Wikipedia:Teahouse

Sdkb, 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

Rejection of proposed article National Museum of Asian Art

@JMutka: Sometime in 2019, the Smithsonian Institution decreed that henceforth, the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery and the Freer Gallery of Art would comprise the National Museum of Asian Art. In February 2023, an attempt to create a Wikipedia article for this new entity was rejected on the grounds that there was insufficient coverage of this new entity in secondary sources. For what it's worth, English Wikipedia appears to have a few dozen articles with redlinks to the National Museum of Asian Art.

I am going to accept that the rejection of this new article was a correct application of the rule, and notwithstanding that, I nevertheless assert that this article ought to exist. If a rule decrees that the creation of this article is improper, then the problem is with the rule.

To be clear, I actually have no interest in correcting the rule nor in demonstrating that the rule does not properly apply, I'm just pointing out that this application of this rule is detrimental to Wikipedia. Fabrickator (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what sources were used at the time, but some useful ones exist:[1][2]. I'm not saying these two are enough for WP:GNG, but they help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, the draft was not rejected, but declined. This is a material difference, as decline means it can be resubmitted after the reasons for declining have been addressed. However, the author appears to have requested speedy deletion instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Fabrickator You can ask for the draft to be restored and then add more references before resubmitting. As drafts can stay drafts for six months, it is even possible that stuff not yet published can become refs. David notMD (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

David notMD To be clear, I am not volunteering to do that. Fabrickator (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Then I'm not clear on why you are bringing this up if you have no interest in working to reverse the decision at issue or in working to change the rule. I mean, that's fine, you don't have to, but I don't understand what your goal is. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So, what you are saying, Fabrickator, is "I don't know or care what your rules are, but you've got it wrong, so yah boo sucks to you!" Is that right? ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that I have a deep philosophical difference of opinion about this. Some editor came along and they corrected a particular problem in Wikipedia. Nobody is coming forth to dispute that the new article wasn't needed. Rather, the claim is that somebody didn't abide by the proper process.

I am claiming that there wasn't anything wrong with content that had been added, but if somebody believed that there really was some deficiency in the content that was added, then the proper response would have been to make the change they believed was required, not to revert that change and make things worse.

If the Wikipedia editor community (such as it is represented in this discussion) has determined that that the revert of that change was in accordance with the Rules of Wikipedia, then on that, I am going to disagree (i.e. either the added content was in accordance with those rules, or alternatively, that those rules are defective).

My contention is that this is an issue of either bad or misconstrued policy, and I choose to call out that the policy is either flawed or misapplied, and that to comply with this erroneous "as applied" policy would only serve to reinforce the bad policy or application of policy. I've called out the problem, but this does not mean I have some sort of moral obligation to fix it.

You could construe my point to be that if you're gong to make a change, you should make things better, not worse. I contend that is what I am doing by refusing to add the source that is being demanded, and that in doing so, I am encouraging other editors to realize where the true problem lies. Fabrickator (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You may point out whatever you wish(though this isn't really the forum to do that, the Village Pump is better) but to be frank if you are unwilling to work on the problem, very few people will pay attention to you and you are just taking up volunteer time. If you feel that a policy was incorrectly applied, or that a policy is wrong, it's up to you to do something about it. Not morally, just because we're all volunteers here. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Setting aside the issue of whether this is the best place for this discussion, I am doing something about it. I'm calling out what seems to be a problem with what I argue is an erroneous policy or a mis-application of policy. Discussing theoretically how a policy might have bad results is unlikely to have any good effect, while "fixing" the problem (e.g. by adding a source to support the claim) only reinforces the bad practice (i.e. declining/rejecting an AfC under these circumstances).

I contend my comments here are productive. They could lead to a refinement of a rule, inasmuch as the intention of the new article would presumably have been to establish the relationship to two pre-existing articles, so maybe this is a distinct sort of case. Or maybe we just need some other sort of "exception" to the requirement for a source. What's a little weird in this case is that the name change is effectively based on what would be an acceptable "self-published source", since the Smithsonian Institution is decreeing the terminology it will use to refer to these collections ... the only issue here is the fact that it implicates the creation of a new (or possibly renamed) article. OTOH, it actually looks like, contrary to the explanation of the decline, there were appropriate sources actually available (which bypasses the issues I have raised, but which begs the question as to why one would have chosen to support the AfC decline). Fabrickator (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Fabrickator, the topic is clearly notable and we ought to have an article about it. Your draft was not rejected. Instead, you were asked to do a little bit more work but you chose not to do that and instead asked for your draft to be deleted. According to the WP:GNG, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Your draft had two sources. One was to the Smithsonian's own website, which is not an independent source and therefore does not establish notability. The second, a Washington Post article, was excellent. So, you had one source that indicated notability but the word "sources" in the guideline is plural. A quick Google News search shows plenty of other significant coverage of this combined museum in reliable, independent sources. All you would need to have done is select the best two or three of them, add them to the draft, and it would have been accepted. Instead, you chose to take your ball and go home. That's kind of sad, but it's the path you chose. Cullen328 (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328. Well, not my draft! If the article just needed to have a source added, shouldn't it have been moved to draft space rather than declined? (I'm completely unfamiliar with the process.) Alternatively, it could have been accepted with a tag added regarding notability. Fabrickator (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, Fabrickator. I thought you were the author. I am not sure what you mean when you say "shouldn't it have been moved to draft space rather than declined?" It was a draft and it was submitted to AFC, and declined for the reasons I explained above. The unusual thing is that the author requested deletion instead of correcting the very easy to fix problem. Cullen328 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 So if I'm understanding this correctly, the user involved submitted his draft, it got declined on the grounds that it wasn't notable. That happened on 17 February 2023. At that point, it would have been left in draft space, but rather than just leaving it in draft space, he asked to have it deleted. Perhaps he didn't understand how to address the issue of it being not notable (having been told that it actually wasn't) or perhaps he was just annoyed at the process. And if that's the fact, then I'm empathizing with him, which is really in line with what I've been saying. Fabrickator (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Fabrickator, the reviewer did not say the the topic is not notable. Instead, the decline notice said: This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), reliable, secondary, independent of the subject. Cullen328 (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I have requested undeletion, so that others can improve the draft. Theroadislong (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I have restored Draft:National Museum of Asian Art and any editor can work on it. I will be off Wikipedia for several hours but will accept the draft later if it is improved. Cullen328 (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I had a look for refs and added some --- on the talk page I suggested merging the two gallery articles into this one..... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

National Museum of Asian Art is now a mainspace encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Couldn’t the Smithsonian Institute announcement be used as a source though since it is not only a museum, but also an educational and research institute? I’m asking just out of curiosity. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:78CC:6741:3C62:5708 (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this type of source can be used as a reference for basic, uncontroversial facts. But it does not contribute to assessing notability because it is not independent of the topic. Please read WP:ABOUTSELF. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

On the one hand, I wonder what would have happened if there weren't some non-Smithsonian publications that had an article with some degree of "in-depth" coverage. Would we then have refused to create the new article? Would we have demanded this if it had been a straight rename, rather than (in effect) two notable entities being combined into a single entity?

The decline of the simply article wasn't necessary. It would have required common sense to approve the article without requiring such references, but we are cautioned away from this, presumably because failing to insist that we rely on arbitrary policies to make decisions would lead to madness. I presume that JMutka had decided that he'd had enough nonsense, and I credit him with pulling the request. Refusing to go along with nonsense rules helps, ever so slightly, to move Wikipedia in the right direction. Fabrickator (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Fabrickator, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have powered this website to become #7 in the world, and #1 by far worldwide in originally written educational content. Wikipedia has billions of pageviews each month. And here you are, presuming to describe the very policies and guidelines that have made Wikipedia a success as "madness" and "nonsense" and "arbitrary policies" that defy "common sense" as defined by Fabrickator, one random anonymous individual on the internet. Do you really think that anybody is going to pay attention to your hyperbolic evidence-free ramblings? Perhaps you might choose to frame your critiques in a more productive way, instead of huffing and puffing and blowing off steam. Cullen328 (talk)

Cullen328 I would take the position that once we understand that henceforth, the Smithsonian will generally refer to Freer and Sackler as the single entity National Museum of Asian Art (and in point of fact, it was already common to refer to the Freer/Sackler), and therefore, a requirement that there be sources with extensive coverage using the new name be identified was simply inappropriate, inasmuch as we specifically recognize that a new name does not require the establishment of notability. I extrapolate this from the statement in WP:RPATROL that "redirects are not subject to notability guidelines". Where I may differ from the accepted Wikipedia orthodoxy is that I advocate for a judicious use of common sense, whereas the general principle on Wikipedia is to use policy as a means to arbitrate differences of opinion. Further, it's a silly claim that "We apply these policies on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is successful, therefore applying these policies in an arbitrary manner is a good thing," as implied in the immediately preceding comment. Fabrickator (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"Judicious use of common sense" is indeed Wikipedia orthodoxy; it is the fifth pillar (see WP:5). There has been no failure of common sense here. An incomplete draft was declined; the drafting editor no longer wished to work on it and asked for its deletion. What would have been the more common-sense way to approach this? To force the declining editor to work on an article they didn't want to work on? To force the deleting editor to work on an article they no longer wanted to work on? These don't look like common sense to me. -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Fabrickator wrote, some way back in this thread, "if somebody believed that there really was some deficiency in the content that was added, then the proper response would have been to make the change they believed was required". No. That is not how Wikipedia works (and not, in my opinion, how it should work). If someone adds unreferenced content to Wikipedia, it does not somehow become someone else's responsibility to find a reference for it. We are all volunteers here. If someone wants to add content, it's their job to supply a supporting reference. Maproom (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Maproom: That's quite different than what it says at WP:MINREF. Similarly, WP:V states that information must be "verifiable", not that a citation must be included. Of course, the policies seem to invite abuse, since one can challenge anything and on that basis, remove it, and adding it back requires a citation. This seems like a recipe for WikiWar, but not my fault. Anybody is free to find a fault with just about anything (e.g. if it has a citation, you can claim you checked it and that there was some discrepancy). No doubt, abuse of this may quickly get you blocked, and in any case, I'm not advocating it. But while you say it's not your job to provide a supporting reference, it is actually quite similarly not your job to remove every claim that lacks a supporting reference. If there is a collective obligation of some sort, it is to do those things which improve Wikipedia rather than detract from it. Fabrickator (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

asilvering Sorry that this is out of order. Anyway, the gist of User:asilvering's comment is that the supposedly incomplete draft was declined, and in the absence of volunteers, the deletion of the draft (at the request of the originating editor) was common sense. Isn't it? On the one hand, the deletion of the draft on the grounds of notability seems to create a presumption that it's in fact not notable, so there isn't anything to be done about it. Procedurally, I don't know what is the right thing to do. Just as the fact that when somebody calls out a deficiency in an article doesn't make it their job to fix it, the fact that somebody calls out a deficiency in a process doesn't create an obligation for them to figure out what the right process is. Fabrickator (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The draft was not deleted on grounds of notability. -- asilvering (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I "misspoke", the decline of the draft was based on the grounds of notability (or more specifically, on the absence of evidence of notability). Now do I have it right? Fabrickator (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That is more technically correct, but substituting that into your previous comment doesn't make the previous comment any more correct overall. This is what the draft looked like when declined: [3]. It has a single reference that isn't the museum itself. That isn't acceptable for an AfC draft in any circumstances, so the draft was declined, and tagged with an explanation for how to revise it. The draft was not deleted on the grounds of notability. The draft was deleted on the grounds that the creator of the draft wished for it to be deleted. This form of deletion is only allowed on drafts or articles that have no significant writing from any other editor. It is not a statement on the notability of the subject in any way. -- asilvering (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

So, If I understand this correct, @Fabrickator finds it a fault that the article was declined, and that the author chose to delete it, so they believe the article should have been approved to mainspace. Is this correct? Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do find that the decline of the article was inappropriate. The new article actually reflected a rename of the underlying entity. Notability is not a matter of the name by which an entity is referred to, and while handling this as a redirect (i.e. combining the two existing articles into a single article, and creating redirects accordingly) would have been possible, that was not the approach taken. It's been something like 3 or 4 years since the Smithsonian announced the name change and we should appreciate that the creator took the effort to address this issue. It's pretty understandable, given this demand for unnecessary additional sources, that the creator chose instead to pack up his toys and go home. Fabrickator (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Publishing a page I created in my sandbox

??? That then I seemed to have to switch over from User: myname/sandbox to just myname/sandbox... but then it is there somewhere and how do I publish? I had initially pressed a button in the sandbox that said "Publish" and then checked back later but nothing seems to suggest that it was waiting for review or anything...

This used to be so easy... Karyn Huenemann (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Karyn Huenemann, your article was at Karyn Huenemann/sandbox. I have moved it back to User:Karyn Huenemann/sandbox. Your draft is awaiting review. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It's now at Draft:Dora Sanders Carney. Unfortunately it cites only one two reliable independent sources, and is unlikely to be accepted as an article unless someone can find more. Maproom (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Would it count as more reliable if the newspaper articles had links to them? I could make that happen. All of the sources are published sources except the CWRC site which is an academic research site. Karyn Huenemann (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The CWRC site counts as a published source. The bigger problem with the article is that most of it is sourced either to her own memoir or to her daughter's. If you're having trouble finding more sources, I suggest asking the helpful folks at WP:WIRED. They're very good at finding early 20thc newspaper articles for cases like this. -- asilvering (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Karyn Huenemann (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear what the level of oversight is at CWRC, and if you are selecting something to be posted on CWRC which you then cite, that is another thing to be concerned about. Fabrickator (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it's not clear what the level of oversight is at CWRC"? It's a research project based at the University of Alberta. -- asilvering (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Reference the website when referencing a company?

I am writing an article about the founder of a company, and I have the following sentence:

"David Latimer is an American designer and founder of New Frontier Design, a company that specializes in architectural and interior design for homes and businesses."

I put a reference to the company's website right after "New Frontier Design" as well as a second reference corroborating that he is, in fact, the owner of said company.

My question is, would this be allowed? JasonWeitz (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello @JasonWeitz and Welcome to the Teahouse! That would be allowed, but there is a better way. I am assuming this is the first sentence in your article. Normally, we don’t put citations in the lead part of articles, we cite them later, in the body per this. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@JasonWeitz: while it would probably be allowed, it would not be a good idea. Referencing should support the information in the article. If you're just linking to the root of a website, that doesn't really support anything, other than the existence of the said website. And if you do this too many times, it could start to look like gratuitous refbombing, which is frowned upon, or worse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thank you. I am only referencing it one time in the whole of the article, and it is to support the existence and legitimacy of the company. But I understand that Wikipedia generally doesn't like this which is why it is immediately followed by a corroborating article from an unbiased source. If you and @Illusion Flame still think I shouldn't though, I will remove it. Thank you for your input. JasonWeitz (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk page

How to clean/archive my talk page in a click?Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rock Stone Gold Castle. You can find information about archiving user talk pages at Help:Archiving a talk page and Help:Archiving (plain and simple). -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:One click archiving may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Please consider this in the future

Please consider allowing banned users to at least edit their own user pages.

My former account was indefinitely banned (my wrong judgment, my fault; I am sorry). Now, I want to blank the user page, which I am not able to. The details I wrote about my edits are now causing damage to my business; it is also embarrassing and I feel ashamed.

While this is not currently allowed, please consider this in the future. Thank you. 1.39.250.13 (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP and Welcome to the Teahouse! Blocked and banned users are not allowed to edit their user pages for many reasons, but mainly because they shouldn’t be editing anywhere on Wikipedia and to prevent vandalism. They are however welcome to appeal on their talk page. If you would like a change, I would check out the Wikipedia:Village pump. If you don’t mind me asking, what was your previous account? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame It's worthy of noting that they have an idea lab. IP user, See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Cwater1 (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1:The IP has been blocked for block evasion. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

sorry about that. did not know Cwater1 (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

IP, you could try something on Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. Or, just ask here something like "Please blank [this page] as a courtesy." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft on Sanket Goel (Draft:Sanket Goel)

I already started a discussion about this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanket_Goel) but it got pushed away into archives and I didn't know how to revive it. Sorry.

I've improved the citations of the article and a lotta other stuff and wanna know if there is anything else to be done about it.

Also if its good enough to be accepted then how do I get it accepted faster? Shashy 922 (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Any particular reason for the big rush, Shashy 922? -- Hoary (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not like anybody's dyin or somethin. It's just that I would feel better if thing's that I have spent time doing are done Shashy 922 (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Each time a draft is submitted it goes to volunteer reviewers who each decide what they want to review next. The system is not a queue. So, could be days, weeks, or sadly, months. David notMD (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Notability and new articles

Good morning everyone! This doesn't relate to any specific pages at the moment but is more of a question regarding notability guidelines, and mainly about comics because that's the only thing I know anything about. It seems to me that the bar for notability on new articles is considerably higher than that of extant articles, but I won't get into that too much right now. The upshot is though that it feels like any new articles need to be all-but-complete to avoid tedious back-and-forth. Hopefully my edit history will show that I'm not a lazy editor but this process means considerable research and work needs to be put in for an article which can then be flagged, blanked, deleted et cetera, according to the preferences of the page reviewer.

So my question is that is there some mechanism for finding out if the sources accrued for an article will pass notability before the article is fully written?

For example, I have gathered some notes at User:BoomboxTestarossa/Tales of Terror (comic) for a prospective page on the Eclipse Comics title Tales of Terror (comic). IMHO the sources are robust enough to justify a page like those for similar titles Twisted Tales, Alien Worlds and Alien Encounters (comics), but I'm reluctant to do all the infobox and content stuff for a new article with the aforementioned possibility that as a new page it has to pass a tighter enforcement of guidelines than those for articles that have been sitting on Wikipedia in poor shape for years.

Thanks! =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

BoomboxTestarossa Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. What is considered notable has changed over time(usually gotten stricter) and with well over 6 million articles to manage, articles that may be no longer notable haven't yet been addressed by the limited number of volunteers. This may be why it seems to you that new articles are treated stricter.

As for getting an idea of what is notable before writing about it- you are doing that now. One needs to just ask. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! So it's okay to ask here ahead of any possible creation, as long as I have a few sources to point to to avoid wasting anyone's time? Splendid =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Totally, that's what we're here for. But don't ask us to look at all nine sources you've currently listed. The three best is what we want to look at. Valereee (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, my bad, that was more an example pulled from draftspace (which I love and I wish I had understood earlier). In the case of Tales of Terror (comic) the proposed notable sources would be prominent industry magazine Amazing Heroes and the ABC-Clio books at https://books.google.com/books?id=hnuQBQAAQBAJ and https://books.google.com/books?id=YbkJ0QJrEZ8C. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

So, not an area of my expertise, but on first glance these look like reliable, independent sources. I can only get to the snippet previews of the books; the first seems to mention ToT multiple times, but the preview snippets for the second book only seems to mention it once, and it looks like a bare mention. So unfortunately I can't comment on sigcov. For sigcov what we're looking for is several paragraphs discussing the subject in some depth, not just a bare mention. All three of your three best sources needs to meet all three requirements. In this case that seems to mean that, yes, these meet RS and independent, but do they all meet sigcov? Valereee (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @BoomboxTestarossa, what we need to see is WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS that are WP:INDEPENDENT of the article subject. Three instances, two of which are outside of the local area and outside of industry-niche publications, will generally do it for new articles. It's easier for others to assess notability if you make it clear which three are the ones you feel best support a claim to notability; you can open a section on the talk page to list those. Sheer number of sources isn't important; you can move a draft to article space with only three sources as long as each of them meets all three requirements. The article does not need to be complete. Valereee (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Can I just ask though how "industry-niche" would be defined? I mean technically any entertainment website such as Variety could be niche? I mean the problem is that in a way 95% of comics that haven't been turned into films aren't Notable-notable, but then neither are aircraft prototypes or small towns, if you follow. Given that the comics industry received very little mainstream coverage until the advent of internet news sites (which means all sorts of titles that have sold a few hundred copies have been covered on websites whereas older titles that sold five or even six figures often don't) this could lead to something of an online/recency bias that IMHO leads to what seems to be a problem with Wikipedia's popularity and the laziness of copy writers for some news organisations - i.e. that writers use Wikipedia for much of their research in some areas and therefore notable sources tend to recount whatever is on Wikipedia, therefore making the subject notable for Wikipedia...

I'm not sure I'm making any sense. =( BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries, we'll get there. I work often on restaurants. When I'm assessing a restaurant, something like Nation's Restaurant News I would consider an industry-niche publication. Although a national publication, very few outside the industry are reading it. An article in that publication would count toward notability, but one in NRA and one in Modern Restaurant Management, I wouldn't count as two, generally. If it's an LA restaurant, a review in the Chicago Tribune or at least the San Francisco Chronicle is what I'm looking for. A review in the LA Times or a story in NRA can count for one. The other two, I'm looking for outside the local area and outside niche pubs. Does that help? Valereee (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It does! I'm replying to both of your replies here so I keep track, and I'm aiming to get to the point where I don't have to ask so many questions every time! So let's see if I'm following...

1. Amazing Heroes is a) a notable source and b) significant coverage; I do tend to forget that some people aren't into comics and don't have a pile of old issues of magazines about comics next to them, but while some of the sources are bare there's information about why the comic was created and why it ended, with the 'bare' sources being details that can be added in to the article as examples of the notable comics figures that worked on the series.
2. Understanding Genres in Comics also covers a) and b)

So I need a third independent, in-depth and significant source before I go ahead with the article?

Thanks for your time =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, technically you don't. We require "multiple" sources, and two is multiple, and there are editors who'll happily accept two. The reason I look for three (and recommend that) is that three such sources will pretty much bulletproof the article from being nominated for deletion. Valereee (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, excellent! Well, there's no real rush for that one in particular at the moment so it won't do any harm to keep an eye out for more as these things tend to crop up when looking for something else, so if a third will help smooth things over a third will hopefully be found! Thank you very much for your help and patience =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Happy to! Valereee (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, BoomboxTestarossa. There were new notability guidelines created a year or two that were basically made in response to a user who had published tens of thousands of articles with limited sources or information. I don't think the new rules and their consequences were really thought out and it has lead to a lot of issues that were unforeseen. It has particularly made it hard to find sources on things that pre-date the internet and to find foreign sources. The general rule is that 3 independent sources are needed for an article and the subject of each source has to be mostly about the subject in question. However, it all depends on who looks at it and what their motivation is. As you may know, there's people on here whose main purpose is to add information here (inclusionists) while there's others whose main purpose is to police information here (deletionists) and the new rules really benefit the latter. You really never know who will see your article or what they may do with it. Articles that exist today could be gone tomorrow and articles that get deleted today could be reposted tomorrow. As someone who has posted over 100 articles, I legitimately have no idea when they will be allowed to stay or will be removed.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

...that's not an accurate description of the history of notability guidelines and their enforcement. Our current basic notability guidelines have existed since ~2006 (see the page history of WP:Notability for the minutiae), and their increased enforcement in the past few years has been the product of a shift in the ratio of articles created to editors reviewing (i.e. before ~2018, we simply could not keep up with the volume of new content created, now we generally can), not a reaction to any specific editors' edits. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the background info and the thoughtful replies! I do get the need for the tight rules in a society where - for example - some TikToker can go viral and raise a fanbase of thousands in days then be forgotten about in a week. Broadly I salute anyone who ploughs through the submissions for every new media personality and craze in order to keep Wikipedia halfway usable.

It just seems to have caught a lot of other stuff in the crossfire and it makes it difficult for new submissions because you look at the way an article that's existed for a decade with little objection is written, follow it and it gets knobbled, sometimes with what seems like very little discussion or even consistency, and it's confusing when you create an article to the standards of one Wikipedia article only to find you're meant to be writing to a different set of standards which can sometimes *seem* opaque and almost arbitrary.

Something like Re:Gex, for example, has sat in the same basic state for 15 years while getting better sourced articles past review can sometimes take a lot of back-and-forth, which I find takes up time that can be better taken improving the project elsewhere.

BT, yow, yep, that's a bad one. Since you have knowledge about comics, do you think it's actually notable? Because a quick Google search turned up not much for me. A few bare mentions, some fan pages and directories. To me it looks like it should be a redirect to Rob Liefeld. Valereee (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That or Awesome Comics; I can't really remember much about it at all beyond an article on Liefeld's art making fun of a shower scene, and I think it only lasted a couple of issues, so the chance of it having drawn much discussion is slim. In my experience, articles related to Liefeld and Todd McFarlane stuff seem to be the most egregious offenders for this sort of thing; sadly I'm not a fan of either so am not really in the position to neutrally add to them (I generally try and steer clear of comics I absolutely love for the same reasons!) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm rambling again. Sorry. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I've redirected. We'll see if anyone objects. Valereee (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this gets pretty frustrating. For old articles, it's important to keep in mind that there is a really limited amount of volunteer time, so it tends to end up on things that are a) most interesting and b) most urgent. It takes a lot of work to successfully delete an article. So an obscure article from 15 years ago that no one cares enough about to fix, and that doesn't horrify anyone enough to motivate them to do the deletion legwork, can stick around for ages. -- asilvering (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there anything as a random passing user I can do to help with older articles that are poorly referenced and I have neither the resources or will to spruce up? Is tagging them just shovelling more work on volunteers? And am I the right person to make that call? The only thing that worries me with something like that is something I encountered with Strike! (comic book). Now, IMO it's a dreadful comic and rightly largely forgotten, but I turned up some sources researching something else and the autism took over, hey presto an article which was four lines is a little bigger. Just chucking... less developed articles out the airlock does rule out the chance of someone doing the same for all the four-line Youngblood or whatever articles (Re:Gex wouldn't be one as nothing happened in it, no-one paid any attention to it and no-one liked it, I should add).

Good grief so, so many comics-related articles are a complete, unreadable mess. =/ BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's why deletion debates turn on whether the subject is notable instead of whether the article is any good (unless the article is so bad there is consensus to nuke it from orbit). Tagging them is a good move. It might end up in a massive backlog that no one is regularly tackling, but it's better than doing nothing, imo. The maintenance tags are always dated, which might help someone in the future (eg, if they're going through the oldest tags first). By the way, this is the backlog for WP:COMICS: [4]. It's... not great. But if the autism wants to take over in the future and just needs a direction, here you are. -- asilvering (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Crikey... a few of those are actually already on my to-do list so I shall get cracking =D That said I think a lot of the problems with comics come from inconsistent styles and standards of how, why and where to split articles, what goes on pages for Green Lantern-the-guy and Green Lantern-the-comic etc. That said my instincts are generally to tear down and rebuild whole articles, which is fine when it's Eclipse-style stuff no-one actually likes but would probably generate a lot more pushback for much else. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

If someone pushes back, just keep calm and carry on. Major rewrites are not a problem, but if someone objects, go directly to the talk page and work it out there. Valereee (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

BT, you can tag the article for notability if the sources provided don't support it or if there are no sources. Set yourself a W-Ping for a few months. If no one has added sources to support notability, and you with your knowledge of comics believe it is likely not notable, redirect it. If someone reverts, do your due diligence (an actual google search for easily-found sources) and if you don't find anything that supports notability, AfD it. Valereee (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

BoomboxTestarossa - Yep. There's millions of articles here and when rule changes are made, millions of articles risk being affected. Unfortunately, there's nowhere near close to that amount of users and even amongst those users, there's going to be a lot of different positions on what's good and what isn't, so you just never know. I had an article deleted and then someone else published the article months later and it was allowed to stay with the same rules in place. The good thing is that you can re-submit articles and you can ask for articles to be undeleted. KatoKungLee (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Balkan Route

Hi, I'm from Germany and we have an german article about the Balkan Route already. I was surprised there is no article in the english wp yet. Currently there is a large increase in migration / refugee numbers traveling on the Balkan Route and many people are looking for information. I would have asked in a WikiProject, but could not find one specialized on migration matters, so I'm asking here. Perhaps some of you guys want to create Balkan Route? 2A02:8106:208:9200:7D59:38E9:2983:558A (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the subject is covered in one or more of the articles listed, directly or indirectly, in Category:European migrant crisis. -- Hoary (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned at 2015 European migrant crisis (and other places [5]), perhaps someone there is interested. German article at [6], WP:TRANSLATE may be an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

search for experienced art-lover

I'm at the moment busy with translating some articles on Concrete art from the German to the English wikipedia and i could use some help by an experienced writer of art-related articles. Someone willing to help? Kind regards, Naomi Hennig (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

HI @Naomi Hennig, welcome to the Teahouse. You could try asking at the talk page of WikiProject Arts. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig ...and/or you could try here WP:WikiProject Intertranswiki/German or perhaps here WP:WikiProject Germany? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You are really wonderful and quick. Thank you all for the good links! Will contact them! Kind regards, --Naomi Hennig (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig, a very important word of advice for you: the German-language wikipedia is happy with articles that have a bibliography ("Literatur") but no footnotes, but English-language wikipedia is the other way around. Patrollers and reviewers on en-wiki will often draftify articles or remove chunks of text if they aren't footnoted, so don't bother translating anything with long stretches of unfootnoted text! It's honestly easier to write an article from scratch than to try to find appropriate footnotes for a lot of de-wiki articles. Pick ones that are easier for you to verify sentence-by-sentence and you'll have a much better time. -- asilvering (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear Asilvering... i do have 50 footnotes in each of my articles... at least 50... :-), i used to work as a researcher for television and i do love to have good references to what i write! I do write for the German wikipedia for more than 10 years now - and up to now i did not find lots of German articles as you described, i rather did find lots of articles which have no reference-info at all...and when i come across this, i try to add reference-info. But it is good that you alerted me on this, i will keep this in mind, because i don't want my English articles with this "says whom" in blue or something like that. Kind regards, --Naomi Hennig (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you'll do fine, then! I'm glad that's been your experience. It sure hasn't been mine, occasionally patrolling Category:Unassessed Germany articles... -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Help with copyright

I want to add some images to an article I'm writing, but I don't know if I can use them without a copyvio or not. Can someone help? Vamsi20 (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Vamsi20, and welcome to the Teahouse. Where did you get the images? If you took them yourself (and they are not photos of copyright work) then you have the legal power to license them in a way that Wikimedia Commons will accept. If the owner of the copyright has explicitly released them under CC-BY-SA or similar, or is willing to do so, then you can use them, but it will be easiest if the copyright owner uploads them. If they are public domain by reason of age or by explicit release, you can upload them. Otherwise, probably not. See Help:Upload for more information. ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vamsi20 We can give more advice if you provide a URL link to the images (assuming they are not yours) and the name of the draft article. Also, if you do an image search in Google for a topic of interest, then the Google results page has a tool called "Usage rights" that can cut down the hits to those with appropriate licenses (Creative Commons), although you would have to check the details before uploading them to Commons. Finally, there are limited cases where English Wikipedia allows what are called WP:NONFREE images: see that link for details. Such images can't go into drafts, however. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Well it's not a draft but a subpage: User:Vamsi20/Turkification of Anatolia and the images have to do with maps of Anatolia and the empires in the area (all on commons). Vamsi20 (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vamsi20 Commons files are fine in subpages or drafts. Full instructions are at H:PIC. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I will be moving the article into the mainspace once I am done writing, which is why I put this. Vamsi20 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You're good. I'll give some details, but if you're using images from the commons, you're good. The Wikimedia Commons has stricter rules on copyright. Images hosted there are either available under a free license or they are in the public domain. Those files should all have a license or PD notice, and zero issues with copyright violations. Thus, commons is the preferred source for images on the English Wikipedia. Some other languages do not permit fair use and seem to require images from the commons. (Which is why the Mercedes Richards article has a different main image for the Spanish Wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes_Richards) Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Fixing a dead link

Hello! I am a new wikipedia editor and trying to fix some dead citation links in the page for Food Security. Reference #7 needs to be updated to this pdf but it looks like I can only add to the reference list- not edit it.

Any assistance would be much appreciated! Secretcanoe (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Secretcanoe. You should not edit the reference list but the top section. Search in the edit window for "socially acceptable ways" which will be followed by the reference you wish to edit. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Secretcanoe The current .pdf is a 76-page document dated to year 2000. The link you provided is a 4-page document, also from year 2000. Are you sure that is the correct replacement? Maybe you need to discuss this with other interested editors at the Talk Page Talk:Food security. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Secretcanoe As far as I can see, the full guide is the same one as already linked in the article. Am I missing something? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Primary Resources

I have received a lot of comments indicating that my biographical page for Vincent Arcilesi contains too many primary resources. This confuses me, as primary resources are considered to be the most accurate, as they are first hand accounts of history. My primary resources include letters and certificates confirming the information to be true, not information written by Vincent Arcilesi. My article also has secondary resources, in the form of reviews, articles, etc.

I would like some help in understanding why primary resources are not preferred on Wikipedia. Mzerah96 (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mzerah96 - rather than me regurgitating the policy, please see WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, and please note it is a policy, not just a guideline - please come back if you have any specific questions - best wishes Arjayay (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mzerah96 I have gone over your article and used named references in the standard manner (see WP:REFNAME) for those surces you have used multiple times. In doing that, I note a much more serious problem than the use of primary published sources: namely that many of your sources are not actually published, just held in what I assume is your personal Google drive. This means that large parts of the article is what Wikipedia defines as original research and is hence not acceptable in its current form. Onel5969 is the new page patroller who accepted the article into Mainspace, so I defer to them as to what should now be done with it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, these resources are all published. They are in a google drive because they are scanned copies from various archives that had these sources. Since we have publications/letters/awards from the 1960s on, not all of them are online so these are scanned copies. They are not documents created by 108.30.78.104 (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mzerah96. File:Self Portrait Arcilesi.jpg which you uploaded to Commons as your own work appears to be a copyright violation. Your Google Drive references appear to be packed with copyright violations. Can you explain? Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As noted before, all of these are scanned copies from various archives. Since we have publications/letters/awards from the 1960s on, not all of them are online so these are scanned copies. They are not documents created by me or anyone else involved with Vincent Arcilesi's page. Please look at the documents themselves. Mzerah96 (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

All of the resources have been published. Mzerah96 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You cannot take other people's copyrighted work, scan that into a Google Drive, and then link to the copyright violations on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Mzerah96, this is a very serious matter with legal implications. Cullen328 (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I really do not know how else to say that it is not me taking credit for the work. It is me referencing the resources. Mzerah96 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As noted before, these are copies of publications, letters, and that help substantiate the claims in the wikipedia page, such as indicating that Vincent worked for FIT> Mzerah96 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

What's more, I have indicated that I am a paid contributor by a gallery owned by Vincent Arcilesi's daughter. Mzerah96 (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mzerah96, to answer your question about primary sources, you are correct that primary sources are typically first-hand accounts of history, but this does not mean they are the most accurate; there are many reasons why a primary source may be inaccurate (writer desires to hide something, someone makes a mistake, etc). Primary sources all require some form of interpretation, which wikipedia editors are wary of (this is why you have been told you are doing "original research"). The principle here is that wikipedia editors are supposed to be writing whatever the mainstream scholarly consensus about something is - so if all we have are primary sources, there shouldn't be an article at all. This is why editors are becoming concerned and tagging the article.

It would help if you could use footnotes for all of your information - these can be generated automatically with the "cite" button at the top of the visual editor window. Using a URL, doi, or isbn number gives the best results with this tool. -- asilvering (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay I understand, thank you. Most of the primary resources were publications at one point, in newspapers etc written by individuals not connected by any conflict of interest to the subject, so that is why I thought this was alright, but I see now having uploaded it myself makes it a primary resource by default.

In short, I am wondering what to do when the only evidence I have to support a claim that the subject was involved in something or did something is something I have scanned, but cannot link it to the page. In this case, is a regular citation fine with no link? Just simply giving information about the source? Mzerah96 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, they're not primary sources, but uploading them to Google Drive is confusing everyone. It's fine to make citations without a link. Offline citations are perfectly fine. Online sources are strongly preferred, because they are easier for others to verify, but there's no rule against offline ones. -- asilvering (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Mzerah96, you must immediately remove the link to the painting unless you personally are the copyright holder. You must immediately remove links to any Google Drive sources that host copies of copyrighted documents without formal written permission of the copyright holder. Cullen328 (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As a paid editor, you are expected to be fully conversant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including copyright policy. Cullen328 (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I indicated that I am copyright holder of the picture because I work directly for AHA Fine Art who owns the copyright of the picture. I need more information on why the sources in Google Drive cannot be used; there are many instances of information that are not online therefore cannot be linked. I have asked for guidance on this from some editors and have received no answered, following up many times.

I will delete the entire page if necessary and start over. But I need to know why the google drive sources are not okay because I do not have other ways to substantiate the claims. Mzerah96 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the page back to drafts for now. I will also say that the Teahouse seems to be a friendly place for help but this has been quite accusatory. Mzerah96 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Working for a gallery does not make you the copyright holder for a painting in that gallery. You cannot link to copyright violations and as far as I can tell, those Google Drives are full of copyright violations. We take copyright violations very seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As previously noted I was trying to say that since I work for the galley and disclose that I thought it was okay to indicate my work since I disclosed I work for the gallery, this was clearly a mistake. I am aware copyright violations are serious. Mzerah96 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I have removed all of the potentially infringing links, along with some other problematic material. @Mzerah96, if you had used the Articles for Creation process rather than moving your draft to mainspace, many of these issues would have been pointed out by a reviewer. It's common for newcomers to make mistakes, but since you are being paid to do this as part of your job, the volunteers around here tend to be less forgiving of such mistakes.

You need to cite your sources, not upload them. That means you provide enough information in a citation template for someone else to go find a properly licensed copy of the source. Sources do not need to be online, they only need to be published (again, so someone else can go find a copy of the publication). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I will recreate the article in the Articles for Creation. I do not think the volunteers should be "less forgiving" these were honest mistakes. Mzerah96 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

We are volunteers. You are being paid, presumably to do things right. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes and I have a made a mistake in which I asked for help. I want to do the right thing therefore I asked for help. Mzerah96 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

So I thank you for your help. Mzerah96 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mzerah96, I would recommend carefully reading one of our featured articles on an artist - for instance, Constance Stokes. Look at how the sections are arranged and titled. See how the referencing is done. Study the tone used when describing her works and talents. Your article is lacking sources in some important spots and lacking a neutral tone in other important ones. Keep in mind that while your gallery's goal is to promote this artist (and presumably sell their stuff), that is not Wikipedia's goal. It's also not our goal to have articles which the subjects approve of. Our goal is to neutrally summarize what has been written in reliable secondary sources. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I will carefully review the page you referenced before submitting this article through the Article Wizard for review by editors. I will insure I create a more neutral tone based on your recommendations.

Thank you very much for your help. Mzerah96 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mzerah96, I've added the AfC submission template to the top of your draft. When you're sure it's ready, all you have to do is click the blue button. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Great! Thanks so much this is super helpful. Mzerah96 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm new and confused if I should write an article or not.

Hello, I have been asked to write an article about a company I work for. It is a manufacturing company based in the U.S. and has been in existence since 1935. The only thing that has been written about the company (to use as a source) is the company website. Anything that I would put into the wikipedia article is on the company website. Are company websites/company press releases are not acceptable sources? I would really appreciate if someone could give me some guidance on this before I put more time into it. Thanks very much. TaraB1216 (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@TaraB1216 No, that wouldn't count for notability since it's the company's own website. The article would be deleted in that case. Sorry! -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Ugh - I appreciate that feedback. Thank you for the quick reply :) TaraB1216 (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Would an Amazon storefront count as notability? The company sells their products through Amazon and has a large Amazon storefront with an "About" page on it. I think I'm grasping at straws here but worth asking! TaraB1216 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@TaraB1216, nope, not at all. Not an independent reliable source. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering I'm wondering why this wikipedia page was acceptable with only the company's website used as a source? Any insight? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leavitt_Corporation TaraB1216 (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@TaraB1216, that article was created in 2012, well before our current standards were in place. It may very well merit deletion. The problem is that few editors are interested in fixing up old, bad articles; the best we can do is prevent any more such articles from being created, and slowly work on the backlog. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Think of it like this: since articles are written and maintained by volunteers, people gravitate towards things that editors find interesting, or things that are urgent. New articles are urgent, so loads of people watch out for those. Old articles on peanut butter manufacturing companies are not urgent, and while I'm not saying it's impossible, I've never met anyone with a special interest in peanut butter manufacturing companies. -- asilvering (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Except, of course, a peanut butter manufacturing company. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @TaraB1216. As asilvering and the IP user have already stated what your suggesting is not in line with Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. However, if you don't mind letting me know the companies name I might be able to help out with the article you intend to create! AdmiralAckbar1977 ^{talk contribs} 18:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@AdmiralAckbar1977 I would be writing the article about 4C Foods (Brooklyn, NY) TaraB1216 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, @TaraB1216, there's good news and bad news. I did find quite a lot of independent sources about the company - however they all seem to be about a Salmonella contamination.[7][8], and [9] just to name a few. There also seems to be a Bloomberg Profile [10] but that's about it. Do keep in mind there's a bunch more about the Salmonella contamination. I hope this helped. AdmiralAckbar1977 ^{talk contribs} 18:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@AdmiralAckbar1977 @TaraB1216 Since the company was founded in 1935 (4CCCC is the old name), there may be usable sources in newspaper archives etc. I found this [11] on Proquest. TaraB1216, I want to to point out that if this article is made and "sticks", Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing very much applies. Think double-edged sword. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

More hits:[12][13][14] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• TaraB1216 Please see your user talk page, and please read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors at your company read it too. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  @331dotThank you very much! I really appreciate you taking the time to point me here. TaraB1216 (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, TaraB1216, for drawing people's attention to the feeble article The Leavitt Corporation. It's easy to say that this is a product of the bad old days; however, looking a little longer at its history reveals that it was still being augmented with unsourced material as recently as 2017. (My own favorite (?) edit is this minor one, in which an IP helpfully points out that a number of the "current owners" are "living". I suppose that the IP feared that some people take the term "working stiffs" rather too literally. This was added to a paragraph that was already telling the reader that "Leavitt products are exported internationally to countries such as Switzerland, Serbia, Croatia, UK, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Brazil, Argentina and Panama" -- because, as we all know, exporting internationally is more impressive than just doing so domestically.) Well, a huge percentage of Wikipedia articles are terrible; all we can do is try to decrease this percentage, one way or another. I'm happy to see that Asilvering has already made a start at unterriblizing this article. But there's much more work to be done on it; would you like to try your hand at it, TaraB1216? -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the The Leavitt Corporation, a took a Be bold approach to show what the article looks like after a cleanup of multiple, long-standing issues without an engaged editor. See Talk:The_Leavitt_Corporation#Article_cleanup.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Please help to make this article about Marie Burde a Righteous Among the Nations, Happen

I Tried to translate this a German wikipedia article and could benefit from some support in bringing it to the english wikipedia. Unfoutunatley I do not find a lot of englich sources but I think it is an intresting life story. Thank you for your support. Entrey with an English description : https://collections.yadvashem.org/en/righteous/9619346 This is my draft. It is based on a translarion of the german wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aberlin2/Marie_Burde Aberlin2 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I, mean, what should be my next step?

where could I get more help? I would prefer not to go to deep ito the english wikipedia because I would prefer to give this article to an native english speker who could complete it. Aberlin2 (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aberlin2, if you have Google Chrome, there's a translation extension. It will translate the page easy for you.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee, @Aberlin2 Machine translation is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, because the results are so poor. An editor who is translating an article should be fluent in both languages. David10244 (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aberlin2, no English sources is fine. We prefer them when they're available, but a reliable source in another language is fine. I am very interested in this topic, and while I'm not an expert, I'd be willing to do a copyedit at minimum. I'd need you to be available by ping to make sure we agree on what I'm rendering, agree on significance of coverage and whether the source is reliable enough for enwiki, etc., would that work for you? Valereee (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "I'd need you to be available by ping " .

if you mention me here or on my talk page i get a notification. I Try to ansewer you fast and help you with your questions.

I have problems with making it look like a completed entry. Especially with the wiki Syntax and error messages. I alao have not so much expirience with the process of taking it from a draft on my page to a normal wikipedia page.

I guess there could also be more englisch and german sources on this topic.

Does this answer your question? Aberlin2 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@ValereeeI guess i have to mention you this way to give you a notification Aberlin2 (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aberlin2, yes, that's what I mean -- that I would want you to continue to respond when I have questions, and since you seem to be happy to do that, I'm happy to help! I am going offline for the evening but I'll ping myself to take a look tomorrow. (And, yes, you have to both ping and sign in the same edit to send a notification.) Valereee (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aberlin2 and Valereee:, It looks like there is a great start to this very interesting article. I would be happy to work on it, too, if you would like. I don't want to get in the way.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson@Valereee

Thank you very much,

I think it would be good if you worked on the article as well. You can take it away from my userpage to a more fitting place and I supplement it then there. I don't know what the conventions are and how it works best. I think the next step would be to move the article off my userpage so that more people can work on it equally. Maybe more persons here are also interested. furthermore, it would probably be good if the discussion about the technical details and individual sources would be in the discussion of an article draft rather than here in the teahouse. Aberlin2 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aberlin2 and Valereee:, That all makes sense. I moved it to Draft:Marie Burde and then we can use Draft talk:Marie Burde for further conversation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson@ValereeeThank you for your support. I think I will be away for some hours but then I think I will go to the next step and will try to explain the German sources in the discussion of the draft. There was some discussion about naming a place with here name and this could also be added to the article. I just lloked up in ferurary 2023 a Street was namit with her name.

I will add more details in the discussion of the draft. Aberlin2 (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Requesting Feedback on Article

Hello everyone. I have recently edited the page for Provoke Magazine. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I am reaching out to anyone who might be willing to provide some feedback on my edits. Thank you in advance. Andrew34jack (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Andrew34jack, you have been "reaching out to" a lot of people over this. One of these people is me. Yesterday, I put a lot of time into two long comments: see the lower half of this. Within each, I pinged you. Why not attend to the comments you've already received before soliciting more comments? (Of course, "attending to" need not mean "agreeing with and acting on"; you are free to disagree and reject.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew34jack: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your edit to the Provoke (magazine) article. You can look at all the edits made to the article since then to get some feedback. I see there are two {{Full citation needed}} tags and two {{Dubious}} tags that you hopefully would be able to address. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Andrew34jack, As I said on the talk page: "I made a few minor changes, mostly shortening the section headings. I will come back after these issues have been resolved. My major thought is: the content could benefit from summarization and copy edits. I'll be back."–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm new to this ... what does "Ping" mean? and how can I do that? b'art homme 22:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B'art homme (talk • contribs)

B'art homme, you asked the same question below, you have answers to it there. -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

How do I post an image when the account is locked

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jessica_Nabongo.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jessica_Nabongo#trivia_in_lead 2600:8802:3A12:E700:2D63:7D21:720C:7DAA (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that, when you were logged in, you were one of the participants in Talk:Jessica Nabongo#trivia_in_lead, but that when logged in you are blocked from editing? If so, what's your username? If you mean something else, what is it that you mean? -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not able to log in now. I didn't try. I was trying to provide a CC0 picture for the article.

Thanks 2600:8802:3A12:E700:2D63:7D21:720C:7DAA (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

What's the username as which you're unable to log in? -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Why?

I'll add it later. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:2D63:7D21:720C:7DAA (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Because if you're unable to log in, something is going wrong somewhere. Don't you want it fixed? As for asking other people to add an image, that's a very odd request to make here. And that image itself is dubious. The uploader says that it's her own work, and that it's somebody else's own work. If it's her own work, why is it so small, and why is its quality so bad? -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's an issue, I do it when I'm home. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:2D63:7D21:720C:7DAA (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in view of the semi-protection of the article and Valereee's "note", I'd say that this is a very good idea. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You didn't "try" to log in, or you didn't try something else? If you didn't try to log in, then how do you know you are not able to? Your comment confused me, but maybe it was just me. David10244 (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Judging by their comments, I expect they're editing from a mobile browser. I wouldn't be able to log in on a mobile browser either - and I know that in advance, so no need to try, and no reason for concern. -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove a message thread. -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The file uploader's account name is the partial title of the article subject's book. The other party in the IRL dispute just had an image uploaded to the article about her.

IP 2600, if you'll go to Talk:Jessica Nabongo I can help you get an image uploaded that is one you like. Valereee (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Need help

Is there a person who is knowledgeable and specialized in Egyptian football competitions to give us his important opinion regarding naming the Egyptian Super Cup? Are editions of this cup supposed to be labeled with the years or the seasons it follows? According to RSSSF it is the season not the year. Sakiv (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Not me, Sakiv. In your place, I'd try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. If you ask at both, then phrase your question in such a way that you'll get feedback at only one of the two. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Issue with short descriptions

When I have the page for Worm's-eye view (and some other pages, including Orthographic projection) open in the Wikipedia app, the short description displays under the title as "Consumption of feces."

This clearly isn't actually the short description, as if I go to edit the page, I see appropriate text (in the case of Worm's-eye view, "View of an object or location from below"). Moreover, if I look at the preview of all of the Wikipedia tabs I have open in the app, the normal short description is what displays. It's not a problem I'm happening in my browser on my PC, and it's also not happening with all short descriptions.

Nonetheless, I feel like this "Consumption of feces" description should be fixed. I'm happy to try and do this, but I can't figure out how. Could anybody give me any advice, or direct me to a better place to ask this question? – Insincere Giraffe (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It is almost surely a lingering effect from some template vandalism a bit more than a week ago and talked about in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Incorrect preview images. I have gone ahead and done a null edit, then even a minor real edit, to Worm's-eye view and then cleared my mobile app storage and cache. But it's still showing the vandalized short description. Something is weird since it says the article was updated 108 days ago yet I made an edit ~10 minutes ago, so some extra caching is happening on the Android app. Skynxnex (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It feels similar to phab:T274359 perhaps but I'm not sure if it is this. Skynxnex (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Insincere Giraffe, apologies I forgot to ping before. I waited a bit above and it seems that Worm was resolved a bit after I did a page edit (so just extra slow to clear). So I went ahead and did a small fix to Orthographic as well and now, for me at least, it's showing correctly on the Android app, Reading Wikipedia:Purge might be interesting to learn more. Hope this helped. Skynxnex (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Abigail Mott

I have been working on the James Mott article and just came over to take a peek for a potential source for their relationship. Abigail and James are siblings. When working on the James Mott article, I removed use the Thomas Cornell source because he's a relative (i.e., likely a genealogy type book) and his book was self-published. Bad combo together.

I also did not use this source: Mott, Lucretia (1884). Hallowell, Anna Davis (ed.). James and Lucretia Mott. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company.. From the preface (I think, or intro) it sounds like she is James and Lucretia's granddaughter, but this book was published by a well-known publisher.

Would it be better to switch over to the Hallowell source, or remove all family-related works from the article?

Your opinion is much appreciated! I will take it out in trade by responding to some Teahouse posts.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @CaroleHenson! The reliable sources noticeboard might be the place to go to get the best opinions on this. There are a lot of factors that can influence whether or not an author is sufficiently detached from a subject to be able to write about it objectively and thereby be a good source. Overall, you want to use the best available source, so if that book has the best info, then I'd use it even if there are some independence issues. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Sdkb Thanks so much! Based upon your response, I think I am going to try to work the article without using either family source, and if I need to use Hallowell, I will go to the reliable sources page. Thanks so much! P.S. I have had fun playing the vanity license plate game with your user name. I am coming up with "She didn't know bupkis".–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Gold Coast highrises

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Contact us

 – {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: List of tallest buildings on the Gold Coast

My changes to Gold Coast Highrise have been reverted by Wikipedia! I spent hours researching and editing Gold Coast highrise Under construction/Approved/Proposed only to have it reverted back to incorrect information that is now being presented! I will never donate another cent of money to this botched website! Wikipedia is a joke where incorrect information is mostly printed and when its corrected the idiot editor reverts it back to the wrong information that is presented and wrong. Anthony_kd is my loin name! I demand that the corrected changes that made be reinstalled to give readers the correct information regarding Gold Coast Highrise!

I request that the reverted information about Gold Coast highrise be reinstalled to the correct information that I printed regarding Gold Coast highrise Login name Anthony_kd Anthony kd (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anthony kd: Sorry to hear about the frustrating experience. It looks like you're referring to your edits at List of tallest buildings on the Gold Coast. The changes you made are saved in the revision history, but it looks like they were reversed by @MelbourneStar, who noted "Tests, incorrect formatting, unexplained changes" and "Further unsourced". I've pinged them to this discussion so that they can provide some further explanation for you about why they did not find the edits suitable. We're all trying to improve the quality of the information on Wikipedia, but we have some requirements, such as proper referencing, and your edits may need some tweaks to ensure that they follow those requirements before we can reinstate them. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Anthony kd, we're all volunteer editors here. I am (perhaps obviously) not the editor who reverted your additions. I would like to offer some guidance. You mention that the information is correct. I believe you, but if I wanted to check it out, I wouldn't be able to verify the information with your citations. I see that you added "<ref>{{cite web}}</ref>" in several places. For instructions on how to fill the "cite web" template, check out the {{cite web}} page. It's normal to at least use the url and access-date parameters. Url provides the link and access-date is helpful if the link dies. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Anthony kd, if you think that your threat to withold donations will help you get your way in a content dispute, please be advised that you are completely wrong on that point. Experienced editors do not care in the slightest whether or not you donate money, and have no way of knowing in any event. The Wikimedia Foundation has annual revenue of US $155 million and net assets of US $240 million, plus an endowment of over US $100 million. They will survive just fine without your financial donations. We just want you to donate well referenced, policy compliant content. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

MelbourneStar had already left a message on your Talk page, stating willing to discuss why your work was reverted. From above and looking at article, it appears you moved the future buildings table to the wrong place and added content without working refs. David notMD (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Article create

how to create a article on wikipedia Abhishree19 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Abhishree19 Please click on WP:YFA. David10244 (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

An attempt to create an article about yourself was speedy deleted in March. Wikipedia advises against autopbiographies. See WP:AUTO. David notMD (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

George Addo Jr.

I edited and I moved the page of George Addo Jr. from another users sandbox and when I published it, it seems that article does not exist after I have shared link with community members, but I can see that the page exist at my end. I need help on this. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I see it too. -- Hoary (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I see it three. What do you mean by "article does not exist"? David notMD (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I, umm... four see it. It hasn't been patrolled yet, so Google isn't indexing it; wonder if that's what @Jwale2 means? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jwale2 Shouldn't the article title be George Addo, based on WP:PRECISE? Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

.... or maybe I'm wrong, since MOS:JR says Jr. is OK when it is commonly used in the sources, which it seems to be in this case. Apologies. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Michael D. Turnbull it should be George Addo Jr. rather that George Addo as result of the using his name in full reading from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people).Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Q: re: Categories

In Category:Women-related WikiProjects, why does Wikiproject:Women in Green appear under "G", while Wikiproject:Women in Red is under "W"? (I've posted the same question on the relevant Talk page, but it seems like it might not get much attention there.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: Welcome to the Teahouse! I answered your question at the talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll head over there and have a look. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Publishing a new article

I have tried to publish a new article Draft:Vaishnavi Chaitanya, my article has been declined twice stating that 'This submission's references do not show that the subject - that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject'. I have added new and better references, but the same reason. I don't know how else to improve my article. Please help me out with improving and publishing this article. Ashrit918 (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ashrit918: Welcome to the Teahouse! The "YouTube" section needs more references and the "Awards" section needs a reference. GoingBatty (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding an image

Hi I have been trying to add an image to a page I am editing and it has uploaded onto Wiki Commons but now I can't seem to add it to the page I am trying to add to Mark Reed (sculptor) Hannahlucy100 (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hannahlucy100 That should be easy and I see that the article already has many (perhaps too many) images. General advice for the way to add them is at H:PIC. Come back here if you are still having problems after reading that Help page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Hannahlucy100, and welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming you're talking about File:Wave sculpture installation by Mark Reed during flood at Norwich Cathedral , Natural History Museum's Dippy on Tour.jpg, if you go to that page, and then click "View on Wikimedia Commons", you'll get to the Commons page c:File:Wave sculpture installation by Mark Reed during flood at Norwich Cathedral , Natural History Museum's Dippy on Tour.jpg (which is where it should have put you when you completed uploading the picture). At the top there is a link "Use this file", which shows you the string you can copy and paste into the article.

I see that you have uploaded a number of pictures of Reed's work over the years. I must ask: might you have a conflict of interest in working on Wikipedia's article about him? ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Costs

how much are the costs for the buyer in case of a private purchase of a gate box and are these costs deductible? 77.162.183.48 (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, IP editor, we can only answer questions about Wikipedia here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Advice

Hi everyone. A friend of mine has recently created an account to learn about what we do here on Wikipedia, though I'm a little concerned that he'll be overwhelmed with the Wiki-jargon that we oftentimes throw around. Any particular advice on how to better familiarize a completely new editor with policy, without pointing too much to all the PAG pages? Thanks, The Night Watch (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think the best thing you can do is simply to be there for your friend to ask questions of. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

If the jargon is the only problem, Help:Glossary explains a lot of them. Alternatively, Here's a tip for finding relevant policies, procedures and guidelines, and most anything else you hear mentioned by regular editors, or come across in Wikipedia's interface. Type "WP: (an easier-to-type alias of "Wikipedia:") into the search box, followed by the word or phrase you heard. Most of the time, this will quickly locate a targeted, behind-the-scenes information/help page, or how-to guide. See more at Help:WP search protocol. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

(addressed at your friend) Honestly, the best way to get acquainted with P&G is to read the P&G. Start with the 5 pillars and core content policies, and follow the links. Also, when you see someone link/refer to a P&G, read it. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

What are considered 'reliable sources', please?

I am confused as to what are considered reliable sources, I thought a website link or a newspaper link could be secondary source. Could someone give me some light on this, please? Thank you, guys!

Truthbetold27 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

A good place to begin is here. Have a good day.   Aloha27  talk  18:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! You have a good day as well! Truthbetold27 (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Truthbetold27: While websites and newspapers can be secondary sources, they're not all reliable sources. GoingBatty (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll check these out! Truthbetold27 (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

A question from my heart

Hi, I am a mom and I love my daughter very much, she is going to be 36 years old and she was told that her husband' sperms are not good quality and couldn't swim unto her womb. so, she couldn't get pregnant with her husband. she has tried to transfer her husband' sperms unto her womb, but were failed because the sperms didn't swim. Now, she was told that take her eggs out and then put her husband' sperms unto her eggs by the doctor specialist. I am very worrying about this procedure that she is about to going through? I have heard about the first lady, Michelle Obama has gone through somewhat difficulty pregnancy and she also needed help at the time. I would like to ask Michelle if she would tell me what kind of procedure that she has taken more in detail: did she has taken her eggs out and how long after the eggs were put back unto her womb? did she do any analyze of her eggs at all? would it be possible to have her to reply to me question although, my question is very strange to others and yet, I am very worrying about my daughter and want to do anything I can to help if Michelle Obama would accept my request? My daughter is getting older and she is worrying of course. I love Obama, Michelle, Biden and Jill Biden.

Lai Guen 206.45.199.232 (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry but the Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. We cannot assist you in contacting Michelle Obama or any other famous person. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Lai Guen, you may, however, find our article In vitro fertilisation helpful. Deor (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

However, remember WP:MEDICAL - We're not your doctor! A diehard editor (talk | edits) 22:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

WUNDERMAP/INTERACTIVE MAP AND RADAR

I have questions about using Wundermap/interactive map and radar. Can it be live radar all the time? SCPLOWBOY (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Self-published sources

I wanted to get clarification on rules for using self-published sources. I'm referring to this page: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

I'd like to use a self-published expert source that was produced by a subject-matter expert. This is primarily academic/scientific literature published in scientific journals. However, I'd like to use them on a biography of a living person. So is this not allowed?

For example, I am writing a biography about a prominent scientist who is a living person, and would like to cite some of his own research to note that he did important research on a particular topic. Is this not allowed? Once he has died it will be allowed? I'm confused about this and need clarification.

Fugimus (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Fugimus. You can list a scientist's own widely cited papers, but any assessment of their importance must be cited to an independent reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Academic/scientific literature is not self-published! As you say, it's published in scientific journals. That's fine to use as sources and not what that guideline is referring to. (It's referring to things like a scientist's popular blog, a book someone wrote and sold through a vanity press, and so on.) Saying "he did important research" is something else - it's not WP:V you need to be worried about so much as WP:Wikivoice. Basically, wikipedia shouldn't be saying a person's research was "important", unless sources independent of that person frequently call their research "important". Saying "John Smith does research on DNA" and sticking a footnote on the end of that to a paper he's published about his DNA research is perfectly fine. -- asilvering (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

thanks, this clarifies things. Also, not going to state that he did important research... I was just trying to get the point across that he is a legitimate researcher so I want to know if citing his own work is acceptable. Such as: "In her early career, he did research on a given subject and described these species." Fugimus (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, provided you cite the peer-reviewed articles in which he published that research. If you haven't yet, have a look at WP:NPROF to see what can be used to show notability for an academic. If you make a Wikidata item for them, you can add various identifiers (like their Google Scholar profile or ORCID) that will get picked up by Authority control if you add that template to the bottom of your article. -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

For many academics, the article authors create a section "Selected journal articles" and limit it to about ten. The help portray the person's work, but contribute little to nothing as far as establishing notability. David notMD (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

blocked

I wanted to suggest an alternative picture for maria -- the picture shown is not flattering - it looks messed up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Makino komodobite (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Maria+Makino+22&t=ffab&atb=v342-1&iar=images&iaf=size%3AWallpaper&iax=images&ia=images — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komodobite (talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Komodobite. We can only use photos that have an acceptable free license or that are in the public domain. Photos that you find online are presumed to be restricted by copyright, unless you have written evidence to the contrary. Cullen328 (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

My recent post on February 29 Talk page

A user came to my talkpage and told me that my recent changes on February 29 talk page is undone because it didn't appear constructive.

But why didn't it appear constructive?!

I write that post here for your judgement.

"Iranian actor, Saeed Poursamimi was also born on February 29, 1944."

If I were another person seeing this post, I would quickly figure out that it is a suggestion to include that actor on the births section.

If a user just saw the births section after seeing the talk page post, they would see by themselves that there are a few persons born on February 29, 1944 but Saeed Poursamimi isn't among them.

I honestly can't understand why my post didn't appear to be constructive.

Please convince me if you think I'm wrong. Aminabzz (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Aminabzz, John Maynard Friedman removed it as "nonsense". This surprises me, as your comment makes sense to me. (Whether your suggestion is factually correct, or whether it deserved incorporation into the article, are other matters.) Perhaps Friedman would care to comment here. -- Hoary (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Friedman thought my post was on an article about food! :-))) Aminabzz (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aminabzz: Ok, "nonsense" was a bit harsh but it really just seemed without purpose. A more accurate description is "so what?" What point were you trying to make? And why? Saeed Poursamimi appears to be WP:notable (as in there is an article about him), so why did you not add the entry yourself rather than leave a seemingly random remark at the talk page? Or do you not have a citation for his DOB? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

𝕁𝕄𝔽, in your place I'd have taken it to be a suggestion for an addition. Yes, "Be bold" is a much touted slogan hereabouts; but, as is widely recognized, it's very often no more than the first half of "Be bold and thereupon be reverted". -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure Saeed Poursamimi was born on February 29, 1944. He was born on Esfand 9, 1322 in Iranian calendar which matches the Leap Day of 1944.

But wait a minutte. You're blaming me for not adding the entry in the original article?!

I'm not the one who deserves to be blamed here.

The talk page post was not factually wrong. So it shouldn't have been removed.

Aminabzz (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

True, not factually wrong but without evident purpose. I'm not a mind reader. (The background to this is a silly internet meme to "spray tag" WP with pointless posts, seemingly a bet on whose lasts longest. Deletion of your post was collateral damage. Yes, I could have and probably should have just ignored it.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Restrict template usage in certain namespaces

How do you prevent a template from being used in a certain namespace? A diehard editor (talk | edits) 21:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi A diehard editor. You cannot prevent it from being called but you can code it to display nothing in some namespaces, e.g. with one of the templates in {{Namespace and pagename-detecting templates}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I just want it to display a big red error message like "DO NOT USE IN ARTICLE SPACE" when in article space. I just used {{User other}} and it does the job well. Thanks for your help! A diehard editor (talk | edits) 22:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Swann article name change request

I have been creating articles in part to disambiguate Virginia political figures with the same name. Using the link of the list of members of the Virginia House of Burgesses, yesterday I created a page for the Thomas Swann. The parenthetical refers to him as a burgess in 1645, whereas his importance was as a member of the Virginia Governor's Council during and after Bacon's Rebellion, after which his son Thomas Swann Jr. served more in a military capacity as local sheriff (but later became a burgess). A while ago, I created a couple of other Thomas Swann articles for 18th century political figures (probably descendants but I haven't finished the genealogy, since they returned to Virginia from Maryland and thus far I've only traced the descendants of the eldest Thomas Swann to North Carolina and Virginia). Because of the messy disambiguation page, I now realize I should have changed the title from "burgesss" to "councillor" before I created the article, and am requesting you do so. Thanks.Jweaver28 (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

In most cases, you can move it yourself. H:MOVE

However, if you can't move it yourself, use WP:RM (requested moves).

 Courtesy link: Thomas Swann A diehard editor (talk | edits) 22:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions made on but no editor responses

Hi There... I've made suggestions to improve the Art Intervention description on the talk page - but have received no responses from editors... should I simply "Be Bold"?

b'art homme 22:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B'art homme (talk • contribs)

B'art homme, the lowermost comment within Talk:Art intervention is by you and is dated 29 March; it comes below another by you dated 6 April. Their relationship to each other isn't obvious. Each is bulky; their combination is very bulky. Of those people who have Art intervention on their watchlists, I suspect that a number glance at the bulk, reflect that there are only 24 hours in the day, and move on to other matters. If a suggestion you've made on a talk page hasn't yet received any response, it's quite OK to make a radical revision to it. I suggest that you reorganize this suggestion (or set of suggestions). You might then revise the brief note you posted about it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts (a note in which you failed to link to either the article or its talk page), to say that you've revised and streamlined your presentation of your suggestion(s). Incidentally, I don't know what you've done to your signature in order to avoid linking; but restoration of the link (which is included by default) would be helpful. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary. I have edited the talk page suggestion down to one thing on your helpful advice. Thanks again. I've also failed to add a/my signature sorry - I tried but nothing happened Art Intervention. BTW what is a ping? b'art homme 00:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B'art homme (talk • contribs)

@B'art homme: A "ping" is a cute name for a notification, like the one I did using {{ping}} to notify you of my reply. See WP:PING for more info. Happy editing!

B'art homme, if I write a message in which I simultaneously (A) use any one among [[User:B'art homme|B'art homme]] and {{U|B'art homme}} and {{Ping|B'art homme}} and (B) sign my name, then you'll be notified of a message (you'll be "pinged" [Wikt:ping#Verb, #4] about it). However, if you try to do the same, it will fail (there'll be no notification), unless/until you restore the link to what's currently merely a quasi-signature, -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

What reason to select for warning?

I noticed someone posted a nonsense comment on a talk page filled with gibberish. I figured that I should warn them. However, none of the reasons are really applicable. What should I do? Starship 24 (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case, you can always use subst:uw-disruptive1. Alternatively, you can use a custom warning message you write yourself. These can be even more helpful because you can explain what talk pages are for. Welcome to the Teahouse @Starship 24! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Operation Blackleg Article

Hi Editorial team, Heres the link to the page that was declined publishing to wikipedia Draft:Operation Blackleg Asking where the information came from. I did reference both the authour Royal Navy Lt Nick Hawkins and the publication. The official Record of Procedure as submitted to Commander-in Chief Fleet on 8th July 1983. The wikipedia entry for HMS Coventry sinking in the Falklands War references Operation Blackleg on the Wiki page , this article will eventually link to the Coventry entry. I be happy to make the narrative a more nutral tone, but do feel other than a few " flowery " refereces just factally stated exactly what was acheived. regards Devargo007 (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The whole thing is sourced to "Hawkins (8 July 1983). "Operation Blackleg" (1): 12–15." What is this -- part of a book, a magazine article, or what? Here, in this discussion thread, can you point to two other substantive sources for the subject of the draft? Why is each heading at the same level? I didn't attempt to read the draft: I stopped reading with the introduction, because the introduction isn't even written in sentences. (Wikipedia articles are written in sentences, any one of which has a verb as well as a subject.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I had a similar experience to what Hoary described above. Wikipedia has a lot of quirks and rules, so I'd like to offer a brief outline of the standard way to write a new article:

1. Find at least 3 reliable, secondary sources that cover your topic. For Operation Blackleg it would be stuff like this: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-18195170 Primary sources are fine if you're citing undisputed factual statements, like dates. To meet Wikipedia's threshold for notability though, the general rule is 3 reliable, secondary sources.
2. After you've found sufficient sources, then write your article as a summary.
3. Use primary sources only to fill in straightforward, factual details.

And there are several ways to source an article, but I'll describe the most straightforward way:

1. At the end of a paragraph, sentence, or clause, place a "<ref>your citation here</ref>"
2. You can write the citations by hand or use templates like {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, etc.
3. You can cite a source multiple times using named references. For instructions see: WP:NAMEDREFS
4. If you are citing multiple times from a longer work (books, long journal articles, etc.), you can add page numbers to a named reference using the {{rp}} template. (If all of the sources are very long, it will make more sense to use shortened footnotes, but this will likely not apply to "Operation Blackleg")

You are of course free to ask more questions here. I think something that may be helpful though is to check out the Military History project's talk page, and ask if there are any similar events to Operation Blackleg that you could look at as an example of what may be expected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history

Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

On Bonadea's talk page, Devargo007 has elaborated: the Ministery of Defence extensive Record of Procedure, submitted to Commander-in-Chief fleet on the 8th of July 1983. The record is a comprehensive document which was subject to the Official Secrets Act for 30 years. I referenced the Record of Procdure and the author. Royal Navy Lieutenant Nick Hawkins. I infer that it's a primary source. If it indeed is, then this means that it's unusable (but for details, see this). ¶ Additionally, the language is inappropriate. From the last paragraph alone: faced incalculable odds ... never in its history undertaken such an audacious and dangerous operation ... their resolve and dedication to the task ... ambitious objective. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I as a Bachelor of Journalism have used the primary source in the writing as a secondary source as referenced.

The language I will edit to reflect a less emotional and more formal account. 120.22.133.196 (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Devargo007. I am sorry to say that your draft is a very long way away from an acceptable encyclopedia article. We write in a clear, informative, neutrally written prose style, in full expositive sentences and paragraphs. Your lead section fails to adequately summarize the topic, and a reader who stopped reading at that point would have no idea that this pertains to the Falklands War or that an important ship had been sunk in combat. You cannot assume that your readers are mind readers or well informed about that war . Vast swathes of the article are unreferenced, forcing readers to either trust that someone who cannot write an encyclopedic lead should be trusted to provide accurate content, without any evidence that you are summarizing reliable sources. I recommend that you read and study Your first article, and modify your draft accordingly, once you fully understand what you have read. Cullen328 (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you , I will take this as a first draft and endeavour to write a more concise encyclopaedic draft. 123.100.146.129 (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Devargo007 You claim that the group photograph and a photograph of a painting are your own work. If the first is true, that suggests you have a personal connection to the topic. See WP:COI for how to declare this on your User page. You are not prevented from creating an article despite a personal connection. If you were not the photographer, what is the source of the group photo? As for the second, a photograph of a work of art is a copyright infringement. As a separate concern, is any of the content copied verbatim from the source, and if so, what is that country's law pertaining to government documents being copyright protected? David notMD (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks David, yes I’m am connected to the photograph , but it’s a stock standard Creative Commons image.

The painting is a commission by myself , I’ve credited the artist , Dave Coburn, I don’t see this as an issue?

There are no copyright laws pertaining to the Record of Procedure, I’ve referenced the main author Lt Nick Hawkins ?

regards 123.100.146.129 (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)