Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, 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

Title

Hi, dear people. If you translated an article from the German wikipedia, which is on an Art collection - but is only named "Collection of XY(=Name of the Collector)" - would you as an English title use "Art collection of XY" instead? I saw that there is a category on the English wikipedia "Art collection" and i find this title more appropriate than just "Collection of XY". Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It really depends, but when trying to title something, we try to remain consistent between titles on similar subjects (WP:CONSISTENT). Since there are quite a few articles styled like "Art collection of XY", I think it would be best to title the translated article likewise The Night Watch (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

These are usually "so-and-so Collection" in English. Can you give a specific example? -- asilvering (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Art collection of Adolf Hitler, Art collection of Fondazione Cariplo, Art collection of Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Lucca, Art collection of Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Fano are a few examples The Night Watch (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm asking Naomi for the specific examples she's translating. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

For example, there's one in userspace as "Art Collection Peter C. Ruppert" presumably pending the answer to this question. That one should definitely be "The Peter C. Ruppert Collection", not "Art collection of Peter C. Ruppert". -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah I understand. Though I think it should be "Peter C. Rupert Collection" (drop the definite article) because of the conventions at WP:THE. The Night Watch (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not as complicated as it seems. There is actually a rule. If the collection is a collection that has acquired its own notability, by being written about by critics, newspapers etc., then we use the name that the critics and newspapers give it, which will generally be the name that the institution now housing it has decided to use. Most museums select a name like "The Smith collection" to indicate that Dr Smith bequeathed or donated to them. If the collection is primarily notable because of who amassed it, and is written about in those terms (e.g. a dictator's personal collection pillaged or bought with his ill-earned gains) then it is "The art collection of Smith", emphasising that this is a spin-out article from the article on Smith himself, dealing with one aspect of his life and reign. Elemimele (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, dear people, unfortunately wikipedia didn't inform me on your answers, although i have bookmarked the site with notifications. So, i'm sorry that i do react so late. Thank you all for your info, it helps a lot. Kind regards, --Naomi Hennig (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Trying to add a genuine actual Romanian Recipe for Sarmale on the Cabbage Roll page

Cabbage roll - Wikipedia

I'm trying add information with a link about the current actual authentic cabbage rolls recipe that are made in Romania on Cabbage roll - Wikipedia.

Can you please help me with this? Ionescu Razvan (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ionescu Razvan: Do you have a source for the recipe? 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Ionescu Razvan. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or cookbook. Articles about culinary dishes should not include precise recipes, at least in part because there is no such thing as an actual, authentic recipe for anything. There are always disagreements among chefs. I am the main author of Salade niçoise, which is officially rated as a good article. Please note that the article does not spell out the best recipe, but describes the wide range of approaches by notable chefs when preparing this iconic dish. Everything you add must be referenced to a reliable source. Please note that there are 47 references in the article I mentioned, Salade niçoise. Please also be aware that the vast majority of YouTube videos are not reliable sources and are unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer my query, but I can't stop myself from noticing that you are contradicting yourself in your statement. You are using the term " iconic dish " which you can put next to " best ". Also, you said culinary dishes should not include precise recipes. Then how is a recipe, a recipe? If you talk about a recipe, then you better make it a recipe because we know what happens if we don't. Yes, of course, we can talk about variations, additions, etc... but there is ALWAYS a base to build upon. And if the majority of people like that content, we can safely say it's authentic, loved, vouched for, recommended, and in some cases traditional. The bottom line, I am not submitting your answer at all. I am a man of data and facts and I will always stick to the data. 95% will say yes, and 5% no. That applies to blogs, youtube, stories, TikTok, you name it. Yes, I do have the source of the recipe, it's my wife. Which has plenty of culinary expertise. And 100% of people said yes to her recipe for more than 15 years now. People are always asking for her recipes which is why I decided to make them public. And Wikipedia is a database that is in the grey area. You can't talk about Wiki as if it's the place to go when you need to know something with 100% certainty. The same goes for youtube. Or blogs. Or etc... Ionescu Razvan (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ionescu Razvan: Your wife is not a reliable source. I'm sure she's a wonderful and skilled cook, but that doesn't qualify for Wikipedia. Sorry. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Let me put it in another light...

1. My wife is a reliable source. She just created a blog and a youtube channel. Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source because most people that write here have no clue what they are talking about and I mean no offense. That is why I said that Wiki is in the grey area. And this is why people need experts like my wife actually bother typing here.
2. My wife fully submits answers via me, if needed and that is why she has those 2 postings "channels" created. To be used as guidance. Wikipedia is just a generic form of everything when it comes to defining things.
3. Also, you didn't answer my other statements where I've shown how you contradicted yourself. This is why I can't take you seriously.

The bottom line your comments are not related to my question, it's more about your opinion. I honestly don't care. No offense again. I care to find a way to post here valuable content that people can actually learn from.

Also, Romania for example, is not a small country. There will always be some additions to all sorts of recipes, but then again, most Romanian culinary experts will agree on the base of a recipe. Recipe. Yep, with specific instructions.

Oh and, Wikipedia IS a database, a blog, IS social networking source, a guidebook, a battleground, etc... and so many other things. That link is there because it just needs to exist. If you don't understand what I've just typed then you don't understand how this whole invention called the internet works and how actual data is being thrown in it and evaluated.

I don't need any advice anymore. I am good now. Stop replying. Thanks for the effort. When I'm free I'll take a look at these platform rules. Ionescu Razvan (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ionescu Razvan: You're taking this too personally. You (and your wife) are more than welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but you must follow the guidelines. As for reliable sources, there's a full explanation at WP:RELIABLE. As for what Wikipedia is and isn't, see WP:NOT, because your idea of what Wikipedia actually is seems to be incorrect. Happy editing, and again, don't take any of this personally. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are right, I've encountered some real life issues this morning and I kind of had my tone set for the previous event that had nothing to do with our thing here on wiki. Yup thank you, for the time and for you trying to aid.

Our intention is just to make share knowledge on the culinary area for the sole purpose to learn people how to cook properly. Because every tourist that come to Romania ( almost ) are shocked by the taste. Thank you a million and sorry for my tone, again. Ionescu Razvan (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ionescu Razvan: Also, regarding what you said: "And Wikipedia is a database that is in the grey area", please read WP:NOTDATABASE. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Point 3, is for @Cullen328, sorry. This chatting system confuses me. The rest is for you. Ionescu Razvan (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ionescu Razvan: Yes, I do have the source of the recipe, it's my wife. "Wife said so" is not a verifiable source. It will be impossible for readers to check that your wife does approve of what you wrote on Wikipedia, or what the article will say after others have modified it. It would not be reasonable to expect your wife to answer English-speaking questions by strangers about a Wikipedia paragraph twenty years into the future, hence we insist on written sources.

In addition, one might wonder if your wife is a reliable source. Unless she is a historian, the only thing she’s a reliable source for "in this household, we do it this way" - but obviously, we want something more general on Wikipedia (in the lines of "West Romanians use ingredient X, but East Romanians use Y instead". Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I will just leave this here: [1]; perhaps there is a place for your recipe over there. Lectonar (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Lectonar thank you! Ionescu Razvan (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliable references

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

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

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

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

Notability

Hello, I am a first time wiki editor. I am trying to get a page posted for the company I work for. I have declared this. About a year ago someone else at the company tried to get our page established but it was denied because it was not "notable." I have added sources since then but still do not know what makes a topic notable as the criteria is very subjective. I would appreciate it someone could look at my draft and let me know what needs to change in order to ensure it is considered notable. Klange2000 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

My draft. Klange2000 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Klange2000. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and be aware that it is enforced quite strictly. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Klange2000, your references look pretty solid. The only fault I can find is that almost all of them are from the Phoenix area, with the exception of the Eat This, Not That source, which is a listicle with just three sentences of coverage. If you can find significant coverage outside of Arizona, that would strengthen the case for notability. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! That little audit was exactly what I was looking for. Klange2000 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

How do I get a category name changed on Wikimedia Commons

I recently found this category https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Idolatrous_procession on Wikimedia Commons. While I'm not sure what it's name should be, I think this name is definitely not a good one. The word "idolatrous" has far too many negative connotations to be used in a category like this. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Immanuelle. Changes to things like Commons categories need to be done on Commons. Try taking a look at c:Commons:Categories and c:Commons:Rename a category for details. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle Uou state it as fact that the word has negative connotations, but I disagree. To me, the word is mostly religious. I added my opinion to the (short) discussion. David10244 (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Help for review

Hello, I wrote an article about a Turkish actor about 3 months ago. I took the information from the Turkish Wikipedia article and translated it. But for a very long time no one cared. Can you please check this?

Draft:İlyas İlbey Coshua23 (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Coshua23 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have submitted it for a review and it is pending. As the box at the top of the draft states, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,832 pending submissions waiting for review." I realize it can be frustrating, but there is no way to speed up the process. Please continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Coshua23 Did you really mean to write "He is the wife of..."? One of the reasons the review of your draft will be taking some time is that all the citations are in Turkish, which few reviewers will be able to verify. Can you find any English-language sources to add to the draft? Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so because I tried. He is an old actor and most of his projects are old. Coshua23 (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to translate articles in Turkish Wikipedia. Coshua23 (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Merhaba @Coshua23: it's great that you're translating articles from the Turkish Wikipedia. Just be aware that the English-language Wikipedia has higher standard of notability than most others (that I've come across, at least), therefore my advice would be to first make sure that the sources cited in the tr.wiki article are sufficient for notability on en.wiki, and if not, see if you can find additional sources that would get it over the line. Otherwise you may find you're wasting your time translating articles that won't be accepted for publication here. One case in point: the 'kimdir?' type articles, which are common in Turkey, don't usually provide the sort of significant coverage required for WP:GNG notability. (This is a general comment, not specifically with regards to the İlbey draft, although I do note that you're citing a couple of such sources in it, too.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

help

hello there, I am trying to create an article about a Maltese politican, and obviously, I gathered information from open source, such as his website. however, unfortunately, I am being continously told that I am copying word for word, and even after that I paraphrased the sentence, I have been told that I cannot upload the article cn you kindly help pls? Mammu1983 (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Mammu1983 Hello and welcome. You are receiving help on your user talk page, I would suggest you continue to ask questions there. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Darrin Gray Rejected Article

Hello, In order for this to be approved, what must I do to make it notable? As of now, I do not have any more sources to link to.  The sources I have are from a couple of the sources are from the Indianapolis Star Newspaper and the Canton Ohio Respository newspaper and many more. Is this considered notable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Darrin_Gray. Thank you. Renee530 (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Renee530 The draft was not "rejected" (which means "Stop, this will never be acceptable for Wikipedia") but "declined", which means the reviewer thought that further work might make it acceptable. However, you have a long way to go. For biographies of living people, all statements need to be backed up by inline citations, yet all of the "Early life", "Influences" and "Personal life" sections have no sourcing. In some cases you have external links in the body text, which is not how citations should appear. You need to remove WP:PEACOCK wording such as "Gray has a unique window into the NFL" unless this is a direct quote, with a source. Please read this essay. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Darrin Gray was Speedy deleted on 12 April. David notMD (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge language

Possibly, one could Link en:Epectasy (which is alr linked to sr:Епектаза) to fr:Épectase FatalSubjectivities (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, FatalSubjectivities. The en and sr articles were linked to Wikidata d:Q12751593 and the fr article to a different Wikidata item d:Q3589085. Since they seem to be on the same subject, I have simply merged the two Wikidata items, using the Wikidata Merge gadget.  Done ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't exist?

I clicked on my own username and it said this user doesn't exist? Even though I'm logged in? I'm trying to take part in editing pages that two of my friends have created, but it's giving me the same message saying neither of them exist either. Has anyone encountered this before? My friends usernames are Rosesav and JustinJacksonGeorge Please help!! Unionstuart (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Unionstuart, it simply means you haven't created your userpage yet at User:Unionstuart. Just click there and at the top, create, and make any small edit. Valereee (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't say that you don't exist. It says that the user page doesn't exist; follow the link for more info. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I was just reading about State Bank of India history,It needs to incorporate its correct origin .

We need to know the founder of Imperial Bank of India, the present day State Bank of India Kayavelichira Seema (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kayavelichira Seema: The founder was John Maynard Keynes, according to Imperial Bank of India's infobox – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You can learn more at Imperial Bank of India#Origin, Kayavelichira Seema. Cullen328 (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The foundation is covered at Imperial Bank of India. If you wish to propose changes, you can do so at Talk:Imperial Bank of India, including reliable sources. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair use in fashion photography

The policies on this are a unclear, so I thought I would ask. I have been writing some articles related to fashion and fashion photography, and the fair use rationale is not anywhere I can find. I will pull from the exemption clause I saw for albums. The non-free content fair-use rationale.

"In general, non-free content uploaded under the Exemption Doctrine should be used only when the specific image itself is significant to the article, not merely what it depicts. The image must be not replaceable by a free content alternative that depicts the same thing.

In other words, a screenshot from a movie is acceptable to use when talking about the movie itself — it is not acceptable to use it to talk about the actress who happens to be in the picture. (It is possible for a free content picture of the actress to be taken.)"

1. I was editing the Michael Fish (fashion designer) article and trying to add a gallery of images. One of his most famous creations is a dress that David Bowie wore on the cover of The Man Who Sold the World. This dress is externally notable - The Smithsonian is seeking it as it disappeared from David Bowie's archives. It's mentioned in a discussion of Michael Fish in the New York Times. You will see it mentioned in basically every article about Michael Fish. There are no fair use photos of the dress that exist. Yet, as I predicted, a bot removed the photo after I posted it. Why is this different than a screenshot of a movie or an article about an album?

2. Photographer Tim Walker shot the cover for Harry Styles' 2019 album, Fine Line. There's articles about his technique and someone included analysis of the photo in their dissertation on Tim Walker's work - arguably the photograph is independently notable. There are no photographs of Tim Walker's that are in the appropriate creative commons licensing (except for one person who has stolen them and incorrectly uploaded them). Again, a bot removed the photo. Why is this not fair use based on the Exemption Doctrine for album covers? If it is not, is it fair use based on the logic for the Tracy Emin photograph for her work, My Bed? Or would that only apply to an article about the album cover itself?

3. Many articles for individual items of clothing (such as red carpet outfits) do not have photographs that are fair use, and probably never will. Nevertheless, they are notable - some are even in museums. What is the protocol for this? Obviously, many people will have photographed (and videoed) the outfit, and usually none of them are creative commons licensed. However, it would help to have an image for an article. I couldn't find anywhere that discussed how to handle this situation.Computer-ergonomics (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Computer-ergonomics, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It seems to me that NFCC item 8: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding would justify an image of the dress in an article about the dress, but not in an article about its creater.

Note that the non-free content criteria have absolutely nothing to do with notability. If a costume is notable, then there may be an article on that costume, and in that case a non-free image of the costume is likely to be justified. But the costume's notability has no bearing at all on whether an image of the costume may be used in an article on a different subject. ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! How does this apply to the third example? For example, I have an article on an outfit worn by Lil Nas X, but as you can see from a quick google search there are many non-free images of the outfit. How does one go about choosing which one would be appropriate? Computer-ergonomics (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. I have no idea how to advise you on choosing which image to use. I suggest you either make your own selection, and upload it, or (given the hassle when a non-free image is removed from an article) you get consensus on the choice first, on the article's talk page. You can't insert images that aren't in Wikipedia or Commons, but (on a talk page) you can link to them, as long as they are not themselves copyright violations, or on blacklisted websites. ColinFine (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help! Computer-ergonomics (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Computer-ergonomics, if you include in the article detailed discussion of the dress, it may qualify for fair use. And if the dress itself is that notable, it may qualify for an article, which would almost certainly qualify the image for fair use. Valereee (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I have thought about making an article for it someday. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

new article on publicly traded corporation

 Courtesy link: Draft:Parade Technologies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help to create kits

Hi, does anyone know how to create kits? It's for the Egyptian Premier league teams. I have a source providing them all but I have no idea how to upload them here. Sakiv (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sakiv Welcome to Teahouse! Check out the documentation for {{Infobox football club}} and look at an existing example like Real Madrid CF to see how they included the code. Happy tinkering with WP:TEMPLATE ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Thank you for replying. What is image editor? Sakiv (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sakiv no image editor is needed. For example of parameters for first kit, you'd provide Hexadecimal color values for the following params

| pattern_la1   = _alb0810_2
| pattern_b1    = _alb0810_2
| pattern_ra1   = _alb0810_2
| leftarm1      = FFD700
| body1         = FFD700
| rightarm1     = FFD700
| shorts1       = 6495ED
| socks1        = 000000
| kit_alt2      = Black and white thin stripes with cornflower sleeves and socks and black shorts

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but what you are proposing is very generic, the kits should at least include the sportswear brands. [2] See here.--Sakiv (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

If I am learning about a Football club, what exact logos are on their uniforms feels like a case of Wikipedia:Too much detail, unless you have/want to extensively document in the article text about the sponsors who are notable for some reason. Otherwise, your kit database seems like the right place for collecting higher resolution photos of every kit. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Can a Fandom site be a source for Wikipedia?

Hello. Can a Fandom site be a source IF it is officially approved by a company/studio/etc. and it is edited by only one person (there may be other registered users but they can only comment on pages and not edit them)? For example, if Lostpedia gets approved by ABC and only guy officially appointed by ABC controls it. -- Batman tas (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Batman tas Hello and welcome. I wasn't aware that any Fandom wiki operated like that, since it defeats the purpose of being a wiki. In any event, I think the short answer is "no", as a representative of ABC(to continue your example) on an officially sanctioned site would not be an independent source about the program. I suppose it would depend on what it is you want to cite, it might qualify as a primary source if I understand this right. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Batman tas no. And we do not care what a company has to say typically about the subject of an article per WP:COI ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Dispute, from the sideline

The article sapeh seems to be in constant flux, between people with a racial/ethnic bias towards one another. It's fairly ugly and the refs I have on hand will not work to sort out whether one side is right. I don't know what to do at this point. Hoping an administrator can step in. We need an expert for this one. Jacqke (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

That sort of nationalist back and forth is unfortunately quite common in that region, and it's not something the community has been able to tackle. First time I've seen "Malaya-occupied state of Sarawak" in the wild though. CMD (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Jacqke. I'm not sure what you mean by expert, but generally disagreements over article content are expected to be resolved in accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Edit warring is never considered acceptable no matter how right one believes they are, and almost always ends up with one or more accounts being blocked. I'm not very familiar with the subject matter, but in cases like this one option is to revert back to the last stable version of the article (i.e. the version prior to when the edit warring began) and then seek a consenus via talk page discussion. If this is done and one of more users continue edit warring, then seeking administrator assistance via WP:AN3 or WP:RPP is often the next step. Perhaps this is a case where both sides might be somewhat right and only through discussion can they find a solution which might not give each side everything it wants but will turn out the be the best for Wikipedia. If you think you've got a way to bring the two sides together, try proposing it on the article's talk page. You can then notify relevant WikiProjects and each of the individual users involved in the dispute about the discussion. Maybe this will get things going and lead to the end of the disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate. I'll see if I can begin a conversation. By expert, I meant an ethnomusicologist or anthropologist, someone who is likely to not get involved (wishful thinking). Thank you, Jacqke (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You for Your Support on SVF

Hi All,

Thank You for your support on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shree Venkatesh Films. We need few more keep votes to save this notable OTT platform. 103.170.182.2 (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do not canvass for support. Please also read WP:NOTAVOTE. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The topic is likely notable, but the article is a mess, likely having been polluted by undisclosed paid editors. There are single-purpose editors participating in the AFD also. I say blow it up and start over. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Page Curation

im still somewhat new to wikipedia and one detail has confused me : do you need new page patrol rights to properly use page curation? if not can someone help me out with activating it in my account? im not really a knowledgeble person when it comes to code and tech so if anyone can lend me a helping hand i would appreciate it. cheers. Gurther (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse @Gurther! Yes, New page patroller rights are required to use the page curation tool. You do currently meet all of the requirements, so good luck as I have seen you have already applied! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up I really appreciate it. Cheers. Gurther (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

AfC vs "formal" review process

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

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

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

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

Thank you this was helpful.

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

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

so reviewers do have the power to decline drafts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Get to a WikiProject Page

Hello. If anyone is available, I have a question. How exactly do you get to a WikiProject page? I'm trying to get to the military history WikiProject page and just realized that I don't know how to get there without someone else linking it. Lol. Faith15 14:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Faithful15! For the military history Wikiproject, it's Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history! To search other WikiProjects, you can go to the search bar in Wikipedia:WikiProject and find the WikiProject topic that way! Hope this helps! Tails Wx 14:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Faithful15. Here's another handy tip: in the search bar at the top of the page, type in "WP:Wikiproject military", and check out the list of results. You can search many different namespaces this way (Wikipedia, Template, Talk, etc.). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Gotcha. Do you have an account name, IP code person? I mean an account name on Wikipedia. Faith15 14:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, @Tails Wx. Really appreciate it. Faith15 14:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I made one long ago, @Faithful15, but lost access to it. There's a little FAQ at the top of "my" talk page if you want deets. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There are also shortcuts to it WP:MILHIST will get you there with less typing, change WP to WT if you want to go directly to the talk page. - X201 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks, everyone! Faith15 14:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

BTW IP user, the guy that recommended the FAQ page? I actually know him. Not irl but still. He helped me a bit last year. Faith15 15:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've had several encounters with the Wolf as well, @Faithful15. We can continue this on my talk page if you like (assuming it remains vaguely Wikipedia-related). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

K. Faith15 15:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Company Site with Award Info

If a company has an annual award and lists past winners, can tbe company site describing tbe award s as d listing the winners be used as a reference indicating that the award exists? FSeg500 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@FSeg500: Welcome to the Teahouse! While the company website could be used as a primary source, the website would not help with determining notability. GoingBatty (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Signing up

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

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

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

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

Dumb question alert: alphabetising fictional characters whose names could be interpreted as titles

I just want to check something before I potentially do anything dumb... if a fictional character has an alias that 'sounds' like a name, you alphabetise by the first letter, yes? So Mr. Incredible from The Incredibles goes under "M" for "Mister" rather than "I" for "Incredible" because it's not like it's a family name (well it kinda is but it was the closest thing I could find to a non-alliterative unconfusing example!), right? So a character whose fictional supervillain identity is "Doctor Synne" would go under D for doctor when being referred to under that fictional identity? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, see Doctor Syn. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Tidy! Thanks =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@BoomboxTestarossa I don’t think that’s a dumb question. It’s a quite good question actually. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 16:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

First article on Banking CEO rejected, please advise

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

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

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

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

Image upload

Can someone please advise? The images i posted to my wiki page I was given by The picture desk at the scottish sun newspaper and I expressed it was for my wikipedia page and was told i can use.

This is what i recieved on e-mail from the picture dest at the Scottish sun newspaper

Hi Paul, I can confirm that all the pictures that were sent to you are copyright of The Scottish Sun and can be used by yourself  on  Wiki page and  that you can use.

David Henderson

Picture Desk

The Scottish Sun

Can someone please advise.....

WBOCHAMPx2 (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @WBOCHAMPx2, welcome to the Teahouse. In order to release images for use on Wikipedia, the copyright holder must email Wikipedia. See WP:Donating copyrighted materials for details. You will need to contact the newspaper again and ask them to send a consent form; an example form and the email address to use is here. Be sure to tell them that any pictures they release will become available for anyone to use for any purpose, including commercial ones. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Information been sent to the Scottish Sun Newspaper WBOCHAMPx2 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the conflict is

I was editing the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Fort_Lauderdale_floods page when I had an issue where there was conflict edit and I am new to this wiki so not sure where conflict was if anyone can help. Picture for anyone how want's to see the edit: https://imgur.com/9II8eT4 Zwphyr (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Zwphyr, welcome to the Teahouse. An "edit conflict" means that two people were trying to save changes to the article at the same time. If an article is being edited rapidly (for instance, if the article is about a current event which is attracting much attention), edit conflicts can happen frequently. You just need to check what has been changed and try again. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I though it was related to the actual content's of my amendment's. I appreciate the help. Zwphyr (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate a neutrality check on AfC article

Hi, I'm in the AfC queue for a technical article about "confidential computing". It's a notable topic in computer security today. At the same time, I have a disclosed conflict of interest since my employer is active in the space.

An editor visited the draft, saw my disclosed COI, and commented that it is virtually impossible for me to create an article with a neutral point of view (though they hadn't had time to read it). I assumed the article would be viewed skeptically, so I took a lot of care to write neutrally including the following steps:

• The article is written using industry-standard definitions, mainstream publications, and well-known, reputable sources including 76 citations. I only included information I could source via quality references, not from my own point-of-view.
• I reviewed and received feedback from dozens of computer security experts, including companies and vendors with differing or competing interests.
• The article includes criticism and vulnerabilities of confidential computing.
• I made a very deliberate effort to describe the pros & cons of confidential computing compared to other privacy-related technologies.

I'd really appreciate if someone checked the article for any neutrality issues. I believe the draft is solid and would be helpful to the Wikipedia community.

Thank you,

HudsonAttests HudsonAttests (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@HudsonAttests: Congratulations on having your draft accepted! GoingBatty (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

HudsonAttests going forward it is probably best to submit suggestions on the article's talk page with the {{request edit}} template and a reliable source as you have a declared conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

First post on Wikipedia Treehouse

  Hello there, I have my account created recently. I'm new to Wikipedia, even though I have the ability to edit articles on this site. This means I'm a new editor, plus I really need to make more edits in order to become a registered editor in the next few days. Despite I have created my user-page, does that really mean I have the ability to create articles on Wikipedia? Also, can you guide me through a Wikipedia tutorial? I did try editing on sandbox though.

Sincerely, -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ChronicleBooks885, welcome to the Teahouse. Here are links to some hopefully helpful tutorials: Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. By signing up for an account, you have become a registered editor. You have the ability to create draft articles and submit them to Articles for Creation - this is a much better avenue for new editors than trying to create and move a new article yourself (for which you'll need to be autoconfirmed). Creating articles is harder than it looks. If spend a few weeks or months reading and editing existing articles, you'll become much more familiar with how Wikipedia works, and will be better equipped to start writing an article yourself. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

 If I became an auto confirmed user, does that definitely mean that I have the ability to create articles directly on Wikipedia, without creating it as a draft as a submission? May I add a lot of content with sources if I found many of them? Will admins notice me I created an article through recent changes? -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@ChronicleBooks885, you will have the ability to create articles, but your creations will definitely be noticed (by admins and non-admins). If they are poor, they will be moved to draftspace; if they are very poor, they may simply be deleted. Why do you not want to use Articles for Creation?

You're always free to add reliably sourced content, but there are often other considerations beyond sourcing. If you find that your additions are being challenged, you should talk to the other editor(s) involved in order to reach consensus on the content. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

However, explain why would my creations will definitely be noticed (by admins and non-admins), although I add numerous content in these articles if I created it? Does this count drafts and user-pages? -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@ChronicleBooks885, fewer people monitor draftspace and userspace, but there are still eyes (and edit filters) on edits made in those areas. Many more people watch almost everything that happens in mainspace (where articles live). When you edit Wikipedia, you put yourself under a microscope to some extent, and by design. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

All new articles in the encyclopedia are reviewed by New pages patrol, and if you go through AfC (which is preferred) they are also reviewed by Draft reviewers. This ensures that all content is seen by more than one set of eyes. Why do you want to avoid the AfC process? casualdejekyll 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ChronicleBooks885. When a new article is created, it goes into a process called New Pages Patrol, in which every single new article is listed for a period of 3 months until one of our patrollers marks it as 'patrolled'. Until either that happens (or 3 months has passed) we do not allow search engines to index that article. Once patrolled, it is released for indexing by outside parties. If you start creating a new article 'from scratch' directly in mainspace, we expect it to meet minimum encyclopaedic standards and be of encyclopaedic quality, even if short. If it's not good enough, it will either be speedily deleted, or turned into a draft for you to work on outside of the 'mainspace' of Wikipedia. For that reason, it's best to start a draft and then to submit it to Articles for Creation to be reviewed and for you to receive critical feedback if things still need doing. You might like to read this article about creating your first article.

You edits - and everyone else's - will also appear in a list called Special:RecentChanges where anyone can look for live updates to articles and assess whether or not they were validly made. All these checks and balances help to keep our 6 million+ articles in good state. Hope this helps, and good luck as you start out your editing journey with us. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll @Nick Moyes And also even explain how would a poor encyclopedia article would be moved to draft in order to be worked on, despite being create with introduction and description? -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@ChronicleBooks885, as an encyclopedia we don't have articles about things just because they exist. They need to be already well-known as shown by having been written about in depth in reliably published sources which serve as references in the article. If an article does not show this, or isn't finished enough to show this, it will be removed. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma How do you know that if editors are monitoring pages in order for 6 million+ articles to be in a good state? I knew that 6 million articles are just high in quantity. But how do they make sure the quality of these articles from Wikipedia are prominent and well-made? And that is too many edits being made in each article right now. -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@ChronicleBooks885, click [3] and see. This is monitored by automatic programs called "BOTS" as well as by people. Why are you concerned about this? Start your articles in your sandbox, and when they are finished and meet standards move them to article space. The tutorial I put on your talk page will help you do this. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Welp but anyway, that advice was finished, so I would definitely have good luck on my start out of my editing journey with other editors. At that time in the upcoming days, I will become much more familiar with how Wikipedia works and how to edit an article. So, that will change in the near future and thanks for the posts on Wikipedia Teahouse. I would enjoy browsing and reading Wikipedia articles at the same time. -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

How do you give the page number of a page that's between two pages?

I'm translating an article from German, where the subject's dates of baptism and death are taken from a table that is bound between two pages in a book. The German article doesn't use a templated format for its citation, but has helpfully given the page numbers of the pages preceding and following the (presumably un-numbered) table. I think this happens quite commonly in older books, where plates etc. would be printed separately on glossy paper and inserted at suitable points without page numbers. But I have no idea how to do this properly in a cite book reference template! Is there a correct way? At the moment, I've just given pp 16-17 as it's bound between the two. Not sure if this is very "professional" or correct? Elemimele (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Elemimele. In printed references it is usual to say "after p 16" or the like. You can do the same thing with {{Cite book}} by using "|at=" instead of "|page=". StarryGrandma (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Just what I needed! Elemimele (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Citation for articles in edited volumes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1987 Wrestling World Cup

Hello. I have added new references to independent sources. These sources disclose information "Draft:1987 Wrestling World Cup", in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), These sources is reliable, secondary, independent of the subject.

Also see the new notes "Draft talk:1987 Wrestling World Cup". I hope for a positive decision on the project Tschin As (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:1987 Wrestling World Cup is in review. Please be patient. We are all WP:VOLUNTEERS and Teahouse is not the place to request a speedy review. One advice I would give is, translate the sources from WP:FOREIGNSOURCES to make it easier for English Wiki editors to review them. Happy editing and translating! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tschin As: Building on Shushugah's suggestion, you could add the |trans-title= parameter for the references where the title is not in English. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tschin As (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

update that fifth

6 72.174.78.55 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

6 72.174.78.55 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Update it that fifth of what, and update it how and why? -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Access to a draft

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

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

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

my wikipedia

can anyone do my wikipedia page 2001:8F8:1B69:2267:B52B:25EF:EB04:9BBB (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia page is yours, and what do you want done with it? -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Switching to a new account

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

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

Cenozoic dinosaurs

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

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

Help

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

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

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

Hello once again

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

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

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

Upload image to Wikidata

Hello, please help me and upload the logo of this organization in Wikidata. (Islamic Republic of Iran Police Intelligence Organization) Like the logo of this network that is available in Wikidata. [4] Thankful CaesarIran (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)