Wikipedia:Teahouse

Nick Moyes, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Cyprus military ranks

I need help with the NCO ranks, i already made the png files how the ranks look but i dont know how to modify the code so i make it look like the greek one, cypriot army have 2 nco ranks for every rank, one for permanent NCOs that completed military academy and the other for SYP-EPY (in Greece EPOP-EMTh) for contracted NCOs that cannot become Warrant Officers, example bellow.

NCO and other ranks

NCO ranks (excl. OR-9 and conscript ranks) have undergone some changes through the years, the latest being in 2004.

NATO code	OR-9						OR-8		OR-7		OR-6						OR-5						OR-4				OR-3		OR-2						OR-1
Hellenic Army																																			Arm/corps insignia only
	Ανθυπασπιστής Anthypaspistis						Αρχιλοχίας Archilochias		Επιλοχίας Epilochias		Λοχίας Lochias												Δεκανέας Dekaneas				Υποδεκανέας Ypodekaneas								Στρατιώτης Stratiotis
Greece (Conscripts)							No equivalent																												No insignia
	Δόκιμος Έφεδρος Αξιωματικός Dokimos Efedros Axiomatikos										Λοχίας Lochias												Δεκανέας Dekaneas				Υποδεκανέας Ypodekaneas		Υποψήφιος Έφεδρος Βαθμοφόρος Ypopsifios Efedros Bathmoforos						Στρατιώτης Stratiotis

References

Notes

• @Hog Farm: Hi. Would you be able to answer this question? I mean, does it come under the field you are knowledgeable about (MILHIST)? I already have a program/bot that finds the creators of discussions, I will ping the OP in few hours. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  found it. the OP is Asd3131, with special:diff/1260033190 —usernamekiran (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Asd3131: Hello. Wikipedia:Wikiproject military history would be better for this question. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Rules of recommendations to add links in an article

Hello ! I'd like to know if there are rules or recommendations to add links in an article.

I'm talking about internal links to Wikipedia in English.

As an example. We can choose the article "Bashar Al-Assad".
If there are a section or a sub-section citing "Moscow" (This is an example but I could take another subject mentionned on this article).

If Moscow is linked one time in the article. Can I do it for others sections or sub-sections if this is not the same sub-section or section ?

If you don't understand what I means with words "section" and "sub-section".
You can see the example below.

Passive voice in articles

 Courtesy link: Sacred Reich (sandbox)

I'm working on a draft for the Sacred Reich article (at my sandbox) for a major edit, and I ran my text through numerous grammar/spellcheckers like EasyBib and Grammarly. The most common—and most confusing—is on the use of passive voice. For context, passive voice is "the ball was kicked by Jeremy", while active voice is "Jeremy kicked the ball". I don't know whether or not I should be using passive voice in my prose (i.e. "Greg Hall was fired from the band and was replaced by drummer Tim Radziwill). I have attempted to use featured articles as examples, but usually doesn't seem to happen because of the abundance of information on the subject (i.e The Beatles or Alice in Chains) compared to a band like Sacred Reich. In my opinion, I'm not sure whether or not to use passive voice because it sounds rough when introducing a new member.

For example, "Greg Hall ... was replaced by Dave McClain ... later that year." vs. "Dave McClain replaced Greg Hall later that year." usually justifies using passive voice, but in context, this his first mention in the article and it disrupts the flow of the prose. In context:

Sacred Reich toured for nearly two years in support of The American Way, headlining major tours with Atrophy, Obituary, and Forced Entry. They also supported Venom in Europe and for Sepultura on their Arise tour in both Europe and North America. In 1991, the band released an EP, titled A Question. Former S.A. Slayer member Dave McClain replaced Greg Hall, who found their extensive touring to be difficult, later that year.

I'm still not sure if it justifies using active voice or not. If it does, please let me know. On a side note, I've noticed an abundance of the phrase "later that year" in my writing, and I don't know how to rewrite it properly because of vague dates in the source material. If anyone can help me with that as well, please let me know so I can get rid of the repetition. Thanks for reading. —Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 04:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's clunky because of where you put 'later that year'. It reads much better if you put it first - Later that year former S.A. Slayer member Dave McClain replaced Greg Hall, who found the extensive touring difficult. I don't think you should worry too much about active vs passive voice. Despite what grammar checkers might tell you, there's no one right way to write. Blackballnz (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Blackballnz. I appreciate the advice, it does actually seem more about the word placement than the voice construction, and I'll make sure to refactor the article to read better. Thanks, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 06:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

In my view, Sparkle & Fade, the active voice is almost always best for writing encyclopedia articles. We favor a direct, clear and concise style of writing. Here is a good explanation from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Wikipedia:Writing better articles also offers a lot of good advice. Cullen328 (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

passive voice is best used when you have to avoid to ascribe an action to someone. Example: somebody was fired from the band. The reference uses passive voice, thereby avoiding to say who did it. Now you have a choice. Either search for a reference, that says who was firing or use passive voice too to avoid to say who did the firing. What you can't do is to figure out who could do the firings in general and then ascribe that firing to him in active voice! 176.0.139.10 (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

When it matters (and you know) who took the action, use the active. When it's not important who was the actor, by all means use the passive. Grammarly and its friends express a prejudice against the passive which appeared in the early 20th C, often by writers who failed to follow their own injunction, and sometimes appeared unable to detect a passive accurately. See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/003380.html. ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

here's what every professor in college ever told me about writing expository, "use active voice!" It doesn't always sound good, but we aren't trying to be artistic or poetic with expository, we are trying to be clear and concise, and active voice is always the clearer choice.

Also, if you move "later that year" to the beginning of the sentence as one contributor suggested, please put a comma after "year" as it is a prepositional phrase. I.e. Later that year, former S.A. Slayer member... BTW, I do agree with putting it at the beginning. It sounds better and makes the sentence clearer. Dougjaso (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

However, also note what our Manual of Style says in MOS:PASSIVE:

The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing, but it is widely used in encyclopedia articles, because the passive voice avoids inappropriate first- and second-person constructions as well as tone problems. The most common uses of encyclopedic passive are to keep the focus on the subject instead of performing a news-style shift to dwelling on a non-notable party.

CodeTalker (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Technical question about the long hyphen

Hi!

I've been editing the timeline of Polermo where the long hyphen dominates, but I can't seem to generate one.Typing a regular hyphen, gives me just that - a regular hyphen, typing two hyphens gives me two hyphens (--) and trying to make one through the keboard shortcut which I found on internet forums (Alt+0151), just gives me one that's too long (—). So far I've been copying and pasting existing long hyphens which is kind of annoying, does anyone have any better solutions?

Thanks! Moonshane1933 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Moonshane1933. I think you're talking about an em-dash. See MOS:EMDASH ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes! That's what I meant! Thank you! Moonshane1933 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you could find a better character in "unicode table".

This "article" is listing the most common characters.

There are also the "Unicode block" entry on Wikipedia that can be maybe helpful. Anatole-berthe (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you too! Moonshane1933 (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think ressources I shared with you will help you but I hope it will. Anatole-berthe (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the Minus sign, there are three 'horizontal line' characters most commonly used in text, the hyphen, the N-dash and the M-dash. There are various ways to insert the latter two; usually I do so with [alt]+0150 and [alt]+0151. Despite being a former professional book editor, I have not previously encountered a "long hyphen" (a term not found anywhere in Wikipedia). Note that the lengths of all these characters may look different in different typefaces: I suspect your "long hyphen" is an N-dash. [Apologies for semi-overlap with answers above.] {The poster formerly known as 897.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Moonshane1933 If you use the source editor, which you can do even if you mainly edit with the visual editor, you'll find that the N-dash and M-dash appear at the foot of the editing window, where you can click on them to insert them into text. Other useful tags like <ref></ref> are also available with a single click. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

OOOOOOOHHHH... THANK YOU! That makes life easier! I hadn't even thought of looking at the source editor, because it always looks headache inducing to me. I'll give it a try. Thank you so much. Moonshane1933 (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, well, the "long hyphen" is a term that I coined, simply because I lacked the knowledge of its correct name, So I would have been very surprised if it had appeared in Wikipedia. Anyway, thank you, oh mysterious IP poster, I hope our paths cross again! Moonshane1933 (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Moonshane1933, some Christmas goodies for you:

— Merriam-Webster Dictionary has a nice clear explanation about the both kinds of dashes and the hyphen, with good examples.

— The way the two kindts of dashes is written is em-dash (for —) and en-dash ( for – ), even though we pronounce the terms "M dash" and "N dash."

— Why these terns? Because the em-dash is exactly the width of capital M and the en-dash is exactly the width of capital N.

— If you have a Macintosh, there's a real simple way to make the dashes: the em-dash by pressing Control Option Hyphen at the same time, and the en-dash by pressing Option Hyphen at the same time.

—Did you notice how Nick Moyes creatively renamed Dasher, one of Santa Claus's eight reindeer, in his "Seasonal Greetings from all at the Teahouse" post to fellow editors below?

—You may be pleased to know that I found an online reference to a "long hyphen." So, then, you weren't completely alone in doing that. But as 94.1.223.204Like commented above, in professional editing we just don't use it. Like ColinFine, )I think anyone who did say "long hyphen" would probably be thinking of the em-dash; though I also think what 94.1.223.204 said above is also technically correct, that the term would have to refer to the en-dash (that's the next size up for a hyphen, after all. Augnablik (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Search suggestions have changed for the worse

I have always been able to count on Wikipedia's search function to provide me with a list of articles connected with the term entered in the search field. Today, however, I'm not getting these, but rather only short and apparently arbitrary lists of articles that I've viewed or edited. When I type "A", for example, I get:

ajedrez
Angelou
Alvin Bragg
Abbot and Costello
Athena
Ari

When I add a "b" to this, the list becomes:

Abbot and Costello
Abe Fortas

When I add an "r", I get nothing, no Abrahams or anything else.

And so on. This is a purely arbitrary example, but I hope it serves to illustrate. What I would always get before would be a list of a dozen or so articles, which was limited but very often helpful. I checked my preferences but all I saw was "Disable the suggestions dropdown-lists of the search fields", which was unchecked as always. Any info or advice on this would be very welcome, thanks. Bret Sterling (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I personally always use advanced search, but you can try google with the modifier site:en.wikipedia.org to force it to only search wikipedia (or just type "wikipedia" before your search query) Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bret Sterling Are you using the current default WP:VECTOR22 skin? I find that its search box is better than for other, older, skins and the results for "Abr" are perfectly sensible, with the first suggestion being Abr. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions, Cmrc23 and Michael D. Turnbull. The Advanced search option does provide me with many good finds and I should have been using it previously, but Content pages gives me results like I used to get directly under the search text field only more of them. I checked my WP skin and saw I was using the current default but still not getting the suggestions, so then I could figure it was something on my end and checked to see if I had "Block scripts" activated in Brave Shields. I saw that I did, deactivated it and now I'm getting the suggestions as before. Sorry, false alarm, this wasn't a Wikipedia change as I wrongly suspected. It's interesting that I could get suggestions on pages I've frequented by turning "Block scripts" back on, and I'm curious as to how that works – I mean the apparently default behavior without whatever the script is. Bret Sterling (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

But wait a minute. Now I'm not getting the alternative search options (Content pages, Multimedia, Everything, Advanced). Claude AI tells me to type "Special:Search" in the search box to access these and this works, but I had them there just now today without doing this. (I couldn't have done it because I was unaware of the possibility.) So how did I have those options for a while but then didn't have them afterwards? And (what may be the same question) how do I get them without having to type "Special:Search" in the search box? I can do that, but it seems clunky and I have to remember the text to type it. Bret Sterling (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

There a variety of userscripts to enhance the search function: Wikipedia:User_scripts/List#Search_form Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 10:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bret Sterling I assume that by turning on "Block scripts" Brave Shields is preventing Javascript from running in your browser. The problem is that, as WP:JAVASCRIPT explains, Java is a core part of how much of Wikipedia works, both the standard Mediawiki software and many optional extras like gadgets and userscripts. So, if you are prevernting that running, you are sacrificing functionality for security. Is there an option in Brave Shields to exempt the Wikipedia domain from the block? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"Block scripts" isn't on by default, so a special exemption isn't necessary. I don't know why I turned it on for Wikipedia, but in any event it's turned off now and so my problem with not getting the desired suggestions is solved. Thanks for the explanation. Bret Sterling (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Moving my English Wikipedia user page to media wiki for a global user page

I can move my English user page to media wiki to have a global page for all sister projects? I know I can just ask to delete my English page and make a media wiki one but I kinda wanna move it for the edit history. If I can't move it to media wiki ill just move it to User:Anthony2106/old user page Anthony2106 (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What you are asking for @Anthony2106: is an import. You would have to find an administrator on meta, but even so may not be actionable. Instead I would advise you just to create a new page yourself on meta, as you will find that many templates are unavailable there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You saying they will only import important things -- not user pages? Also i'm not worried about the templates as I can use {{:w to get wikipedia templates. Anthony2106 (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

On this topic, I was wondering if making an account on english wikipedia counts as a global account for wikipedia purposes Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 10:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cmrc23 Did you created your account on "Wikipedia in English language" as first account for projects of Wikimedia ?

If you go on any Wikipedia language version or another Wikimedia project. If you click on "login" you can log into it.

I created my account on "French Wikipedia" as first account for projects of Wikimedia.

I can create accounts with the stuff I explained. Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

So there are not enough userboxes on meta-wiki and that trick {{w: didn't work so maybe ill just leave it on Wikipedia. Anthony2106 (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

How I can improve my page?

Hi, I write here a few days ago, to ask if you all can help me to get my page approved (name page: Bove Path), and you all help me but also all my colleagues to get our draft page approved (we really appreciate your help).

I found myself here again to ask you what I can improve to possibly increase the score of the page. I already add the sources that were missing, as one of you recommended, any more suggestion? thank you in advance. LIUCChia.05 (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You can add pronunciation in "Italian language" indicated in "IPA". Anatole-berthe (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Bove Path is rated C-class. See Wikipedia:Content assessment to understand the differences between C-class and B-class. Although any editor, including you, can change the rating, I personally perfer to not upgrade ratings on articles I have been editing. David notMD (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Where can we see class of an article ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Top of Talk pages usually has ratings: Stub, Start, C-Class, B-class. For GA and FA there is additional detail as to when approved.

Back to article - in my opinion Biodiversity should be limited to what is near the trail, not the entire park. David notMD (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if the path cross the park itself? it is not a dispersive area you can find and encounter, with a bit of luck, all those species during the trekking itself. LIUCChia.05 (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have reassessed the article as "B". Cullen328 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for you help ! Now , I know where to find the class of an article. Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Username question

Hi there! I've bumped into a user whose name includes "42069". I checked through the username policy, and I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing that ought to be reported anyplace? Would it be considered "inappropriate" enough?

The user showed up about a week ago, tried to upload and insert a couple of copyrighted images (deleted and reverted, respectively), and hasn't done anything since, so it's not really an immediate need - this is mostly for my own curiosity if a situation like this pops up in the future. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @NekoKatsun: I don't think strings of numbers are prohibited from being used in usernames, unless perhaps when read aloud they're something really vulgar that pretty much most people would clearly understand and find offensive. Even if this particular string of numbers means what Google says it can mean, I don't think that it meets such a standard. You can, however, ask for administrator input at WP:AN or WP:UAA if you want, but it's probably better to just ignore it. If the account resumes editing and starts creating problems unreleated to its name, then you can seek administrator action because of that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they do indeed mean what Google says they do, and I can recall at least one instance where someone faced a lot of heat for having, ostensibly, the last two digits of their birth year in their username, which just so happened to be 88 (a white supremacist thing). I wanted to err on the side of caution.

Since they're not doing anything I'll ignore, although that username sure won't do them any favors if they start back up with their copyright problems. Thanks for the reply! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

a little late to note, but it mostly depends on whether or not the user is actually disruptive. say a guy named "bigjohn69420" starts editing dusk. if it's copyedits, source additions, and other such stuff, they're just constructive edits and they'll be fine. if it's adding entire yaoi copypastas and other such styles of vandalism, they're gonna be blocked. in both cases, this is regardless of their username

granted, there are also cases where the username is grossly offensive, like "pussyslaya42069mlg", in which case they're either getting "mildly nudged" into renaming or just being blocked consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I get enough credible sources when interviews go beyond webpages but videos, podcasts, etc?

Hi,

I'm trying to write a biography about an important contemporary muralist. His work has been in two Asian Art Museums in addition to murals all over the world and for corporations. He has many interviews; I included some in the citations but they were not accepted. Would love any guidance. Thank you Rnza45 (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The AFC reviewer has left a comment saying that, "Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". Some faults noted by me was the way the sections were displayed and most of the citations were unreliable and not properly generated. There's also no hyperlinks and no infobox. Fixing those faults would probably help your chance for the biography to be accepted. Hope this helps. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Rnza45, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You have made several common beginners' errors: you have created your draft on your user page, which is not the right place for it. You have written your draft BACKWARDS (writing from what you know, and then looking for sources) - Wikipedia doesn't care what you know: it only cares what independent reliable sources say about the subject. And Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. So interviews don't count towards establishing notability.

There's nothing wrong with making mistakes: that's how we all learn. But newcomers who plunge straight into the challenging task of crating a new article often get frustrated and disillusioned. And it's even harder when you have a conflict of interest (thank you for declaring that).

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough reply. Where is the correct place to write a draft?

I don’t know why you think I cited sources backwards; I didn’t start that way. I did go back after I thought I needed more outside sources. I did look up what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, but I need to understand this better. I thought I went back and added, but they still dont seem to meet the criteria. I pulled from LA Times, ABC News, NPR, art websites and a local wiki.

I did not write the article about myself. 2603:8000:7300:CB21:AC86:1F37:7217:3A5D (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The correct place to write a draft is WP:Article Wizard. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to Draft:Dave Young Kim, Rnza45. Please remove the CoI template from it, and affix the former to your user page.

You tell us that:

Kim's artwork engages with the intangible quality of home and explores themes of nostalgia, war, conflict, and displacement. By incorporating cultural motifs into personal and broader histories of struggle, he examines the universal search for belonging across diverse conditions.

And you add a reference pointing to a page of Kim's website. But this is evaluative: we need a source independent of Kim to tell us that he actually explores such-and-such (and doesn't merely glance at it and hurry away). Also, this sounds curiously like PR-speak. I wondered what Kim actually wrote. Here it is:

His work engages with the intangible quality of home and explores themes of nostalgia, war, conflict, and displacement. By interpolating cultural motifs into personal and larger histories of struggle, Kim explores the unifying search for belonging across disparate conditions.

So it's just a copy 'n' paste job, with minor changes. If a quotation would benefit a draft, then it must be in quotation marks (and square brackets should make clear any changes that have been made to it). -- Hoary (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

COI tag moved to your User page. David notMD (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 2603:8000:7300:CB21:B9F0:228F:2F05:87F5 (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

what is the CoI template? There was a note that said "please remove the Col template from it and affix the former to your user page." Rnza45 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Tools

I have the rater and auto-ed scripts installed but they don't show up in my more tab. I use Vector Legacy. Does anyone know how to fix this. History6042 (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@History6042 do they appear on the left side of the screen, under "tools"? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

No they do not. History6042 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

User:CanonNi, I checked all the skins but still none of them show up. History6042 (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are using the new skin WP:VECTOR2022, its on the right or in a dropdown at top right. Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I switched to 2022 but it still doesn't show up. History6042 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

To add more references

Is it necessary to add more references to make it clearer and properly cited, if possible? DerryGer120 (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@DerryGer120 Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, it’s always helpful to add references to support statements which might be challenged. They do need to be reliable ones, as defined HERE. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

However, over-referencing can be a problem. Quality is more important than quantity. A simple fact can do with one reference, not five or ten. David notMD (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

David notMD, yes indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I see. What if a content short but reliable. Isn't it better to add more content? DerryGer120 (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks DerryGer120 (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@DerryGer120 Are you asking about the draft article you have (incorrectly) placed on your userpage? If so, please note that Wikipedia articles are almost entirely based on sources meeting our golden rules to help show the topic is wikinotable. Currently you have no such sources and you need to carefully read this guidance, which also explains how to start in the correct place at articles for creation. However, I would strongly advise that you work on existing articles for a while until you understand Wikipedia's requirements in more detail. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

DerryGer120 Draft:Gerd Ortlieb has been declined three times. Do not resubmit until you have added in-line references for all facts, and deleted those facts for which you are unable to add references. External links are not references. David notMD (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Original research and primary sources

What counts as original research? Can I write in an article that something is patented with a link to the patent itself as a source, or is this considered "original research" meaning that that finding a secondary source meaning some random article or book saying that it's patented is preferable over to linking to the actual patent? 27.84.15.217 (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The patent is a source for the issue of the patent (see WP:PATENT). Original research would be citing the patent for text such as Oswald's patent for ooshwallah was the first patent issued for a Molossian. Schazjmd (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. What about citations for cases of other things existing, e.g. the official website or page for a video game, or book, or music CD: Is the primary source appropriate as a source to prove that the thing exists or for other specs (like a release date, platform, page count, format...) or is that different with it being preferable to have some other person (who might be wrong) talking about the release date/platform/page count/format as a secondary source? 27.84.15.217 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources are generally okay to cite for basic facts. Schazjmd (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, IP user. My rule of thumb is that if the existence of something (a patent, a painting, a movie, a website) can be verified only by a primary source, then it is probably not appropriate to mention it in an article. There are probably exceptions; but if nobody independent has ever written about this thing, why is it significant enough to go in the article? ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm from Japan and primarily edit articles on Japanese topics where primary sources are in Japanese and most of the secondary sources used on Wikipedia are in English. This frequently result in problems when the secondary sources are from sites and writers regarded "reliable" on Wikipedia yet are clearly not reliable for niche topics, specifically Japanese topics in this case, being often poorly-written and badly-researched and filled with the most basic errors. Some of these basic errors could be easily rectified with a reference to a primary source like an official website saying "this book was written by this person and released on this date". Looking for reliable secondary sources like news sites after the fact is often out of the question because most Japanese news sites delist old news after some time. I was simply asking if such a primary source could be used over clearly inferior secondary sources, because I was previously told that primary sources are not allowed AT ALL if secondary sources are available.

I will assume that your intent was probably not to gaslight me by suggesting that Japanese topics are insignificant and don't belong on Wikipedia but I would very much appreciate more if people would answer my questions instead of retorting with more questions. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "most Japanese news sites delist old news after some time", true. But if you're in Japan, note that the larger libraries tend to have facilities that let you browse old newspapers, one way or another. -- Hoary (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

May I point out, 27.84.15.217, that at no time in the discussion above did you mention Japan until your last post, so implying that anyone in it might have been (or actually wasn't) 'gaslighting you' and "suggesting that Japanese topics are insignificant and don't belong on Wikipedia" appears disingenuous and provocative.

You last mentioned 'Japanese topics' on this forum (The Teahouse) in May, so no-one responding here in late December is likely to remember either that discussion, or that it was the same IP poster.

All of the responders above answered your somewhat unspecific questions with straightforward answers to the best of their ability; none "retorted with more questions", and if they had it would have been to clarify what you were asking (as is often necessary here).

From your Contributions history, you have more recently been discussing this topic on an article Talk page, but responders here will have had no knowledge of that. Please try to keep straight what your current interlocutors likely do or do not know. This is an aspect of Theory of mind.

Also remember that every month over 100,000 different users edit Wikipedia, so the encountered opinions of one or a few particular ones do not necessarily reflect even a majority view, let alone that of a mythical collective personification of Wikipedia. Regards. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed

I believe I have become extended confirmed because I have been on Wikipedia for 1 month but Xtools says I’m only autoconfirmed. I got the answer that a user has to be on Wikipedia for 30 days and have over 500 edits, and I have done that. So, is there a reason why I’m not extended confirmed. If I am, I want to know Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Your account was created on 26 November 2024. This is not 30 days ago. Mellk (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that’s probably the problem Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

A user only needs to be extended confirmed to edit certain articles or in certain contentious topic areas. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, it just feels better to have it because it makes me feel more experienced. Also, there’s a couple articles that have the extended confirmed block that I would like to edit. Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That's certainly fine, though there is a difference between feeling more experienced and being more experienced. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about that Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Articles that require editors to be extended confirmed are often about contentious topis. Many so-qualified editors have put those articles on their Watchlist, meaning that there is potential for being reverted by opinionated editors. Consider reviewing the Talk page (including archived talk page content) to learn if the change you intend to make has been debated in the past. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings from all at the Teahouse!

'Twas The Night Before Wikimas...

Saint Jimbo arrives to help a pair of sleepy editors.

'Twas the night before Wikimas, when all through the Teahouse
Not an editor was stirring, not even a mouse.

The references had been inserted by users with care,
In hopes that St. Jimbo soon would be there.

Most editors were nestled all snug by their beds,
While visions of new articles danced in their heads.
When out from a keyboard there arose such a clatter
I sprang to my screen to see what was the matter.
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
but a question on sources and how to use them well here.

More rapid than eagles these questioners came,
And the hosts from the Teahouse welcomed each one by name.

Reindeers #1 to #3 (left to right):
em Dasher; Images and Actrial

Reindeers #4 to #6 (left to right):
Patrolled; Users and IPs

"Now, em Dasher! Now, Images!
Now, Actrial! Now, Patrolled!
On, Users! On, IPs!
On, Young and on, Old!
To the top of each article, be it long, short or tall,
Now, type away, type away, type away all!"

As dry words that before an old dictionary fly,
when they meet with a synonym, mount to the sky,
So, onto these articles the edits they flew,
With a sleigh full of facts, and citations, too.

And then in a twinkling, I saw on the page
Our wiki-creator: a man of great age.
As I checked it on Commons and was turning around,
Down my router St. Jimbo came in with a bound.

Over 6 million articles he had flung on his back,
And he looked like most users with the editing knack.
His eyes – how they twinkled! slightly square – but how merry!
Too much editing, folks, had turned his nose red like a cherry!
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,
And the beard on his chin was as white as the snow.

St. Jimbo: "Happy Editing to all, and to all users a good night!"
Facial composite of man wanted for questioning in connection with digital break-ins on Christmas Eve.

A wink of his eye and a twist of his head
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.
He spoke not a word, but went straight to his editing,
And filled bare URLs; did sourcing and crediting
And confirming notability with a tap on his nose,
And pressing 'Publish changes', back up my modem he rose.

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew, leaving me to my epistle.
But I heard him exclaim, 'ere he drove out of sight,
"Happy Editing to all, and to all users a good night!"

with grudging acknowledgement to Clement C. Moore, 1823.)

Nick Moyes (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Bravo! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This is brilliant @Nick Moyes Knitsey (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Bah humbug >:/

What about us Festivus Celebrators?

A fantastic little parody though. As a fellow writer, I greatly enoyed. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Very good. Now let's hope no one tries to expand it using references from Instagram, celebrities' personal websites, or something editor is sure his great aunt told him 27 years ago. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, very good!👍 Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow. The human brain is beautiful. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Admin Question

Out of sheer curiosity, how does one go about becoming an admin? Not that I want to be one, I most certainly don't, and such responsibility is too much for me. I'm just interested in the inner-workings of Wikipedia. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans all admins are "elected" in Requests for Adminship. A typical one runs for a week or so, and all experienced users can ask the candidate questions, discuss their work, and !vote. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, neat! Admins being voted in is not something I have seen before. Thanks for the speedy reply :)

Happy chrismahanukwanzakah, and a good Festivus for the Rest of us! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans, there's a request for adminship open now, if you'd like to take a look and see what it entails. After you reach extended confirmed status, you can register your support or opposition for admin requests. Schazjmd (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That's really interesting! I honestly did not expect such a detailed process. I don't know what I did expect, but it wasn't this. I appreciate your input :) Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans, Like what @CanonNi said, there are also a discussion open about administrator elections, which resulted in 11 admins being promoted back in late October, into becoming an official and alternative process to RfAs. Do note that it's still in a discussion period and isn't an official process. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I edit a comment on an image?

I uploaded an image. I included a summary. That summary became both a comment and a summary. I made a mistake in the summary. I can correct the summary but not the comment. I had to delete the image and upload it again. How do I edit the comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RussellBell (talk • contribs) 22:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

What image are you referring to? You've never uploaded an image to en.wikipedia, and only one image to Commons where there doesn't appear to be any subsequent editing by you and it wasn't previously deleted. It was also upload 1.5 years ago. So, kinda hard to know what you're talking about. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It's for a non-Wikipedia wiki. I thought the rules were the same. https://jfwiki.org/index.php?title=File:JoeRuthTeddyJudyRear_BenFritzeFritzi_Seated.jpeg RussellBell (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That said, @RussellBell, I'm not clear how you can claim copyright on File:Joseph Langermann Acte De Naissance - an extract from his birth certificate.gif, or say that it's your own work. Either the copyright is held by whichever government deparment issued it, or else it may be in the public domain No way can it be yours. ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I received the letter in response to a query I made - doesn't that make it mine? I deleted the portion that had my name and address. I'll be glad to reclassify it - how would I?RussellBell (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if you get a letter. You didn't produced the letter or the extract in attachment itself. — Anatole-berthe 00:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

If someone sends me a letter I own it.RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Therefore , it is not your work as Cullen328 (12/24/2024 23:33 UTC time) and Marchjully (12/24/2024 23:58 UTC time) explained.

Also , in the extract of the birth certificate published in "05/25/2023" on "Wikipedia in English" , it does means nearly 13 years after the production of the document in "06/21/2010". There are an incacurate description.

The description is inacurate for the next reason. It is wrote "This is the extract from Joe's birth certificate. Only family members can get the whole.".

For a birth certificate or another "vital record" detained by French authorities , not all family members can have access to a full birth certificate.

You can correct by "some family members" or anything similar meaning that not all family members can. — Anatole-berthe 00:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Picky, picky, picky. You neglected to mention people who can get access for legal reasons.RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

For vital records less than 75 years old. Only the person concerned and some family members can access the full document. — Anatole-berthe 00:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

This record was produced in 1938.RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

These family members are the spouse , person who have a "Civil solidarity pact" with the person , parents or grand-parents or any others ascendants (For example a great-grandparent) and your child or grand-child or any others descendants (For example a great-grandchild).

If a vital record is 75 years old or older. Everybody have legally access to it. — Anatole-berthe 00:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

That isn't what they told me.RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

To finalise this message. Marchjuly (12/25/2024 00:14 UTC time) explained this kind of document is generally considered as a primary source. Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the possibility of classifying it as a primary source.RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

RussellBell, you may own a piece of paper, but that does not make its content your "own work". Only the government official or the agency who created the document can call it their "own work". Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not really anyone's work is it? It's not creative: it's a report from official records, a transcription.RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@RussellBell: The information posted above by Cullen328 and ColinFine is information that not only applies to Wikipedia, but image licensing in general; in other words, physical possession of something doesn't mean you're also the intellectual property rights holder of said thing. Some documents containing nothing more than factual information (particularly those created by the US federal government) can be ineligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, but the copyright laws of other countries might treat such documents differently and Wikimedia Commons policy requires that the content it hosts be licensed acceptably in accordance with US copyright law and the copyright law of the country of first publication. Given the address on the letter, you might find c:COM:France helpful in sorting out the latter. The text of the letter and any other imagery contained therein, on the other hand, could be eligible for copyright protection separately from the enclosed document itself. All of this is really a moot point, though, because the website www.jfwiki.org that you're asking about is completely unrelated to English Wikipedia or any other sites run by the Wikimedia Foundation; so, if you've got specific questions related to that site, you're going to need to contact whoever runs that site and resolve things with them. That website most likely has its own rules and you're going to need to comply with them if you want to add content to that site. The Wikipedia Teahouse is set up to deal with questions related to English Wikipedia (and perhaps its sister projects); it's not really intended to be a general information help desk or a help desk for other websites. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It's originally a document that I translated to Wikipedia as an image. It's not originally an image. The person who runs jfwiki.org told me to figure it out myself. I hoped the rules were general.RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding File:Joseph Langermann Acte De Naissance - an extract from his birth certificate.gif and separately from its copyright status, you don't really need to upload an image of a document to cite said document as a source for a Wikipedia article like you did in the case of Joe Frank. You can just cite the document itself as long as it meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source and is used in proper context; birth certificates, death certificates and other types of official documents are generally treated as WP:PRIMARY sources though and need to be used carefully. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

What evidence have I for my claim? Anyone can request the document I received - should I tell everyone to get their own copy?RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@RussellBell: Please try not to insert your new comments into the middle of another user's previous comment, even if replying to a question they ask. It's much better to simply respond to another's comment right after the end of the said comment. Unlike some other sites, the Wikipedia Teahouse doesn't have a "quoted comment" feature per se which allows you to highlight or box out parts of another's comment. So, inserting your comment into another user's comment makes everything run on together and can be confusing; it might also be mistaken as a violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments.

As for your question about evidence for your claim, Wikipedia doesn't require a source cited in an article to be available online as explained in WP:PUBLISHED; it only requires that the source be reliable (as defined by Wikipedia), be previously published and be reasonably available as explained here. As long as others have reasonable access to the source if they want to access it, then it can be cited by Wikipedia. For example, there's no need to upload a scan of the relevant page of a particular book cited as a source just because the book isn't available online; the book can still be cited as long as its a reliable source, it's cited in proper context, and there's a reasonable way for someone to verify the content being cited if they want. If others challenge the reliability of a source or the encyclopedic value of a source, you can use the article's talk page or a noticeboard like WP:RSN to discuss it. Ultimately, though, the WP:ONUS is going to be on you to establish a consensus in favor of using the source, and this would be the case regardless of whether you take and upload an "image" of the source.

Finally, as pointed out above, physical possession of a work doesn't necessarily mean there's been a transfer of intellectual property rights from the original creator of the work to you, even if the original created sent you a copy of the work. The original creator still retains whatever copyright is associated with the source. As to whether a a report from official records, a transcription. could depend on the copyright laws of the country of first publication. Under US copyright law, most standardized form letters which are nothing more than text intended for simple facts aren't eligible for copyright protection and can be treated as c:Template:PD-text; moreover, uploading a scan/photo of such a form is typically not considered creative enough to establish a new copyright for the scan/photo per c:Commons:2D copying. However, even though the image you uploaded to Commons might be OK for Commons under US copyright law, Commons also requires it be OK under French copyright law, which might treat such works differently than US copyright law. Furthermore, Creative Commons licensing is typically intended to be used by original copyright holders of works; so, your use of it in this case implies that you're the copyright holder of both the original work and what you uploaded. If it turns out that the file is OK for Commons, its licensing might only need to be changed to something more appropriate. You can ask about both these things at c:Commons:Village pump/copyright if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I change my method of donation to a different source.

I recently had to change all my credit cards due to being hacked. I need to change my monthly donation to a new card number but cannot find how to do this. Thank you for your help. Buffalogirlofwy (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Buffalogirlofwy. See donate:Cancel or change recurring giving. Maybe you have to set up a new donation with the new card but I don't know. You can ask at the given email address but note it says to not mail your credit card number. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Un-archiving a talk topic

I made a talk topic and somebody immediately archived it saying that it's already been addressed. I believe that my topic is different from what was discussed previously, and I made a comment on the talk page there proposing to un-archive my topic. Nobody responded and it's been a couple of days. Is it safe to go ahead and just un-archive it myself, or is that considered disruptive? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You mean Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Mention_House_Subcommittee_in_section_on_Political,_academic_and_media_attention? -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Bon courage is welcome to comment. -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It was not archived, but closed, because that source is already being discussed ad nauseam. Bon courage (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Bad quality images for BLP individuals

If the only image(s) available for a BLP article is of bad quality and/or very outdated (for example a mugshot from decades ago), is using the image preferred or not using any image at all preferred? Zinderboff (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Zinderboff: I wouldn't use a mug shot from decades ago per WP:MUG, particularly as the primary image at the top of the article, but an older image that's freely licensed could be used even if it's not of the best quality. Whether that's preferable to using no image at all might be something worth discussing on the article's talk page, but it's important to remember that a Wikipedia article about a living person is an encyclopedic article about the person as a whole (from birth to present day) and even an older image can still have encyclopedic value; in other words, the article doesn't need to show the person as they look at this particular moment in time. Finally, given you're asking about a BLP, a non-free image is most likely not going to be considered in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; so, if you're trying to find a recent image to use for primary identification purposes, you're going to need to find one that has already been released under a license that's pretty much in accordance with c:Commons:Licensing, or you're going to need to get the copyright holder of the image to given their WP:CONSENT. You can try WP:PERMISSION if you want to ask a copyright holder to release their image under a license that's free enough for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Revising and submitting a new Help:IPA page

I was referred here by User:Timrent after submitting a draft for a proposed Help:IPA page for the Kannada language. Please let me know how I can improve this draft and where I can submit my revisions for proper review.

Link to draft: Draft:Help:IPA/Kannada Krzapex (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That's Timtrent, with one more "t", Krzapex. I was surprised that he suggested that you should come here, until I read his comment: "This is not the correct route to seek to create Help: pages. Please ask about this at WP:TEAHOUSE". Somebody could simply move the page. But before that, a couple of suggestions: (i) "English approximation" is less helpful than what I presume it means in this context, viz, "Approximation in General American English or RP British English (unless otherwise noted)"; but the latter of course would be horribly bulky. Perhaps add it as a footnote? (ii) Better I think to invite comments from the denizens of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language (if you haven't already done so). The page is frequented by some actual phoneticians/phonologists. -- Hoary (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary I genuinely had no idea how to assess this, nor any clue about the correct route. I thought "Where better to direct the creating editor?" and I see it has hit the spot. Thank you for guiding them. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Krzapex You have received the quality of advice I hoped you would receive. Thank you for taking up my suggestion and asking here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Editor considers source invalid

I created an entry for an art historian who is included in a standard source for the field, the Dictionary of Art Historians (https://arthistorians.info/). I included one reference to the DAH entry at the beginning instead of referencing each fact from it. User:BoyTheKingCanDance deleted nearly my entire entry for lack of third-party sources but I have seen the DAH used to reference biographical facts for many other art historians. Edanziger (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Edanziger! (and courtesy ping to@BoyTheKingCanDance) Art history isn't my thing, but I'm assuming you're talking about the article Douglas Lewis (art historian)? There seems to have been a slight misunderstanding here. Because you didn't use inline references, BTKCD probably missed that the "unreferenced" material was, in fact, supported by the source. I'll restore the material for you - but I want to let you you about one thing. You copied the entire article from the Dictionary of Art Historians page. Normally that wouldn't be okay because of copyright laws, but as the website makes all their text available under a Creative Commons commercial license (CC-BY SA 4), it's fine. However, whenever you import freely-licensed text into Wikipedia, you need to attribute it. You can do this by adding a template to the reference(s) - in this case, specifically the {{Creative Commons text attribution notice}} or {{CCBYSA4Source}}. You can read more instructions here: WP:FREECOPY.

In the future, you can avoid this by using inline references, so other people can easily see where you got your information from. I hope that helps! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be worth hunting down some alternative sources anyway as you've only got the one source then I don't know how if this subject will meet WP:NBIO. It doesn't help that the WaPo links at the end seem to be broken. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Edanziger: Just going to add that even if the content of the Dictionary of Art Historians page is OK from a copyright standpoint, it would still probably be better for you to summarize said content in your own words than to simply copy-and-paste it verbatim into the Wikipedia article. The website hosting the content isn't really subject to any of Wikipedia policies and guidelines or even Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and third-party website content can often be written in a manner that's not suitable for Wikipedia's purposes. By rewriting the content in your own words, you have a chance to make sure it's appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, everyone! I’ll return to this after the holidays. Edanziger (talk) 08:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Edanziger: Just as a point of information, in the citation, you should be crediting Lee Sorensen as the editor of the Dictionary of Art Historians. Fabrickator (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You might also want to consider adding entries to Wikidata instead, if you can't find enough non-DoAH sources to justify notability here. DS (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Submission declined

I have worked properly to write this article following your guidelines as a newbie, ensuring the content is neutral, clear, and encyclopedic. However, my submission was declined on 25 December 2024 by Timtrent (talk).

Could you please let me know the reasons for its rejection or, if possible, edit the article yourself?

The draft is available at: User:Itsfaizanfaizi/sandbox Itsfaizanfaizi (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Itsfaizanfaizi The reason for the decline is in the box on the draft, and also on your own talk page. Please confirm that you have read the reason, and then ask about anything that you do not understand.

Writing a new article is the hardest thing one can do. The temptation is to use magazine style prose, not encyclopaedia style prose. You have used magazine style prose.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Itsfaizanfaizi, for editing the draft since I replied here. I have not reviewed your work, and I will not re-review the draft when you submit it next. Other eyes are best for each review. Please continue to work on it in a relaxed manner and only resubmit when you are certain you have done your best work. The next reviewer may have other matters to raise with yo, but that is good. This is an iterative process designed to give you the best advice and chance of success. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello There,i need a help

i forgot how to add sources Avogadro87 (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Avogadro87. Have you checked our the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. qcne (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Avogadro87! If you are using the Visual Editor, use the shortcut Ctrl+Shift+K or click this icon on the toolbar to cite sources. TNM101 (chat) 14:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello guys!! I need help with this page

Heya fella

Actually I have given my best on this page but I can't complete it because of lack of official results

2024 Asian Youth & Junior Weightlifting Championships

I have mailed the Qatari Federation and I am waiting for their response

Meanwhile if you guys wanttt to help me in this!!! Sid Prayag (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Sid Prayag, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you cannot find published results. then they don't belong in any Wikipedia article, period. If the Federation sends you a link to published results, you can use them (but see below). If they send you them in a private email, you can't.

But, in any case, "official results" are hardly to the point , as they will be primary sources, and so of minor importance for a Wikipedia article. Far more significant, in my view, is the total lack of independent sources for the article, without which it does not establish that the championship meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and the article shouldn't exist. (The same goes for the three articles on previous competitions). We haven't even got an article on "Asian Youth & Junior Weightlifting Championships".

Assuming the results are published, then the bulk of this long article could be replaced by a link to the official results. What a Wikiepdia article about the championship should be telling us is a summary of what independent commentators have published about the championship (which will no doubt include a selection of the results). ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybeee yess but who knows in future someone make the page for it... Wiki is a source of information too and there are reliable sources for the results but i wanted an official one hence i mailed them Sid Prayag (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Every article should demonstrate that its subject meets the criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

My good articles are not reviewed; my worse articles are quickly AfDed, instead of AfCed

I am a Nigerian Wikipedia editor. I have been editing for few months now. I have contributed up to thirty articles to Wikipedia within these few months, but with time, I noticed a pattern. There is the tendency for more experienced editors to ignore good articles and leave then unreviewed, but very quick at nominating an article that is still being created for deletion, rather than sending them back as drafts to be worked on for a while. I have thought about this for a long time. These articles I created are facing this unreviewed wave: Charles Nwodo Jr., Victoria Nwogu, Nick Ezeh etc. It appears to me too that Nigerian sources are being prejudiced against as not reliable even when they are. I want this to be discussed extensively in the Tea House. Can specific editors be assigned to watch new editors form Africa, especially Nigeria, who are prolific and encourage them by reviewing their good articles? I have a feeling I am speaking for many new editors who are facing similar challenges. I ask in good faith and I am ready to learn. Please, no one should be offended by my query. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Royalrumblebee, you might be interested in participating in this current discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nigerian_newspapers. Schazjmd (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a wow for me that my article, Martina Ononiwu ignited that discussion. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Royalrumblebee. What you are describing is quality control at its finest. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martina Ononiwu shows how you wrote an article with serious problems that was effectively a hoax. So, the solution is for you to refrain from writing problematic articles. Once you place a new article in the main space of the encyclopedia, it is immediately subject to review including nomination for deletion by new page patrollers. We are not going to create a new process for editors from Nigeria when the Articles for Creation review process is already available to all editors, and perhaps you should use that instead. Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria is a place where you can interact with other Nigerian editors. Cullen328 (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this very informative reply. Royalrumblebee (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Royalrumblebee I am lookkng at your original question, namely There is the tendency for more experienced editors to ignore good articles and leave then unreviewed, but very quick at nominating an article that is still being created for deletion, rather than sending them back as drafts to be worked on for a while. I have thought about this for a long time. These articles I created are facing this unreviewed wave: Charles Nwodo Jr., Victoria Nwogu, Nick Ezeh etc. It appears to me too that Nigerian sources are being prejudiced against as not reliable even when they are. I want this to be discussed extensively in the Tea House. Can specific editors be assigned to watch new editors form Africa, especially Nigeria, who are prolific and encourage them by reviewing their good articles?. Despite the lack of a second question mark I see it as a question, in two parts.

• Can specific editors be assigned to watch new editors form Africa, especially Nigeria, who are prolific and encourage them by reviewing their good articles? This is unlikely.There are some excellent editors from your part of the world, and making contact with them would be a good alliance, recognising always that they have good faith disagreements with you.

Regrettably there are also a number of poor editors who edit with malpractice. These folk would be good fo avoid.

• there is the tendency for more experienced editors to ignore good articles and leave then unreviewed, but very quick at nominating an article that is still being created for deletion, rather than sending them back as drafts to be worked on for a while.. As a reviewer I look at an article to determine whether I believe I am competent to review it. When I feel I have the competence I proceed to a review, otherwise I set it aside for another reviewer.

There are a few circumstances when I will nominate for speedy deletion, including:

• Copyright violation
• Blatant advertising
• Something that is not actually an article.

There are circumstances when I will reject (not decline) an article, including

• The list for speedy deletion, above
• Tendentious resubmission (repeated resubmission with no 'interest' in improvement
• Obvious areas where there is no current hope of ever establishing notability (with verification). An example might be an article on an ordinary person like me.

Otherwise I will review and accept with pleasure or decline with rationale. There is a process WP:MFD to which drafts may be submitted for discussion with a view to deletion. but that almost always leads to retention.

When I see a draft which has 'escaped' to mainspace, but is deserving of improvement, I make a judgement over whether I feel it is likely to be improved in mainspace. If I feel it is likely I flag it with the observed deficiencies, wish it well, and move on.

If I feel it is not likely, I have two options:

• Return the article to Draft space, which I may do unilaterally if this is the first time it is draftified. If not WP:DRAFTOBJECT tells me I must either leave it alone, or I must reach consensus for draftification. WP:AFD is the tool I use for reaching that consensus, nominating for Draftificatin.
• Send it immediately for a deletion process. AFD is the kindest because it allows discussion and policy based argument against or for deletion.

There is a great deal to read, above. Other editors may hold different views, and that is as it should be, except in matters of policy, which has been made by consensus. The question I have for you is "Has this helped your understanding?" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow @Timtrent, you have given me and, I believe, many other editors, some lessons coming from long-term experiences. Thank you for this. Royalrumblebee (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Royalrumblebee I do not guarantee, nor do I expect, that other reviewers should have the same approach that I do. By experience, however, I see that the great majority of experienced reviewers act in a similar manner to this.

Those at the start of their reviewing journey, new reviewers, may diverge widely from this. We need to remember that it is 100% fine that they do, and that each of us, experienced or new, must be able to justify a review we have made.

The parameters we are given are to accept any draft which we honestly believe has a better that 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. You can see at once that this is a subjective process, and that we can be wrong, When wrongly accepting, the (now) article will be sent to AfD. When wrongly declining the creating/submitting editor can feel aggrieved.

The final point is that reviewers want to accept drafts. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

What type of edit I do for every article

useing of Wikipedia Hurcusy (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hurcusy: Please see WP:POLEMIC and consider if it applies to your user page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hurcusy: You started your account two days ago, and most (all?) of your edits have either been subtle vandalism, such as changing Auguste Rodin's name to August and Alexander Calder's to Calendar, or awkward English, and all of your edits have been reverted. Consider this a warning that if you persist in your actions your account will be indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

yeah infact this is not first time when last time I am on here I just make 3 edits and I am globally blocked.infact till now I don't know what is edit but I know some magic methods whith my own reading skin like s central login welcome message wikkimidea commons.what I do for account please helpe out from this loop Hurcusy (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Well this here is an encyclopedia, not a play ground. So if you would like to edit, you should be helping to improve articles. You probably have some skill that would be useful, or some knowlege that would be expressed in words. Do you want to contribute to the sum of human knowledge? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Is any chance to contribute like sum of human knowledge ? Hurcusy (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hurcusy: Start by removing the insulting content on your User page. On your Talk page, you have received a last-chance warning for repeated vandalism to various articles, including deliberate misspelling. Stop or your account will be indefinitely blocked. If, after that, you continue without signing into an account, the IP address will be blocked. David notMD (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Tools

Now none of my tools show up. How do I fix this. History6042🐉 (Contact me) 17:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you be more clear about what you mean? DS (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I fixed it, thanks though. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate articles!

Hello & Merry Xmas, if that's your thing. There are two Colorado pages and two Wyoming pages! I don't know if other states have the same issue or how to merge them. One of each has "U.S. state" as the description and the other says "state of the United States of America". Can someone look into this? Thanks! Seananony (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Seananony. The software does not permit two different articles to have identical titles. Are you possibly looking at some articles in the Simple English Wikipedia, which is a separate project? Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I use the app. It seems to to be acting up. I may need to reinstall it. I don't know how I ended up there, but I have all four pages open in the app right now. For the WY ones, the most recent edit on the page that appears to be the legit one was yesterday, whereas the other was last updated 4/18/24. For Colorado, the apparently legit one was edited 12/23/24. I just edited the other, not realizing there were two, and before that the most recent edit was 10/10/24, which was a reversion of vandalism. I don't know how to direct you to what I'm seeing. If I close the pages I may not be able to find them again, Even though they're apparently out there. Seananony (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Seananony, you haven't edited the wikipedia Colorado article recently, but you did edit the "Simple" Colorado. I don't know how the app works, but I think Cullen is right that you might be confusing the two projects. Schazjmd (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Seananony: It's definitely about https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado versus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado. The url part before .wikipedia.org is a language code where en means English, fr means French and so on. The Simple English Wikipedia is a special case which has simple as language code to distinguish it from the normal English Wikipedia. It's common that the same subject has an article at both but they are edited separately. An article at the Simple English Wikipedia will usually be shorter and use simpler English. The simple English Wikipedia generally gets much less attention from both readers and editors. I don't know the Android app. In the iOS app it's surprisingly hard to discover which language you are at. The best method I found is to click the bottom right icon with three dots in a circle and select share. This shows the url including the language code. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow! You're right. I'd never heard of the Simple WP before! Thanks for solving this. I thought I was losing my mind for a minute.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming?wprov=sfla1.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado?wprov=sfla1 Seananony (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

PS: I think I found my way there from a link on Duck Duck Go, and then opened the link in the app. I just wanted to know how far it is from Colorado's southern border to the northern one! Seananony (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Image rotation

Airplane Crash

I have come across a map with this SVG file super-imposed, detailing the location of a plane crash. Is it possible to rotate this image, because it currently shows the aircraft travelling south-east, which is incorrect. In an ideal world, there should be eight different versions of this SVG, allowing all eight major compass points to be selected.

But I'll take any answer that turns this one so that it faces either due West, or North-West. Thx

WendlingCrusader (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@WendlingCrusader: The file is called "Airplane Crash". I assume the angle is meant as flying down like a steep crash and not a compass direction. Flying to the left or top-left wouldn't signal that. Other images would have to be uploaded. There is no command to display an image rotated. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter

I am not making that same assumption, as an icon depicting an aircraft in the act of crashing is a rather disturbing thought. When this SVG image is depicted on a map it is very much more showing the route taken by the aircraft, up until the point that disaster occurred. And in this case the flight path would be shown as a trail emanating from the nose of the aircraft, which is clearly wrong.

But that aside, the answer you gave was spot-on; There is no command to display an image rotated. Not what I wanted to hear, but the right answer nevertheless. Thanks.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like that's what users have decided to use in other articles like the crash map in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

That image can be rotated in the general sense:

but {{Location_map}} does not support the complex trick for doing it. Instead, separate files would be needed. For the case at hand, I agree it's best to follow whatever practice other articles use regarding the meaning as "crash" rather than "direction". Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force to see if there is a written style-guide detail about that. DMacks (talk) 09:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Ardi Pulaj Page

Hi, my draft page Ardi Pulaj was deleted due to notabity almost an hour ago..while he is notable enough in Albania.. 81.26.207.141 (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi 81.26.207.141. Firstly the draft was not deleted, just "declined". If a topic is notable in one country, it would be notable everywhere. To show notability, you would need to find writings about the person or their work, that are independent and substantial. If the person writes, then those writings are not independent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you i appreciate your answer. 81.26.207.141 (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Note that on English Wikipedia we use the word notable in a special way: it doesn't mean "important", or "popular", or "famous", or "influential", or "respected" or anything like that. It means, roughly "there has been enough material published about the subject in reliable publications to base an article on", remembering that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything written, published, or commission by the subject or their associates, or based on their own words. Somebody who is notable in a more ordinary sense is often notable in Wikipedia's sense, but not always, and it is essential to demonstrate this by finding those sources. ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of knowledge

If your know how to properly edit Wikipedia, I don’t know anything about the backend of this site don’t use it often because I am very lucky to have access to info at my job.

but for the sake of knowledge for the people please fix this or pass it on to someone who can!!

the emperor of central Africa aka Jean bedel bokassa trial section - citations 58-60ish, abc are cited an article December 26 1986 . Because I’m a cool guy who does cool things, I went and asked reference at my job to get me that issue!! (It can be illegally found online in seconds but I like doing it old school) mostly I found this guy fascinating and wanted to read more. The information cited in this Wikipedia article cannot be found in the referenced Newsweek source. It’s a one page with large photos puff. Contains No more info than a basic AP or Reuters line and certainly not what is cited here

for the sake of good knowledge, clean this if you now how to do it properly 2601:196:8600:C6F0:D106:8A87:3B58:D92A (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

(moved from talk) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a typical inquiry on this page now - thank you to whomever cleaned up my submission (attempt to submit is probably more accurate lol)

I can rest now, even if it never changes - because I did not do nothing! Took me probably 5-10x longer than your wildest estimate of how long it might take a newbie old guy to figure out where/how I could try and get that fake citation addressed.

special thanks to my niece and nephew - they showed me the talk/edit page, explained why it had weird symbols and characters all over it - and got me to the help page that eventually led me to here!! 2601:196:8600:C6F0:D106:8A87:3B58:D92A (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, first thing to do is examine the page's history, see if maybe there was some malicious change, or perhaps a source that got misplaced somewhere along the line. (But it's past midnight and I can't do that now.) Jean Bedel Bokassa, you say? DS (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You got it. Section at the bottom under trial heading. Citations 58-60 I think are ones citing the December 2&, 1986 Newsweek article.

I intrigued by this character - I used tools I have at my job to get: first a digitized version (essentially someone who had a copy somewhere took a photo of every page.) they came in about 4 hours. zero mention of anything cited on Wikipedia to it

Then the physical copy arrived about 36-48 hours later, I checked it to confirm. Same story. Bogus citation. I was so mad cuz I was excited to read from a detailed source!!

More details about the work tool thingy if you’re curious but it’s not relevant to the wiki. Insane overkill to use it to get a Newsweek but it’s paid for so why not use ithe ( It’s bad*** too)

basically if something had been printed in the last 160ish years, I can use the tool to find where it’s archived, and from there the reference personnel take over and arrange the delivery (short term they acquire digital image, that arrives in 2-4 hours usually but same within a day, and then if possible without risking the document’s safety, wthe physical copy en route within usually 2, but a maximum of 8 business days 2601:196:8600:C6F0:D106:8A87:3B58:D92A (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence, IP user. I have found the source cited on on page 27 of the magazine, at the Internet archive, and I agree that I do not see support for the statements in the article.

That paragraph, with its citation, was added by editor @Carlson288 in this edit, on New Year's Day 2011. Carlson288 is still active, and I have pinged them here. Perhaps they can resolve the issue.

(Note for future reference: each article has an associated Talk Page, and generally the best place to bring up questions about an article is there: in this case Talk:Jean-Bédel Bokassa, as that is more likely to be seen by people with knowledge of the subject of the article than this general help page). ColinFine (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Question about the "List of films considered the worst" tab.

Am I allowed to add "The Emoji Movie" to the "List of films considered the worst", since it has a 6% Critic Score on Rotten Tomatoes?

Sorry for asking. SpaceboyCT (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@SpaceboyCT: A notable critic has to say that it is the worst. List of films considered the worst has the membership criterion at the top. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

No need to apologize, we're here to help! If you can find sources that meet the requirements for inclusion, I suggest you go to Talk:List of films considered the worst and discuss the addition there. It looks like there's already a discussion about it at the section titled "The Emoji Movie?". We might need to wait until more publications write about the movie's long-term legacy though, since it probably would have been added already if the necessary sources existed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Citation of Court Decisions

Hello, I have a question about citing court decisions. I understand that Wikipedia prioritizes secondary sources over primary ones and that court decisions are considered primary sources. While I have reviewed the policies on primary sources and NPOV, I am still unsure how to handle the following situation: When secondary sources are limited—such as when none are available, or they only report the outcome without context—how can one provide factual and neutral context without introducing interpretation or synthesis?

Is it entirely unacceptable to quote court decisions, or is it acceptable to quote essential parts of the decision to supplement the reasoning for the outcome? I've seen edits that include quotes from decisions and want to confirm whether this approach complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. Any advice on what to watch out for would also be appreciated.

I appreciate your help. Catworker (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Catworker: you many need to secondary source to say that the person mentioned in the court decision is in fact the one we are interested in, and not someone else with the same name as a notable person. Being a primary source means that it does not add to notability because of existence. If your secondary source only reports the same as the primary, then it is probably not substantial content either, but can be used to confirm facts, in the same way that a primary source could. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you for your responses. They helped me understand the relationship between court decisions and notability. Regardless of the notability policy, I have a follow-up question about the nature of court decisions as sources. I understand that court decisions are verifiable, independent, and primary sources. Is this correct? Catworker (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Catworker You have used good logic. I think your general categorisation is correct. Thus they may be used to verify simple facts, but have no bearing on verifying any notability. There will be exceptions to this. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Depending on situation, WP:BLPPRIMARY might apply. While primary sources have a use, they will not help an argument for WP:N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I've read the WP:BLPPRIMARY policy, but I find it a bit unclear.

The policy says, 'Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source.' Does this mean that if a secondary source only mentions the conclusion of a decision, quoting the essential parts of the decision directly from the primary source to augment the secondary source is acceptable? I also believe this should be limited to straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified according to WP:PRIMARY. Thank you for your kind responses. Catworker (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Catworker, you cut off a key phrase from what you just quoted. That sentence says "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies" (emphasis added). One of the restrictions in BLPPRIMARY is "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." That is, if the text you want to add is about a living person, you cannot use a court decision as a citation, even if your intention is only to augment a reliable secondary source. However, if the text you wish to add is not about a living person, then BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply; instead, the relevant policy is WP:PRIMARY. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Subject: Request for Guidance on Improving My Wikipedia Draft for Sivakumar G

Hello, Teahouse members, I recently submitted a draft for an article about Sivakumar G at Draft:Gsivakumar.sap, but it was declined due to concerns about it potentially being considered an autobiography. Could you please provide guidance on how to revise the draft to meet Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality standards? Specifically, I would appreciate advice on the following: How can I improve the neutrality of the article to ensure it complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines for living people? What kind of references or citations are needed to establish notability, and how can I ensure the sources meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards? Is there a better approach to presenting the information, particularly concerning professional milestones, achievements, and the company's work, that avoids being promotional? Any help or suggestions on how to improve the draft would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time! Best regards, Sivakumar G Gsivakumar.sap (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gsivakumar.sap Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Gsivakumar.sap has been Speedy Deleted as being promotional in content and style. That means that only Administrators can view the deleted draft. Without seeing it, I can state that common errors in writing about oneself (see WP:AUTO) are including content that is true but nor confirmed by independent references (see WP:42) and using non-neutral words and phrases. You can start over, but unless a radical change in content and referencing is made, there is a risk of your account being indefintely blocked. David notMD (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

AND... it appears that in November, using a different account, you created Draft:Sivakumar G, which was Speedy deleted. Tsk, tsk, tsk. David notMD (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Gsivakumar.sap, as an administrator, I could read both of your drafts. Both were self-promotional and neither bore any resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. Self-promotion is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, so please stop. You claim to be a computer expert. Try learning how the #7 website in the world actually works. Read and study our policies and guidelines, especially regarding Conflicts of interest. Pay special attention to Your first article and write about some other topic instead of yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Contributors,

Thank you for reviewing my draft and providing detailed feedback. I apologize for any violations of Wikipedia’s policies, particularly regarding self-promotion and conflict of interest. I now better understand the importance of neutrality, notability, and verifiable independent references.

I acknowledge the issues raised and regret any inconvenience caused. Moving forward, I will:

> Study Wikipedia’s guidelines.

> Avoid self-referential or promotional content.

> Focus on constructive contributions to unrelated topics using reliable sources.

If you have additional recommendations, I would appreciate your guidance. Thank you for your patience and for helping me align with Wikipedia’s principles.

Kind regards,

Gsivakumar.sap Gsivakumar.sap (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

General advice is put in time and effort at improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. And yes, give up writing about yourself or your company. In time, if you are famous enough, someone with no paid or personal connection to you will create and submit a draft about you. David notMD (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear David notMD,

Thank you for your feedback. I now understand the importance of neutrality and the role of independent contributors on Wikipedia.

I will focus on improving existing articles to align with the platform’s standards and refrain from writing about myself or my company.

Thanks again for your patience and guidance.

Kind regards,

Gsivakumar.sap Gsivakumar.sap (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Gsivakumar.sap, stop using ChatGPT or other LLMs to write your responses. It is irritating and counterproductive. This should be a conversation among real human beings, not robots. Cullen328 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Gsivakumar.sap Your new draft Draft:AEITY Systems, about the company you founded in 2024, had been declined for being poorly formatted, promotional, and completely lacking in independent references (as described in WP:42). LinkedIn and YouTube are not independent. Same for social media and the company's website. You have not declared your conflict-of-interest in wanting to write about your company (see WP:COI). Expect this effort to be Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft Review

Hi, can you please review submited draft page Draft:Ledion_Liço 81.26.207.141 (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This draft has been submitted and it awaiting review, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are currently 1,809 pending submissions waiting for review. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok,Thank you. 81.26.207.141 (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

For your information, Teahouse hosts are here to advise, but are not necessarily draft reviewers. As D mentioned, the system is not a queue, so drafts can be reviewed in days, weeks, or (sadly) months. David notMD (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Help regarding Page review

hi there,

Need help regarding a review on this page . have made changes and want to verify, if they look good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ramesh_Prasad_Panigrahi Mitscape (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mitscape! Keep in mind that there are about 1,800 drafts waiting for review, so you can't guarantee that it will be done within a particular timeframe. I'll note that at this time most of the information doesn't have any citations on it, so it's not likely to be approved. Ideally, every claim the article makes should be supported by a citation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The body of Draft:Ramesh Prasad Panigrahi cites no sources. (I wonder where you got all that information?) None of the works listed under "Notable works" is notable in Wikipedia's sense. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Footnotes

User:UDCIDE/usersubpage1tripartite revisited

Footnotes being listed in every section. How do I show them at the end of the article only? The add reference section via <references/>tag has not worked for me. UDCIDE (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I doubt what you have composed is article material, but by putting a references section title at the end and removing all the <references/> the refs are now all at the end. David notMD (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Article unreviewed

Greetings, Teahouse folks. I'm usually the last person to question the article review process, and have a fair understanding of how things work around here. However, I feel compelled to put forward an inquiry. An article I created over six months ago, Palani Falls, still remains unreviewed. I certainly understand it takes time to review the tons of articles that get created regularly on Wikipedia, and that I am not particularly entitled to special attention. However, the article has been sitting idle for six months now, hence the question. If any reviewers here could help me out with this, that'd be great. Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

What has also been sitting for half a year, Dissoxciate, is the allegation that this article depends on unreliable sources. You don't seem to have done anything in response (and neither does anyone else). If you agree with the allegation, then improve one or more of the sources. If you don't, then on the talk page defend your sources, pinging Voorts (whose allegation it is). -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Question on Applying Policies

Hello, I’m sorry to bother you, but I'm still having difficulty understanding the application of WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR to court decisions. If a secondary source only briefly mentions the conclusion of a court decision, is it acceptable to directly quote essential parts of the decision to augment the factual context of the secondary source, as long as the quotes are straightforward, descriptive statements of fact and verifiable?

Thank you for your help! Catworker (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Catworker, welcome again to the Teahouse. I think we'd be able to help much more if you were to give us the name of the article and the changes you plan on making. I don't think it is a great idea in most cases to do so though. Justiyaya 09:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that's a good idea either- it would be your opinion as to what is factual and quoted from the decision, which would be original research. We need a secondary source that does that, we can't do it ourselves. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest on an article I wish to make? Advice please! :]

Hi!!!! I have a wish of making an article for my friends' band BLEACHED.

They wrote, recorded and released their first song earlier this year on a few streaming platforms and although they aren't a significant name in the industry yet, I thought it'd be good to make them an article since I love writing and enjoy collecting information on bands/groups.

Of course I plan to stay fully neutral and factual, and to do this after I gain more experience on here since I'm completely new! I figured I'd as now though for future reference if this would be okay?

thank you!!!! :D Nikkicookie101 (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Nikkicookie101, assuming that the band's name isn't pronounced like "Be ell ee aye see aych ee dee", better to write it "Bleached". (And arguably better to ask about an article about them rather than about one for them.) But let's put aside such relatively trivial matters. Have they, or has their music, been written up at some length in three or more reliable sources, each of the three independent of each other and of Bleached. If so, please (here, in this thread) point us to three. If not, the advice is "Forget it" (at least for now). -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Nikkicookie101. To add to Hoary's comment, you should see WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Your subject has to be notable enough so that they deserve an article. These two guidelines are used to prove that the subject is notable. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Bands are often "too soon" to justify articles. David notMD (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

How to submit page for review

I created a Wikipedia page in my sandbox. How do I submit it for review? NTG2024 (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You have done so. Next time, though, rather than copying the content of your sandbox and pasting it into a new draft, move the sandbox to the new draft. (You will be able to re-create the sandbox afresh.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Permission to upload book cover

I'm making a page about a book published in 1995, available on Amazon and other book sellers. I want to upload a cover image of the book. How do I deal with the question of permission? Thanks BaalH (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@BaalH since the book and its cover is likely copyrighted, you'll have to upload it locally under fair-use. You can do this by going to Special:Upload and filling out a fair-use rationale ({{Non-free use rationale book cover}} for your case). Also note that non-free files are only allowed in articles, so you'll have to wait for your draft to be accepted before uploading and adding it. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks BaalH (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@BaalH: You could try contacting the copyright holder of the book cover (most likely the book's publisher) per WP:PERMISSION and asking if they would be willing to release an image of the cover under free license that Wikipedia accepts. If the copyright holder doesn't want to do that, then the cover most likely can be uploaded as non-free content (which is Wikipedia's version of "fair use" but is more restrictive than fair use) as long as it's being used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; in that case, though, you should wait until your draft has been approved as an article as explained by CanonNi above. As for User:BaalH/sandbox, you're going to need to find better sources that clearly establish the Wikipedia notability of The Scholar's Haggadah: Ashkenazic, Sephardic and Oriental Versions, with a Historical Literary Commentary per WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG for the draft you're working to have a chance of avoiding WP:DELETION. So, I would focus on that now and worry about adding images later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the tip about notability. I'm considering whether I should just add to the author's existing wikipedia page, which I don't think sufficiently explains the import of his work. BaalH (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, BaalH, adding to the author's existing page would be a much better idea. -- Hoary (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked again

A year or so ago it was determined that my appeal against deletion of an article on the subject of my book called Power Without Glory was upheld and things have been quiet since then. Now I see that there has been an edit which is logically incorrect (it now states the book is 'non fiction ... history'). However I see that I am 'blocked' until August 2025. Please could I be advised why this is so and could consideration be given to advising people when and why they are blocked. In this case this is not clear to me and it seems as if it seems as if it might be a malicious response to my successful appeal. I would like the block removed please. Tsrwright (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You are not blocked. If you were, you wouldn't be able to post here. Can you explain why you believe you're blocked? Bishonen | tålk 04:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC).

Fact is I got a message that I was BLOCKED until 25 (?) August 2025 Tsrwright (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Tsrwright: Your account isn't blocked; if it was, you wouldn't be able to use it to post on any Wikipedia page other than your user talk page. There is also no record of your account being blocked in the your account's log. Are you perhaps referring to a different account? Anyway, what seems to have happened is that you've been advised not to directly edit the article Power Without Glory (2015 book) per WP:COI and WP:PAID because you're claiming to be the book's author. So, if you've got concerns about the article, you should be using Talk:Power Without Glory (2015 book) to discuss them. You can make edit requests using the template {{Edit COI}} on the article's talk page and someone will review the request. If the changes you propose are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, they will be made; if not, they won't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Earlier I kept getting messages that I was BLOCKED. Having logged out, changed my password and logged-in again this seems no longer to be the case. Looks like some sort of bug perhaps? Tsrwright (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked again

I get the point about not editing content about my own book and I agree but had overlooked this rule.

However, when I next attempted to reply to the comments above I got a new full-in-the face upper case bold message that I was BLOCKED.

I then logged out and logged in, changed my password, and was able to open this page whereas previously it was telling me I was BLOCKED. Tsrwright (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC). Unless I am missing something I again suggest some sort of bug at work.

You might want to add this to your previous topic with the same title instead of making a new one.

Never mind, done as I was typing this lol Doopliss 👻 (she) | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 07:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

No in-depth sources.

Hello, I would like to know what makes these sources for this article not in-depth? These sources specifically focus about the airport, hence their heading and topic is literally about the airport. Please tell me all about it, thanks. Bollardant (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Bollardant! Welcome to the Teahouse. The concern with the sources is not that they are not in-depth, but that they don't prove that the subject is notable enough according to WP:GNG. In short, what they want is reliable sources that are independent of the subject, that is they are sources not operated or published by the subject of the article, that is the airport. The other thing is that this airport has not even begun its construction, and it will be years before it is operational, therefore according to WP:CRYSTAL, this does not merit an article as of now. Feel free to ask any other questions if you have! TNM101 (chat) 06:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, perhaps I will play the waiting game as for now. Bollardant (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Can I be someone’s mentee?

I am very interested in having a mentor to guide me through Wikipedia. I’ve been lurking here since I was little but I wanted to contribute seriously and be a part of a community. If anyone accepts my offer, thank you so much <3

i know about the adopt a user page, but I don’t know who to pick from there. Doopliss 👻 (she) | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 06:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@DooplissTTYD Do you have the Newcomer homepage activated? You should have a "Your mentor" box there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

How do i properly reference wikimedia entries?

im currently trying to update the long outdated preview version referenced in the GNU Emacs, i have added the current preview version to wikidata[1] but i cant seem to figure out how to update the reference in the infobox Wobbling handshake (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Wobbling handshake It is already updated automatically. For such wikidata-linked values, if you are still seeing the older values, please purge the cache of the article, Page > Purge Cache. – robertsky (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It is now updated, thank you for explaining this to me Wobbling handshake (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi All, If I want to post article on Wikipedia, How may I? How to know my tone.

I have written an article, they have told me its looking like a essay than an article. I have pasted the review below. Please help me to learn more to choose tone

"Hello, Williamoliverhenry! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk)" Williamoliverhenry (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Williamoliverhenry The draft Draft:Mining in Australia: Challenges, Improvements, and Current Threats sounds like you're trying to start Mining in Australia again, but we already already have that article. On WP, we shouldn't have 2 articles basically on the same subject. Instead, improve the existing article if you can. Also the reviewer stated (on the draft page) "This article may incorporate text from a large language model. It may include hallucinated information or fictitious references. Copyright violations or claims lacking verification should be removed. Additional guidance is available on the associated project page.

You also need to check your references, I assume this is because you're using some sort of AI, not actually reading them. For example check your sentences "Australia is one of the biggest mining countries in the world. It is known for having large amounts of coal, iron ore, gold, and other minerals. Mining brings billions of dollars to the country through exports. In 2023, the industry generated about $250 billion in exports, making it one of the largest parts of Australia’s economy." and then check the inline ref you added to that. Nothing of that is on the page you linked, it's just the startpage of... something. On WP, this is not good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I get it.

so to write new article topic should be unique enough that should not be covered before. Williamoliverhenry (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Williamoliverhenry: I would also suggest that you take a look at a few articles on similar topics, especially ones that have been rated 'good' (say, Economic history of Argentina or Effects of climate change), to get a feel for how Wikipedia articles are written. For example, we don't have 'Introduction' section at the beginning (we instead have an untitled lead section, see MOS:LEAD), likewise we don't finish with 'Conclusion'; these are among the factors that make your draft essay-like. And the article title should be as simple as possible (MOS:TITLE).

Articles also shouldn't be written using AI (LLM), which your draft appears to be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright! @DoubleGrazing , Its so kind to get these responses from your side. Williamoliverhenry (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Williamoliverhenry, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think it's more than "should not be covered before" (though that is also applicable). The point is that a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several reliable indepedent sources say about a subject, and very little more. It should not contain any analysis, argumentation, or conclusions, except when it is summarising some analysis, argumentation, or conclusions from a single cited source: it should not even synthesise analysis or arguments from more than one source, or make any attempt to reconcile them - if different sources have come to different conclusions, it should merely state the fact. See original research. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

First Articles declined in review

I recently translated two Articles from German into English and they have not been accepted into the English Wikipedia. I would love to get some help on how to improve on them, as I find the feedback of the reviewer to be very generic and not helpful. Article 1 Article 2

Looking forward to your help, animexamera Animexamera (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You don't specify the drafts you are referring to, but I assume that they are Draft:Otto Bruckner and Draft:Tibor Zenker.

First note that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. As such, what is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. It's up to the translator to make sure that what they are translating meets the requirements of the target Wikipedia.

In both cases, reviewers expressed concern that the sources used are not reliable sources, sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on Draft Decline

Could you kindly provide more details on why it was declined? I want to better understand the issues so I can address and built the page effectively. Hemantlc2018 (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I assume this is regarding Draft:Hemant Mishra. You have not shown that this man meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. You provide some references, but they are not in line with the text that they support. Please see Referencing for Beginners.

You also seem to have a connection with him as you took his image and he posed for you. Please read conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)