Wikipedia:Teahouse

Bonadea, 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.

There are currently 2 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

Improving article?

so over the past few months I've been doing this article Oslo Mosquito Raid (1944)

And I don't really know how to improve/fix the issues currently plaguing it HCPM (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, there's a paragraph starting "The first wave commenced an attack run". Where does this material come from? -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

It very annoyingly comes from an official document that doesn't exist online, it is publicly accessible for free at IWM London however, my memory is a bit foggy but if i remember correctly its either from the Air Ministry or the Government, either way its official government papers (declassified after the war iirc) HCPM (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@HCPM I've copyedited the article but there are still two issues: (1) there are few inline citations and (2) two of the 4 existing citations aren't appropriate. ash (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The one from the IWM doesnt exist to my knowledge anywhere online, ive seen the source in person and it does talk about the Oslo Mosquito raid in 42 and 44, no other source i could find goes into such detail

I did take photos (granted they aren't the best) of all the information but not sure what i should do with them

I apologise about the Audio one tho! HCPM (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@HCPM This it the Chicago Style Citation for a book: Author's Last Name, First Name. Title of Book. Place of Publication: Publisher, Year of Publication. You can add the Stenersen book under a heading title "Bibilography" under "References".

But if the book is a source for facts in the article, try to add the book as an inline citation using the citation tool. You can choose Basic and just copy and paste that info, or choose Manual and paste the info into the correct fields. ash (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@HCPM Also, you might create a wikidata page for the book. ash (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

or on wikisource Depotadore (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Fixed Infobox Depotadore (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about Article of Creation

Hello!

I submitted an article (Rebecca B. Alston) for review, and it has been accepted. I have two questions: 1) what do I need to do to resolve the conflict of interest banner that is still on the article? 2) When will the webpage itself be created? I searched it manually and it seems to not be created yet. Archfusionpro (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The article (or webpage) Rebecca B. Alston certainly exists. (Its section headers are all in headline case, they ought to be in sentence case.) Maproom (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Archfusionpro The COI banner is there probably because the text contains such gems as "Bio Forms communicates a distinction from her earlier geometric work while retaining a subtle indication of geometric vocabulary, moving towards more fluid, exploratory forms that reference organic decay through viral compositions. These works elucidate a dynamic microcosm rendered through a unified approach merging painting and drawing techniques." which are not cited to a source and read like as if written by someone with a COI. Clean out all such material and the COI will be less obvious. As to "search it manually", do you mean you tried to use an external search engine to find the article but failed as it hasn't yet been indexed? That's because, although the AfC process is complete the article has not been reviewed by the new pages patrol and won't be available to search engines until it is, or 90 days have elapsed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. As for the sentences in regards to the example mentioned, these are found in sources that have been listed and included. Does each sentence have to be cited to said source? When this is completed, will the COI banner be removed? As to "search it manually", I meant via the Wikipedia search, not Google! The explanation makes sense, I appreciate the follow up! Archfusionpro (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Content like "These works elucidate a dynamic microcosm rendered through a unified approach merging painting and drawing techniques" cannot be included in Wikipedia's voice you need to use quotes and state who said it. It is YOU that has the conflict of interest and you should be using the talk page to request edits, not editing directly. Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible for you or someone else to review and rectify said edits (such as verifying/properly citing sources and creating pull direct quotes from the curator that wrote several pieces about her, similarly to the quote from Dr. Pat Pinson)? I have been under the impression that this space was to do so to circumvent editing directly. I am a bit confused because there was the mention in a prior interaction to "clean out all such material". Archfusionpro (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Archfusionpro We have a policy for biographies of living people that all material likely to be challenged must be cited to an inline source. It isn't enough to have a source somewhere in a biography that does in fact back up the information: it should, for example be at the end of each relevant paragraph and if it is a quote then it must also be stated who used these exact words (with quotation marks). I didn't make any assumption about which editor had the COI but if it was you then you should now only suggest changes via the article's talk page, perhaps using the edit request wizard. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Theroadislong should have ensured that the promotional fluff was removed before accepting that draft. I would not have acccepted it in that state. Feel free to clean it up. The COI tag is not going to be removed until an uninvolved editor reviews the article and deems the tag no longer applicable.

As a COI editor, you may remove promotional material, revert obvious vandalism, make minor corrections to spelling, grammar, numbers, names, dates, etc. and you may add citations to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Anything more substantive than that, you should propose on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The role of an AfC reviewer is to accept drafts that have more than 50% likelihood of surviving an AfD. It is a very low bar. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes...thank you Ca for explaining this, users sometimes mistake the role of reviewers, we are not here to ensure that drafts are perfect, but that they stand a good chance of surviving an WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

A draft doesn't have to be perfect. But a reviewer should also not approve a draft, no matter how notable the topic, if the purpose of the draft is promotional, as this was. That should be cleared out before approval. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect... there is no requirement for reviewers to remove promotion, that is not part of our remit. Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and moved to mainspace. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say reviewers are required to remove promotion, I said the promotion should be cleared out prior to approval; it doesn't matter who does it. Also, AfD isn't the only consideration. We are all required to abide by Wikipedia policies. Reviewers, also, are required to ensure that drafts they approve don't violate core policies, especially if the draft includes passages that are flagrant violations. WP:NOTPROMOTION in this case forbids the use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. There are two ways a reviewer can address the problem: clean up the draft prior to promoting it, or decline to promote it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Anachronist Check the article history I accepted the article and then I edited it for neutral tone, removing unsourced hagiographic content and unsourced puffery. Theroadislong (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You certainly did, and that's great, but you did miss a couple of things quoted above. Although that was a mistake, I am not without sin myself to be casting stones; I can say confidently that I probably make more mistakes than other experienced editors. I'm just sayin' I would have made the draft acceptable before accepting it or I would have declined it, but the cleanup got done and that's the main thing. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You clearly think you could have done a btter job, perhaps you need to become a reviewer, we need many more the back,log of drafts is getting ever larger. Theroadislong (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Who knows if I would have done better. You did a good job removing the most egregious stuff but you missed a couple of things. We all make mistakes, heaven knows I do. And yes, I do on occasion patrol new pages and review submitted drafts; both areas are backed up. I'm also an administrator, and there's no end of messes to clean in that role as well. For years I've been feeling that Wikipedia has grown too big for the small crowd of active editors that we have. I keep seeing the same small handful of usernames I trust over and over (you're among them). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Violet Sky

My Draft:Violet Sky needs to be improved. But I have a question, is it notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and how can I improve it? Aubreeprincess (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Aubreeprincess, Bonadea has written "No real claim to notability in the draft, and the sources are local publications and/or build directly on interviews." If you disagree with part (or all) of this, then bring up the matter with Bonadea. But if you (perhaps sadly) concede that Bonadea is right, then be sure to cite better sources. (If these don't exist, no article can be produced.) If you want a second opinion on the value of the sources you've already cited, then please, in this Teahouse thread, link to the three that you consider the best among the seven. -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

For the record, Aubreeprincess did also post to my user talk page to ask about this, and I responded there – unfortunately, they also posted some personal attacks at another help desk and on their own user talk page, and they were blocked for a couple of days. --bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh dear. Yes, and also an essay (now deleted). Aubreeprincess, finding reliable sources to confirm what one already knows is true can be very difficult, and it's very hard to persuade other editors to do this for one. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Apparently you wrote the article WP:BACKWARD. The correct way to write a draft is to collect all your sources first, sources that comply with WP:Golden Rule, and only then start writing the draft. Not the other way round. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

A new article

Hello! I would like to create a page on the music artist The Stupendium. I would create it but I don’t have the time nor do i have the info. If some people would like to help me i will create a draft and put it here. (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Boeing747Pilot, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but if you're not able to put the time into finding the essential reliable independent sources required to establish that The Stupendium is notable, then it is very unlikely to happen. While it's not impossible that somebody will see your request and want to work with you, it's not very likely: why should a volunteer editor want to? (Maybe if somebody else here is a fan).

In its present state Draft:The Stupendium has zero chance of being accepted, because it has only a single source, whose reliability is disputed (see WP:GENIUS), and does not really have significant coverage of the artist.

Please see your first article. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes i am aware of the fact the article is very short. I don’t plan a submitting it within the week or maybe even the month. I have a lot to do and will put as much time in as i can. And i know The Stupendium is known. I will put more sources in and hunt to find anymore. (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

See WP:BACKWARD. You should write the article forward, by finding the sources first before you even start. Don't worry about the time it takes. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Could this topic be eligible for "Did you know..."?

"Did you know...

that the Car Seat Headrest song Vincent references At Eternity's Gate from the clinical depression Wikipedia article?"

Within Vincent, it links to Teens of Denial. Would that be eligible for DYK or would there have to be an independent article for Vincent (song) to be eligible?

Shanshansan (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Shanshansan Welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:DYK for details. DYK only "showcases new or expanded articles" so I don't think that article would qualify. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Shanshansan. You would need to expand the article to at least 5 times its current size or promote it to WP:GA. So far, these conditions haven't been met, so this would not pass. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Dries Verhoeven: can I move?

I've created a draft article for the Dutch artist Draft: Dries Verhoeven. Since I have 'autoconfirmed' status, I believe I'm able to move the article to mainspace. Would that be appropriate at this point? I feel the article is essentially complete now.

Before doing so, I'd appreciate having someone proofread it to catch any issues I might have missed. Could anyone suggest where I might find someone willing to review it?

Floriano95 (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Floriano95 Hello and welcome. You've already submitted the draft for a review; if you want feedback on it, or someone to check it for errors, you should allow the review process to play out.

I can say that you should remove the external links from the "chronologial overview" section; if these are intended as references, you should format them as references instead, but they seem to just be links to his own website to document the existence of his work; an article about him should not merely list his entire portfolio, but works that are discussed in reliable sources independent of the subject. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, a section on Selected works with just a few listed is more appropriate for Wikipedia than a long list. David notMD (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Article waiting for review

I have an article with the AFC template that is waiting for review. I am wondering if I should ask someone to look at the article and give advice. It has been in Draft for about two months. I am still learning so would like to hear from someone if possible. Thanks. HarvResearch (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Done. (See Draft:Jim Simon (writer).) -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

HarvResearch While someone was able to respond to your request; we cannot guarantee a speedy review on this primarily volunteer project. People work on what they choose to work on when they have time to do so- and drafts are reviewed in no particular order. It's not always possible to "jump the line"; everyone would like their draft reviewed quickly. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Help about Adam Linder wikipedia Page

Draft:Adam Linder

Hi, I would like to publish my article but I get rejected twice.

Would it be possible to explicitly know the sentences that contains one of this problem ? Because from my beginner point of view, I can't see them.

- This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.

- Entries should be written from a neutral point of view.

- References should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources.

- Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format.

- Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

I'm probably wrong but, to my mind, I don't use peacock terms. I tried to use as much as I could, independent and reliable sources, and if they were not very independent nor reliable, I tried to double check by putting another source that was speaking about the same reference, which was independent and reliable. And finally, I aimed to have a neutral point of view.

I would like to increase my knowledge about editing a Wikipedia article to make it perfect but I'm still sailing in the fog.

Thanks for your help and your time.

Simononwiki1 (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Simononwiki1 Your use of "discovered" and "compelling" are peacock terms in that context. Do they mean anything? I only checked one of your references, no.4 (WMMagazine), and it does not say what you claim it says. Your draft must reflect what your references say. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I removed those peacock terms. The Style and influence section needs to be removed, as the wording is laudatory whereas the references are reviews that either barely mention Linder or are a scathing negative review of his museum performance creation. David notMD (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the peacock terms. I also erased the style and influence section. Is there anything else that is not completing the previous point that can be found ?

Thanks for helping.

Simononwiki1 (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Simononwiki1 and welcome to the Teahouse. The thing to remember is that what you know, believe, or think, about the subject is irrelevant, unless a reliable independent source says the same thing.

An approach I often recommend is, once you have found your independent sources, to forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say - sometimes even if you think they are wrong. ColinFine (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I erased and added the only reliable information found through the newspapers and online. Now, do you think there is any terms or formulation that could lead the article to a unpublish state ?

Thanks for your help.

Simononwiki1 (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Broken reference at Anna Riwkin-Brick

Could someone have a look at this article? It has an undefined reference ("Tellgreen") and I can't see how to resolve it as I can't find the ref in earlier versions of the article. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tacyarg. I clicked "Find addition/removal" at top of the page history and searched for Tellgren (the spelling actually in the article).with "Force searching for wikitext" enabled. It found [1] which added it without a definition but the edit summary linked https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Riwkin-Brick which defines it. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

References

If a webpage has been archived is it still considered acceptable as a valid reference? I want to make sure I’m following best practices when citing sources that are no longer live but still accessible via archive links. https://www.bostonradio.org/nerw/nerw-030203.html http://ctradio.freeservers.com/archives/smith/sandb1.htm Toyosikehinde22 (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Toyosikehinde22 Yes, we use the Internet Archive and other similar sites very often. See WP:LINKROT for some of the considerations and note that the fact a site has been archived doesn't make it more reliable. That will depend on the reliability of the original. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you please create the images of Andrew Overtoom and Liliana Mumy?

I don't know how I could do it, but could you please help me? Julian Louis (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Julian Louis. Welcome to the Teahouse. Teahouse hosts won't normally try to find copyright-free images for you, as they are not easy to find, but we can refer you to the instructions at Wikipedia:Images. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Julian Louis It's quite possible you can't. If you want, you can try to contact these people and point them to Wikipedia:A picture of you. The default assumption is that any random pic you find online is under copyright and can't be used on en-WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

LP or EP

Hello. I am wondering if I should change the page Timewave Zero (Blood Incantation album) to be classified as an EP, instead of a studio album. The band themselves seem to consider it an EP, and in my opinion I think the most important distinction between what makes an LP or EP is what the artist themself considers the project to be, but of course that is only my opinion and may not align with Wikipedia's policy. The band made a post on Facebook around the time of the project's release calling it an EP, but I know that's not exactly the most encyclopedic source. In terms of secondary sources, I can only find one source explicitly calling it an EP, which seems to be from a lesser known publication. So given all of that, I think it's safer if I just leave the page as it is, but I am wondering if anyone would think it's valid for me to change it, again mostly given that the band themselves refer to it as an EP. Thanks. Ackyducc (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ackyducc! Wikipedia differs from many other situations in that we consider secondary sources better than official ones (for a similar situation, see WP:OFFICIALNAME). The reason behind this is that it removes the potential for bias from the source, which isn't so important in this situation but might be in others.

You mention one secondary source that calls it an EP but not how many secondary sources call it an album. How many are there of those? If none, I'd say it's safe to change it to EP. But if most secondary sources use album, I'd leave it be. Hope that helps!

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 17:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Most secondary sources do seem to use album, so I'll probably just leave it be. If I see more secondary sources calling it an EP I might switch it, but for the time being it's probably more in line with policy to leave it how it is. Thanks. Ackyducc (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

"Album" is defined as a collection of recordings, so even an EP would be referred to as an album. Once upon a time, there was no such thing as an EP; there were LPs (albums) and singles. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of secondary sources I can find for other EPs often just refer to them broadly as "album". Some do specify EP but it's not universal. As much as there's not very many sources explicitly calling that release specifically an EP, there's not very many specifically calling it an LP either. I'm still not sure how widely agreed it would be if I changed it, but like I said a lot before, the band themselves have referred to it as an EP so I feel like that's the best source we really have on this. I'll probably wait to see if there's more discussion or a pretty solid consensus before I do any changes personally. Ackyducc (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sdkb The Wikipedia practice of sidelining primary sources should be used judiciously. Taking information about an event from someone's diary would definitely be suspect, but when it comes to an originator providing information about themselves or their work, the primary source is going to be best. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Really, Ghost writer's cat? So we should take a publisher's word for it when it says that a book, EP, album, movie or whatever is "groundbreaking", "epochal", or whatever; and indeed the word of "breatharians" for the benefits of "breatharianism", the word of the press secretary of a head of government for that head's insights, wisdom, public-spiritedness, etc? -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary As I said, the information should be used judiciously. No need to get excited. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

3RRNO and edit summaries

A while back, I had been silently reverting a wave of pretty obvious vandalism on an article and received a stern warning on my talk page about not including edit summaries on my reverts per WP:3RRNO, which I accepted and I've made sure to include edit summaries on any reverts past 3rr since then. A couple times now, I've seen more experienced editors reverting without summaries repeatedly(such as a wave of BLP violations currently happening at Sukhbir Singh Badal). When I had previously gone to such an editor with the same warning I was given, I was directed to WP:BANREVERT(editor had been reverting a sock) as justification for why they didn't need to include edit summaries.

To summarize, I've been hearing conflicting information on whether 3RRNO reverts must have edit summaries, and the page itself seems ambiguous as to if they're required or just strongly encouraged. I'm personally going to keep using summaries regardless, but I'm coming here hoping to get some clarity. Is it optional? A case by case basis? Is ban evasion the only exception where summaries aren't required? Thanks. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 18:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer The guidance is at H:FIES, which suggests they are best practice for reverts but can be brief. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you :) Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 18:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer: See also WP:DENY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

There is an article that I believe was deleted in 2018 that based on more recent events and history has more sources now than it did previously. I could start fresh, but if there was a basic article to go off of that I could restore and then build on, that would seem to me to be easier. How do I go about that? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

We can give a better answer if you tell what the subject is. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, this Liberty Justice Center. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn If. after reading WP:Articles_for_deletion/Liberty_Justice_Center you think that the topic would meet the notability guidelines, can apply for a WP:REFUND as described at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It did not appear to then from the history, but as of more recent sources becoming available, I think it would now. So the article would need to be updated a bunch I am sure, but getting that as a start would be a good draft to work from. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you I just did that then. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Um, you can't use WP:REFUND to restore articles that were deleted via an AFD discussion. You probably figured that out by now. Contact the deleting administrator Sandstein, who may be willing to restore the article to draft space for improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I did message that admin for that purpose exactly. My mistake in trying to first use this process of WP:REFUND. Should I delete this post now? Or wait for it to be automatically removed? Iljhgtn (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn, as now noted at REFUND, I do not object to a restoration to draftspace or userspace, but I do not perform such undeletions myself. Iljhgtn, you should seek to improve the article in draftspace and to submit it to WP:AFC. Sandstein 14:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Responded there as well, whom should I ask then for help in moving the now deleted article to draft space so that I may work on it there? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

UtherSRG restored it to Draft:Liberty Justice Center. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes I saw that already and have been working in it. The draft should have enough sources and new information to firmly establish notability so I have also already submitted the draft for review. The backlog seems to be pretty deep though. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor edits. I think it looks good.

You're experienced enough to take a small bite out of that backlog whenever you feel inclined. There's no position, appointment, or user right required to review submitted drafts. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I think those were constructive additions and changes. Who now takes the draft and moves it to the main space? Are you able to do that @Anachronist? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Page patrolled

Would someone with the New Page Patrol permission be able to patrol this page if they have a free moment please? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn, page patrollers don't patrol on demand, you'll have to wait for someone to patrol it. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The back log is getting pretty immense (and growing faster by the second it seems) and I was thinking this one was pretty straightforward but thank you anyway. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts not necessarily NPPS (or AfC reviewers). David notMD (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

True, but sometimes they might be and I know of no other outlet for such a thing, especially when the backlog is so incredibly massive. No worries though, just thought I might find some kind person with the NPR permission. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe that if NPP does not act within 90 days the article moves into main space, and in time should be 'seen' be search engines. David notMD (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Author Names in Book Citation

I noticed that the entry concerning Giovanni Bellini misstated the current views of Daniel Wallace Maze. I understand why his name is in red in the entry, but I do not understand why using the cite book template his name is also listed in red. Please note that Maze is listed as an author of a different type of publication in ref 4. Here his name is listed in black type. Have I made an error in using thee template? Oldsilenus (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Oldsilenus. I see you fixed the problem after posting here.

Resolved

ColinFine (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Leonardo Perdomo

Hello! I have been working on this draft for a little while but I need help polishing it (Draft:Leonardo Perdomo) SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @SpainMMAfan123, and welcome to the Teahouse. You're unlikely to get anybody to collaborate on the draft by asking here - not impossible, but unlikely. You might have more luck asking at WT:WikiProject Boxing or WT:WikiProject Cuba. ColinFine (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Where to find answer

I was thinking: links to the same article - but 1 link is the actual article the other is to a sub-title: both display the intro via the cursor contact: if coding could be changed the sub-link could display the sub-section which would be more time use effective if the information is available only by moving the cursor (instead of loading times obvs.). Where to find answer of how this could would be possible to implement. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 22:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. Which article? Which section? What link? Where?

You can link to section names by using ArticleName#SectionName as the link target. You can also use the {{Section link}} template. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think they might be referring to the hover preview. -- Avocado (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Onemillionthtree See WP:ANCHOR. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

User Talk or Article Talk?

When you're having a disagreement with another editor about an article edit, is that better discussed on the User Talk page or on the article Talk page? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Ghost writer's cat. I'd say the article's talk page, since its purpose is to improve the article and solve disagreements. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s such a good question, @Ghost writer's cat — helpful in not just the early stages of our Wiki editing but even after emerging from a few skirmishes.

I look forward to seeing all the replies you get, as I think there could be several different suggestions depending on the context of the disagreement. Augnablik (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the useful replies above, if you reach an impasse between yourself and one other editor on the article talk page, you can request a third opnion to get a tiebreaking view. See Wikipedia:Third opinion for more information. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend WP:DISPUTE for more information about how to act when in a disagreement. It highlights an important dichotomy between content and conduct disputes. If part of the disagreement is over conduct (e.g.: you insulted me), that part is best taken to a user talk page. Anything focused on the article's content is best at the article talk page. My experience matches Augnablik's: many experienced editors could benefit from more thought about the best place to have a disagreement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Ghost writer's cat: Firefangledfeathers nailed it. Nutshell version: article Talk page to discuss the words (and images) in the article, user Talk to discuss editor behavior. One exercise you can try: if you are on the article Talk page discussing improving the article, see if you can avoid using the words you or your in your comments. This is not an ironclad rule, but if you find yourself using you a lot, you should stop a minute, and think about whether your comment is really about the article content, or about the other editor. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate all the feedback. Very helpful. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Shotgun Willy

Why can’t we give the rapper Shotgun Willy his own Wiki page Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

We can, if he is notable. The notability criteria specific to musicians are at WP:MUSICBIO. General notability criteria for any biography are at WP:NBIO. Meters (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Also it would never be "his own Wiki page". It would be Wikipedia's article about him, and it would not necessarily say what he would like it to say. He might of course be able to have his own wiki page at some other wiki. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Creating a previously deleted article

I was planning on creating an English article about Alejandro Cotto but can see that it was previously deleted in 2006. I can't see the content other than what's shown on the deletion notice. Should I start creating a draft article from scratch and have it reviewed or should I request that the previously deleted article be undeleted and then edit that? I'll be using the Wikidata entry, Spanish article (Alejandro Cotto) and reliable sources for reference. Guiding Knight (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Guiding Knight! As noted in the deletion log, the deleted article only contained "Alejandro Cotto is a filmaker from El Salvador." I would recommend creating a draft article from scratch. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Firefangledfeathers! I wasn't sure if that was the entire content of the article or just the first line or something like that. I'll start it from scratch. Guiding Knight (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Help making an rfa

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.

---

Hi everyone I was going to ask this earlier but I didn’t get to because I was in a coma for a while. I’m back now though and I’m excited about becoming an admin. I remember someone said I need to apply through rfa. Can someone please help me create a request? L$Aiden$L (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Per what became a lengthy discussion in response to 'I want to be an Admin' that you started earlier this month, you do not have the experience (years and thousands of edits and other stuff) to qualify for becoming an Administrator. Please find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know how you would expect me to have thousands of edits? I can start doing alot now if you think it would help. Being a Wikipedia admin is the only thing I want since I can’t ask to not have cancer anymore L$Aiden$L (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Your account is only 1 week old with 25 edits. That hardly demonstrates experience or familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you've been editing before under a different username, what was your previous account? If you want to be an administrator, you would know that you must disclose this. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I only did it before without having an account. L$Aiden$L (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Then disclose the IP addresses. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok I will try to find them and I can let you know. I think it’s weird to ask someone for their IP address since it’s kind of personal, but if that’s what I have to do to become an admin I L$Aiden$L (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Enthusiasm is great, but to reiterate what many have already told you, you are not going to be an admin for the short or even long-term future. It won't happen today, tomorrow, Tuesday, 10 or 22 weeks from now. Admin permissions are given when the user is especially trusted and need those tools. It's incredibly easy to fail an RFA to any sort of tradition not obvious enough to those who have never seen them. Some editors, even with tens of thousands of edits over many years, never obtain those rights; some don't even want those rights. With all of that in mind, I and many others find it incredibly unlikely for you, having a 2 week old account with only 28+ edits, to have a droplet of a chance at such a process. I'm sorry.

But the thing is, that's okay. Not being an admin doesn't make you any less worthy of a contributor to creating an encyclopedia. Non-admins can still write great articles, revert vandalism, greeting newcomers on noticeboards like this, or just fixing random typos you find while wandering! These are all legit and helpful ways to improve Wikipedia. Adminship shouldn't be seen as a final step; it's not the true core of Wikipedia. There's a lot more that you can do here than ban people. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is an ironic truism, L$Aiden$L. The editors who talk the most about wanting to become an adminstrator are the least likely to actually become an adminstrator. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@L$Aiden$L Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You don't need to become an admin to do useful editing, but you do need to understand the basics. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Please stop asking. Not only is your account very new, but to date you have not contributed to improving any existing articles, or made any other useful contribution to Wikipedia. There is no such thing as being an "honorary" Administrator. Admins have the power to indefinitely block editors, rule on whether articles should be deleted, etc. "With great power comes great responsibility," which has to be earned, not awarded. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 19 April 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.

Draft: Gerald Louis Burke

Somehow my draft article has been tagged as "Biography" by someone, but it's actually about his life as a medical researcher and his discoveries and works.

Is this the result of a normal WP classification process? Henrilebec (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Henrilebec: do you mean your pending draft Draft:Gerald Louis Burke? (Please link to the article/draft you refer to, so it's clear what you're talking about, and so that others don't have to go looking for it.) This is a biographical article, since it is clearly about a person; you say as much yourself ("about his life"). Also, where are you saying it has been "tagged"? Why is any of this a problem, in your view? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm not an experienced editor and I hadn't placed that tag, so I was curious where it came from. Henrilebec (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Henrilebec: I guess you refer to [2]. It's a normal process and it's certainly a biography so there is no problem. Pages can have multiple WikiProject tags. I don't see good reason for {{WikiProject Academic Journals}} but I have added {{WikiProject Medicine}}. PrimeHunter (talk)

How to Become admin. Stepwise Approach.

Give a step by step approach DitorWiki (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFA. In short, you should spend a long time demonstrating a good temperament and understanding of policies, as well as showing a need for the tools. The admin tools are just that- tools- admins have no more authority than any other editor. While there is no formal number required other than being extended confirmed, generally successful candidates have several thousand edits. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd also see the discussion above ("help making an rfa") which has excellent advice. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @DitorWiki, you could also check out Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year to look at recent applications. This might give you an idea as to what the community is looking for, or not, as the case may be. Knitsey (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

You have had an account for two years and have done fewer than 500 edits. Ask again in five years during which you have made thousands of edits, created articles, participated in article deletion discussions, combated vandalism, perhaps raised articles to Good Article status, etc. David notMD (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC).

“Feedback needed on declined draft: Vijay Kapoor (director)”

Hi! I’ve created a draft article about Vijay Kapoor, a Hindi film director: Draft:Vijay Kapoor (director)

It was declined for not having sufficient reliable sources, but I’ve since added multiple references from Hindi and English newspapers that provide significant coverage.

Could someone please take a look and let me know whether the revised draft is good enough to meet the notability guidelines? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks so much! FreshPaint1999 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

FreshPaint1999 Hello and welcome. The best way to get feedback is to resubmit the draft. Asking for a pre-review review is redundant. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Auckland Int'l Airport-sourcing issue

 Courtesy link: Auckland Airport

Hello. Go to Auckland Intl Airport article, line #4, reference#6. Having problems going to the PDF for Decemmber 2024 PAX data, like in the infobox, ref#1. Can you fix? Thanks for your time. Have a good day. Theairportman33531 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Theairportman33531: Firstly, please link to articles when you mention them elsewhere.

Secondly the fourth line on your screen is the third on mine and may be fifth or sixth for others; please quote text.

The |url= value was invalid, because it included a space (it ended December 2024.ashx). The correct value is https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz/-/media/Files/Corporate/Monthly_Traffic_Reports/2024/MTU_Month_December_2024.ashx. I found that by entering the title of the document, as given in the citation, into the site's search field. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Have a good day. Theairportman33531 (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Switching back to Visual Editor

After getting the Source editor (forced for some reason), I have been unable to switch back to visual editing as the usual edit button (visual) or the Visual editor button has been replaced or removed. Comsofcoms (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried checking your preferences? If you check Editing --> Editing mode, it might be on either "Remember my last editor" or "Always give me the source editor". — Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Comsofcoms, you can also have both tabs visible on every page, so you can choose either one on a case by case basis. Mathglot (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestion, it works! Comsofcoms (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Tips

There are a lot of Wikipedia articles about do's and don't's, I'm fine with any tips, but I'm mostly looking for any tips that I should know for editing and vandalism. So are there any tips that I should know that aren't listed on those articles? GiftedGirI (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @GiftedGirI, would this be of any interest to you? Knitsey (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@GiftedGirI Do you think that you need more ressources that the useful ressource mentionned by @Knitsey ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes! That seems to be what I am looking for and thanks for the input! GiftedGirI (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I am good for now but if I do I will let you know :) GiftedGirI (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@GiftedGirI: there is Wikipedia:Tips. They can be a bit old and include much more than editing and vandalism fighting. If you click this link it should take you randomly to one of the over 1000 tips from there. Or you can visit {{totd-random}} and keep clicking "fetch another" (you will have say "Yes" to purge the page each time). Commander Keane (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice! - GiftedGirI GiftedGirI (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Notification for an alt account for privacy

Hi all,

Recently, I have wanted to edit articles and add images related to the place I live, but I've resisted doing so because I don't want to reveal my location. So, I'm considering creating an alt for that purpose. Having read through WP:SOCKLEGIT, this appears to be a permissible use, as long as I disclose it and don't engage in true sock behavior.

So my question - what's the correct way to disclose this? Obviously, I don't want to have a link between my two accounts, as that would defeat the purpose. What I'm thinking is to have a chunk of text on both of my accounts stating that I have 2 accounts for privacy reasons and that I'm happy to privately disclose the identity of the other to admins or checkusers with a valid reason. Would that be enough? I'm open to suggestions. 9yz (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

9yz, I suggest that you send an email to the Arbitration Committee disclosing your plan as soon as you register the second account. If anyone asks if you have another account, you can just reply "yes, and I have disclosed to ArbCom". Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 gotcha, I'll do that. Do you think I should still include some amount of text on my userpage(s) stating I have an alt? 9yz (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

9yz, if you choose to do so, I suggest that you say essentially the same thing with completely different wording on the two user pages, and avoid editing the same articles. That would make it more difficult for another editor to make the connection. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 yep, that was my plan! Thanks for your feedback. 9yz (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I suddenly found myself with an "alt" account after I got my original account Amatulic renamed. That account is still there, although the user page and talk page redirect to my current name. I do disclose it on my user page in the first paragraph. But... there doesn't seem to be anything preventing me from using that old username in certain circumstances, like when editing from a public computer in a library or some similar situation where someone could gain access to my current account. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to request Un Deletion of a page (Through a discussion or elsewhere)

Hi! I am actually interested in creating a Redirect for a page that was previously deleted. The article is Gordon Centre which was deleted in 2016. I was wondering, if I created a redirect, would it meet Wikipedia's Speedy Deletion Criteria? I previously did it on 2026 Indian Premier League due to being previously deleted, but it was rejected due to being about article rather than redirect. Is there a way to open a discussion about the article to Un Delete it and change it to a redirect possibly? Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere, it wouldn't be CSD'd if what you created was a redirect. Just go ahead and create one if you like. -- asilvering (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering Good news. I have just discovered Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It might be the harder way, but it is my preferred way of doing it. You might be a bit shocked, but I am willing to wait. Should I do that? Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No. You don't want the content undeleted; you just want to create a redirect. So create the redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering I suppose your message dated "APRIL/20/2025" at "05:44 UTC" is a reference to "Be bold" concept. Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No, not really. It's not a particularly bold action to create a redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering I forgot to mention that I was going to request it be a redirect. My idea was, should we un delete the content and change the page to a redirect, or just create a seperate article with no a seperate page history. Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No, you should not undelete the content and change the page to a redirect. You should simply create the redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering For what reasons? Anyways, I might nonetheless open a discussion on another article that the page is related else to request un deletion of content and change it to a redirect. I will notify those who were involved in the deletion discussion if I do. Basically what I am considering discussing is whether it should be Un Deleted, or a Redirect should be created on a new page with no similar page history. Note: The Page that was deleted had no copyright violations. I am still discussing my options. Thanks for your collaboration. Basically what I am considering asking is: Should the redirect have the page history in it or not? Thank you for collaboration Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere, please be considerate of other editors' time. There's no need for any of these discussions. Please just create the redirect. The redirect does not need the page history in it, since the redirect won't be using any of that page history. Restoring that page history, even under a redirect, would be vacating the result of the previous AfD. An admin isn't going to do that, except in very limited circumstances. This isn't one of those circumstances. -- asilvering (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Source dispute?

Resolved

 – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 13:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Sparkle & Fade, and I am working on the article Baldwin's Tower. While sifting through sources, I notice several sources seem to cast doubt on whether or not Baldwin IX died or was imprisoned there, with a relative balance between them. I'm not sure exactly how to go about this, and a second opinion would be appreciated. Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 05:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Which sources exactly are contradictory to each others ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The first source ("Archaeologist Uncovers 13th Century Monastery Dining Room in Bulgaria's Veliko Tarnovo") and second source (Bousfield and Richardson) both explicitly say Baldwin died or "ended his days" there, while the Sofia Globe only attributes his death location to be the tower itself. The Balkans, a historical book by William Miller from 1896 with a passage about Baldwin's death, leaves his death location ambiguous. But after searching through Google Books, this book says he probably died there, three other books don't mention his death and only his imprisonment, this history book only say she was imprisoned in the castle and the tower got it's name from it, this 1888 book only says Baldwin was said to have been imprisoned there, among others. No idea how to go around it, and I'm not sure if I should move this to the Help Desk or not. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 06:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if "Help Desk" can be useful.

It's wrote on the "Help Desk" "For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page."

I think you should use "Talk:Baldwin I, Latin Emperor" even if I think it's unlikely you get an answer.

You can also try one of the Wikiprojects concerned by this article.

Are you saying some sources said he died in "Tarnovo" when others said he died elsewhere or not mentionning his death at all ?

If all sources that are mentionning his place of death say. This is "Tarnovo".

Does they mention exactly the same place in "Tarnovo" or a different place in the same city ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle & Fade I forget to say that you can read the next lines on "Help Desk".

"If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!"

[...]

New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places)." Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

anatole-berthe, it's generally preferred if you don't put excessive breaks in your lines. Back on topic, I felt like moving it to the Help Desk because I am no longer a 'newer editor' and thus this page is not targetted for me. Again, the dispute is over whether Baldwin IX died in the tower or not, or if he was verifiably imprisoned there. I'm saying some of the sources died in the tower while others cast doubt on it, meanwhile others cast doubt if he was ever imprisoned there at all (using words like 'probably', 'allegedly', or attributing it to legend). That's all, thanks! —Sparkle and Fade (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Sparkle and Fade, how about something like the following? It is commonly said that Baldwin was imprisoned in, and eventually killed in, the tower.{{Efn|Some sources report this as fact.<ref>First source</ref><ref>Second source</ref> Others hedge with "probably", "allegedly", or similar.<ref>Third source</ref><ref>Fourth source</ref> Others again dismiss it as mere legend.<ref>Fifth source</ref><ref>Sixth source</ref>}} -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was just worried because I wanted to avoid weasel words and I was also unsure of what to do. Thanks again, Hoary! —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 13:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

"Michela Wrong" - Promotional language?

I was referred by Wikipedia's internal suggestion tool to the page for "Michela Wrong", saying: "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (July 2018)." I am struggling to find the promotional/biased language (aside from, maybe the "over 20 years" bit which seems like we should just have a date of her first article). I see in "Talk:Michela Wrong" one editor was concerned than an account was created to promote her work about 14 years ago, but she seems like a prominent journalist and author to me. Can any experienced authors offer perspective/guidance on this? ErrataNonGrata (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, as I'm looking through the page's history it looks like there have been substantial rewrites, source additions, etc. Would this be a candidate to have these flags removed from the article? If so, how would I handle a similar situation in the future? ErrataNonGrata (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I would start by looking to see who added the template, and look at what they discussed on the talk page. If they added it without any comments, you can leave a comment on the talk page asking for their rationale. Iknowyoureadog (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Michela Wrong. The image in her infobox shows her, apparently at a book launch, promoting her own book. This is fair enough, but may give an impression that the article is promotional. I have aimed to correct this impression by cropping the way the image is displayed. Maproom (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I removed the tags, as they dated to a time (2018) when the article only had three references, and was shorter. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you, this was really helpful for me to watch and learn. ErrataNonGrata (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Translated Plagiarism -- Unsure what to do

Hi! In the page Feast of All Saints of Russia, at least one section seems to have been directly copied and translated from the original Russian source, only linked on the Russian-language version of the page (https://www.pravoslavie.ru/2367.html). Specifically, the paragraph ending in "(11, 74, 12, 275)" in the English-language "Origins" section is directly copied from the link, with just minor rephrasing. I'm not sure what to do here, as the plagiarism seems to be fairly clear but the extent is hard to determine and rewriting the page is beyond my capabilities. Is there somewhere I'm meant to report it? How would I go about this? Thedoglover12 (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thedoglover12, you should list the article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and follow the instructions there. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 11:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thedoglover12, you don't need to put this up at WP:CP, since it's pretty clear-cut. You can request revision deletion of the offending material yourself. There's a very helpful user script for that at User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel. Basically, you need to remove all of the offending content first - simply edit the article, highlight all the copied stuff, and press delete, nothing complicated. When you do this, leave an edit summary like "removing translation copyvio from https://www.pravoslavie.ru/2367.html". Then, use that userscript to put in a revdel request. You need to highlight every diff that has the offending text in it, from the very first insertion of the material up to (but not including) your own edit where you removed it. Thanks for catching this, and let us know if you run into any trouble. -- asilvering (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

My Draft submission

Hi All,

I am new to Wikipedia, and was wondering if someone could review my draft submission for me. I am having some difficulty getting this over the line.

Thanks! David Change (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

David Change You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending; please be patient. Asking for a review on top of submitting it will not speed the process, which is entirely volunteer-driven. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, like I said, I am new to this and just checking. I am not trying to speed up the process. Rather to ensure my draft is as best it can be, prior to a further review of my draft.

Thanks! David Change (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I made a few modest changes that may improve the odds of it being accepted. Also restored the second Declined notice, as these must remain while a draft is being considered. David notMD (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this, much appreciated. David Change (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Paul Calvert (whistleblower) now accepted by a Reviewer. There will be a delay possibly as long as three months before a search engine such as Google will 'see' this article, but a search within Wikipedia will find it. I added your article to the list of people at Paul Calvert. David notMD (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

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.

---

It strikes me as incongruous that we are allowed to cite sources in non-English languages on the English Wikipedia. How can we verify information if we can't read it, or if it's not even accessible to us? Is this discussed somewhere? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is discussed at WP:NONENG. There is longstanding consensus that non-English language sources are completely acceptable, though it's preferable to cite English-language sources when possible. However, removing access to non-English language sources would decimate much of our content bout anything outside the Anglosphere. They're treated a bit like offline sources, in that respect - while of course online, easily accessible sources are better, sometimes we just have to take it on faith that other that these high-quality source say what other Wikipedians are telling us it does. Besides, many Wikipedians speak multiple languages, and you can often get a rough idea as to whether a source verifies the content through the use of machine translators (though they should be used with caution). GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian Thank you for the link, but that only states the policy—there is no discussion or explanation. I am skeptical of the "take it on faith" idea because it goes against all the policies on notability, verifiability, reliable sources, etc. It's specifically because this has been designated an English Wikipedia, where the articles, comments, etc must be in English, that it's contradictory to allow sources that are not readable by the population this Wikipedia is intended for. It's not only a matter of verifiability; often I'm referring to the source because either the statement has been badly written and therefore isn't clear, or because I'm hoping to find an expanded discussion of the particular statement. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

For policy pages like that, most of the discussion will have been on the talk page. [3]. As you can see, this has been discussed before. On a personal level, I do get your point about foreign-language sources being harder to verify. They are. The thing I do disagree with you is the idea about trust- the vast majority of good articles (and probably Good Articles) use offline sourcing that may not be easily accessible. And yes, sometimes that backfires. I do a lot of CCI work, and I absolutely run into issues with source falsification or mistranslations that are much harder to pick up on because the sources were offline or not in English. However, the benefit (more information!) does ultimately outweigh the costs. Or, at least, it has so far. And, ultimately, I'd rather check articles against online foreign-language sources than offline English language sources. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a source be free or easy to access; you or anyone is free to learn a language in order to be able to review a source. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Not helpful. Using that reasoning, why bother with an English Wikipedia at all? Why not let people write in whatever language they choose? I expect better assistance from an admin. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ghost writer's cat, I can't read x language but some editors can. The project relies on that fact that those editors are competent. x language sources are going to cover their area/topics much better than English sources (which may be biased). The odds are a American source isn't going to cover a chinese politican (who meets WP:NPOL) at all or will do it poorly. Why not let people write in whatever language they choose?, They can? There are ~341 active wikis. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon This isn't just about editing, it's also about reading the articles. I wouldn't expect to find non-English footnotes with additional information in an English-language book, which is essentially what this amounts to. And no, in the English Wikipedia, we cannot write in whatever language we choose. As I stated below, if I want to read an article in Swedish, I'll go to the Swedish Wikipedia. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect to find non-English footnotes with additional information in an English-language book That may be your experience but it's far from universal. As I trained in European and Asian history I was always reading English-language monographs and textbooks which referenced primary and secondary sources in other languages, and yes, I could read and verify some of these myself. Maybe this is not done in the areas you work in, but you can't generalise this to every subject area covered by the encyclopaedia. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

+1, A well written book will have local sources. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

As with paywalled sites or ones that are no longer online, sometimes we have to look at things from a different angle. If you go through the history of the article you should be able to work out who added the info. You can then look at their userpage, talk and other contributions. If they are a much checked editor, with Featured and Good article content, then you can take some reassurance that much of their other content has gone through scrutiny, and you are pretty safe to trust their work. At the other end of the scale if their talkpage has a plethora of warnings about misinterpreting sources and eventually a retirement or block, then reverting an edit you find implausible but can't check can be reasonable. Of course much of Wikipedia will be somewhere in between those extremes. If the other language source is easily available and you don't trust the person who used it, you could try finding a Wikipedian who speaks that language and ask for their help. A query on the talkpage of the relevant Wikiproject, might work, or you could go looking to see who has the relevant userbox on their userpage (Template:User fr is the French one), check if they have edited recently, and if so ask for their help. ϢereSpielChequers 20:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Google Translate. It is helpful to me for reading sources in other languages. Not so good for some Middle Eastern and Asian languages but quite good for European languages. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That works only for material that's on-line. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I think your arguments may be about effort? If there is a dusty old book in stack at a remote library that has great knowledge for an article and a Wikipedian is willing to get there, I think we should use it. It is going to take a lot effort to verify facts from that source. It takes a lot of effort to learn a new language to understand a source, but machine translation, OCR or your multi-lingual colleagues can help. The want for only viewing information in articles that can be verified in English from freely (as in beer) available online sources is reasonable, but that is currently not Wikipedia's model. Given the licensing, anyone is able to fork English Wikipedia to make a project those goals, but you are unlikely to get support from the Wikimedia Foundation. One of the Foundation's goals is to let people write in the language they choose (there are over 300 language variants) and there is the Abstract Wikipedia project as a first step towards unification. Commander Keane (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Commander Keane As to your last point, we are not allowed within the English Wikipedia to use whatever language we choose.

People keep responding with, essentially, "That's how it is." That's not addressing my question. The question is why?? This is the English Wikipedia; the information should be in English. What's the objective of that rule? I assumed it was to provide a Wikipedia for English-speaking people, but it's not helpful if the source is in another language. If I wanted to read articles in Swedish, I'd go to the Swedish Wikipedia. Everything else here is required to be in English, so why do the sources get a pass? It doesn't make sense. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I can't explain it any better. You may have to accept that your desire is too limiting for everyone else. The information here is available in English, if you are not willing to put in effort to look at the sources in other languages that is on you. It is helpful for the others that are willing, and they out number you. The reason is that the collective knowledge of the world isn't recorded purely in English language sources. Commander Keane (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Commander Keane "not willing to put in effort to look at the sources in other languages" isn't a fair assessment, nor a fair assumption. There's an overly-general assumption in the responses here that the sources are all going to be available on-line and translatable. They're not. If someone uses as a source a physical book, written in another language, that's on a shelf somewhere in the world, you are correct that I'm not willing to "put in the effort" to find the book, get possession of it, and then have it translated. I challenge your statement that there are "others that are willing, and they out number" me. (I'm dismayed just by the number of editors who argue over an edit without even checking the source material when it's only a click away.) For all the policy, guidance, templates, essays, and what have you here on reliable sources, verifiability, notability, etc, things sure get loose when it comes to sources that the majority of us aren't even expected to be able to access. I'm amazed there hasn't even been any discussion on this, apparently no more than a couple sentences of explanation in total. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see. Maybe your issue is trust then. If you don't trust user-generated content like Wikipedia then you should ignore the text and just read the sources listed at the bottom that are accesible for you. Wikipedia is a project that provides the sources, so you are free to read them and generate your own understanding about a topic instead if you wish. I trust the Swedish speaking Wikipedian visiting that dusty libary shelf near Stockholm that is bilingual, you don't. That's fine. Maybe there is an essay on trusting Wikipedia somewhere. English Wikipedia has over 6,000,000 articles and is a top 10 website, so I would say others put more faith into it than you and perhaps that is so obvious that it isn't documented. I trust that when Ghost writer's cat makes an edit based on an online, available, English source that it is okay. And I can check it if I am in doubt or I trust others will check even if it off-line and in another language. You are proposing a source-limiting fork of Wikipedia that may have been tried before, I'm not sure. An alternate project that trusts experts instead of users to write an encyclopedia would be Britannica. Commander Keane (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ghost writer's cat, the incidence of references to offline paper sources in obscure languages is very low. The English Wikipedia is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world. It is not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Our bilingual and multilingual editors are an enormous asset to the project, and they should not be disrespected so cavalierly. It simply would not be possible, for example, to write comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of Japanese history and culture without summarizing Japanese language sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I resent your assertion that I've been disrespectful—there's no evidence of that whatsoever. I'm only pointing out the incongruity that all articles and discussion must be in English yet the sources are not held to the same requirement. Why restrict to English only? Have non-native English speakers been disrespected by being required to write their articles and comments in English? To your last point, are you suggesting there is not comprehensive coverage of Japanese history and culture in English publications? I have serious doubts about that claim. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ghost writer's cat, your highly idiosyncratic views on this matter are out of line with longstanding consensus. Your argument boils down to an ill-informed view that the monumental work by editors who write English language summaries of reliable sources in other languages ought to be removed from the encyclopedia, and that is disrespectful of those exceptionally valuable editors. You try writing a Good article or Featured article on a significant Japanese topic using only English language sources, and see how far you would get. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Please stop with the personal attacks. I've not suggested anything be removed. I started this section by asking for any existing discussion on this topic; I see there is none, which means there is no "long-standing consensus". If you have only opinion and no concrete information to share, I respectfully request that you don't comment further. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how Cullen's comments were personal attacks, but whatever.

Anyways, yeah, Cullen's right. Good luck trying to get enough English sources for Altanbulag, Selenge to reach Featured Article status That's not going to happen. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ghost writer's cat, There is consensus. @GreenLipstickLesbian, gave you a link in their response. If you want another link of the talk page discussion look here. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

And definitely try it on a not-that-significant topic! I spent a decent amount of time working on Hanako (elephant). I used English-language sources where possible, but it relies very heavily on Japanese sources. Because, surprise surprise, English-language newspapers do not report on a statue of an elephant being erected at a Japanese train station, or license plates being created in honor of the elephant. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ghost writer's cat, don't you dare tell me not to comment further. I will comment where I want and when I want. I engaged in no personal attacks. I criticized your idea, not you. I know nothing about you but I consider your idea deeply flawed and will continue to say so as long as you articulate it. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 My "idea" is a question and a request for discussion, either past or present. If that's your concept of a "deeply flawed idea", which you will continue to shut down, then this Teahouse is pointless. Good job. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ghost writer's cat, I am afraid you have the wrong way. The Teahouse is for helping new editors not holding discussions on established policy. There are more appropriate forums, such as the Village pump or the talk page, for holding discussions on policy. Note: If no one objects, it may be best to close this and move it to a more appropriate page. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:25, 21 April 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.

How can I encourage responses on an AfD submission?

I’ve made a submission to AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Ability with Innovation) that’s received no responses.

I’m not on a tirade to get this page deleted or anything, I’m more just curious about the process of AfD. This article came up in my newcomer tasks and when trying to find sources to improve the article, I thought the subject matter may not be notable. I’m making this thread(?) not to get the article deleted faster, but to figure out if I did anything wrong/suboptimally when making the AfD submission.

Are there things I can do to make it easier for others to participate in the discussion? Are there reasons nobody has replied to my submission yet, or am I just unlucky? SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion is listed on the AFD page, where people can see it and decide to comment, or not. If it doesn't get much participation, it would get re-listed. You could also help people out by explaining why you think the subject isn't notable. Did you do a search for sources, and if so, what did you come up with? As it is now, you're asking others to do the work for you to verify that the article qualifies for deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You’re right - I misinterpreted the convention and thought (wrongly) that the proposer should mostly stay out of making arguments.

Is it acceptable for me to edit the submission? Or should I make a new comment (sorry, I’m unsure of terms) with additional information? SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Depends on what you are changing. A new comment would be clearer. Currently when someone sees it they don't see a clear reason why it is not notable. Maybe a source assessment table (if interested use User:DannyS712/SATG.js) or a specific deletion reason would draw more attention. Happy editing, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I've added a comment with more detail as to why I think it's worth considering deleting.

Hopefully this will make it easier for others to participate in the discussion! SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, you can edit the submission to add context and clarification, and also respond to the comments of others who participate. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

U5 Speedy Deletion

Hello, I was looking at DaRealHaribo user page and I believe that it falls under WP:U5 for speedy deletion as the use has not contributed outside of their userpage and it appears to be more of a personal webpage. The only other mention outside of Wikipedia that I could find was this Youtube account so it doesn't meet WP:N either (its currently also in a draft state here). However, I don't want to accidently nominate something for deletion. Please advise. Thanks. Thewindbird (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

U5 or G11 might be appropriate. Or provide a polite warning {{subst:uw-advert1}} on the talk page and see if that editor cleans up the user page. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Thewindbird (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to look for articles flagged under the same maintenance template?

I'm hoping to help edit articles and thought it might be helpful to review a series of articles flagged for the same thing. Is there an easily accessible tool that will let me do that? I've done lots of searching but only found guidelines. If not, is there an easy way to get to the Wikpedia suggested articles for editing that shows articles with templates? ErrataNonGrata (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

See Template:Backlog status Moxy🍁 03:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@ErrataNonGrata There are several tools which help find articles with a given cleanup template but the one I find most useful is WikiProject Cleanup Listings because it subsets the listings into topic areas so I can focus on topics I'm interested in. You can download the lists into a local spreadsheet for sorting if you want. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Requesting Help with Creating a Page About Swimming Industry Companies

Hi everyone,

I’ve been working in the swimming industry for several years now and have developed deep knowledge about various swim brands, clubs, and companies that contribute to the sport. I recently attempted to create a Wikipedia page to share this information and highlight some of the key companies in the space.

However, my draft has been declined twice, and I’m not entirely sure what I’m doing wrong. I understand Wikipedia has strict guidelines for notability and reliable sourcing, and I want to make sure I'm following them correctly.

I’d really appreciate help from someone more experienced to guide me in shaping the article the right way. My goal is to contribute useful and verifiable information to the platform—not to promote, but to inform.

Is anyone available to help me review and improve the draft? Or point me in the right direction to get support from a mentor?

Thanks in advance! Dennisaxim (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:FINIS, Inc — jlwoodwa (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, That's the draft I was mentioned. Draft:FINIS, Inc Dennisaxim (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Dennisaxim, most of your references are reprints of press releases sent out by the company. A couple are links to the company's own website. The Bloomberg reference is simply a run-of-the-mill database entry. What is required are several references to reliable sources completely independent of FINIS that devote significant coverage to FINIS. There are currently no such references in the draft. What, if any, is your relationship to FINIS? Cullen328 (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply — I understand your concerns. I don’t have any direct relationship with FINIS. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a swim coach, and my intention was to share my personal experience and knowledge. I initially planned to write about swim methods, techniques, and the equipment brands commonly used in training, hoping it might be helpful to other swimming enthusiasts.

While researching, I noticed that some of the brands I currently use already have Wikipedia pages. Since FINIS didn’t have one, I decided to start with it as my first contribution. I do plan to work on articles related to other swim products as well in the future.

Are there any recommended tools or methods to help find valuable, independent sources? Or if possible, could you help me rephrase parts of the article to better align with Wikipedia’s standards? Dennisaxim (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 could you help me? Dennisaxim (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry, Dennisaxim, but no amount of rephrasing can transform a non-notable topic into a notable one. You are far more familiar with the range of sources that cover swimming related companies than I am. If you want to write about this topic, it is incumbent on you to find high quality independent sources to use as references. Cullen328 (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 ok. I think where I'm struggling is determining whether the sources I've collected are valuable or not.

Are there any tools to help filter or evaluate the reliability of sources? Or any best practices you recommend for finding and assessing high-quality sources? Dennisaxim (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Dennisaxim, there are three tests that must be applied to a source to determine whether it is of any value in contributing to the notability of a topic, which can also be described as the eligibility of the topic for a Wikipedia article. The source must be reliable. The source must be completely independent of the topic. And, the source must devote significant coverage to the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328, ok I got it.. thanks for your time. Dennisaxim (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Original research

If you have a reliable source that states "A = B", and another reliable source (or even the same source in a different location) that states "B = C", can you state in the article "A = C", citing both sources, or would that be considered original research? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Typically no, as per WP:SYNTH. However, certain things like routine calculations, images, and translations and transcriptions are exempt from that rule. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian It sounds like YES, it IS considered original research, aside from those exceptions. Did I understand that correctly? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about finding sources for old information

I have a question about the article I'm editing right now: Draft:Nick Rogers

I have been working to find sources to reference all of the awards and recognitions mentioned in the article but a lot of them are old school print only documentations which are really difficult to source today. How do I go about referencing sources for this kind of information as well as any other information where it might be hard to find direct online secondary sources? SlavaLi (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @SlavaLi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Finding sources is hard - I think we've all been there. The good news is that, on Wikipedia, you are allowed to use offline, print-only documents that aren't availible online. They have to be reliable and independent, of course, but they're fine. You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Offline sources. In this case, however, I have access to a website called Newspapers.com, and I've been able to find some of those sources online. It's late for me, but I've left links to them on the draft's talkpage. Hopefully they come in useful! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have the person's CV and Biblio that's about 56 pages long as well. Would this be an acceptable documentary source for some of the recognitions and awards mentioned in the article? SlavaLi (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

CVs and other sources published by the subject can, in some cases, be used for limited information. Articles shouldn't be sourced primarily to self-published sources, and self-published sources can't be used to cite any claims that are potentially self-serving or aggrandizing. Where exactly that line is can vary a little. For example, it would normally be okay to cite somebody's personal website to back up a birth year. However, you can't use it for awards or prizes. You might be able to use it for things like job titles, so long as there's no reason to doubt the source's authenticity. I'd try having a look at older newspapers or journals first, as well as reviews of the books he co-authored. (If such reviews exist, of course). Those will be what you need to prove that Rogers is notable by Wikipedia standards. Once you've established that, you can look at older publications by the colleges and journals he worked for, to establish that yes, he worked for them during certain periods of times. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

SlavaLi, missing from the first response to your question, but present in the second one is that although print-only and offline is okay, the material must be published. That is a crucial distinction; even if offline and print only, it must be possible for someone to find and access the print document if they are willing to spend enough effort to do so. So, something in the bowels of the archives in the Cairo Museum, yes; but a letter written written by Robert Oppenheimer to your grandfather when they worked together on the Manhattan Project and locked away in your storage space, not okay. Mathglot (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

SlavaLi Citing his journal articles (most of your refs) is not counted as establishing his Wikipedia notability, although for academics it is appropriate to have a Selected publications section which references 5-10 journal articles. And a subsection if any books authored.

Wrong Date

On the current English home page, Main Page, under the "On this day" it states that in "1725 – J. S. Bach's cantata Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, was first performed on Easter Monday." If you click on the link for the cantata, it shows it was first performed it on 2 April 1725. April 2 is correct. If would like to know what happened on April 21. Beatles777! (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh wow, good catch. Put this in the main page's talk page under "Errors in 'On This Day' ". PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 11:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Beatles777!. It was composed for Easter Monday which was 2 April in 1725 but today in 2025. The different date is why it says "first performed on Easter Monday" and not merely "first performed". PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ooh, for some reason it didn't occur to me Easter Monday was on different days, haha.. silly me. 12:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC) PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something crucial, but even though it was performed on Easter Monday in 1725, it still should have been on an April 2nd OTD, no? It's a short list of things that happened on April 21st, not Easter Monday generally. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Probably, but it's still a mater for Talk:Main Page, not here, to decide. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of GrandViewResearch.com as a Source for Wikipedia

Hi, can we use content from GrandViewResearch.com as a source on Wikipedia—is it considered reliable and accepted by the community? Dennisaxim (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dennisaxim that website is not mentioned in the archives of the reliable sources page but it is used already 73 times in various articles, so I would say it is OK in general. Of course, as with all sources, it depends on what information you want to back up with that source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

How do multiple club parameter formatting work for football player's history?

Hi everyone, 

I'm currently working on adding the team history for a retired football player. Due to the player's long career with over 10 transfers, I need to use a specific format template instead of the standard 10-club section provided.  However, I'm not entirely sure how the formatting works in this case. Here's what the description says:

---

Club 1

The first (senior) club that the player has been contracted at. Up to 39 clubs can be added using the parameter names "clubs2", "clubs3", etc.

---

Can anyone provide clarification on how the formatting for these parameters works? Specifically, how do I use "clubs2", "clubs3", etc.? Can someone provide an example of how it should be structured?  Thank you in advance for your help! AjinGixtas (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Archiving; Talk:Curt Weldon

We have archived Talk:Curt Weldon however there is no link to the archived wikipage, can someone fix this.

Also, the same issue with Talk:Rhyl

Regards Guiy de Montfort^talk 13:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Like this? There are a few ways and layouts, but this one is easy:) DMacks (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, that works. Guiy de Montfort^talk 16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Translating an Article into Chinese

Error Message

Desired Language

Hi! I'm working on translating the article "Zero Population Growth" into simplified Chinese, but I wasn’t able to publish the translation because it says I'm "not experienced enough to publish translations." Does anyone know why this is the case and how to resolve it? Thank you very much! Zli39 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zli39 According to your global contribution log, you have only made 3 edits on zh: Wikipedia. If you had only that few here on en: Wikipedia, you would not be autoconfirmed and likewise would not be able to create articles directly. You'll need to ask at the zh: helpdesk or teahouse whether the rules there are the same as they are here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Needed something to contribute to Wikipedia

I’m a new user that joined on Wikipedia. And I already started editing on this site. Can you please share something that I needed to contribute to Wikipedia? I’ve been trying to figure out on how to add info to sections. Clubtoon112 (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The task center is a good place to check out if you're not sure how to contribute. It breaks stuff down into difficulty levels based on editor experience. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Explain on community, not the writing only. Clubtoon112 (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're specifically asking for. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s the Wikipedia community. Not just the editing. Clubtoon112 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Below writing, is the community on the task center. Clubtoon112 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair use for an image of a prayer card published in France in 1935 and scanned in a book published in France in 2007?

I have been working on the article Jean-Mohammed Abd-el-Jalil and would like to upload an image of his priestly ordination card from 1935, which is notable and unique because it features Qur'an verses. The only source I have for it is scanning an image of it from the book Massignon - Abd-el-Jalil : Parrain et filleul 1926-1962, a edition of the letters exchanged between the subject of the article and his godfather, Louis Massignon. Would uploading a scanned image of the card for the article fall under fair use? M.A.Spinn (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, M.A.Spinn. Wikipedia's policies on use of Non free images are stricter than the legal doctrine of Fair use. That being said, the image you describe probably meets WP:NFCI #4 as long as it is accompanied by referenced critical commentary describing how unique the card is. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The prayer card, and therefore a 2D image of this 2D item, might be public domain (completely free, not a non-free fair-use exception). Do you know where he was ordained--France, or Morocco, or somewhere else? Is the creator of the card itself actually known (would this person have done it himself, or someone in particular among his mentors, or just the work of some anonymous administrative person in the church)? Are you able to link to the book's page where the scan is? Depending what creative elements (if any) vs plain-text it contains might also be relecant. DMacks (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The ordination took place in Paris in 1935. I'd have to double check but I don't think the artist signed the card and it has no copyright notice on it. I can source the page from the book it is scanned from and the book itself sources it to the Franciscan Archives in France. So what we're dealing with is a scan of a scan of archival material from the 1935 with no author or copyright notice listed. The creative element is Arabic calligraphy combined with Christian iconography. M.A.Spinn (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Best I can determine is that it would be free in France but not free in the US. So it cannot be placed on commons (not free in both original country and US), and it can be placed on enwiki (US host) as non-free fair-use. It could also be placed on frwiki without restriction now. On January 1, 2031, it becomes PD in the US, so it could be placed on commons, used on all wikis, and not require fair-use handling. How's that for chaotic? DMacks (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It works for my purposes! M.A.Spinn (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Asking for advice on a recently declined article

Hello! An article I submitted was recently declined, and the feedback received was regarding notability of the subject and that the article reads more like an advertisement (there were also some edits needed but I think I've addressed those). Can I ask for more clarification on the notability part? I'm surprised the subject is not considered notable, he was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for his work co-hosting a podcast that has gained international recognition, among other successes. Can I ask for more details so I can make the necessary corrections and submit a better version of this article for reconsideration? Thank you for any advice you can provide. Kinfolx1114 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 16:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Kinfolx1114/sandbox Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Kinfolx1114 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kinfolx1114, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked at your draft, so I'm answering in general terms: what somebody is or does, does not of itself contribute to notability as Wikipedia uses the word. Notability mostly means "Enough independent material about the subject has been published in reliable sources to base an article on".

Some kinds of activity or achievement - such as winning a major prize, or being appointed to certain posts - create a presumption that the person is notable, but we still need the reliable independent sources to base the article on. Winning a Pulitzer Prize is probably in that category, but only being nominated for one is not. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @ColinFine! Thank you! The official definition of notability makes me feel that he is qualified, just from coverage in reliable independent sources. But I appreciate that being nominated for a Pulitzer is not, alone, a reason. I'll take a second look and make sure I linked enough resources, I thought I had but will check again and see if there are opportunities to improve. I know you haven't read the draft but if you get a chance to glance and form an opinion on notability, I would appreciate the feedback. Thanks again Kinfolx1114 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Kinfolx1114: the first sentence of your sandox lists seven activities that Thomas has devoted himself to. But it never makes it clear which of them (if any) he's notable for. It repeatedly states that he's been in prison, but it never explains what he was found guilty of. (Yes, I'm aware that in the US, being imprisoned depends on skin colour and the ability to afford a good lawyer as much as actual guilt – but the reader still needs to be told.) Maproom (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Maproom, thank you for that feedback! This is helpful, I'd like to ask two follow up questions: The first sentence mentions that he is most known for his hosting of Ear Hustle podcast, but the other titles are less notable but referenced. (for example, 'writer' is backed with citations of published work, 'curator' is cited with an article covering curation at the Museum of African Diaspora, etc.). Would it be more appropriate to say the notable role first and then mention the others? Or do all activities have to be notable to be mentioned? Also, you mentioned that the reader needs to be told (re: details of his experience in the criminal justice system), is it a requirement for the article to be considered? Again, thank you! Kinfolx1114 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant to tag you! @Maproom Kinfolx1114 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Banned from XTools

Hi everyone, I got a message when I try to use XTools that says; "Your access to XTools has been blocked due to apparent abuse or disruptive automation. If you are a bot, please use our public APIs instead, which are optimized for this purpose: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/XTools/API For inquiries, please contact tools.xtools@toolforge.org". I do not know what to do I have never spammed XTools or anything. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@History6042 See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#XTools_down?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Help removing what seems to experts as personal viewpoint/not encyclopedic tone

Timothy Snyder

Views on threats to democracy and pursuit of freedom [edit source]

This message appears: This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (April 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Could someone please give five or more examples of some text that does not appear to be appropriately encyclopedic? In a perfect world, I could make changes that would allow for the removal of this comment.

The comment came after a recent update of about nine new paragraphs. Initially in 2022 there had been concerns that I addressed, and I am not sure how the newer text became more of a problem.

Thank you for your kind guidance!

The more specific you are, the better. I understand the principle of encyclopedic tone, but am sure that the text is an exceptionally faithful report of what Snyder has said, and can provide the original text as needed if that helps to reveal any bias introduced at my end. LBDon (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @LBDon. This tag was placed by @JooneBug37 (as can be seen by viewing the article history), so it would be good to directly ask him why he placed the tag, and to continue discussion on the article talk page.

At first glance, this section seems disproportionately long: the article should mainly describe what independent, secondary sources have said about Snyder, instead of simply restating his own words. It also blurs opinion and fact with extended paraphrasing, implicitly describing his own views as true statements, e.g. False emergencies to disguise lawless policies and destruction of official records work not only against the security of Americans, but also against our freedom. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

AWESOME, helpful raccoon. I will do that. LBDon (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @LBDon. Please remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine. LBDon (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Cut the Views on threats to democracy and pursuit of freedom section by 90%. David notMD (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

As a followup to the question I just asked...

It would be possible for me to footnote every single sentence in the recent update, but there would be the same footnote after every single line in any one paragraph. There is absolutely no personal interpretation/editorial content added (by me) though I did avoid quoting every single sentence because the exact wording is not a quotation. Typically, as you can see, a single paragraph corresponds to a single public statement by Snyder.

I am sharing this because it may eliminate one or five rounds of back and forth:) LBDon (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to go back to questions I have asked at the teahouse?

I cannot seem to navigate my way back there to see historical questions and your responses. Thank you. LBDon (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

In general, old questions are archived. The navigation box for the Teahouse archive is at the top of this page.

If you want to go to older questions, I know of two ways: If you still remember the Headline of the question, you could search it in the search archives box at the top of this page. Or just browse through the archives in general via the links there.

The alternative, if you want to go back to one of your previous questions is going via your contributions page. Click on any of the headlines for your questions in brackets. That will either take you to appropriate section, or it will open a box with a link on your screen if that section has already been archived. LightlySeared (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

And another way: If one of your sections on the Teahouse is archived, the bot that does that should leave a link to that section on your talk page. LightlySeared (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@LBDon: On the right side of the page, under the box with the table of contents is a box that says "Most recent archives". In that "Most recent archives" box, there is a search box. Try searching your username, and your previous questions should come up. Alternatively, here is a link to your previous posts here. Cheers, and happy editing! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Sanjib Bhattacharjee

Hello is this draft okay? Draft:Sanjib Bhattacharjee Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Flyhigh223! You have submitted the draft, the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Currently looking at it, going to update when done. – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 00:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Was my course of action correct?

I came across the user User:Titan Technology Corporation (Titan), and reported to UAA. Later, I found that the user overlinks quite a lot. So I welcomed the user, then templated the user for the overlink. Looking back, I think maybe welcoming the user and reporting to UAA in addition to templating them may come across as bitey. Is there a better course of action I could have followed? —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 03:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Mint Keyphase. I see no problem with that you've did. You can always write a personal message rather than template, but that is optional. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)