Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1255

Archive 1250

←

Archive 1253

Archive 1254

Archive 1255

Include 2 videos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epfWIUK_efA&t=1s

This has also been transferred to vimeo. There is extensive crediting info that I don't understand. Can I use this on the site for Vilem Sokol?

Also, similar question to use this film documentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q_iI1jhb7U&t=1470s Chamber Music Queen (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I believe the first video you linked (the 1812 overture involving Sokol) is good as an external link, as it improves the article and is not a copyright violation. You can check the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Video links to determine whether a video link is appropriate or not (you can use the flowchart there). Personally I would prefer to link to the original video on Vimeo because it's the original source, but the YouTube link is fine too if you think it's more convenient. The reason it's fine is because the original video is licensed with Creative Commons "Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives" (it says so below the credits on Vimeo). This basically means the video can be reused as long as its properly attributed, used non-commercially and left unaltered. The YouTube video respects that so it's not a copyright violation (which we usually mustn't link to on Wikipedia).

So, the video may be inserted in the article as Tchaikovsky 1812 overture directed by Vilem Sokol, by writing the following wikitext:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epfWIUK_efA Tchaikovsky 1812 overture directed by Vilem Sokol]

under an ==External links== section (below the References section). (You can replace the YouTube link with the Vimeo link if you prefer).

About the second video: that one is a clear copyright violation, as the reuploader is not the copyright holder of the documentary nor does he have permission or license to reupload it. In consequence we can not link to it. You can however cite the American Archive link the reuploader (improperly) linked to in the video description. The archive doesn't provide the video itself though, it only documents its existence. I think you can still use it as a reference anyway and then use the documentary's information on the Wikipedia article, although I'm not entirely certain. Hopefully another editor can clear this doubt. The Sophocrat (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw you already linked to the first video on the Films subsection of the article. I believe that is appropriate as well. The Sophocrat (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this info.

I hope I did the 2nd video link correctly!

Also, can you remove the block at the top saying that the article still needs references? Thanks!! Chamber Music Queen (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The 2nd video link seems fine to me.

Sure, the references are enough to remove the template. I have done so and improved a few of your references. You might already know about it, but The Seattle Times has its own archives which you could use to find and cite online scans of the pre-Internet citations of the newspaper in the article. For example, here are the two Seattle Times offline articles you currently cite: [1] [2]. It requires a paid subscription to access however, which I don't have. You might be interested in it though.

Also, I asked another editor about using the documentary as a source of information, and he agrees that it's okay to use it even though we can't link to the full video (analogous to citing an offline book).

Happy editing :) The Sophocrat (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

thanks very much! I appreciate the tips! Chamber Music Queen (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

FYI: see this user talk page section, where I answered the question without realising it had already been addressed here. Graham87 (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Update article

Do you know if Sarsenet will be available?  I had modified an article and the changes were removed a few days later.  He sent me a msg but I was too busy to respond.  I’ve revised my changes and wanted to implement them.  I sent him a msg a little while ago. DRHovis (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Good day @DRHovis, @Sarsenet may not be online at the time or may have not gotten notice of your changes. I have mentioned them in this comment, which should get their attention. Do you need Sarsenet specifically or do you just generally need help from an experienced editor. Thanks, ✶Quxyz✶ 19:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Abo Yemen was assigned to help me by Sarsenet so I contacted him. He checked and I was not blocked, so I revised the article. Thank you for your help!

There are a lot of places to go in the Wiki environment. It is interesting! DRHovis (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

On average, how long do DYK articles take to get reviewed?

I'm currently submitting Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Xiaolong (Chinese coast guardsman) for DYK, but it's been quite some time and there still hasn't been a review. May I ask how long DYK articles take to get reviewed on average?

P.S.

May I ask if I can also nominate multiple DYKs at once? I may be publishing some drafts soon Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Was your second question not answered on 10 May? -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac Your DYK was reviewed on 3 May and was fine except for the issue about the image. That prevented it getting the little green tick from User:Peaceray which would have drawn it to the attention of someone to promote the DYK to the next stage. I'm sure my alert here will mean that Peaceray will fix that, given you are new to the process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

So can I find some way for it to not need the photo in DYK? the article has no problems Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac: I have approved it as a DYK with the caveat that the non-free image is okay in the article but should not be used on the main page. Peaceray (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac So now the nomination is at WP:DYKNA and will move on from there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I heard, that's great; Is there anything else I need to do, or is it ok from now on? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

No, it should all be automatic, unless those editors who move things on have questions for you, in which case I'd expect a WP:PING. It may still take a couple of weeks to get to the main page but you should be able to follow progress through the prep areas and queues. You will certainly be notified on your talk page when the hook goes live. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks! Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m new to this site. What should I do first?

If you are reading this, then I’m new to this site, this wiki. And I wanted to read multiple pages with great information. I am willing to participate in Wikipedia. I created my account lately. I did took a survey, after creating my account. So please to see, what do I need to explore first? What could you bring me into that, so I can be an editor? AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@AmazingWikis4386: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Some interesting things you can do on Wikipedia are listed at this task center. Are you interested in any topic in particular? If so, there are also some interesting WikiProjects, which focus on one subject area. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, tasks to solve? AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@AmazingWikis4386 When you said "I wanted to read multiple pages with great information".

Are you talking about the articles in the encyclopedia or "policy and guidelines" ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Articles in the encyclopedia. It’s just the information I enjoy reading. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe What can I do first? AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried visiting Special:Homepage? I believe it's now enabled by default for new accounts. It will list some suggestions for changes you can make as a new editor, and may also pair you up with a mentor. If you don't see the newcomer homepage linked from the top of your user page, instructions to enable it are here. -- Avocado (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Avocado Yes, I visited the homepage and it’s looking fine to me. What is the mentor for? AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The mentor is someone you can ask questions about using and editing Wikipedia. You can also ask questions here at the Teahouse, but the mentor is a specific person who interacts with you repeatedly. They can give you more personalized support and feedback. You have no obligation to ask your mentor instead of the Teahouse when you have questions. But some people find the 1-1 discussion with the mentor more comfortable than asking on a more public forum like this one, and some people find the longer-term relationship valuable. -- Avocado (talk) Avocado (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

More personalized support and feedback? That’s cool. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

"More personalized support and feedback? " , I think you have all the necessary to make your path.

This is not necessary to be fast. Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

On editing suggestions, does these articles or pages change after you edit them? AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Your edits change the articles. And then after you complete an editing suggestion, you should receive a new suggestion. -- Avocado (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Could suggestions include adding new information or fixing typos? AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Avocado Could this suggestion be either difficult or simple? AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

They could be either difficult or simple. And different people find different things difficult vs. simple. Why don't you try a few and find out how they are for you? -- Avocado (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I will try and find out. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I think those are sometimes among the suggestions, but I'm not sure. I don't know a ton of detail about what types of suggestions are offered, or how they're chosen. I suggest you just go to Special:Homepage and try a few. Don't be afraid to try. You'll learn more about the tasks by trying them than by asking what they are. Don't worry about getting everything just right -- if you make a mistake, someone will come along and fix it sooner or later. -- Avocado (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

That’s fine tough. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe @Avocado @Relativity And whenever I checked the mentor on my Wikipedia homepage, it shows a specific random user, they suggested me to contact, instead of an administrator. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. You only need an administrator if you need someone with special permissions to do certain things like delete pages. Your mentor will be a normal (but experienced) editor. As are most of us here at the Teahouse. -- Avocado (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Avocado Is being a mentor a special user right or a privilege? AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's the FAQ for mentors. I think it answers that question. -- Avocado (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Avocado Could you even be a historian, despite not having over 500 edits to become extended confirmed editor? AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

(outdent) What do you mean by being a historian?

You're asking a lot of questions about a lot of different things, without giving context to your questions. So it's hard for me to understand what it is you're trying to learn. What is your goal? What's standing in the way of your achieving that goal? -- Avocado (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Avocado Apologies for late reply, but I forgot to change from “historian” to a Teahouse host, possibly a typo error. I can say that is this possible to become a host in Teahouse, even though I’m not extended confirmed user?

For this, my goal on this site is to edit Wikipedia often and become a regular contributor. My standing of that way is to keep track of the articles that require improvement and fixation. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are whoever feels like hanging out here and answering questions. If you see a question you are confident you know the correct answer to, you're welcome to answer it. I've been on Wikipedia for a while, but I still don't know everything, so I only answer questions about things I do know.

There are two main ways to find articles that need to be fixed. One is to pick a type of fixing that you like to do (adding references? translating from another language you're fluent in? updating outdated information? adding images?), and look at categories of articles that have been tagged as needing that sort of fix.

The other way is to choose a topic that interests you (tabletop games? cambodian history? planes, trains, or automobiles? a specific sport? etc.) and look at articles in that topic to see how you can improve them.

Which approach sounds more appealing to you? -- Avocado (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Avocado Editing in random topic areas and fixing articles by adding references and updating the outdated information sounds approaching to me, at least I can do it. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Great! You might find the lists here useful for finding those tasks. There's a "more..." link at the bottom of each short list where you can find a longer list of articles that need work. And also a "learn how" link so you can be confident you understand what's expected for that type of task. Hopefully that's enough to get you started. -- Avocado (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for give me a task center and assisting me on Wikipedia. I do appreciate your posts on Teahouse. Maybe someday I can become a regular contributor on Wikipedia. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

At this point, after getting about 500 edits, I will become extended confirmed user, meaning that I will contribute to pages with extended confirmed protection. Thanks to anyone who reply to me and giving me a warm welcome to a website. I would do these edits to pages later then. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

What said @Relativity in the message published in "MAY/11/2025" at "21:41 UTC" isn't sufficient for you ?

There are also the message of @Avocado published in "MAY/11/2025" at "22:53 UTC".

Do you need more ? I think these things are sufficient for the moment.

Step by step. There are not an emmergency. Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe Yes, I think I need more. And this is sufficient for me. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Excellent ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you really much for this. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @AmazingWikis4386, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

One thing I want to warn you of: you may find that when you make an edit, somebody reverts your edit. Please don't get disheartened if this happens. It doesn't mean you are wrong: it means that the other editor disagrees that your edit was an improvement. This might be because they are more experienced in Wikipedia, and understand some policies better than you; or it might be because they know about that subject better than you. But it might be that they don't know the subject as well as you, and other editors would agree that your edit was a good one. Or it might be just that the two of you disagree about how best to say something.

If this happens, please don't just apply your edit again: either choose to let it go, or start a discussion with them and see if you can reach agreement. See WP:BRD for how this works. ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine Thanks for telling me about the reverts, I’m sure on what can be an edit improvement. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Find a subject you're interested in, and edit there. Different topics have different kinds of small edits that need to be made – for example, articles on invertebrates tend to have old and poor-quality photos, so I've spent some time lately uploading free and better images. What sort of things are you interested in, and what topics do you think you'd like to edit? (These are not necessarily the same. I'm interested in politics but almost never edit there, for example). Cremastra (u — c) 23:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cremastra @Avocado I’m interested in wikis, but I’m interested in learning something new and mostly recent events and ancient history, as well as literature in some cases. I don’t edit until I feel like it or I need to. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I would like to edit on Wikipedia, when I feel like it, on a specific date. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Is editing Wikipedia a way to learn stuff? I guess that depends on what you want to learn. For instance, you might be able to look up Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary and eventually learn what procedure a President might (theoretically) need to go through to convert it from its current status as a landmark to an operating prison. You can also ask chatgpt. Both will have a certain risk of inaccuracy (and it's not unusual for that inaccuracy to be fed by Wikipedia (see citogenesis).

You indicate that you want to edit "when you feel like it" ... which you can already do. I see you've created a page called "self" ... there's a lot of people who set up these pages about themselves, and there's nothing per se wrong with doing that, but the presumed purpose of being a wikipedia editor is to help "build an encyclopedia", so my personal feeling is that this sort of personal content is mostly a distraction... but maybe at some point it can become useful. Do bear in mind, however, that there are something like 30k or more "active" editors, it's quite likely that nobody will notice what you do unless you do something bad. From the beginning, you would have been able to edit almost any article on wikipedia, but they might have been subject to a review. However, after a mere 4 days and 10 edits, which is almost nothing (especially since the edit count includes non-article edits), then you become autoconfirmed, which means you're able to edit nearly any article you want.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Especially when it comes to creating new articles. There are a bunch of rules about articles. Rules about what meets the notability requirements (just because something is obviously notable to you doesn't mean it qualifies, there are rules about "making claims" (you're supposed to have a 'reliable source to make a claim (in principle, every statement you make in an article is backed up by a reliable source, and preferably one that can be accessed via a link.

Now I'll speak straight! I'm a tad hostile toward people who just think about how they can "participate" ... just use the site. You'll know when it's time to participate, because you'll see an article that you feel is deficient in some way. Even when you encounter something like that, don't be thinking "Here's my chance." There's really no reward for contributing ... but aside from that, there are many reasons why what you think is a really useful edit is actually counter-productive. You might think you're fixing a grammatical error, but you're wrong. You might think your edit is adding useful content, but it really doesn't belong. You might think you're correcting spelling, not realizing that the article is written using British English.

OTOH, the time will come when there's some obvious constructive edit you can make, then go for it. Bear in mind, if you're adding a fact and there's not already a citation to support it, then you should provide a citation to go along with it. Good luck! Fabrickator (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fabrickator Oh boy, you are here, for the first one, yes. Editing Wikipedia is a way to learn stuff, especially when you fix typos or errors when editing an article. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

And for this, I can at least enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. AmazingWikis4386 (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Are dead children children?

Hi helpful people! I'm curious, is there a policy about including dead children in a person's infobox? If one of their kids died and one is alive, do we say they have 1 or 2 children? Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, they do count as children (I don't think any policy mentions it specifically but it makes sense and there's plenty of articles with noted dead children). So in your example we would say they have 2 children, but we would only name or cover them if they were notable. Feel free to ask any other questions. Happy edditing! The Sophocrat (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Sophocrat, thanks for the swift response! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Newly users writng essay question

hello there can i write a essay as anew user AAAAAYEHA (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Wikipedia does not host essays of original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia composed of articles that summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about a topic. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and diving right in without knowledge and experience is likely to fail. You should first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is a good idea as well. It's highly recommended that you use the article wizard to create and submit a draft once you are ready. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

well there are some wikipedia essays AAAAAYEHA (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was the type of essay you were talking about. There is nothing preventing you from doing so, say in your sandbox, but please see WP:ESSAY. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on COI, citation consistency, and orphan articles

Hello! I'm a new editor still learning how to navigate article contributions responsibly, especially around conflict of interest.

I previously contributed to the Rebecca B. Alston article, but after feedback about promotional tone and a possible COI, I stepped away from directly editing the page. Since then, the article has been cleaned up with better alignment to standards, but it still carries several tags. I'm trying to understand what I could do better next time, or how to help responsibly from a distance.

I had a few specific questions:

– The article is tagged for lacking a citation for the subject's birthdate, but I noticed that Peter Frank’s article does not cite a birthdate either, and has no similar tag. I'm trying to understand how consistency works in applying these tags — not to dispute it, just to learn what’s expected.

– The “orphan article” tag is a bit unclear. I understand it means no other articles link to it, but I’d appreciate practical guidance on how to identify good linking opportunities or how to resolve that.

– There’s also a historic connection between Rebecca B. Alston and Peter Frank (he was quoted in earlier drafts), but due to the nature of her career, most references are physical media like gallery invites and reviews — harder to verify online. Is there a proper way to cite this kind of non-digital source when digital alternatives aren’t available?

I had considered reaching out to Anachronist directly, since they contributed to the original COI conversation, but wanted to check if it’s better to keep the discussion here in a community forum. I’m asking in good faith and truly want to improve as a contributor.

Thanks so much for your time and help. Archfusionpro (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Archfusionpro

1. For the birthdate citation, you are free to add a citation needed tag or add a source mentioning his birthday to Peter Frank (whichever one you are referring to). Thank you for pointing out this issue! Wikipedia is a volunteer project after all, so not all issues with articles are recognized or fixed.

2. WP:DE-ORPHAN can provide useful suggestions on how one could de-orphan an article. For example, adding links from related articles through intersecting categories or different language Wikipedias.

3. Yes, a source can still be valid even if it isn't online. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Archfusionpro, most of the "Solo exhibitions" are unreferenced. Almost all of the "Selected group exhibitions" are unreferenced, and most are described so vaguely as to be unhelpful even to an energetic reader. (Random example: "1988: Anna Bornholt Gallery in London, England". When in 1988? What was it titled?) Many of the references are unhelpful. (Random example 1: "'Artists'. The New York Review. Boone Productions. 1986." If this is The New York Review of Books, then say so -- but what is the status of "Boone Productions"? If it isn't the NYRB, then what is it? Whatever it is, is it really dated no more precisely than "1986"? Random example 2: "Frank, Peter. 'REBECCA ALSTON: BIO-ABSTRACTION'. 2014." There's no need to SHOUT. Was it really an annual; and if not, then when in 2014? Whether an annual or not, what's the publication titled?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on submitted draft: MusicRadar

Hi! I recently created a new draft article at Draft:MusicRadar and submitted it through Articles for Creation. The topic had been previously deleted, so I’ve rewritten it from scratch with multiple reliable sources to address notability concerns. I’d really appreciate any feedback or suggestions while I wait for review. Thank you! Kitfox64 (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Kitfox64. I highly recommend that you transform your references from bare URLs to fully fleshed out references with complete bibliographic information. This is not mandatory but it looks far more professional, is much more informative for readers, and makes it much easier for reviewers to evaluate your sources. It is to your benefit to make things smoother for the reviewers and to create a positive impression. See Referencing for beginners for the techniques. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

More importantly and more urgently, Kitfox64, summarize what has been written about MusicRadar in reliable sources that are independent of MusicRadar. Because references to MusicRadar's own website, to prnewswire.com (mere PR fluff), and to pages such as this that merely recycle what MusicRadar says about itself will be inadequate for information about MusicRadar, no matter how scrupulously these references have been fleshed out. (Once the draft has a variety of solid references, written and published independently of MusicRadar, then yes, these references should be made informative and helpful.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Help with Cypher System ttRPG article in my draft

Dear Friends :D

I think I finished working on an article about Cypher System, a (tt)RPG from Monte Cook Games. The article is wholly my own invention, and it has no references, but... all the data can be found in 2nd edition Corebook I listed in bibliography section? Is that okay? (???).

Also, I am unsure about my grammar and spelling, if some native speaker could do a check, I would be grateful ;-)

LINK to my draft is in here; User:Kaworu1992/Cypher System

Best wishes! --Kaworu1992 (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Kaworu1992, welcome to the teahouse! I would look at this link if you haven't already. You also should not have any categories as the draft is not a mainspace article yet, and each claim the article makes should have a source - but the article looks good so far. If you want more specific help, you may want to ask over at WikipPoject Video Games. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

My dear ;-)

It's not about a video game, but rather (pen and paper) RPG game ;-) You know, you buy a book and it describes how to play the game with your friends? ;-0 And you are rolling dice? ;-)

I will also try to look over the Corebook and maybe "sourcerize" my claims ;-) Thanks for clarification in that matter ;-)

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, that's what I get for just lightly skimming the article.. ignore everything I said above haha. Try WikiProject Board and Table Games, and I think normal notability guidelines apply. I think there are enough independent sources per the reviews, but the in-text citations should be placed after the period (example: Lorem ipsum end.^[1]). My apologies for my earlier error. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

PS. I believes the categories begin with ":", so it's okay? At least we do that on Polish Wikipedia when working on drafts... ;-) Kaworu1992 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's how we do it here, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kaworu1992, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid the answer is No, that's not enough.

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.

It looks to me as if none of your sources are both independent and reliable (WP:BGS says "there is weak consensus that the user-generated forum RPGnet is unreliable"). Without such sources, there can be no article. ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Colin.

Would citing the Core book itself make the article/sources more reliable? Or maybe it is a different kind of problem? -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, do you think I should put the CSRD in bibliography? I kinda do not know how to reference that, can somebody help me, please? -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, very fast and not getting too deep, I added refs for official webpages of CSOL, Cypher System and Monte Cook Games. In the incoming days I am gonna cite the Corebook for the RPG system. Could somebody look at my reflist and tell me whether I am moving in the right direction?

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kaworu1992 (and also to the others who've responded, who may not be gamers): We actually do have a WikiProject dedicated to TTRPGs, at WP:RPG. The Statistics section of the WikiProject lists Featured and Good articles which might give you some ideas for improving your draft. At first glance, the draft still relies too heavily on primary sources (rulebook and publisher's blog) and looks like it's mostly a summary of the key features and rules. I'd be looking for more discussion of the system in independent sources, placing it in the wider context of TTRPGs including previous Monte Cook systems. Cypher has been around for ten years now, so you should be able to find a few more secondary sources offering robust discussion and critique (but do read our guidelines on reliable sources, if you haven't already done so). ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

My dear :-)

About the secondary sources, hm... the only thing I can think of are reviews? Could you maybe name some other text I could search for?

Also, I think I have seen at least 1 video on YT about ttRPG where author argumented that Cypher System is superior to D&D, hm... I think I would like to use that as a resource for the article. But where to put that? In Reception section?

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Friends.

I improved the article and sources as much as I could without reaching for 2nd edition Corebook to "sourcerize" my mechanics claims. Generally speaking, if RPGnet reviews aren't good sources, then we have problem with secondary sources for ttRPGs in whole, because on English Internet, ttRPG reviews are either RPGnet ones or some other published on "private" blogs. However, in the article there is also a ref for Polter.pl, which is, I believe, a "serious" resource (in Poland, you can not know that if you aren't Polish speakers, but Polter.pl is a regular editorial group that publishes its reviews and other texts).

I think I cannot improve the article further without getting the Corebook, as I said. Could you take a look and tell me what you think of sources I have used?

Best wishes

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

EDIT: I have found around 3 reviews from Italian Internet that seem to come from reliable sources. Could I use them as "proper" sources in this case? -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and do you think I should divide "Reception" section into, I dunno, "English Internet", "Italian Internet", "Polish Internet" etc.? Kaworu1992 (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Friends.

I added Italian reviews for my article. I hope that together with a Polter.pl review these sources are reliable. Could you have a look and tell me what you think?

LINK: User:Kaworu1992/Cypher System

If everything is okay, I shall be adding to sources the Corebook.

Best wishes

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Feedback

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.

---

Please write to me an understandable essay including feedback for my draft: Draft:David Thomas King School. Rafaelthegreat (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Rafaelthegreat, welcome to the teahouse! The best way to get feedback on your draft is to submit the article for review once more. Underneath the big banner, and before the article begins, there is a little yellow exclamation mark and the word "Comment". Your reviewer will leave feedback there. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 23:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

No, Rafaelthegreat, I am not going to write an essay. However: (1) A reference is normally used in order to provide evidence for an assertion. But a large percentage of the references in Draft:David Thomas King School are not for this. Indeed, I don't know what they're for. (2) What have reliable sources that are independent of David Thomas King School written about David Thomas King School? (If nobody can find such sources, no article can be created.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 16 May 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.

Speedy Article Review

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.

---

Hello! I need some help at the Teahouse as i need my article to be reviewed by next monday. I usually get my articles reviewed in a day or so. My topic has been mentioned very little or passed by in 1-2 articles but i made a deep down explanation of my topic situation. I ask that somebody help me get my article reviewed and possibly published and approved! SVSWIKIPED (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

the current one im making is one called Draft:2025 Pakistani airspace closure. Im hoping that this will get approved. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

SVSWIKIPED, allow me to quote SVSWIKIPED, which tells us: "I learned over my little time here to take your time. Don't rush on a article even if you don't have much time. Take it slow and make sure to re-read and cite your sources...." (Also, there is currently a backlog of over 3100 drafts.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yea the thing that i was concerned about mostly was the fact that this was graded. I just got the email saying that my educator was fine with it. I decided this one time to rush.

I always wonder how many people work for AfC team and more. How does backlog get this bad. : ( SVSWIKIPED (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

One reason why it gets bad, SVSWIKIPED, is that very many drafts smell promotional without being indisputably promotional, another is that very many suggest notability while failing to demonstrate it, another is that very many cite sources that are pretty crappy without being indisputably crappy ... and any of these factors can lead to declines, further submissions, further declines, etc. And then, if a draft is basically OK, well, I for one am reluctant to accept any draft as an article that I wouldn't want to read. The necessary (I think) even if humdrum editing takes time (most recent example). -- Hoary (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I was curious and wanted to know the qualifications to not need people to approve your article and just directly publish it. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@SVSWIKIPED, you are already able to directly publish articles. However, if they don't meet our guidelines for whatever reason, a patroller may nominate them for deletion or move them to draftspace. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Why do i need to undergo review then? SVSWIKIPED (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I would be considered quite experienced here, editing Wikipedia almost daily for the past 19 years. And even then I occasionally submit an article for review to get another set of eyes on it, and advice, especially if I'm uncertain about the community's judgment of notability. In one case a reviewer suggested I re-cast an article about an author to an article about his books instead, because the books were clearly notable, so I did that.

You seem to be under the misconception that the community respects deadlines. See WP:DEADLINE; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. If you have an assignment due by a certain date, you take your chances. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I do understand that there are no deadlines. These replies from people at the tea house have made me learned stuff I didn’t even know. I appreciate all of yall as I begin writing for Wikipedia. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@SVSWIKIPED, you don't. That's what I'm saying. You can create an article in mainspace like any other autoconfirmed user - you've been able to do this since May 9th. (See: [3]) -- asilvering (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok i think i'm starting to see what you are saying. Let me see what you attached. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Omg thanks so much cause i just found out how to. This is ground breaking for me. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@SVSWIKIPED: we're all volunteers, that's how! AfC reviewers are doing this on top of all the other things they do for the encyclopedia (like writing articles). You can see a list of us all at WP:AFCP - not really very many! Administrators and people with WP:NPP rights can review drafts too. Maybe you can join in once you've got some more experience. :) -- asilvering (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @SVSWIKIPED, and welcome to the Teahouse. If somebody (whether you or your teachers) have made your educational qualification dependent on getting a Wikipedia article accepted in a certain time, then they have made a very very very very bad decision, and put you in an impossible situation. Neither you nor anybody else can guarantee that a draft will be looked at by a certain date.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you and your right. Wikipedia is like my fun place but if you have seen my other submissions, they were frustrating when it became rejected. I found it hard but I slowly learned the basics through the first few submissions and stuff. I just came here because the article I have that I made getting approved is important for my teacher (idk why she made such task) and my grade in that class. That’s why I seeked help and I look forward to working with others.

Rejection of the article is leading me to other articles. I’m making one about airline partnerships but I feel like every attempt is getting rejected. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I have to say that Draft:2025 Pakistani airspace closure does look like it's in decent shape, however. Articles about current or recent events aren't my area of focus, so I am not familiar with what's expected, although I wouldn't see a problem if this draft was moved to article space.

That said, the thing I'm uncertain about is whether the topic should be a standalone article, or whether this event should be merged into 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, which already describes various impacts, of which this is one. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:09, 17 May 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.

LLM "Opinion" vs LLM refine the expression of my authentic idea clarification

Hi,

I made one edit suggestion on a page, now 2 editors from that page are following me around reverting ALL subsequent wikipedia contributions I do. They claim they have the absolute authority to render an opinion that an edit was made with LLM and revert all edits of mine and that's what they do claiming it is for the betterment of wikipedia. So, apparently I'm shadow-banned for making edits in wikipedia. Or am I? I do use LLM to refine the expression of my authentic idea, which is supposed to be fine. Or is it? Do I have to take a video of me typing just to be an editor at wikipedia? Do I make a disclosure? Seems a tad absurd. Thanks in advance. ScholarLoop (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ScholarLoop. The obvious solution is to write entirely in your own words. Human Wikipedia editors are not interested in conversations with robots prone to hallucinations based on hidden prompts. Cullen328 (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so even though there is a policy on LLM use and WP:LLMDISCLOSE , any editor can just revert a well formed and verified sourced wikipedia edit which means effectively not only are all well formed LLM article edits in practice are actually banned, if some editor doesn't like your edit they can just make an "opinion" and revert it in its entirety. Got it thanks, that's what I thought. ScholarLoop (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to use LLM to "refine the expression" of your ideas. That's just using it as a crutch, which shouldn't be needed. If you write clearly enough in your own words, other editors will eventually come along and improve them if they need refining. In this way, LLMs need never be involved, and Wikipedia articles remain human-generated. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so even though there is a policy on LLM use and WP:LLMDISCLOSE , any editor can just revert a well formed and verified sourced wikipedia edit which means effectively not only are all well formed LLM article edits in practice are actually banned, if some editor doesn't like your edit they can just make an "opinion" and revert it in its entirety. Got it thanks, that's what I thought. ScholarLoop (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

ScholarLoop, I guess that neither you nor your robot friend noticed that WP:LLMDISCLOSE is not an official Wikipedia policy. It is just a subsection of a user essay. As it says at the very top, This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. Why didn't you notice that? This essay is not widely accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

because the editors stalking my edits and reverting them referenced this essay - so are you saying the reverts are not justified since its not widely accepted? ScholarLoop (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

ScholarLoop, I was simply informing you that this essay is not a policy, which you had said it was. Use of AI and LLMs is highly contentious on Wikipedia, as you have now learned. Please be aware that "vandalism" and "stalking" are grave accusations that require solid evidence. Without such evidence, these charges are personal attacks contrary to an actual policy No personal attacks. I suggest that you back off a bit and recalibrate your approach because arguing with every highly experienced editor you run across is not the path to success in editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, not arguing, seeking clarification. I am an experienced editor from 10 years ago and this AI thing is new, but thanks for verifying the solid evidence I need. I've dealt with stalking and vandalism in the drama boards before. Thanks for the help! ScholarLoop (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

ScholarLoop: That is a non-sequitur reply to my comment. Did you use an LLM for that? I ask because it makes no sense in the context of my comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

No, probably because you comment was non-sequitur to my comment. ScholarLoop (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Really? I directly quoted you in my reply. Oh well. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly help! ScholarLoop (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @ScholarLoop. One other point: Yes, "any editor can just revert a well formed and verified sourced wikipedia edit" (emphasis added) - if they don't agree that it is well-formed and verified, or they don't think it is an improvement for other reasons (eg UNDUE). And then you have the option to discuss it per BRD. This is not new. ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed if that was the actual case for an individual edit. In this case an editor decided to stalk my entire history and revert multiple article contributions simply calling it "trash." ScholarLoop (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the actions of another editor or editors, please follow the process outlined at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you I will, as the gang of editors claim I will be banned if I try. ScholarLoop (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Where do I ask for help in this case?

Currently, my edits on Chinese police overseas service stations have constantly been reverted by two users. I have also been falsely accused of doing "POV edits" and doing "WP:PROMOTION". As far as I know, I have complied with wikipedia guidelines for the most part, and a lot of the statements made were clearly in violation of WP:AGF and there was also quite some WP:WL involved.

Now, where do I get help for this? WP:AN3 seems really overkill, and let's admit it, outside of the people reverting my edits, nobody is looking at the talk page(where I already have a discussion for this). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Thehistorianisaac. If you cannot reach agreement with the other editors, the proper next steps are laid out in dispute resolution. ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine Can third opinion also be used in this situation even though it is 3 people? The talk page likely will not have any other editors, and I don't think the issue is big enough for dispute resolution and ANI to be involved; Third opinion seems to be the best place I have found so far Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Third opinion requests are typically closed without comment if more than two editors are involved, although I have made exceptions to this in the past, if two editors are dominating the discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Can I crop a logo and add to an unrelated article?

I want to add a Swedish image example to the article Bowl of Hygeia#Usage of symbol by pharmaceutical associations. There are currently no readily available images on Wikimedia, but I was thinking about cropping the logo from the Apoteket article. I suspect that this might infringe some policies regarding copyright, but I just want to make sure, in case it's possible. – Christoffre (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. Check the "Apoteket" article’s image licensing (via its file page on Wikimedia Commons) to confirm if it’s free or non-free.

If it's non-free, draft a fair use rationale explaining its relevance to the Bowl of Hygiea section and submit it for review at WP:FFD or you can ask an admin. Best, Editz2341231 (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Christoffre Wikimedia Commons only accepts free-licensed or public-domain media. By policy “copyrighted symbols, logos, etc.” are not allowed on Commons. zh.wikipedia.org, and Commons categorically rejects any fair-use upload (including logos, film screenshots, etc.) commons.wikimedia.org zh.wikipedia.org. In other words, Commons forbids uploading a copyrighted logo even if it were being “used” illustratively; Commons explicitly states that fair use “does not allow for the storage of material on Commons.” commons.wikimedia.org. Cropping or editing a logo is considered a derivative work, which still requires the original owner’s permission (i.e. a free license) to upload.

So the Apoteket logo (even cropped) is copyrighted/trademarked and cannot be uploaded to Commons under its free-content rules zh.wikipedia.org commons.wikimedia.org. Thank You Funtiberry (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend using a free Hygieia symbol instead. Choose a public-domain or CC-licensed bowl-of-Hygieia image (for example, many pharmacy signs or icons on Commons as above commons.wikimedia.org commons.wikimedia.org). This complies with Commons’s free-content criteria. Funtiberry (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Approval of an article of mainly local interest

 Courtesy link: Draft:William Cullen McBride High School

I've just completed my final draft of "William Cullen McBride High School" and have submitted it for approval. The school closed in 1971 but has reasonably general local interest due to an active philanthropic alumni club.  However, the youngest graduate is in his 70s and, although a likely reader of Wikipedia, has no idea how to submit articles, much less approve them.  (I am, to my knowledge so far, the only exception, and that only recently) My point is that the article is definitely of interest to a reasonably good sized, but local, population, but I doubt it is to likely reviewers.  Is it still reasonable for me to expect it will be reviewed and approved despite this?

By the way, I really enjoyed my foray into wiki-authorship. So much to learn, and so many pitfalls to avoid.

Thanks in advance for your replies. This Teahouse concept is brilliant. Sickingm (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Happy to read that you like it here, Sickingm. Well, the draft has a chance. Start by cutting those sections within it that are unreferenced -- notably, "McBride Alumni Club" (which aside from being unreferenced is excessively detailed). Continue by cutting "Notable alumni" who aren't linked (such as Mark Bernsen) and those who are redlinked (such as Frank P. Boro). -- Hoary (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

It will certainly be reviewed, though this is likely to take time, regardless of the subject. The decision to publish will depend on suitability (per WP:N) and quality (particularly the citations), not the reviewer's personal interest in the subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get working on it. Sickingm (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being obtuse. Can you clarify - or point me to where I can get clarification - on the difference between a link, a reference, and a citation?

Does a link refer only to WP articles or is it any hyperlink pointing to the subject?

Is a reference an external, non-hyperlink, reference?

So then is a citation a completely different animal from the other two?

- Matt Sicking (sickingm) Sickingm (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll answer that in the subsection below. Terminological mysteries aside, thank you for your candid edit summary. Now I know how it is that the "Legacy" section is in somniferous LLM-speak: It was produced by a LLM ("AI"). Please do not subject readers to LLM-speak. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Links, references, citations

Sickingm, I'll try to answer your question about "hyperlinks", "references", and "citations".

"Hyperlinks" is a word normally shortened to "links". These can be "internal" (example: Depths of Wikipedia) or "external" (example: Depths of Wikipedia). Internal links can be used freely; but (since they point to Wikipedia, classed as an unreliable source) they can't be used as evidence for assertions. (They also can't demonstrate notability.) External links can't be used in body text, but if used in their place can be used as evidence for assertions and can add up to demonstrate notability.

From Depths of Wikipedia:

[[Annie Rauwerda]], then a student in [[neuroscience]] at the [[University of Michigan]],<ref name="Shamani-2022">{{Cite magazine |last=Shamani |first=Joshi |date=January 13, 2022 |title=I Look For the Weirdest and Wildest Things on Wikipedia. Here's What I've Learned. |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/depths-of-wikipedia-viral-instagram-tiktok-facts-trivia/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220125063955/https://www.vice.com/en/article/dypdzv/depths-of-wikipedia-viral-instagram-tiktok-facts-trivia |archive-date=January 25, 2022 |access-date=March 24, 2022 |magazine=[[Vice (magazine)|Vice]]}}</ref>....

Within that, there are internal links to 'Annie Rauwerda', 'neuroscience', and 'University of Michigan'. There's a single reference: ('<ref name="Shamani-2022">[blah blah blah]</ref>') It contains two external links: one to a page in the Vice website, the other to a Wayback Machine copy of the same at the Internet Archive. ("url-status=live" indicates that the Vice page isn't thought to have succumbed to link rot; if it ever does, the Wayback Machine copy can substitute. Although if the Wayback Machine ever ends, the sky falls.) Thanks to 'name="Shamani-2022"', this one reference can easily be reused. If you look in the article as a whole, you'll see that the one reference is indeed reused: it's invoked five times. People then talk either of a single reference used five times, or of a single source cited five times, or cited via five references. (Careless people such as myself mindlessly use the term "reference" with two or more meanings within a single paragraph. Sorryyy.)

One of these decades, I might get around to improving the article on Issei Suda. If I did, I'd want to cite the editorial material in the back of his posthumous photobook My Japan (Amsterdam: Fw, 2021; ISBN 9789490119959. I'd do so by looking into the physical codex (the dead-tree original): a copy resides on my bookshelf. As far as I know, the web has no PDF or similar that I might link to. But of course I can still cite the book, via a reference that won't have a link to the book. So citations and references don't always use links, rather as links aren't always for references or citations. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

How to get eyes on an article?

In recent months, I have carried out a personal project to improve and overhaul the Deadmau5 article as it stands. Despite the amount of my edits and the depth of their changes, I have failed to attract the attention of contributors who would be interested in helping the article. It was so bad that Drmies, in their evaluation of the article's quality, didn't really cite any examples for what they were rejecting the good article nomination for. Help? ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 14:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Drmies. Grumpylawnchair [ALT] (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

There are four WP:WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page. Ask on their talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Andy Mabbett, I have added a section to the Canada and Musician Wikiprojects in light of your advice. The rest of the wikiprojects are both semi-active or inactive, so I have posting withheld a notice there (for now). Thank you!! ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 15:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

"I'm going to give this a quick fail: this has been open for months, and the article is undergoing constant revision, and there is some dispute in the history. At any rate it's simply not good enough now in terms of sourcing, formatting, and structure, before we even get to the writing. Hint: start weeding out poor sources, standardize all citations with the proper templates." Drmies (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not familiar with all the sources in the article and this is the first time I have tackled a whole article that's been around this long. I am both unfamiliar with what you're referring to, where anything unstandardized would be, or even how to navigate references all that comfortably. That's a big reason I'm here, and again, I don't have any examples. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 16:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@GoatLordServant Getting an article to "good" status can be a hard slog. You need to look at the instructions at WP:GOOD and all the related tabs on that page. One of the ideas of the review is that the article already be fairly stable (i.e. not needing much more content, only formatting and perhaps somewhat pedantic tweaks) before the review starts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

That was not what it was like when I was helping with Sans (Undertale), so I had not understood that. It would have been considered 'unstable' anywho with the controversy tag added late in its life as a submission-- was destined for rejection anyway. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 17:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the doctor's problem with the citation templates is, but if I opened a GAN that had been in the queue for months and found that the nominator was still actively editing it, I'd probably put it down too. You might want to try to get some help at WP:PR, but these can also stand open for a long, long time. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)