Wikipedia:Teahouse

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, 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

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly. Alternatively, you can contact an experienced editor by visiting your homepage and clicking "Ask your mentor a question about editing".

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

Help with Cypher System ttRPG article in my draft

Dear Friends :D

I think I finished working on an article about Cypher System, a (tt)RPG from Monte Cook Games. The article is wholly my own invention, and it has no references, but... all the data can be found in 2nd edition Corebook I listed in bibliography section? Is that okay? (???).

Also, I am unsure about my grammar and spelling, if some native speaker could do a check, I would be grateful ;-)

LINK to my draft is in here; User:Kaworu1992/Cypher System

Best wishes! --Kaworu1992 (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Kaworu1992, welcome to the teahouse! I would look at this link if you haven't already. You also should not have any categories as the draft is not a mainspace article yet, and each claim the article makes should have a source - but the article looks good so far. If you want more specific help, you may want to ask over at WikipPoject Video Games. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

My dear ;-)

It's not about a video game, but rather (pen and paper) RPG game ;-) You know, you buy a book and it describes how to play the game with your friends? ;-0 And you are rolling dice? ;-)

I will also try to look over the Corebook and maybe "sourcerize" my claims ;-) Thanks for clarification in that matter ;-)

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, that's what I get for just lightly skimming the article.. ignore everything I said above haha. Try WikiProject Board and Table Games, and I think normal notability guidelines apply. I think there are enough independent sources per the reviews, but the in-text citations should be placed after the period (example: Lorem ipsum end.^[1]). My apologies for my earlier error. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

PS. I believes the categories begin with ":", so it's okay? At least we do that on Polish Wikipedia when working on drafts... ;-) Kaworu1992 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's how we do it here, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kaworu1992, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid the answer is No, that's not enough.

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.

It looks to me as if none of your sources are both independent and reliable (WP:BGS says "there is weak consensus that the user-generated forum RPGnet is unreliable"). Without such sources, there can be no article. ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Colin.

Would citing the Core book itself make the article/sources more reliable? Or maybe it is a different kind of problem? -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, do you think I should put the CSRD in bibliography? I kinda do not know how to reference that, can somebody help me, please? -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, very fast and not getting too deep, I added refs for official webpages of CSOL, Cypher System and Monte Cook Games. In the incoming days I am gonna cite the Corebook for the RPG system. Could somebody look at my reflist and tell me whether I am moving in the right direction?

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kaworu1992 (and also to the others who've responded, who may not be gamers): We actually do have a WikiProject dedicated to TTRPGs, at WP:RPG. The Statistics section of the WikiProject lists Featured and Good articles which might give you some ideas for improving your draft. At first glance, the draft still relies too heavily on primary sources (rulebook and publisher's blog) and looks like it's mostly a summary of the key features and rules. I'd be looking for more discussion of the system in independent sources, placing it in the wider context of TTRPGs including previous Monte Cook systems. Cypher has been around for ten years now, so you should be able to find a few more secondary sources offering robust discussion and critique (but do read our guidelines on reliable sources, if you haven't already done so). ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

My dear :-)

About the secondary sources, hm... the only thing I can think of are reviews? Could you maybe name some other text I could search for?

Also, I think I have seen at least 1 video on YT about ttRPG where author argumented that Cypher System is superior to D&D, hm... I think I would like to use that as a resource for the article. But where to put that? In Reception section?

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Friends.

I improved the article and sources as much as I could without reaching for 2nd edition Corebook to "sourcerize" my mechanics claims. Generally speaking, if RPGnet reviews aren't good sources, then we have problem with secondary sources for ttRPGs in whole, because on English Internet, ttRPG reviews are either RPGnet ones or some other published on "private" blogs. However, in the article there is also a ref for Polter.pl, which is, I believe, a "serious" resource (in Poland, you can not know that if you aren't Polish speakers, but Polter.pl is a regular editorial group that publishes its reviews and other texts).

I think I cannot improve the article further without getting the Corebook, as I said. Could you take a look and tell me what you think of sources I have used?

Best wishes

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

EDIT: I have found around 3 reviews from Italian Internet that seem to come from reliable sources. Could I use them as "proper" sources in this case? -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and do you think I should divide "Reception" section into, I dunno, "English Internet", "Italian Internet", "Polish Internet" etc.? Kaworu1992 (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Friends.

I added Italian reviews for my article. I hope that together with a Polter.pl review these sources are reliable. Could you have a look and tell me what you think?

LINK: User:Kaworu1992/Cypher System

If everything is okay, I shall be adding to sources the Corebook.

Best wishes

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on COI, citation consistency, and orphan articles

Hello! I'm a new editor still learning how to navigate article contributions responsibly, especially around conflict of interest.

I previously contributed to the Rebecca B. Alston article, but after feedback about promotional tone and a possible COI, I stepped away from directly editing the page. Since then, the article has been cleaned up with better alignment to standards, but it still carries several tags. I'm trying to understand what I could do better next time, or how to help responsibly from a distance.

I had a few specific questions:

– The article is tagged for lacking a citation for the subject's birthdate, but I noticed that Peter Frank’s article does not cite a birthdate either, and has no similar tag. I'm trying to understand how consistency works in applying these tags — not to dispute it, just to learn what’s expected.

– The “orphan article” tag is a bit unclear. I understand it means no other articles link to it, but I’d appreciate practical guidance on how to identify good linking opportunities or how to resolve that.

– There’s also a historic connection between Rebecca B. Alston and Peter Frank (he was quoted in earlier drafts), but due to the nature of her career, most references are physical media like gallery invites and reviews — harder to verify online. Is there a proper way to cite this kind of non-digital source when digital alternatives aren’t available?

I had considered reaching out to Anachronist directly, since they contributed to the original COI conversation, but wanted to check if it’s better to keep the discussion here in a community forum. I’m asking in good faith and truly want to improve as a contributor.

Thanks so much for your time and help. Archfusionpro (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Archfusionpro

1. For the birthdate citation, you are free to add a citation needed tag or add a source mentioning his birthday to Peter Frank (whichever one you are referring to). Thank you for pointing out this issue! Wikipedia is a volunteer project after all, so not all issues with articles are recognized or fixed.

2. WP:DE-ORPHAN can provide useful suggestions on how one could de-orphan an article. For example, adding links from related articles through intersecting categories or different language Wikipedias.

3. Yes, a source can still be valid even if it isn't online. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Archfusionpro, most of the "Solo exhibitions" are unreferenced. Almost all of the "Selected group exhibitions" are unreferenced, and most are described so vaguely as to be unhelpful even to an energetic reader. (Random example: "1988: Anna Bornholt Gallery in London, England". When in 1988? What was it titled?) Many of the references are unhelpful. (Random example 1: "'Artists'. The New York Review. Boone Productions. 1986." If this is The New York Review of Books, then say so -- but what is the status of "Boone Productions"? If it isn't the NYRB, then what is it? Whatever it is, is it really dated no more precisely than "1986"? Random example 2: "Frank, Peter. 'REBECCA ALSTON: BIO-ABSTRACTION'. 2014." There's no need to SHOUT. Was it really an annual; and if not, then when in 2014? Whether an annual or not, what's the publication titled?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Large Language model use for source gathering

Hello I was wondering if it would be acceptable to use a llm to gather sources and then verify them myself and use them? Cheers OwlLemons (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I have tried this. If you try it, be sure to check each and every single one of the sources you get. In my case, I observed a high incidence of hallucination, where the source didn't exist, the author didn't exist, the ISBN didn't exist, or the source referenced didn't actually contain what the AI said it did. I did get a couple of decent sources but the reliability of the AI suggestions, I found, was quite low. And the AI annoyingly provides them in a supremely confident, assured way, to sway you into taking its word.

This was a year ago. Things may have improved.

But definitely do not cite a source blindly if given to you by an AI. Check it out. Go to the library if you have to. You'll find that you'll be doing as much work validating the AI-generated sources as you would finding the sources yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@OwlLemons, LLMs have improved at this since @Anachronist last experimented. They still present many of the same problems, but much less badly. One thing they absolutely struggle to do, though, is to give you appropriate sources. Sometimes, they'll give you sources - real ones! - that no one in history has ever cited before. This presents some real problems for balanced wikipedia editing, since one of our major principles with regards to article sourcing and content is WP:DUE. So, I wouldn't recommend them for source-hunting either. However, there's something they are becoming quite useful for, which you may find convenient: finding a source you're thinking of when you already know what it is. Let's say you've read something before, but you can't remember what source you read it in. You're sure you've read it - but who wrote it and where? An LLM is great for this, because it can search much more quickly and effectively than you can, and you can easily and immediately tell if it's wrong. If it gives you results to things you haven't read, you know that's not it. If it gives you something you have, just open the source, check the location it specifies, and see if that's indeed the thing you remember. -- asilvering (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the information! OwlLemons (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @OwlLemons! LLMs should not be used to do much of anything - they love to hallucinate and make stuff up. You can read WP:LLM (an essay about the usage of LLMs on Wikipedia) if you want more information. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 23:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

No. Cremastra (u — c) 23:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Why wouldn't it be acceptable? It doesn't matter where the sources come from so long as they are reliable sources. If you're really asking if you can use the text that LLM gave you along with those sources, the answer is no, that would be plagiarism. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

It wouldn't be plagiarism, since AI text isn't copyrighted. It would just be dumb. Cremastra (u — c) 22:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Much of AI text actually is copyrighted, because the AI often uses verbatim phrasing from copyrighted sources it trained on. This becomes quite evident if you ask an AI to write an article and then you check those sources that it didn't hallucinate. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

[citation needed] Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Try it yourself. In my experience testing a few kinds of prompts a few months ago, I did experience this problem. -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cremastra It would be plagiarism, even if it isn't copyright violation. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Approval of an article of mainly local interest

 Courtesy link: Draft:William Cullen McBride High School

I've just completed my final draft of "William Cullen McBride High School" and have submitted it for approval. The school closed in 1971 but has reasonably general local interest due to an active philanthropic alumni club.  However, the youngest graduate is in his 70s and, although a likely reader of Wikipedia, has no idea how to submit articles, much less approve them.  (I am, to my knowledge so far, the only exception, and that only recently) My point is that the article is definitely of interest to a reasonably good sized, but local, population, but I doubt it is to likely reviewers.  Is it still reasonable for me to expect it will be reviewed and approved despite this?

By the way, I really enjoyed my foray into wiki-authorship. So much to learn, and so many pitfalls to avoid.

Thanks in advance for your replies. This Teahouse concept is brilliant. Sickingm (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Happy to read that you like it here, Sickingm. Well, the draft has a chance. Start by cutting those sections within it that are unreferenced -- notably, "McBride Alumni Club" (which aside from being unreferenced is excessively detailed). Continue by cutting "Notable alumni" who aren't linked (such as Mark Bernsen) and those who are redlinked (such as Frank P. Boro). -- Hoary (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

It will certainly be reviewed, though this is likely to take time, regardless of the subject. The decision to publish will depend on suitability (per WP:N) and quality (particularly the citations), not the reviewer's personal interest in the subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get working on it. Sickingm (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being obtuse. Can you clarify - or point me to where I can get clarification - on the difference between a link, a reference, and a citation?

Does a link refer only to WP articles or is it any hyperlink pointing to the subject?

Is a reference an external, non-hyperlink, reference?

So then is a citation a completely different animal from the other two?

- Matt Sicking (sickingm) Sickingm (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll answer that in the subsection below. Terminological mysteries aside, thank you for your candid edit summary. Now I know how it is that the "Legacy" section is in somniferous LLM-speak: It was produced by a LLM ("AI"). Please do not subject readers to LLM-speak. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Links, references, citations

Sickingm, I'll try to answer your question about "hyperlinks", "references", and "citations".

"Hyperlinks" is a word normally shortened to "links". These can be "internal" (example: Depths of Wikipedia) or "external" (example: Depths of Wikipedia). Internal links can be used freely; but (since they point to Wikipedia, classed as an unreliable source) they can't be used as evidence for assertions. (They also can't demonstrate notability.) External links can't be used in body text, but if used in their place can be used as evidence for assertions and can add up to demonstrate notability.

From Depths of Wikipedia:

[[Annie Rauwerda]], then a student in [[neuroscience]] at the [[University of Michigan]],<ref name="Shamani-2022">{{Cite magazine |last=Shamani |first=Joshi |date=January 13, 2022 |title=I Look For the Weirdest and Wildest Things on Wikipedia. Here's What I've Learned. |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/depths-of-wikipedia-viral-instagram-tiktok-facts-trivia/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220125063955/https://www.vice.com/en/article/dypdzv/depths-of-wikipedia-viral-instagram-tiktok-facts-trivia |archive-date=January 25, 2022 |access-date=March 24, 2022 |magazine=[[Vice (magazine)|Vice]]}}</ref>....

Within that, there are internal links to 'Annie Rauwerda', 'neuroscience', and 'University of Michigan'. There's a single reference: ('<ref name="Shamani-2022">[blah blah blah]</ref>') It contains two external links: one to a page in the Vice website, the other to a Wayback Machine copy of the same at the Internet Archive. ("url-status=live" indicates that the Vice page isn't thought to have succumbed to link rot; if it ever does, the Wayback Machine copy can substitute. Although if the Wayback Machine ever ends, the sky falls.) Thanks to 'name="Shamani-2022"', this one reference can easily be reused. If you look in the article as a whole, you'll see that the one reference is indeed reused: it's invoked five times. People then talk either of a single reference used five times, or of a single source cited five times, or cited via five references. (Careless people such as myself mindlessly use the term "reference" with two or more meanings within a single paragraph. Sorryyy.)

One of these decades, I might get around to improving the article on Issei Suda. If I did, I'd want to cite the editorial material in the back of his posthumous photobook My Japan (Amsterdam: Fw, 2021; ISBN 9789490119959. I'd do so by looking into the physical codex (the dead-tree original): a copy resides on my bookshelf. As far as I know, the web has no PDF or similar that I might link to. But of course I can still cite the book, via a reference that won't have a link to the book. So citations and references don't always use links, rather as links aren't always for references or citations. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on submitted draft: MusicRadar

Hi! I recently created a new draft article at Draft:MusicRadar and submitted it through Articles for Creation. The topic had been previously deleted, so I’ve rewritten it from scratch with multiple reliable sources to address notability concerns. I’d really appreciate any feedback or suggestions while I wait for review. Thank you! Kitfox64 (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Kitfox64. I highly recommend that you transform your references from bare URLs to fully fleshed out references with complete bibliographic information. This is not mandatory but it looks far more professional, is much more informative for readers, and makes it much easier for reviewers to evaluate your sources. It is to your benefit to make things smoother for the reviewers and to create a positive impression. See Referencing for beginners for the techniques. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

More importantly and more urgently, Kitfox64, summarize what has been written about MusicRadar in reliable sources that are independent of MusicRadar. Because references to MusicRadar's own website, to prnewswire.com (mere PR fluff), and to pages such as this that merely recycle what MusicRadar says about itself will be inadequate for information about MusicRadar, no matter how scrupulously these references have been fleshed out. (Once the draft has a variety of solid references, written and published independently of MusicRadar, then yes, these references should be made informative and helpful.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

How to get eyes on an article?

In recent months, I have carried out a personal project to improve and overhaul the Deadmau5 article as it stands. Despite the amount of my edits and the depth of their changes, I have failed to attract the attention of contributors who would be interested in helping the article. It was so bad that Drmies, in their evaluation of the article's quality, didn't really cite any examples for what they were rejecting the good article nomination for. Help? ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 14:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Drmies. Grumpylawnchair [ALT] (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

There are four WP:WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page. Ask on their talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Andy Mabbett, I have added a section to the Canada and Musician Wikiprojects in light of your advice. The rest of the wikiprojects are both semi-active or inactive, so I have posting withheld a notice there (for now). Thank you!! ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 15:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

"I'm going to give this a quick fail: this has been open for months, and the article is undergoing constant revision, and there is some dispute in the history. At any rate it's simply not good enough now in terms of sourcing, formatting, and structure, before we even get to the writing. Hint: start weeding out poor sources, standardize all citations with the proper templates." Drmies (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not familiar with all the sources in the article and this is the first time I have tackled a whole article that's been around this long. I am both unfamiliar with what you're referring to, where anything unstandardized would be, or even how to navigate references all that comfortably. That's a big reason I'm here, and again, I don't have any examples. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 16:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@GoatLordServant Getting an article to "good" status can be a hard slog. You need to look at the instructions at WP:GOOD and all the related tabs on that page. One of the ideas of the review is that the article already be fairly stable (i.e. not needing much more content, only formatting and perhaps somewhat pedantic tweaks) before the review starts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

That was not what it was like when I was helping with Sans (Undertale), so I had not understood that. It would have been considered 'unstable' anywho with the controversy tag added late in its life as a submission-- was destined for rejection anyway. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 17:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the doctor's problem with the citation templates is, but if I opened a GAN that had been in the queue for months and found that the nominator was still actively editing it, I'd probably put it down too. You might want to try to get some help at WP:PR, but these can also stand open for a long, long time. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Can I crop a logo and add to an unrelated article?

I want to add a Swedish image example to the article Bowl of Hygeia#Usage of symbol by pharmaceutical associations. There are currently no readily available images on Wikimedia, but I was thinking about cropping the logo from the Apoteket article. I suspect that this might infringe some policies regarding copyright, but I just want to make sure, in case it's possible. – Christoffre (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. Check the "Apoteket" article’s image licensing (via its file page on Wikimedia Commons) to confirm if it’s free or non-free.

If it's non-free, draft a fair use rationale explaining its relevance to the Bowl of Hygiea section and submit it for review at WP:FFD or you can ask an admin. Best, Editz2341231 (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Christoffre Wikimedia Commons only accepts free-licensed or public-domain media. By policy “copyrighted symbols, logos, etc.” are not allowed on Commons. zh.wikipedia.org, and Commons categorically rejects any fair-use upload (including logos, film screenshots, etc.) commons.wikimedia.org zh.wikipedia.org. In other words, Commons forbids uploading a copyrighted logo even if it were being “used” illustratively; Commons explicitly states that fair use “does not allow for the storage of material on Commons.” commons.wikimedia.org. Cropping or editing a logo is considered a derivative work, which still requires the original owner’s permission (i.e. a free license) to upload.

So the Apoteket logo (even cropped) is copyrighted/trademarked and cannot be uploaded to Commons under its free-content rules zh.wikipedia.org commons.wikimedia.org. Thank You Funtiberry (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend using a free Hygieia symbol instead. Choose a public-domain or CC-licensed bowl-of-Hygieia image (for example, many pharmacy signs or icons on Commons as above commons.wikimedia.org commons.wikimedia.org). This complies with Commons’s free-content criteria. Funtiberry (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Knowledge on Wikipedia

How much knowledge is there on Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have the same amount of knowledge as with paper encyclopedias? How do you gain experience? Knowledge542 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Knowledge542, welcome to the teahouse! Wikipedia probably has more knowledge in it then any other encyclopedia ever. That's one of the benefits of being an online encyclopedia - it all gets updated and expanded in real time! As per your second question, simply edit! If you're unsure what you can do, I'd suggest checking out the task center for a good list of things you can try out. From there, you can do all sorts of stuff - copyedit, source, categorize, and maybe even write an article once you feel you're ready! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 20:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@PhoenixCaelestis How could Wikipedia have more knowledge than any other encyclopedia? Knowledge542 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Knowledge542, by volume alone? The World Book Encyclopedia claims to have over 17,000 articles in the 2025 set. Wikipedia has over 6 million. When I was a kid, we had two different full sets Funk & Wagnalls and the World Book, and a third set that was written for an audience of children learners. I read them. A lot. I tried to read cover-to-cover. For World Book, the jump references were too enticing, and I'd end up pulling out a different volume and reading that article. The articles were well edited. But, there were not the many thousands of contributors that Wikipedia has. And, there are only so many pages available. Some encyclopediae are more concise based on subject, or just to keep the page count low. Wikipedia does not have that physical limit. It does not have the same level of editorial oversight. Some articles are sparse or badly written. But they exist, or can be made to exist fairly quickly. This is not the case with an encyclopedia that is frozen in time. Even with the annual yearbook updates, the World Book became stale. Countries changed. Historical and scientific assumptions were disproved. We went from atoms being invisible to printing a photograph of an atom...a huge change in perception, and expensive addendum to a printed encyclopedia.

Have you read much of a conventional encyclopedia set? What has your experience been? Just Al (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Just Al @PhoenixCaelestis Yes I read a convention encyclopedia set and they look spectacular to me. I wish Wikipedia would be in print. What is the reason on lack of editorial oversight? Knowledge542 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

My experience has been fine to me. Knowledge542 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Primarily, Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers in their own time. Published paper encyclopediae have paid writers, editors, proofreaders, fact-checkers, and other support staff to keep the business running. They also have deadlines. In publishing, there are drop-dead dates that mean an article is pulled and replaced if it is not deemed acceptable when the layouts are locked in before the printing process begins. An article must be polished, or it is scrubbed for another date (or not at all). That pressure will limit the count of articles, but also improve the quality of the few that remain. At Wikipedia, there are no deadlines. And drafts are acceptable to publish because it allows other editors to participate or provide advice. It's always a work-in-progress. Just Al (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Just Al However, are World Book encyclopedias still relevant today, despite being published annually? Knowledge542 (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Personal interaction between users

I suppose this is a question on protocol or etiquette or ethics(?). Is there an appropriate method for me to send a personal note to a user whom I believe I recognize? For instance, hypothetically, suppose I read [[user:ColinFine | Colin Fine]]'s AboutMe page and I was fairly convinced, from his picture, his name, and his IT & Linguistics background, that I knew him back in the 1990's when he was on an extended trip to St. Louis, and I wanted to say Hi. What is the best method, other than posting a hypothetical question on The Teahouse, to do so? Sickingm (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Sickingm, some users (including ColinFine), have an "Email this user" link, about ⅔ of the way down the list of links at the left of their user page. You won't be able to find their email address from it, but you will be able to use it to send them a personal message. Maproom (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

^ That's a great observation. The user setting is at Special:Preferences | Email options | Allow other users to email me Just Al (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Sickingm. I think I know who you are, and I tried to email you, but you haven't set up an email address, so I couldn't. ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine It looks like @Sickingm added their email onto their user page after you posted this comment. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 23:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Feedback

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please write to me an understandable essay including feedback for my draft: Draft:David Thomas King School. Rafaelthegreat (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Rafaelthegreat, welcome to the teahouse! The best way to get feedback on your draft is to submit the article for review once more. Underneath the big banner, and before the article begins, there is a little yellow exclamation mark and the word "Comment". Your reviewer will leave feedback there. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 23:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

No, Rafaelthegreat, I am not going to write an essay. However: (1) A reference is normally used in order to provide evidence for an assertion. But a large percentage of the references in Draft:David Thomas King School are not for this. Indeed, I don't know what they're for. (2) What have reliable sources that are independent of David Thomas King School written about David Thomas King School? (If nobody can find such sources, no article can be created.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy Article Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello! I need some help at the Teahouse as i need my article to be reviewed by next monday. I usually get my articles reviewed in a day or so. My topic has been mentioned very little or passed by in 1-2 articles but i made a deep down explanation of my topic situation. I ask that somebody help me get my article reviewed and possibly published and approved! SVSWIKIPED (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

the current one im making is one called Draft:2025 Pakistani airspace closure. Im hoping that this will get approved. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

SVSWIKIPED, allow me to quote SVSWIKIPED, which tells us: "I learned over my little time here to take your time. Don't rush on a article even if you don't have much time. Take it slow and make sure to re-read and cite your sources...." (Also, there is currently a backlog of over 3100 drafts.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yea the thing that i was concerned about mostly was the fact that this was graded. I just got the email saying that my educator was fine with it. I decided this one time to rush.

I always wonder how many people work for AfC team and more. How does backlog get this bad. : ( SVSWIKIPED (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

One reason why it gets bad, SVSWIKIPED, is that very many drafts smell promotional without being indisputably promotional, another is that very many suggest notability while failing to demonstrate it, another is that very many cite sources that are pretty crappy without being indisputably crappy ... and any of these factors can lead to declines, further submissions, further declines, etc. And then, if a draft is basically OK, well, I for one am reluctant to accept any draft as an article that I wouldn't want to read. The necessary (I think) even if humdrum editing takes time (most recent example). -- Hoary (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I was curious and wanted to know the qualifications to not need people to approve your article and just directly publish it. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@SVSWIKIPED, you are already able to directly publish articles. However, if they don't meet our guidelines for whatever reason, a patroller may nominate them for deletion or move them to draftspace. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Why do i need to undergo review then? SVSWIKIPED (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I would be considered quite experienced here, editing Wikipedia almost daily for the past 19 years. And even then I occasionally submit an article for review to get another set of eyes on it, and advice, especially if I'm uncertain about the community's judgment of notability. In one case a reviewer suggested I re-cast an article about an author to an article about his books instead, because the books were clearly notable, so I did that.

You seem to be under the misconception that the community respects deadlines. See WP:DEADLINE; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. If you have an assignment due by a certain date, you take your chances. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I do understand that there are no deadlines. These replies from people at the tea house have made me learned stuff I didn’t even know. I appreciate all of yall as I begin writing for Wikipedia. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@SVSWIKIPED, you don't. That's what I'm saying. You can create an article in mainspace like any other autoconfirmed user - you've been able to do this since May 9th. (See: [1]) -- asilvering (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok i think i'm starting to see what you are saying. Let me see what you attached. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Omg thanks so much cause i just found out how to. This is ground breaking for me. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@SVSWIKIPED: we're all volunteers, that's how! AfC reviewers are doing this on top of all the other things they do for the encyclopedia (like writing articles). You can see a list of us all at WP:AFCP - not really very many! Administrators and people with WP:NPP rights can review drafts too. Maybe you can join in once you've got some more experience. :) -- asilvering (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @SVSWIKIPED, and welcome to the Teahouse. If somebody (whether you or your teachers) have made your educational qualification dependent on getting a Wikipedia article accepted in a certain time, then they have made a very very very very bad decision, and put you in an impossible situation. Neither you nor anybody else can guarantee that a draft will be looked at by a certain date.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you and your right. Wikipedia is like my fun place but if you have seen my other submissions, they were frustrating when it became rejected. I found it hard but I slowly learned the basics through the first few submissions and stuff. I just came here because the article I have that I made getting approved is important for my teacher (idk why she made such task) and my grade in that class. That’s why I seeked help and I look forward to working with others.

Rejection of the article is leading me to other articles. I’m making one about airline partnerships but I feel like every attempt is getting rejected. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I have to say that Draft:2025 Pakistani airspace closure does look like it's in decent shape, however. Articles about current or recent events aren't my area of focus, so I am not familiar with what's expected, although I wouldn't see a problem if this draft was moved to article space.

That said, the thing I'm uncertain about is whether the topic should be a standalone article, or whether this event should be merged into 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, which already describes various impacts, of which this is one. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whitewashing... opposite?

Is there a term for the opposite of WP:Whitewashing? In other words, the desire by some editors to exert a Herculean effort to include a negative piece of information or something? As opposed to the Herculean effort to remove a negative piece of information. I am just curious if such a term or policy or essay exists. If not, then may it should. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Iljhgtn, I think that there’s no official name for the opposite of whitewashing, the behavior is still covered by core content policies like WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:COATRACK. Similarly, If no clear term exists, proposing an essay or coining a suitable name could be a valuable contribution to the Wikipedia community’s editorial discourse. - IMO Fade258 (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with those policies, and could read up more on this. I think I might need to write my first essay then. I am open to suggestions on what to call it... "blackwashing" sounds awful and inappropriate, but something that effectively means the exact opposite of "whitewashing" would be good. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, You're absolutely right "blackwashing" carries problematic connotations and should be avoided. Since, you're looking for a term that clearly and appropriately conveys the opposite of "whitewashing". I would suggest a term "Smearwashing". Fade258 (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

What about simply smearing? Augnablik (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to say that. -- asilvering (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this "opposite of whitewashing" often the purpose behind creating WP:COATRACKs? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Tarring? -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

smear, malign, calumniate, libel, slander, asperse, disparage, degrade... TLJ3 (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

vilify TLJ3 (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Many of the above could be good shortcuts for the essay. I'll get to work on it next week or whenever I find the time. If anyone wants to help I'd be open to having an extra hand in it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Replacing a dead link with an archived version

I've found an article with a link to a dead site (specifically citation six on Joseph Fletcher). I've found an archived version at [2], how would I go about replacing the citation? Vəssel ^{[talk to mə]} 10:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Vəssel Welcome to the Teahouse. There is general advice at WP:LINKROT. If you run into problems with creating the new citations after reading the instructions, just ask back here for more advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Vəssel For better or worse, with the help of your providing the archive link, I have fixed this.

Presumably there are bots that go around repairing what fraction of the links they can, with whatever limited ability they have. It's considerably easier when someone has provided a good archive link, but then again, if a good archive link is readily available, then (I wa under the impression that) the bots should be fixing them.

Properly fixing an archive link (assuming the bots will never catch up) is at least one of the better unmitigated improvements you can make to Wikipedia, and you can be sure there will be ample broken links to work on. The challenge often is actually to find a working archive link. You often need a bag of tricks to locate good archive links, and to my knowledge, there is no place where it's written down, and often what you need to know is not obviously documented. So you can spend a fair amount of time in some cases and pat your self on the back when you've succeeded with a particularly challenging case. Fabrickator (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, huh - with this one I just plugged it into the wayback machine and it already had an archive. Maybe I was lucky. Vəssel ^{[talk to mə]} 13:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Vəssel Thank goodness it already had an archive, because the link was broken as of December 2023, and once the link is broken, it's too late to create the archive. But that means the link has been broken for over a year, why had the bots not fixed it in that period of time?

I would suggest that if Wikipedia doesn't have the resources to keep links working, then the project is on a doomed mission. It take a lot of volunteer resources to make WP what it is, the size of WP constantly grows, but if links break and don't automatically get fixed (even when the archive is readily available), then the project is on a downward trend that will continue to get worse. Fabrickator (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Have a look at User:InternetArchiveBot, a bot that can help you proactively add these archive links ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Film and Television

Why don't articles related to this use a hyphen when there are two genres, like comedy horror, instead of comedy-horror with a hyphen? — ArćRèv • talk 13:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Who can say? Feel free to boldly edit and make such a change; then start a discussion if other editors disagree. See also MOS:Hyphen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: There are no editors who disagreed — I'm just asking why, in almost all film and television articles on Wikipedia, the first sentence lists multiple genres without hyphens. For example, it says "Blank is an American comedy horror film" instead of "comedy-horror." Is this part of Wikipedia's standard guidelines? I'm just a bit confused. I looked at the Manual of Style (MOS), particularly the hyphens section, but it's quite long, and I couldn’t find a clear reason why genres aren’t hyphenated. — ArćRèv • talk 12:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Image removal from my WIKI page keeps being reinstated

How do I stop an image being constantly added to my Wikipedia page that I dislike? StanleyTimberlake (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

It might help if you provided a free image that you do like. That doesn't necessarily prevent someone from trying to use the other image, but it would give an alternative to those who want to include images on every bio. --Onorem (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@StanleyTimberlake: you can't remove the picture simply because you do not like it. I recommend that you upload a better image instead, but please note that if it is a taken by someone else then we need permission from the photographer. See Wikipedia:A picture of you. MKFI (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yep, see Wikipedia:Ownership of content. GoldRomean (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

StanleyTimberlake Something else you can do is take a selfie with your phone and upload it so it can be added to the article about you. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

StanleyTimberlake, I assume that the page you a referring to is Tracy Wiles, as you refer to this as "my" page. If so, keep in mind that this is not "your" page. You do not own it, and you have no control over what other editors might add or take away from it. This is something that everyone who is the subject of a Wikipedia article should keep in mind. Mike Marchmont (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@StanleyTimberlake You might find the info at Wikipedia:A picture of you helpful. Like stated above, this is Wikipedia's article about Tracy Wiles, not your article. A picture of the article subject is generally considered a good thing around here, and my personal opinion is that that picture is better than no picture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, simply update Tracy's website at this URL to indicate that the photographer Ruth Crafer has licensed one or more of her images as CC BY SA 4.0 and we can copy it/them over to Wikimedia Commons. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Don't "simply update Tracy's website ... to indicate that the photographer Ruth Crafer has licensed one or more of her images as CC BY SA 4.0 " unless the photographer has understood what that means and agreed to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Raboe001, ping to you since we're talking about your picture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting alternatives at Category:Tracy Wiles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Question regarding copyright for map

Hello, I have a question regarding copyright in regard to maps of kingdoms from books sourced,(Draft:Kingdom of Aboh), in my draft here I uploaded a map for the Kingdom of Aboh, however I'm unfamiliar with copyright rules and I uploaded it through Commons Upload Wizard, is that constituted under fair use for the site ? Dangermanmeetz (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Also to prevent my draft from being declined/deleted when reviewed. Thanks! Dangermanmeetz (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Dangermanmeetz: Do you know who made it? Do you know when it was made? Do you know if there's any copyright on it? Please also see WP:COPY and WP:YFA. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yea I credited the author, it was made in 1971, but I don't know how to check if there's copyright on it, that's why a moderator(?), sent me this link to see if you would be able to identify it. However, after checking Common Uploads Wizard description:f you do not own the copyright on this file, or you wish to release it under a different license, consider using the Commons Upload Wizard." It seems I'm safe to use it ? Dangermanmeetz (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion from that explanation. You don't own the copyright, so you can't use it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

than whats the utility of the Common Upload Wizard ? The description says IF you don't own copyright, use this medium. Otherwise its a pointless tool,no? Dangermanmeetz (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I also see maps used on Wikipedia that were created within the last decade or so, are they also are copyright owned. Dangermanmeetz (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If you can point at a specific one, we can try to answer that question. But probably the answer is going to be "that, too, is copyrighted, and should not be on Wikipedia". Unless a passing copyright-fluent editor sees them, well... -- asilvering (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your question about the Upload Wizard: its purpose is to make uploading files to Commons much easier. The classical method requires more technical knowledge. As the image at the start of the wizard notes, if you don't have permission to freely upload something then you mustn't upload it to Commons. Where did you read that "if you do not own the copyright on this file [...] consider using the Commons Upload Wizard"? Maybe you misread something (that's okay, that's why we are here at the Teahouse). Happy editing! –The Sophocrat (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Dangermanmeetz, and welcome to the Teahouse. Copyright is complicated, and Wikimedia projects are more careful about it than many sites on the Internet.

Materials may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons only if they are free to use - meaning that either they are in the public domain (either by having been explicitly released there, or by reason of their age), or they have been explicitly released under a suitable license such as CC-BY-SA.

A map from a book published in 1971 is probably not in the public domain (though this depends on a number of factors, including which country it was published in). It is also unlikely to have been licensed as Commons requires (and Commons would require an explicit statement of such licensing).

Wikipedia (not Commons) does allow non-free material to be uploaded (to Wikipedia) and used, but the uploader needs to be able to justify that the way the material is used meets all of the criteria in the non-free content criteria. I can conceive that a map of a historical kingdom might be usable in that way. However one of the criteria is that non-free materials may be used only in articles, not in drafts - so if you take that route, you should forget about the map until you have had the draft accepted as an article. Illustrations - even maps - do not make any difference to whether drafts are accepted, which depends on quality of sources, suitability of text, and notability of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok perfect! Thanks so much for the response! I'll just add it into the article after the draft is deemed acceptable. Dangermanmeetz (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If you ask at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, preferably with an external link to (or offer to email a copy of) the one you shouldn’t have uploaded someone will make you a new, open-licence version. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

LLM "Opinion" vs LLM refine the expression of my authentic idea clarification

Hi,

I made one edit suggestion on a page, now 2 editors from that page are following me around reverting ALL subsequent wikipedia contributions I do. They claim they have the absolute authority to render an opinion that an edit was made with LLM and revert all edits of mine and that's what they do claiming it is for the betterment of wikipedia. So, apparently I'm shadow-banned for making edits in wikipedia. Or am I? I do use LLM to refine the expression of my authentic idea, which is supposed to be fine. Or is it? Do I have to take a video of me typing just to be an editor at wikipedia? Do I make a disclosure? Seems a tad absurd. Thanks in advance. ScholarLoop (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ScholarLoop. The obvious solution is to write entirely in your own words. Human Wikipedia editors are not interested in conversations with robots prone to hallucinations based on hidden prompts. Cullen328 (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so even though there is a policy on LLM use and WP:LLMDISCLOSE , any editor can just revert a well formed and verified sourced wikipedia edit which means effectively not only are all well formed LLM article edits in practice are actually banned, if some editor doesn't like your edit they can just make an "opinion" and revert it in its entirety. Got it thanks, that's what I thought. ScholarLoop (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to use LLM to "refine the expression" of your ideas. That's just using it as a crutch, which shouldn't be needed. If you write clearly enough in your own words, other editors will eventually come along and improve them if they need refining. In this way, LLMs need never be involved, and Wikipedia articles remain human-generated. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so even though there is a policy on LLM use and WP:LLMDISCLOSE , any editor can just revert a well formed and verified sourced wikipedia edit which means effectively not only are all well formed LLM article edits in practice are actually banned, if some editor doesn't like your edit they can just make an "opinion" and revert it in its entirety. Got it thanks, that's what I thought. ScholarLoop (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

ScholarLoop, I guess that neither you nor your robot friend noticed that WP:LLMDISCLOSE is not an official Wikipedia policy. It is just a subsection of a user essay. As it says at the very top, This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. Why didn't you notice that? This essay is not widely accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

because the editors stalking my edits and reverting them referenced this essay - so are you saying the reverts are not justified since its not widely accepted? ScholarLoop (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

ScholarLoop, I was simply informing you that this essay is not a policy, which you had said it was. Use of AI and LLMs is highly contentious on Wikipedia, as you have now learned. Please be aware that "vandalism" and "stalking" are grave accusations that require solid evidence. Without such evidence, these charges are personal attacks contrary to an actual policy No personal attacks. I suggest that you back off a bit and recalibrate your approach because arguing with every highly experienced editor you run across is not the path to success in editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, not arguing, seeking clarification. I am an experienced editor from 10 years ago and this AI thing is new, but thanks for verifying the solid evidence I need. I've dealt with stalking and vandalism in the drama boards before. Thanks for the help! ScholarLoop (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

ScholarLoop: That is a non-sequitur reply to my comment. Did you use an LLM for that? I ask because it makes no sense in the context of my comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

No, probably because you comment was non-sequitur to my comment. ScholarLoop (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Really? I directly quoted you in my reply. Oh well. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly help! ScholarLoop (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @ScholarLoop. One other point: Yes, "any editor can just revert a well formed and verified sourced wikipedia edit" (emphasis added) - if they don't agree that it is well-formed and verified, or they don't think it is an improvement for other reasons (eg UNDUE). And then you have the option to discuss it per BRD. This is not new. ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed if that was the actual case for an individual edit. In this case an editor decided to stalk my entire history and revert multiple article contributions simply calling it "trash." ScholarLoop (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the actions of another editor or editors, please follow the process outlined at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you I will, as the gang of editors claim I will be banned if I try. ScholarLoop (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Rowing in Scotland

I would like to request this as a article here on English Wikipedia, thanks. Rowing in Scotland BigKrow (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, BigKrow. We already have Scottish Rowing. Are there any "Rowing in Country X" articles that you would like to emulate? Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Question about the naming and scope of “Manyo Botanical Garden” articles in Japan

Hello, and thank you in advance.

I’m still new to editing Wikipedia, and I’m trying to understand how article titles and structure should work when there are multiple places with similar names.

I recently came across two articles that seem to refer to the same botanical garden in Nara:

• Manyo Botanical Garden
• Manyo Botanical Garden, Nara

However, “Manyo Botanical Garden, Nara” does not exist as a real or official name.

The actual name of the garden is Kasuga Taisha Manyo Botanical Garden, located within the grounds of Kasuga Taisha Shrine in Nara.

In Japanese, the garden uses the classical character “萬” instead of the modern “万”.

There are also other botanical gardens in Japan with similar names, such as:

• Ichikawa Manyo Botanical Garden
• Kokubunji Manyo Botanical Garden
• Dazaifu Manyo Botanical Garden

Each of these is a separate facility in a different city, with its own background and features.

Given this, I’m unsure whether it’s appropriate to have both a general article titled “Manyo Botanical Garden” and another titled “Manyo Botanical Garden, Nara,” especially when the latter is not the correct name.

Since I’m still learning, I don’t feel confident making structural changes myself,

but I’d really appreciate any thoughts or guidance from more experienced editors on how this might best be handled.

Thank you again. CamelliaNote (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

However "real name" can reasonably be interpreted, CamelliaNote, I think that "Manyo Botanical Garden" and 萬葉植物園 are "real names". After all, like them or not, they're what Google Maps shows. (No, I certainly do not claim that Google Maps is infallible.) I think that www.kasugataisha.or.jp/manyou-s/ is what could be called the official web page; it says "Manyou Botanical Garden" and 春日大社 [in a small font] 萬葉植物園 [in a large font]: putting aside the romanization of 萬葉 for a moment, I think this can more plausibly be interpreted as "Manyo Botanical Garden" (as a part of, or run by/for, Kasuga Taisha) than as "Kasuga Taisha Manyo Botanical Garden". The title "Manyo Botanical Garden, Nara" should be interpreted not as "The garden named 'Manyo Botanical Garden, Nara'" but instead "The garden named 'Manyo Botanical Garden' that's in Nara" -- compare the article title Fuchū, Tokyo: nobody claims that there's a suburb named "Fuchū, Tokyo"; instead, there's one named "Fuchū" that's in Tokyo and shouldn't be confused with the other one (in Hiroshima). (And romanization/spelling: en:Wikipedia normally uses Hepburn romanization, according to which 萬葉 is "Man'yō"; however, this may clash with the rule of using the most widely used name, correct or otherwise.) HTH -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed and kind reply.

Your explanation comparing the title “Manyo Botanical Garden, Nara” with “Fuchū, Tokyo” was very helpful and cleared up my misunderstanding.

I now understand that “Nara” in the title is not part of the official name, but rather a geographical disambiguation, and I appreciate your insights about how it appears on Google Maps and the official website.

I’m still learning how to edit Wikipedia properly, so your guidance means a lot.

Thank you again for your thoughtful support. CamelliaNote (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, CamelliaNote, but my support was perhaps insufficiently thoughtful. I didn't look at the other article you linked to, which I now look at and see is titled Man'yō botanical garden, a title that arguably clashes with the titles of the articles on man'yō gardens to which it links. This all adds up to ... a bit of a mess. No solution I can immediately think of is simple and unlikely to get some opposition. Perhaps the best thing for you to do is keep quiet about the matter while you accustom yourself to en:Wikipedia and its sometimes odd titling, and when you have an idea that you're pretty confident is good, put it forward on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. -- Hoary ([[User talk:|talk]]) 08:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind and thoughtful reply.

I’m still very new to editing Wikipedia, and I was actually feeling a bit discouraged yesterday after realizing that I had made some mistakes in an earlier edit.

This question about the botanical garden came to mind while I was reflecting, and I decided to post it here—though I now feel that it may have been too early for me to raise such issues. Still, I truly appreciate your response and your insights.

Thank you again for taking the time. CamelliaNote (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hoary, it doesn't strike me as a mess. Wikipedia has an article Art gallery, and many articles on individual art galleries. The same can work for Manyo Botanical Garden, it's not a problem having both the articles that CamelliaNote mentions. Maproom (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Maproom, your first sentence aside, I warmly agree. Whether you care to write it 萬葉 or 万葉, the word/name is (according to Hepburn) pronounced man'yō (corresponding to マンヨウ). Both the apostrophe and the macron are commonly dropped for one reason or another, resulting in manyo (which, taken literally, corresponds to マニョ). マニョ is not pronounced like マンヨウ. So, man'yō or manyo? Or, as now, two different forms within the same article? -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Frizzle (chicken breed)

Frizzle (chicken breed)

They are not using correct pictures

this is their actual look

https://poultrykeeper.com/chicken-breeds/poland-chickens/

https://backyardpoultry.iamcountryside.com/chickens-101/frizzle-chickens-unusual-eye-candy-in-a-flock/ Fruit Orchard (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Is any of these any good, Fruit Orchard? -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Social media says the way Frizzle chicken looks like, but in same article links to Polish chicken which is described as Frizzle chicken online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruit Orchard (talk • contribs) 11:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

We can't decide such matters on the Teahouse; please start a discussion on the article talk page, and post a link to that discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

While, as Andy notes, Teahouse can't really settle these things, both the sites you link to actively assert their rights to the copyrights of their photos, and do not release these materials under a Wikipedia-compliant license, which must allow irrevocable use of the photographs by any party, with attribution, for any reason whatsoever. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere where the OP was asking us to use images from those pages; they merely cited them as evidence to support their comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Is the 'Researcher' user right still active?

Hey! Just wondering, are there any active users with the "Researcher" user rights right now? I checked the stats page, but it doesn’t seem to show any recent updates. Is that user right still in use or has it kind of faded out? Just curious, thanks! 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 08:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@JesusisGreat7, I'm not a Teahouse host but I can still answer this for you. This description of the "researcher" user right states that there are 0 users with this user right. This probably mean that the role is not used by anybody right now. Of course, if the role was faded out, the role would be listed at the "Former levels" section instead, so assuming the page is up-to-date, the role has not faded out yet. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 11:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Its still listed at Special:ListGroupRights#researcher, so as far as the software is concerned, the right still exists. Given the assigned permissions I suspect it was kept around for future use even if it was created for a specific project. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

As a run-of-the mill administrator, there is a list of 15 rights I can change in user accounts, and 14 rights are grayed out that I cannot change, including obscure rights like importer, researcher, founder, etc.

WP:RESEARCHER says a researcher can "perform a title search for deleted pages, view deleted history entries, and view deleted contents." Honestly, that isn't exactly what I thought "researcher" would mean. Any administrator can already do those things, and there are hundreds of us. I imagine the right was deemed redundant with administrator rights and it hasn't been necessary to grant those abilities to non-administrators. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Can i add an image i took

I'm new. This is for a sandbox. EvanSimms (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@EvanSimms: Assuming you're willing to release it under a Creative Commons licence (0, By, or By-SA), you can upload it to Commons. However, an image will not help a draft; reviewers are looking at your text and sources and will ignore images. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

But how do i get it onto Wikipedia EvanSimms (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Where do I ask for help in this case?

Currently, my edits on Chinese police overseas service stations have constantly been reverted by two users. I have also been falsely accused of doing "POV edits" and doing "WP:PROMOTION". As far as I know, I have complied with wikipedia guidelines for the most part, and a lot of the statements made were clearly in violation of WP:AGF and there was also quite some WP:WL involved.

Now, where do I get help for this? WP:AN3 seems really overkill, and let's admit it, outside of the people reverting my edits, nobody is looking at the talk page(where I already have a discussion for this). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)