Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, 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)

By the way, thanks for all the questions. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:18, 18 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)

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)

Sorry to say but there are disclaimers to Wikipedia.Cwater1 (talk) 01:48, 18 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)

@Paybypintony Please see other stuff exists. That might help you understand why your draft should not be compared with other existing articles. David10244 (talk) 12:54, 18 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)

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)

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)

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)

I can agree with you, others said that it has flavors. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:5158:F2E0:33F:651E (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, even if it is either hot or cold. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:17, 18 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)

Yes, I want tea, it tastes good as coffee and chocolate milk. People should consume tea also. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:5158:F2E0:33F:651E (talk) 05:48, 18 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)

Ah — ideal. Thanks a bunch Researchat (talk) 12:23, 18 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)

Living_Truth is the "most" powerful truth... Wikipedia should encompass it...60.241.201.38 (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

SITUATION: At Jessica Nabongo the text identifies her as the second Black woman to visit every country, while refs 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 state that she was first. The correct information, supported by other refs, is that she was second, and Woni Spotts was first. David notMD (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

But Nabongo's people going to keep reverting the page back to saying she's first. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:9CFC:250F:AADD:8284 (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The article seems to have settled down now with the correct information that Nabongo was the second. I'm surprised to note that no-one though to discuss the issue on Talk:Jessica Nabongo as per normal method of seeking consensus but instead just edit warred. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:50, 18 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)

Convenience link: Prince Ofosu Sefah

Note that it was deleted via an Articles for deletion consensus, so it's definitely not going to be going back to mainspace for now, but someone at REFUND might email you a copy or revive it to draftspace if you have definite prospects for overcoming the previous problems. DMacks (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you @DMacks looking forward to the email to revive it at draft. Jwale2 (talk) 01:48, 18 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)

Hi there @AR at Issue One. Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I personally feel by coming here with an enquiry asking why the request has not been fulfilled, it does actually seem that you are trying to jump to the front of the line. Please understand you will need to wait until an editor decides to review the edit. I have taken a cursory look, and I would not accept that edit request as it is. Some of the points raised appear to be interpretative rather than directly supported by the source. I greatly appreciate you disclosing your COI and following guidelines and thank you for reaching out. Someone else may take notice of the edit and review for you, but until then you will please need to wait. Thank you. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:54, 18 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)

Non-Existent Pages with Mention on Disambiguation pages

Hello, I'm planning on merging a page (Sibirsky (Rural Locality)) with (Sibirsky) As I was advised with a previous question, in which I would follow the Wikipedia policy

WP:Be Bold, but there are many non-existent pages, should I include them? I Followed The Username Policy (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:I followed The Username Policy,

It seems like places are the one kind of redlinked entry that is tolerated in disambiguation pages. So if it was fine in Sibirsky (rural locality), which is a DAB page among localities, then it would be equally fine in Sibirsky, which is a DAB page that would (after your edit) include those localities. DMacks (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

How 'Bout a House for Coffee drinkers

60.241.201.38 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the above line not in large type ? .. I used the sandbox and it was large in there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.201.38 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to create a new section, I doubt they would though, as I believe “Teahouse” is often a place for discussion, Though you can propose this on the Idea Lab. Happy Editing! -I Followed The Username Policy (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed the header. IP editor, if you want to discuss renaming the Teahouse, you could make a proposal on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Teahouse). There have been some discussions on the subject over the years, occasionally serious, occasionally less so, but the current name seems to serve our purposes well (though it does sometimes get confused with "treehouse"!). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I found these.... Well, from Wikipedia, (Redirected from Village pump).

Wikipedia:Teahouse, from Wikipedia, (Redirected from Wikipedia:Coffeehouse) 60.241.201.38 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the first thing you're referring to is. The second thing, Wikipedia:Coffeehouse, is what's called a redirect - see more at WP:Redirect. They are created so that people searching for something, but using a slightly different term than the actual article/page name, can still find what they're looking for. If someone is looking for the Teahouse but doesn't quite remember what it was called, they might try "Coffeehouse" instead, and they'd be directed here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

WE now have a Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). Thank the "ghost in the machine"... 60.241.201.38 (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Images while signed out

Can I upload an image while signed out? 73.100.172.152 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. Only account holders who have become autoconfirmed can upload files - in other words, no. But you can make an upload request at Wikipedia:Files for upload. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk Page

Can I put whatever I want on my talk page? Oscarjohnson1981 (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has some Talk page guidlines at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. So long as whatever you put on your talk page follows those guidlines and any applicable Wikipedia policies, it is totally fine to put it on your talk page. Greshthegreat (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much Oscarjohnson1981 (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Doubts about the copyright status of a 2019 photo in the article Lucile Randon

The main photo from 2019 in the article Lucile Randon is licensed as having been released into the public domain by Gerontology Wiki. I have several doubts that this is true however, and am leaning towards it being removed due to it being copyrighted.

Anyone can edit the gerontology wiki, so the photo doesn't belong to that wiki itself as far as I am aware. The person who uploaded it to the Gerontology Wiki licensed it as puiblic domain there, but did not provide proof they are the copyright holder. Many of the photos uploaded there are copyrighted and can be found elsewhere online, so clearly no one is actually checking copyright status on that Wiki. Also the person who uploaded the photo to Wikipedia has a different username than that of the user who uploaded it to the Gerontology Wiki.

Should the photo be removed until it can be confirmed that it really is in the public domain? Or never added back if it is proven that the photo is still copyrighted, or it's supposed public domain licensing cannot be confirmed? Greshthegreat (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Greshthegreat Welcome to the Teahouse! The primary photo is located at Wikimedia Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LRandon.webp so I suggest asking at the Commons help desk at Commons:Commons:Help desk. Thanks for reporting the issue, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will ask at the Commons Help Desk. Greshthegreat (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

how do you...?

hi, sorry if this has been asked thousands of times, but how do you make a new article/page? I want to make one about the processes that some cheeses from norway are made through, and a few interesting facts as well, but I don't know how...? ~Tallulah (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tarulliah Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. 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. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you so much! I submitted the article and fingers crossed it is found good enough! ~Tallulah (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tarulliah If you want this draft to be considered for publication again, you need to rewrite it to use an "encyclopedic" tone. When you have done that, click the blue "resubmit" button. But make sure you have read and understood all the information that GoingBatty linked above. There's a lot of stuff to read. David10244 (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Upload image

Hello, can you please upload this image in Draft:Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (soundtrack)? https://is2-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Music122/v4/a4/38/44/a43844c6-6b22-7443-0e54-7b71692df661/794043210532.jpg/316x316bb.webp 191.113.204.86 (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! While it is OK for an album cover to be included in the infobox of an article, it cannot be used in a draft. (See the "one-article minimum" mentioned at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria]].) If you can update your draft to include additional published independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the album to show how the album meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, and your draft becomes an article, then it would be appropriate to upload the image to Wikipedia. Hope this helps, and good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I would upload the image, but i am an anonymous user and we can't upload images. Please upload it yourself 191.113.204.86 (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

When/if the draft has been accepted and it moves to mainspace, you should add relevant projects to its Talk Page. Members of those projects are then likely to upload a suitable WP:NONFREE image (or you could use one of the Project Talk pages to make the request, as these are archived more slowly than this Teahouse page). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You can also make the request for the upload at WP:FFU, where volunteers who specialise in doing uploads and know about the copyright issues are available. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

How is Vector 2022 deployed?

WP:VECTOR2022 says that the change will take effect between 15:00 and 16:00 UTC, January 18, but 24 hours will be needed for the changes to propagate across most pages, and some rarely-edited pages may need three days. I guess is there an automated program to traverse all the articles by sorting them by pageview and recent edit count? IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 03:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@IntegerSequences I didn't think that the articles themselves needed to be updated, but from reading that link, I am probably wrong. Maybe another Teahouse host will know and can give a better answer. David10244 (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @IntegerSequences. This may refer to the caching of some pages which is done by the Wikimedia servers. The best way to find out for sure would be to either ask on the talk page at the place you linked, or perhaps at WP:VPT. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Email

If you and another user both have the "Allow other users to email me" option on, how would you be able to send a Wikipedia "email" to that other user? Hgh1985 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hgh1985: Hello! To email another user, you can go to Special:EmailUser. Happy editing! HouseBlaster^talk 05:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hgh1985. One thing you should understand about sending emails this way is the other person's email address won't be revealed unless they choose to respond via email. They may decide to respond via your user talk page or they may decide not to respond at all. Some users may not be currently very active or may not be checking the email address they used to register for their Wikipedia account very regularly. So, you might want to check the other user's contribution history to see whether they've been active recently or add a template like {{You got mail}} to their user talk page if it's something really important or time sensitve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hgh1985 Another thing that has caught me out when I was contacting a user to ask them to send me a copy of a source (a .pdf) which they had offered is that you have to include your own external email address (assuming you want them to reply there) in the message you send them. Wikipedia emails don't allow attachments, for obvious reasons, and don't disclose the sender's email address, only their username. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Watchlist email notification

For pages/articles I put under my personal watchlist, is there an option for me to get email notifications for every revision change update about that page/article? Hgh1985 (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hgh1985. Special:Preferences (not the "Notifications" tab) has the option "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed". If you don't view the page after getting the email or mark all pages as visited then you don't get more emails about the same page. This cannot be changed. See more at Help:Email notification#Watched pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Template substitution

Why should some templates (such as user warnings) be substituted? Mast303 (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Mast303, please see Wikipedia:Substitution. -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Basically it would be unfair if some bits of text changed retrospectively. A non-substituted (transcluded) template displays text that can be changed in future (by changing the template). So if you issued a templated warning "you really shouldn't have committed this very minor error; if you do it again you might receive a tiny-tiny trout-slap", the editor receiving this warning has a reasonable expectation of a tiny-tiny trout-slap. If they then find themselves blocked, and look back at their talk page, to find that your message has mutated into a vast stop sign, a skull-and-cross-bones, and a statement "You have committed a hideous crime and Will be Blocked without warning if you even think about doing that again!" then they may feel aggrieved, and that the goal-posts have moved unfairly. So warnings are substituted, such that the text remains a fair record of the original warning. Elemimele (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele Hey, I learned something today, and I wasn't even the one who asked the question! David10244 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

When Wikipedia knows what editors are thinking, then we can stop vandalism! David10244 (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

There are also templates that don't work as intended if they're not substituted, such as those that exploit the nowiki workaround to get signatures to display inside them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP Policy

How does the biographies of living persons policy work? Mast303 (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Mast303, are you asking how efficacious the policy is? If so, you'd probably be best off looking for academic papers about Wikipedia. (Sorry, I can't recommend any in particular.) Or do you have a question about something that's said within that page? -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mast303 It "works" mainly in the sense that experienced editors will often remove material from articles which are not in line with the policy. The most common example is when some "fact" is stated about the person which is not backed up with an inline citation. Wikipedia prefers verifiability, not truth. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Images

What kind of pictures can I upload to Wikipedia, in this case I took all of them with my camera so it's entirely my work, but they are just casual photos of life in general. What photos can't be uploaded on Wikipedia, and once they are uploaded is there a way for the uploader themselves to delete it if they personally regret it later on for whatever reason? Oscarjohnson1981 (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oscarjohnson1981, the photographs that can be uploaded (to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia) are those that would clearly have utility for Wikipedia. Most "casual photos of life in general" do not have such utility. Having uploaded a photo, you may not change your mind about its availability to the wide world. What would be your purpose in uploading "casual photos of life in general"? -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Oscarjohnson1981 There may be photos from your collection that are of value to Wikimedia/Wikipedia but you need to look at each critically and ask yourself "what does this photo show that isn't already available in dozens of other photos?". Perhaps you have visited somewhere unusual or photographed a notable person whose article here currently doesn't have a suitable image because none has been released with a Creative Commons license. For example, I've taken literally thousands of photos but have uploaded only a small number, such as some of those now used in the article on Smoking Hills, which I knew few others would have visited. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Link A Sanbox Article and give citation

Hello Team,

I am currently building a page for an Indian Freedom Fighter and a Parliamentarian who was a public figure and made significant contribution to Indian History. I find his mentions on the Wikipedia pages, but his wiki page is not existing. I am working with his next generation to build this Wiki page and link it to the existing pages wherever his name is mentioned.

Could you please help me how to do it?

Should i wait for my article to be reviewed and then add the citations?

TIA

Prashanthi Kolluru. Kolluru81 (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Kolluru81, are you saying that you're working with a descendant or heir of this person? -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Do not submit for review until you have all the citation included and properly formatted. David notMD (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kolluru81, you should start by assembling the sources you plan to use. If these include several reliable independent sources with extensive discussion of him, you should go ahead and write a draft, basing it on the sources and citing them as you go. If you submit an article for review without using any sources, it will certainly be declined. And you should answer Hoary's question above. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

For the curious, the draft is at User:Kolluru81/sandbox. A Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference. I see you have included a photo identified as being taken in 1951 as your "own work" For Wikipedia, use of that term means that you are indicating that you took this photo yourself. David notMD (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank You for reviewing. Can i change the identification? It was published in a Newspaper of 1950s. Can i edit it to the newspaper name? Kolluru81 (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank You @Maproom. Noted. Will take care. I appreciate your inputs. Kolluru81 (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes @Hoary i am working with his descendants to put it up on the Wikipedia. They have shared the sources, which i am uploading on Wikimedia as well. Kindly let me know if i am in the right direction. Kolluru81 (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If this image and the other one from the Provisional Parliament Meeting that you placed in Commons were in a newspaper, then my understanding is that either the newspaper or the photographer hold copyright. David notMD (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kolluru81 And if the newspaper or photographer holds the copyright, you can't upload it here and release it for public and commercial use. Copyright is complex. David10244 (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kolluru81 Also, the sources of information for an article (the references) need to have been published (click here). David10244 (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kolluru81 You might want to read WP:COI if you are working with his descendants, as well as make the mandatory paid editing disclosure Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Prev

What's prev mean on articles/pages revision history page? 71.9.87.159 (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It shows the changes from the previous version. See more at Help:Page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Quality

Would most Wikipedians prefer quality over quantity ? I refer to: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) RfC: Quality Wikipedia rather than "building the encyclopedia" 194.223.29.253 (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

hi ip user! which proposal are you referring to, are you looking at the Wikipedia response to chatbot-generated content thread? 💜  melecie  talk - 11:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Quality_Wikipedia_rather_than_"building_the_encyclopedia".. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I also refer to:

Category:Wikipedia_essays_about_building_the_encyclopedia 194.223.29.253 (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia:I just don't like it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"Building the Encyclopedia" does not mean 'Quantity over quality', in fact it's quite the opposite. It means 'contributing in good faith to the encyclopedia, however you can.' This may mean creating articles, adding content in line with the policies, editing and improving existing articles, or contributing to policy and procedure discussions. JeffUK 12:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia values verifiable information about notable topics from reliable secondary sources over living truth as you might see it. This means a lot of facts are ignored or unsuitable for the encyclopaedia until they are published in certain ways. HerrWaus (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.tevdapress.com/?mod=news&id=1691&authorid=225

Ranjdar Grawy (ranjdar makhded mustafa)

Freelance Journalist, Human Rights Defender, Broadcaster , Graphic designe

He is Co-founder Tevda Press and the editor chief of the TEVDA PRESS Ranjdar Grawy (ranjdar makhded mustafa) (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ranjdar Grawy, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Writing a Wikipedia article about yourself is strongly discouraged, because most people find it extremely difficult to write neutrally about themselves. It is much better for you and for everybody else if you do not try. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then somebody will write an article eventually.

If you are determined to try to create the article, then I must tell you that almost nothing in your sandbox is of any value for a Wikipedia article, and you should throw it away and start again. This is because you have been writing from your own knowledge. But that is not what Wikipedia does: Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Instead, you should study your first article and about notability, and then should assemble the independent sources that are required. Then you will need to forget everything you know about what you have done, and especially about what you think or believe, and write an article based on what those sources say about you. (Don't forget sources that are critical of you, if these exist).

Do you see why this might be difficult? ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Submitted article about Michael Leonard Healey - writer,painter/stage, TV Producer/Director/Publisher

A colleague submitted this article about me 15 (FIFTEEN) months agao. Since Wikipedia claims to process submission in about six months, why this delay please. Mike healey Strawlitter (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Strawlitter, welcome to the Teahouse. Is this about User:Ladybythebeck/Michael Leonard Healey? That page has not been submitted for review to WP:AfC; in all likelihood, no one is aware of its existence except yourself and the person who wrote it in their user space. Unfortunately, submitting it now will likely simply result in its being declined; there are numerous problems, including sourcing issues and a large number of inline external links. Your colleague should review Help:Your first article and declare their conflict of interest with the subject (yourself) per WP:COI. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Further feedback on declined draft article about the Serco Institute?

 Courtesy link: Draft:Serco Institute.

Hi, The draft article on my page was recently declined. It would be great if anyone has some specific advice on how to improve this article. I know I need to improve the quality of the citations used, which makes sense. However, if anyone has other tips or feedback then that would be greatly appreciated. Constance Constance52 (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Constance52 Hi Constance. I'm afraid that my advice would be to start again after throwing away all the current draft. Read WP:BACKWARD and you'll see why that's likely to be best. You have made the error of basing almost everything on statements made by Serco themselves and almost nothing written about Serco in reliable sources, as required to show notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Many thanks, I'll do that. Constance Constance52 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

newton.com.tw

what is the reliability of this website [7] when i googled it says, "Chinese Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia website involving all Chinese knowledge fields, providing you with the latest and most complete Chinese encyclopedia entry knowledge." I'm not aware whether its user generated site or not. Can it be considered reliable for citing as a source for a Chinese artist? Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be a wiki, so it is probably user-generated. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Arorapriyansh333 newton.com.tw appears to be a mirror of Baike, which is an equivalent of Baidu's wikipedia, therefore user generated content -> not reliable. For the link you have shared, the corresponding Baike link is [8]. FWIW, it might be an unauthorised mirror of Baike, given that the website is required to display some sign that it is taking content from Baike and that Baike is not operating on a copyright-free model according to Baike's user agreement, therefore linking to this website is potentially WP:COPYVIOEL. – robertsky (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Vector

How can I change back to the old look of Wikipedia? I'm not used to the new skin so it makes browsing feel weird and I much prefer the old look. 24.207.44.76 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You can change it back at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences BhamBoi (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@BhamBoi, that is not available to IP editors. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize. I was just trying to be helpful 🥴 BhamBoi (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor and welcome to the Teahouse. Unless you sign up for an account, there is no way for you to switch back to the old skin except by manually adding ?useskin=vector to the end of URLs. There is a width toggle which is available to IPs as well as those using an account. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that's awfully disappointing. Thanks for the great tips 199. Do you know where or how I could access the width toggle feature? 24.207.44.76 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The toggle should show up at the bottom right of your browser window once you've widened it enough. It looks like a small, segmented square or cross inside a slightly bigger square. Unfortunately you'll need to re-toggle it every time you navigate to a different article or page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Has the desktop view changed?

The look of Wikipedia looks different to even yesterday; it's resembling the mobile view, even though I'm on a computer. After reloading all my open Wikipedia tabs, I have the new look. Is this a thing for everyone or is there a problem for me? BhamBoi (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@BhamBoi: It's a thing for everyone. Since 15:00 UTC today, Wikipedia has changed its skin sitewide. You can change it back to the original appearance in preferences. ~GoatLordServant^(Talk) 16:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it only got worse the more I used it and it was really hard to navigate. Glad there's a fix. BhamBoi (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

So far, I agree. It took me forever to find the "watchlist" link. And all my tools and styling are gone. I guess I have to move some css and js pages over. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, seems this new thing is universally hated. It'll be fun to watch the fallout. ~GoatLordServant^(Talk) 17:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how such a bizarre change took place. The narrowing of the page narrative has thrown tables and adjacent content into chaos, making previously balanced pages look extremely messy. I trust common sense will prevail with a restoration of the wider page format. DMBanks1 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed one cool feature, though. When reading through a long page (like this one) the left panel shows where you are in the table of contents. Maybe there's a CSS tweak I can put in my css page to fix the width issue.

I'm going to force myself to use this for a week. Who knows, I may discover other interesting features. If I still find myself missing the old skin, I'll go back. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: I have fixed the CSS so the page width is improved. You can copy my User:Anachronist/vector-2022.css to your vector-2022.css page if you want to try it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: Nevermind, it looks like the same thing can be done with a checkbox in your Appearance Preferences. Deselect "enable limited width mode". ~Anachronist (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I just changed it back, a lot of my scripts that impacted visual things broke (Cite Highlighter), and I preferred all the linkes at the top easily accessible anyway. BhamBoi (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 is the talk page for the new skin. It's probably the best place to register any and all dissatisfaction - the dev types, or at least those in contact with them, are probably monitoring that page pretty closely at the moment. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had a banner appear on the front page telling me about the change (in addition to advance notice at the top of my watchlist). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

How can I rename the title of my article?

I want to rename my article User:Andrea Charlotte Elisabeth Hillen into Pingo Magazine Besides, I'd like to upload an image to my infobox which keeps on being removed. I do have the copyrights, however. I do not understand. Andrea Charlotte Elisabeth Hillen (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You have to use the Move function, if you have the rights, if not, head over to WP:RM (Requested Moves) BhamBoi (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Andrea Charlotte Elisabeth Hillen, welcome to the Teahouse. There are a couple of problems here. First, by "rename my article", I assume you mean that you want to place the user page you created in main space - in other words, to make it an article here on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you have cited no sources and therefore have not demonstrated that the subject is notable. Your prospective article would not be accepted in its current state. Also, the image you uploaded was deleted as a copyright violation.

Please read Help:Your first article and WP:Donating copyrighted materials to get an idea of how to proceed from here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Redesign question

Possibly a link to a 'Redesign - what went where' page from the MP for a few days to help regulars and occasionals.

Also with the MP - a clearer link to the 'other language WPs' (as this is variously useful). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jackiespeel, welcome to the Teahouse. Such suggestions would best go on Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 or the MediaWiki equivalent (link at the top of that talk page). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

PDF download link, and table of contents, are missing / have vanished.

PDF download link, and table of contents, are missing / have vanished.

It was working yesterday. Today it looks different and many useful things have been lost.

Does anyone else have also this problem? Can it be fixed please? Thank you if you can.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.131.143 (talk)

The default skin has changed, and things may be in different places. You can use the old skin if you create an account and set your preferences to the old one. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Stuck in mobile view

Hi! Wikipedia appears to be misdetecting my browser (Firefox on Linux) as a mobile phone. I've tried using the "Mobile view" link at the bottom of the page to switch to the normal mode, but it's not working. This is probably the first time it has happened for me. Sorry if this bug report should be somewhere else, but this issue is making it difficult for me to navigate Wikipedia. 91.129.102.72 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This may be related to the change in default skin for the full version of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you please clarify? If it's a known issue are there any known workarounds yet or do I just have to wait a bit? To clarify, both en.wikipedia.org and en.m.wikipedia.org are in mobile view for me. 91.129.102.72 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)

IP editor, this is not a bug - you are seeing the new desktop skin, which does resemble the mobile skin. There is no way to change it back without signing up for an account and then specifying the old skin in your preferences. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a desktop skin, or if it is, it's displaying incorrectly (and the editor is broken?). If there's more info anywhere, please give a direct link as it's difficult to navigate due to the issue. 91.129.102.72 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

More information is at Vector 2022. Feel free to leave feedback on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 - there is also a link to the MediaWiki talk page at the top). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. If how it's showing up for me is intentional, then this is just absurd. Hoping it gets reverted soon. 91.129.102.72 (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is crazy. Why did a mobile skin get forced on desktop users? On a standard 16:9 display half the screen space is wasted and empty, while the article is left feeling cramped and squeezed in. It's claustrophobic and barren at the same time. And if I snap the window to one side of the display, to give shorter lines for reading long passages, it hides half the UI like the table of contents.

Why did something that wasn't broken need to get "fixed"? There's a reason desktop and mobile had previously different skins. 2607:FEA8:2D24:8900:0:0:0:151C (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

More information is at Vector 2022. Feel free to leave feedback on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 - there is also a link to the MediaWiki talk page at the top). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If you sign up for an account, you can switch back to the old skin via your preferences. There are some workarounds for IP editors, but this will more or less be the default for us now. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Log in issues

I'm a long time member and financial contributor. Suddenly I can't log in nor create a new account. I've forgotten my user ID and password, but the sit's recommendations don't work. Where do I go to get someone to plug me in? 2601:2C7:780:88F0:2561:F6B7:F290:AE6F (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for donating, but we editors have nothing to do with the donation process. If you have forgotten both your username and password, and for some reason cannot create a new account(if you can edit this page you should be able to create an account), you may request a new account at WP:ACC.

You could try examining the edit histories of articles or pages you have edited to see if you recognize your username, which may help you to remember your password or at least request an email to reset your password(if you attached an email to your account preferences). 331dot (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Help improving this page Draft:Yayzy

Hi, I'm writing this page of a company Draft:Yayzy and was wondering how I can change these bits so I don't get refused again and again because it sounds like an advertisment. Any help greatly appreciated. Jerry3zs (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hiya Jerry3zs! Welcome to The Teahouse! There are a few items you can read to help you out. Since you are writing about a company, WP:NCORP is a good place to start. Per WP:BACKWARD you should not try to write an article as you would read it, but should start with the most important items (from an encyclopedic sense) first. After reading those two, one of your reviewers suggested reading WP:SOLUTIONS as well. In brief: What is notable about the company? Answer that question, and the rest should follow. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Search box disappeared.

The search box disappeared. Previously there was a box to type searches into, now there is nothing.

Is it just my problem? I don't remember changing any settings, but all the pages look different now, with fewer links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.131.143 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP! Welcome to The Teahouse! Yes, the default skin has changed. The search box is now top left (ish) instead of top right. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has changed the skin. If you sign up for an account, you can use your preferences to change back to Vector 2010. That's what I have done. Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

New Look - How do I increase the font size? I can barely read it.

Problems with the new look. AncientBrit (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I tried different browser, apparently there have been changes, and is isn't just me.

The pages look and feel dumbed down now. No side menu. No search box. No tables of contents. Things I used to use frequently on are now gone. I am very sad.

Will these be added back soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.131.143 (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The default skin has changed today. The features you mention still exist, but are in different places and in some cases collapsible and need to be opened. If you create an account, you can set the account preferences to the old skin. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, please refer to the previous two posts you made here on this subject, just above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a side menu, but you have to click the three horizontal lines at the top left to see it. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

AFC Log

I've seen other AFC reviewers keep track of AFC submissions in an AFC log; is there a way to install this? Tails Wx 18:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx you can set the option in the Preferences link in the AFCH box on any drafts. – robertsky (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Robertsky! Tails Wx 19:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"Contentious subjects" discretionary alerts

I feel like a chump having to ask this question after 60,000 edits, but I don't have time to find the elusive directions: How do I give an editor whose problematic edits are falling with IPA discretionary sanctions the mandatory templated warning? Why is this so hard? Thanks, y'all! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Without a table of contents how can a get a URL link to a specific section?

I used to see the link the the table of contents and I could copy the link to send to someone. Now it is no longer there. How can I get the link now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.131.143 (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The table of contents still exists. It should pop up automatically in the blank space on the left side of the screen. There's also a little symbol at the top of pages, next to the title, which lets you expand/collapse the ToC - the symbol looks like three bullet point with lines next to them. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone told me the table of contents is there. But I don't see anything.

All I see is the basic page text. There is no table of contents. Nowhere. I scroll up, down, left, right, nothing.

So without the table of contents how can I find the link to a specific section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.131.143 (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Without the table of contents how can a get a URL link to a specific section?

I asked this question a while ago, but the only response is that the table of contents is there. But it isn't. At least not for me. I do see a small picture with three dot and three lines, when I point the cursor to it is shows "Table of Contents" in a small tool tip box. When I click on it, a light blue box appears around the three-dots-three=lines thing, and that is all. No table of contents appears.

Note that the white space on the left of my screen is very narrow, less than 1cm, so if a table of contents is supposed to be there, then it is so tiny that it is invisible for me.

And I am still trying to find the link to specific sections. I used to get them from the table of contents. Where are they now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.131.143 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Help

why does wikipedia look so weird? tell me how to do screenshots for windows and ill show you. Allaoii ^talk 19:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Allaoii The default skin changed today, see Wikipedia:Vector 2022. It was announced it was happening but people may have missed it since we are being flooded with questions. You can change back to the old skin in your account preferences. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks, i hope this gets fixed soon. Allaoii ^talk 19:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Allaoii, this was entirely intentional on the part of the WMF developers, so there's not really much to be fixed, but if you want to leave feedback, you can visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Why am I getting the mobile view on desktop?

I'm getting what appears to be the mobile view on my desktop. I'm not on en.m.wikipedia.org, but it looks like the mobile view. It's not exactly the same as the normal mobile one, but it's definitely not the desktop site. 172.58.35.35 (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, the default desktop skin for Wikipedia has been changed to one which does resemble the mobile view. If you sign up for an account, you can switch back in your preferences. Otherwise, you (and I) must cope with the new default. There is a width toggle if the white space is one of the issues you're having. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay, thank you! I don't mind it; it just surprised me. It was just weird to load Wikipedia and have it not look like Wikipedia. 172.58.35.35 (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"New look" not working consistently

I get the "new look" on the Wikipedia main page, and on articles that I reach by clicking on a main page link, but articles that I reach another way, by clicking a link other than on the main page, or through the search box, still display in the old style. Using "Edge" browser. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:D85D:FD1B:D4D3:D33B (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. The new skin isn't being rolled out all at once to avoid putting too much strain on the servers. Eventually all pages will be consistent, but it may take up to three days. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. For a while, it might be a good idea to have permanently visible notice at the top of each page saying new design is being unrolled, blah blah, with a link to the page all about this that may exist somewhere. The first time I started Wikipedia today there was banner, but I dismissed it, or it went away of its own accord, and now I do not know how to revisit that information. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:D85D:FD1B:D4D3:D33B (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

User page edition

Probably not a good time or place to ask, but would someone happen to know how things like userboxes work, and what info might be worth putting on those pages? Besides the most basic functions the visual editor has, I'm more than a little lost. cogsan (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hiya Cog-san! Welcome to The Teahouse! You can check out WP:UPYES for what is allowed on a user page. I believe it also has some links you might find helpful to answer your question more in depth. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The big userbox stash(tm) is linked there too, so I can "borrow" it.

I guess a good idea would be to not bother with more sensitive details (like my nationality, job or extensive recipe list), and just describe my online identity instead. cogsan (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Linking to deWP

I want to put a link in an article in the English Wikipedia to a page in the German Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4music how do I do this as a reference? Thorcouper (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hiya Thorcouper! Welcome to The Teahouse! Using wikis as a reference is not allowed. If the English and German articles are the same topic, then they should get automagically linked via Wikidata. If they are different topic, but related somehow, perhaps linking it in the article in a natural way like M4music is good enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Using photos as a source

How can I source a statement which I know to be true, but is not written anywhere online. For example, the locations of the groups in the Schuster Laboratory are outdated, but the new locations are not stated on any website. I can provide a photo of the building's layout displayed in the foyer, which gives the new locations. RSP13 (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@RSP13 You can use {{Cite sign}} to reference such signage. You may optionally include a photo of the signage only if you took the photo yourself or the photographer explicitly licensed it apropriately. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Bulk changing all NBA pages

How would I go about proposing a change to every applicable NBA player page? On most other sports reference sites, the career statistics chart is marked with a star on the years a player made the All-Star Game. This would be a beneficial change, as All-Stars are a major award in the NBA. Being that Wikipedia is normally the first thing to show up when you google a player's name, the slight clarification to a player's stat section would be well-met.

Note that All-Star information is already categorized on the sidebar, it would just be a matter of going through and marking the stats table for ease of access. Would I just have to go through and do that to as many NBA players as I can? Rananth0207 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rananth0207, I think you would have to do that manually, however, there may be a way to change the Userbox template for all NBA players. How? I'm not sure. But that might be an option. I would be game to help out. You can shoot me a message on my talk page if you'd like. I just finished up writing an article and need something constructive to do around here lol. AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)