Wikipedia:Teahouse

Rubbish computer, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
A friendly place where you can ask questions
to get 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

Reliable references

Hey everyone, my draft got declined a few days ago as reliable sources were not strong enough. I added now a bunch of additional public references I could find and would be happy if someone could double-check them before I press the resubmit button. I'm not always sure btw when to use Cite news and when it is Cite web – hard to say as media outlets are often only online available these days. So would appreciate some feedback here as well.

Cheers! Omarquardt (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Omarquardt: When in doubt, Cite web. I do that, at least. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

thanks will do that! Omarquardt (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me; good luck. I'm not sure if the iOS app store and Google Play store references (17 and 18) will be counted (mught be considered original research), but other than that, the sources all look good and the article looks great. :) Spaceeditor123 (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

new article on publicly traded corporation

 Courtesy link: Draft:Parade Technologies

I have submitted a new article on a publicly traded company, a mid-size technology chip manufacturer. The article was rejected by articles for creation.

I disclosed my status as a paid editor in my profile. The article itself includes corporate history and short outline of products. It has citations throughout. It is very similar to many other articles about other corporate entities that can be seen on wikipedia.

Any advice on improving this article to satisfy wikipedia editors? SVtrustee (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee: Being "similar" to other articles that may be substandard is not a reason to accept more of the same. I see numerous problems. It looks like a corporate brochure. It fails to adhere to the layout of an encyclopedia article. It is clear that the draft exists solely for publicity purposes, and Wikipedia is the wrong venue for that. The overwhelmingly large number of citations looks like an attempt to disguise a lack of notability. There are far too many citations to press releases, the company's own web site, or entities that don't provide significant independent coverage as required by WP:CORP. See Wikipedia:Golden Rule for an overview of what is expected. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The company is notable, and several citations confirm that fact from 3rd party sources. It is not a household name, but notable within its industry.

I have removed citations from press releases, and removed language that could be considered promotional. It is a 100% fact-based recitation of company history, affiliations and product offerings. SVtrustee (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SVTrustee, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not enough to assert that "the company is notable": an article must demonstrate that its subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notable. Which three of your citations each meets the three separate criteria listed in the link that Anachronist gave you? (Hint: none of the first ten do).

"100% fact-based" is also not enough: we need "100% reported in reliable sources", and nearly all - say 95% - reported in independent sources.

Basically, you're making the mistake that most inexperienced editors do when they first try to create an article: they write what they know, rather than what the independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

The following citations identify the company as notable (again not famous or a household name, but well-known within a specific industry or environment):

[6] https://www.forbes.com/lists/asia200/

[7] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171208005001/en/Global-Semiconductor-Alliance-Announces-2017-Award-Recipients

[8] https://www.gsaglobal.org/2020-global-semiconductor-alliance-award-nominees-announced/

Several citations are from independent 3rd party market research firms that list the company as an important product vendor (worthy of analysis and coverage) within a specific market segment:

[9] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220330005730/en/Taiwan-ICT-Industry-Outlook-Report-2021-and-Beyond---ResearchAndMarkets.com

[10] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190404005301/en/Global-DisplayPorts-Market-Analysis-Trends-and-Forecasts-2016-2019-2024---Expanding-Market-for-AR-VR-Devices-Unfurl-New-Opportunities---ResearchAndMarkets.com

[11] https://www.motorsportbayern.de/2023/03/16/retimer-redriver-markt-2023-globale-einblicke-und-geschaeftsszenario-astera-labs-parade-technologies-texas-instruments-intel-analogix/

In what way are the sources cited "not-reliable"? They are not the NY Times, but they are indeed reliable sources within the technology industry.

I appreciate your honest feedback. SVtrustee (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources you cite above (numbered from 6 t0 11) has any discussion of Parade Technologies, let alone the "in-depth discussion" that is needed to help establish notability. Please click on that blue link, and read what you find. Maproom (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand your response Taproom. Every single one of the citations listed explicitly includes mention of Parade Technologies. How can you claim there isn't "any" discussion? Are we looking at the same links? SVtrustee (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee: What reviewers look for, in addition to sources that are secondary and independent, is whether or not there has been significant coverage of the subject. The sources you've given mention the company, but just that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am truly trying to understand the criteria that reviewers are employing.

This article TouchWave is cited by wikipedia as a Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society. The citations for this article are a combination of company press releases and citations in obscure technology journals (each one with but a single mention of the subject of the article). Indeed many of the citation links are broken.

I am having difficulty understanding how this exemplary article is qualitatively different from my submission on Parade Technologies. Any and all guidance is appreciated. SVtrustee (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee, that article was promoted to GA in 2009, when standards were dramatically different. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're free to help clean up articles that no longer meet our standards, but most editors have little interest in such work, so they remain. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee: It apears that you failed to comprehend my first reply to you, or at least you failed to read the extremely relevant links I provided. I am providing them to you again:

• Wikipedia is the wrong venue for publicity.
• WP:CORP gives requiremens that a company must meet before it merits an article here. Your sources are what provides evidence of notability, and your sources so far have not.
• Wikipedia:Golden Rule provides an overview of what is expected of your sources. Most of your sources must mee all three criteria simultaneously. Those you have given don't make the grade.

The disucssion above suggests you have not understood any of those three things. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User:Anachronist for your continued interest in this topic. Your assessment of my comprehension skills above is the very model of civility and decorum.

In fact I have incorporated many of your original comments into the latest draft of my proposed article. Specifically, I have eliminated almost all citations that link to the company website and company press releases, and eliminated any language that could possibly be construed as lacking in neutrality. These changes, however, are not reflected in the "discussion above" that you refer to; they were made to the original article draft.

Allow me to respectfully address your bullet points above:

1) The proposed article contains no advocacy, propaganda or recruitment as defined in the WP link you provided. The proposed article only contains a simple recitation of facts. I challenge you to specifically identify any advertising or self-promotion in the proposed text. Where reference is made to award nominations, it is backed up directly by citations of public statements made by the independent 3rd party organization that made the award nomination.

2) The talk page of the draft submission now identifies multiple citations from reliable secondary sources, including articles by media outlets that cover the global technology industry (e.g. Digitimes Asia, eeNews Europe). Granted these media sources are not as widely known as The NY Times, but they are well-known within the technology industry. The full text of some of these articles must be accessed behind a paywall, just like copyrighted content from the NY Times, Washington Post and most major media organizations. However the explicit inclusion of the subject company by name in the headlines of these independently-sourced, editor-vetted articles is clear indication that the full article devotes significant space to a discussion of the subject named in their headline.

If your true objection rests on the fact that there is no coverage of the proposed subject in popular mass market magazines or daily media, then it is true that my submission cannot meet that criteria. However if such a standard were uniformly applied across wikipedia, then it would prevent any articles on obscure, specialty or niche topics, rendering wikipedia a rather limited and sterile place. I do not think that is the goal of WP. SVtrustee (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee: Yes, I see you did some cleanup before I posted that comment, thanks. You left the first paragraph in the History section without any citations. It is OK to cite company sources for verification of mundate facts. There are some sentences that seem to have redundant citations (one short phrase has five citations); these could be pared down. A reviewer is going to be looking for WP:Golden Rule references, and they are harder to find among a soup of citations that provide only mentions. I suggest fixing those issues and resubmitting for review. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I have edited the citations further per your suggestion above, and re-submitted for review.

Thank you for your input. SVtrustee (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there someone I can hire to help me publish a page.

I feel like a bumble head trying to publish a page. Is there someone I can hire to help me? Mountainbliss8 (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Tell us more. What is the page about? --Bduke (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mountainbliss8 welcome to Wikipedia. Most paid editing is a scam, because they cannot guarantee you that an article will remain or not, or there are even more elaborate scams where THEY request to delete an article, unless you cough up money. In short, Wikipedia is worsened by WP:PAID EDITING. Hire a quid-quo-pro puff journalist if you want paid promo. They will write exactly what you want, whereas on Wikipedia we don't care to publish what any one individual wants. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The question appears to relate to this draft. Before doing any more on that draft I suggest you read Wikipedia:Your first article. We also have a place for Wikipedia:Requested articles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Mountainbliss8, in my abundant experience, a large majority of paid Wikipedia editing services that you can find online are unethical liars and scammers who are just out to take as much of your money as you are prepared to let them take away from you. The small percentage of ethical paid Wikipedia editing services are quite expensive and work mostly for large corporate clients. Be very careful. Cullen328 (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mountainbliss8 You don't need to hire anyone, just seek collaborators from more experienced editors who are members of Projects likely to be interested in the topic. Your Draft:Amigo Bob Cantisano has plenty of content but needs converting into a neutral account written in Wikipedia's standard format for a biography. You could seek interested volunteers at WP:DRINK, WP:FARM and/or WP:ENV. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Moumtainbliss8, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't want to be rude, but if you are even considering paying money to get an article added to the encyclopaedia, it is almost certain that your purpose is promotion, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. You probably don't think of it as promotional, but the fact that you are willing to pay suggests that you have a strong wish to tell the world about this subject. But Wikipedia only summarises information which has already been published, so this has a chance of success only if the world has already been told about the subject, ie if sufficient independent reliably published sources discuss the subject in some detail. The Wikipedia jargon for this criterion is that the subject is notable.

If your subject is indeed notable in Wikipedia's sense, then there could be an article about it. The preference would be that the article would be written by somebody without a conflict of interest; but you or an editor paid by you would be allowed to create a draft and submit it for review. But if your subject does not meet the criteria for notability (i.e. has not already been written about sufficiently in independent reliable sources), then no article is possible, and you or anybody you paid would be wasting their time. ColinFine (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

AfC vs "formal" review process

When I submitted a new article for wikipedia consideration, I received a response that new articles were in a queue that might take as long as 4 months to review. And yet the same day I received feedback on the article from AfC editors / reviewers.

Are these separate processes or tracks toward final review (acceptance or rejection) of a new submitted article? If they are part of the same process or track, how are they related?

TIA for guidance. SVtrustee (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @SVtrustee. They are not separate tracks. Anyone is free to leave feedback on articles that have been submitted, usually in hopes that the submitter will read the comments and address the issues, thus improving the draft during the time it sits in the queue (and perhaps improving the chances it will be approved, while saving the ultimate reviewer a bit of time and effort). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you this was helpful.

Feedback from an AfC reviewer says "submission declined" indicting not just commentary but a determination of suitability. SVtrustee (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee, yes, a reviewer both commented on your draft and declined it. Some reviewers will just leave comments and not decline a draft, leaving that to someone else. Some will do both. Some non-reviewers may also leave comments. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

so reviewers do have the power to decline drafts?

Is it possible to communicate with the reviewer that declined my draft, to solicit explicit feedback or communicate additional information / context?

TIA SVtrustee (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee, yes, that is the role of a reviewer (which is a role folks have to apply for - not just anyone can review drafts). The person who reviewed your draft was AngusWOOF; their talk page is at User talk:AngusWOOF. Note that reviewers are not required to respond to inquiries, though many do. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually if a reviewer makes a habit of not responding to inquiries about their reviews they could lose their reviewer rights. However, I have full confidence that AngusWOOF would respond appropriately. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

AngusWOOF has in fact responded and provided many helpful suggestions. SVtrustee (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, newly submitted articles with obvious issues tend to get reviewed - with a decline - more quickly, because they're easy to deal with. It's the middling cases that take a long time; very good and very bad drafts are the ones which get "fast-tracked". 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee: this may sound like nit-picking, but the AfC 'queue' isn't a queue, it's more of a pool. Meaning, drafts aren't reviewed in any particular order, reviewers pick up whatever they want to review, or whatever they randomly come across. Therefore, sometimes you get a draft sitting there for weeks or months, sometimes one is reviewed within minutes of being submitted.

Note also that comments are just that, messages posted by reviewers and others on the draft. Only actual reviews are reviews, and result in either decline, rejection or acceptance, for which you will receive a notification on your user talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I will add that you can address the reason why a Reviewer declined the draft, and then the next Reviewer may have different reasons. David notMD (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you for that distinction David.

How should I understand the difference between reviewers who comment on my draft in Teahouse vs. the single reviewer (so far) that initially declined my draft article? SVtrustee (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee, I'm not sure what you mean - some folks who answer questions at the Teahouse are AfC reviewers, but not everyone is. Dodger67, for instance, is a reviewer (and an admin), whereas I'm an IP editor with no special roles whatsoever. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

While I have received feedback from multiple reviewers in Teahouse. only a single reviewer rejected my initial draft (we have since communicated about improving the draft).

Is this because the Teahouse reviewers did not have authority to reject the draft? Was the single reviewer that rejected the draft 'assigned' to my application, so they were the only one authorized to make a binding determination? SVtrustee (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee, the Teahouse is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia. Since reviewers have expertise in certain aspects of using Wikipedia, they may draw on that expertise when answering questions here. They are not acting in their "official capacity", so to speak. They could have reviewed and declined your draft if they wanted to (assuming it hadn't already been declined), but they did not want to. No one is assigned to review drafts - reviewers review what they want, whenever they want. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you for this further clarification! SVtrustee (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Signing up

Do you have any good reasons to sign up to Wikipedia? I would love to hear them 2603:8080:200:5519:197D:77E9:6927:5DFD (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a good summary of reasons at WP:ACCOUNT. You get your own sandbox and no-one except a checkuser can know where you are from using your IP address, among other benefits. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I "signed up" with a Wikipedia account so I can keep track of the referenced edits I make to articles that interest me. When I check an article's edit history and see my user name I know what I've contributed.

Karenthewriter (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I signed up because that lets you participate in blitzes (it lets you show what you've done and receive barnstars accordingly). It also shows you what edits you've done so you can know how you've contributed. If you sign up, it will give you a page that shows you what's to be done on Wikipedia (you put what topics you're interested in and what you're willing to do - editing, adding references, etc. and then it shows you what articles you could work on). Spaceeditor123 (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

First article on Banking CEO rejected, please advise

I recently wrote a draft article on the President and CEO of one of the largest and last African American owned banks in America. My article was first declined for not being written in a formal or encyclopedic enough language and being too much about the company and not the executive himself (which I understand why and accepted). I went back to edit it to adhere to the feedback I was given, but it was declined a second time for apparently reading like a resume. I want to follow Wikipedia's guidelines but am lost with next steps.

Could someone review my draft and give me tips on how to improve my article? TIA!

Link to my draft - Draft:Michael T. Pugh CWADEC (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@CWADEC the pronouns part is really not in line with the tone we have here. I’m removing it because I think this person is likely notable. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 16:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello CWADEC. I agree that it reads like a CV or profile.

To take just one example: In 2012, Pugh joined Carver Bancorp as Chief Revenue Officer, focusing on redesigning its business strategy, management structure and related processes, cited to BlackEnterpreneurProfile.com. Without a strong indication to the contrary, any such collection of "profiles" will have been written by the subject, or by their employers. It is therefore not indepedent, and should be used only in the limited ways listed in WP:ABOUTSELF. That might justify a short statement "in 2012 Pugh was appointed Chief Revenue Officer of Carver Bancorp" (though an independent source would be preferable) but certainly does not justify the rest of the sentence.

What I would suggest is to remove every citation that is not reliable (eg Linked in) or is not independent (anything written or published by Pugh or his associates, or based on an interview or press release) or does not have significant coverage of Pugh himself; and remove all text that is now uncited. Then see if you still have an article. If so, you may add a small number of non-independent sources where basic uncontroversial factual data can be added to round out the article (eg dates and places) - but not to add any substantial information. ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirect a category that doesn't exist: is it possible?

I was looking at the history of the only template (EnzExplorer) that I have created, and saw that there was a tag asking me to add Categories. So I added Category:Enzyme. That seemed OK until I saw that it displayed as a red link. After I changed it to Category:Enzymes it became blue. OK, but I noticed that there are hundreds of articles (not created by me) that display the Category Enzyme as a red link. It will be a lot of work to change all these to Category:Enzymes, so, is there an automatic way to do it, in other words can one do it with a simple redirect? Athel cb (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Athel cb: There are no articles currently in Category:Enzyme. When you added this incorrect category to Template:EnzExplorer, articles with the template were added to this incorrect category. When you changed the template to use Category:Enzymes instead, articles with the template were added to this category. I don't think the template should be categorizing the articles, so I've moved the category inside the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. GoingBatty (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Athel cb (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Citation for articles in edited volumes

I accidentally started contributing to an article that uses citation templates, which means I'm spending about as much time writing citations as I spend on actually writing content. I don't understand how to use {citation}/{cite book} to cite to an article in an edited volume. I can't seem to find any example for that on the help pages that I checked (is there a good one). What I have come up with using the Template:Citation documentation is this:

{{Citation |last1=Wagner |first1=Walter |last2=Willms |first2=Günther |editor-last=Krüger-Nieland |editor-first=Gerda |year=1975 |title=Der 6. Strafsenat – Legende und Wirklichkeit |work=25 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof |publisher=Beck |publication-place=München |pages=265–272 |isbn=3-406-06175-3}}
Wagner, Walter; Willms, Günther (1975), Krüger-Nieland, Gerda (ed.), "Der 6. Strafsenat – Legende und Wirklichkeit", 25 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof, München: Beck, pp. 265–272, ISBN 3-406-06175-3

This arguably looks quite bad, so how do I do this right? I mean, for starters, I suppose the editor of the volume should be somewhere next to the title of the work... I'd really appreciate your help. — Pajz (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pajz You could perhaps use this: Wagner, Walter; Willms, Günther (1975), "Der 6. Strafsenat – Legende und Wirklichkeit", in Krüger-Nieland, Gerda (ed.), 25 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof, München: Beck, pp. 265–272, ISBN 3-406-06175-3. I have simply replaced your |title= and |work= with |chapter= and |title= respectively. Shells-shells (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shells-shells, oh great, thanks! I think that's exactly what I was looking for. Best, — Pajz (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pajz welcome to Teahouse! I would not worry how it's displayed, it's correct/you get used to it. Rather I would focus on what information may be missing. I would additionally include translated-title (correspond with work) and translated-chapter-title (for the translation of the title). Additionally, do you have any better links to the book itself? I could not find any myself.

Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Spotted an edit that adds text in an non-encyclopedic tone using an LLM. Opinions?

I have the Wikipedia article WebAssembly(WASM) on my watch list and saw an edit that adds a list of examples of where WASM is used which I don't see any problems with, maybe besides the citation style of raw links. But the text introducing that section has a non-encyclopedic "vibe"/tone as well as some speculation that probably should be replaced to fit into something more encyclopedic. One other thing is that the edit summary says that the list was given by GPT-4 witch is something to take into consideration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebAssembly&diff=prev&oldid=1149510377&diffmode=source

Wasm's portability, security, and performance have made it an attractive choice for various use cases and platforms. As a result, its adoption is likely to increase in the future. Here's a list of places where Wasm currently runs:

What do you all think about this? I'm a new editor and would like to get an insight into what more specifically is a non-encyclopedic tone and how to rephrase things to make a non-encyclopedic text into an encyclopedic text, as well as the community's current opinion is on LLMs. CoderThomasB (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@CoderThomasB Welcome to Teahouse. This edit can be reverted. This is WP:OR using primary sources, rather than summarizing secondary sources. Additionally, it is very WP:PROMO and arbitrarily in promoting specific use cases of WASM. For the community opinion on LLM, join the discussion at WP:LLM. Happy editing or learning ;) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@CoderThomasB The passage you quote demonstrates an unencyclopedic tone in a few ways. For one, the line "Wasm's portability, security, and performance have made it an attractive choice" is an example of puffery because it makes subjective proclamations about a subject's importance instead of demonstrating that importance by citing the views of reliable sources. Moreover, the statement "its adoption is likely to increase in the future" improperly makes a prediction in wikivoice, which generally should not be done. If sources have discussed the probable future rise of WebAssembly, then their predictions should be cited and attributed to those sources.

With regard to the reliability of AI chatbots, it is my understanding that those currently available are prone to hallucination; they should not be trusted to produce accurate text. They will actively give wrong answers because there is (to my knowledge) no technology currently able to verify the accuracy of their output. Shells-shells (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Chadoh has posted a comment on my talk page that is relevant to this discussion. I have referred them to this discussion on the tree house, and if you want to, feel free to reply to them on my talk page here with a more specific critique of their edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CoderThomasB#When_is_it_appropriate_to_use_content_initially_generated_by_an_LLM CoderThomasB (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Access to a draft

I have put an article in draftspace Draft:Aliasing_(factorial_experiments). What is the simplest way for a colleague to find it? Is there an easier route than that indicated in Wikipedia:Drafts#Finding_drafts, which I actually had some difficulty using at first. Johsebb (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's a particular colleague, Johsebb, you can of course just link to it, as you would to any web page. If you instead mean people in general who are likely to be interested, then once your draft has been adopted as an article, other articles can link to it and it can be categorized. You've already submitted it for review; please be patient. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Johsebb: The normal web page link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aliasing_(factorial_experiments), but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aliasing_%28factorial_experiments%29 is safer if you send the url as pure text and not a formatted link. If you only speak to them then you can tell them to write draft:aliasing in Wikipedia's search box. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both. I see that searching on draft: aliasing works as long as there's a space after the colon. But other than that, this is just what I want. Johsebb (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Am I insane or are none of these women wearing belly chains

I'm looking at this article Belly chain and although a lot of the women are described as wearing belly chains, only the first one seems to be wearing one over a jewelly belt. Is my idea of a belly chain wrong? The first one was added by me because she's wearing what I imagine as belly chain as looking like Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Immanuelle. This seems to be a vague term without a clear, generally accepted definition. Plus, some of the references are low quality, like the Times of India article. So, who is in strong position to say, "this is not a belly chain"? Nobody, I submit. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Everyone is wearing a belly chain. In second photo, the child. In third photo, all four women, over their skirts rather than against bare skin. David notMD (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Switching to a new account

Hi. I've been using a registered account for many years and it doesn't have any bans or anything. Unfortunately the username and early edits have some personal details and I'm worried about them getting dredged up. I'd like to continue editing Wikipedia in my areas of interest, but WP:CLEANSTART looks like I wouldn't be allowed to edit the same articles or even topics? Is there any way I can switch to a new account to keep editing? Thanks, 49.184.172.205 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. A sincere wish to protect personal privacy going forward is a valid reason to set up a new account. Please read WP:VALIDALT for more details. Go ahead and do it. I recommend that you email the Arbitration Committee explaining your need for privacy. Your email will be kept confidential but will be very useful if you are ever falsely accused of sockpuppetry. The address is arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Be sure to add an informative header so that your email is not deleted as spam. Cullen328 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Another thing you can do is request that the earlier edits on your account that revealed personal information be oversighted. See WP:OVERSIGHT, which specifically notes that personal information is one of the things that can be removed from past history. That's a route you maybe want to explore. Also, as long as you genuinely abandon the prior account, and don't plan to use it ever again, AND you don't use the new account to do anything untowards (like voting in the same specific discussions, further an edit war, give the illusion of more support for something) you're probably fine. If you're just using your new account to edit the same articles in an innocuous way, you're probably within policy on that, though as Cullen328 notes above, emailing ArbCom explaining the situation is a great idea. They will keep your details fully private, but if you do ever get accused of illegal sockpuppetry, you can refer your accusers to ArbCom, who can use your email to confirm that you're operating fully within policy. --Jayron32 16:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want to keep most of your editing history but hide just a few edits that reveal personal information, the best approach is to go to WP:CHU/Simple to request renaming your account, and then contact an administrator like me in email to identify the edits you want to hide. I can hide them from public view but not from other administrators. If you want them hidden from other administrators, you need to find one with Oversight permission. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328, Jayron32 and Anachronist for your advice. (my different IP address now isn't intentional, maybe it's because I'm doing these edits from my phone)

I think that I'll take the option of emailing Arbcom, abandoning the old account and being careful not to imply that it's a different person. Presumably the other option of just renaming the account would mean that my old account name would still appear as the signature for old Talk posts etc?

Thanks, 49.184.134.119 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Cenozoic dinosaurs

Are there surviving non-avian dinosaurs from the Paleocene? I have heard of trodons, hadrosaurs, surviving microraptors or even small oviraptors that lived long after K-T. BristiBoop78786778 (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BristiBoop78786778. The Teahouse is a place for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. Your question belongs at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Help

Hi This is the page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_and_George_Weasley I would like to add some information but I need some help on how not to seem that I am vandalising. Any help is very much appreciated Thank you 2A00:23C5:7D86:9901:F4CB:FE3C:F212:54BE (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

After posting this question, you made this set of edits to another article. Perhaps you meant well; but if you did, the result was garbled. I have therefore reverted it. What to do? Before you submit an edit, preview it. Read it, slowly. Make sure that nothing is amiss. If it seems OK, read it aloud, slowly. If the edit needs fixing, fix it. If fixing the edit seems complicated, press "Cancel". -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you. I am new to wiki and therefore I am not used to editing pages. I shall do some more research before I do any more edits. Are there any pages that you recommend? Your advice is helpful thank you. 2A00:23C5:7D86:9901:F4CB:FE3C:F212:54BE (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello once again

I have followed your advice and this is the edit I made https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1149765064?diffmode=source

Do you think it is constructive? 2A00:23C5:7D86:9901:F4CB:FE3C:F212:54BE (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry this is the edit I made 2A00:23C5:7D86:9901:F4CB:FE3C:F212:54BE (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Effectively, you're asking whether it's constructive to add within the infobox of the article Ministry of Magic that Lord Voldemort was formerly an enemy of the Ministry of Magic. As I know nothing about the Harry Potter books or their films or other spin-offs, I cannot comment. Perhaps somebody else here will. -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Upload image to Wikidata

Hello, please help me and upload the logo of this organization in Wikidata. (Islamic Republic of Iran Police Intelligence Organization) Like the logo of this network that is available in Wikidata. [1] Thankful CaesarIran (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata, while a "sister project" of Wikipedia, is a separate entity, and the userbase here will not necessarily be able to help with a problem your having there. You can try this page, which seems to be the general help desk/discussion forum at Wikidata. That's probably the best place to ask. --Jayron32 13:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@CaesarIran:  Done, with the following steps:

1. Go to the Islamic Republic of Iran Police Intelligence Organization article
2. Click on the logo in the infobox
3. Click on the "More details" button
4. Copy the URL of the image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IRIPIO.png
5. Go back to the Islamic Republic of Iran Police Intelligence Organization article
6. Click the "Wikidata item" link to go to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q117623167
7. Click "add statement"
8. In the property field, type "logo image"
9. Paste the image URL in the field
10. Click "publish"

Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the explanation, but the editing option does not appear for me to place the photo, please add the current logo of the Iranian Anti-Narcotics Police page to its wikidata, thanks. CaesarIran (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@CaesarIran According to c:COM:TOO Iran, logos for Iranian organisations are not suitable for Commons and hence can't be used in Wikidata either. That particular logo c:File:Islamic Republic of Iran Anti Narcotic Police Logo.png was uploaded by Tahalone yesterday and tagged CC BY SA 4.0 but I don't see on what basis they have released the copyright under a Creative Commons license. The same editor uploaded the logo you discussed above and IMO it suffers from the same issue. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I modified the license, is the license problem solved? If it should not be in wikidata, then there is no need to upload it in wikidata. Thanks CaesarIran (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@CaesarIran On what basis did you modify the license on the two files? The licensing now says that "[the image] consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." That is obviously incorrect as there are several original design features. Did you read c:COM:TOO Iran, which says "The level of originality required for copyright protection in Iran seems very low." I am not an expert in the copyright law of Iran but it would be prudent to ask those who are more likely to be: see c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Markup

Hello, Teahouse. I'm a new editor. Usually I stick to Visual Editor, but I want to learn Wiki Markup. Are there any tutorials on it? Thank you. Candylinsky (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This might be a good starting point. Lectonar (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Candylinsky: Welcome to the Teahouse! You could also try Help:Introduction and use the buttons on the left hand side for the Source Editor. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Candylinsky. Another useful resource is Help:Cheatsheet. Cullen328 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk page anchors(?)

Is there a way to prevent individual talk page threads from being auto-archived (without them having to be regularly edited)? Sort of like "anchoring" them to the top of the talk page. I've been trying to find a template for this purpose but have not been successful. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Throast: do you mean Template:Pin section? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 12:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com

facebook Kuttayiajesh (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a question we can answer? --Jayron32 13:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Just going to point out that they've been adding links like Facebook and Google to other areas, like the Help Desk. Tails Wx 13:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I wish there was some way to figure out what folks who make these posts are doing (or think they're doing), but they never reply.... 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Pink and Magenta: colors or shades?

Hello there Wikipedians. I'm here to ask a question: Why the f*** did my edits about Pink being a shade of red and Magenta being a color get reverted, even tho IT'S TRUE??!! Like, the RGB/CYMK color scheme proves that Magenta is a color and the "category" of colours Pink appears in is in the Tertiary colors, which is basically pushing the line of "Is it a color or a shade" to a whole 'nother level, ESPECIALLY with the Gauter-something and Spring Green... So yeah, I think Pink should be considered a shade of Red and Magenta be considered a different color. Goodbye fellow Wikipedians! 2001:8A0:DF58:401:AD25:4D6B:E599:6BF8 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I meant Chartreuse and Spring Green btw, just searched that up, anyways, bye again! 2001:8A0:DF58:401:AD25:4D6B:E599:6BF8 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits were reverted because Wikipedia articles are not based on the personal opinions of editors. They are summaries of what is published in reliable sources. If you can produce sources to back up your argument, feel free to start a discussion on the talk page of the article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Many words, like "color", have several (overlapping) meanings in English. I don't think there is one hard and fast answer as to whether or not "magenta" is a color. It depends on context. But, yes, you need sources to back up your assertions. I predict that there are sources for either answer. David10244 (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Bridget Lancaster, America's Test Kitchen

I'm writing this entry and looking for some feedback before I move it to trash space. I mainly want to make sure that this is viable and I'm not wasting my time👍

User:Geraldine Aino/sandbox

I also would like to do an article for her parter as well...TIA Geraldine Aino (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Geraldine Aino, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sure someone else will come along with more pointers, but I'll give the obvious one: don't cite IMDb. There's an essay about it at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb if you'd like further reading. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

To improve Bridget Lancaster, I added a wikilink and two categories. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@JoeNMLC, you forgot to disable the categories (the article is not in mainspace, it should not be included in categories yet). I've done that. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Geraldine Aino I'm not clear why you want to move the draft to "trash space" but the serious problem with the current version is that it has almost no sources which meet Wikipedia's golden rules. Please read that linked essay. The main issue is that you are mostly basing information on interviews, when to establish notability we require sources that are fully independent of the subject. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the query was about moving from Sandbox to Draft? David notMD (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Photo caption

Hi, I didn't know myself how to get to the editing regime for this photo. The photo link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastropoda#/media/File:Gastropod_collage.jpg --it's the title collage for the Gastropoda article (as I recall). I find 2 problems of detail in the caption: (1) at the beginning, it says "an collage"; (2) within the caption, in the section naming the abalone, the word "abalone" is misspelled "abalore". My email is still <redacted>, i'd welcome communications there, or else reminding me how to use the built-in communications pathways within wikipedia. Sorry to be a dud, age is somewhat clouding my former skills...Jerry Brown Geodejerry (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Geodejerry:  Fixed typos at c:File:Gastropod collage.jpg on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks for letting us know! GoingBatty (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Geodejerry. You can set your preferences to allow folks to email you, but it's best not to post your actual email address in a public forum like this. I've removed that, hope you don't mind. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Redlinks

I only recently discovered a redlink and created an article. I think they are a fantastic idea. My question is: On Wikipedia, is there an easy way to find out what redlinks for a specific subject are awaiting creation? If there are redlinks in chemistry for example it would be a nice challenge for me to write a few articles. GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

GRALISTAIR, I'm not aware of any way we could categorize red links in that way. Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles provides a list of the most common red links, for example, but red links do not have any inherent qualifiers that we could determine their subject from. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, however, does have a list of "open tasks" which includes Chemistry articles requiring clean-up, meaningful expansion, or other things you can help with. I hope this is helpful and wish you good luck editing in the topic area ^u^ — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR: See also Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Chemistry. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR: Should you be interested in helping to redress the gender imbalance here on Wikipedia, you might like to consider whether any of the redlinked women at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Chemists could be suitable subjects for you to write about. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm - plenty to go at. Establishing notability may be the biggest challenge GRALISTAIR (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Article Request

How do I ask that an article be created? Is there, like a special page for it or...what? Faith15 15:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Faithful15: Welcome to the Teahouse! There's Wikipedia:Requested articles, but there's no guarantee that any of Wikipedia's volunteer editors would choose to write the article. GoingBatty (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Understood. Thanks for the help, @GoingBatty. Faith15 15:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want to write an article yourself, you can use the article wizard to help you. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Publish article about someone

i created and publish an article about someone with any refernce but it was rejected so if any one can help me publish the article it would be very helpfull

Harshin153 (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Harshin153, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, since your draft has been rejected, there is little hope for it. It doesn't seem to contain any sources which meet our standards (outlined at W:42 WP:42) of being secondary, reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. This also seems to be an autobiography. Please read WP:AUTOBIO to understand why attempting to write an autobiography on Wikipedia is generally a very bad idea. Once you become better known, to the point you are notable by Wikipedia's standards, perhaps someone else will create an article about you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe 199.208.172.35 meant to link to WP:42 Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Fixed. Apologies to galactic hitchhikers everywhere.199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Harshin153, you are not notable as Wikipedia defines that term, therefore you are not eligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Harshin h was Rejected for good reasons. Your 'references' are not valid references. For example, you wrote you attended a school, the 'reference' confirmed the existence of the school, but did not confirm you going there. The 'ref' to the hospital where you were born does not confirm you were born there. Same for others. At some future time you may become Wikipedia-notable, but now is too soon. I strongly recommned you put DB-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top of the draft. This will request an Administrator to delete the draft. David notMD (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edits on Pokemon

I got my edit reverted on Gen 3 Pokemon to add some filler in text, yet Diannaa who said to be an administer, reverted it saying it not compatible with Bulbapedia which it thinks i got it from, which i didnt as i have a google docs page of all the Pokedex entries but in my own words. What does that mean and is there a way to revert it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Blacephalon, welcome to the Teahouse. Information added to Wikipedia should be summarized from reliable sources. This means both that you can't copy/paste in Wikipedia from your source and that your source must be reliable. Google docs you have created for yourself are not reliable (and neither is Bulbapedia). You should find a reliable source which contains the information you want to add, summarize it in your own words, and cite the source. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I'm also confused on that. If I go to any website that popular and I cite that, is that a reliable source? What do I look for as a reliable source? What counts/doesn't count as one? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon, many popular websites are not reliable. Please read WP:Reliable source carefully. There's a list of commonly discussed sources at WP:RS/PS if you want many examples of good, middling and bad sources, with explanations of how those rankings came about. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blacephalon, you can read Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for a long but incomplete list of source assessments. After glancing at your talk page, it looks like you are trying to mentor new editors. That is unwise if you do not fully understand Wikipedia's core content policies. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

While that is true I can help people in other ways as well. I know what to do but not how to do it. UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

So if they use Bulbapedia and its a reliable source, can I use it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon, if a reliable source reports some information and then says "We got this information from Bulbapedia", you can summarize the information and cite the reliable source (but not Bulbapedia). Part of what makes a source reliable is that the folks in charge do some checking to make sure what they report is accurate, and retract what they've reported if it isn't. So if they decide this particular piece of information is okay, we can rely on what they say, and cite them as our authority on the information being okay. If they find out later it's not okay, they'll correct themselves and we should then correct Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

So if they do it it's okay. If it's on the list of reliable sources. We should update that too... UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon, what do you think needs to be updated at WP:RS/PS? Keep in mind that the list doesn't usually include sources that are obviously unreliable, like wikis - it only happens if they've been discussed very frequently (IMDb, for instance, comes up all the time). I only see two past discussions which mention Bulbapedia (here and here). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Well someone did say that the list isnt complete, though I don't know if that's true or not. UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 said that, @Blacephalon, and it's quite true. But the list isn't meant to be complete. It's mostly a convenience. See this explanation on the page itself. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I mean I get that more can be added or removing but could it be up to date? UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon, if you think that the status of one of the entries has changed, you can start a discussion at the noticeboard, WP:RSN. See this section of the page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@UB Blacephalon - to summarize, Bulbapedia is not a reliable source, because anyone can edit it. A source is a reliable source if it is published under editorial oversight with a reputation for fact checking. Wikipedia:Reliable source examples and this reliable sources quiz are examples of pages with more information about this. casualdejekyll 22:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Ahh I should try again with the cites. UB Blacephalon (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon It's pretty much impossible for a list of sources to be "complete", if that means listing all reliable and non-reliable sources that exist in the world. That list itself is never static. David10244 (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

True, I just don't want it to be out of date. UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon If you are talking about a list of sources being out of date, that is my point -- a list of sources will, pretty much always, be out of date. David10244 (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

What does the arrow mean when editing?

This is probably a stupid question but I keep seeing this little arrow when editing and I don't know what it means.

https://imgur.com/a/Z50zi0O Ranicher (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ranicher Welcome to the Teahouse! The carriage return symbol in your screenshot indicates that there is a line break in the wikicode between the words "the" and "Federal". When you are editing an article and see this symbol in the middle of a sentence, you can replace it with a space. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

HOW CAN I ROLL OVER TO A NEW BLANK PAGE?

I am drafting an article about The Seven Stars (1602), an ancient London pub in Holborn. (Incidentally, I see there exists a "stub" for what is probably the same pub, but with a couple of very old photos and the few bits of information are entirely wrong, so I've started over.).

I'm trying to use the Wiki format, but my ignorance of the conventions may overwhelm me. The problem at this moment, after I've drafted six or seven pages in basically Word-type text format, is that the pages haven't rolled forward to a new blank one. I can't figure out how to overcome that, so I'm stuck. I hope I don't lose what I've been saving, and that someone can help me.

Pip pip,

Riggelouto

Rigellouto (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Rigellouto, welcome to the Teahouse. You have no other undeleted edits on this account, so it's difficult to know what the problem is. If you've dealt with the copyright problem which led to your last draft being deleted, please "save" whatever you're working on by clicking Publish. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Seven Stars, Holborn - this is the existing article mentioned. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Rigellouto, when an existing article has shortcomings, the proper course of action is to improve the existing article through the normal editing process. Writing an entirely new article is unfair to the editors who have already worked on the existing article. Cullen328 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Rigellouto, your draft read like the advertisement that it originally was. And it was completely unreferenced. You're welcome to flesh out the article with what you can learn from disinterested, published works of architectural history, social history, and so forth. Yes, the current article is indeed a mere stub. It was created nine years ago by Edwardx, who's still very much active. If you're wondering about which sources would be usable or similar matters, you might ask on Talk:Seven Stars, Holborn. (You should also explain there how "the few bits of information are entirely wrong".) If there's no response there, try WP:RSN. -- Hoary (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Rigellouto and Hoary. Please do go ahead and expand/correct the existing article. It is on my watchlist, so I will keep an eye on any changes. I will be up that way on 14 May for the next Wikipedia London meet-up in the nearby Penderel's Oak, so will endeavour to take some up-to-date photos. Edwardx (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Edits not showing in either preview or final result in sandbox

Hello! I was editing in my sandbox but I noticed that some of my recent edits were not displaying in the preview nor in the final result. The preview seems to be working fine in the teahouse, though. My edits are maintained in the edit box itself, they simply never affect the final result itself. Has anyone encountered this problem? I am going to restart my computer and see what that does. I will not respond to this post within 5 minutes of posting if restarting does nothing for me. Thank you! Non-pegasus (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Non-pegasus and welcome to the Teahouse.

You asked much the same question with a {{help me}} request on your user talk page User talk:Non-pegasus where I found it first and answered it. In general, it's best not to ask a question in two different places; make your best guess as to the right place and ask there. Only if there's no response after a considerable time would it make sense to try asking in a different way and a different place. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Undo

I do not know why, but I cannot undo my own edit. When I do so, a text appears and says The editor will now load. If you still see this message after a few seconds, please reload the page[,] with reload the page linked in blue. I have done so, but the undo still does not go through. Any solutions? Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I had this same problem today attempting to undo some vandalism on an article I watch. I had to switch to desktop mode for the edit to publish. I see you also usually edit via mobile, so it may be related. Folly Mox (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

How to use insert fair use license logo og an organization into translated wikipedia page of the same organization

I need to insert fair use license logo of an organization whose page is available in English wikipedia into Hindi translated page. How can I do that? 42.105.76.3 (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It might be possible, but it isn't easy. Each language edition of Wikipedia is a seperate project; Each Wikimedia Project can only use images which have been uploaded to that specific project or Wikimedia Commons. Since Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept Fair Use, your only chance would be to have the image uploaded locally, if the Hindi Wikipedia allows Fair use. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP user, I searched WP:Non free content and did not find a corresponding Hindi article. There is however hi:विकिपीडिया:Logos (WP:LOGOS) and an example like hi:चित्र:Real Madrid CF svg.png real examples of fair use imagery on popular Hindi articles.

Your questions about Hindi Wikipedia are better asked at the Hindi equivalent of Teahouse hi:विकिपीडिया:चौपाल ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, this is a matter entirely within the purview of the Hindi Wikipedia, and the English Wikipedia has nothing at all to do with it. Some people seem to think that the English Wikipedia is somehow the "boss Wikipedia". This is not the case. Each language version is fully autonomous. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a dumb question: How exactly do I make an article look less like an ad?

Hello, Wikipedia.

I am a new user, and I randomly stumbled upon Cluster Observatory article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer_Observatory), winch looks like and adverstiment, because it has too much about the history of it. And yet, history of that observatory can be interesting to some people. So, how exactly in that situation do I make the article less advertising without making the article worse?

Sorry if it's a dumb question,

NuclearFish RealNuclearFish (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The main problem with the article Custer Observatory, RealNuclearFish, is that it's unreferenced. It does read rather like a PR blurb, but I think that this is secondary. I don't think that there's too much history. (And even if there were too much history, I'd be surprised if an excess of history were to make the article seem promotional.) The article badly needs referencing. If you've found good sources about the subject, then match the assertions with the source, and try referencing at least some parts of this article. -- Hoary (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

RealNuclearFish, another serious problem is that the lead section of a well-written Wikipedia article is supposed to summarize the body of the article, and this article has plenty of content in the lead that isn't even mentioned in the body at all. I agree that the lack of references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic is the biggest problem. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328, thanks to both of you, I understood and I'll try find reliable sources for that article. RealNuclearFish (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@RealNuclearFish Please have a look at WP:BACKWARD. David10244 (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

What to do

What to do with a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Around 88% of their edits is to their user space and only 4% to the mainspace. Should I just leave them alone? They don't seem interested in writing, copy editing, wikignoming, creating articles or making any types of edit to the mainspace – I'm unsure of what to do. Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 07:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

What kind(s) of edits to their user space, Dancing Dollar? -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Dancing Dollar. New editors who fool around in their user pages have four possible trajectories: #1 They continue to goof around in their user pages, doing no harm. #2 They lose interest and go away, causing no harm. #3 They gain confidence and begin contributing positively to the encyclopedia. #4 They begin engaging in vandalism and disruption. Only #4 requires action. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: You know, adding and removing userboxes, designing anime characters in their sandbox and adding personal info on their user page. @Cullen328: I don't think this user falls under any of those categories, they seem to love anime and they think Wikipedia is place to design characters or show such imagination in their user page. They are not causing any harm. Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 08:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Consider making a statement on the editor's Talk page. Include WP:UP. What you described verges on using User page and Sandbox as a website. David notMD (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Standards in multiple citation

Hi there, I am getting a bit confused while editing and I cannot find a clear answer to this apparently stupid aspects which is bothering me. Does Wikipedia has a standard when mentioning multiple references? E.g. "something something.[1],[2]" or "something something.[1][2]"? Do we use punctuation within refences? Sometimes I see these styles mixed within the same article. Without saying that often people put citation before the punctuation of the main text as "something, something [1][2]." Didiogiorgio (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Didiogiorgio welcome to Teahouse! No commas between references. I personally enclose them outside punctation, so there's more breathing room. Generally a single article should be consistent per WP:CITEVAR. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Didiogiorgio! <ref> tags should be placed after punctuation, and there should be no punctuation between them. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style ("MOS" for short) that covers different ways to format information. The specific section for how to format and place reference tags can be found here: MOS:CITEPUNCT. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions 🙂 ReneeWrites (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

How do links to articles on the same subject in other Wikipedia's work?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T329570

I understand how to write an interlanguage link to link to an article in another Wikipedia, but I cannot for the life of me work out how to add the information to a complete article to allow the reader to find the corresponding articles in other Wikipedias (i.e. what feeds languages to the "languages" thing at the top right of the article). If I click on this, it comes up with some comment "No languages yet. Add a new one?", but it doesn't seem to provide any way to do so! Is there any help on this anywhere? I'm sure this is just my stupidity. Elemimele (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele welcome to Teahouse! I also find the interface confusing. It's located elsewhere, search for the button Add interlanguage links. It should be easier to find imho, as you point out. The other way is to find the Wikidata item if it exists, and directly add it there. Happy linking! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I found T329570 to make it easier to track this issue. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks, yes, found it! That works! Elemimele (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

New article for a file format

Hi folks. I've come across a file format that doesn't currently have an article, and is not listed in the List of file formats or List of filename extensions pages. It's the extension "rhr", produced by an app called Script Rehearser and supported by some others.

Would an article on this format be notable enough? It would cite mainly the primary source on the vendor's website, and include things like supported data categories, history of versions, and supporting applications. Wilkinson3 (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wilkinson3 welcome to Teahouse! I'm afraid not. We need WP:SECONDARY sources, otherwise it is purely WP:Original research ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. And stopping me wasting my time! Wilkinson3 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

How do I move a page?

Hi there,

There's this one page on a Wikipedia article I frequent and the page has a slight mistake and obvious mistake in it that's bugging me. I'd love to just move the page to something more precise yet there is no option for moving the page.

All the guides about moving a page involve going to the "more" section near "edit" and the star yet this more section simply does. not. exist. It is very strange. It just doesnt exist. AmandaZu1997 (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Have you got a menu to the right of the text, with "Tools" and "Actions" at the top? If so, the next item should be "Move". Try that, if it's there. Elemimele (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there,

The "tools" dropdown does exist next to the star but there is no "Actions" bit. Just the usual "What links here", "Related changes", "Special Pages" etc that was already on the sidebar.

Is there some other issue? Would like some help with this. Thanks AmandaZu1997 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@AmandaZu1997 which page is it? Some pages cannot be moved due to editing restrictions. What skin are you using? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Literally every page on wikipedia i go to doesnt allow me to move, and I checked the page I was using and it said moving was allowed to all in the page info. Hmm. The skin I am using i the 2022 vector thing AmandaZu1997 (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You are not autoconfirmed yet(account is four days old with 10 edits or more) so you cannot move pages yourself. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see! In that case I'll just make some edits and wait a little while.

Thanks again for the help! AmandaZu1997 (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Help with Draft article

Hey, several months ago I wrote an article directly in the main namespace (currently located at Draft:Philip Lintilhac). A community member moved the article to the draft namespace, and left comment/explanation on my talk page, explaining that there was a concern regarding conflict of interest or paid editing. I asked them for help in better understanding how to address the situation, but they stopped responding. Recently I reviewed the WP:COI policy and concluded the following:

• Though I have met the subject in person (I attended one of his lectures, asked him some questions about his work and life, and took a photo of him), I wrote the article from an unbiased, neutral point of view, and therefore my editing in this case is not in violation of WP:COI.
• I added a message on the talk page of the article stating my relationship to the subject, per WP:COI

I then moved the article to the main namespace (which, these days, I have permission to do). And now the cycle seems to have begun again: the same community member (who originally moved it to draft, and commented about COI) has moved the article back to the draft namespace, and added nearly the same comment/explanation on my talk page.

I feel like I'm stuck in a bit of a circle here. Can anyone help me understand what options might exist for this particular article?

Thanks very much for any help you're able to provide Hold your horses (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Hold your horses. As an encyclopedia we don't have articles about every professor, only those who have made a large impact in their field. The article as it stands doesn't show that. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). StarryGrandma (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Hold your horses. Press releases about grants made by his family foundation that do not mention Philip Lintilhac, or mention him only in passing, are of no value in establishing his notability. You are trying to write a biography of Lintilhac, not an article about the foundation that his mother established. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Better Image

While researching the actor Louis Guss, I happened upon the WP article here. The image in the infobox really does not represent the actor considering anyone who is familiar with his work knows him post 1970s. In comparison, a Google search clearly shows that the image that WP renders alongside multiple images of the actor in various well known roles are not in keeping: Google images of Louis Guss. I'm wondering if there is a way to upload a better image to represent this subject. I'm not savvy enough to maneuver around all the copyright policies here. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Maineartists, there probably isn't. And really, the article on Guss is so feeble overall that I think your time and effort would be better spent augmenting (and of course referencing) its text than fretting over an image. (And why is "post 1970s" more important than 1958?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I will be improving the article. That's why I am requesting assistance. Not agreeing with your "probably isn't" for a helpful response here at WP. Post 1970s roles are more representative an image for readers to identify with the actor. Please see above linked reference. Maineartists (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Maineartists. When Hoary wrote "probably isn't", that comment was based on the facts. There are only two photos of Guss on Wikimedia Commons, and the other one is much worse. Copyright can be incredibly complex but here is a simplified version applicable to this situation: Any new photo must either be in the public domain which means entirely free of copyright restrictions, or it must be freely licensed for re-use with an acceptable Creative Commons or equivalent copyleft license. We cannot use a copyrighted fair use image to replace a public domain image. That simply is not going to happen because it would be a policy violation. If you want to add a better photo, it is incumbent on you to find one that is not restricted by copyright, since you are the one who cares most about replacing this image. Cullen328 (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I endorse Hoary's advice, which I will summarize as "Significantly improve the article first, and only then start worrying about a better image." Cullen328 (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this article notable enough?

Hello, I was looking through the WikiProject Military History task list and decided to make one of the requested articles (Draft:December 2009 Shabwah airstrike). While awaiting a review, I would like to know if it's notable enough or falls under another article, and also if it's properly sourced. NotDragonius (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, NotDragonius. You should update the draft to reflect that Nasir al-Wuhayshi and Said Ali al-Shihri and Anwar al-Awlaki were not killed in that air strike, despite the Yemeni claim. All three of these men were killed in United States drone strikes years later. So, a major question is how significant this air strike really was. Cullen328 (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I have updated the draft. NotDragonius (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

DamnN Hunt

I am trying to get a page up called DamnN Hunt but is not happening. This is what i got yesterday. But there are 2 ref that have articles about DamnN hunt. 1 is a newspaper that sells over 50,000 copies a week and the other is a social media website. I don't know what to do ...... can someone please help me. Thanks

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

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Needhelp16 (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Needhelp16, you have a number of uses of "ref" tags, but you only have two references. One is to https://myyaak.com/pages/7/ , which currently has no content whatever. Obviously, it's worthless. The other is from something titled The Northern Rivers Times, and it's based on an interview with the creator of the subject of your draft. It's near worthless. Above, you have for some reason parroted the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), reliable, secondary, independent of the subject. This means what it says. Which part of it do you not understand? -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Needhelp16. Vast swathes of your draft are entirely unreferenced, which violates the core content policy Verifiability. You have only two references. The first is Issuu, which is a self publishing platform. The other is Myyaak, which is some kind of social media site. Neither is anywhere near a reliable source. The best way by far to write an acceptable Wikipedia article is to begin by assembling a list of reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic, and only then write prose that summarizes what those sources say. Please read WP:BACKWARD. Cullen328 (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Needhelp16. I've had a lot of articles deleted here, so I know the pain. Basically, you need at least 3 mainstream sources that aren't affiliated with the subject where the subject is the focus of the article. Google Books and newspapers.com could be of use. If you could find some major newspapers, television shows, books or websites that covered this game, it would your chances immensely. Otherwise, the article is probably going to be rejected. Personally, I don't think the sources are going to be there for this from what I could find.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I concur that as is, this should be Rejected, meaning that it has no hope of becoming an accepted article. The essential weakness is that the game was launched at one location in March 2023, so it has no public awareness piblished. Given newness, I have to assume you have a personal connection to the game launch, but you have not replied to the query on your Talk page about your COI or PAID relationship. David notMD (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of local news source

Hi! I was wondering about the reliability of a local news source; could it be used as a citation in Wikipedia?

Specifically: https://patch.com/connecticut/thelymes/east-lyme-native-john-mcdonald-retires-major-league-baseball

I would like to use the claim made in the article, "McDonald graduated from East Lyme High School in 1974." However, the link the Patch article uses is dead, and even that original article (which I tracked down here: https://nationalpost.com/sports/baseball/mlb/former-toronto-blue-jay-john-mcdonald-ready-for-new-chapter-after-memorable-career-im-excited-for-whatever-comes-next) makes no mention of his high school at all.

Thanks for the help! Detetrident (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I would consider the patch.com article a sufficient reference even though the link within that article supposedly to a website that confirms he attended ELHS is dead. Thus, the patch.com ref can be added to John McDonald (infielder) and as a ref for him in Notable alumni at East Lyme High School. While there, consider that the ref for Evan R. Bernstein does not confirm he went to ELHS, only that he "grew up there." Same for lack of confirmations that Sanford, Toth or Walker attended ELHS. David notMD (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Are any of these websites reliable?

Hi! Dialuanny0 here again! I may do a GA Review for an article, and I want to know if this websites would be appropriate to use as citations:

https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/murdered-royals-queen-blanche-of-navarre-145083/

https://theroyalwomen.com/2021/11/21/blanche-ii/

https://www.historyofroyalwomen.com/blanche-ii-of-navarre/blanche-ii-navarre/

Dialuanny0 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dialuanny0: the first one is actually deprecated, so that's a hard 'no'. The other two seem to be blogs or similar; I doubt they have much editorial oversight or systematic fact-checking etc. While I can't say they're categorically unreliable, I wouldn't say they meet the definition of a reliable source, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Dialuanny0, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place for general questions about editing. For particular kinds of questions where there is a specific page, it's much better to ask there: in this case, WP:RSN. (It's also worth having a look at WP:RSP before asking: that's where DoubleGrazing got the information about royalcentral). ColinFine (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to translate into other languages?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T329570

Does anyone else see suggestions to translate the page you are looking at into different languages in the language section? I don't want to see those, I only want to see the other languages the page is already in. Jag1762010 (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Vector-legacy is on the left of every page, while vector-2022 is a little bit terrible for finding these cross-language contents. It's on the upper-right of a page. -Lemonaka‎ 09:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jag1762010, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, I only see a list of languages and then a single line "Add languages" at the bottom. Which article are you looking at, and how are you viewing Wikipedia (browser, phone, app, etc)? ColinFine (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Jag1762010 Welcome to Teahouse! This is a known issue in Vector 2022, see phab:T329570 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Account

Will this account that I signed up on here on the English Wikipedia work across all websites that use MediaWiki or only Wikimedia Projects. Onion1981 (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onion1981, welcome to the Teahouse. Accounts only work on Wikimedia wikis. That is still around 1000 wikis at Special:SiteMatrix (a few of them are not part of the unified login) PrimeHunter (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

To clarify further, Onion1981, any website can choose to base itself on the free MediaWiki software, but only those hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation will have unified logins. Cullen328 (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding a citation

In the Wikipedia page for US Sodomy laws, I was asked to provide a citation for the source of an addition about an effort in the Texas legislature to repeal their sodomy statute. I don’t know how to do this. The link to the news article with this information is below.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/06/texas-sodomy-law-repeal-bipartisan-support TarzanJohn (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

TarzanJohn Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A suggestion - work on creating a ref in your Sandbox and only pasting it into the article when it's right. David notMD (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

List of English monarchs

Do you think my edits to List of English monarchs are good? The reason why i'm asking this question is because my edits to Flags of micronations got reverted. So I don't want that to happen at List of English monarchs. Flag Creator (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

For a start, I see you have provided no edit summaries, so it is impossible to know why you thought your edits were necessary. Please read Help:Edit summary. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:Flag Creator I looked at your last edit on that page, and it looks like you swapped the picture of Henry II for another--same painting, but a different photo, rendering the colors a bit differently. Is that generally what you did throughout? Shantavira suggested that you use edit summaries; I'm kind of obsessive about those, myself, adding them for trivial fixes of spelling or typos (I don't think I've EVER just clicked one of my article edits as "minor"). In this case, if I'd undertaken such an involved and multi-step project, I might have considered opening a discussion early in the project on the talk page for that article. You're asking here if people think your edits there are good; you say you're asking because you don't want them to be reverted. Based on the one I've looked at, I have no opinion on the matter. If someone thinks they should be reverted, I doubt that your asking the question here (or there, for that matter) is going to affect someone's decision. My guess is, anybody who goes to the trouble of looking them over MIGHT decide on a case by case basis. Uporządnicki (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft on Sanket Goel

Hi, I've been editing this Draft of Sanket Goel (Draft:Sanket Goel), an Indian Academician (also a Stanford Alumni and IITD alumni) who specializes in microfluidics and MEMS. The draft has been declined a couple of times but since then I've been working on it and wanted to know if there's something more to do. Shashy 922 (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shashy 922 welcome to Teahouse! A draft reviewer will give you specific feedback when that happens. WP:NACADEMIC is main relevant notability criteria for your draft, along with WP:GNG. In some cases I see your draft focuses more on his teams accomplishment, which is fine, but for establishing notability the article subject Sanket Goel must be the focus. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Shashy 922:, I think you and the AfC reviewers have got into a bit of a misunderstanding here. If his work is highly cited, he satisfies WP:NPROF, as Shushugah pointed out, and in fact nothing else is necessary to demonstrate his notability. He does not need secondary sourcing to be notable, his highly-cited work is sufficient in itself. BUT, I think you've responded to the reviewers' requests for sourcing by putting a lot of stuff in about his citation rate, h-index etc., which makes the article look very promotional. The citation-rate and index are relevant, but behind the scenes in arguing notability, not up-front in the article (besides which, they are statistics that are impossible to keep up to date, and not defining of his career). I would suggest taking out all the stuff that looks promotional, and convert the article into a straightforward statement of where he's a professor, and what research he has done, listing a few of his highly-cited works. Then comment separately to the reviewers that you are claiming notability based on NPROF high-citations. Do not make the article look promotional. This really rubs reviewers up the wrong way (to be honest, as a general rule, a picture of an academic smiling in a suit, with a mention of the dreaded word "Forbes" is more-or-less a guarantee of rejection). Have a look at the articles on other academics who've been accepted; for example Alison Mary Smith and Alison Gail Smith; these are well-sourced where they need sourcing, give restrained key-literature lists, and they're relatively low-hype, factual articles (despite the undoubtedly glowing achievements of both scientists), which is what you should aim for. Elemimele (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and he's got thousands of citations, not thousands of publications; you need to correct that! Elemimele (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Change title & topic name in English & Arabic

Hello, this is my 4th request regarding changing the topic name and the title.. Please we need to:

The Clock Towers instead of أبراج البيت In Arabic the name The Clock Towers to be placed أبراج الساعة Salembahamdain93 (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)