Wikipedia:Teahouse

David notMD, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help

Wikipedia

How does a article become availible to public or is displayed after completion ?

Hi there,

I had a question regarding articles that have been completed but do not show up in google searches, Like is there a criteria for a article to be verified or after some time it gets automatically becomes availible to Public?

just like this article which i made 1 monthe ago. 2023 Lakki Marwat operation. Rahim231 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Rahim231. This is explained here: Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. Hope that helps! Qcne (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Also i wanted to ask that whether a page gets automatically reviwed or there are some certain tags you have to add in a article to get it reviewed and after those review does the page get automatically indexed on search engine ?

This is another aritcle i made i think by now its 3 months old but doesent appear:- Sack of Bhatner fort (1398) Rahim231 (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the "Page information" on that article, you will see that it says "Indexing by robots: allowed".

This means that Wikipedia has done everything it can towards the article showing up in external searches. We have no control over what Google and other search engines do with it. ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231 and ColinFine: 2023 Lakki Marwat operation does not currently allow external indexing because it's newer than 90 days and hasn't been patrolled. "Page information" (action=info) can be wrong as mentioned at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace"). The only reliable method to test whether indexing is disallowed for an article is to look for noindex in the HTML of the rendered page. 2023 Lakki Marwat operation says <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,max-image-preview:standard">. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know that. I was expecting to find something in the Page Information that specifically said whether it had been patrolled or not. ColinFine (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It's possible for extensions like mw:Extension:PageTriage to interact with Page information but they don't always do it when it would make sense. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks Rahim231 (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Rahim231 (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to change name of a article in wikipedia

Hi, I want to change the name of a article in Wikipedia but i am getting error. Pavankalyan Yadav Panga (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pavankalyan Yadav Panga: Please provide some more information such as what article you are trying to move, the new name, and what the error is. RudolfRed (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pavankalyan Yadav Panga Critically, please make sure there are reliable sources supporting the name. In the case of a number of moves you've made today, none of the sources refer to the subjects by the names you have used. —C.Fred (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Pavankalyan Yadav Panga You should also be aware of WP:COMMONNAME. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe it is standard procedure to add the name of the person's community to their name, unless reliable sources do this. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pavankalyan Yadav Panga When you find proof, see Wikipedia:Moving a page. Cwater1 (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Self-evident content

Do I need a source for content that is self evident to publish the content, or do I still need a published source to satisfy the verification requirement? Biolitblue (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Biolitblue: The verifiability policy requires that the information has been published in a reliable source, but not that inline citations be provided for everything – if it's self-evident it has likely been written down at some point several times so there's not really any need to find such a source. However, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. This means that if either you believe there is a good chance someone will disagree, or if someone does actually disagree at some point, you must include a reference before re-adding the content. Tollens (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Biolitblue. The common examples are that editors do not need to cite that the sky is blue or that Paris is the capital of France. Keep in mind that what may be self evident to some people is far from it to other people. The sky, for example, can be red or orange or grey or black, and there are at least eight cities in the United States called Paris. If any editor acting in good faith objects to the lack of a reference, you should provide the reference. I took a look at your talk page. Any new content about antisemitism must be properly referenced, because that is a highly contentious topic. Similarly, any new content about a medication must be properly referenced, and we have strict standards about medical references described at WP:MEDRS. Also, insisting that other editors immediately solve all the problems you perceive on an encyclopedia with 6,769,889 articles is unreasonable, and indicates that you do not yet understand how this collaborative project works. Many thousands of active volunteer editors work 24 hours a day every day worldwide to improve this encyclopedia, but sweeping changes do not happen immediately on a project of this vast scale. Cullen328 (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It isn't unreasonable. I'm not asking that wave a magic wand and delete the uncited content, but you need to apply the rules fairly and consistently. If the site has a serious problem with large amounts of uncited comments, don't kill the messenger. Instead, perhaps you could get together, determine the extent of the problem, call for volunteers who might want to help, and prepare a roadmap.

I suspect Wikipedia doesn't want you to actually try to fix the issue because it would seriously compromise the amount of content on the site. Biolitblue (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't "want" anything, it has no central editorial board of any kind. You have exactly as much influence over decisions as anyone else. You are also free to remove unsourced content when you see it, as is everyone else. However, you are expected (like everyone else) to attempt to provide a source for an unsourced claim before removing it. Usually, unsourced material is perfectly correct and is verifiable (note that the policy is about whether content is verifiable, not verified), and in these cases there is no policy issue unless someone disputes that the material is in fact verifiable. Tollens (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback to all.

The specific case refers to the following page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recursion&oldid=1195178504

The content I added was:

"Recursive motifs are featured in several music videos, including Come Into My World by Kylie Minogue, Seven Nation Army by The White Stripes, Eple by Röyksopp, Feels Like We Only Go Backwards by Tame Impala, and Outhouse by Nathan Fake."

My view is, although not as self evident as Paris is the capital of France, that the content's recursive features is self-evident to anyone viewing the videos.

It is a gray area. I think the editor applied the rule reflexively and doctrinally.

What is the feeling of the room? Does this content need a citation or is it intrinsically clear enough to obviate the need for one? Biolitblue (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I would not characterize this claim as "self-evident" or a "gray area", nor the revert as "reflexive and doctrinal". This is a claim that is based on a particular musicological analysis, which may be cultural or otherwise subjective in nature. The language you are using for this concept might not be the language that is generally used—It's odd to me that the addition is on this page, and not on ostinato, for example. Personal characterizations in this way often amount to original research, which is why citations are often required.

The key point from above is what is self-evident to you may not be self-evident to everyone. I may ask myself whether the musical key a given piece of music is in could normally be considered self-evident—it is for me, as a factoid that is nearly instantly identifiable and natural to me—but I would say no, because not everyone has the specific music background I do. Take the perspective of someone from a very distinct cultural background: if such a culturally-based claim is not self-evident to them, and it is uncited, then they are kind of "stuck". "Paris is the capital of France" and "the sky is blue" are examples because their concepts—while still not universal, as political and color concepts are also cultural and have demonstrably been different for people over time and space—they are as close to universal, and therefore possibly self-evident, as we tend to get.

Also, there's another distinct issue of whether (even reliably-sourced) content is due in a given article: additional list items such as this may be reverted faster because lists like these should be useful and representative more often than they should be complete in any given sense. Even if they are verifiable examples, are they the best examples? Remsense诉 01:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Biolitblue, when you write I suspect Wikipedia doesn't want you to actually try to fix the issue because it would seriously compromise the amount of content on the site, I react with astonishment. "Wikipedia" is inanimate and does not "want" anything because it is incapable of wanting. Volunteers do only what they individually want to do without anybody assigning any tasks. Do you really think that there is some hierarchy here, and that editors and administrators are admonished by some Wikipedia power structure to remove less unreferenced content? I have been editing regularly for almost 15 years and have been a very active administrator for over six years. I have been heavily involved in deletion processes and dealing with editors who add unreferenced and poorly referenced content. And not one single time in all those years has anyone pressured me or even asked me nicely to delete less content. Not once. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Fascinating. Please continue. Biolitblue (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It is what it is, but is it?

1) I have had content reverted multiple times because I could not find a published source to satisfy the verification requirement. Obviously, quite a lot of excellent content must be omitted from the site because nobody has published on the topic.

At the same time, a significant amount of low quality content is found on the site because the author found a published source from an individual whose published content is of poor quality. The poor quality of a published source can be for myriad reasons. Additionally, a published source doesn't necessarily, and often doesn't, verify the veracity of the claim made.

Given that Wikipedia has a largess, can't it consider employing experts in a variety of fields on a part-time basis to act as arbiters when there is claim made but no published content available?

2) If the verification rule is so important, even mission critical, why is so much of Wikipedia's content uncited? Why don't editors delete it like they insist my entries are deleted? Such vast uncited content on Wikipedia is either never flagged, flagged with a box above the article, or contains "needs citation" next to the claim but is not deleted. I've read articles of substantial length on Wikipedia that did contain any citations.

To avoid being intellectually dishonest, and to bring content on Wikipedia in compliance, why don't editors coordinate to delete all uncited content from the site instead of cherry picking whom they wish to pick on to enforce the rule?

Biolitblue (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Here's how the community thinks about these issues, and how they're reflected in site policy, to the best of my understanding:

a significant amount of low quality [...] published source[s]

On Wikipedia, we rightfully assess the reliability of sources on a spectrum: whether or not we consider them to be "published" is only one criterion. I recommend reading the page linked above, I think it would answer a lot of questions you may still have. For example, an article about French grammar that contains an example passage set in a café may be considered reliable for claims in an article about verb conjugation, but not for claims in an article about French cuisine, just because the passage mentions the name of certain French foods.

a published source doesn't necessarily, and often doesn't, verify the veracity of the claim made.

This is correct; claims must actually be supported by the cited sources. If information in various sources is combined as to create a new statement that is not supported by any of the sources individually, that is considered improper synthesis, a form of original research—which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Given that Wikipedia has a largess, can't it consider employing experts in a variety of fields

I do not feel that Wikipedia has social "largess" as you describe, but this is beside the main point. Fundamentally, Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers of varying levels of expertise—but I suspect this is not a satisfying answer. Ultimately, I cannot answer this question properly, as I do not decide what the Wikimedia Foundation does, nor do I really have the mountain of research that would be necessary to determine the viability of this. I suspect issues would include conflicts of interest and potential systemic biases that would be reinforced by the direction of funds towards certain fields and not others.

If the verification rule is so important, even mission critical, why is so much of Wikipedia's content uncited? Why don't editors delete it like they insist my entries are deleted? [...] why don't editors coordinate to delete all uncited content from the site instead of cherry picking

Here is the dynamic that many new editors are slightly unfamiliar with: volunteers usually edit in topics of particular interest to them, and they usually keep a watchlist of pages they want to see all the edits to. Many uncited pages have simply not caught the sustained attention of an editor that has volunteered to put in the work yet. Uncited content is often maintenance tagged instead of deleted, because there is significant room for debate and disagreement over which claims may require inline citation. Additionally, a common mode of improving an article is sourcing and providing citations for uncited claims: as such, categorically removing uncited material would make the site much harder to improve, and ultimately of a lower quality in many areas. It's a big work in progress.

As for the "cherry picking" point, I would ask that you not paint all editors with a broad brush. There is no "intellectual dishonesty" in the way you describe, because individual editors are not responsible for the contents of the entire site, only their own contributions. Editors contribute where their interest lies, and some have less tolerance for the introduction of unverified content than others, all else being equal. (It takes all kinds, in my opinion.) It also depends on the context of the article. Certain articles, such as featured articles, will almost always have edits adding uncited claims reverted immediately no matter what, as they have gone through a fairly rigorous review process, and have inline citations for all potentially contentious claims made.

I think my advice is to work on a personal level with specific editors, as everyone has different communication styles and ideas about how best to improve articles. In general, it always helps to cite your sources though. Cheers. Remsense诉 00:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You're on a roll. Proceed. Biolitblue (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Biolitblue, your question in (1): I imagine that just deciding on who the very many "experts" would be, and getting in touch with them, and so on, would consume a vast amount of time and effort. And then the "experts" would have to be paid. Your question in (2): Yes, a vast amount of crap exists. "Why don't editors coordinate?" Well, would you like to attempt to coordinate them/us? You mention "articles of substantial length on Wikipedia that did [not] contain any citations". There are a couple of things that you can do about such an article. You can add citations. Alternatively, you can satisfy yourself that there are no citations that could be added, and then take the dud article to WP:AFD. To which you may respond "Why should I have to do it?" Well, if not you, then who? (Are you expecting me to do it?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Biolitblue, when uncited content is challenged, the editor who wants to keep the content is obligated to provide a reference. There are alternatives to deleting plausible but unreferenced content. Another editor can find and add a reference to a reliable source. Or, a "citation needed" tag can be added, and some volunteers patrol such tags and add references. In the end, massive quantities of unreferenced content are deleted every single day.

This is and has always been a volunteer project. Wikipedia has no employees, no largess and no money. The separate Wikimedia Foundation raises and spends money for many things, but most definitely not on employees to write content. Your accusations of cherry-picking lack evidence, and Wikipedia editors greatly value evidence.

Poor quality sources should be replaced with actually reliable sources, and this too is an ongoing process throughout the enclopedia. The Reliable sources noticeboard is available for evaluating sources, and we also have a pretty extensive assessment of sources called Perennial sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your time, consideration, and advice! Biolitblue (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Collectively, the volunteer editors of English Wikipedia try to winnow the worst. There are roughly 20,000 articles nominated for deletion (AfD) every year. David notMD (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Biolitblue. I just spent a couple hours working on an article that had been tagged back in 2010 as needing additional citations. After finishing that task I came to the Teahouse and saw your post. I work at two paying jobs and volunteer as a Wikipedia editor when it fits into my schedule. Since editing requires a lot of effort I only work on articles that interest me. Today I happened to read an article that needed citations, and was motivated to hunt up the required references and improve the article. I don't have an organized system of finding articles to improve, I just read about subjects that are important to me, and if I find problems I go from there.

The ability to pick and choose what I want to work on is the only reason why I spend so much time editing Wikipedia. If it became too much of a "real" job, instead of a hobby, I'd stop my volunteer editing. I don't need more stress in my life. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. Biolitblue (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Is Fandom considered a reliable source?

I was wondering if Fandom is a reliable source, that would be acceptable as a source on a draft, provided there are other proven-reliable sources linked. I am writing an article on a cryptocurrency called Banano, and multiple sources are linked to Fandom, which has a lot of history on the cryptocurrency, which can't seem to be found elsewhere. Am I okay to reference Fandom, or is that considered an unreliable source? OnlyNano (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not. WP:FANDOM consists of user-generated content, and is therefore considered unreliable. I recommend checking WP:RSP in general to see whether there has been a consensus established regarding the reliability of certain outlets.

I would also recommend not treating sources acceptable only for drafts: ideally, articles should be written from reliable sources to begin with, not the other way around. If a piece of information cannot be verified with a reliable source, then it unfortunately does not have a place on Wikipedia. Remsense诉 00:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

OnlyNano, the short answer is that OnlyFans is the opposite of a reliable source, ar least for the purposes of this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I'm failing to see how OnlyFans being unreliable is relevant here. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 03:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

(I believe he may have misread, mistyped, or both. Happy to see it happens to the best among us! :) Remsense诉 03:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ummm, Blaze Wolf, can you please explain how my assessment of the reliability of OnlyFans is not relevant in a thread about the reliability of OnlyFans? I am genuinely mystified. Cullen328 (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, OnlyFans is a different entity than Fandom, né Wikia. Remsense诉 04:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You are both right, of course, Blaze Wolf and Remsense. I apologize for mixing up those two websites. Cullen328 (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to assume it's a portmanteau of the site in question and the OP's username. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, Tenryuu. Thanks for identifying the source of my memory glitch. Cullen328 (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

None of us had ever heard of OnlyFans till we recently learned that it was one of George Santos's necessary expenditures. That's one probable cause of confusion. Another is Remsense's very recent change of hanzi. -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect it's possible that some of us had heard of OnlyFans before then. Not me, of course. ;-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Just asking for a friend... OnlyNano (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, I see what they did there... OnlyNano (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@OnlyNano: While Fandom can't be used, other sources may be potentially reliable and directly referenced if that happens to be the case. Reliability is, alas, not inherited. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Great point, thanks! OnlyNano (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Behavioral optometry

Dear Sir or Madam,

Happy New Year! I had some interactions with Wikipedia moderators as regards the Behavioral Optometry page on Wikipedia some years ago. My initial point of contact was a moderator called Lou Sander who I have messaged on his talk page and have had no reply after a couple of days. I also left a message on the Behavioral Optometry 'talk'page and have had no reply. Someone called 'Bon courage' has written something so I have also left them a message. The last point of contact I had some years ago was an ER doctor in Canada and we had some polite and fruitful conversations as regards peer reviewed scientific literature. If he is still involved in Wikipedia it would be good to put in contact with him. Otherwise someone who has written peer reviewed scientific literature within medical sciences (eg medicine, optometry) like myself would be good.

If I have not come to the right place on Wikipedia let me know.

Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Peaceful07, hello! Do you have a question about Wikipedia? I wasn't sure reading your message. If you're asking to be put into contact with specific editors, there is nothing for third parties to do—activity on Wikipedia is voluntary, so if you've left people messages they may or may not respond promptly. If you have any other questions, feel free to let me know. Cheers. Remsense诉 08:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, just so you're aware, the page Behavioral optometry was merged into Vision therapy and so the talk page is likely to be very dormant. I would recommend posting at Talk:Vision therapy rather than Talk:Behavioral optometry if you plan on opening a new discussion. Tollens (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tollens, I wanted to talk to someone specifically about scientific peer reviewed literature rather than open a new discussion. I had fruitful discussions with someone called Doc James previously who was an ER doctor in Canada. The moderator Bon Courage told me that Doc James is not particularly active on Wikipedia though I still asked if there was a way of contacting him. I am not after changing the Wikipedia page rather I want to have a discussion with someone with Doc James' knowledge of peer reviewed scientific literature. The majority of my time at the moment is taken up writing and researching a systematic review in conjunction with neuro-ophthalmology at a major teaching hospital here in the UK so I am only reaching out to Wikipedia at the behest of my American colleagues. It is not my intention to get involved in a major discussion with Wikipedia moderators as the systematic review is more important. It may be best to shelve this discussion permanently and just get writing further peer reviewed scientific literature, systematic reviews in particular.

Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Peaceful07, though good, Tollens' response would perhaps benefit from a clarification. An article's talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article. It's not for discussion of the subject independently of the article. If you have an idea for improving the article Vision therapy, feel free to post it on Talk:Vision therapy; if on the other hand you hope to discuss vision therapy (or behavioral optometry or whatever) with others who are (or are not) well qualified to discuss it, Wikipedia isn't the right place. You may of course try emailing a Wikipedia editor who seems to share your expertise and interests; you might get a collegial and welcome response; you might get no response at all. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the clarification – I certainly didn't intend to suggest that talk pages should be used as a forum. Tollens (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, Happy New Year. Actually the last time I found that the people I talked to with the exception of Doc James were not qualified to talk to me. I like your style. How would I contact an Wikipedia editor? I only have a couple of days on this as I am meeting library services online on Tuesday to get my search threads for my paper sorted and then I will be reading through thousands of scientific papers....well someone has to do it....why not me.

Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@User:Peaceful07 To email a specific editor, go to their userpage or talk page. In desktop mode (ie not on mobile view) look in the far left hand menu column. You should see a link to “Email this user”. Not everyone has that link as some people don’t want to be emailed. But @Doc James will be reachable that way. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Remsense,

I was not looking to start a new discussion. Last time I interacted with a moderator called Doc James who worked as an ER doctor in Canada and we had a fruitful discussion about the value of peer reviewed scientific literature and systematic and Cochrane reviews. A moderator called Bon Courage told me that Doc James is not that active on Wikipedia nowadays though I have still asked to reach out to him. I am in the midst of writing systematic review with neuro-ophthalmology at a major teaching hospital here in the UK and that is my primary focus. I am only reaching out to Wikipedia at the behest of my American colleagues as I have interacted with Wikipedia before. If I am not able to contact Doc James someone else with his knowledge of peer reviewed medical literature would suffice. Otherwise it might be better to shelve any discussions and just keep writing papers.

Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Peaceful07, if you've set an e-mail address in your account preferences (see Wikipedia:Emailing users), you should be able to contact Doc James via Special:EmailUser/Doc James. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I am still occasionally around... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

What to do next in a DRN dispute?

I have opened a DRN dispute, but I'm completely new to the process.

The moderator is asking do I want "DRN Rule A". I replied that I think that I do not want DRN Rule A (but I'm not sure), because I would like to avoid locking the disputed article.

However, to be honest, I'm completely confused by both the user interface and the process at DRN.

What should I do next? Do I need to click somewhere? Do I need to reply somewhere?

The dispute is here: [1] Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Z80Spectrum: I'm equally in the dark, but have you read Wikipedia:DRN Rule A to figure out what they're talking about? Pinging Robert McClenon. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Still nothing. The dispute at DRN has remained the same, and I don't know what to do.

Will it expire (48 hours) if I just do nothing?

Can I just do nothing and let the 48 hours limit to expire? What happens then? Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Z80Spectrum, User:Cremastra - I will usually wait for more than 48 hours, and will wait for more than 48 hours in this case. DRN is voluntary, and if the two parties do not agree to moderated discussion, the case is closed as declined. I see that Z80Spectrum has now replied at DRN, and has repeated what they have said here. If there isn't a dispute about article content, then DRN is probably not the best forum. If you have questions that are not about article content, then I suggest that you ask them here, at the Teahouse. That's what the Teahouse is for. I saw that there are questions about certain policies and guidelines that are not really about article content, and DRN is a place to discuss article content. Nothing will happen at DRN until both editors agree to moderated discussion, and, in this case, until we establish that there is an article content dispute. If the issue isn't about article content, I will close the DRN case. I will try to answer any more questions, and will leave the DRN case alone until I know whether there is a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon - I also updated my statement here. There is content dispute that has arisen due to differing interpretations of policies - I believe WP:FORUM, WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR specifically have been breached, Z80Spectrum thinks differently - hence content dispute. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope that you won't mind me intervening: I think you have to edit the "Zeroth statements by editors" section in the content dispute, in order to continue. I'm not sure, as I'm also new to the DRN process. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

How do I revert my user sandbox back from a redirect

I used my sandbox to create my first article a couple years back, but when my draft was approved it became a redirect. I was put off from doing anything due to the tag saying: "This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." Has I was a new user at the time, I was worried that if I deleted it it would cause some problems, and as a result I never looked back at it since.

Now that I've gained more experience as an editor, and know that that will unlikely happen, I wanted to bring my sandbock back from a redirect. How do I go about doing this. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Earle Bartibus Huxley: you can edit the sandbox as usual, either just delete the existing redirect and leave it blank for now, or create new content in it. The redirect is there mainly for your benefit. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Earle Bartibus Huxley If you go to your Sandbox page at User:Earle Bartibus Huxley/sandbox and follow the link that automatically takes you to Carl Gustaf Dücker, you'll notice just under that title a sentence stating (Redirected from User:Earle Bartibus Huxley/sandbox). Click that link, and you will then be taken back to your sandbox page without being redirected away from it this time. From there you can edit the page and remove the redirect, as suggested above by @DoubleGrazing. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That's good advice for others who may see this but Earle Bartibus Huxley already quoted from the redirect page. It's a standard message from all moves, e.g. from one article title to another. Nothing breaks if the redirect User:Earle Bartibus Huxley/sandbox is changed to something else. You can also have multiple sandboxes at the same time, e.g. User:Earle Bartibus Huxley/sandbox2 and so on, or User:Earle Bartibus Huxley/John Doe for a draft about John Doe. The interface link "Sandbox" is practical to get quickly to a page so I wouldn't "waste" it on a redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Using memoirs as references

I am pretty sure that there is a wikipedia policy on using memoirs as a reference for something. Can someone please offer a link to that policy? I can't find it. Thanks, Carptrash (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Carptrash most probably WP:SPS. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I am on my way, thanks, Carptrash (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Carptrash. Although memoirs can be useful for an author's descriptions of themself, and most reputably published memoirs are reasonably accurate, memoirs should be used with caution. The policy language says specifically that works written about one's self can be used only when there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. So, it is important to read reviews of the memoir published by reliable sources over time to determine if doubts about the accuracy of the memoir have been expressed. Some well- known memoirs have been exposed as false. Examples include Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years and A Million Little Pieces. In both cases, these books were widely acclaimed as true stories upon publication but later revealed to be hoaxes. Cullen328 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"List of Youtubers" Wikipedia Page Mistake

"Tyrone Lindo" isn't in the proper alphabetical order in the List of YouTubers Page ("Tyrone Lindo" appears before "Trisha Paytas" and after "Trial and Error"). 66.253.168.43 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this, and wanting to help.

Since the article is semi-protected, an unregistered user can't edit it directly; but you are welcome to make an edit request on its talk page. However, I note that there is a message

This article contains a list that has not been properly sorted. A list of people should be alphabetised by surname, not first name. See MOS:LISTSORT for more information. Please improve this article if you can.

so I'm not sure it's worth worrying about individual entries being out of order. ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The alphabetization, however it's meant or supposed to be, is a mess. If it mattered at all, I might try to tackle it. But really, I can hardly imagine any more useless "article" here in Wikipedia. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK: I agree, although it may be tied for uselessness with List of most-followed Twitter accounts. Especially now that Twitter has lost its relevance. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

At least that list is limited to fifty entries. List of YouTubers would actually be more useful if it was so limited. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. I have resorted the list by surname, so this issue should be resolved. If others wanted to give it a quick look to make sure I've gotten it right that would also be appreciated. Tollens (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist:, where is your information that Twitter has "lost its relevance"? Do you have some actual facts or data, beyond the insistence of those who would govern how we're allowed to think that we SHOULDN'T be paying attention to it anymore, because they started to allow a little diversity of thought and difference of opinion? Uporządnicki (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Total Wikipedia article count?

Does anyone know the total amount of Wikipedia articles currently in existence on wikipedia.org when all Wikipedia language editions are combined? Bzik2324 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are 6,771,425 articles. If you want to find out for yourself, you can go to this page and it will say at the top NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bzik2324: Across all language editions there are 62,344,886 article pages – some of these are of course the same article in different languages, though. I am not aware of any way to figure out the number of articles on distinct subjects across all language editions. Tollens (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Tollens, there's definitely a particular Wikidata query that would spit this number out at me, I may try to craft it later. Remsense诉 05:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: While admittedly I haven't the most experience with Wikidata queries I'm not sure how one would make this query any faster – as far as I can tell this should be right, just slow. Tollens (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Are the 33 1/3 books about classic albums a reliable source?

Are the books from the 33 1/3 series reliable sources for album articles? Been trying to find some info on Blue Moves for instance, and saw that there is a book in this series which covers that album.

On the one hand, the authors are tend to be completely separate from the artist or their label, but they are published books that seem to have a respectable reputation. I’d mainly be using these books for info on the recording of the album, and also to have cite-able descriptions of the songs’ musical and lyrical content. Elephantranges (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Elephantranges, a better place to ask this would be WP:RSN. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks! Elephantranges (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Linking translation to original

So I just created a translated page (which is Draft:Hotel Termas el Sosneado), but I can't figure out how to officially link it to it's Spanish original: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Termas_el_Sosneado

Ideally, the English version has the same image as the original as well. I'm new and just don't know how to work out the language links or how to give credit to the original page if necessary.

Could someone either point me in the right direction or fix the issue? Also, I'd like to officially publish it if possible. Thanks! Gnat8 (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Gnat8, first the draft is promoted to full article status, and then it, the Spanish-language article, and anything else are linked at WikiData. (The links don't go from Wikipedia to WikiData; they go from WikiData to Wikipedia.) So the first priority is to get it promoted. (What does "stop-over" mean in the context of this subject?) -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

How do I submit it for review to be full article status? What do you mean by "stop-over"? Gnat8 (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Gnat8. I've added a temporary interwiki (only visible in Draft space) that links it to the Spanish article, and also a Draft header at the top with a button you can use to submit it for review. But please do not submit it in its current state as the sourcing is inadequate, and you'll be wasting the reviewer's time. Mathglot (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Are sums of money adjusted for inflation in historical articles?

Are sums of money (such as the £525,000 mentioned in the Bristol Slave Trade page) are adjusted for infla not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_slave_trade 89.158.109.184 (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes they are, but this would generally be made clear. In the case of the particular value you mention it does not appear that it has been adjusted, from a reading of the cited source (page 48 specifically). Tollens (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Unikely, see for example "plantation owners based in Bristol claimed over £500,000, equivalent to £2bn in 2020." Ideally, the article should say if the number has been adjusted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

For times over 200 years ago, adjusting for inflation is questionable. What standard would you use for the calculation? Possibilities include the price of an ounce of gold, the price of a bushel of wheat, the price of an acre of land, the daily wage earned by a labourer. These can give very different results. If you're writing about the slave trade, the last of these can give a "division by zero" error. Maproom (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

User ignoring the talk page and reverting my edit without any proof

Hi there, I was confused about what should in this specific article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1975_Panjshir_Valley_uprising

the user changed my edit stating in the edit summary its not a political victory. Then i started a discussion in the talk page of that article and stating every citation for result of the article which i changed to. Also i tagged him in the discussion, he has not been responding to it since then.

now what should i do revert his edits back to mine or something else, i need some assistance Rahim231 (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231: Hello! Ping doesn't always send a notification, you should also post a message on the user's talk page inviting them to discussion. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

How to name disambig?

I’d like to create a page on Ahmet Ağaoğlu, a Turkish businessman. Should I name it Ahmet Ağaoğlu (businessperson) or (businessman)? Thanks! ~eticangaaa (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eticangaaa: I'd go with businessperson – this would be consistent with Businessperson. You could additionally create a redirect from the title under businessman to businessperson, though. Tollens (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! ~eticangaaa (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and also. Theres about a million pages that link to Ahmet Ağaoğlu (the politician), already but i’d like to change it to Ahmet Ağaoğlu (politician) but thats going to create a ton of pages that link to a disambig page, so how should I go about that? ~eticangaaa (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly recommmend that you follow the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, create a draft entitled Draft:Ahmet Ağaoğlu, and submit it for review. If it is accepted, the reviewer will attend to the disambiguation page issues for you. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, i’m confused… Should I create a page for the disambig or the businessman? Apologies.. ~eticangaaa (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eticangaaa Do not worry about that. Getting the article published first is much harder, whereas the final article name can be figured out later. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Seeking some feedback

Hi Teahouse folks, I'm working on a draft of an article about Erin Williams, an American author, illustrator, and cartoonist. I'm confused about why the article was not accepted. Each source is independent of the subject--with the exception of her website, which is listed as an external website at the end of the article, and can be removed if that's what's causing the issue. The sources are published in reliable, secondary sources, for example, reviews in Publisher's Weekly, and Kirkus Reviews, and The Kenyon Review. And the references show significant coverage including sources that are reviews of the author's work. After reviewing the feedback I got, and reviewing the articles linked in the feedback--I'm not sure how this article isn't meeting the criteria so that I might improve it. Thanks so much. Unicornnerd (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Unicornnerd, you need to cite several reliable independent sources with extensive discussion of the subject. Your first source was probably written by the subject and certainly published by her employer, and so not independent. The next four are all about her books, not about her. (I haven't checked the others). Maproom (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense about the first source; I can remove that citation. So sources--reviews-- about a creative professional's works don't contribute to their notability? Can you clarify the difference between an article that is about a creative professional such as a cartoonist versus their works? Thanks for explaining. Unicornnerd (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking over the sources, they support the notability of the books this author has written, but the article doesn't take full advantage of the sources and is more like a biography with short blurbs about her work. For example, the paragraph starting with "Commute is a needed addition to..." doesn't help the article in its current form, but it could be changed (for example) to state that "reviews of Commute have praised it as "an addition to a genre [that has] long been dominated by men."" Ellen Forney is something you could compare to, since it describes her works and their themes plainly, followed by the credentials (the reviews) that make them worthwhile for inclusion. Reconrabbit 17:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Reconrabbit, thanks for this advice. I'll look to the article on Ellen Forney for ideas to improve the article. Unicornnerd (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

One additional point of clarification: Is it ok to use direct quotations? E.g., "an addition to a genre [that has] long been dominated by men." What I'd read previously was that I shouldn't use quotations. Unicornnerd (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The official manual of style has the information on what you should keep in mind when using quotations here: MOS:QUOTE. Quotations are useful if you want to get across a point that the work has been interpreted in a certain way, but don't make the whole article a quote. Reconrabbit 21:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Unicornnerd (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Editing

how to copy and paste from edit tools Moaj Hossain (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Moaj Hossain welcome to Teahouse! If select edit mode, you can copy and paste the wikitext that includes images, templates, citations and more. It does not matter whether you do this in source mode or visual editing mode. Happy copying/pasting! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Get on Today's Featured Article

I don't know how to suggest an article for Today's Featured Article. It appears Angela Lansbury has never been there. Could someone suggest it or tell me how? Thank you. MisawaSakura (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Please see this page where you can propose a new article to feature. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi MisawaSakura. Biographies are usually featured on the birth or death anniversary unless another date is very significant for the subject. Both dates are in October for Angela Lansbury so it's too soon for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests but you could add it to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. 16 October 2025 is the 100th anniversary of her birth so that would be a strong candidate date. It's still 21 months away but we have more featured articles than days so many articles never become Today's Featured Article. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. The 100th birthday idea is nice but I wish it wasn't so far away. MisawaSakura (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@MisawaSakura: She was listed in "Recent deaths" on the main page in October 2022 and the article was promoted to featured status in February 2023. Today's Featured Article in 2024 may seem too soon for many when other featured articles have waited years and she has a big anniversary in 2025. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending already has several 2025 requests for round anniversaries. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: @PrimeHunter: Thanks I have listed it for 100th birthday and made a calendar note to formally nominate in 2025. @Midnightblueowl: Notifying you of this as you're the one who got it to FA. MisawaSakura (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Image overload policy

Somewhere there is a guidance that says that use of images should be restrained, that this is the function of Commons, not Wikipedia. I hoped to find it at WP:Images#Policy and guidelines but no such luck. Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts just says "don't do it", which is not really good enough for my purposes. A major clear-out of Swastika is needed and will need be supported by a clear policy justification, as it will not be popular. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, JMF. As is obvious, this is an important, high visibility article about a controversial topic that happens to be a graphic element with a long history. It seems inevitable to me that such an article will have many images. The decision about just how many images are appropriate will require consensus. I recommend that you gain that consensus through discussion at Talk: Swastika before carring out a "major clear-out" of images on your own. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: yes, I am well aware of that. There is an existing consensus that the article is already at the limit of what is acceptable, but defending that without a policy basis is rightfully open to a WP:OWN challenge. "Consensus among whom?, where?, when?, what made those editors so special?"

No easy answers then. Thank you anyway. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

album title (artist name album)

Thanks, the reason i put album title (artist name album) cause, i don't know that someone had a title name, so i don't want to cause confusion. Samchristie05 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Samchristie05, and welcome to the Teahouse. This looks as if it is a reply to somebody, but I don't know to who, or to what.

I guess this is about Draft:And The Music Plays On (Del Shannon album)? Since there is not currently an article called And The Music Plays On, that disambiguation is not required: we only use it when there is more than one article with the same title. But don't worry about it in your draft: when a reviewer accepts your draft, they will move it to an appropriate name in the encyclopaedia.

Of more concern is that, in my opinion, the draft will not be accepted currently, because it is not adequately sourced. Of your four sources, two are books published on self-publishing sites, which are not reliable sources - anybody can publish anything on Lulu. One is a mere listing. The only one which counts at all towards notability is the review on AllMusic - that's all right as far as it goes, but at a single paragraph, it is not nearly enough.You need several sources, each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42. You can continue to improve the draft while it is awaiting review. ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

every album i created Samchristie05 (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

if i put the lull of His Recording Career, do you think that's a big no no, or inappropriate for Wikipedia? Samchristie05 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

First wiki

Aspiring Wiki Author Seeks Guidance:

Hello, fellow Wiki enthusiasts! I'm thrilled to share that I've recently penned my very first Wiki article. It is about a Korean Martial Artist. My creation is currently residing in my sandbox, patiently awaiting the scrutiny of a seasoned Wiki veteran. As advised, I believe seeking feedback from an experienced Wiki author is crucial before unleashing my brainchild onto the world.

Would any seasoned Wiki aficionados be willing to lend me their expertise? I'm eager to receive constructive criticism and guidance on how to refine my article into a comprehensive and informative piece. A veteran's perspective could prove invaluable in ensuring my work meets the high standards of the Wiki community.

If you're interested in volunteering your time and expertise, please don't hesitate to reach out.

Thank you for your consideration! OZUSAN (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@OZUSAN: Hello! I've taken a look at the User:OZUSAN/sandbox and I see multiple problems with it, including the non-neutral style and the lack of reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, OZUSAN, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that your sandbox has already been deleted, for being promotional - this is something that often happens when an enthusiastic new editor who has not spent the time learning how Wikipedia works plunges straight into the challenging task of creating a new article.

Would you enter a major competition in a martial art that you only started learning about two days ago?

Please don't give up - you can learn this skill - with practice.

My advice to new editors is always to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles, gradually learning about Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability, neutral point of view, and notability. In time, you can look at your first article, and decide you're ready to begin the task of finding the independent reliable published sources which are a non-negotiable requirement for basing an article on: if you write so much as a single word before you have found these, you are probably wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

May I put it again in the Sandbox and you tell me how to improve it? OZUSAN (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

And thanks!! ColinFine

I'm professor at a University and maybe I wanted to go too fast ;) OZUSAN (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@OZUSAN Yes, you may start again in your sandbox. However, you must first find reliable, published sources that are independent of the subject which talk about him in detail. You may use those, and only those to base what you want to say on Wikipedia. You should put everything in your own words (so as not to breach the copyright of the writers of those sources). You should also add an inline citation after each factual sentence or paragraph. This is an encyclopaedia, so the tone of writing must be neutral and factual.

If I repeat one of the deleted sentences that you wrote, perhaps you would consider how non-neutral and non-encylopaedic it sounded: "His multifaceted impact on the world of Taekwon-do, spanning competitive achievements, virtual representation, and global education, solidifies Hwang Su Il's legacy as a true luminary in the martial arts community." I am sure you would be telling your students to write their essays in their own words, based on good citations and in a neutral, unembellished manner. That should happen here too, except that we do not want any additional interpretation or discussion by the editor, as might be expected in academia - just a collation of factual information already published and available that anyone can VERIFY. I hope this helps you a bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@OZUSAN Oh, and I'm afraid the image you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons appears to be copyrighted (and taken from here), so you don't appear to have any legal right to release it under any other licence. I will therefore notify Commons of a probable copyright infringement.

There are, of course, ways for an organisation to release images they have taken, but this has to come from the copyright owner and be sent with an appropriate release form and from a recognisable email address associated to that copyright holder to prove it comes from that source. Let us know if you need to the link to make such a release. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Including images from American Physical Society Journals

Hello, I would like to include a figure from a paper published in Physical Review E, a publication of the American Physical Society. I have already received permission from the author to publish this. On this FAQ page, it answers questions about reuse and Wikipedia. Additionally, this Stack Exchange post indicates that author permission should be sufficient for upload. My issue is that it is not clear how I should answer the questions about copyright in the Wikimedia Upload Wizard. I would greatly appreciate any guidance as to which options I should select and what responses I should provide. Thank you. Magenta.lily (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Magenta.lily, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is a complicated area, and I think that you are misunderstanding what the APS page has said.

Generally, Wikimedia sites (including Wikipedia) have as a fundamental policy that everything on them be freely reuseable and modifiable, by anybody, for any purpose (including commercial) as long as they are attributed. (English Wikipedia does make certain exceptions and allows non-free media to be used subject to a restrictive set of conditions that won't apply here. Some other Wikiepdias don't allow even this).

The usual way of managing this, unless the material is in the public domain (by reason of age or the copyright holder having explicitly placed it there) is for the material to be licensed explicitly by the copyright holder under a licence such as CC-BY-SA. "Permission" from the copyright holder to use it on Wikipedia is not adequate - they must formally release it, either by a published statement (eg on their website), or by uploading it themselves and releasing it as they do so, or by sending an email to Wikimedia as explained in donating copyright materials. Whichever way they do it, they will be granting an irrevocable permission to anybody to copy or reuse the material for any purpose, as long as they attribute it.

The APS FAQ page explains that the author of a paper must transfer the copyright to the APS: they will retain certain rights in it, as set out in their agreement; but they will not retain the copyright, and therefore will not have the legal power to license it in the way that Wikimedia required.

The concession made on that page is that the author may make another work which is derived from their paper published by the APS. If the derived work meets the specified conditions, then they will hold the copyright in it (not in the original paper), and so they will have the power to licence it as required by Wikimedia, if they wish.

So to do what you are trying to do, you will either have to ask the authors of the paper to create a work derived from that paper and containing at least 10% new material and not more than 50% of the original paper. They will then have the legal power to license this derived work in one of the ways I described above.

Alternatively, you could ask the APS to release the paper (or even just the diagram) in one of the ways I described above. I have no idea how receptive they might be to that request. ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you so much for your response. I am able to write code to generate the desired figure myself. What would the situation be if I reproduced a visually similar figure representing the same data myself? Magenta.lily (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi again. I think that would be OK, but this goes beyond my knowledge. I suggest asking at C:COM:Village Pump/Copyright. ColinFine (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Magenta.lily The diagrams themselves are copyrighted, however you can recreate your own diagram, since the facts in them cannot be copyrighted. Include that the data/information is from the article, and that the diagrams are freely licensed by you (Public Domain, or whatever other permissible license you like) on Commons:Main page. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Uploaded photo keeps getting removed despite permission and proper citation

05:39, 19 December 2023‎ CommonsDelinker talk contribs‎ 11,712 bytes −193‎ Removing Photo-of-SAM-by-Kai-Staats.jpg; it has been deleted from Commons by Krd because: No permission since 11 December 2023. undothank Tag: Manual revert

Hello. I uploaded the photo with proper citation but again it was taken down. Please see above. I'm not sure what else to do. Spacesurgeon (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Spacesurgeon, and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to take this up on Commons, which is a separate project. Please see the message on your Commons user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

ps. My guess is that you thought that the artist giving you permission was all you needed. I'm afraid that's not the case. You probably need to read C:Help:Copyright. ColinFine (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What counts as relevant information to add to an article?

Hello! I'm looking to update my favorite bands' Wikipedia article but I'm not sure what counts as relevant information to add?

I don't want to add information that's unnecessary (i.e. how they named one of their albums, specific festivals they've preformed at, photos of the individual members) and don't know if it would be fine if I formatted the article differently (in terms of sections of history, similarly to the Lovejoy page). I guess what I'm asking is how much is too much? Thank you. PeachPitFan17 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@PeachPitFan17: If there is information that is covered by a source that is (a) reliable, and (b) independent of the band (that means, independently reported, not an interview or something written by the band or an associate), then it is fair game to add to the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

PeachPitFan17 See WP:FANCRUFT for opinion on when details verge on trivia. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong??

I created 2 set index articles:

• List of storms named Gloring
• List of storms named Vanessa

When I try to search for "list of storms named gloring" the only thing that shows up is "List of storms named Goring"

And Vanessa, "search for pages containing list of storms named vanessa"

However, when I press enter, it brings me to the correct pages.

I have to search specifically for "List of storms named Gloring" and "List of storms named Vanessa" for the pages to show up in the little search box.

Is there a way I can get the two pages to show? ClumsyOwlet (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@ClumsyOwlet: Give it a day for the new page to be indexed in the search. And give it 90 days for the page to show up in Google searches. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, now they show up. Thank you! ClumsyOwlet (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Saved data

When I click in the "Search Wikipedia" field a box pops up with "Saved data" and then the word "Fellowes". What did I click for this to happen and most importantly how do I get rid of this? SlightSmile 20:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Slightsmile, welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like an autofill feature in your browser, remembering what has previously been entered in the same browser. If you want tips on controlling it then you can post to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing with the name of your browser, and device or operating system. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Fox News

Can fox news be used as a source if it has nothing to do with biological living person? I'm referring to my recent contribution on Missouri Route 5? Cwater1 (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cwater1: RSP indicates that there's no consensus on their reliability when the content is not about politics or science – in this particular case I would find it hard to see why it would be an inappropriate source. Tollens (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I wanted to make to make sure I didn't do a wrong thing. I wish you happy editing. Cwater1 (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft article

Hi teahouse. I edit a draft here that keeps being declined. I have attended to the comments, which at times, don't seem accurate, such as reading like an advertisement. More specific feedback would be helpful. Fred114 01:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred114 (talk • contribs)

The article draft, Fred114, currently tells us what the organization focuses on, what its goals and objectives are, what it seeks to do, etc. That's pretty much a collection of synonyms for the organization's stated purpose, which is of little encyclopedic value. (If people want to read this, they can presumably find it on the organization's own website.) What does the organization actually do, according to sources that are independent of it? That aside, the prose is ponderous. Consider: Subsequently, a strategic decision was made to hold the following congress in Zurich, with crucial support from Adolf Friedmann. This decision was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the formation of an international organization dedicated to the advancement of group psychotherapy. How about plain With support from Adolf Friedmann, the next congress was held in Zurich, which helped form an international organization for group psychotherapy? -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Amended Hoary (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It's Draft:International Association for Group Psychotherapy and Group Processes. David notMD (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

chatting in talk sections

can i say "thank you" to wikipedians who made extremely niche articles many decades ago. i just want to say thank you in the talk section and i dont think its breaking rules but i just dont know wikipedia etiquette, i dont want to come across as facetious i am sincerely grateful. thank you...

Mmmcabbage (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mmmcabbage. The only purpose of a conversation on an article talk page is to discuss corrections and improvements to the article, based on what reliable sources say about the topic. If you want to thank an editor for their work, use their user talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Such editors may no longer be active. Consider checking if still making contributions before leaving a 'thank you' on those editors' Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Where do I report promotional edits?

See User:Itsme sarakhan, or this diff. I've checked username policy, and I don't think they would qualify as a promotional username, but the user page edit is concerning. Where should this be reported? Should I leave a message on their talk page? Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schrödinger's jellyfish, yes, you are correct that the username is fine. I have tagged the page for deletion per WP:G11. When you find pages like this, you usually first evaluate under WP:U5, WP:G11 and WP:G12 but it takes some experience to start getting it right most of the time. You are expected to get them right almost every time. If you are not sure any of the speedy deletion criteria apply, then, I would recommend leaving a talk page message telling them their userspace activity may not adhere to WP:UPYES. There isn't a specific venue to "report" bad pages. You have to evaluate them for WP:CSD or WP:XFD, or work with other authors or by yourself to make the page acceptable. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

COI - Association Board member update to related page

I'm interested in updating the page about Tak (game), but I'm concerned about a potential COI. I am a recent board member (unpaid) of the USTA (in process of filing for 501c3), an association whose mission is largely to promote the game. My aim is to clean up and resolve the issues on the page, but would appreciate veteran and non-biased wikipedians to help me do so. Noahsfields (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Noahsfields: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest declaring your potential COI on your user page and then submitting edit requests at Talk:Tak (game). GoingBatty (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Request/Information on Article improvement

Any improvements possible to grow on Haile Selassie I to at least make it quality and nominated for a good article status CtasACT (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, CtasACT. A Good article nomination was quick failed a week ago on January 8, due to problems with referencing, although the reviewer was optimistic about the GA potential if those problems were solved. Have those problems been completely solved? Cullen328 (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The main issue was with If a Bibliography/Sources were needed at the same time, so i simply removed duplicate citations so that only a specific citations was to be found at the Sources and bibliography. The only problem remaining would if if author citations problems are there, i have looked and there seems to be no author citations problems, so i think it is fixed. CtasACT (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

CtasACT, then I recommend that you contact the editor who quick failed the GA nomination, and ask that editor if they would be willing to take another look. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggest editing

Can I suggest an editing to someone who knows what he is doing if I see a mistake or like to add some information? Laqué2077 (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Laqué2077, you can suggest this in a new thread at the foot of the talk page of the particular article. Just be sure to cite a reliable source for what you are asserting. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

How do I get help writing an article for something extremely obscure and unknown

MINHNMITY was a cult I encountered in South Africa 8 years ago and is definitely real as far as i am concerned. Wilhelm444 (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, @Wilhelm444, a tertiary source. We can not be the first place to bring to light the obscure and the unknown. We only summarise what's known about topics that are already known and well-studied. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I do actually have the webpage downloading right now, it seems to have a cult following(not in literal terms)and is studied by a sociologist; it's called "The human worshiping cult of dog eaters". Wilhelm444 (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If you find two sources about the subject, you can get started. See WP:YFA for guidance on how to start a Wikipedia draft article. On the other hand, if you are seeking help to locate other sources, or to find out more about the topic, you could try the reference desk. See WP:RD/H. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It's called in the text document I think there's more. Wilhelm444 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It's blacklisted on Wikipedia and the webpage has been found. Thank you for your patience. Wilhelm444 (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The sources that Usedtobecool referred to must be reliably published. Sites that are blacklisted are probably not that.

Note that your personal experience cannot be used in writing an article: everything in an article must come from reliable published sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Tag removal

I have been working on improving an article. When I started it was a lead and 2 sentences. I have added several more sections, a picture and an info box. I had some bumps along the way. I followed up on other editor’s suggestions left for me on my personal and the Mater Matutapage talk pages. I pinged the editor who placed the “multiple issues” tag on it a week ago and there has been no response. Can someone here take a look? If more needs done I will keep working on it. My editing skills are getting better. My goal is to have a good article without the cautionary tag. Can someone here help? The page is Mater Matuta WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I have also left messages on the wikiprojects pages for Archaeology and classical Greek and Roman WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiTikiTavi63, hello! A few things that jumped out at me:

• There are several one-sentence paragraphs, which are usually to be avoided in prose. Paragraphs are basically the most valuable unit of organization for an encyclopedia article: when all of your prose feels like it belongs to a paragraph, that's a good sign your work is well-organized. Also, likely as a result there are paragraphs without inline citations, which is generally not ideal: since paragraphs are the easiest level of organization, the expectation is that people should be able to verify any new claims in a given paragraph from citations attached to said paragraph.
• This is a minor point, but highly applicable elsewhere: your |deity_of= parameter in the {{Infobox deity}} is overloaded. Infoboxes are meant to be at-a-glance summaries for the content of articles: the example on the template page has three examples provided, you have six. I think three may be too many still, but you should certainly pare those listed in the infobox to the most important. People overpack infoboxes and stretch parameters to represent information they don't have to, and it's one of the most consistent editing problems on the site, imo—see Help:Footnotes.
• A devoted "Etymology" header is not at all required on this or most articles. A footnote attached to the lead term would do:

Mater Matuta

• Understanding there's less to work from, it feels like this article is relying on me to already know a considerable amount about Eos and Aurora to be able to get much from it. Perhaps a bit of background For example, the chronology of the "Temples" section is highly irregular, jumping back to the 6th century BCE from other points repeatedly. It also feels like information is being repeated, but the prose is disorganized to the point where I wasn't sure on first read. It was difficult for me to count how many temples there were, exactly.
• Nitpicking now, but the wikilinks could be much more straightforward: why does "Latin" in the lead link to Religion in ancient Rome? Why is only the "Sant’" in Sant' Omobono wikilinked? Try to avoid leaving "easter eggs" as to where links go.

References

I think this is a pretty good start! It's a really worthwhile addition to the site. Really, most of what should be here is here: it just needs to be rearranged for the sake of the reader. I've already linked it, but I recommend reading Wikipedia:Writing better articles, an essay that contains a lot of tips that may serve you—if not with this article, then certainly in the future. Cheers, and best of luck! — Remsense诉 15:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

how to create a page of meadow high school

So you want to know "how to create a page of meadow high school"? Please see Wikipedia:Your First Article and WP:NSCHOOL.Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it bad etiquette to copy table formatting?

I'm in the process of drafting an article for the racehorse Paramount Prince. I liked the way the article on Moira presented racing statistics, so I copied the formatting of the table and legend over to the incomplete draft in my sandbox. Is it considered bad etiquette to copy formatting like this, and should I replace the table and legend with something that is more 'my own'? YuriYamahamada (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

YuriYamahamada, certainly not! While contributions are licensed and you must still attribute the source article when copying prose within Wikipedia, both legally and culturally it is wholly encouraged to learn from your fellow editors and use each others' work to the maximum extent it can improve the site. I would be highly flattered, frankly. Cheers! — Remsense诉 16:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! YuriYamahamada (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to add as well that using the same table formatting makes it easier for future readers to compare information between the two articles. Reconrabbit 19:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

A final study is behind a paywall but the working paper isn't. Should I cite both?

I've found multiple times that the final version of a paper is not accessible without payment, however the working paper/discussion paper released in the preceding years is freely available. I want other researchers to have at least the benefit of at least the working paper, so I figure I should cite both, and add a note saying that the working paper is available for those who can't access the final. Is that correct or is there a different way Wikipedia prefers to deal with that scenario, if at all? JM1215 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@JM1215 You cite the source you actualy used, we are not concerned about paywalls. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you JM1215 (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Signature

How do I customize my signature line? Coalcity58 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Coalcity58: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Custom signatures should have all the information you need. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this source allowed?

I'm currently in the process of brining this article to FA status. I've discovered a source that I could use to describe the game's acquisition, but I'm not sure if this source can be used in an article. I've heard of a guideline that you can't use blogs unless they're written by a subject-matter expert; unfortunately, this is a random guy's blog owned by someone with unknown credentials. The sources can be found here and here. Thanks, TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, TWOrantula. I'm afraid that's right. WP:BLOG says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Does it still apply if it's an interview? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The issue is that it is not published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking - that's what we mean by "reliable".

Separately, an interview is normally not an independent source, so can only be used in limited way, even if it is reliably published. ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Admin

I want to become a an administrator Emmalouscott1 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Emmalouscott1: Hello! Why would you want to be given a mop? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Because I want to help and support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmalouscott1 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to help Emmalouscott1 (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You have made 7 edits so far (none useful), ask again when you have made 7 thousand useful edits. Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] There is a process to apply to become an administrator, but I'm not even going to link to the details, because it requires approval by other experienced editors, and successful applicants typically have accumulated at least several years of experience here, many thousands of good quality edits, and can demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia's principles and procedures. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Why Emmalouscott1 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Emmalouscott1, because editors who partipate in Requests for Adminship will oppose any candidate who does not have a long history of productive contributions to this encyclopedia, plus a demonstrated knowledge of its policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Properly citing sources

Hello, I'm having trouble citing reliable sources. I'm trying to create a page, but my sources were not accepted or properly cited and the page was rejected. Please help :) Dpn427 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Bobbo Byrnes. It doesn't look like your article has any references. I would find articles that report on his band, The Fallen Stars, or on him in particular (not interviews), and use them to support the information you've written. In this case you might have an easier time writing about the band he formed rather than the singer/songwriter himself, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject to say for sure.

Also, you might want to take out the link to the "The Fallen Stars" website and include it in a section titled "External links" at the end of the article, if you are to include it at all. Reconrabbit 19:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Dpn427, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

I'm afraid your experience is common for editors who try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works. Would you book a public concert when you have been learning a musical instrument for two days? Or enter a major tournament in a sport you've only just taken up?

I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million articles before they even try to create an article: in particular, learning about verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and [[WP:notability|].

Your draft cites no sources at all, let alone reliable ones. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

When you have learnt the basics, then I suggest you study your first article. ColinFine (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Dpn427 Declined is less severe than Rejected, but contrary to what you wrote above, there is no evidence that you provided any references. Please do not resubmit until all facts are referenced. David notMD (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Source error

Hello, teahouse. On this page, there is a coding error. There is no data in the table, and it seems it was removed from what it was originally transcribing- but the "trim" template keeps fudging with the citation code when I try to remove it. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. Which table are you talking about? ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This one. Either tables aren't working, or the table doesn't have any data inputted. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind! I'm just a bit slow... missed the collapse box. Sorry! UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking about giving Wikipedia a second chance and I have a few questions.

Moved from User talk:Blaze The Movie Fan

I have thought for a long time that this website is far left propaganda. That's the main reason I thought that. However I have been told that Wikipedia just has articles with bunch of sources and you should judge for yourself how these sources are accurate or not.

So my questions are several.
1. If I follow a WP article, does that mean I can learn new things about things? I mean I thought that was the case back in 2007 which is the main reason I joined.
2. How the hell do I know what sources to trust in the articles? The Internet legit is full of misinformation, there is more misinformation than accurate information even official sources have that. How can I look past that and see the actual truth? I find that close to impossible.
3. Why do articles for upcoming movies say "this movie is..." instead of "...this movie will be."?
4. I don't understand the logic behind articles on this website. For example why does Montgomery Burns from The Simpsons have his own article and not Carter Pewtersmith from Family Guy? I mean I know both are very popular and you can find real life information regarding both characters if you know where to look. I know Montgomery Burns is far more popular but Carter Pewtersmith is still an extremely popular character there is no disputing that. I personally find this hypocritical but I could be wrong.
5. What should I look into before nominating things like articles, categories etc. for deletion?
6. What is the point of the article regarding movies that most frequently use fuck? Back in the 1970's it might have been valuable information, but nowadays it's not as throwing over 100 fucks in the same movie is extremely common nowadays in R rated movies.
7. What is the best website to use for real world information which doesn't require me to look at a lot of sources? I want to be educated on the world around me, and I still don't entirely trust Wikipedia.

That's all I hope I get some answers. I am considering returning, I haven't officially decided yet but I am considering it. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)}}

I had written this for your page but it got moved here. I will be frank, I was disinclined to help you after reading your first sentence- but your questions are reasonable, so here goes.

1. If by "following" you mean watchlisting an article, that will allow you to monitor changes to it, be it the addition of new information and sources, removal of such, or just typographical corrections.
2. No one can tell you what sources you should trust- that's something only you can determine for yourself. Wikipedia has criteria as to what makes a source reliable(see WP:RS) as well as a list of sources whose reliability is commonly discussed or challenged. If you think The New York Times is a liberal rag not fit to be toilet paper, that's up to you. If you think Fox News is gospel, again, that's up to you. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. While Wikipedia strives to summarize sources accurately, it doesn't claim to be the truth, only that what is presented is verifiable. See WP:TRUTH. A source is generally considered to be reliable by Wikipedia if it has a reputation of fact checking, editorial control, and other basic journalistic practices- in other words, they don't print stuff without checking for accuracy and they don't make stuff up out of whole cloth.
3. I can't speak to that, but you could ask the Film WikiProject.
4. A topic merits an article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how the topic meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. It would seem that Mr. Burns does. Spock does. I don't know if Carter Pewtersmith does or doesn't- it could be that no one has written an article about that character yet, it could be that there are few if any independent sources that discuss the importance/significance/influence of this character.
5. In considering if something should be nominated for deletion, you should see if the topic meets the relevant definition of notability and is properly sourced, or even has the prospect of being sourced. This is a very brief description- see WP:AFD for more information.
6. I would suggest discussing your views on that article at its associated article talk page, Talk:List of films that most frequently use the word fuck. There seems to be sources that discuss this topic, which usually merits a topic an article.
7. Wikipedia should not be trusted blindly- as you are already aware, you should examine the sources provided and judge them for yourself in determining what to believe. Wikipedia should not be used for scholarly or academic work- the sources themselves should be used. Wikipedia is sometimes described as a content aggregator- it's not a source itself. I can't recommend a website for "real world information" to you- if there even is such a thing, what one is to me likely isn't for you. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

All I can say is to read through WP:NEUTRAL, that has a pretty good summary to cease your concerns. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Wikipedia is worth reading. Cullen328 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

"I will be frank, I was disinclined to help you after reading your first sentence-"

I apologize for that, I probably shouldn't have brought that up at all. Is it best if I remove that sentence from my original post? I am willing to. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC) EDIT: I shouldn't even ask, I removed it, I'm sorry. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Stylish username

Hi guys! I want some help for my username.

How to make a stylish username? Like @Aviram7 (Sorry for tagging). Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Here. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Just make sure to follow the Username policy. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Où est passé mon brouillon?

Bonjour,

J'avais envoyé mon brouillon en relecture et il a disparu... Je n'ai reçu aucune notification et je ne trouve plus mon brouillon. Quelqu'un peut m'aider SVP? J'ai passé beaucoup de temps là-dessus.

Merci beaucoup à l'avance. Jdmairie (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Machine translation:

Where did my draft go?

Good morning,

I sent my draft for review and it disappeared... I received no notification and I can no longer find my draft. Can somebody help me please? I spent a lot of time on this.

Thank you very much in advance. Tollens (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jdmairie,

It seems you translated the article Julie Dufour to French – we cannot accept contributions here in any other language than English as this is the English Wikipedia. You may be interested in contributing instead to the French Wikipedia.

Traduction automatique:

Bonjour Jdmairie,

Il semble que vous ayez traduit l'article Julie Dufour en français – nous ne pouvons accepter ici de contributions dans une autre langue que l'anglais car il s'agit de Wikipédia anglais. Vous pourriez être intéressé à contribuer à la Wikipedia français. Tollens (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jdmairie: Welcome to the Teahouse at the English Wikipedia! Are you referring to the draft you made on the French Wikipedia? See fr:Utilisateur:Jdmairie/Brouillon. GoingBatty (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Feedback, before submission

Anything recommended? Draft: The Jackson 5 Second National Tour 1Skywriter (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Sample: On May 5, the entire family would officially move and settle their new estate. On the same day, Reebie Jackson would give birth to a baby girl named Stacee Brown, the daughter of Rebbie Jackson and Nathaniel Brown in Tarzana, Los Angeles. On break, they would also record and tape for their cartoon series that would release later in September. A little too would-en, perhaps? How about On May 5, the family moved to their new estate. [removing a seemingly tangential matter] On break, they also recorded for their cartoon series that would release in September. -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I realized how much contents weren't necessary. 1Skywriter (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@1Skywriter: Since Rebbie Jackson gave birth to Stacee Brown, I don't think we need to reiterate that Stacee is the daughter of Rebbie immediately after. GoingBatty (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Template in user namespace

How do I create a template within my user namespace? NM 23:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, NM. You just create it as a user subpage. When you transclude it (using the {{ ... }} syntax), you give the full name, eg {{User:NM/MyTemplate|...}}. The only thing that's special about the Template namespace is that that is the default for transclusion if no other namespace is given. ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! NM 23:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Creation of new category

I've just created a new category Category:Revenue blocks of Tenkasi district. It's a sub category of Category:Revenue blocks of Tamil Nadu and it's listed there under 'R' for Revenue rather than 'T' for Tenkasi. I wonder what step I've missed when creating the new category and whether it can be changed. Rupples (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Rupples, I've done the required tweak, I think! All you needed to do was set the WP:SORTKEY for the Tamil Nadu category on the Tenkasi category page. Cheers! — Remsense诉 06:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant. I see what you've done. It was the first ever new category I've attempted. Thanks very much. Rupples (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Becoming a journalist maybe

I have said numerous times now that I encountered a cult in South Africa and have evidence but it seems Wikipedia cannot bring things to light anymore like I remembered. And as a another question, is it possible to use your own personal evidence as a source? 41.182.199.254 (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow original research to be used in any article. Unless your evidence has first been published in a different reliable source, you cannot use your own evidence, no. Tollens (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

So must it be peer reviewed? That is how I understand it, correct y/n. I will publish them 2024.03.24(Y/M/D). Wilhelm444 (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily peer reviewed, no, and in some cases even that doesn't establish reliability. It just depends on context. You can read more at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Publishing your own information yourself isn't usually helpful; see WP:SPS. In addition, to establish notability, multiple reliable sources (different publishers) are typically required. I see your draft has been rejected – this means it will not be reconsidered. I would recommend not spending more time on this as it will likely be wasted. Tollens (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I will become a journalist instead. Thank you. Wilhelm444 (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel strongly about this and I have got contact to a member, seems likely a good story. My age is catching up to me. Wilhelm444 (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Wilhelm444 (same person as IP) now indefinitly blocked. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

New articles about companies

Hello, I have written several articles so far. Some have been moved to drafts, while others remain as they are. There is one article that was moved to draft, and I don't have the option to click a button to request its publication. The article is Draft:Perplexity.ai I would appreciate some assistance.

The general attitude towards new articles about companies is one of suspicion and fear of 'advertising.' However, when it comes to companies with breakthrough products (like Perplexity.ai or D-ID) or those that have existed for many years (such as JFrog or Holmes Place), this suspicion seems, in my opinion, to be unnecessary.Galamore (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Galamore: Welcome to the Teahouse. It appears another editor has added the Submit the draft for review! button for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking to submit a draft without a button in the future, you can do so by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. The reason for the suspicion of new articles about companies is the large number of new articles which are created simply for PR purposes – it is common for these articles to claim they have created 'breakthrough products', and many such companies have existed for many years, and yet they often still don't meet the inclusion criteria. The best and easiest way to prove that such suspicion is unwarranted in any particular case is just to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Tollens (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Galamore. Wikipedia is not impressed by "breakthrough products" or even by "exist[ing] for many years". If enough indepedent, reliable sources are impressed by these to have taken the trouble to writed in some depth about them, then Wikipedia can take note.

The criteria on notability are basically there to ensure that there is enough reliable, indepedent, material on a subject to base an article on; remembering that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft and talk page indexed on google

Hello,

I've come across something a bit confusing- I've been working on this article draft (Draft:Infamous PR) and realised it's now appearing in google search results, even though it's in draft space- this happens just from googling the organisation name. When I first created the article I published it into mainspace, before I was told it would need re-drafting so it was moved into draft space, so I'm wondering if this period of being in mainspace is how it's ended up being indexed? The other odd thing is on google it's the talk page of the draft that appears in the search result. A draft talk page appearing on google seems odd/messy to me, am I missing something? Should I just delete that draft and re-create it to rectify that?

Thanks for any advice! Editing84 (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Editing84: You're likely correct that it was indexed while it was in the main Talk namespace, but I'm not sure why Google would have updated their result to point to a page that shouldn't be indexed at all. There isn't really a lot that can be done about it though, unfortunately. Even if the page were to be deleted it would take some time for the page to be checked again and removed from search results – we can't control Google's results ourselves. In theory it should go away eventually, but it may take a while. Tollens (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, yeah it's very strange! So if the draft stays where it is while it is still worked on, google will at some point stop having the talk page appear in search results? Editing84 (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

In theory, eventually yes. How long exactly it would be is anyone's guess though – could be anywhere from days to months. Tollens (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok- thanks again. I know you can submit requests to google to refresh outdated content from their search- ie in this case stop including the talk page. I assume it would probably require the draft to be either moved to a new location (userspace maybe?) or deleted altogether, then the google request could be made. Maybe that process would still be no quicker overall, who knows. Editing84 (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Neat! I didn't know about that, actually, thanks for sharing. I was able to get it through, I think – looks like all it needed is for any text on the old version not to be in the new version, and the number of days since the last comment having changed was good enough. It might be faster? Still, Google Search is a bit of a black box to pretty much all of us, I think. Tollens (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh great, thanks! I'll keep an eye on it and see what happens. Editing84 (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

For me it doesn't show up btw. Only it's talk page, which is correct. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that's what they meant. Draft talk pages should indeed not be indexed – see WP:INDEXING. Tollens (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

How to delete sections

We want to delete delay sec & opposition section from our Wikipedia page how to do that Kolkata West International City 2409:40E0:1002:2722:905:C94C:6DEA:FA17 (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. First, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. These are easier to make with an account, but even if you don't wish to create an account, you must disclose your relationship with this development.

The section will not be removed just because- Wikipedia articles contain all information found in reliable sources, good or bad. If there is a reason based in Wikipedia policy to remove something, it should be discussed on the article talk oage(Talk:Kolkata West International City). 331dot (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'our' Wikipedia page. There are articles, often the collective efforts of dozens to hundreds of editors over years. Deletions of referenced content must be justified on Talk page first. Second, if editors have a personal (COI) or paid (PAID) connection to an article, those editors are restricted to proposing changes on the Talk page, to be accepted or rejected by non-involved editors. David notMD (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

What do I do with this user?

Special:Contributions/202.58.91.57 seems very religious and blanked a section containing things they disagree with, I've reverted the blanking with uw-delete1 but they did technically give a reason in their edit summary, it's just that the reason is... how do I put into words what's wrong with it? BalaM314 (π) (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

BalaM314, given their use of sectarian slurs in the edit summary, in this case I would select from one of {{uw-bes3}}, {{uw-notcensored3}}—anywhere from 2 to 4im severity, really. It seems like a school IP, so odds aren't great. — Remsense诉 11:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, also.
Sometimes, just {{uw-vandalism}}, per WP:SPADE.— Remsense诉 11:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

writing articles

Please where do i click on to write an article Ifyleraks (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I need a step by step guide on how to write an article pls. i am a bit confused right now. Ifyleraks (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ifyleraks: Hello! Please read Wikipedia:Your first article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ifyleraks, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

I'm going to be frank here: please do not try and create a new article as the first thing you do here. (Would you build a house as your first engineering projects? Or enter a tournament in a sport you just started yesterday?) If you do so, you are likely to experience frustration and disappointment, and quite possibly waste your time and other people's time.

I urge you to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles - learning, in particular, about the core policies of verifiability, reliable sources, notability and neutral point of view. If you don't have a grasp on those, any attempt to create an article will probably be painful.

I understand the wish to "make your mark" by adding an article - I remember it myself, from nearly twenty years ago. But now I know that creating a new article isn't the only way, or even necessarily the best way, to add value to this resource. (I have made nearly 24 000 edits, but only ever created a handful of articles).

I suggest you go to the task center, and choose some articles that interest you to work on. Happy editing! ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Your ability to create a draft that will succeed will improve if you first put in time improving existing articles as practice. David notMD (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ifyleraks: If after reading the above, you really insist on writing an article, don't do it before you read Wikipedia:Golden Rule and WP:BACKWARD. Strictly following those guidelines will cause a huge improvement in the chances of your draft article being accepted for publication. In a nutshell, learn what reliable sources are, and then gather reliable sources, and only then start writing the article based on what those sources say, not based on what you personally know. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Dead links

If a source has a dead link, meaning it says, page can’t be found or it was removed, can the source be removed if discussed on talk page? Frostyibex (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Frostyibex, and welcome to the Teahouse (I have inserted a header to put your question in a new section).

The answer is, it depends: please see WP:LINKROT. --ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

A tool for article statistics

Hi, Is there a tool or option that can be activated to find out the number of words in an article? Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   15:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pereoptic: Hello! Wikipedia:Did_you_know/DYKcheck does this. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Pereoptic or click "Page size" under "tools" to get figures for readable prose size etc. - Arjayay (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Update Image to include 2023 Dutch Election

@TapyrrII

Kind request to an update of linked image. Want to use for my masters thesis.

File:Dutchparlseats2.png KevinROmierlo (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@KevinROmierlo: If TapyrII doesn't respond (they only made one edit on Wikipedia in 2023), you could try contacting the original creator of the image, Arnoutf. GoingBatty (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Countries ranked by gdp

in the list provided in wikipedia, the gdp's of all countries are updated as per imf figures 2023 except India. Any authorised user can explain why? Akshitjain2112 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Please specify exactly which article you are referring to. List of countries by GDP (nominal) is up to date, but we have many Lists of countries by GDP. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Akshitjain2112, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no such thing as an "authorised user". There is no editorial board. Wikipedia is updated by volunteers, who work on what they wish.

As Shantavira said, it's difficult to investigate your issue without knowing exactly which page you are talking about; but the answer is probably either because nobody updated that figure, or because when somebody updated it, they couldn't find current data for India. It is quite likely that the people who updated the article will be watching its talk page, so you could ask on that talk page. ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

College basketball infobox error

For Template:NCAA team season.. I am currently experiencing difficulty with redirecting the infobox title (Old Dominion Monarchs men's basketball) to its article space instead of its previous name (Old Dominion Monarchs basketball) under mode=basketball. The automatic linking to 'Old Dominion Monarchs basketball' causes the prev_year and next_year links to redirect to the old article namespaces instead of the new ones that are currently in use.

For clarification, the Old Dominion Lady Monarchs basketball team was renamed the Old Dominion Monarchs women's basketball team beginning with the 2013–14 season. I have the linked media guides displaying the name change between the 2012–13 and 2013–14 seasons on my talk page. Vataxevader (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Vataxevader. Looling at the source of {{Infobox college sports team season}}, I see that it has a special case hardcoded for "Old Dominion Monarch's". I suspect that this needs to be updated, but I haven't followed it through. I suggest asking at Template Talk:Infobox college sports team season. ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I wrote an essay. Can I put it in the Wikipedia namespace?

Hello Teahouse. I wrote an WP:essay and published it in my userspace. I am thinking about moving it to the Wikipedia namespace, but I thought that only essays that represent community consensus exist in the WP namespace. Is that true? Or am I able to just ... move my essay into the WP namespace?

Wikipedia:Essays only says Essays may be moved into userspace as user essays (see below), or even deleted, if they are found to be problematic. That doesn't sound like an affirmative "yes" to me. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)