing Indian National Satellite System article? I think your best approach would be to raise the idea at WT:SPACEFLIGHT, where most editors who will be interested will see it. Technical details are at WP:MERGE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Michael D. Turnbull; i did not consider meging it with the Indian national Satellite System aricle as The INSAT bus has also been used for Mangalyaan and all the Chandryaans. I belive also for GSAT,EOS and CMS sats also use one of these buses. RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

How can I add another column to an election table with Visual Editor?

I would like to add a column showing the % change in popular vote to the table "Summary of the 2025 Canadian Student Vote" in this article-2025_Canadian federal election#Student vote results so that it resembles the table in this article-2021 Canadian federal election#Student Vote Canada results where the popular vote results were compared with the previous election's results]. Is there a way to do with Visual Editor? Whenever I try to edit, it shows a bunch of fields that I don't understand or know how to navigate. Hiya2025 (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hiya2025, welcome to the Teahouse. The table uses a mixture of templates and wikitext. This makes it difficult to edit with VisualEditor. You have to manually insert data in every field with heading "[[]] Wikitext", similar to how the 2021 table looks in VisualEditor. Or you could use the source editor where you still have to add the same wikitext but all the code is visible at the same time in one large edit box. Tables are tricky. Make sure to preview before saving. Or work on something else until you get more experience with wikitext tables. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Filling Journal Citations

Hi. Is there any tool we can use to fill cite journal and cite web template? I used to use refill for mainspace articles. But I have been creating articles from AFC. Is there some tool that can be used there for filling journal citations?HRShami (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC) HRShami (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Quite a few, see Help:Citation tools. But it should be built in to whatever editor you are using. Also ReFill still exists, see https://refill.toolforge.org/ng/

For example, if you use the VisualEditor there is a button for that and if you use the older editor it is in the RefToolbar (click on Cite and then choose a template from the dropdown. A popup will appear. Fill in the URL in the appropriate field and then press the magnifying glass icon next to it). Polygnotus (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This is helpful. Thank you.HRShami (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

How it's done

How pages get protected via arbitration enforcement? (contentious topics and general sanctions) CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @CreatorTheWikipedian2009. Requests to protect an article go to WP:RFPP. You can also tell us what page you want protected here in case an admin passes by this thread. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

How I do it? What to write if I want to request protection via WP:CT, OR WP:GS? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

harv or sfn error

In Sigmund Freud Archives, I added an item by Peter J. Swales under "Literature." Then I added footnote 3, unsuccessfully attempting to link it to the Peter J. Swales item. "View history" says "harv or sfn error." What did I do wrong? Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus Does this help? See Template:Sfn. Polygnotus (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@talkThanks Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus. I tried this by creating note 229 of Paul Gauguin. The footnote looks good, but it doesn't jump down to the book. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC).

@Maurice Magnus Having it jump down requires a cite template. You need to create something at the bottom it can jump down to. So instead of

* [[Sue Prideaux|Prideaux, Sue]] (2024). ''Wild Thing: A Life of Paul Gauguin''. London: Faber & Faber Limited.

use

*{{cite book |date=2024 |last1=Prideaux |first1=Sue |title=Wild Thing: A Life of Paul Gauguin |publisher=Faber & Faber Limited |location=London }}

at the bottom.

If you look at what I did at Sigmund Freud Archives you'll see that I also added a cite template.

Template:Sfn#Adding_a_URL_for_the_page_or_location explains that |loc= is for URL that link to the specific page or location.

Template:Sfn#Possible_issues explains how adding comments or a quote works. You also want to add pagenumbers, and we got template {{rp}} for that.

So you could use something like:

<ref>{{harvnb|Prideaux|2024}}{{rp|pages=3,4}}: "She survived, but the ball was lodged three centimetres from her heart, too close to be safely removed.... She died ... aged forty-one, her life probably shortened by the pistol ball lodged so close to her heart"</ref>

to refer to the {{cite}} template. Hope that makes sense.

Good to know: I know how ridiculously complicated and stupid this syntax is. WMDE is working on a fix called "Sub-referencing". Look at mw:User_talk:Aaron_Liu#Sub-referencing:_User_testing. Polygnotus (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus Thanks for the instructions and for doing the work at Paul Gauguin. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot

I can't use User:InternetArchiveBot. When I try to access the page, I get this error: "Permission error: The action you're trying to perform requires the analyzepage permission. This permission is only available to users in certain groups: basicuser, user, admin, root, or bot". — ArćRèv • talk 10:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Arc Rev Sounds like you lack the required user access level; possibly (auto)confirmed. Which page would you like to run the bot on? We can do it for you. Polygnotus (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: I'm not really sure how it works—another user suggested it to help me archive links in an article. I thought it was something I could use myself. I just got auto-confirmed yesterday, so I assumed I’d be able to use it. I have some articles with source links that need archiving, and I didn’t want to bother you every time. It kind of sounds like if I keep asking for help with archiving in every article, it might add extra work for you. Is that what you meant? Sorry—I'm still new here. — ArćRèv • talk 11:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Arc Rev The good news is that there are many experienced users on this page who answer questions and help people. This reduces wait times and makes it very unlikely you will ask too much of any single user. And the bot has an option to add a list of articles. So no worries. I am not exactly sure why the bot isn't working for you, but maybe someone else knows. Polygnotus (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s right—but I don’t want to keep asking the editors here to archive links in articles. It kinda feels like I’m the only one doing that. Thanks for your response. I just want some help accessing the bot so I don’t have to keep bothering anyone. Still, I appreciate the suggestion and I’m hoping someone will help out. — ArćRèv • talk 11:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The reason the permission error is occurring is that your account is less than 10 days old. You need 10 edits and be at least 10 days old to acquire basicuser automatically. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 11:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Requesting a move

Hi, my account is autoconfirmed, but I can’t move my sandbox page User:Niroshanraja/sandbox to the main space due to a filter. Can someone please help me move it to Niroshan Raja? Niroshanraja (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Niroshanraja, User:Niroshanraja/sandbox is written as an advertisment, it will not be accept on WP in it's current form, or anything close. WP:BACKWARD and WP:COI may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Niroshanraja everything in a Wikipedia article must come from a reliable reference source, but you have no references listed. Reading Help:Referencing for beginners may help you in adding needed references. Karenthewriter (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Add refs and go through the AfC review process. Also, it should become Draft:ARV Loshan Sports rather than your User name. David notMD (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I was paid to edit a wikipedia article

in 2022, i was paid by the tekitrealm to put information about him in the article Me at the zoo. Thankfully its since been removed but i didnt know at the time that i had to disclose this, so im doing it now. TzarN64 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @TzarN64, welcome to the teahouse! Thank you for being honest about your paid editing. You should add a paid editing banner on your user page, and the options can be found here. I think the second one would be best, merely put who paid you and the article it was for. You could alternatively use the second userbox visible further down on the page, if you prefer that. Again, thank you for being honest about this! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have done that. TzarN64 (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

"Controversy" section on a BLP

You can't mention a cute dog picture and not show it

Hi! I have been deferring this for a few months now, and I have decided to finally ask it now. So there's this BLP I created and actively maintain. An editor added a "Controversy" section, which contains a negative incident related to the article's subject. I am asking if sections like this are normal on BLPs? Because for a while, I don't see other BLPs contain such sections, and I think it may be WP:UNDUE or something. While some BLPs have such sections out there, most of the BLPs I encounter don't. Just a curious but a little bit concerned editor, that's all.AstrooKai (Talk) 08:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

A "negative incident related to the article's subject"? True, but the same could be said if some of her fans had been killed in a traffic accident on the way to the event, or if a fire had broken out at the event. A fan gave her a living animal as a gift. The point has been made that that's not appropriate (including by her, apparently). It's clear she's not being blamed for this, and the incident has received lots of coverage, so I don't see the coverage as being undue. I wouldn't put it in a controversy section, to avoid the implication that she did something wrong. Meters (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, separate controversy sections suck, but that doesn't mean the content in them doesn't have a place in an another subsection. WP:CRITS has some thoughts on this (it's an essay). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Very sweet picture with the dog, btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe better in a Personal life section? As receiving a dog as a gift is not an aspect of her career unless she makes it so. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but there wasn't one. If there is a source for "As of yyyy, she lives in..." so the dog wouldn't be all alone in there, I'd like it better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

That's why I'm thinking twice on whether to remove it. Because there are no other information about her that is personal and outside of her career. AstrooKai (Talk) 14:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a possible WP:PROPORTION-argument for removal here, but otoh, WP:RSP likes Rappler. And, you know, leadimage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Understandable. It's hard to establish a "Personal life" section on her BLP, since newspapers here in the Philippines mostly discuss trending controversies and rumors about her personal life. AstrooKai (Talk) 15:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)