Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, 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

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)

@Inigo.quilez btw, can you render the image in 4K? The picture is still pretty blurry on 4K screens which are becoming more and more common. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Reuploaded at 2160p (4K) Inigo.quilez (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You did good; the pictures are clear and intuitive. I got delayed while trying to understand if the issue was how to visualize a rotation in an imaginary plane for a mathematical figure in a complex domain. You cannot imagine the relief I felt that you had addressed the issue before I even figured out what to write you. Thank you for your initiative. Rendel B. Moshe (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

Both Blogger and Tumblr don't consider themselves as reliable source for citation on this article, since anyone can create it without fact-checking it and both of them mostly consist opinion based on their words and questions. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:39D5:AE22:288A:67FD (talk) 18:42, 16 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)

At least you can agree on some arguments that registered users and editors give out why isn't it reliable and some examples provided. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:2C48:FF99:4B78:7672 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, but just to know, thank you for answering my question about WordPress being a reliable source and some example provided of why it isn't. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:16, 17 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)

@Pianolettuce If by "find it" you mean on google etc, it's because new articles don't show there before they have been checked by WP:New pages patrol, or 90 days have passed, whichever comes first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you again! - Pianolettuce (talk) 14:37, 15 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)

@BloxyColaSweet You should make edits to an article when you see something that is wrong or needs to be improved. Tips for making edits would be: write clearly; include sources; read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Does that answer your question? David10244 (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 10:08, 15 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)

@BloxyColaSweet "I'm addicted or anything"? That's confusing. The next one says you're "going to grind on edits". Are you trying to reach 500 edits just in mainspace, and if so, why? What is the purpose? David10244 (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Its my passion to be a reviewer/patroller. I really have been making alot of sub articles non-stop. I just wanna be useful. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

And that's why I pointed you at Editcountitis, Bloxy - not really about the "addiction" but about editing for the sake of it. Every edit you make in good faith to improve Wikipedia, big or small, is "useful" - even if somebody disagrees and reverts you: you can either learn from their reversion, or engage in a discussion and potentially both learn something. An edit that you make just to get your number up is probably not useful.

And, while I'm on the subject, making one small but significant improvement to an existing article - especially, providing a good reference where there isn't one - is far, far, far more valuable that most attempts to create new articles. ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Im taking Editcountitis as a grain of salt, Its a humourous essay. Im not doing it just for the 'count', I just wanna be useful and become a reviewer/patroller page. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Try to edit as many pages as you can. Make sure there are good edits. An edit is an edit, it counts even if it gets reverted. It is best to edit the article in one edit. It is best to avoid edit farming, an act of editing the same page multiple times in a short amount of time. Preview the page to ensure there are no mistakes, so you won't have to edit the article.Cwater1 (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you BloxyColaSweet (talk) 06:09, 16 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)

Wikipedia is an excellent source for sources. Rather than blindly accepting the wording of the articles themselves, I often go to the sources and dig deeper there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

We write a lot about the reliability of sources, and whether Wikipedia can be trusted, but in the end, it comes down to you, the reader. Years ago, I watched a TV program made to educate teens about the reliability of the media. The program makers filmed a school, the cook, the kitchens, the kids talking about the food, and then they presented the same stuff in two different ways, changing the camera angles and contexts and putting it together either to make the cook look like a cordon bleu chef creating the high-point of the school day, or to make the cook look like an evil layabout intent on regenerating prison food of the worst possible standard. The point was that all sources have their viewpoint, their bias. It is our job as the viewer to consider what we watch and read, accept that even the most "reliable" sources still stand somewhere, and we must listen to lots of sources, use our brains and judgement. Think of a court-case: it's not a situation where the jury believe the witness because the judge determines he's reliable (though the judge may offer guidance); the jury look at the witnesses and work out for themselves what they believe happened. So when it comes to reliability, the buck doesn't stop with Wikipedia, it stops with the reader. Yes, this is a site that can be edited by anyone, but it's a site that can be corrected by anyone. Weigh that up, and decide if you think it's as reliable as, for example, a research paper, which is supposed to be written and reviewed by an ethical, well-informed professional, but might still end up in Retraction Watch. If Wikipedia misleads you, it's because you let it. Elemimele (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has most of the information in one place which can be convient. Keep in mind that are are disclaimers when using Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Wikipedia is not always reliable ut luckily it is sometimes accurate.Cwater1 (talk) 02:52, 16 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)

@80.72.73.95 Hello, welcome to the teahouse. This edit seemed already have been done by others. The next time when you want to edit an article being protected, you can request for help by using {{edit semi-protected}} Lemonaka (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not doing this anymore, because I was mistaken. It was for three days! I'll be careful next time. 80.72.73.95 (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize, I contributed for good reason! I'm learned, good and responsible adult person. 80.72.73.95 (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

USer has now been blocked for DE and being a troll. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf What is "blocked for DE"? Since this is the start of the postseason playoffs in the US National Football League, all I can think of is "Defensive End".  :-) David10244 (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Additions in Tilia entry are all deleted under the name of RW

Hello! All my recent additions to Tilia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilia) have been deleted under the name of RW. The greatest species of Tilia is found in Asia, but there is no information about Southeast Asia in the Tilia entry. How happy I was to be able to make some related shares in Tilia entry these days, but these shares have been deleted. Can you please help me to restore after understanding what I shared? If there is a problem with my English, can you please help to improve it? Best regards, Ping an Chang (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ping an Chang: Your edits were reverted by @Eric. You could ask him or discuss it on the article's talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude Thank you very much for your reply! Best regards, Ping an Chang (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Error on my part. See Talk:Tilia#Additions_in_Tilia_are_all_deleted_under_the_name_of_RW. Eric ^talk 14:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: talk:Tilia § New additions regarding Tilia in China - the section has been renamed. --ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Good afternoon, I have edited the article it, Pl help me make changes and write in wikipedia format?

how? Soonuu (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Soonuu, just click "Publish Changes..." and it will save. - From Dents (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

can you edit and send me Soonuu (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Precisely what problem are you facing with Draft:Krishna Ballesh, Soonuu? -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Soonuu: Welcome to the Teahouse. I have deleted your comment as this is not the appropriate venue to put draft content. It appears you've already managed to submit the draft and have had it declined. You may ask Teahouse regulars for their opinions as to what could be improved, but very rarely will someone here help you write a draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

who can help to edit my draft Soonuu (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You can do a lot yourself, Soonuu. Start by removing all but the first two items on that long list of external links. Continue by asking yourself how "shehnai maestro" and "shehnai virtuoso" are more suitable than plain "shehnai player". (Tip: They are not.) Continue by changing mid-sentence "He" to "he". Et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that this article has been deleted 10 times now including two deletion discussions. It's probably time to give up. Theroadislong (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Offensive talk page

Hi all. I was patrolling recent changes when I noticed User talk:Theenglishman124. They had quite a lot of swears on their page, so I blanked the page in an attempt to stop it. They keep reverting my edits saying that they were "harassing themself". I dont really know what to do in this situation. Could someone else please take a look? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No need, they have now been blocked Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Subsequently successfully appealed block by promising to be good. P.S. Swearing allowed, as long as not about other editors. David notMD (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: I advise you to refrain from editing the comments of others, especially on their own talk page. Repeated instances of that can be grounds for blocking you. Wikipedia is not censored, and as long as personal attacks aren't involved, profanity is allowed; it is possible to swear and still remain civil. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Just want to add that this has all been handled now by User:Zsinj who commended me for this after I asked if what I did was right on their talk page. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

As Wikipedia isn't censored, you may come across material you don't like or may be offended by. As long as its not directed at another editor, profanity is allowed here. As above people can remain civil whilst using swear words. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 04:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry bout this. I didn't think that this would count as censorship. I'll be more careful in the future. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 12:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: If you see something that you don't like, avoid the page you saw it on in the future.Cwater1 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Daily photo since birth --continued journey for more than 24 years and still continued.

i want to write an article about sweet memories by photographs ,a children growing day by day seeing his daily pics since his birth still continuing almost 24 years now already included in limca book of records with all preserved photographs Dotindore (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Dotindore and welcome to Wikipedia! It is unclear exactly what you're asking, but I can give some general advice: before creating an article, make sure to read Help:Your first article and make sure the article has reliable, independent, and notable sources to establish notability. After all, we can't have every topic in the world here, only the topics that are notable. Happy editing! Helloheart (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There have been a variety of one-photo-per-day projects, Dotindore, and there might be enough about these to warrant an article. But before you embark on a draft, you'd better get accustomed to improving articles that already exist. -- Hoary (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

See Noah Kalina and Everyday (video) for articles about Noah doing 21 years of selfies. Note that both have references (about Noah, about the project). No references means no ability to successfully create an article. You writing about "sweet memories" would be considered original research, and thus cannot justify an article. David notMD (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a conceptual similarity to Boyhood (2014 film). Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE suggests that an article already exists, and indeed we find two: lifelog and lifestreaming. Shells-shells (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

A Regional Festival

Hi,

I want to write an article about a regional festival, so, what things that I should keep in mind while writing this article. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 06:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Perfectodefecto! Has the festival been written about by regional media? You'll want to make sure that there are sources available that satisfy the notability guideline for events, or otherwise there's a high chance the article will be deleted. Beyond that, WP:Your first article has useful general advice. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

editors inappropriately removing existing citation or changed content

I came across a couple of edits where I felt editors made changes inappropriately; in one case, some other editor had just recently added a claim without adding a corresponding citation, and though the claim was verifiably true, another editor removed the claim.

In the other case, an editor modified an existing claim and simply removed the pre-existing citation.

These both seem to me to be counter-productive behaviors, i.e. if an appropriate citation has not been provided but you can't be bothered to provide a citation, them the next best thing to do would be to add a {{citation needed}}. Am I thinking about this the wrong way? Fabrickator (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Fabrickator. If you believe that the content is truly relevant and enclyclopedic, then restore it with a reference to a reliable source and an explanatory edit summary. Best practice is to look for a reliable source, but that is not required. It is the obligation of anyone who wants to restore contested content to provide a reference. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fabrickator, I would check the revision history of the article to see what edit summary the editors who removed the content left. That might help explain why they made the edits and inform how to proceed. We can help you interpret if it's unclear. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Malika Saidkhhodjaeva, founder of www.energy.uz

Malika Saidkhodjaeva родилась в 1972 году, в городе Tashkent, Узбекистан ин формер УзССР . Образование — высшее. Окончила Ташкентский Государственный технический Университет по специальности инженер энергетик, Закончила аспирантуру по специальности Макроэкономика, защитила диссертацию в 1996 по теме " Влияние тарифов на электроэнергию на макроэкономические процессы в энергетике" и получила ученную степень Кандидата Экономических наук в 1997 году. Экономист энергетик, доцент, имеет более 70 публикаций. Dr. Malika Saidkhodjaeva was named one of the world’s “50 key women in energy” by Commodities Now magazine in association with consultant Linda Rader and corporate sponsors Accenture and Jacobs Consultancy in 2001. It was one of the first worldwide Award in Energy World. She was the representative of Uzbekistan who get the recognition in Energy World. She is first time in the history, where Uzbek women nominated to this level of Award. A ceremony for the honorees will be held Feb. 14 during the E-World of Energy international trade fair in Essen, Germany. She also placed first in the “Innovation” category, one of five categories in which winners were selected. Dr. Malika Saidkhodjaeva (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

hi @Dr. Malika Saidkhodjaeva and welcome to the Teahouse! are you trying to make an article for yourself? unfortunately, we discourage the creation of autobiographies. more about why can be found at that link, but the short is that it is hard to write about yourself while complying with the policies required in article creation like neutrality and verifiability with reliable sources|. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

If you are not Malika than you should abandon this account and start a new account with a different name, as it can be presumed from your name choice that you are Malika. If you want to continue, see WP:YFA for how to create and submit a draft for review. David notMD (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Microelectromechanical systems

"Ordinary plasma etching operates between 0.1 and 5 Torr. (This unit of pressure, commonly used in vacuum engineering, equals approximately 133.3 pascals.)" 2001:14BA:16EF:8600:419D:8C29:41A3:7EB6 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC) In the same article however "Ion milling, or sputter etching, uses lower pressures, often as low as 10−4 Torr (10 mPa)" shouldn't it be 1333 Pascals? Ty in advance!

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I believe you're referring to text shown here. I can't comment on whether you're right, but may I politely ask you to raise your concerns directly in a new thread at Talk:Microelectromechanical systems where editors with knowledge on the subject can assess the issues you've raised and fix the article if there's an error? Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone can't do superscripts. The text is slightly confusing in first mentioning 0.1 and 5 Torr before, in parenthesis, reminding the reader that 1 Torr = 133.3 pascals. It then writes that the pressure is 10-4 Torr when they meant 10^-4 Torr, which, multiplied by 133.3 gives 0.0133Pa, i.e. 13.3 mPa. Elemimele (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

References do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article!

 Courtesy link: Draft:Roy Patrick Streamer

Need help! I wanted to edit and publish an article about Roy Patrick Streamer, but its not acceptable for publish. I dont know how to fix this error, so if anyone helps me out with this error would be great! Farsiexplain (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the Comment, three of the five references are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Can you find other refs to support the facts? This may be just WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Farsiexplain I have decent editing experience, and could probably help you get the article published, if you want. Just an offer. Raltoid (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Raltoid How you are gonna edit? Farsiexplain (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Farsiexplain Edit isn’t the right word. You have sufficient information on the page, but you need some sources, which I can help find for the page. Raltoid (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Raltoid It will be help full if you do that for me! Farsiexplain (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: OP has been indefinitely blocked for promotion. CodeTalker (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Article quality

Who gets to classify articles as stub class, C-class, B-class, good article and featured article, and on what criteria? The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 14:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Bestagon Hello Hexagon! Up to and including B, the criteria are similar but somewhat Project-specific, see for example the links in the templates at Talk:Joan Maloof. Any editor (including article creator) who feels they understand these criteria can add or change class as seen necessary, on this level it's informal.

WP:GA and WP:FA however, are formal processes which starts with someone nominating the article for the "honor", and then spends time and effort improving it at the direction of a reviewer, when one volunteers. Failure is possible. One can also nominate a GA/FA for "demotion." Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks for the reply. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Subject: Dr. King's sister; Christina King Farris

Error: The article states that Christina was married to Issac from ( 1934 -2017 ) correction request . She was born in 1927, therefore, she could not have married him at the age of 7 years old, in 1934 . 172.112.74.9 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

(1934–2017) refers to Issac Newton Farris Sr. birth and death dates not his marriage. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

That said, I agree that it is a little ambiguous, I've removed the confusing part and added a reference to that paragraph. (we already have his death date and age at death so it was also mostly superfluous) JeffUK 17:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I need help with article decline Please.

I am trying to submit my company (khmer tv) to wikipedia but get decline becasue my refernce is 1. Not in-dept 2. Not reliable 3. secondary; 4. strictly independent I found this company (Diya TV) which is not different from my company and is listed in Wikipedia. My company is a legal California corporation, and the name is a trademark with the USPTO. This is my first time working with Wikipedia. Please help me make the necessary adjustments to be able to submit to Wikipedia. Thank you very much Paybypintony (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paybypintony Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially when you have a conflict of interest (COI). To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. When you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple published independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of you, and determine whether they demonstrate that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you would first declare your COI on your user page. Then follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting for review, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. If you are successful, then you could never edit the article directly due to your COI, but could submit edit requests on the article talk page. Hope this helps. GoingBatty (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the posting. What prompted me to post the article is that this company, "Diya TV," which is similar to Khmer TV, has an article on Wikipédia. If you google "Diya TV," you will see it in Wikipedia.

In my opinion, Khmer TV should be recognized since it is the first and only TV that is broadcasting in Khmer in the US. Paybypintony (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Paybypintony, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like a lot of people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It's not a directory or social media, where you can "submit" or "post" your company. It is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutral articles about subjects which meet its own criteria for notability - which most people, most companies, most products, most organizations, don't. It mostly comes down to whether several people, wholly unconnected with you and not prompted by you, have published significant coverage of your company. If not, then an article about your company will not be accepted, however it is written, and any attempt to do so will be a waste of time.

If such sources exist, then an article about your company is possible: you are discouraged from writing it, because you are likely to find it hard to be sufficiently neutral, but you are not forbidden from trying.

If such an article is created, whoever writes it, the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what those independent sources say (including any sources that are critical of the company), not on what you or your associates say or want to say. ColinFine (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the posting. What prompted me to post the article is that this company, "Diya TV," which is similar to Khmer TV, has an article on Wikipédia. If you google "Diya TV," you will see it in Wikipedia.

In my opinion, Khmer TV should be recognized since it is the first and only TV that is broadcasting in Khmer in the US. Paybypintony (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Paybyintony That certainly could make it notable- but there must be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your company to summarize. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows-others must choose to write about your company on their own so we can summarize what they say. Mere existence is not enough for an article. Wikipedia is not a directory or form of recognition. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Please tell me where to find an independent, reliable source to write about the company.

I don't want to list the company on Wikipedia as a directory, but for its representation of the Cambodian community. Paybypintony (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paybypintony Wikipedia is not a place to "represent" a group. That would best be done at your social media of choice. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

How to create a Wikipedia Essay

How do I create an essay, rather than an article? I tried doing it through the Articles for Creation review process, but it was denied. The instructions at WP:ESSAY weren't that helpful, so how do I create an essay.

Oh, and the draft was this: Draft:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not social media. Don't know if that helps.

AugustusAudax (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. We already have Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. We only really need one page on what Wikipdia is not otherwise we could have lots of pages on all the things it is not. What is your rationale for repeating what is already a clearly established policy? Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

In terms of 'How' you create one, you just create one; if you read the rejection you'll see it's because essays do not need to go through the 'Article for Creation' review process, on the basis they are not articles. It may be a good idea to create it in your user space e.g. go to User:AugustusAudax/Wikipedia_is_not_social_media and click 'create'. JeffUK 18:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello AugustusAudax, thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. Another difficulty with your essay is that there is a long quote from a song that I assume has been copyrighted. Copyright law can be rather confusing, but you are allowed to use a short direct quote from copyrighted material (in the U.S., that is anything published in 1928 or later) if you properly cite who the writer is. Opinions differ, but when I write for Wikipedia I limit my sourced copyrighted quotes to no more than one sentence.

I hope this helps. Being a Wikipedia volunteer can seem daunting, with so many rules to learn, but once you understand the basics it can be a most satisfying way to help spread knowledge. Karenthewriter (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@AugustusAudax, Yankovic is 100% correct, in any case. Quisqualis (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Category page

Can someone please move the content of Category talk:1987 Oregon wildfires to Category:1987 Oregon wildfires? 184.21.204.5 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

About the article i started

Hello hope you are doing well, i am not an experienced user but i started a draft article Draft:The Future of Pakistan which seems to be notable to me, just need any further assistance on this one, Regards WIMBPLY [B] (IDC) (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

To prove that it's notable, you need to find independent sources that talk about it. This means that they can't be connected or associated with the authors or publisher. If there isn't press coverage of the book, then it's probably not notable enough for Wikipedia. For more information, you can read this page that talks about what makes a book notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@WIMBPLYBIDC, given that the book came out in 2011, there should be adequate material written about it in reliable sources. What you have so far might be termed a "sub-stub", which is more like a brief directory listing. What does a reader (who presumably understands that The Future of Pakistan is a book) gain from turning to Wikipedia for more information? You can flesh out this article by reading what has been written about the book in those reliable sources and summarizing it. Quisqualis (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Quisqualis thanks for the advice, i have got a content that will make it a worthy of approach for the people who are looking for the information about the book. I will be working on it from now. Regards WIMBPLY [B] (IDC) (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding Edit requests

So I have just recently disclosed myself being a paid editor. I understand that I cannot simply edit the article I created once it is already in the mainspace. If I want to edit or update the page, I should use the "request edit" template. Now, my question is, what if I want to edit a different Wikipedia page that I did not create but wants to include the page I created to that page? Okay, to make things clearer, here's the sample: I want to add Douglas Cumming, the page I recently created, to Category:Writers from Winnipeg page since he grew up in Winnipeg. Do I still need to use the template, or am I allowed to edit it right away without the need to use the "request edit"? Please advise. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Bmjc98. Why did you blank your userpage, which contained disclosure of the articles that you have been paid for? Cullen328 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Because of the template. I realized the template should be added to the Talk Page to make it work, but I already added it to both now. You can verify it. Bmjc98 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bmjc98, you'll want to look at Categories to see how they work. We add articles to categories, which you can do as you write the draft, but make sure to disable the categories. Problem solved?-- Quisqualis (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I will check on this. Thank you. Will get back to you shortly once I read the categories. Thanks. Bmjc98 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I'd do in your position, though there's no guarantee it's right. Firstly, per Cullen328 I'd restore your disclosure of paid editing, also on your user-page. Tell the world anywhere you can, and the world will trust you more! Then I'd add the categories to the article, even though it's in main-space. My reasoning is that you can't avoid main-space editing with categories, because either you need to wait until the article is in mainspace before you add them, or you need to use Quisqualis's suggestion, but even so, will need to remove colons and do bits and pieces with templates to do it tidily. Since categories should be fairly uncontroversial, and it makes common sense that you should be able to complete the article as intended, even though you can't subsequently edit it, the addition of categories in mainspace really amounts only to part of the original creation (which is allowed), and it doesn't make sense to generate clean-up work for a volunteer gnome unnecessarily through strict adherence to the letter of the law. But I'd do all this with a suitably apologetic and humble demeanour, ready to give way to any editor who objects, and I would be up-front in the edit summaries about what's going on. Honesty is always appreciated. It was good that you came here to ask. Elemimele (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft Article

I submitted for comments a draft at User:Ldm1954/sandbox. The response was that

1. The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations.
2. This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.

The problem with these comments are they they are very vague, and not specific enough. When I grade BS or PhD students work (or review papers/proposals etc) I always provide sufficient detail. Can someone please provide me with specifics.

Thanks in advance. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link Draft:Myra Masie Marks where you will see that I have provided specifics, also on my talk page where you asked the same question. The career section has a single sourced sentence relating to a”dance date”. All content requires reliable independent sourcing. Non encyclopaedic informal tone includes content like “a few months shy of her 17th birthday” “Unfortunately, towards the end of her first year” “received a great honor” “made a name for herself “ “the premier organization for those in advertising” “Maisie remembers….” “had to leave LSE as money was tight “ Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ldm1954, the draft article, given its length, only has 14 inline citations. More are expected, generally one per paragraph. In addition, the tone is overly promotional in some parts: ... during her professional life where she started as a shorthand-typist, rose to owning a small advertising space company. She held major positions in a large number of professional organizations in the advertising sector from the late 1950s to when she retired in 1985. can be hardly called neutral. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not mean to be nasty, but...

The statement "major positions in a large number of professional organizations" is fact, born out by the citations in the charitable secions. For instance chair is a major position.

Similarly the statement "where she started as a shorthand-typist, rose to owning a small" is also fact.

She received an MBE in acknowledgement of these facts Ldm1954 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

In this particular case, 'rose' sounds like you are writing a narrative. Not what Wikipedia is for. I would omit the shorthand-typist part. The body of her work is in advertising, so that should be explicated most in the lead.

The words 'major', 'large number', and 'professional organizations' are vague. I would just explicitly say the most important positions, with the other less important ones placed in the body, somewhat like The Beatles discography. And of course you will need sourcing for any positions mentioned in the article. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I just responded in part to this to Theroadislong. If you want to "source" the positions you go to the History of Advertising Trust (a museum) which has them all. This is not a web cite. For completeness, the relevant part of her work was charitable. She was not paid for any of the positions mentioned, these were all volunteer. This is what it takes to get an MBE. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954, have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone. Colorful, emotionally engaging writing does not belong in a serious encyclopedia. As one who grades student papers, you must know what I'm saying here!--Quisqualis (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

We cannot in Wikipedias voice call a position a major one, we would just state the dry facts she was chair of whatever it was, it does NOT need qualifying. Theroadislong (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually I completely disagree with you about colorful, emotionally engaging writing. It does belong in dry science including student papers. Scientific papers can be far dryer than Wikipedia.

I will do some reluctant editing. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't find a single source in the draft which supports any of the content and writing about your mother is a VERY clear conflict of interest, which you need to disclose. Theroadislong (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to disclose that relationship

As I have added to the comments, if you want to validate the various positions she held then you will have to go to contact the "History of Advertising Trust". I have contacts, but I won't disclose them on a public page. Of course you can confirm that she received an MBE. I can send a copy if appropriate (which I do not think it is) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Ldm1954, "The words 'major', 'large number', and 'professional organizations' are vague." By contrast, "passed away" isn't vague: it's unambiguously a euphemism for "died". So say "died". (Ditto for anything similar.) When describing your subject after she adopted the surname Marks, refer to her as Marks, not as Maisie, unless of course you either need to distinguish her from some other person named Marks or are quoting directly. (And what was her previous surname?) In places this is oddly vague; for example She retired and sold the business in 1985, although she stayed on as a director and consultant for another year. While she retired from formal work, she took up ballroom dancing from Silver to Gold, 1st, 2nd and supreme then qualifying and teaching for many years. One example of many is Dance ballroom, Latin and sequence at The Great Hall, Civic Centre, Bromley, on August 16, 2007. (Citing "Article in the NewsShopper".) I don't understand either what this was or what it was an example of. And I get the impression that "NewsShopper" merely regurgitates stuff from elsewhere; if so, what's the article title, periodical title and date of the original publication? -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree about 'professional organizations'

She was born Myra Maisie Marks -- and married Arnold Marks.

The item in the NewsShopper is an advert -- I will clarify (mea culpa) Ldm1954 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ldm1954, when you write When I grade BS or PhD students work (or review papers/proposals etc) I always provide sufficient detail, I assume that you are paid for your work. Here, you are dealing with volunteer Articles for Creation reviewers who are dealing with a gushing firehose of poorly written submissions. And you have given them another poorly written submission to deal with. Your draft includes vast swathes of unreferenced content, which violates the core content policy of Verifiability. Your draft also violates the other two core content policies, the Neutral point of view and No original research. Have you clicked on and read the blue links in the notice declining your draft? Have you read and studied Your first article? You have a lot to do. Cullen328 (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

can anyone think of a possible illustration for empath?

‌ Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Psiĥedelisto and welcome to the Teahouse! Maybe some sort of chart? ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 23:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto Welcome to the Teahouse! When I do a Google search for "empath" and look at the images, I see a few images of two human heads in profile facing each other, with some kind of image "connecting" them. While those images may be copyrighted, someone may be willing to create a new one for Wikipedia. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

... with the slight proviso that we are not here to provide a gallery-window for artists to promote their work. The benefit of a pre-existing image is that it will be linked by its context to "empath" (while a piece of artwork produced by a Wikipedia editor is only linked by the editor's say-so), and feelings won't run quite so high when someone replaces it with a different image that they think is more representative. Elemimele (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: What about one of those piccys from the galaxy brain memes? (not the exact ones, obviously, but ones like them) -- something like this for example. I think 2017 is retro enough for it to be cool again now. jp×g 10:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: that's a great idea lol Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Need a feedback or suggestions

An inbox for Indian states and Union Territories

There is some work, Template:Infobox Indian state or territory

Please give a review or  suggestions or point out the mistakes. I think this template has many mistakes and some tasks are not fulfilled with documentation, my knowledge of Wikipedia markup language is not enough, it is inspired by other present templates and infoboxes. I am willing to contribute and need some assistance. ( Please do not nominate it for deletion. I am willing to work on it ) Thank you Tojoroy20 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Do "native_name" and "native_name_lang" assume that the particular state (or whatever) has just one "native name"? If that's the assumption, it surprises me. The article Nagaland tells us that:

Other than English, Nagamese, a creole language based on Assamese, is widely spoken. / The major languages spoken as per the 2011 census are Konyak (244,135), Ao (231,084), Lotha (177,488), Angami (151,883), Chokri (91,010), Sangtam (75,841), Bengali (74,753), Zeme (71,954; covering Zeliang, 60,399 and Zemi, 11,165), Yimkhiungrü (74,156), Chang (65,632), Khiamniungan (61,906), Rengma (61,537), Phom (53,674), Nepali (43,481), Kheza (34,218), Pochury (21,446), Kuki (18,391), Chakhesang (17,919), Assamese (17,201), Bodo (12,243; covering Bodo 7,372 and Dimasa 4,871), Manipuri (9,511), Sema (8,268), etc.

Within that, "are" should be "were", the claimed precision would have been ridiculous even when published, and perhaps two or three of the languages may have since become extinct in the area; but that would still leave twenty or so "native languages", and I've no reason to assume that they'd share the same name for Nagaland. -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Hoary , Thank You very much for your suggestions. Yes, you are right, many states might have more than one native name, as you mention one example . I will add a parameter for native_names. Tojoroy20 (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Todor Dimitrov Tokicha

Hello!

I'd like to create a Wikipedia page of one of the most successful music composers in Bulgaria - Todor Dimitrova - Tokicha! I have been waiting for approval for months! It says it has been declined! What do I need to do now?

Thank you! 31.205.79.42 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, since there isn’t a draft yet, it would be best to create one. Second, make sure your article has good references, from reliable sources that confirm notability of the subject. I would be willing to work on this as well, if you would like help. Raltoid (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Raltoid,

Thank you so much for your help! I've created a draft in English a month and It was declined! I'll write it again tomorrow, and I'll be extremely happy if you could help me!

Is it a problem if all of my sources are in Bulgarian instead of English?

Thank you. Todordimitrovtokicha (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Todordimitrovtokicha Welcome to the Teahouse! Where is the draft that was declined? If you are writing an autobiography, see WP:AUTO. If you are not Todor Dimitrov Tokicha, then please change your username per WP:IMPERSONATE. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Todordimitrovtokicha, I hope that you have now read and digested either WP:AUTO or WP:IMPERSONATE, depending on which is applicable (and one of them must be). In addition to what GoingBatty has written: No, it doesn't matter if all your sources are in Bulgarian. What matters is that they are what English-language Wikipedia regards as reliable, and one of the requirements for reliability is that, in order to back up anything important within the draft/article, the sources are independent of Todor Dimitrova-Tokicha (not written or published by him, for him, or with his cooperation). -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you know

Did read 'BorgQueen Help' 60.241.54.238 (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hi from:https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=60.241.54.238 (knitwit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.54.238 (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Did you have a question about using Wikipedia? GoingBatty (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Mihail (musician)

Hi evereyone ! I have noticed that one of Romanian-Moldavian famous singer (that I'm listening to) doesn't have an wikipedia page so I've decided to create one. I have used all the reliable sources in order to back up information about him. Could someone please check and move this article from sandbox to the maine page ? In case if there are any mistakes or sugest about editing please advise. Thank you for your time Noon Twist (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Noon Twist, I've moved the draft to Draft:Mihail (musician) (and I have also retitled this section of the Teahouse). -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ! Once it's moved to Draft is there any procedure to be taken in order to move this article to the main page ? Noon Twist (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Noon Twist, but first you need to do a bit more work on it. I hope that you've checked that each of the numerous links to Youtube is to a video that indisputably was uploaded by its copyright holder. (I'm not saying that some of the links are to videos that were not: I haven't started to look, and anyway might well not be able to judge.) Youtube and other external links may, if appropriate, appear within references or a list of external links, but they mustn't occur in the main body text, and your draft has a lot of such occurrences. And although it doesn't much matter, for English-language Wikipedia, references go after periods, commas, etc, not in front of them. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I fixed it. Drjump! (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeti Airlines Flight 691

The "In the news" section of the main page and the article state that there are 72 deaths. However, there are at least two reliable sources that state that there are "at least 68" deaths. See Talk:Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691. Until the number of deaths is final, can someone clarify the main page to reflect the uncertainty? 76.14.122.5 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! This topic is being discussed at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, which prompted the change to 72 deaths. Your input there would be helpful. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

BFDI

Can we make an article for that? Drjump! (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you mean by "BFDI", Drjump!, would you be able to use reliable sources to demonstrate that it satisfies notability requirements? -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drjump! Are you referring to Battle for Dream Island? GoingBatty (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes @GoingBatty, yes. i. am. Drjump! (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's possible if it can overcome the issues from a few years ago at Draft:Battle for Dream Island and you can provide reliable sources which provide significant coverage. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, I found one SO much better than the idea I had. It's only mistake was being called Battle for BFB in the title instead of Battle for Dream Island. Just retitle it and accept it, the only things I should be partially or wholly credited for are the ones I did that I said i partially or wholly did on my profile. Drjump! (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Battle for Dream Island (American web series and franchise). Drjump! (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drjump! See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island. GoingBatty (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We also have Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests#Battle for Dream Island which states a request will have to be made at WP:RFPP with evidence that acceptable sources exists. This has had enough disruption that it is a black listed title in both main and draft space.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

hi @Drjump! and welcome to the Teahouse! as another fan (well, to an extent, I no longer actively participate in the community, but I used to), I've seen countless attempts to make an article and have seen them from both the Wikipedia side and the OSC side. I have also discussed it a bit, here's a post from a a few whiles back regarding this topic:

a long while back (maybe 2017 or so, during an attempt by the discord community to create an article), I did a search to help with article creation and if I recall correctly, there was no sources that came close to being reliable. even today it doesn't have reliable sources, the only news article I can find is a Forbes Contributor article on that Fandom Fantasy Food contest where jnj basically pulled their fans to victory, which is not exactly reliable and does not even have significant coverage since it focuses on the contest itself.
I think this is one of, if not the defining example of fame =/= notability. bfdi has a giant fanbase enough to spawn lots of fanfics and shows inspired by it, wins popularity contests, episode 1a has 63m views and the compilation of its first season has 20m, jacknjellify has 1.2m subs, yet it has absolutely no significant coverage in reliable sources and nothing backing its claim to notability unlike other webfics such as Homestar Runner, Don't Hug Me I'm Scared, Hazbin Hotel, and Eddsworld. and I'm not saying this as someone against the creation of a potential BFDI article, as I would've planned to make one once I had enough experience with article creation, but (surprisingly for a 10yo web series) it's still too soon to make one.

A Google News search reveals three hits for it now, which apart from the Forbes article mentioned above also now includes a Sportskeeda article-tutorial for Find the Markers, a Roblox game that's inspired by the show but doesn't have WP:significant coverage (in other words, doesn't focus on) of the show itself, and Sportskeeda isn't even an acceptable reliable source even if it was - discussion, and a third Vernon Morning Star article that also doesn't have significant coverage of the show itself but is focused on a cartoon fan.

Unfortunately, Battle for BFDI (which currently has an active draft) also falls into the same pitfalls due to this, and being a specific season of a show that doesn't have an article yet means it's less likely to have one.

tl;dr, despite going on for 10 years and having a sizeable fanbase it still has a general lack of sources which are required for notability and this an article in Wikipedia. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing there are other wikis than Wikipedia that covers this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No, since that article has been deleted for too many times and its title has been protected for sure. It didn't meet the notability guidelines even though there are links to it. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:39D5:AE22:288A:67FD (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Should I make a section in the gooseberry article to describe flavor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gooseberry

https://www.google.com/search?q=gooseberry+flavor

"What Does a Gooseberry Taste Like? The flavor of gooseberries depends on how ripe they are, with green gooseberries being more sour and red/purple gooseberries being more sweet. Most describe them as similar in taste and texture to grapes, but more acidic."

That's from the first Google result. 2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:E445:7020:6E62:E5E9 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

IP user, Welcome to Wikipedia. In my opinion, just taking someone's word for the flavor, found on a random culinary website, is just using a random person's original research. Better to quote someone like James Beard, Marion Cunningham or another recognized expert. This could include books on growing fruits and berries. And be sure to cite the source properly.-- Quisqualis (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sweetish Hill is a clickbait blog and is not a reliable source. In order to add content about the flavor of gooseberries, you need to cite an actually reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a book called Cold-Hardy Fruits and Nuts: 50 Easy-to-Grow Plants for the Organic Home Garden Or Landscape that appears to be a much better source for the flavor of gooseberries. Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

IP Editor, I recommend you go to your library and look in a comprehensive cookery/desserts book, like The Joy of Cooking or similar. Or a book on fruit growing, as all I can find is sites like Quora and dot-coms. Cold-Hardy Fruits and Nuts was more how-to-grow rather than how-to-eat. Quisqualis (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe that Jeff Beck should be listed in the recent deaths

Can you direct me to information about how to do that, please? Ctterminator (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

hi @Ctterminator and welcome to the Teahouse! Jeff Beck is under consideration for Recent Deaths in Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Jeff Beck, which is currently getting supporters after the article was cleaned up a bit. you may add your thoughts there. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm new to this. I saw an omission and wanted to have it corrected. I don't understand what articles needed to be cleaned up before he can be added to the list of recent deaths. Aren't we talking about simply putting Jeff Beck's famous name on the list? Or does the entire article about him need to be perfected first? Ctterminator (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent Deaths is a way to highlight improved articles, it isn't just a list. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Ctterminator (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

delete

Hi Salvio, I see that you've deleted my recent wiki page as well as my draft within the sandbox. Could I perhaps be given the opportunity to retrieve the draft within the sandbox such that I can edit the content? Apadana1401 (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Not coming back because of copyright violation (and lesser cause, blantant advertising). David notMD (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

AfD Analytics Tool

Saw a cool tool a while ago that showed AfD voting records (and the final outcomes of the votes versus their votes) for any given user. I believe it was hosted on ToolForge, does anyone have a link to it? TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 05:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

TheManInTheBlackHat, I believe you are referring to the AfD Statistics Tool. HouseBlaster^talk 06:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That's it, thank you! TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 14:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

how do i create a new watchlist

Could someone please help a computer novice. I want to create a few new watchlists to keep all my topics separate for easy reading. I have one watchlist and would like to create more and is it then possible to transfer one page into a newly created watchlist. Thanks for your help. Kph23 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You can have only one personal watchlist, but you can create multiple public watchlists. See Help:Watchlist and Help:Public watchlist for full details. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Letter grade? What's this mean?

What's the letter stand for for example in Category:B-Class_articles and A class etc? Are the A ones more "superior/important"? Somebody please explain this to me. Hgh1985 (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Hgh1985. Please read Wikipedia:Content assessment. In all honesty, most of these grades are of little importance and can be assigned by any individual editor. I often upgrade stubs to start, since stub is sort of a badge of shame, and if the article is moderately informative, I think it should be start at least. But almost no active editors care at all whether an article is rated B or A. Good article and Featured article ratings are taken a bit more seriously, since peer review and social capital is involved. In other words, do not worry about it very much unless you want to write articles of the highest quality level imaginable. You know, spending months of work and hundreds or thousands of dollars/pounds/euros on books about a single topic. Or living very near a world class library. Cullen328 (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hgh1985, here's an overlapping but different opinion. A-class articles are so rare that you can forget about them. Stubs are just sad. Start-class articles should be worth reading. And so forth. But Cullen328 is right in that the distinctions between Stub and Start, between Start and C, and between C and B are of concern to few people. GA and FA are taken seriously (on occasion, so seriously that the nitpicking can be pretty funny). The instructions for GA reviewers clearly say that the highest quality level imaginable is not a requirement for GA (whereas it is a requirement for FA). Currently I have a GA candidate up for grabs; its content is largely based on what I found in just three books, none of which cost me much (they totaled just tens of euros) and all of which I'd anyway bought well before the notion of pushing the article up to GA class entered my mind. -- Hoary (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Fewer than 2% of all articles in English Wikipedia are GA or FA. David notMD (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Signature error

My signature looked correct in my Preferences, but it was incorrect when I replied in my talk page. A possible reason is the length of my signature is just 2 bytes from the 256 bytes restriction. However, there are three links in my signature--my username link, talk page link and contributions link but only the talk page link had an error--the text appeared black and the link was disabled. It's a little bit strange, but why is the exact reason? IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 09:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:IntegerSequences, It looks fine here! As per Help:Self_link, you can't link to a page from itself (there may be a way, but a basic link doesn't work, e.g. Wikipedia:Teahouse . Which is why it doesn't work on the talk page. JeffUK 09:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this file eligible for Commons?

Is this video eligible to be uploaded to Commons? The caption says it's a Royal Canadian Air Force training film and looks pretty old. This template says media published by a state entity in Canada 50 years ago are in public domain.

Shubjt (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's dated MCMLIX = 1959, can't comment on the Canadian copyright rules though! JeffUK 09:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

WHY DELETE MY ARTICLE

PLEASE RETURN IT BACK TO IMPROVE Apadana1401 (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Apadana1401 Please do not "yell"(use all capital letters). 331dot (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does- that is considered promotional here, you do not have to be soliciting customers or selling something. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself(such as through interviews, press releases, or announcements of routine business activities). Wikipedia is only interested in what those completely unconnected with the company say about it. Please read Your First Article.

If you work for or have an association with this company, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Viv Graham

Could someone review the Viv Graham wikipage, there are numerous unsourced + slanderous posts on this this wikipage, have removed some myself. The enire article needs to be cleaned up. --Devokewater 12:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe he is sufficiently notable for an article at all, nor would The murder of Viv Graham (the standard alternative to a personal article) be notable. Proposal for deletion started here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viv Graham JeffUK 12:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you use ChatGPT on Wikipedia?

Hi. I'm new to this site, and I've wanted to edit on the Basic English Wikipedia. There is a list on what words compromise Basic English, and as a little experiment, I fed GPT an article on the English Wikipedia and asked it to translate the text into Basic English, replacing any complex words. It did it really well actually, to the point where it could easily be passed as a man-made article, but I wonder if this is a violation of policy, to use a bot to create content in this way.

I haven't used it to edit anything. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this a few days ago. Please see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1175#Usage_of_ChatGPT. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Refer this discussion. You might also find this one useful. TL;DR: It is not preferable to use ChatGPT as a source, or any other bot-genetrated content for that matter. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 13:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I've read both of those links through, and I do think Wikipedia should establish an organised, official policy on the use of AI. Honestly, all of this terrifies me.

I think we should place more value on human voices, not artificial ones. For this reason, I won't use GPT, and I wouldn't want anyone else to until we establish a consensus on this. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:PrecariousWorlds This sort of semi-automated task may be a good use for something like ChatGPT. If I understand what you've described, you're not asking it to create new content, only to strictly translate content from one writing style to another. Assuming you then validated the content manually before uploading it I don't see a problem with it. Of course, 'writing something in simple English' means a lot more than just replacing the words, so it may not produce high quality content that's actually easier to understand for less proficient readers, but again that's for you to decide before uploading. Could you show a sample of the output in your user page somewhere? JeffUK 14:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you mind if I post a sample here?

The page in question is Ancus Marcius. My goal is to add information about Roman rulers not present on the Simple English wiki.

This was the excerpt:

Ancus Marcius was the legendary fourth king of Rome, who traditionally reigned 24 years. Upon the death of the previous king, Tullus Hostilius, the Roman Senate appointed an interrex, who in turn called a session of the assembly of the people who elected the new king. Ancus is said to have ruled by waging war as Romulus did, while also promoting peace and religion as Numa did. Ancus Marcius was believed by the Romans to have been the namesake of the Marcii, a plebeian family.

This is what ChatGPT produced out of it:

Ancus Marcius was a king of Rome. He was the fourth king. He was in charge for 24 years. When the king before him, Tullus Hostilius, died, the leaders of the Roman Senate chose a leader for a short time. This leader then called a meeting of the people. The people chose the new king. Ancus Marcius was known for fighting wars like Romulus did. But, he also wanted peace and religion like Numa did. The Romans thought Ancus Marcius was the reason for the name of the Marcii family, who were not from a noble background. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Welll clearly that falls very short of the standard that we would expect. was in charge should be "ruled". for a short time means very little. This leader? What was his name? like Romulus did? What was that like then? like Numa did? Who? The Romans thought What, all of them? Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, this excerpt was designed for the Simple English Wiki, so it's bound to be simplified. And many of these criticisms are the fault of the article, not ChatGPT. But yes, it would probably require a lot of proofreading before publication. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

For some reason, I am reminded of Randall Munroe's book Thing Explainer. {The poster foremrly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@PrecariousWorlds There has been more extensive discussion of whether ChatGPT can/should be used on Wikipedia which is summarised in today's Signpost article. That article includes links to an ongoing forum for setting the policy. Any editor can comment there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me! I'll check it out PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT spake thusly: "Ancus Marcius was a king of Rome. — No, he very probably wasn't. He may not have existed at all. This is the problem with Artificial Bullshiters: they produce text that seems superficially plausible, but in actual reallity is plain false. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 19:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Ancus Marcius was the legendary fourth king of Rome" isn't exactly clear that he may not have existed either; garbage in garbage out! ('Legendary' is ambiguous, especially if you don't already know that Roman history is shrouded in folklore.) That he "he very probably wasn't" the fourth king of Rome is superficially plausible but also not supported by the sources. JeffUK 08:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

To play Devil's Advocate, how do we know Titus Geganius Macerinus existed, for example? The only sources we have of him are from 400 years after he served as consul. How can we assume he really existed, he might've just been a mistake by Livy. On the contrary, there is a lot of oral tradition and many different sources all throughout Roman history who made it clear Ancus was a real king of Rome.

I think we can treat Ancus Marcius like he was a real person who held the office of rex in the seventh century BCE, while also making it clear that we cannot really know for certain. I don't think the AI was entirely wrong here. Though, I think a lot of proofreading will be required in order to publish something it wrote. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

A Teas

theres cup of tea

theres tea in a teahouse in wikipedia tea shop did want teas drink it the cup of teahouse 112.206.222.144 (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navajcmer (talk • contribs)

drink it! Navajcmer (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

good a tea 119.95.107.49 (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind having one. Milk with half sugar please PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Well anyone wants tea for sure. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:39D5:AE22:288A:67FD (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Teascup has 2 handles to be balanced, right?, oops, I correct that..

Refer: Intercultural communication principles **talk** 110.174.50.79 (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The tea is good. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Wow, that tea is just delicious, plus there are flavors served such as Iced Tea or other uses. You can still drink that, but it would be way too refreshing for you. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Candy (Indian web series) and Dharavi Bank (2022 web series)

I have created the articles with references as per WP:RS but editor MrsSnoozyTurtle moved it to draft page and tagged in the draft. May I know in AfC draft can anyone tag such tags? Also, I want to know for what it was moved to draft space. I haven't jumped into article creation in a day, rather I have studied Wikipedia articles and worked for references at the initial stages. I have created articles via AfC. But user MrsSnoozyTurtle here made allegation against me of sock puppetry. Someone please assist me and file a WP:SPI against me. I had no other account, but I contributed as an IP user some years back. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Submission Declined

Hello, my submissionof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ossama_Hassanein was declined stating tha Wikipedia is not an executive Linkedin. Appreciate if you can advise on what to change edit to be able to submit successfully.

Thank you,

A AhmadAmr78 (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! At least 3 of the four sources you use on the draft are primary sources, which are only acceptable on Wikipedia if a number of criteria are met (see link below). Plus, your sources only seem to confirm that Ossama Hassanein exists, which does not establish notability as defined here.

For more, you can read Wikipedia:Primary sources, Wikipedia:General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people).

Regards. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Black / African-American MOS

Sorry if this is more of an MOS question, but I want to find a quick answer as I revert vandalism, and just wasn't sure what an article ought to have generally. Black, or African-American. When the person in question is American of course, so this would never apply to a British black person etc. Here is the edit that made me think about this for reference. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops It's always best to follow what sources state, and sometimes even to put the wording in quotation marks if you feel there might be an issue. In this instance the source clearly uses the phrase "two young black men" in their report. We have no idea if two of my countrymen from here in the Uk were holidaying in America and decided to attack this person. So it would be your assumption as to their origins, so should be avoided. But when any words are likely to be met with disapproval through their use, then quote marks allow you to avoid putting any of your own interpretations on the situation, or of causing offense. As is always the case, care is needed to think through the implications of what you're writing. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That is an excellent answer and helps a lot. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops Great to hear! I should add that if you were describing the subject of an article in its lead paragraph, then I'm sure African-American would be far more appropriate. Or, much better still, just state their nationality. As today is the anniversary of his birth, take a look at Martin Luther King Jr. to see how this is addressed there. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a good example article for such use. TY again. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Changing the font on Arabic Wikipedia

The default font used on the Arabic Wikipedia page is pretty small and difficult to read, Why do you not use another font like the font used for the Moroccan Darija Wikipedia 2001:8F8:1B2F:A4C2:7821:1633:9FFE:22EA (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. English Wikipedia editors has no control over Arabic Wikipedia, which is a separate project. Please ask the question at Arabic Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP Editor. I appreciate your concerns, but this is English Wikipedia and we have no control over what other language Wikipedias choose to do. Registered users can choose what 'SKINS' they use to optimise their browsing and editing experience. These are selectable in Preferences > Appearance. I hope this addresses your concerns and that you find something that you do find easier to view. Sorry I can't help more. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You might be able to look into WikiData? I saw that there was a place for translations, etc. Squeaksqueakn (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Notability and People notable for only one event

I am a novice user of Wikipedia editing. My uncle Ben Bruce Blakeney has a page below relating to one event in Japan. A former employer of mine, Howard P Ladd, has a full page that includes his entire life history. Can you confirm that the limited page for Ben Bruce Blakeney is probably due to being notable for only one event, or could there be some other reason? As his nephew I have many more details which could be included for Ben Bruce Blakeney. Thank you! 

Ben Bruce Blakeney

Howard Ladd Sblakeney (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Sblakeney. You have a conflict of interest as a family member, but since he died about 60 years ago, it is probably manageable. Disclose your COI on the article talk page. Write neutrally. Any content you add must summarize what published, reliable sources say. You cannot use your personal experience or family stories in any way. Please read No original research. Cullen328 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Very clear answer.  Sblakeney (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Uploading a photo of a public figure for an article specifically about that figure

Hi — I'm just querying about image rights and appropriate uploads for articles about public figures. I'm editing an article on the architecture curator Beatrice Galilee and would like to add an image. There are many images of her online, some used on multiple different platforms with attribution that's a little tricky to track. What are the appropriate steps to make sure any upload falls within the guidelines. The page for David Adjaye and the Wikimedia commons file "David Adjaye (c) Chris Schwagga.jpg" may be a good example of the sort of image I am wanting to upload. That file uses Attribution-Share Alike International 4.0 licensing — is that all I would need to include to use, say, this image?: https://www.dezeen.com/awards/2018/judges/beatrice-galilee/

Thank you! Researchat (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Researchat. The only person who. an freely license a photo is the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer. Unless you have written evidence to the contrary, you must assume that every photo you find online is restricted by copyright. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

As for the photo of David Adjaye, that looks like very dubious licensing to me. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! @Cullen328 & I agree... Researchat (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

this essay might be of interest to you wikipedia:Requesting_free_content JeffUK 19:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Criteria for being considered an involved editor

I was rereading Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions and I'm a bit confused with the criteria for being an involved editor, specifically with the third one. "You are considered involved if: [...] You have ever closed such a move request." – What exactly does this mean? MaterialWorks _(talk) 18:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, MaterialWorks. I agree that the wording in isolation is vague, but in context, I think that it means "You have ever closed such a move request about the same topic." At least that's how I read it. Cullen328 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Restore

Can you restore my talk page?
I deleted by mistake. i want to collect Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 19:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Can somebody help me out? Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 19:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @TheManishPanwar, and your talk page doesn't seem to be deleted, but if you could provide some diffs I'm sure I could, or another editor could, restore it if there is a problem. You could even do it yourself. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 19:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sir please restore my talk page. Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 19:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What exactly was deleted? I'm not sure what to restore because everything on your talk page seems to be fine. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 20:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Helloheart, I want to restore my old conversations. Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 20:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Everything before this edit? --ARoseWolf 20:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I can restore your old conversations, but can you tell me which ones? I found these: are any of these the ones you mean? [1][2][3][4][5] There are no archives for you, so this is all I found. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 20:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf, since my talk page was created Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 20:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Because I want to know what was my mistake. Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 20:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Maybe it is possible to restore all discussions but from what I can tell that's going to take a lot of volunteer time. Perhaps an admin can assist but for we editors all we can do is take each individual revert of discussions and add them back in so as to keep the discussions you currently have as they are. That seems like a monumental task for a volunteer editor here to do. You, of course, can do it yourself. --ARoseWolf 20:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheManishPanwar: Click the "View history" tab to see the page history [6]. It displays red numbers at edits where the page became smaller. The numbers show the size change in bytes. You removed content in seven edits. Click "prev" to see what you removed. You can click "edit" at the previous version to get the full source text of the page before the edit. Then you can copy content you want to restore, edit the current talk page by clicking the "Edit" tab, and insert the content. It takes some work for seven edits. Sometimes an edit can be reverted by just clicking an "undo" link but it doesn't work here due to conflicting intermediate edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

PrimeHunter Thank you So Much Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 20:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@AmandaNPMaam/Sir Please help in this issue.

Balance

God also has a left hand.......... yes ? 110.174.50.79 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, this is the Teahouse, a place for asking simple questions on how to use/edit Wikipedia. I'm afraid this isn't the right place to ask this. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Recover Editor-Erased Paragraph: Possible?

Wikipedia Friends,

As a nearly new editor, I just erased the first paragraph of an article and thereby killed all the footnotes and bibliography entries for that paragraph and the 21 pages of new material I added on behalf of a scholar. Is it possible to go back and restore that first paragraph (and thereby everything else) to its former state? If not, what to do now?

signed, Bull in China Shop

Polyphemus2 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Polyphemus2: What article? I don't see it in your edit history. You should be able to go to the article's history page and choose undo. RudolfRed (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Polyphemus2, welcome to the Teahouse. Special:Contributions/Polyphemus2 shows your only other edit by your acount here at the English Wikipedia and it didn't erase anything. Are you referring to es:Especial:Contribuciones/Polyphemus2 at the Spanish Wikipedia? If you want to revert everything you did including to remove what you added then see Help:Reverting. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Mittens

Hi there again. Following on from last time, I have found some new references. Could someone tell me if I should wait longer or if the draft would pass GNG now? Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte Welcome back. Two copy pasted paragraphs in national newspapers - presumably from a press release, and lots of insider websites? It doesn't look like a notable topic to me. It may belong as a line or two within Chess.com, but that's as far as it goes in my view. (WP:COI declaration: I just tried it out and the bloody thing beat me!) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I've been waiting for more sources anyway so what's a little more waiting. If not, I've already got a post on the Chess.com talk page asking what could be used in case no more sources come out. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Oops - let me be clear: I wasn't accusing you of copy/pasting. The FT and Guardian journalists both clearly pasted in the same text from some press release into their own newspaper column. Sorry if I accidentally implied otherwise. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry Nick, I didn't think that. I always try to put things in my own words on Wikipedia. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Creating a page or a draft

The page "Nanoemulsion system" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, or you may create the page "Nanoemulsion system" directly, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.

I realized when creating an article, I get two options as shown above; 1. create a draft and 2. Create a page. I have been using the first option. I am wondering if I can also use the second option and at what point. I would also appreciate a link that shows the difference between the two. Kelmaa (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kelmaa. The way I understand it, a draft is created in a different namespace (section of wikipedia) to articles. If you create a draft, you have to either move the page or submit it to articles for creation to publish it as an article. Creating a page puts the edits immediately into the article (main) namespace. They still need to be reviewed though. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Your history is two drafts accepted, one declined. Consider continuing to use the AfC route until you are more experienced. Schminnte's comment is that direct-to-article efforts are reviwed by New Pages Patrol, where those can be approved, kicked back to draft, nominsated for articles for deletion or Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

...and it's worth adding that AFC review is a lot gentler on new users, who get helpful feedback and a chance to work on their draft and to resubmit when ready. If it's shoved straight into mainspace and is bad, it'll simply get deleted. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Kelmaa and welcome to the Teahouse! Registered users, or users who have been on Wikipedia for at least 4 days and have made at least 10 edits, can make articles directly instead of having to submit a draft as an Articles for Creation draft (per this discussion, if you're interested). I couldn't find a link for you, but there are a few differences between the two: first, a draft is in the draft space while an article is in the main mainspace. It's actually "mainspace", but "main mainspace" is catchier. Also, if I created a draft about a band called "Tomato soup band," it wouldn't show up in Google or any search engine. If I created "Tomato soup band" directly, once the article is marked as patrolled, it will show up in the search engines. You can create articles directly, since you are in the registered user group. Hope this makes sense. Happy editing! ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 22:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kelmaa I note there is already a page called Miniemulsion. This appears to me to cover precisely the same topic as the one you are preparing at Draft:Nanoemulsions system. Would you not be better advised to expand the existing article, as we do not allow two pages to exist on the same subject? If I have misunderstood the differences, so may AFC reviewers. You may therefore wish to clearly explain your rationale on the talk page of your draft. I hope this assists you. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback, I really appreciate it.

@Nick Moyes, I was considering that but I was not sure if it would be Ok. I was waiting for a review on my draft to see if the reviewer would recommend that. I will delete the draft and improve the existing article Kelmaa (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a very good move, as we always encourage the improvement of existing articles, no matter how bad they may seem to start with. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources for Live Events

I'm a fan of a drag race series called Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings. I have been unable to find much info on past results so I figured I would create Wikipedia pages. I've been watching the televised races and taking notes of who won each race, the schedule and the standings. Since this info is televised but not really available on the internet, is it possible to use the show as my source? My articles were recently moved to draft due to no citations. Thanks! Kash2112 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI Draft:2020 Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings, Draft:2019 Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings, Draft:2018 Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings are the drafts being referenced. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Kash2112, yes it is possible per WP:PRIMARY#3, but it is preferable to use a published source for better WP:V. You have yet to prove the notability of Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings. You should probably create an article for the show as a whole, which will have more references supporting it than the individual seasons. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Using company self-published financial statements as a reference

I am currently creating a page for a small community bank named Canandaigua National Bank & Trust (CNB). Though CNB is large enough to be listed on a publicly traded exchange, it instead opts to offer shares through sealed-bid auctions administered by the bank. Consequently, CNB issues annual financial reports akin to that of a 10k statement that would be filed by a publicly listed company. Here is their latest 2021 report for reference. In my page I reference the 2021 financial statement published by CNB several times. Do you believe that since these financial statements are self published by the bank that I should not use them as references? My draft was rejected and I have a feeling that this was likely the cause. Wsloth (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Wsloth, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use self-published sources for relatively minor, uncontroversial, information such as share capital. They will not contribute towards notability, which depends on independent sources. For assessing notability, Wikipedia doesn't care whether a company's share capital is large, small, positive, negative, or fraudulent: all that matters is whether there has been substantial independent writing about the company. ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wsloth: That financial statement includes a report from an independent auditor (eleventh page of the PDF file), and in that sense it can be considered similar to a "peer reviewed" academic journal article. An independent source has verified the report, so I would say this is OK to cite as a reference, but it would not count toward notability of the bank. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, the auditors are paid by the organisations to write the reports, and they only audit the information that is presented to them, even though they are 'independent' (Of course both can be said for many peer-reviewed journal articles too.) But I would agree that for factual information they should be a good source. I would tend to treat the 'CEO Statement' etc. (before page 11) in any financial report as promotional blurb and be very wary to repeat anything in there JeffUK 06:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Do reviews work as reliable sources for authors?

Hi, I'm researching a few authors to write their biographies for Wikipedia. For many of them, the best available references online are the book reviews published by reliable, and some not so reliable, sources.

Do book reviews, such as those available on Kirkus, count as reliable sources? Here is one for example.

Thanks! UMStellify (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, UMStellify. Book reviews in reliable sources are often the best references for articles about the books themselves. Whether or not they are good references for an article about the author depends on how much the review says about the author (and whether what it says about the author is independent or comes from a blurb or press release). ColinFine (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty much what was confusing me. This is helpful. Thanks! UMStellify (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, UMStellify. See the entry about Kirkus at Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which suggests they may be reliable. However, you asked about writing biographies of authors. Book reviews do not count as WP:RS in that context, nor does the author biography published within them, as these are written by the authors themselves. A number of different reviews of books in mainstream or respected media/journals might help towards proving notability of the book itself, but not the author. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not like to disagree with other Teahouse hosts, but in this case, I disageee. One of the criteria listed in WP:AUTHOR is The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). My interpretation is that an author who has written several books that have each received several reviews in reliable, independent sources has created a significant body of work, and that all of those reviews are evidence of notability. As for Kirkus, see WP:KIRKUS. The main Kirkus reviews are OK, but "Kirkus Indie" is a pay to play scheme. Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What Cullen328 said. Further, the notability of an author of stuff worth reading (as opposed to mere "personalities" who get their names on books) is based not on their youthful arrest for joyriding, their suspension from university for paddling naked in the fountain, their early penury and McJobs, their serendipitous/questionable but anyway profitable find of somebody's discarded (?) Rolex, their canny early investment in some outfit named eBay, their arrest for slugging a paparazzo, their relationship with Jesus, their marital infidelities, their successive Ferraris, their (lack of) taste in interior furnishing, their dyspeptic tweets, blah blah; but in what they write. And if what they write has won intelligent commentary in/from reliable sources, then you're very welcome to summarize this. (No cherry-picking, please. Feel free to ignore the crass reviews, but don't exclude reviews, or major parts of these, just because they're unfavorable, or indeed just because they're favorable.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@UMStellify: If I may offer a counterpoint: I once wrote a draft about an best-selling author. However, all of the independent sources I found were about the books. The reviewer declined my draft, suggesting I recast it into an article about the books, and indeed, it was a better article by following that advice. It is now published as Gameknight999. All the sources in there now were in the original draft about the author, and it was weak, in spite of Cullen's quote of WP:AUTHOR, which I think he's interpreting a bit liberally. Meeting a criterion in WP:AUTHOR doesn't necessarily mean that the author is notable, but it suggests that notabilty is there. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

A tangential word of caution. Book reviewers in even the most reliable of sources sometimes include details about an author, which they may have taken from material commonly printed by the publisher on the rear flap of the dust jacket or elsewhere in the book's end matter. Such material is frequently written, and will nearly always have been vetted, by the author themselves (unless the book is a posthumous publication). It is obviously, then, not independent of the subject, will be highly selective and positively biased, and may be largely or completely fictional (such 'potted bios' are often supplied for pseudonyms of single or collaborating writers who 'invent' a persona so as not to disclose their identity). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You've got to differentiate between notability and writeability here too. An author can be notable but it's still impossible to write anything about them. If Joella di Cardigan-Schmidt publishes a whole string of massive best-sellers, but the only information about her that we can glean from the best reviews is that she apparently lives in a toadstool on the moon and sings to her pet Ankylosaurus every night, then it's 99.9% certain that no one has any biographical information from her that is independent of her own fictional creativity. The fact that multiple reviewers in great places say that this toadstool-dweller has written an amazing book makes her notable, but it doesn't give us a reliable source to write anything about her, beyond "The book reviewer of the Times thinks she lives in a toadstool". So we either do what Anachronist suggests, and write about her books instead, or we give up and accept that someone can have sources that make them notable without having sources that tell us anything we can write. Elemimele (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of interesting viewpoints. I think it is best to summarize it this way:

1. Book reviews from reliable sources, such as Kirkus, are useful indicators of notability for authors
2. Book reviews generally provide more information about the book, rather than the author
3. Biographical information from book reviews should be used with caution because it might not be entirely independent of the subject
4. If most book reviews provide information only about the book, but not the author, and no reliable, significant, and independent biographical information about the author is available from other sources, it is best to create an article about the book rather than the author
5. Book reviews, positive and negative, should both be used with caution and in balance, presenting both views with objectivity, or simply summarizing the contents of the book using the reviews as a source

I hope I didn't miss anything.

I'll read some more about this and see if I can find some authors who would fit this criteria. The three I was reading about fail point 4 as per this summary.

Thank you all for replying. UMStellify (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It's my understanding that as long as you are giving factual information on the subject, then it can be written in the article on said subject/author. If the book review is in fact just stating the facts and not a formal opinion on the matter. Yes? Squeaksqueakn (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

De facto vs de jure census population in settlement articles

When adding the census population of a settlement to its article (be that a village or city), is the de facto (who is actually there?) or de jure (who has their legal address there?) preferred, or both? Thanks, – Olympian ^loquere 03:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Olympian: The population is whatever reliable sources report it as. Maybe I am misunderstanding your question, can you clarify or give an example? RudolfRed (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You could put both populations in the article, if some sources report X people have addresses there and Y people actually live there. RudolfRed (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@RudolfRed I'm looking at populations in an official census document which has de facto population in the left side of the table and the de jure population the right, so I'm unsure which to use when they're both presented in the same manner by the same source. – Olympian ^loquere 03:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Olympian: This is just my opinion, but I would say de facto is the more meaningful number. Thousands of people in a community of a million may have post office box addresses and don't live there. Those who actually live there are who make up the community and its economy. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The location of a college or a prison or a military base in a community come to mind. David notMD (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Emoji pronunciation

I have not been able to find an acoustic pronunciation link for the word "Emoji." Whereas in many cases a small loudspeaker symbol is shown and a voice pronounces the word, I have not found this sort of link. I would like to know the correct pronunciation and feel this word is one which should have a link in the Wikipedia definition as well. Ralphdno (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Ralphdno and welcome to the Teahouse! This link should be helpful. Happy editing! ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 04:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiktionary is generally better for determining pronunciation than Wikipedia, which tends only to provide less obvious pronunciations. See wikt:emoji. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Ralphdno, when a word is borrowed [that's the term] into one language from another, the borrowers are under no obligation to retain the original pronunciation. (Indeed, as different languages have different phonologies, it would be odd if they did retain it.) Emoji comes from Japanese; and if you're interested, Japanese pronunciation: [emoʑi] or something close to this. -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyright of kinetic / auto-creative sculptures?

Hi all, I recently uploaded a photo that my brother took (he has given me the OK to upload it to Wiki Commons if this question passes) of David Medalla's Cloud Canyons sculpture: here. I have uploaded it as fair use to cite in the article on the artist. However, I would like to hear people's thoughts on whether it would actually be OK to upload it to Commons, i.e. there being no copyright infringement. I understand that images of sculptures in the US (the photo was taken in Chicago) may be infringing copyright, there being no freedom of panorama. But given that the sculpture itself is ephemeral (foam spews out of plastic tubes, thus the sculpture is constantly changing and the artist has no control over its shapes once turned on) it arguably lacks the fixation requirement to be copyrightable (of course, I am not a lawyer, so this is all just a guess). I would love to be able to upload it to Commons, so it may be easier for others to discuss his work in the future. Thank you to anybody who may shed light on this! Kting97 (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kting97: you should definitely ask that question at either WP:MCQ or somewhere on Commons. That being said, here are my thoughts.

Admittedly, I am not a US copyright lawyer, but I am not convinced by the argument of fixation. If I go to a concert, record it, and post it on Youtube, I am certainly guilty of copyright violation, even if the concert venue made no official recording and the concert itself is not a fixed form. Similarly, here, even if the exact state of the foam-fountain is transient, any photograph becomes a fixed recording of it.

It could also be argued that (even if the foam is a ever-moving) the arrangement of plastic pipes, pedestal etc. is above the threshold of originality and hence constitutes a (fixed) copyrighted work. The threshold of originality is after all fairly low.

For those reasons, I believe the transfer to Commons is impossible. That being said, it should be able to stay on Wikipedia - a still image (of kinetic art) should certainly pass the threshold for NFCC #2 and #3. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply! Definitely noted on the concert analogy, and you've pretty much answered my question. Will still move this question over to Wikipedia Commons to hear more thoughts on it this :) Unsure how to close a query on Teahouse but to whoever else is reading this you may do just that. Thanks again! Kting97 (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussions here normally just 'close' themselves when nobody responds any more. Within three days it will have moved up to the top of the page and eventually be taken off and archived by a bot. We only ever proactively close a discussion whilst it's on this page if hosts deem a matter has gone on long enough and has strayed into the realms of no longer being appropriate, and is generating more heat than light. We might then place a 'closed' template around it. It rarely needs to happens, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

template

I've added adequate links and references to this bio - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Braathen&editintro=Template%3ABLP_editintro#Biography

Can you help me remove the template box above?

Thanks! Cynecitta (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the links you added because we don't use external links in the body of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links for more information. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting Undo issues...

I'm watching a page that was created with false claims but with media coverage of the false claim.

Now, the truth has come out and editors corrected the falsehoods with the truth.

The supporters of the false claims, keep reverting the page to its original state.

This has happed about 7-8 times.

How are these "undo revision" wars resolved? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:9CFC:250F:AADD:8284 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring is never a good idea. Try WP:DR or WP:ANI. Also note that Wikipedia supports Verifiability, not truth. Even if the claim is false, if supported by RSs it should still be included. RealGucci (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, the fact is now verified but the lie has more media coverage. Some of the coverage of the lie now mentions the truth. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:9CFC:250F:AADD:8284 (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieving a Deleted Article

I worked on an article Prince Ofosu Safah of which was deleted. kindly retrieve it for me thanks.Jwale2 (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jwale2, welcome back to the Teahouse. The place to try requesting a copy is WP:REFUND, assuming it meets the criteria outlined there. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with edit request

Hello Teahouse! I'm struggling to find editors to review a COI edit request I posted back in November on the Issue One Talk page. I've already left notices about the request at several WikiProjects (including WikiProject Politics & WikiProject Organizations) and on the Talk pages of editors who have been active with the article in the past, but I haven't received any responses. Is there anywhere else I can reach out to for help? I know the COI requested edits backlog is high and I'm not trying to jump to the front of the line. But my request seems pretty straightforward, so I'm hoping to at least get some feedback. Any help you can provide would be appreciated! AR at Issue One (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking to help where its needed

Hello to all. I am looking to help in Wikipedia and help with articles. Where is a good place to start? Squeaksqueakn (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Squeaksqueakn. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Community portal. Cullen328 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

== Coffee House ? == 60.241.201.38 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)