Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cassiopeia, 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

New accounts cannot create articles directly?

I was repeatedly admonished for not making an account when I noted I could not make new articles directly. So I registered this account, and it cannot make new articles directly. Instead, I go to a page that tells me to use the sandbox, make a draft, or directs me to other editing topics. When I clicked draft, it asked me several additional questions before "forgetting" the article name I clicked on to start the process. It was confusing and repetitive.

In any event, how does one create an article without going through draft? Apparently, creating a new account is not all that is needed. Definitelynotthatotherguy (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

No, creating a new account, and then waiting four days, during which you make at least ten edits. Then you'll be able to create new articles.

That said, unless you have a solid track record of creating new articles which get accepted, I would advise you not to do this, as you'll be creating a lot of frustration and anguish for yourself and possibly others. ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It would have been nice to have that indicated at least at some point during the process of signing up or trying to create an article. This useful information appears nowhere in these workflows. Definitelynotthatotherguy (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It used to be the case that newly-registered editors could create articles immediately, but it was changed to require autoconfirmed permissions (four days plus 10 or more edits) because a very significant proportion of the articles that brand-new users created in the main article space (directly, as you put it) were, with the best will in the world, of very poor quality. You can read more about the consultation process for the change at WP:ACPERM, if you wish. XAM2175 ^(T) 01:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Definitelynotthatotherguy Do you have a "burning need" to create an article without going through the draft process? If you do wait four days, make ten edits, and then put an article directly into mainspace, it will still be reviewed by New Pages Patrol (NPP). NPP can mark the article as accepted, send it back to draft status, or delete it. David10244 (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It sounded like OP was saying that it wasn't allowing going through the draft process either, just going through various steps and then glitching out. Wombat140 (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct, although not "glitching out" completely, just getting to a point where everything I did earlier was lost and you have to start over. Not entirely deadly by any means, but not exactly noob friendly either. Definitelynotthatotherguy (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, now I know what you mean. Yeah. I ran into this same problem when I was a new editor. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to be auto confirmed first (which is fancy talk for being on Wikipedia for at least 4 days and making at least 10 edits). Also, no one can just make an article and add to the main space (except users with special privileges who review drafts). Almost all articles start as drafts before they are moved to the main space. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

When you are auto confirmed then yes. This happens after 4 days and you made 10 edits. Learn the basic of Wikipedia first.Cwater1 (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

How Can I Publish a Major Text Revision/Replacement with Additional References from The No.25 Squadron RAAF "Talk" Page to the Article Page on en.Wikipedia Webpage without 'damaging' any existing References or Notes

Hi, I request and would appreciate any help or advice as to how I can publish (ie transfer) a proposed major text Revision/Replacement and Additional References from The No.25 Squadron RAAF "Talk" Page to the Article Page on en.Wikipedia Webpage without 'damaging' any existing References or Notes. The proposed major text Revision/Replacement and Additional References have been on the "Talk" Page for several weeks/months now and there have been no adverse comments or corrections so I am hoping they are now ok to publish on the Article Page? Shellac41 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Shellac41, there's a wall of text on Talk:No. 25 Squadron RAAF. It has no header and no other explanation, although you have signed it (multiple times). I infer from your question here that it's your proposed replacement for the article.

I suggest that you add a header, add text saying what the whole thing is, and summarizing the major changes that you've made, and then post a message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history inviting people to take a look and to comment on Talk:No. 25 Squadron RAAF. (Avoid any question or request that would encourage people to comment in more than one place.)

But before you invite people to comment . . . here's a quotation from it (with markup intact):

Equipped with 6 Hawker Demon, 6 Avro Ansons and 3 Avro Trainers it was originally tasked with providing support for the Australian Army and Royal Australian Navy, as well as pilot training.[4] The squadron moved to RAAF Station Pearce near Perth, Western Australia, in 1938.[5]

I don't know what "[4]" and "[5]" are supposed to mean. Perhaps they correspond to the references that right now happen to be numbered 4 and 5 (but whose numbering might change at any time), and perhaps they don't. Please fix these and any other numbers you may have used similarly. -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary for your advice.

1. The "[4]" and "[5]" you refer to are existing reference numbers in the article's existing text and those references' details are already shown below the article.

One of my major concerns is that my new, added references should complement not delete or mix up the existing references such as "[4]" and "[5]" so I left those original numbers in my proposed revision. Is that the wrong thing to do?

2. For several weeks I did have a heading to my suggested changes on the article's "Talk" page which said "Proposed Major Text Revision with Additional References to the "No.25 Squadron - RAAF" Article Page" but I deleted it yesterday because I thought my heading might end up on the article page?

3. I think what you have suggested re posting a message about my proposed revision on the article's talk page is good but others have suggested different approaches (eg do the revision small bit by small bit).

I am now concerned that maybe other administrators will be upset (and maybe block me) because I didn't follow the approach they suggested them, or perhaps even yourself if I don't follow your suggestion?

All the advice and suggestions received are respected and appreciated but they can also have the effect of creating a feeling of risk in selecting just one over others?

It becomes a bit of a maybe 'dangerous' dilemma.

Thanks again and any further comment/advice re the above would be helpful. Shellac41 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

One of my major concerns is that my new, added references should complement not delete or mix up the existing references such as "[4]" and "[5]" so I left those original numbers in my proposed revision. Is that the wrong thing to do?
@Shellac41: Mediawiki software reorders footnote numbers when new citations are introduced (for example, adding a citation before 4 will turn the new citation into 4 and the old one into 5). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.Shellac41 (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

So, how can you add references without damaging existing references? By simply adding references and ignoring the existing references. Any needed numbering (or renumbering) will be done automatically. Very simply:

Assertion.<ref>Reference.</ref>

(I'm assuming, perhaps mistakenly, that you're using the "source" editor.) See Help:Referencing for beginners. This ends with a list of further reading; also digest any of these whose title suggests that it may be necessary/helpful.

If you're doing any numbering yourself, you're doing something wrong. -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Shellac41. I recommend against making massive changes to an article in a single edit, unless you are reasonably sure that the changes will not be controversial. The fact that you have asked at the Teahouse indicates that you realize that your changes may be controversial. So, I suggest breaking your changes down to paragraph sized chunks of two or three sentences, and making them gradually over several days. This method allows other editors to evaluate your additions gradually, instead of being forced to either accept or revert a massive change all at once. Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

See comments on your Talk page and article's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Shellac41, just as policemen can and do arrest people, Wikipedia administrators can and do block people from editing. But I don't remember ever seeing a policeman arrest anyone. Wikipedia administrators don't rush to block people. They (we) are amiable people, unless seriously provoked.

Now, if you want to reuse a particular reference, you first have to name it. Choose a name that's alphanumeric and starts with a letter of the alphabet. So if it's for a reference written by somebody called Morrison, you might choose the name "morrison". Find the existing reference, which might look something like

<ref>Myrtle Morrison, ''Colloquial Old Norse for Jocks" (Grimsby: Jocks and Dummies Press, 2018).</ref>

and change it to

<ref name="morrison">Shirley Morrison, ''Colloquial Old Norse for Jocks" (Grimsby: Jocks and Dummies Press, 2018).</ref>

Now that it's named, you can also use it elsewhere. Here's how:

<ref name="morrison" />

(Again, I'm assuming that you are editing the source.) Pay no attention to reference numbers. Do not attempt to number any reference, because numbering is automatic.

I hope that this makes sense. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary

After all the helpful advice received from yourself and others it might be best I just try to do the revision bit by bit. That way I might get it right but if not any mistake(s) will show up quickly in a small section.

I hope my revisions are not controversial - they are certainly not intended to be. I just wished to add more info about 25 SQN.

As an ex-member of the Squadron for 20+ years I respect the unit and its history and am genuinely just trying to add more historical info to Wiki's article as an 'anonymous' Wiki user.

As a result of doing so, on 6 Nov 22 I did inform the Australian War Memorial (AWM) of an apparent mis-statement of fact on their AWM 25 Squadron webpage. Sometime in the past the mis-statement had also been included on en.Wiki's 25 SQN article page.

On I Dec 22 the AWM Research Centre advised me by email that they had deleted the mis-statement from the AWM's 25 Squadron webpage.

I have "noted" and referenced AWM's deletion of their mis-statement in my proposed Revision of Wiki's article so I hope that will not be regarded by an administrator as being controversial or out of order? Shellac41 (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You should read "WP:Be Bold"! You don't need to ask permission to edit articles, edit away, as long as you follow the rest of the rules it's much easier and more efficient in most cases for you to make edits directly in the article itself. (Yes, you really are allowed to change the article, and the changes you make are instantly live on the internet for the world to see!) Or, if you think a specific change is likely to be contentious, discuss that specific change in the article's talk page first. JeffUK 01:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

How to correct a small error in a .png file?

On the page "Spherical harmonics - Wikipedia", the image file "Spherical Harmonics.png" is almost correct except that the orbital on the far right of the third row (d orbitals) is identical to the orbital on the far left of the same row. I believe the orbital on the far right should be rotated 45 degrees in the horizontal plane, as you can see if you compare that image file "Spherical Harmonics.png" to the image file "Sphericalfunctions.svg" where the orbital on the far right of the third row (d orbitals) is visibly different from the one on the far left. My problems are that I don't have sufficient expertise to correct the image and that I have only edited a wiki page once before for a misspelling of a person's surname. So, I lack experience navigating the wiki page editing process.

I also lack expertise in quantum mechanics to be positive about the correct orientation of that far right orbital other than certainty that it is different from the one on the far right. Somewhere in our community I am sure there is someone who will say "oops, of course it should be such and such", but it would be impolite to fob off the task of correcting it when theoretically I may be able to do it myself. But I would prefer to confer with someone to be sure that the correction is a 45 degree rotation and not a 90 degree rotation. Rendel B. Moshe (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rendel B. Moshe I would suggest posting your observation on the talk page of the image's creator, as, without the software used to create it, the image will be difficult to modify. That talk page is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inigo.quilez.

You might also verify whether others are seeing the same error by posting at Talk:Spherical harmonics-- Quisqualis (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that Rendel B. Moshe (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Rendel B. Moshe: if you're right, and I've understood you correctly, the image could be corrected by mirroring the orbital you refer to, and (more difficult) tweaking the grayscale background near it. I could do this myself. But it would be better and easier to contact Inigo.quilez, who created that image. Maproom (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that Rendel B. Moshe (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the image is correct, you can see that the far right orbital is 45 rotated with respect to the far left one.

I agree that due to the short camera length (strong perspective), the fact that we see the right one from its left and the left one from its right sort of compensate each other and feels like the same. 23.127.162.118 (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That was me, the author of the picture btw. I have recomputed the image with a longer camera lense, the difference between the extreme harmonics is more noticeable now. But I am failing to find how to update the picture in wikimedia. Any help is welcome. Inigo.quilez (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Done, found out how to reupload. The difference is more clear now. Also I uploaded it at 1080p rather than the old 720p, to keep up with the times. Inigo.quilez (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Can I create more than one sandbox page?

I want to do some tests in a sandbox page, but I also don't want to erase nor mix some of the content that's already there, can i actually create a different sandbox via the urls? Such as User:Me/sandbox/2 or User:Me/sandbox/[title]? NotGuyFieri (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you have an unlimited number of sandboxes at User:NotGuyFieri/Sandbox 1, User:NotGuyFieri/Sandbox 2, User:NotGuyFieri/Sandbox 3, etc. Adding a second slash is not what you'd want to do because that makes it a subpage of your current sandbox. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, thank you, but i'm now facing a predicament. I tried making one of those extra sandbox pages and whenever i try to save the article in it, it gives me the "wikipedia Error contacting the Parsoid/RESTBase server" error, what do I do to fix it? It only happens in the other sandbox, the original one is still acting normal. NotGuyFieri (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@NotGuyFieri: Not sure what would cause that error, but I created a second sandbox for you at User:NotGuyFieri/sandbox 2. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude, I've done that (see User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox). — Qwerfjkltalk 22:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Need help on new topic

Hello,

I try to write one topic but rejected, could you please help me how to write a topic in wiki, please find the below details of my topic (which is rejected). It would be good if you can give me a sample or create a sample draft based on my topic. [copyvio article content removed, see below] OrchidPlanet (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I've collapsed the above content.
@OrchidPlanet: Welcome to the Teahouse. The person who reverted you gave you the reason in their edit summary. Find a reliable source (wikis and other user-generated content sites do not count) and please learn to cite properly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tenryuu, @Lettherebedarklight I think the above collapsed section, and also the same stuff on their talk page, are copyvios just like their sandbox was. The source is https://greenplanetwiki.com/do-electric-cars-have-coolant/, which is also mentioned in their TP notice of copyvio. They copied awkward wording and typos verbatim, and the word "copious". I can't revdel myself. David10244 (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• @David10244: see WP:REVDELREQUEST for next time (I have done the request myself this time). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@orchidplanet: this goes against the purpose of wikipedia. wikipedia is not a q&a site. wikipedia is an encyclopedia. lettherebedarklight晚安 06:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@OrchidPlanet In addition to "no Q & A", encyclopedias don't write "let us discuss... " David10244 (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

How do we deal with verifiability of images?

Hi All, I'm wondering if there's an essay or something about this topic already. But I was just pondering this and couldn't come up with a good answer myself. When someone adds an image to an article, often just sourced as 'own work', how do we verify that the image is of the thing that it purports to be of? Taking the last 2 I uploaded: this image, of 'The Farcet Village Sign' [1] is self-captioning and easily verifiable just be looking at it. but this image of the 'Church of St Mary in Farcet' could be any c.12th Century church in the UK [2] (I'm pretty sure it's not, because I remember taking the photo, but it's just an example!) How would an independent editor confirm WP:V when it comes to 'own work' photos of this, or even more specialist or inaccessible things? JeffUK 09:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Basically, the/editor uploader is trusted (or at least unnoticed) until someone sees a reason to question, like [3][4]. I don't know of any essay etc on that, but WP:USERG applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an interesting one. Pictures are, indeed, exempt from any form of verification or citation, because it would clash with copyright. This is almost one for the Ideas Lab. Would it be possible to have citations in the form of "A similar image can be found at...", so the reader could verify that this is the Church of St Mary by comparing the picture to one in a (copyrighted) source?? Not sure... In practice, the answer is that so many people are looking at the images that one hopes errors will be noticed. Elemimele (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Its worth mentioning that Commons has several templates such as commons:Template:Fact disputed which can be used to point out that a file's description is believed by someone else to be wrong. For chemistry-specific issues we use {{Disputed chem}}. In essence, images are challenged via Talk Pages just as disputes over text would be. Nevertheless we have to start by assuming good faith. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion of a similar topic in relation to images of chemicals in bottles, now archived at WT:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive_2020#Images of samples: remove them all vs Assume good faith for those interested. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's an astonishing claim, it should be verified in text. If it it's not, what's the fundamental harm/misinformation propagating? There was a similar discussion about whether to use colorized images of Talk:Wright_Flyer/Archive_1#Colorized_photo Orville and Wilbur's first flight. Images by definition are merely projections/scans/original production. Interesting question for sure ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually the 'harm' question did partly prompt me to ask this. What if instead of a photo of a plane or a church, it's a photo of an 'Entirely edible mushroom' or 'non-venomous spider' for example. Maybe it really is something to consider on a subject-by-subject basis because how we verify an image (and whether we really need to) depends entirely on the subject matter. JeffUK 17:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

In principle, I guess someone could verify that your photo was of St. Mary's Church Farcet by going to Farcet and looking to see whether or not it checked out. A quick look at Google Street View suggests that St. Mary's does indeed look like that. WP:V doesn't require that something be easy for any arbitrary person to verify; if verification is possible by going to some particular public location that's acceptable, whether that be checking the British Library for the only publicly accessible copy of a particular rare book, or going to Farcet to look at their church.

This isn't the only case where this issue comes up – ancient art is a nightmare for this... Have fun verifying that this head is, as the caption claims, "probably from a statue of Sappho by Silanion"! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that either the "harm" nor the "go there and verify" approach really quite answers the problem. Firstly, a lot of our text doesn't exactly do any harm if it's wrong. No one is going to die because we claim the emperor X won a battle in 1200BCE when in fact he lost it in 1150BCE, and yet we are very firm that you must have a reliable source to write it. And yet there's no obligation to demonstrate that a picture of the emperor X's head is indeed him (Caeciliusinhorto is quite right, and I think most cases I've seen of faulty pictures were indeed historical figures depicted in art). And much of what we write about could be verified by someone going there, but we still insist on written verification rather than saying "you don't believe Venice has a lot of canals, just go and visit the place and have a look!". I think this is just an undesirable (hopefully fairly small) problem that's hard to circumvent. It'd be a real pity to introduce verifiability rules and end up losing half our pictures. Elemimele (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Another one: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2022_October_1#Constantine_or_Federico_II_Hohenstaufen? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

OP’s point (presumably) is that Wikipedia text is subject to WP:V which is a default-no policy. You shouldn’t write anything that is not sourced, and if you do, anyone can revert you without providing a counterexplanation. On the other hand, images (or any other kind of media on Commons, really) is default-yes: we assume by default that the uploader checked the accuracy, anyone challenging the image would need to provide some reason for it.

My understanding of it is that Wikipedia and Commons have different philosophies. Commons tries to make free (as in "free speech" / libre) images available to anyone for reuse; virtually every Commons contributor has some interest in copyright/license issues and wants to make the world a more open place. On the other hand, Wikipedia is about writing a free (as in "free beer" / gratis) encyclopedia of quality: contributors there want to make the world a more educated place.

Of course the communities have a lot of overlap both in members and philosophy. Many Commons editors care about the accuracy of the image descriptions, and a good fraction of Wikipedia editors (possibly a majority of active editors?) do care about the licensing of Wikipedia text. But still, verifiability is not a core of issue on Commons - many "artistic" pictures are unverifiable. Adding burdens on uploaders to document exactly when, where, etc. they took a picture would be an unnecessary hurdle to the goals of that project. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 18:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Do I remove unverifiable information?

I was just going through some the suggested stuff and was wondering if I remove the information that has no source or defunct sources. KaleFromp (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, KaleFromp. That depends on the specific circumstances. The information may be verified by a reference that is in another part of the article, and that reference can be re-used. See WP:NAMEDREF. You may be able to find a reliable source through Google or by visiting a library. You can tag the assertion using Template:Citation needed. If you are confident that the information is in error or simply does not belong in an encyclopedia article, then remove it, explaining why. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, KaleFromp. That's a very good question. As you are a very new editor here, I would urge a considerable degree of caution in that approach. It's fine to instantly remove unsupported statements that are clearly wrong, defamatory or libellous. But, until you have gained a little more experience and understanding, I think it would be better if you identified unsupported statements and did one of two things:

Either improve the article by using your browser search skills to go and find supporting sources (and then add them), or simply mark unsupported statements with the {{citation needed}} or {{cn}} templates. They do the same things, and they leave an inline flag like this. This alerts other users to the fact that a statement is currently not verified, and gives editors the chance to go look for such sources. You can discuss concerns about unsupported statements on any article's talk page as well, which gives users the chance to discuss and find refeences. We are a lot more fussy about current edits that add unsupported statements than we are about older, unreferenced content that has been here for many years unchallenged (i.e. added when the rules were laxer). Simply deleting all that content would weaken the encyclopaedia, which I am sure is not what you would want. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@KaleFromp Many older sources from websites suffer from WP:LINKROT so that the URL given in the citation no longer supports the text of the article. In that case, editors should search the upper-level domain to see if the item can be found elsewhere on the current website, or use the Wayback machine to find an archived copy. It is rarely correct to delete the information entirely. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The Booru Project

How imagebooru'es map sources ^.^ on the greater internet makes it a great interest docummenting influence these portals make through offline plus online spaces perhaps even overlapping . Thus far sources actually seem distracted with political uprisings and instability rather than how people stablize friendship or fandom or simply feeling at all exploring these more closed spaces online . If anybody likes , we could gather sources to document and actually hopefully start connecting open spaces of internet culture more than theoretically to these closed spaces . I feel concerned if more to say exists than to cite , neither that an academic grammar exists nor my own self-pwning awareness of any grammars that internet archeologists require for comfort . This little noob lives in quite the little bubble #^_^# Nira gliro (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nira gliro, I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It's probably related to Draft:The Booru Project, somehow. -- Hoary (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The one source cited in Draft:The Booru Project is incoherently written, but does state repeatedly that the subject is a search engine. The draft does not use the phrase "search engine". Maproom (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Uploading an inage in terms of fair use

Hello! I have recently got Jolyne Cujoh into acceptance and the only thing left is to upload her image. I’m planning to one of her illustrations as her image in her infobox using https://jojowiki.com/Jolyne_Cujoh/Gallery as a source, preferably, https://jojowiki.com/File:JolyneParis.png as it not has both Jolyne and her Stand, but also that it is one of the few illustrations I find that has both of them that isn’t in landscape or has those white margins that the volume textless covers have. It’s alright that I could use it, as long as I say it’s under fair use and it is being properly sourced, right? Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lovelyquirks1! Yes, that is an acceptable instance of fair use. You'll want to go to the upload wizard, choose the non-free file option, and follow the prompts. Other editors may come along and help if you don't get it fully right.

What I often do in circumstances like this is look at similar situations. So I clicked on Category:Comics characters introduced in 2000 from your article, made my way to Green Goblin (Ultimate Marvel character), and found File:Ultimate Green Goblin.jpg from there. You'll want the licensing information on the illustration you upload to look similar to what's found there. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright! Thank you! Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Use dmy dates

What is the meaning of use dmy dates template on every article and as a editor on Wikipedia do I have anything to do about it? (should I b updated those dates or something else I wanted to know about that) 456legend(talk) 06:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @456legend! The template you're asking about is {{use dmy dates}}. "DMY" stands for day-month-year, referring to the format more often used in Europe, e.g. "11 January 2023," compared to the American format, MDY, e.g. "January 11, 2023." When the template is applied to a page, it affects mainly how the dates are displayed in references. If you're writing about an American topic, you should generally add {{use mdy dates}}, and if not use the DMY template. Regardless, make sure any dates mentioned in the article body match the format you've chosen for consistency. You can read more at the template documentation if you're curious, but that's basically what you need to know. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much for that 456legend(talk) 16:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Creator

Any suggestions on a reliable company to use to create a personal wiki page? I’ve been scammed a few times. 2600:1700:72A3:860:74C5:EA9:2780:C514 (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, IP editor, and welcome. The Teahouse is a place to get help to edit yourself, not suggest companies to edit for you, so we can't really help out with that. With that being said, it's not a great idea – Wikipedia does not allow self-promotion, and articles have a lot of policies and guidelines that need to be followed. First and foremost is the concern of notability as Wikipedia defines it – it's a strict policy, and if you are not notable no editing or article creating company can make you so. If you are, someone will eventually come along and write about you independently, which is a good thing because it's easier to follow the other policies and guidelines (such as neutral point of view) that way. Anyone connected to you who writes about you has to follow more restrictive instructions outlined in conflict of interest, with stricter still restrictions for paid editors. Sorry to not have the kind of answer you were looking for, but it's designed to be difficult for people writing about themselves or someone they're connected with, because that's not the purpose of the encyclopedia. Best, Perfect4th (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You might be interested to read Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that a large majority of paid Wikipedia editing services are unethical and dishonest, and are little more than paid liars. There are a few exceptions, but they tend to be very expensive and cater to a corporate clientele. If you are indisputably notable, it would be an easy matter to write an acceptable article about you. If your notability is borderline, you are setting yourself up to be scammed over and over again. Cullen328 (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Users trend

hi , I want to know what users trending searches are from wikipedia ,how can i get this information? Meknoah (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

hi @Meknoah and welcome to the Teahouse! the top 25 pages read per week can be found at the Top 25 Report. if you'd like more, tool shows the top 100+. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Meknoah Wikipedia's in-house publication The Signpost includes a review of each week's top ten and you could search back numbers from the page I've linked if you were interested. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Please notice my edit request

Hello to the contributors here in wikipedia! I am a paid contributor for a certain politician and have already settled and disclosed my employer on my userpage. Even though I am not allowed to make major edits for the article I have written and submitted for review, I have tediously followed the policies to avoid violating them and submitted an edit request on the talk page. However, the edit request that I have posted on the talk page of the article was really urgent and I would like to ask for help from the other editors to take notice of it and discuss the edit request with me. Here is the link to the article: Anthony Golez Madona Jace (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Madona Jace Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has no deadlines, so I'm not sure what the source of your urgency is. Your edit request is open and visible- there is no way to speed up the process as requests are fulfilled by volunteers. Please be patient. Note that content can't be based on private documents, and should be based on what independent reliable sources say. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only publish information from reliable published sources. Do you have such a source? Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a picture of an official court ruling that declared their marriage as void ab initio. And since I was not sure if I should post it on wikicommons, I was hoping that a contributor/editor would take notice of my edit request and contact me so that I could give or presenta picture of the said court ruling privately if they needed the source. Madona Jace (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

A photo of - no. Although I'm sure you're telling the truth, "here is a photo of a document which says that a politician's marriage is void!" is the sort of thing that unscrupulous people would abuse. Is the information published anywhere? DS (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

i'm trying to make a wikipedia article about my school but there aren't enough sources.

i want to make a wikipedia article about my school, but there's just not enough information online to provide reliable independent sources! i'm trying to add information about my school to the internet mostly because there's not enough. Ninjaboii (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Ninjaboii Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you cannot find enough independent reliable sources with significant coverage to sustain an article, it is likely that your school does not merit an article at this time. Not every school does. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

i've found articles about far less noteworthy things. Ninjaboii (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Ninjaboii Yes, however, that is not a reason to add more inappropriate articles, please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate things by us; we can only address what we know about. If you would like to pitch in and help us out, you are welcome to help identify other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. With over six million articles, we could use the help. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

well i know this isn't particularly relevant, nor does it have reliable secondary sources. Ninjaboii (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:GEOLAND however states that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Theroadislong (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

oh. Ninjaboii (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

however it still has no secondary reliable sources. Ninjaboii (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You might be interested to read Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ninjaboii, It seems you want to make your school more notable on the web. That's a noble cause, but Wikipedia regards that as promotion, which is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia. Once notability has been achieved (and Wikipedia defines notability very narrowly), only then will Wikipedia be interested in a subject. It is backwards order to use Wikipedia for notabililty, since notability must come first, like a horse in front of a cart. Wikipedia does not put the cart before the horse, although we unintentionally did so in years past, and ,so far, many articles about non-notable subjects remain to be deleted by a careful process.-- Quisqualis (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Ninjaboii, there is no requirement that sources be available online. Perhaps your school library or local public library can provide access to off-line reliable sources about your school. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You can make the article redirect to the town that the school is in.Cwater1 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Page title is wrong

Page title of the following page is wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pearl_Qatar

The correct name of the island is "The Pearl Island" previously known as "The Pearl Qatar"

This need to be corrected on Wikipedia as well. Shamailaijaz (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

As long as the bulk of the sources call it "The Pearl Quatar", that should be the title of the Wikipedia article, by the policy WP:COMMONNAME. If you have independent sources that refer to it as "The Pearl Island", you can make a Requested move to the new title. ColinFine (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Trying to make an article about my own software

It's my own software, of course, so I don't have anything to cite (I can't cite the README file of my own software can I?). It is open-source, but can I just dump in my file and get the article accepted?

P.S. I actually don't have a README file. SolarFlare0601 (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SolarFlare, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the answer is almost certainly No. Please have a look at What Wikipedia is not: in particular it is not for promotion, and it is not a directory. Once several people, wholly unconnected with you, and not prompted or fed information by you, have chosen to write at length about your software in reliable sources, we could have an article about it. (The article would not belong to you, would not be controlled by you, and would not necessarily say what you wanted it to say: see WP:PROUD). Until those sources exist, your software will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article about it will be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

SolarFlare0601 Agreeing with No. Your draft User:SolarFlare0601/sandbox has been declined, and if you resubmit it without references to published content about the software, written by people other than you, expect the draft to be either Rejected or Speedy deleted, the latter leaving no trace of the draft ever having existed. David notMD (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

If you are talking about your own software, you have a WP:Conflict of interest. You should probably read WP:What Wikipedia is not. However, you can request that another editor with a WP:NPOV write the article neutrally, but it would depend on how WP:NOTABLE your software is. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Article declined

Hello, I had submitted my first article on Wikipedia but they declined it to review due to inadequate reliable sources but I had added several references in it but still they ask for more. Now what would be the solution? Here is the link to my article. Mian Arbab Ahmad (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:TIKTING Help Desk & Change Management Software. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mian Arbab, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It is not a place for companies to tell about their products, but an encyclopaedia, which contains neutrally written articles about notable subjects. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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.

Please read YFA, and then look for independent in-depth publications about Tikting: if you cannot find any, you will know that the subject does not currently meet the criteria for notability, and that all and any effort spent on this is wasted. ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mian Arbab Ahmad: Read Wikipedia:Golden rule carefully. You have zero sources in your draft that meet any of the three criteria in the Golden Rule. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

time

how long it takes to publish the article Apadana1401 (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Brand:_Mahram

@Apadana1401 - You have not submitted the draft. This is how to do that. However, before you submit, please read other pages and guidelines, like the notability guide for companies. Please also disclose if you were paid by the company. I do not think your draft will be accepted if you submit it, because it has no references. Articles are based on references to reliable, independent sources. This is called verifiability. casualdejekyll 12:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@apadana1401:

you haven't even submitted your draft yet. but this would never get accepted.

the only reference it has is a primary source that contributes nothing to wikipedia's definition of notability. to show that this company is notable, gather two or three independent, reliable sources that cover the company significant coverage. also, the reference is not correctly formatted. see help:referencing for beginners for how to format references.

another issue: this draft looks like an advertisement. wikipedia is not for advertising your products. remove the product list. marketing language like a favorite with Iranians and Nationwide satisfaction is a testament to this, among many other examples, is not acceptable.

reword your draft to be neutral, fix the incorrect grammar, and add proper references. lettherebedarklight晚安 12:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

But if you write a neutral, well-balanced and well-supported article, the time it takes to get it reviewed at AfC is likely to be anything between 1 day and 4 months at the moment. AfC is operated entirely by volunteers who pick up whatever article they feel qualified and inclined to review, and there is no particular order. But the better-sourced and more obviously "good" your article is, the more likely it is to receive a speedy review. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Article declined

Hello, I have been writing this article about the biography of the artist I know since long and not got approved still. Could you figure out how should I move forward. I would be thankful.

Draft:Sabita Dangol - Wikipedia Artyisn (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Artyisn: Welcome to the Teahouse. By no means am I an AFC reviewer, but as of writing this, references 7 and 8 are cited to the same page on Wikipedia. While a wikilink to the article is acceptable, you cannot use it as a source (due to the encyclopedia's stance on circular sourcing). Removing those two references doesn't address the bulk of the problem, but it will look better for the draft.
Reviewers have also noted that much of the content isn't cited to any source, so please find reliable ones to support it; otherwise it is unverifiable and would contravene Wikipedia's verifiability policy.
There are external links (which have a at the end) in the body of the draft. They shouldn't be there.
Phrases like [...] her artworks are the reality of her inner intuitions and imaginations and [h]er paintings are the results of her inner imagination and her interpretation of the notions do not belong in the encyclopedia's tone, and are at best quoted and attributed to someone. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Tenryuu. I will look after according to your suggestions.  Artyisn (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Artyisn The draft text also contains hyperlinks, which are not allowed. David notMD (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

What's the largest block of text that a single citation can support?

See title. Does each sentence need a citation, or can you use just one for, say, three paragraphs? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 13:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grimmchild: It is best to use several independent sources, but if you use one source for several paragraphs, it is typically cited at the end of every paragraph. —Kusma (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There's more guidance regarding text-source integrity which is relevant. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• There is no "hard and fast rule" but the general expectation is that a minimum of one cite per paragraph is reasonable best practice, even if multiple paragraphs could be cited to the same source, then reproduce that footnote after each paragraph using the WP:REFNAME function. If a paragraph is culled from multiple different sources, some discretion is needed. Sometimes, it's fine to cite all of the sources merely at the end of the paragraph, though for particularly contentious or exceptional claims, you might want to cite at after each sentence. Do keep in mind the "text-source integrity" guidance by Michael; never add information in a way that misrepresents where it came from, or breaks existing sourcing. --Jayron32 19:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's say you a have a paragraph supported by three reliable sources. All you need to do is just put them at the end of a paragraph, and job well done. But ledes usually don't need too many citations, as per WP:LEADCITE, although it confused me when I first started editing. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Article Declined

Hello, I wrote an article covering the biography of an architect whom I think deserves some recognition. I cited all sources I could find but it was not approved still. How can I move forward? I would be grateful for your help. Link to article: Draft:Effiong Essang Dragonkng007 (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dragonkng007: Unfortunately if no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Dragonkng007, and welcome to the Teahouse. Note that "recognition" is very definitely not part of what Wikipedia does. Articles are (only) about subjects which have already been "recognized" to the extent of having been written about multiple times in depth in independent reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources should be independent of the subject, i.e. other people who have no particular connection to him, writing about him because of the impact he's made. Interviews are very high-risk, so the source you've given to support his being "renowned" probably doesn't qualify. The draft also has an external link to his company in the text. External links can only be used in an explicit "external links" section, and not in the text, where they appear identical to Wiki-links, and thereby mislead the reader. It's really hard to write articles about modern architects! Elemimele (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dragonkng007: See WP:NOTPROMOTION. This is a non-negotiable rule. Wikipedia must never be used as a publicity platform. We don't have articles on subjects who are "up and coming" or "deserve recognition". Full stop. A subject must meet notability criteria first to merit an article here. That said, what you have so far looks like a good start. Keep looking for sources that meet the WP:Golden rule criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Mittens (chess engine)

Hello all. I'm back with a follow up question to one I posted yesterday. I'm working on writing a draft (Draft:Mittens (chess engine)) and was wondering if it would be ok to move to article space. As the topic is quite new, I was keeping it as a draft in case new sources come up. Would it be ok in its current form? Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte, the four sources you currently have are mostly from unfamiliar publications, and several may be questionable on reliability. For gaming sites, I'd check here to see if they're listed as reliable or not. The one source that is definitely reliable, The Financial Times, also only mentions Mittens briefly in a few paragraphs. Given this, I think there's a chance the article would be nominated for deletion if you launched it currently, and it might be better to wait for or seek out additional coverage first. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb, the research that I've done on the sources goes a bit like this. Esports.gg isn't listed on the sources list anywhere, dotesports is considered reliable and Joe Posnanski's website, while being a blog, is quite well respected and has been nominated for a National Magazine award. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte, in that case, it sounds like you'd have an argument should the article be nominated for deletion, but it's hard for me to predict how persuasive it'd be. If you expect there to be additional coverage soon, it might be prudent to wait a little. If not, you might as well publish, but just know there's a risk you'll have to defend the notability and that there's not a certain outcome. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'll wait. If no sources come I'll nominate the article for speedy deletion. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The draft claims "The engine is very strong and can beat almost all human players." This is a contradiction. Any respectable chess engine nowadays is stronger than all human players (unless it has been set to play below its full strength). Maproom (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Line has been removed. I was pretty tired while writing the lede :) Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte I think the key question to ask, for internet phenomena, is: How sure can I be that this will still be relevant in a year? Two years? Ten years? And if the answer is "I have no way of knowing" then you should probably wait a few months before checking back. Internet phenomena can last anywhere between two days and two million years and we never know which will be which until it's over. (Examples of "definitely and inarguably notable" internet phenomena would be stuff like Rickrolling, Trollface, etc. But obviously more current stuff can be notable, it just depends on how much it's been written about by secondary sources (cfe. Blue Whale Challenge, despite not having nearly as long-lasting of an impact on internet culture as my previous two examples, caused a pretty long lasting media storm).

I have to imagine that Mittens is some form of Komodo, though whether that's verifiable is entirely beyond me. So what would the article be about? The... character? I don't know.

In general: Wikipedia's been around for 20 years, we aren't going anywhere. One can wait. casualdejekyll 03:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the more in depth answer @Casualdejekyll. I've seen the policy you're referring to before, but your explanation is very helpful. I think the correct course of action for me just now is to wait to see if I can find more references and abandon the draft if I don't find any. No point making people endure an unnecessary AfD. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 08:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• While I doubt this is worth a standalone article yet, it may be acceptable as a section in chess.com. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's a good backup plan, thanks! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Per @Tigraan, it should be merged into the article for Chess.com. It does not seem notable enough on its own, but seems to be notable enough to be part of the aforementioned article, seeing the publicity rounds it has made on social media, particularly the online chess community. Explodicator7331 (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA is still a hurdle to pass, and "doing the rounds on social media" ain’t enough. That being said, I think the esport.gg source makes it over the line (not by much but still). (Disclaimer: I am part of the "online chess community", I have seen the hype, and I entirely agree with Carlsen’s assessment as a "transparent marketing trick", so I am personally biased toward non-inclusion.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I can see that point of view. I just thought that since it is currently a large thing in the community I might try to make a draft just in case. Are you meaning that you think that the article would be on for inclusion standalone or as part of the Chess.com article @Tigraan? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

(I play chess more casually, so the "hype" is probably the main reason I started a draft.) Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Standalone, almost certainly not, and not with the current sourcing. I give the draft less than a 20% chance to survive AfD.

Part of the chess.com article, I would say yes. I could see other people arguing no. I am rather deletionist myself, so if I am OK with some mention, I would expect most editors to be OK too. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Got it, just was a little confused. Might it be an idea to post a notice on the Chess.com talk page? If so, what template should I use? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

References

WordPress as a reliable source.

A new question for you: Is WordPress a reliable source for articles?

If it is not a reliable source, would you both explain and elaborate the reason? What about pages that explain?

Also, what are examples and pages of how reliable WordPress is? Should they be used as a source?

Are you going to research WordPress anytime soon?

Sincerely, 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. According to this list of common sources, WordPress is considered unreliable as it is a blog hosting site. To be considered reliable, a source must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- in other words, someone other than the author(like an editor) reviews what is written before publishing. That does not usually happen with blogs. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@331dot@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I can know and understand, but although an expert or a professional uses this site and publishes articles on WordPress, does that mean they can still be cited as sources since experts can be described as being a masterpiece of working on those posts with good explanations? How though? Were they fact-checked? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. If, say, Neil deGrasse Tyson has a WordPress blog, his blog posts are unlikely to be fact checked before publication. The argument to use it anyway for something about astronomy is that he is pretty good at astronomy. No source is 100% correct all the time. Context matters. If a company or person has a WordPress page as their official website, then that page can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The other thing to consider is that it is rarely (if ever) going to be the best source to use for such information. If Neil deGrasse Tyson says something about astronomy in his WordPress blog, it will only be something which is already published elsewhere first, and in that case, go back to the source! NdGT is not going to be using WordPress to publish his own original astronomy research; such information would be published in reputable astronomy journals and the like. If NdGT is using WordPress to expound upon astronomy facts discovered by others, well, go to the original source! There are a lot of "yeah but, what if..." type hypotheticals involving self-published sources like "expert-written blogs" that look reasonable at a first glance, but fall apart upon analysis. Sure, "hypothetically we can trust it to be reliable enough, but practically it never happens that way" is usually how it goes in nearly all such cases. --Jayron32 19:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Also true. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You do have some good points. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

WordPress can have uses per WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, but it doesn't happen that often. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No, since it is largely user-generated with little oversight. The same goes for Twitter and Substack. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino What about the Blogger and Tumblr?  Are they even good sources for information for facts and material? Why does WordPress lack general oversight and it is user-generated? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Because anyone can use it. There are few guidelines. And -- since you asked -- Blogger and Tumblr are also not reliable. See WP:Reliable sources and WP:USERG. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. I have a blog on Blogger. I write about empirical math, science, engineering, gaming. What I write is reliable as far as I know, but there is no way for you to know for sure. My blog is really just for me to use as a reference to past projects I did and ideas I had. If I ever saw someone cite my blog on Wikipedia, I'd remove the link. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time I need a citation for a statement in an article about (After some quick googling) water... rocketry... what. There really is a blog for everything! Amazing. casualdejekyll 03:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll: You found it? Well, please don't cite it! Actually, 5 years ago I did offer to share some of my work at Talk:Water rocket#New additions: Fins and Predicting Height, but got no response. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Casualdejekyll @Professor Penguino @Jayron32, I got a link to show you, it is this: https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2020/11/why-are-book-to-film-adaptations-always-so-bad

I'm just wondering what I got from the WordPress site. But does this page have correct information and facts? If so, should I cite it? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

According to that website, they are a student-run, student-funded newspaper at the University of California. See WP:RSSM. If you want to cite it for something like "The Lord of the Rings” trilogy is regarded as one of the greatest and most influential film series ever made." you should probably get a better source. Stuff like "There was a lot of potential for “Vampire Academy” to become a great film" is Analissa Nunez opinion, and not very useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If this site was student-run, then what other websites are student-run that are considered reliable by editors? Why was this statement "There was a lot of potential for “Vampire Academy” to become a great film", not useful, although it was an opinion and why it can't be included in articles as sources? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• You can perhaps find more WP:RSSM at Category:Student newspapers if you try. If they're student-run I have no idea, if that interests you, you'll have to do the research.
• See WP:NPOV, and specifically WP:PROPORTION. Why include the opinion of this college student? There may be a good reason, but it's not obvious to me. That something is online does not in itself mean it's good as a ref on WP.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That example is an opinion piece, and generally we don't cite opinions. We make occasional exceptions if the author someone with known expertise or is notable in the field the opinion is about. The author in this case is just some random journalism student expressing an opinion. The article is well written and I agree with some of the opinions, but that doesn't matter. We can't use that as a source for anything, even with attribution. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Another point you have out there, maybe I think that we should try to find a very reliable journalism, if not have an article written in an unbiased view. And there is an article that an author has written without only expressing opinions, then there is a chance I might use it as a source for this part in sooner or later. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 What in those two pages like NPOV are for? Should articles maintain a balance of view? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not seek to maintain a "balance of view", which is to say Wikipedia never tries to give all viewpoints equal weight, rather it seeks to give viewpoints their due weight, as assessed in reliable sources. If all reliable sources agree on something, we report it as-is in Wikipedia's voice. If there is disagreement, but only from unreliable or dubious sources, we don't report it at all. We don't seek to report all possible viewpoints, only to represent as accurately as possible the breadth of what all reliable sources generally say. That's what WP:NPOV means. --Jayron32 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say no, that is because WordPress is mostly UGC and they lack fact-checking information for reliability. Also read the posts from other people have. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:CD9B:1D0E:A169:4C27 (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that is a good one,  others know that this site is user generated and lacks editorial insight for information. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino @Anachronist @Jayron32  And also, what happens if I cited WordPress as a source into articles, will it get reviewed or it will be accepted as a source, although it isn't a reliable source as a blog site? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Given the depth of review you are likely to receive from something like WP:AFC draft review, it is unlikely to be an acceptable source for anything there. I mean, we're being too nuanced and precious about edge cases here. To a first approximation, don't use wordpress blogs as sources. Just don't. If that's the best you can find, it isn't good enough. --Jayron32 16:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The first one you got was draft, but what if I cite WordPress as a source on an article that is not a draft while editing and I just add information from the WordPress blog? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't do that either. As I said, while there are, maybe, possibly a really rare edge case where a WordPress blog might could kinda sorta be reliable... Don't worry about it. If you never ever ever use WordPress as a source, you'll be fine. No one will object. --Jayron32 18:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Always understandable. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32 @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Are you going to answer my recent question? I asked for it above here. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

So, you need to be specific as to what you are trying to say. Are you making an unadorned statement of fact, or are you reporting on the opinion or assessment of something? For example, are you looking for a source to say "The sky is blue" or are you looking for a source to say "Blue is the prettiest color for skies to be?" Are you writing text in Wikipedia's voice, saying something like "Blue skies are the best possible skies" or are you reporting the assessment of someone else "Jane Doe believes blue skies to be the best." The appropriateness of a source needs to be assessed against what is being written in Wikipedia. Be specific. What are you trying to write? Tell us, the EXACT wording you intend to put in the Wikipedia article, and let us know the EXACT source you got for that wording. That's what we need to assess here. --Jayron32 17:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't confuse a "balance of view" with WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. We don't give equal weight to all sides, we give weight in proportion to coverage in reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist That is right. No need to confuse balance of view it with undue info. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Questions re. Proper use of citations

Greetings, I would be most grateful for any direction you can give me on the following: 1) When is it proper to cite a press release? 2) Can a review in a foreign language be cited? If so, must it be translated (it's in Mandarin) and how should that be done? I'm trying to find the best sources for an article on a contemporary American composer & musicologist who has given master classes and had his work performed in other countries. He's had some reviews in the NYT but more recent & thorough in foreign press. Also, is it ever proper to use an article by him on JSTOR or should it only be reviews/articles about him? I want to use references appropriately. Thanks for your assistance. Trouver (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Trouver. Press releases can never be used to establish notability, and have very limited use on Wikipedia. In my opinion, they can be used for non-contentious factual assertions, like the name of a newly appointed corporate CEO or a business moving its headquarters. That assumes that the company in question is already well-established as notable. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Trouver: Thanks for stopping by to ask this question. First of all, press releases are usually of limited utility. They are generally only suitable for information about the person or organization who wrote the release itself and not for information about third parties; and even then only if the information is not "unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". If you read the link, you'll see the Wikipedia guidance on when to (and more importantly when NOT to) cite self-published sources like press releases. 2) Sources in foreign languages are fine, so long as they meet the other hallmarks of reliable sources. If both English and non-English version of a source exists, it is of course preferable to cite the English one, but if no English source exists, so long as you faithfully represent what it says, you can use non-English sources. There's some more guidance at WP:NONENGLISH. Using sources by the subject of an article is fine for direct quotes, paraphrases, or simple biographical information (like the subject self-reporting their birthdate or something like that), but those sources while of some use for providing information, don't contribute to a subject's notability, which is primarily assessed by what other people have written about a person, not what they write about themselves. I hope this all helps! --Jayron32 19:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Cite press release may be of interest. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I might be able to use it since it comes from the US State Department and is about performances and talks the composer (Fulbright scholar) gave in Argentina, and I saw the link about citing press releases, but I will certainly not use it to establish notability, only to note those particular performances/classes, etc.Trouver (talk) Trouver (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

How to volunteer to a WikiProject

See title. I'm trying to join Wikiproject Disambiguation, and I looked at some online instructions,

(https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/wikidata-professional/wikidata-wikiprojects/joining-a-wikidata-wikiproject)

but I didn't see the "Add yourself to the list of participants," button, so I don't know if it was changed, or if it's different. Either way, I just want to know how to join it. AugustusAudax (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Try here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Participants Uporządnicki (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Edward Hayter

Next discussion : WP:TEA#Reliable sources

FYI

 – Unlinking and changing the heading title, and leaving a courtesy link below due to technical issues with links. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Edward Hayter

Hi i would like to have some help to be able for the draft to be approved as it doesnt meet the criterias of reliable, independent,... Veganpurplefox (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Remove all hyperlinks from the text. If the content has value, then the URLs can be used as properly formatted references. I am not saying this makes the article meet notability criteria, as many of the hyperlinks are just in-name-only mentions of Hayter, or a sentence or two as part of the review of the work he appeared in. David notMD (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you copy paste one of the hyperlink or explain which are hyperlink, I'm not sure to know what these are?

There are currently four, Veganpurplefox, in the (short) lead alone. One of them appears right after the very first sentence. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hoary Are they the little [ ] ? Where it says <ref>? Not talking about the big [ ]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 02:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Markup error fixed -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox: Welcome to the Teahouse. Hoary is referring to the links that are followed by a , which should not be in the body of a article or draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Tenryuu thank you, but do you have any advices on how to remove them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 03:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Veganpurplefox, I quote Cabrils: "the references are not formatted correctly; and still include many that are not considered reliable, including blogs, private company websites and social media, which all should be removed." References to blogs, private company websites, social media, and miscellaneous other junk: delete. References to reliable sources: surround each with <ref> .... </ref>. But before you do this, ask yourself if this man clears one of the criteria for notability. If he doesn't, you're just wasting your time. -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hoary hank you, u have made the changes for the  ! What are considered blogs and private company websites? I have removed the social medias link such as Instagram and imbd, but I'm so confused for the others as they don't appear on the list of what links are reliable or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Veganpurplefox-- please consider Hoary's very experienced advice: "But before you do this, ask yourself if this man clears one of the criteria for notability. If he doesn't, you're just wasting your time." No matter how reliable the sources are, if the subject (Hayter) doesn't satisfy the notability criteria, the draft will not be accepted. You ask "What are considered blogs and private company websites?": please see this definition of a blog; and a company website here means the website of a company like models1, or (relevantly) sites that are not mainstream news publications. We encourage new editors to jump in and participate on Wikipedia, but you do need to do some research and learning yourself too-- please see this helpful page WP:10SIMPLERULES. All the best with it! Cabrils (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils , thank you for the précisions. Us, fans, are starting to discover him with his role in the will series as his character was really close to Jamie Campbell Bower's character. He may not yet meet the criterias but I'm not giving up on him. It may take another few weeks or months to have more reliable sources and more known work but I want to improve the changes to make it better so when I have more content and good reliable sources when I'm sure he meets the criterias ill resubmit, weather its in a few months or years! I don't want to do the work fast, I want to take the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

References

References disappearing from new page

Hi

I'm adding a new wikipedia page and when I put more the 2 references in, one of the already inserted references disappears. How can I include 3 references without this happening?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:John_%27Jack%27_O%27Dea&action=edit

Please reply to mobile view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annegabemerk (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Anne Annegabemerk (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Annegabemerk! I'm seeing three references at Draft:John O'Dea. I'm not aware of any bug that happens as you describe. I'd try again if needed, and if it persists, take note of exactly what you're doing so that you can describe it in miniscule detail. That way, someone else might be able to replicate the issue and work toward fixing it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I worked out what I was doing wrong (forgot to publish!) Cheers Annegabemerk (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization request

Would someone please capitalize "constitution" in the title of Slavery and the United States constitution. Someone told me that I can do that by performing a page move (WP:MOVE), but I don't know what that means. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, "move" in this context means "retitle". Perhaps you're too new to English-language Wikipedia to have the "move" option. If so, you'll very soon have it. You presumably want to capitalize it in the title for consistency with capitalized "Constitution" within the article -- but it was you who capitalized the word within the text, and I'm not sure why. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Chunk struck through -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hoary The reason that I capitalized "constitution" within the text is that it should be capitalized. "United States Constitution" is always capitalized. I've been editing English-language Wikipedia for five years, and I've never seen the "move" option. Please elaborate. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus:. A string starting with "WP:" is usually a shortcut for a Wikipedia page. It's often made clickable like WP:MOVE but otherwise you can enter it in the search box to see what it refers to. We usually explain more for new editors at the Teahouse but you have 8300 edits so I think it's good if you learn how to look up shortcuts and make moves on your own. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, yes, you've been editing for five years. Sorry for my (odd) mistake above. -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, I removed some of your capitalization. "United States Constitution" is a proper noun because it refers to one specific document and should therefore be capitalized. The word "constitution" by itself, on the other hand, is not a proper noun and can refer to many such documents. It should not be capitalized.

A more important issue is that this is an exceptionally inadequate and poorly written article about a very important topic. Here is an entire book about the significance of slavery in the drafting and ratification of the constitution. Staughton Lynd published a book of ten essays about the topic. There is massive literature about the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments which were intended to end slavery. I would submit that expanding the article is a more important issue than capitalization of letters. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@talk I reverted your change and explained that "constitution" referred to "United States Constitution." It is in effect is an abbreviation for "United States Constitution."

The first sentence of your second paragraph is absolutely right. A recent book on the subject is The Crooked Path to Abolition: Abraham Lincoln and the Antislavery Constitution, by James Oakes. It shows that the Constitution of 1787 (that is, before the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments -- and "Amendment" should be capitalized when referring to a specific amendment) can be read as both pro-slavery and anti-slavery, which is something the Wikipedia article does not mention. I'll work on this when I have a chance. But correct capitalization is important, and it is not in competition with expanding the article. Maurice Magnus (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We capitalize proper nouns. We do not capitalize common nouns. The distinction is clear. Common nouns are not abbreviations. "USC" would be an abbreviation, but it is never used.Cullen328 (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

PrimeHunter and Hoary Thanks. I learned something today, and I made the edit. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Trying to edit name in reference, but don't know how

Hi I am trying to edit an incorrect name on a reference list, but when I select edit, it won't let me type the change. It looks like the reference list was added as a whole, rather than each individual entry. 98.11.130.155 (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to look at it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's suppose you notice something wrong in a reference from the section "Literary success" within the article "Louisa May Alcott". The reference of course appears under the header "References". However, you can't edit it there. Instead, you need to edit it within the section "Literary success". (If the reference is called from "Literary success" and also from one or more other sections, there's a complication -- but don't worry about this [not-so-great] obstacle until/unless you encounter it.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary (talk. As you no doubt know, the same reference in different sections can be repeated in different sections, with different footnote numbers. But I once asked at Teahouse how to repeat the same footnote number throughout the article for the same reference, and, on 8 August 2022, I received this reply: The procedure is called named references. The full reference is defined and named once, and then a very brief reference tag is used elsewhere. Please see WP:NAMEDREFS and try it yourself. Cullen328 (talk) Maurice Magnus (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Maurice Magnus, I'm aware of all this. (And of Template:Rp as well.) I presume that adding Cullen328 as coauthor was merely a slip; you may wish to strike out that signature. -- Hoary (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The editor was quoting (and attributing) an answer I gave at the Teahouse last August. I am not sure why that answer was repeated here, since I see no evidence that the OP was asking about named references. I could be wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Approval of the draft

Please could you share the required format of the draft to be submitted for the Wikipedia for our page? 124.40.246.231 (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, hmmm, to the degree to which a format is required, it would depend on what your page is for. Is this perhaps a page for your company? Either way, please identify this page, so that people on this page can better answer your question. -- Hoary (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia hosts are not mindreaders. You need to mention the precise name of the draft in question, if you hope that we will offer any useful advice. Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I can third the inability to figure out what draft is being discussed, though that IPs contribution history is quite interesting otherwise. casualdejekyll 20:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello

I would like some tea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.109.128 (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP user, sorry the name misled you but this is not the correct use of the Teahouse. If you have a question about contributing to Wikipedia, feel free to ask it here. Thanks —Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 04:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Tea for you David notMD (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Uh sorry, Just wanted tea... 203.211.109.128 (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No need to shout 203.211.109.128 (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The tea is served for you! 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Me too, the tea is good for you and it tastes sweet and refreshing. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:CD9B:1D0E:A169:4C27 (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea...

Sometimes the waiters (hosts) here may be busy serving other customers, but I think ensuring those who seek a cup of tea from us are offered one is a really nice touch. I hope the IP editor enjoys theirs. BTW, Harobouri, we also have Teahouse welcome templates that can be left for individual users which provides them with a nice friendly cup of tea and some useful links. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Nick, This IP user was Me, I got locked out for the moment. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to tea anytime, my friend! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@BloxyColaSweet Always glad you enjoyed some tea! 204.129.232.191 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Quicker way to asses articles on wikiproject talk pages?

Most of my edits since 2 days ago have been assessing wikiprojects on talk pages. Is there a quicker way to do it like a tool? It takes a long time manual. Most of my assess are United States articles.Thanks.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 05:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld: Welcome to the Teahouse! Have you tried Rater? It's not perfect, so you can't blindly just accept its suggestions, but I find it helpful. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, I presume it's really mw:ORES that is inaccurate (sometimes), and Rater just uses that. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

YouTube as a source

Hey guys, I'm just wondering if YouTube can ever be used to establish notability? For example, a musical artist that receives very little media fanfare but is "reviewed" by popular YouTube music reviewers in videos that receive hundreds of thousands of views. Are there any circumstances, even unrelated to my scenario, where YouTube can be used to establish notability? Secondarily, what makes a YouTube video a reliable source? Does it have to be an official organization, i.e CNN? I've looked through perennial sources and a few other pages but have come away still confused regarding this. 2600:4041:43F2:E500:D15:6B8E:8A29:5543 (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

hi ip user and welcome to the Teahouse! the short is that Youtube can only ever be used to establish notability if it's from the official channel of a news organization or anything that is a reliable source by itself, where the youtube channel would be considered the same as that organization. for example, the official channels of say, Reuters, the Associated Press, or even say, IGN and Rolling Stone (at least for cultural topics, not political ones) are typically acceptable as sources to prove notability.

while the opinions of professional YouTube music reviewers such as Anthony Fantano may be used, they cannot be used to establish notability - meaning you'll have to pack reliable sources first, usually from the media. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous contributor. Melecie is correct above. Let me see expand a bit. YouTube is not a source, so do not think of it that way. YouTube is a platform that hosts videos. Most of those videos are glaringly unreliable, but a relative few that are hosted on the official YouTube channels of reliable media organizations are considered reliable. So, asking whether YouTube is reliable is like asking whether The Internet is reliable or whether a Google search is reliable. You need to do a serious reliability assessment of the very specific narrow source you propose to use. Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Foreign Language Page => English

There's a person who has a page in Hebrew and but not English. I was thinking of making an English one for her. Is there a process for this? Some sort of guidelines or protocols? Or I start it from scratch as if the Hebrew page didn't exist? MaskedSinger (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

hi @MaskedSinger and welcome to the Teahouse! no, you don't need to start from scratch, you can translate the existing Hebrew article to English. you can find guidelines for this over at Translation. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! MaskedSinger (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger First, satisfy yourself that the person meets the requirements of WP:N. Then see guidance at Wikipedia:Translation. IMO, start it from scratch is a good idea, you can use the WP:RS you found at he-WP, if any. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

They do satisfy it. I will go there and see how to proceed. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess I was trying to push true (living truth) NPOV  :-)(-:

Why was my last thread archived ? and talk redlinked ? 203.87.76.150 (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I also note 203.221.94.192's contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.76.150 (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It was user talk page thread. This is the wrong place to ask about it. Users are allowed to delete or archive almost anything from their talk pages. I assume that user:FunIsOptional had no interest in continuing your thread, but you would have to ask that user. Meters (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your "talk" is redlinked because no one has started that page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

On 12 January 2023, your first day editing as an IP, three of your five edits were on FunIsOptional's Talk page, since archived. I strongly suggest you cease pestering that editor and find useful things to do for article improvement. David notMD (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

New Article

Hello.

I am new to this and have two articles ready which I would like to submit.

Both are fully referenced and pre-edited by myself with assistance from others close to the source subjects. However, one of these articles (Wandsworth School Boys' Choir) would be duplicating asingle paragraph section contained within an existing Wikipedia larger article (Wandsworth School). The new article has greater detail and citations. How do I go about submitting this 'replacement' as a new, separate article in its own right?

Many thanks,

Chris Chris Tingley (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Chris Tingley Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts may be submitted via Articles for Creationo. You may explain on the talk page of the draft that it is meant to expand on part of an existing article. Depending on how closely you worked with people associated with the subject, you could have a conflict of interest. Please review that policy(using AFC would be appropriate if you have a COI). 331dot (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, welcome and help, 331dot. This is greatly appreciated. I have sat on these articles for over a year as I have never quite had the time to study the complexities of submitting an article, until now!

I note your conflict of interest point. I was a member of The Wandsworth School Choir in the 1960s. The choir disbanded when the school closed in 1986, so it is difficult to see how there could be a 'conflict of interest' at this time, almost 40 years on. Further to this, I have been most careful to involve 'alumni' in order to substantiate elements of the article and this includes the only surviving Headteacher of the school. I have also been most careful to avoid anything of a subjective nature and have avoided citations from sources which I have been unable to substantiate from a reliable source. As these articles would be adding to 'the sum total of human knowledge' would any of what I have outlined be considered a conflict of interest? What would I need to do to show 'independence'?

Many thanks.

Chris Chris Tingley (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Chris, and welcome. Adding to what 331dot says: "with assistance from others close to the source subjects" is a red flag, even apart from the likely conflict of interest. If their assistance has been in helping you find independent published material about the subjects, that's fine. But essentially nothing from their knowledge or experience of the subjects is of any relevance at all in creating the articles. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine.

This is greatly appreciated. I have replied to 331dot (above) regarding the 'conflict of interest' part. I will go through both articles again but I am sure that anything which was subjective was removed at a very early stage. Similarly, the article was put to others for comment and authenticity and suggestions.

I consider that I have been objective throughout and any sycophantic elements avoided from the start. Both articles are well evidenced through sources which includes record company releases and discographies, publishing houses (mostly music), orchestra discographies, festival and broadcasting archives, and Awards websites such as the ' Grammys', etc.

Thank you again. Please do come back to me if you are able to help me further. This is so greatly appreciated.

Best wishes

Chris Chris Tingley (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Wandsworth School has a paragraph about the choir that uses five references. When you create your draft using AfC, your Edit summary should acknowledge that you are using content and references from that article (sourcing, even copying, within Wikipedia is allowed as long as acknowledged). There would be no harm in mentioning on your User page that you were a member of the choir in the 1960s. David notMD (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Plant Use and usage project

Hello :)

There is this project http://uses.plantnet-project.org to categorize usage of plants. But it seems like a one man project and I would like to known if there is project like this one in wikipedia ? I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants but I don't see anything specialized in plants usages.

I can find disparate information like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicinal_botany which is deprecated or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_fixation. But I can't find a project that aims to centralized and organize this kind of information in wikipedia and link the information on the plant page.

So if someone know about such project in wikipedia I will be very interested to know o/

Thanks ! :) Haymillefolium (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Haymillefolium Wikipedia has nothing which equates to the website you refer to. Do you wish for the English Wikipedia to incorporate something similar as an article? If so, you may wish to ask at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants page.-- Quisqualis (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

My page is not alive yet?

I made a page named Amjad Sabri by Saleha. But its not showing on wikipedia main page? SalehaNaveedRoots (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Drafts are not visible in main space nor found by outside search engines such as Google. The next steps would be to improve your draft Draft:Amjad Sabri by Saleha and then submit it to WP:AFC for review. David notMD (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

See Qawwali for many examples of successful articles about Qawwali singers. These can be models for your effort. Note that all have references. David notMD (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@SalehaNaveedRoots - You have created a Draft. Drafts do not become Wikipedia articles until they are accepted by an AfC reviewer, so you'd have to submit your draft first. However, I believe that right now you should not submit your draft, because articles on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable, independent sources. Additionally, as part of our notability guidelines, we only accept articles supported by multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. This serves as a way to make sure that articles on Wikipedia are only about subjects that are widely-known and globally relevant. casualdejekyll 13:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Previous discussion : WP:TEA#Draft:Edward Hayter

hi, my question is on the draft Draft:Edward Hayter. It says there are non reliable sources such as blogs and private company websites références. I'm not sure which ones are considered as non reliable as they don't appear on the list of reliable sources. I'd like to have examples from the ones I added. Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

SO MUCH of this needs work, mostly removing content and refs. The refs are almost all URLs rather than preferred format. Much of the content is describing details from work (plays, movies) that he was in, which is not ABOUT HIM, while the refs themselves are often just a confirmation he was in the cast. Can you identify at least three references that are to content - at length - that is about him? Not counting interviews, which Wikipedia does not count toward establishing notability. Basically, cut, cut, cut, and see if there is a kernal remaining of content that establishes his notability. David notMD (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, content such as this has no value: "In 2013, he appeared in Alexandria which is about queer representation in Alexandria. It was created by Peter Cant & Krzysztof Honowski, they were inspired from the words and life of the gay Greek poet Constantine Cavafy and the gay British poet of the cinema Derek Jarman. Through their words they (Krzysztof and Peter) thought forward to the present day and to the contemporary condition of intimacy through image and how it is not enough."

@Veganpurplefox - A common trap that new Wikipedians such as yourself fall into is relying on lists such as WP:RS/P to be their only determiner of reliability. While these lists are useful tools, ultimately, it's important to learn how to recognize a reliable source yourself. (The help pages aren't very good at explaining it, to be honest.) A reliable source must:

• Be published (i.e. publicly available)
• (If it's a newspaper/journal) Have an editorial policy / editorial board that issues corrections. (A reputation for accuracy is often an acceptable substitute, but use caution.)
• (If it's a book) Be published by a publisher with a significant editorial contribution, that fact-checked the book before publishing
• (In general) Not be self-published. Reliable sources must have or have had some sort of editor or quality control process.

It's honestly not easy for a beginner. The page at Wikipedia:Reliable sources describes this all in more detail. An easy rule of thumb, though - if you can't find evidence that more than one person was involved in the production of the source, then it is almost definitely unreliable. Additionally, sources that are associated with the subject of an article are not reliable for the purposes of that article. casualdejekyll 14:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, WP:ABOUTSELF can have some use, but it doesn't help with WP:N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I have made a lot of changes and looking for more notable sources to then improve more of the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 16:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If he appeared in magazines, how do I add it if its a physical source and not an online source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 16:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Like you should an online source, but without a weblink, see WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references as more than a bare link. In this case, Template:Cite magazine can be used. If you mean that he has written in magazines, it's not that interesting, but if they write about him, it can be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you for the advice, I was able to Cite the magazine! Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a problem with citing a second magazine, and yes i meant that he was both on covers and they talked about him. I added : cite magazine

| last        = Life

| first       = Sphere

| date        = October 2020

| title       = Fall Order

| url         = {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)

| magazine    = Sphere Life Magazine

| location    = United Kingdom

| publisher   = Sphere

| access-date|= October 2020

But it ssays empty citations and even with the link you gave me I am not able to find what's wrong Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Veganpurplefox. "First" and "last" are for the author of the article: if there is no author credited, simply leave them blank, or leave them out entirely. Similarly, if there is no link, then simply leave out the "url" parameter. Leave out the access-date as well, as that is really for online resources (which can change over time, so it's important to know when the version being cited was current). Page number(s) would be a good addition. The publisher appears to be "Sphere Media", and their location is London.

However, I have some doubts as to whether what they publish is independent. Their media pack says on page 11 The SPHERE online team creates content according to your brief. Written by the SPHERE editorial team, your native article sits seamlessly within the editorial framework. Your campaign will include online & social amplification for maximum visibility and engagement with our users (emphasis added). This seems to say that at least some of the content is advertising dressed up as articles - I can't tell whether it is all of that sort, or whether there is genuinely independent material as well, but I would be suspicious of it as a source. ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you i will make the changes! Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

how i place an name

dear sir/mam,

I want to place an writer name in list of List of Indian writers page... how can i do this? Pulakit Sharma (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Pulakit, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is, by

1. Determining that the writer meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If the necessary sources do not exist, then give up the idea.
2. Writing an acceptable encyclopaedia article about the writer (or persuading somebody else to write it). See WP:YFA if you would like to try.

Unless both these steps are completed, their name cannot be added to the list.

If this is about Yash Tiwari, you should also read WP:BACKWARD. ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sir, I have a curiosity that it is not necessary that every person has a Wikipedia page already created. In this case, if a person does not have a Wikipedia page, can he not be listed? The second curiosity is that in the beginning even many big names would not have Wikipedia pages, so was there a need to create a page first to list them? And if so, how were they verified in Wikipedia, if they weren't their internal link. Pulakit Sharma (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

See Stand alone lists, and Write the article first.

In the early days of Wikipedia we were not so careful about following policy as we are today, so Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of articles which should be deleted, and thousands more which should be moved to Draft space to get improved before they are admitted to the main encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, since this is a volunteer project where people work on what they choose, this does not happen very much, so we continue to have thousands of seriously substandard articles that mislead people into thinking that our policies don't matter. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Translation of Articles

I just translated an article from Russian into English and it is currently a draft. How do I publish it and make sure it is connected to the other versions of the article in other languages? The article is User:Pianolettuce/Alyona Shvets if that helps. Thank you so much! - Pianolettuce (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pianolettuce: Look in the left sidebar of any article (including your draft) and you'll see at the bottom a heading called "Languages" with a gear icon to click on. That allows you to specify links to the same topic on other-language wikis. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pianolettuce, you can put {{subst:Submit}} on top of your draft and wait for someone to review it. OR you can WP:MOVE to mainspace yourself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I believe I moved it, but when I try to find it, it doesn't come up. If I go to Russian Wikipedia, there is an option in the languages bar to click on English version and it works. How do I make the article able to be seen without going through Russian Wikipedia? Thank you again! - Pianolettuce (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Azevedo

Hello! Would someone have the time to read the following draft [5] and let me know: 1) which sources are not acceptable (according to Horse Eye's Back) in Life and Work sections (ref. 1 to 10), and why they are not; 2) which parts of the article are promotional (according to Horse Eye's Back) and should be removed? Thank you very much, Manamaris (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: FYI. GoingBatty (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Manamaris. I recommend that you remove the mention of the USA Best Books 2011 Award. That is a vanity award with zero credibility. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

CLARITY: Manamaris created Draft:Mateus Soares de Azevedo in August. Horse Eye's Back deleted large amounts in September. Hamza Alaoui reverted those deletions in October. The draft has not been submitted to AfC. David notMD (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, David notMD. I did not create a draft for Azevedo but an article. In September Horse Eye's Back deleted a large amount of text and added 2 tags (notability + promotional). In October Onel5969 moved the article to Draft, where it is now. Hamza Alaoui then reverted HEBack's deletion, probably so that reviewers of the draft can base themselves on the original version. I regret that HEBack did not want to be more explicit [6], it would probably have allowed me to correct what needed to be corrected. Your User Page mentions that you are a "new editor Mentor": could you help me by answering my 2 questions above? Thank you,--Manamaris (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

David notMD, I didn't see that Quisqualis has worked on the draft just before I wrote to you. Sorry! --Manamaris (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Quisqualis, thank you very much for having taken the time to correct the draft, and for your suggestions. --Manamaris (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

submission rejected but unclear why

Hello, my submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Or_Hen) was declined for not meeting any of the eight academic-specific criteria. However, the person I wrote about is an APS Fellow, has several international awards, and holds an academic chair at MIT, which meets more than one of the required criteria. There are also subjective achievements like impact on the field, but just these 'factual' achievements should allow the submission to go forward. What am I missing? 18.10.70.75 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Tagging @TheChunky, who declined that draft.

@18.10.70.75 - The draft says that Hen is an APS Fellow, yes, but it doesn't appear to have a citation for that statement. Verifiability. "Associate professor" doesn't sound like it would be a criterion-5 applicable chair, but I'm not knowledgable about the area, myself. casualdejekyll 20:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not unusual for professor articles to be turned down initially at AfC even when notablity is clearly in the article. The academic criteria are complicated and most reviewers are not as familiar with them as they should be to review such articles. There are reviewers who check such articles specifically and will see it. The awards section should be limited to the significant ones; leave out early career awards. Awards are better in prose than in a list, and use sources from the APS rather than press releases for the APS Fellowship and Friedman prize to include quotes of the citations that accompanied the awards. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts in contributing to Wikipedia 18.10.70.75. We understand that the subject of your draft article may be notable and may also pass WP:PROF, but unfortunately the "Early life and education" section had only one source at the beginning sentences and the whole section was unsourced. Additionally, the "Research and career" section also had many unsourced pieces of information. In order to have your draft accepted, it is important to include reliable sources for all of the information included in the article. We appreciate your understanding and look forward to seeing your improved draft in the future. Thank you.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

"Class of 1956 Career Development Associate Professor of Physics" is not an academic (endowed) chair. David notMD (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant and baseless opinion

Some input on this would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, M.Bitton. This appears to be a content dispute. DR contains the suggested steps to follow, which do not include calling for input from whoever might happen to be visiting the Teahouse. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, DR doesn't really work when dealing with a passing IP. I'll try something else. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft Tips

Hello, all. I have been working on an article draft for quite a long time in my sandbox, and recently created a new draft for it. I didn't want to send it for admin review just yet, and wondered if anyone had some tips on how it could be improved -- I want it to be in good shape when I submit it for review! Professor Penguino (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

What about the expansion tags under "Overview" and "Further Reading"? Those sections could use some expansion. Tails Wx 00:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add to those in a little bit, I'm just sort of busy with some other things. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI, I put in those tags. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Professor Penguino, you should remove mention of Goodreads because it is not a reliable source. See WP:GOODREADS. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I yanked Goodreads. Wonder if there have been any reviews by academics anywhere (e.g. Britain, Kenya) Quisqualis (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thanks for the heads up! Professor Penguino (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Professor Penguino, not a response to any question you ask, but you're likely to find Template:Rp increasingly useful as you develop this draft. -- Hoary (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

independent sources?

Was trying to make a new article, it got declined because I didn't use independent sources. I think I understand what that means, but in this case I cited the website he had been hired at. The sources weren't in English, so I would get the misunderstanding, but I just wanted to ask if that was right..? Konorobi (talk) Konorobi (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Konorobi, you submitted Draft:Tõnis niinemets. Let me quote its text, in its entirety: Tõnis Niinemets (born October 10, 1987) is an Estonian actor and TV presenter. Niinemets is an actor at the Estonian Drama Theatre. That's it. That's all. There's no more.

As for "[getting] the misunderstanding", I quote your user page: you'll probably see me on Swedish and Estonian pop culture articles but i don't actually speak Swedish/Estonian so you may see some mistakes.

I suggest that you limit your activities here to subjects that wouldn't require an understanding of sources in Estonian. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone failed to give credit

Hi, so a while ago I made a diagram for the Electron paramagnetic resonance article, which I hand drew and uploaded to the commons here. Later someone made a much better version of the diagram which they uploaded here but no credit was given to me at all for the original diagram which this was based on. Is that normal for Wikipedia or should they have included a reference to the original image? Thanks for your help! EvilxFish (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Any reuse of Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons requires attribution, by the terms of the re-use license. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. You may want to encourage that user to note the attribution on the new image page they created, although you could add the attribution to the new page yourself; ask that user if it's okay with them.-- Quisqualis (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, EvilxFish. I do not think that your drawing shows a level of creative originality that would require someone to credit you when drawing a better version. Both of you, after all, are illustrating a scientific concept with simple graphics, and presumably neither of you did the underlying scientific research. The proper place to pursue this further is Wikimedia Commons where both files are hosted. English Wikipedia has no control over files hosted on Commons. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. I agree it isn't much in the way of creative originality, I am grateful that someone came along and improved the diagram I made, it was kind of awful. I suppose it is just my inner academic that is annoyed by the lack of a clear flow from my original to the current, like you would see in an edit history (which I noticed recently with regards to these diagrams) as if I didn't contribute to it at all! EvilxFish (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

EvilxFish, the history of the use of both images is fully documented in the edit history of Electron paramagnetic resonance, which is a permanent record. Cullen328 (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Changing Profile Picture

Hello Hello, i am trying to change the profile picture/logo for a company page as they have recently rebranded. I am struggling to do so and could use some help. The page I am trying to update is GTT Communications. I uploaded the Logo Wiki Commons but I am at a loss as to what to do next. Furston525 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Furston525. I am sorry for being blunt but your edits so far are highly promotional and you are therefore at a very high risk of being blocked unless you stop that behavior immediately. Advertising, promotion and marketing are all forbidden on Wikipedia. Corporate boilerplate has no place here. You need to fully disclose your obvious Conflict of interest, including the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure if applicable. Once you have fully disclosed, the updating of the logo can be discussed. Please read WP:LOGO. Cullen328 (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, Thanks for letting me know. Do you know where I can disclose my conflict of interest? I don't see where it says how to do that on the COI page or COI guide. I have looked over my personal page but not sure if I disclose that on the company page. I get not editing the main description for the company page, so I will not do that. But with the Logo, wouldn't Wikipedia want the accurate and current logo?

Furston525 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Furston525, click the red link to your currently non-existent userpage in your signature, and create your userpage, making your disclosures there. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Furston525, to upload a new logo, go here: Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, chose

• Upload a non-free file
• This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use.
• This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc.

Once you have managed to upload the new logo, you should be able to change it yourself by editing the article, unless the article is protected.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Furston525 The logo you have already uploaded to Commons at commons:File:Tw_GTT_logo_400x400_bl.png is such that it can be tagged as {{PD-textlogo}} on Commons and does not need to be handled in a non-free manner. See WP:Logos#Copyright-free_logos Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, one of those. I stand corrected. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

so how to i get the picture/logo to go from wiki commons to the actual wikapedia page? Thanks for your help I really appreciate it. If someone else knows how to do it I am happy for them to do it as i don't care if it is me or not. I just need the profile image on the page to be the actual company logo and not the outdated one. Furston525 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Furston525, I have updated the logo for you. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

oh my gosh! Thank you so much!!! I really appreciate it! Furston525 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Anti Vandalism

How can I help to contribute anti-vandalism? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BloxyColaSweet. Please read Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcomings

I welcomed a few people, if thats okay. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BloxyColaSweet. I do not see the point of welcoming new accounts that have not edited. A majority of newly created accounts never edit, and therefore do not need to be welcomed. It is better to welcome active new accounts that have made at least one constructive edit. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, looking at the initial edits of new accounts often enough picks up vandalism. Posting a first-level vandalism warning on these editors' Talk pages may dissuade them from further harm to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

So I vandalised? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It does not appear that is what Cullen328 wrote - only that posting Welcome info on the Talk pages of newly created accounts may be a waste of your time, if the creators of the new accounts never go on to edit anything (more common than one might suppose) - was implied to be accusing you of vandalism. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Any tips

Any tips on getting on reaching 500 edits? Im looking for answers. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You are already far, far over 500 edits (although a majority appear to be to your own User and Talk pages). Why do you ask? David notMD (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I only have 133 edits to main as im typing this. Any tips on making lots of edits to 'main'. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BloxyColaSweet, and welcome to the Teahouse. You might find WP:Editcountitis a useful read. ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I just wanna be useful. Im addicted or anything. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Im just going to grind on edits. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

What went wrong?

Hello, I need some help regarding my article which was declined today, on January 13, 2023. It was declined due to the content that seems like an advertisement. Is there anyone who can guide me about what points I can work on in order to publish the article again. Thanks in advance. ArshaqArif (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, ArshaqArif, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem with Draft:Faizan Global Relief Foundation is that it is obviously saying what the Foundation says or wants to say about itself. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Curiously, Faizan Global Relief Foundation was declined, then edited by the declining reviewer, then accepted as an article by same, then tagged as needing improvements by same, all within 80 minutes. David notMD (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Why can i trust wikipedia?

Why can i trust that wikipedia is a trustworthy source and not just a some site where pepole can easly spread misinformation. 91.233.50.107 (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You can't, because Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source, and explicitly says so – see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source: this is why a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference for other Wikipedia articles.

It is not a reliable source because anyone is allowed to edit it (unless banned for vandalism or other misbehaviour) and anything you read might have recently been entered incorrectly by someone, either mistakenly or maliciously. That said, almost every new edit is usually scrutinised quite quickly by one or more editors with particular interest in the article concerned, because they have placed it on their Help:Watchlist and are alerted to all new edits on it. If any new information is not cited to a reliable source, they may revert it (or if it looks plausible, they might search for, find and add sources to cite it to).

Wikipedia is meant to compile and summarise information taken from reliable sources, not be a source in its own right, so if you have any doubt about something stated in Wikipedia, you should WP:Verify it by checking the cited source(s) for it.

Of course, people often try to use Wikipedia to spread misinformation (which they may genuinely believe), but as soon as such efforts are noticed, they are combatted in various ways, up to and including blocking the people trying to do it from editing further. Wikipedia has 20 years' experience of dealing with such problems, so has become quite good at it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

So basically, it is not easy to create misinformation and have it remain in an article. The more high profile an article (Donald Trump, Joseph Biden), the more likely there are a multitude of editors who have set their Wikipedia settings so that they are notified of every edit. If effect, Wikipedia self-corrects. But is it true that with 6.6 million articles in English Wikipedia, millions are in error, out-dated, inaequately referenced, have refs that no longer work, biased, vandalized, etc., etc. David notMD (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize the knowledge of the topic, not be used as a source for students to cite into that. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's a view on that: Using Wikipedia: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #5 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• You can't, and shouldn't, trust Wikipedia blindly. You should examine the sources provided in an article for yourself. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• The article on Reliability of Wikipedia is a useful source (although something of a paradox!) JeffUK 15:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  And Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you google "is wikipedia reliable" these are among the top results, so they have to be good, it stands to reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• So, the problem is that "trust" being discussed here is being used as a binary "either/or" contextless thing. That's not how trust works. Trust is both multi-dimensional, and exists on a continuum, and is highly context dependent. Do I trust my children? It depends. Do I trust them to be left home while I go to the grocery store for an hour? Do I trust them to be home alone while I go on a two-week cruise? Context matters. How old are my kids? What do I know about their character? There's lots of things I need to know in order to assess whether or not I trust something or someone. So, should you trust Wikipedia? It depends on what you are trying to use Wikipedia for. Are you looking for information which is likely to be stable, uncontroversial, and easily publically available from numerous other sources as well? Are you just trying to learn something for idle curiosity or to settle a bar bet or write some trivia questions for a game night? Then yes, it's trustworthy enough in those cases. Are you trying to write a term paper for your history class? Are you trying to decide how to vote in an upcoming election? Do you have a funny growth on your leg you want to know how to treat? No, it isn't trustworthy enough for those use cases. Find better sources of information. --Jayron32 17:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  I may save a link to this thread for future use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If I want some basic information on a subject, such as "is a certain famous person still alive?" or "when was an old TV series broadcast?" I go to a Wikipedia article and assume the basics are correct – if the data has a reliable reference. If I want more in-depth information I check the Wikipedia article's references and External Links. Often that leads me to a source for further details.

If a topic is important to me, and it has a rather poor Wikipedia article, that's when I step in and find reliable references that allow me to upgrade the article so others can easily obtain good information by reading the article. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

How can I request for an article to be semi-protected?

This article: Indonesia national football team is being vandalized a lot these days. I can I request for the page to be semi-protected? JoshuaInWiki (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RPP - X201 (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@JoshuaInWiki I don't see enough evidence of vandalism on that page to justify protection. It is not helped by your failure to leave informative edit summaries. Please address that in your future edits. Had you undone an edit and said 'reverting vandalism' there might be more reason to consider protection. None of the recent editors have had any edits left for them to warn about vandalism, so I'm afraid I need to point out that nobody WP:OWNS an article. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Baldwyn, Mississippi

My hometown, Baldwyn, MS has a list of notable persons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwyn,_Mississippi We are small and like any town want to project a positive image. On notable persons list (what few we have only 4) is listed Laura Pendergest-Holt. Famous only for being arrested and jailed but she is really not famous to me. I attempted to remove her but it was promptly put back. However, if you look at other towns, or cities, all their notable persons are positive persons not criminals. That should be under a list of criminals. Note, the massive list of Memphis where I don't think they have a single criminal listed. Why do we have to suffer bad PR when other towns don't? 144.86.134.206 (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia is a neutrally written encyclopedia and it is not here to help towns "project a positive image". That is the job of your town government and/or chamber of commerce on their own websites. Laura Pendergest-Holt is a notable person who was born in your town, and her name should stay. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at Richmond, Utah and Lake Worth Beach, Florida. Both articles have mass murderers listed as "Notable people". Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You could be from Braunau am Inn, Gori, Georgia or numerous other places - we don't WP:Whitewash history, because you want to look good. - Arjayay (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair use photos of a person

If I want to edit a Wikipedia page about a person, is it allowable to upload a non-free photo of that person under fair use when ho other photos seem to be available? The non-free photos I have seen on other pages were all for deceased persons - is that a rule that you can't do it if the person is still living? I'm also wondering about the maximum allowed resolution. The photos I've seen on other pages all had maximum dimensions of 400 pixels or less is that a general rule? Fracton (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-free doesn't work for living people, unless they are imprisoned in North Korea or something like that. I know there is rule about resolution for non-free pics, but these days that is dealt with by bots, see [7] for example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It depends. Wikipedia has its own standards on the use of non-free media, which is actually more stringent than the legal limits. See WP:NFCC. In this case, NFCC #1 "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (bold mine) is relevant. Generally, we do allow limited use of non-free photographs of long-dead people, but for anyone currently alive, it is presumed that a photograph of them could be taken and appropriately licensed by the photographer for use in Wikipedia; given that we almost never use non-free photographs of living people. If we do use a non-free picture, it is expected to be low enough resolution to not infringe on the original, high-resolution picture. --Jayron32 19:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This was also answered at the help desk. please only ask in one place to avoid duplicating effort and splitting the discussion. RudolfRed (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk page help

Hello, I recently came across a very strange talk page. It doesn't start with a tmbox or other info "in yellow", as other talk pages do, but it instead starts with a misplaced section.

This is because an unexperienced user simply added text at the top of the page, without any header or signature.

I was wondering on how to handle this, since I'm not sure if I can just move other people's talk page posts, or add a signature for them (also, I'm afraid that a bot may add a missing signature with my username, since it thinks I was the one making the post, and didn't sign it). Do you have any advice? I tried searching on Help pages, but came across nothing.

The page I'm talking about is this: Talk:Visa policy of Mongolia.

Thanks in advance!

Lorenzo Diana (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lorenzo Diana, welcome to the Teahouse. General guidance is here, but to pick out the relevant points - yes, you're free to move misplaced comments like that one, and you can insert a signature using a template like {{unsigned}} (checking the page history for the information needed to fill it in). In this case, there's also a fair amount of inappropriate contact information (phone numbers and such) which could stand to be removed and possibly oversighted. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @199.208.172.35, I have now moved the comment, and tagged it with the {{unsigned}} template.

I will also look into oversight of the inappropriate information.

Thank you so much for your help!

Lorenzo Diana (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Error contacting the Parsoid/RESTBase server (HTTP 400): (no message)

Trying to publish an article and this error came up even after testing with Chrome and Firefox. Any clue what could be wrong? Danidamiobi (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Danidamiobi, welcome to the Teahouse. The experts are at WP:VPT, but I can tell you that this does happen sometimes (see two recent reports over at the Help Desk), and that it seems to be related to a server timeout, perhaps because you've had the editor open for an extended length of time. One tip: saving your data in a separate text editor of some sort helps to ensure that you don't end up losing all your hard work. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I also notice that you and the other editors whose reports I linked were using the Visual Editor. No guarantees, but switching to the source editor temporarily might be something to try. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

New reference to the article

Can I add a reference to the page Through the Looking Glass for exhibitions on 150 years of Alice in 2015 year, because it's missing and not listed in Wikipedia article page. This is the reference link: https://exhibitions.lib.umd.edu/alice150/alice-in-wonderland/early-editions/macmillan-looking-glass Thanks! 80.72.73.95 (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)