Wikipedia:Teahouse

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

What is considered notable?

I'm just curious. SpiderBreadIRL (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, SpiderBreadIRL! See Wikipedia:Notability for the actual guideline. In particular, the section "General notability guideline" is typically the most important. Happy editing! Bsoyka (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I was just curious because it seems like every Marvel character to ever exist has an entire page dedicated to them. SpiderBreadIRL (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@SpiderBreadIRL Oh, it can go way beyond that: Captain America, Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Captain America (Ultimate Marvel character)... To be fair, the last one may not survive a WP:AFD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There's 10 different articles about Spider-Man and different versions of him, and probably more that I don't know of.

Spider-Man

Miles Morales

Spider-Woman

Spider-Ham

Peter Parker (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Peter Parker

Alternate versions of Spider-Man

Peter Parker (Sam Raimi film series)

Peter Parker (Insominac Games character)

Peter Parker (The Amazing Spider-Man film series) SpiderBreadIRL (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@SpiderBreadIRL There's a few Supermans and Wolverines as well, but Spiderman may be the "winner" on en-WP. Like Bsoyka said, WP:GNG is the mark. Another aspect is of course that more people are interested in writing about these figures on WP than, say, Antonio. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@SpiderBreadIRL Many Marvel characters do not have their own articles - see List of Marvel Comics characters: A through Z. GoingBatty (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft article: a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject

Hello, can someone explain why there is a concern about a close connection to the subject of the draft-article, and how to solve this? CollinsSr (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

CollinsSr Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this is about Draft:Mario Kleff There are various clues that suggest you have an association with the subject. If you do, that should be declared, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. If submitted for review and accepted, that will address the tag. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I'm curious about the clues because it can not be, and there is no payment. Maybe it's about the writing style... I'll go over and review the sources to not violate the copyrights. CollinsSr (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

CollinsSr Even if you are not paid, do you have an association with Mr. Kleff? 331dot (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

CollinsSr New accounts which have as their only activity the creation of an article about a living (or dead) person are often asked if there is a personal or paid connection. If neither, then a statement to that effect on your Talk page is sufficient. You do seen to have some knowledge of obscure facts about Kleff (his interest in motorcycles) which hint at a connection. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I have just discussed this matter and it seems that even a friend of a friend can be considered a close connection. In truth, I am from Pattaya, but without direct connection to the subject. And believe that his crazy motorcycles are well known in this region. So there is nothing special or hard to find out. I have also read log files and discussion on Wikipedia and found the judgement over the top. This person has really made interesting things here in the city, and in my opinion deserves to be mentioned. But again, pershabs I am the wrong person... CollinsSr (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

CollinsSr Your connection, as described above, is distant enough that in my opinion does not rise to COI. Please state as much on your Talk page and proceed. As for the motorcycle metion, if it is important enough in your opinion to be in the Infobox then it deserves a referenced sentence or two in the article, perhaps under a created Personal life section that could also include the legal fracas of his owning leopards. Neither topic would contribute to establishing his notability, but would provide color. David notMD (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

CollinsSr - could you please elaborate upon your comments above: "I have just discussed this matter and it seems that..." and "I have also read log files and discussion on Wikipedia and found the judgement over the top". With whom did you discuss, and what/where are the log files and discussions and judgement you are relating to? Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Mario_Kleff for background on this. MrOllie (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I will do some more homework on what is considered notable. CollinsSr (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input MrOllie - I was involved with this and other associated articles, and I was interested to know with whom a new editor had been conferring, and how the "judgement" had been located, etc, as queried, but is without response from the OP.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand now better notability associated with content and independent and reliable sources. Therefore, an article about a living person requires deeper research. CollinsSr (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

CollinsSr, could you please answer Rocknrollmancer's questions above: "With whom did you discuss, and what/where are the log files and discussions and judgement you are relating to?" Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

AfC question

Hello, previously I submitted this question to the Teahouse, I wanted to ask if this newer draft of the article I'm referring to in my previous question, linked here on my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ab31488/sandbox, though still a work in progress, is in a more Wiki-friendly state to be recreated as an article at AfC? Thanks, Ab31488 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ab31488 Hi Good day. You previous links on your message to Teahouse could not be read. As per your article in User:Ab31488/sandbox, at the current state the subject is considered not notable and will merit a page in Wikipedia main space. Pls read notability requirements and WP:Your First Article first. You can create a draft page for your article via Wikipedia:Articles for creation and pls read the info/links and follow the instructions. Once you have written the article, pls submit the draft article for review and ask for assistance if you have any further question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you mean "will not merit...? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia pinging... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

2022 Pakistani political crises

Hello, I am looking for opinion and help, I have asked a few editors on their talk pages as well. I wrote this article about 2022 Pakistani political crises, first it was renamed, then redirected and then merged, lastly an editor copied all the test from my article to another article. The larger article was merged into a smaller article, is there a way to rectify this? also the page was removed from my page creation stats and my work on the article is no longer referenced to me because another editor copied and pasted everything to the new article. Now this editor is the top contributor the article, even though he just copied the text from a previously existing article. Elmisnter! (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Elminster Aumar, what were/are the titles of the "larger article" into which your text was copied, and the "smaller article" into which the larger one was merged? (However, it's my bed time. I may look into your explanation several hours from now, but of course I'd be delighted to wake up and discover that somebody else had beaten me to it.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to unravel the knots here. Elminster Aumar created a draft 2022 Pakistani Political Crises[1]. They then moved it from draft space to main space [2]. Mar4d moved the article to 2022 vote of no confidence in the Imran Khan ministry thus giving it a new title [3]. MasterOfMetaverse redirected that article to No-confidence motion against Imran Khan[4]

There was no proper merger discussion had on the article talk page Talk:No-confidence motion against Imran Khan and no consensus was gained for any of the moves. --ARoseWolf 15:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Good morning, world. And thank you for the excellent explanation, ARoseWolf. On the face of it, the moves seem reasonable. (I'm not saying that they were right, or that discussion was unnecessary, just that a quick look suggests that they were sensible.) If the histories were merged (as has already been suggested), would the result be significantly unjust, Elminster Aumar? ¶ If the histories are to be merged, then the sooner the better: improvements should come later. But they definitely should come. Consider this randomly picked example: A few days ago, on 6 March 2022, Prime Minister Imran Khan, while addressing a public meeting in Mailsi area of Punjab province, said that he is ready for a no-confidence motion. He had asked the opposition are they ready for what I will do to them (opposition) in case the no-confidence motion failed? Built-in obsolescence, superfluity, direct/reported speech confusion, 3rd/1st person confusion, all in just two sentences. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary Well most of the editors who gave input in this article have displayed, with their edits, that they want this article to be about the vote against the Prime Minster, however, there are several political situations happening at the same time, which is why I believe it is a political crises,

1. Opposition also submitted a no confidence motion against the Chief Minster in Punjab, who already resigned

2. President has involved the court for the interpretation of the constitution.

3. Opposition is also planning the no confidence motions against the speaker of the assembly and against Chief Minister of another province.

4. Ruling party wants to disqualify dissident members for life

5. Political rallies from both opposition and government

6. Threats of violence by Government minister

7. Allied government parties' bargaining

My vote is that there should be one article, mentioning political crises, the vote against the Prime Minster should be the main heading but there are many other subjects that will be covered. There is sufficient material here to take this article to good article status. And yes of course, if we keep the article in its current state, then it should be in such a way, that my stats for page creation and contribution are not removed.

The paragraph you mentioned was part of the smaller article. The editor who made the smaller article, makes a few pages every week, they should've mentioned this in a better language. Also the person who copied this did not read thee article, they just copied it. Thank you. Elmisnter! (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Elmisnter!, I wonder if a history merge is something that you'd really want. Only administrators can merge histories, and this explanation of the process is intended for administrators. However, if you read it, you may change your mind. Since it was you who asked for the history merge, I think you're free to remove the request for this. (Just be sure to give your reason for doing so.) Now, should the one title be merely a link to the other, or should the former be reverted to an article? One thing is clear: Wikipedia doesn't permit "content forks", so a moderately detailed account of one event, or one series of events, shouldn't appear in more than one article. If the one article again became two, the person who'd proposed this should be willing to do a lot of the deletion of duplicate material very soon after the separation. If you think that there should again be two articles, I think it would be best to propose this on Talk:No-confidence motion against Imran Khan, and to advertise this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan, inviting readers to go to the talk page article and discuss the matter there. (You could also put individual invitations on the talk pages of all users who've been major contributors to either article; however, if you do this, be very careful to avoid any selection that could possibly be interpreted as "canvassing" those users who are likely to agree with you. All in all I'd suggest that you do not inform any individual users.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary, My first priority is to have the material and page creation credited to me via history merge, then once the no confidence vote is completed and things conclude then I will update the article further. untangling both article now can be very difficult, I believe. Elmisnter! (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Also I read the history merge, it seems this case will be complicated as well. Elmisnter! (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Elminster Aumar, if that is indeed what you hope for, then of course you are free to propose it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary@ARoseWolf Some history was merged, though my contribution of the original article is not show in the current page's history Elmisnter! (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Elminster Aumar, while that is true, it isn't like the attribution of your contributions to the original article were deleted. I found them easy enough and was able to piece together what happened because of it. I can't say I run across this situation often here but I am curious, are you okay with the merger or do you believe the articles should be separated? Maybe we come from very different positions but proper attribution of my contributions to the encyclopedia, whatever they may be, is the least of my concerns as much as it is about the contents of the improvements and contributions themselves. I think your contributions are amazing and should be attributed and they have been. --ARoseWolf 13:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf, thank you for the appreciation, actually I have restarted editing WP after a long time. I when checkout the new tools, regarding authorship and page creation, everything is attributed and we when ask for new permissions, usually bots just calculate the edit counts from the tools so I want those bots to know what I do. For actual users, I think it will be easy enough to look at the history of pages and find out which editors contributed.

Also for the article, I think I will decide once the no confidence motion is settled, if there are further changes then I think we need two separate articles, if only the prime minister goes, then just one should be enough. Elmisnter! (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Elminster Aumar, I believe, and I could be wrong, that any bot would look at your contributions to get this figure as opposed to any particular article. That seems more plausible and all of your contributions are listed there, including those pertaining to the article in question. --ARoseWolf 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf, thanks for clarifying that, I guess it is a non issue then. Let's see if the prime minster stay :) Elmisnter! (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Making links for commons in Wikipedia articles

Can I encourage people to start putting in links to commons on Wikipedia. Examples: a prominent link or the more discreet version.

There are astonishing numbers of biographies on wikipedia without a portrait, where PD portraits are available. Astonishing numbers of artists without a gallery or link to their artworks. --Broichmore (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Broichmore Sure, and you can work on it too! Thanks for your enthusiasm to improve Wikipedia! GoingBatty (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I'm new. How do we find the links to commons or free images to use? KatieFrench (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@KatieFrench You can look for suitable images on Wikimedia Commons here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

You may also search here: https://wordpress.org/openverse/?referrer=creativecommons.org

Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

How to upload easily a non-free album cover here on Wikipedia

Hi! I was trying to upload the album cover of 3rd Desire (Reve) by creating its source and by using a template used by another user to upload 2nd Desire Tasty - Kim Woo-seok.png, but the image doesn't appear unlike on the file I mentioned. Did I do something wrong or no? Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard or Wikimedia Commons to upload the album cover? Toofllab (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried to create the source by typing in the browser's search bar the link to wikipedia adding /wiki/File:the name of the file + the image format. Regarding the format, is it better to use jpg instead of png for an album cover? Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you cannot use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard? ~Anachronist (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I can use it, I just thought a file could be uploaded on Wikipedia by just creating the source. I didn't know there was a file upload wizard here on wikipedia, just like on commons, because it's my first time trying to upload a file directly on wikipedia. Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

jpeg files are preferable to png's. They load faster and are more scaleable. It's not a deal breaker. Load what you have. --Broichmore (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk page? Secret edits?

Draft:Jusaburō Tsujimura

Hi! I'm new on Wikipedia, (about a week old?) I made an account because artists I am interested in often do not have wikipedia articles. I have submitted four drafts – some of which I will return to and without being accepted or denied, there will be edits added and suggestions made, but with no username attached or any way to follow up. Is this something these editors will see if I follow up on their comments? Are there some (social?) implications I am missing when someone edits and comments in the code of an Article without approving or denying it?

(example above – I said that Tsujimura worked at "the Ningyōza puppet theatre" I came back to the draft and saw a footnote that said "vague," when I went to edit the page it said "vague | which Ningyōza?" I edited the sentence to be more general, but I don't know who left this comment, and made some more helpful/general edits on my draft)

I also more generally cannot quite understand my Talk page or how it functions? Any tips? Chainsawpunk (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Chainsawpunk! Those footnotes you're referring to were added by Hoary, a fellow content creator who helped my first draft get published, actually. For communication with users, you can resort to talk pages for public discussion and interaction. For more information, you can check out Help:Talk pages and Wikipedia:User pages. If you have questions for Hoary (or any future user), you can either ask them on their personal talk page at User talk:Hoary, or you can begin a new discussion at Draft talk:Jusaburō Tsujimura, where you can ping Hoary there (using the code "{{u|Username here}}". Panini! • 🥪 16:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

(Side note, I figured out who made the comments via the article's history. If you look to the top right near the search bar there should be a "View history" tab, where you can see all changes made to an article alongside links to other cool statistics.) Panini! • 🥪 16:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You have a Talk page, as does each article and draft. As Panini wrote, View history shows who has edited articles and drafts, in chronological order. A green number means that there was a net addition to the draft (the person may have added and deleted content, but combined, more added). Red number means content cut. Clicking on prev shows what was changed. Clicking on the date shows what the article looks like after the edit. In addition, on drafts, some editors choose to leave a Comment at the top. The intent there is for the draft reviewer to see what concerned the comment maker. Do not reply there. Instead, address issue in draft or on Talk page. When a draft is accepted by a reviewer, that person removes all the Comments. David notMD (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Or a little more precisely: When a draft is accepted by a reviewer, the reviewer virtually always does this as part of a complex but semi-automated process, as part of which every comment made at the top of the draft by any reviewer is deleted. If the reviewer (more or less perversely) doesn't use the semi-automated process, then they should "manually" remove any comment. (However, any comment on the draft's talk page is conserved, as the draft's talk page is transformed into the article's talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Chainsawpunk: I said that Tsujimura worked at "the Ningyōza puppet theatre" I came back to the draft and saw a footnote that said "vague," when I went to edit the page it said "vague The Japanese word ningyō means doll(s) or puppet(s), and the Japanese word ningyōza means puppet theatre(s), or perhaps puppet theatre troupe(s). A puppet theatre/troupe in a Japanese context usually means bunraku (though there is, or has been, at least one showing dramas via puppets operated by strings, and thus not bunraku). More bunraku theatres are called bunrakugekijō than are called ningyōza. In Japanese script, there's no orthographic distinction analogous to that between "theatre" (a common noun) and "Theatre" (part of a name) in English. (Chainsawpunk, you'll know all of this; but the others here probably won't.) The only place calling itself ningyōza these days is, I think, the one in Awaji; though I could be wrong. However, the mid-1950s weren't 2022, and the draft seemed to imply that Tsujimura moved to Tokyo where he got a job at some ningyōza. Back then, I believe that there were ningyōza in Osaka, in Tokushima (more often termed Awa (no) deku/deko, 阿波(の)木偶), and a few elsewhere -- perhaps one in or near Tokyo, though I don't know offhand. Even with today's shinkansen, one doesn't commute between Tokyo and Awaji (or indeed Tokushima, or, if one is sane, Osaka). So I wondered which ningyōza this could have been. Incidentally, Duckduckgo reveals that "Fujinami Company" is almost certainly Fujinami Kodōgu (藤浪小道具). Hope something here helps! -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It helps a lot!!! Thank you so much. I'm going to fiddle with the wording a bit today and re-edit. I appreciate your help very much. Chainsawpunk (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Moving current information into a new page/subdividing Vivian Beaumont Theater page

Hi I'm planning to create a page for Lincoln Center Theater which currently redirects to Vivian Beaumont Theater . A large portion (around half) of the information on that page would make more sense to have on this page since it is not really about the Vivian Beaumont but about Lincoln Center Theater (of which Vivian Beaumont is a small part). I know that one shouldn't copy information from other wikipedia pages in general but I'm assuming since this is essentially proposing subdividing the current page and removing it there that it would be okay to copy this information over to the other page? Thanks KNY22 (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, copying content from one Wikipedia article to another is fine as long as in the Edit summary you clearly state where it came from. I suggest you create the draft for LCT and get it approved at Articles for creation. Only after that, remove content from Vivian Beaumont Theater. When doing that, rather than removing all, you could leave a short version as a section, and have a See link to your new article. Good luck. 02:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@KNY22: For details of the procedure, see Wikipedia:Splitting. Deor (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Help with sockpuppetry

In November 2020, a few days after I first created this account, I forgot my password and didn’t click the forgot password button for some reason, but created another account called Maccoun. I didn’t know anything about sockpuppetry at the time. Eventually, I remembered my password and edited in this account. I never edited to anything on the account except for 3 edits on that user page. Now, one year later, the account came to mind and I am scared something might happen to this account. What should I do? Vamsi20 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Vamsi20

Since the old account isn't blocked, you are allowed to have multiple accounts as long as you follow Wikipedia policies regarding 2nd accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate_uses_of_alternative_accounts. It is best to disclose the 2nd account on your user page to make sure everyone is on the same page. Rlink2 (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Or just abandon Maccoun, as you only made three edits there, back in 2020. David notMD (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2

How should I disclose the account on my user page so that it fits into it? Vamsi20 (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Vamsi20 usually just a notice on both accounts, or at the very least your main account, would be fine. See Wikipedia:ALTACCN for more info. Rlink2 (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2

Can I make a request on the Maccoun account at Wikipedia:Changing usernames to change the name to Vamsi20_alt? Vamsi20 (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Using a Government written biography as a source?

Hi there! I submitted a biography about a notable person for review and it was rejected due to the content feeling like it was "written by a fan".

I understand completely where the feedback is coming from and why it was rejected. The wording used in the draft came from a government written biography (as a part of the award the notable person received) and thus I am assuming they did their research, my questions is... how can I use the government bio as a source? or do I need to reference the sources that they used in their biography?

Here is the link to the draft page if it's helpful: Draft:Geoffrey Lorigan

Thanks in advance, let me know if any other information is required.

Ealder3301 (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ealder3301, when a group gives an award, what they write is focused on the wonderfulness of the person and they write in that way. An encyclopedia article is not the same thing. It has to be neutral and also has to be completely written in your own words, not copied from what someone else has written. At the bottom of the award web page it says "Copyright 2022 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet". Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously for legal reasons. You can use the bio as a source for information; in that way it is fine as a reference. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications, I will re-write/update accordingly :) Ealder3301 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

License tagging of photos

Which license tag should be used for a photo:

A) Taken by the subject (provide a link, if possible);

B) Taken by the author (provide a link, if possible);

C) Taken by a friend or relative of the subject (provide a link if possible).

Neither subject, author, nor friend/relative have the desire to retain any copyright. Pghmedicine (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Pghmedicine! For an image being uploaded by the person who took it, use {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} on Wikimedia Commons. The easiest way to do that is to just follow the upload wizard (commons:Special:UploadWizard). Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

From the point of view of licensing, it makes no difference what the relationship is between the photographer and the subject, unless there is a legal agreement between them that assigns the copyright. In the absence of such an agreement, the copyright belongs to the photographer (whether that is the subject, somebody known to them, or a random person who snapped them) and only the owner of the copyright has the power to license the image. ColinFine (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pghmedicine:Even if none of them have a desire to retain the copyright, the photographer will retain the copyright until such time as he or she does something to release it. We can't know what anyone's desires are otherwise! The answers from @Sdkb and @ColinFine are spot-on. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Portals

What is a portal on Wikipedia? I just joined WikiProject Feminism yesterday, and I saw that there is such a thing as the Feminism Portal, but I am unsure of its purpose and how it is different from the WikiProject? Also, how is a WikiProject in general managed? Are there project leads/admins to guide the project along? Sruthijayanti (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sruthijayanti! A portal is a somewhat unique way of organizing Wikipedia content that allows readers to browse a topic area. You can find lots of information on them at Wikipedia:Portal. They're somewhat unpopular among many editors, who feel that they were an experiment that never really got off the ground and attracted many readers.

A WikiProject differs from a portal in that it's designed mainly for collaboration among editors rather than for readers. WikiProject Feminism is a WikiProject that works on all articles related to feminism. You can see from its talk page that there are a few discussions going on, but nothing super active. This is somewhat typical for project talk pages. If you'd like to see a more active WikiProject, check out WikiProject Women in Red, which aims to close Wikipedia's gender gap by writing articles about notable women who did not have them previously. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!! How do editors actually collaborate through WikiProjects if active discussions are scarce? Also what are red links on Wikipedia (guessing they are links to pages that do not exist)? Sruthijayanti (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

On your second question, see WP:REDLINK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do people not trust Wikipedia?

It seems to me, a lot of people don’t trust Wikipedia! I think it’s because anyone can write on Wikipedia, and that is true! But Wikipedia always checks through everyone’s articles? I believe Wikipedia is true 😊 and that it gives heaps of information of what your looking for! (New to Wikipedia 😊) Thanks!! - TigerTurtle (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@TigerTurtle: Our article Reliability of Wikipedia has some great information about this. ––FormalDude talk 02:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There is to "Wikipedia" that checks article truthfulness. It's just one volunteer editor after another trying to improve existing articles, including reverting if wrong information is added. David notMD (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you mean no Wikipedia? 💜  melecie  talk - 03:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

To add to what David says above, no one on Wikipedia is checking for truthfulness, only accuracy of the information found in referenced reliable sources about a notable subject as described in WP:N. Truth can change from person to person and would be a poor criteria for what should be included or not. --ARoseWolf 13:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

TigerTurtle We don't want people to trust Wikipedia blindly as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We want people to examine the sources provided in articles and determine things like truthfulness or biase for themselves. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there a faster way to make articles?

Is there a way to make articles that do not need to go through the AfC/draft process? Blocky44 (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

For editors who have only recently joined, and are attempting their first article, as you are at the so-far unsubmitted Draft:DS Tucanae Ab, it is advised to go through AfC. Yes, there is a backlog that could mean weeks to months before it is reviewed. Skipping that and moving the draft into mainspace means that it goes to the New Pages Patrol, where a reviewer might decide to accept, bounce it back to draft, Speedy delete or start an Articles for Deletion process. David notMD (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Blocky44. For almost all the accounts active for four days or more, and with ten or more edits, the AfC process is entirely optional. Such editors can move their draft content or sandbox content to the main space of the encyclopedia without advance review or approval. However, these articles are scrutinized by the New Page Patrollers, and articles that are out of compliance with Policies and guidelines are usually deleted quite quickly. Writing articles that are policy compliant is much more important than writing articles quickly. Cullen328 (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

So, how would an autoconfirmed user bypass the AfC process? Blocky44 (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:MOVE. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocky44, see WP:MOVE. You would simply move the content from your draft or sandbox space to the main space of the encyclopedia, and the New Pages Patrollers will evaluate it. Be sure that it is policy compliant first. Cullen328 (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

thank you Blocky44 (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocky44 Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, obvious ones can be accepted within minutes of submission, you have however not submitted Draft:DS Tucanae Ab for review yet? Theroadislong (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

To elaborate, there are ~3,000 drafts at AfC. It is not a queue. Reviewers look at titles that catch their eye. Conscientious editors also eyeball the older submittals. An editor put a submittal template on your draft. You decide. David notMD (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Fandom

Is Fandom.com basically "encyclopedias within an encyclopedia" in which, as I've noticed, even TV shows have their own separate "wikis" on the website and heavily detailed articles that would otherwise not be considered notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia? I've noticed that due to Wikipedia seemingly any website on the Internet that has the word "wiki" in it is pretty much an encyclopedia-like website. Hgh1985 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

hi Hgh1985 and welcome to the teahouse! this is not the place to ask about Fandom, but sure I'll answer: it's basically a wiki hosting service for basically anything, so stuff that won't make it to wikipedia may make it to a fandom wiki if someone decided to add it in. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hgh1985: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikis are in general just sites where users are able to contribute freely (for the most part) to pages. They don't have to be encyclopedias, though the software gears itself towards that use. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Are people here allowed to import content from there? I would not think so because what would the citation be? Blocky44 (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blocky44 Per WP:USERG, Fandom is mostly useless for WP-purposes in itself, but it's not impossible they can have useful sources. A decent wiki can be an acceptable External link, like at James_T._Kirk#External_links. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Something weird in the mobile app

I'm QuickQuokka (No access to account currently), and I noticed a very weird thing about the mobile app while browsing the r/Ani_bm subreddit.

The Hebrew article for Carl Friedrich Gauß displays File:Mike Wazowski.png at the top. As you can see, it is not mentioned in the source code of the Hebrew article, and doesn't have file usage on any wiki according to Commons. Would upload a screenshot, but don't have privileges, as I'm logged out. 212.39.89.223 (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a reddit image, but I checked and it's true: https://i.redd.it/g3743sjwjdq81.jpg 212.39.89.223 (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi QuickQuokka, it appears to be fixed on Hebrew wiki already and I've tagged the file on commons for deletion (hopefully I used the right template, not so familiar with commons stuff) Justiyaya 05:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Though I can't find the version of the article you mentioned... Justiyaya 06:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Justiyaya: Hmmm... You said it's fixed, but I still see it. 212.39.89.155 (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't see the "File usage on other wikis" section there so I assumed it was fixed, pinging DGtal because I think he probably knows much much more about this Justiyaya 08:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: d:Q6722 212.39.89.155 (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The whole story is a result of a now reverted massive vandalism of the Carl Friedrich Gauß wikidata item. It was already reverted by the time I checked it and the display should be OK again the moment you refresh or, if required, clean your memory cache. DGtal (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Justiyaya 09:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Confirming this QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 14:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Completely restarting someone elses draft?

There is currently an existing Draft for the mobile game BitLife (Draft:BitLife), which is quite poorly written (loads of trivial details, almost no references, not encylopedia style) and has been rejected a few times. I believe that this game is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, is it appropriate for me to completely clear the current draft and start over, including the "submission declined" notices? Thank you! ☽☆ NotCharizard (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Notcharizard Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft was only declined, not rejected- rejected would mean resubmission is not possible. You are welcome to edit and or rewrite the draft, but the prior notices need to remain. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The creating editor has not edited since February 2021, so feel free to discard as much of the content as you wish, and replace it. Leave the existing declines. But you can either add a Comment above the draft that you have done a massive makeover, or state same on Talk page of the draft. After you submit it to AfC it will be judged on what you created, with no prejudice because of prior declines, as long as it is clear that major changes have been made. David notMD (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Maproom and I cut the draft by 90%. David notMD (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much all for your help! ☽☆ NotCharizard (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Pictures copyright question.

Hello several months ago, i was referred to somewhere regarding copyright questions about photographs. I forget where...help? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: Please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thank you! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Requesting some opinion or suggestion

Greetings to you! Hope you're doing well. My apologies if I have bought the topic up at the wrong place.

I had posted a Question/suggestion on the talk page of List of Mughal empresses but unfortunately, the page doesn't seem to get much attention and the suggestion is likely to be left unseen. Is there any way to bring attention (suggestion/discussion) to it?


Manavati (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Manavati. Since you only posted the suggestion yesterday, I should wait several days to see if anybody does respond. You could also post a pointer to it at WT:WikiProject India. If after, say, a week, nobody has responded, then go ahead and make your change. My suggestion would be that, rather than removing them completely, you marked those who never became Empress in some way, but I have no strong feeling.

As for your suggestions about the redirects: the purpose of a redirect is to help somebody who comes looking for a subject where they haven't given the name the same as the corresponding Wikipedia article, or where there is not an article on that specific topic, but there is another which covers the topic in some way. It doesn't matter whether the redirect is strictly accurate, as long as it is likely to be helpful rather than unhelpful. If you think they should be changed or deleted, please see WP:RfD. But read WP:Redirect first. ColinFine (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

What changes required in my Article to get Approval.

Hi TeaHouse, What changes required in my Article to get Approval. Could you please help me out in this. Here is the draft for your reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hamstech_College_of_Creative_Education Farooq80 (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Farooq80, perhaps the problem is epitomized in: With its motto of “Learn.Believe.Create.”, the institute nurtures creative youth who wish to pursue non-conventional careers and provides industry-centric training to them in order to help them excel in their respective professional fields. This sounds to me like routine corporate ad copy. Wikipedia is not a conduit for PR puffery; it's an encyclopedia. Just what do reliable sources (which must of course be disinterested) say about this place? Summarize what they say and attribute it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Farooa80, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is, "Throw most of it away, and start again with independent sources". Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. I haven't looked at your sources themselves, but judging from the citations it looks to me as if not a single one meets that description.

I feel I must ask - what is your connection with the College? Usually people who come to Wikipedia and almost immediately create a highly promotional article about an organisation are connected with, if not employed by the institution. If you are, you should read conflict of interest, and make your connection clear. Further, if you are in any way paid by the college, you must make a formal declaration of this: see paid editing ColinFine (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Correcting Subject Names

How do I fix an incorrectly spelled subject name? The wikipedia article "Era of Good Feelings" should be named "Era of Good Feeling". How do I drop the "S"?

Here's the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Good_Feelings Lord Milner (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Lord Milner (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lord Milner. Technically, the page would need to be WP:MOVEd to the new title, but in this case it might be best to be WP:CAUTIOUS and propose the title change at Talk:Era of Good Feelings to see what other might think. There reason why I'm suggesting this is that a quick Google search shows the period being referred to in both ways by various publications and websites. Encyclopedia Britannica even states as much here; so, instead of moving the page, adding something about the different ways of referring to the period to the MOS:LEAD of the article might be all that's really needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You don't drop it, Lord Milner. Instead, you go to Talk:Era of Good Feelings and there write out your proposal for a title change. Note that the talk page shows that others have already proposed the same change. However, their proposals seem to have less reasoning and evidence, more indignation. Try to be persuasive. Get agreement. If you succeed, then retitling ("moving") the article will be easy. -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Obviously, I'm from the United States, and there is no discussion about this. We are all taught the same. The word "Feeling" in this sense, is plural. The connotation of "Feelings" suggests something different, something amateurish. "The Era of Good Feeling" is both academically and linguistically correct. So, two changes need to be made: one to add the word "The", and a second to delete the letter "s".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Milner (talk • contribs) 19:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Milner: On the omission of the in the article title, see WP:THE. Deor (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm from the United States, too, and I see no problem with the title "Era of Good Feelings". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

My first article

Alright, so I decided to simply make my very first Wikipedia article, it is on a man who is mentioned in the town of Standerton in South Africa and the man is a friend of mines ancestor, I got a portrait of him and some info, but my trouble is linking the sources in the right places, because I put them in the end Joshua Izaak Aronson (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Joshua and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, you have embarked on one of the most difficult tasks there is for a new editor, and I would advise you to put the project on one side for a few months while you learn how Wikipedia works by improving some of our six million existing articles. But in answer to your question, Referencing for beginners is a guide, and if you haven't read it already, I recommend you start with Your first article. ColinFine (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

If you really need to submit some articles, perharp a wp:AFC is also very helpful. Pavlov2 (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Joshua Izaak Aronson —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

WRONG PLACE. Your User page is for a bit of information about you. Use WP:YFA to create a draft, and when ready, submit it to Articles for Creation for a Reviewer to decide. Help:Referencing for beginners explains how to format references and insert those into the text. The software automatically provides superscripted numbers and puts the refs in the References section. Most important - if there are not published articles about this person, to cite as references, then no hope. David notMD (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Standerton exists as an article. Notable people are listed, notable meaning that there is a Wikipedia article about each. Those could be models for what you hope to accomplish. David notMD (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

copyrighted content

hi- I submitted an article for creation and it was rejected for copyrighted content. The content is part of the researcher's biosketch and he uses the same wording on several platforms. How do I get it published on Wikipedia if it will be repeatedly found as similar text in other locations? Mfahey sralab (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Mfahey sralab Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You shouldn't be simply transferring any content from this biosketch; you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources say about Richard Lieber. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mfahey sralab. To enlarge on what 331dot said, there are two separate problems here. One is that you must not copy copyright material (including anything which has been published) unless it has been released under a suitable licence. But in any case, a subjects own bio is almost certainly not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article about them. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

how to get an page of a person thats not listed on wikipedia?

please let me know TheInternetContributer (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

TheInternetContributer Hello and welcome. I think you are asking how to create a new Wikipedia article about a person? Creating a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It is usually recommended that one first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, so that you learn more about how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is also very helpful. Both of these things will greatly increase your chances of success in creating a new article and lead to less frustration.

If you would still like to create a new article now, you will first need to review the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person to see if this person you want to write about meets it. If they do, you should gather at least three independent reliable sources that give the person significant coverage on their own(that are not an interview or brief mention of the person) so that you can summarize them in a draft. You may start the process of creating a draft at Articles for Creation(new users cannot directly create new articles). Please also read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

editing the info box - my first article - draft: Merry Moor Winnett

I have located another reference for the specific death date for the subject (person). Today I added the obituary to the references. I am wondering how to add the date of death to the information box at the top of the article. Currently the info box has the year, 1994. The date is October 17, 1994. Aged 42. The reference is number 21. Do I just click on the info box and attempt to type? Thanks. Photocher Photocher (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

In the template {{Death date and age}} simply change "1994" to "1994|10|17". Deor (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Photocher: Forgot to ping. Deor (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done, @Photocher:, @Deor:. I have been doing some futher research on this and could see the infobox had not been updated, so fixed it whilst the tabs were open. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Photocher Photocher (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Image manipulation

Okay, okay, this is going to be incredibly pedantic. I was just looking at University of Bristol and noticed in the alumni section that the picture of Paul Dirac is a mirror image of that used on the article about Dirac. The two are exactly identical, the picture having been mirror-imaged, which is acknowledged in the picture's name at Commons, but not in Bristol University where it's used. The Dirac article is the correct way round.
Should we be using mirror images like this? It is, ultimately, a manipulation with no justification. The risks are small but real: some people do not have perfect facial symmetry; many people part their hair asymmetrically. Musicians adopt asymmetric postures to play their instruments, and the question of whether someone was using their right hand or left to sign a historic treaty might matter. I feel we should not be reversing the photo because it is no longer an unbiased view of Paul Dirac. In the case of Dirac, he's a fairly symmetrical bloke, neither hand is visible and he's not doing anything except smiling at something to the right (or left!) of the photographer. But if we do it with him, at what point do we declare that Enid Smith's left ear is bigger than her right ear, so we can't flip her picture? Better to avoid the whole flipping problem by not doing it.
I'm raising it here rather than Commons because it's the usage that is the problem. If someone wants to write about the relationship between theoretical physicists and their mirror images, they're most welcome to put the illustrations in Commons. But I don't think we should be showing people the wrong way round unless it's required by the context, and made clear. Elemimele (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES#Editing images says, Images should not be changed in ways that materially mislead the viewer. For example, images showing artworks, faces, identifiable places or buildings, or text should not be reversed (although those showing soap bubbles or bacteria might be). Deor (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele: Forgot to ping. Deor (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Deor: I'm as daft as a brush, sometimes I forget to look in the most likely places. Thank you for that. I'll check back at University of Bristol and change the pic to the right-way-round, if no one has already done so. Elemimele (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Can Anyone Help Me Out in Making An Wikipedia Page Of A Person who is already famous and verified on social media and hass many articles about him!

Please help TheInternetContributer (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@TheInternetContributer, I have moved your query from the talk page to this one, which is the correct place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. As for your query, which article do you want to make? See Help:Your first article, which is a guide for creating articles. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Please note that having verified social media account is irrelevant, and being famous does not necessarily equate with being notable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Verified on social media doesn't help at all. Read WP:BASIC. What are the best 3-5 sources demanded per that guideline you can think of? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

See also the reply tou had at Wikipedia:Teahouse#how_to_get_an_page_of_a_person_thats_not_listed_on_wikipedia?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

USS Minnesota BB-22 page question

Hello! I was reading up on this new submarine (USS Minnesota (BB-22)) and had a question about the statement in the first sentence that, "USS Minnesota (BB-22), the fifth of six Connecticut-class pre-dreadnought battleships, was the first ship of the United States Navy in honor of the 32nd state.". I think this is inaccurate. There was an earlier ship named Minnesota during the US Civil War that fought at the Battle of Hampton Roads in 1862. More information here: USS Minnesota (1855). Any questions, please let me know. Thanks! 67.45.96.42 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please direct concerns about an article to its associated talk page, in this case Talk:USS Minnesota (BB-22). 331dot (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

According to USS_Minnesota_(1855) that ship was named after a river, not the state. RudolfRed (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

GA reviewing difficulty

Hi everyone!

I recently picked up the article Möbius strip for a GA review. As soon as I looked at the article, I felt pretty confident that it did not meet the GA criteria, but I thought that I would try to work through the issues with the nominator (David Eppstein) to see if it could be sufficiently improved. From the beginning, however, David Eppstein responded badly to my suggestions and refused to make many proposed edits. Eventually, I was frustrated and decided that I couldn't do the serious overhaul that the article needed if Eppstein wasn't going to cooperate, so I decided to just fail the article instead. This triggered a string of angry messages, which I responded to as best as I could, but culminated in David Eppstein threatening to report me to an admin.

At the moment, David Eppstein has immediately renominated his article - which is frustrating for me, because I feel like it invalidates my perspective as a reviewer and I truly believe that the article does not meet the GA criteria at the moment. He also posted a notice spreading the news of my "bad behavior" to other editors. Although I have been editing Wikipedia for several years, I have never been involved in such a serious conflict, and I'm not quite sure how to respond and defend myself. Does anyone know where I should go from here?

Mover of molehills (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest you re-look at your work. You shut down the review over your personal feelings, not the article content. If you can not work well with others who may be critical of your review, then GA is not the place you should be spending your time.Slywriter (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mover of molehills: Reading the review, it seems that everything was going fine with some civil back-and-forth on the suggested edits. I don't understand why you think the author was not responding well or why you jumped to failing the review. I suggest you discuss it at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations where other editors familiar with the GA review process can weigh in. RudolfRed (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps David Eppstein could have been more diplomatic in questioning your close, but I can see why he was annoyed – the initial close seems to come out of the blue and doesn't properly explain why the article does not reach GA standard. And his conduct in the review before the close seems to have been perfectly polite and his explanations for why he didn't want to make some of the proposed edits appear well-reasoned. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Where you should go from here is do nothing. David Eppstein is within his rights to resubmit a failed GA. I myself have recently done so twice, each time succeeding with the next reviewer. From a look at Eppstein's User page, appears he has brought more than 30 articles to GA, so he may have been irate as your choice to terminate, but that does not matter. You go your way, he goes his, he may or may not succeed at the new attempt. David notMD (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, all of this feedback is useful. Personally, I still feel that the review deserved to be determinated because the article does not meet the GA criteria, but I understand why David Eppstein felt I was being too abrupt. I just hope that he does not spread too much criticism of me on the forums. Mover of molehills (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I hope this does not put you off from being a GA reviewer. We need as many as possible. David notMD (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

At the moment, David Eppstein has immediately renominated his article - which is frustrating for me, because I feel like it invalidates my perspective as a reviewer and I truly believe that the article does not meet the GA criteria at the moment. I can understand how this could be frustrating, but it's basically how the process works. See the second-last question at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/FAQ. In my experience, there's a lot of variance in how different reviewers (and nominators) interpret the GA criteria. I think the "understandable to an appropriately broad audience" part of WP:GACR's 1a is very important, and you provided some good feedback in that area, but I do think you're interpreting the criterion more strictly than an average reviewer would. My overall suggestion would be to put this review behind you and move on. Colin M (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Your comments led to some genuine improvements in the article that will, I think, materially increase its accessibility to non-experts. That's good! I second the suggestions above: take this as a learning experience, move on, and try another GA review when you feel up to it. If you do, I'd suggest sampling the other GA's in the subject area of the one you choose to get a sense of how the community has interpreted the GA criteria in that area. That might help prevent wires from getting crossed. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how to edit..

I’m not really sure how to edit one of the articles I saw because I see some sentences that I want Tao change a bit but it’s not letting me have the option to edit! Can I please have some help with it? Thanks 😊 ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜- TigerTurtle (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

TigerTurtle Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Some articles are protected from editing by newer accounts or IP users in order to prevent disruption or vandalism. If you would like to edit an article but cannot, please post on its associated talk page. For example, the talk page for the Joe Biden article is Talk:Joe Biden. There should be a link to the article talk page at the top of the article(in Desktop mode, at least). There you can post what exactly you would like to do. If you mark your comment as a formal edit request(click for instructions) other editors will be more likely to see it. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to provide the article name. David notMD (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hype house

- TigerTurtle (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

TigerTurtle, neither The Hype House nor Hype House (TV series) are protected, you should probably be able to edit there. just click the edit button at the top, or the [ edit ] link at each section to start editing. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Question about image

Hello, I am trying to upload a image to this page. But I am being notified that the image has already been removed and isn't letting me try to add it. I did add additional text with a citation. In said citation that image was included and needs to elaborate on the wiki page. How can I get this image posted in the page?

Thank you,

Enchantingplateau (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Enchantingplateau, do I understand it correctly that you want to add the picture of the painting from here:[5]? If so, afaik you can't, "Photo courtesy of Wilkes Heritage Museum" reads like the copyright of that photo belongs to that museum, and so we can't use it unless they release it under a WP (well, Commons, really) -acceptable license. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

All the images I can find find of Benjamin Cleveland are fantasy productions. The one you mention is by the artist Don Troiani who is 72 years old. He is very likely the copyright holder. --Broichmore (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

What to do if I find someone I suspect keeps failing to adhere to WP:NPOV?

There is a controversial article under discretionary sanctions where someone keeps reverting edits from other users. I suspected a biased view from the user, and my suspicions only grew when I went to the user's page and found this comment they had made: "Unfortunately, I probably can not edit neutrally this subject. This is really a killer. Here is my perception of these events:" (then they proceed with a poem about it basically saying what they think about the subject). Is there anything I can do about this? What is the proper way to follow? Thanks in advance. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide the article link, so we might be able to look it over? Thanks! Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, it is War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Highly controversial theme. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I see the user you're referring to. Are you familiar with the bold, revert, discuss cycle? If an edit is made by A, and B reverts it, A should now suggest the edit on the Talk Page. If that discussion goes nowhere, and there is no consensus, there are then methods of dispute resolution, such as 3O, RfC, and others. The fact that the user made that comment about neutrality seems not applicable here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I was not familiar, I will read upon it and apply it, thank you. By the way, unrelated, but I don't get notifications when someone replies to me on talk pages. Have I gotten a setting wrong or is there anything I can change so I do get them? Thank you! AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You are pinged when someone tags you like this @AdrianHObradors:. I can't recall if there's a notification setting for replies without a ping (anyone else?), but of course you can add Talk Pages or The Teahouse to your watchlist, and monitor that way. Also, regarding the other editor, if one editor is truly being disruptive and refuses to cooperate with other editors, there are user warnings, and ANI that might be applicable. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Pyrrho the Skipper, you have been very helpful. And yes, that was the way I was doing it, I was just wondering if there was an easier way that I had overlooked.

And that article is a very difficult subject, very prone to strong biased feelings. Either way I hope everything can be resolved on the talk pages, and I will make use of the resources you have provided. Thanks again! AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Flickr

So I have historically tried adding some photos OF other objects (a box of [[Cheerios]] for example) and the image gets reverted because of alleged "copyright violation." I thought that if you take a picture of something, maybe you need to leave enough background or what have you, but if it isn't for commercial purposes, and I am NOT claiming it is MY work... then I am in the grounds of "fair use"? Please do not direct me to some other links, as it is fairly complicated, and I'd love it if an expert could help actually explain this in laymans terms to me. Also, I created a Flickr account because someone told me that that is a better/easier way to do what I am trying to do (upload images of stuff in my home that is helpful to the encyclopedia when and where appropriate). Thanks! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Th78blue. Image copyright policy is very complex, but I will try to keep it simple. First of all, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are stringent about copyright, and many other websites are much more lenient. The graphic design of the box of Cheerios is copyrighted and so use of any photo you take of that box of cereal is restricted by the manufacturer's copyright. When you take a photo of the natural world and utilitarian objects, you own the copyright and can freely license it if you want. But when you take a photo of anything that is a creative work from the last 95 years (in most cases), the creator of that work also has a copyright interest. This applies to most packaged commercial products, sculptures, paintings, posters, logos, book and video covers and the like. Think of any image as being either "free" or "non-free". Free images are those that have been freely licensed or those that are free of copyright, usually because the copyright has expired. Any free image can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and used freely by anyone. Non-free images must be uploaded to Wikipedia, and are subject to stringent limitations on their usage. Cullen328 (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

For a chart showing which Flikr licenses are acceptable on Wikimedia Commons, please see Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. Cullen328 (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

What can I do about immature editors?

A recent change I made was misunderstood by wikipedia editors, and now I am experiencing their wrath. I won't go into details due to fear of further retaliation, but I am quite certain that I am screwed by the inexperienced. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Lord Milner (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Possibly this is about, or related to, this. (Though Deor and I are both fairly experienced.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

To say nothing of other senses, I have a strong feeling that in the "aged" sense of mature I surpass Lord Milner to a considerable degree. And if your user name is at all appropriate, you probably do, too. Deor (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Milner: without knowing what you're referring to, how can we provide "prompt attention"? Remember that Wikipedia is a collaboration. There are many editors and there are guidelines and policies that can be violated by those editors, of course, but no one editor is "better" than another, or more mature. All voices have merit here, for the most part. You are welcome to share the details, and we will be happy to look into the dispute and offer guidance. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Lord Milner Teahouse hosts cant help you if you dont provide the info (preferably hist diff provided). Cassiopeia talk 00:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

courtesy ping for an attempted failed ping fix: @Lord Milner 💜  melecie  talk - 00:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Lord Milner, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I’m afraid this question would require a diff(link to the action) that shows their “immaturity” which brings us to the question of how you quantify or ascertain maturity, or, the lack of it. Per your question the first step is always WP:COMMUNICATION, but since you haven’t provide a diff, at this juncture there isn’t much we can do to aid you. Celestina007 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Please say your country of origin. Lord Milner (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Lord Milner You need to provide hist diff for Teahouse hosts to answer your question. Country of origin of the Teahouse hosts is not the matter here. Cassiopeia talk 02:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hi Lord Milner. It's not clear what anyone's country of origin has to do with what's being discussed here, but perhaps the "problem" you're having is related to this question you asked earlier at the Teahouse. As was suggested in that thread, it would've probably been better for you to be WP:CAUTIOUS and discuss the reasons why you want to WP:MOVE the article Era of Good Feelings on its corresponding talk page and seek consensus for the page move. Sometimes it's acceptable to WP:BOLDly move a page to a new title, but other times not so much as explained here and here. Since your page move was reverted that makes it contentious and the WP:ONUS now falls upon you to establish a consensus in favor of the move. Pages moved without discussion may be reverted so that the move can be properly discussed. This has nothing to do an editor being immature or where they come from, but everything to do with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

How do I write something into my own words?

Okay, so I’m answering some questions on a google doc then I came up to a question that says “How do I put something into my own words” it came up with Step 1: In this one I wrote “ thinking of a different word but with the same meaning”

Step 2: In this one I wrote “ writing a sentence with different words (but with the same meaning)

Step 3: but for this one I don’t know what to put! could I please have some help with this!! oh and sorry that I asked this question but I thought Wikipedia teahouse would help. Thanks 😊 ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜 - TigerTurtle (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a question about Wikipedia? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

As Casualdejekyll has already pointed out to you, TigerTurtle, this "teahouse" is for asking about working with/on Wikipedia. Google Docs are not Wikipedia (and you still don't seem to have attempted to improve any article here). -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry but I have to work from home and I just wanted help 😢😢

Please forgive me!

Sorry again 😭- TigerTurtle (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh and I’m known for saying sorry a lot so sorry for saying sorry a lot 😢

Thanks 😊 - TigerTurtle (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

How to backdate a signature?

Last week I took a content dispute to talk, and forgot to sign.  Is there a simple way to backdate a signature to match the history log date?  Or should I do it manually?  Necessary because I must show good faith effort to discuss, before I "obvert" to my bold contribution. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

hi Jaredscribe and welcome to the teahouse! three tildes adds the signature without the timestamp, and you can probably combine that with the timestamp on the history log (formatted MM:SS, DD Month YYYY (UTC)) to properly sign your comment. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you that answers my question. In the meantime, I have written a new essay WP:Obvert and invite you to make constructive suggestions and / or cite it when fending off ignorant Wikipedia:WikiKnights. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I change my user name?

Hello 😊! im just wondering if I can change my username! Thanks 😊 - TigerTurtle (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

hi TigerTurtle! instructions for that would be over at Changing username. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@TigerTurtle: There's more information at Wikipedia:Changing username, but for recent accounts that haven't made very many edits and were recently made, it's probably faster to abandon it and create a new one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocking people

Just wondering how I can block people due to vandilisim p.s I am autoconfirmedOrganic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

hi ‎Organic Increse45! only admins can block people, however you can warn people who are making disruptive edits (using Twinkle or RedWarn makes this easier), and post over at Administrator intervention against vandalism to block them if needed (if they vandalize after a fourth warning). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but one more question, how can you become admin?

Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You can find out more about how to become an admin at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, but it can be quite an involved process (even a bit nasty sometimes) and submitting such a request at this time is likely going to quickly end in disappointment for you due to your lack of experience. Moreover, people who want to become administrators mainly because they want to be able to block others usually have little luck convincing the WP:COMMUNITY to grant them such a user right. It would be much better for you to establish a track record of being WP:HERE and making positive contributions to improving Wikipedia over an extended period of time to demonstrate to others that you have a good grasp of important Wikipedia policies and guidelines (both content related and behavioral related) and understand how to correctly apply them to a variety of different situations. Personally, I don't think being a good admin is measured by how many users you block, but rather by how you're able to help keep Wikipedia running smoothly without feeling the need to block. In other words, how you're able to help other users become positive contributors to Wikipedia without them ending up blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m trying to add a image

Hello! im trying to add a image onto the article about Chase Hudson (the image is of Chase Hudson) so I added a Chase image into my photos then went to add the image but around then it says do you own this file and I didn’t want to upload the image cause I was worried I might get prosecuted or in big trouble 😓 so I’m wondering if I’m allowed to upload the image (cause I don’t think the person who made the article added a image of Chase Hudson) Thanks 😊 ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜 - TigerTurtle (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

hi TigerTurtle! did you get the image from the internet or otherwise don't own the image (as in, you took or made the image yourself)? then stop, don't. there's a guideline over at Image use policy, identifying usable images for this. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Melecie I’m very happy I asked for help now ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜 😊😊😊

Thanks again 😊 - TigerTurtle (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @TigerTurtle, I was able to find an image of him available at Wikimedia Commons and I have uploaded it. AdrianHObradors (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia ads

What is Wikipedia ads? 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:2C4E:D1BD:CA48:8F45 (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

hi ip user and welcome to the teahouse! wikipedia ads are just fun little banner ads that display policy reminders, wikiprojects, and such. they're not actually paid ads, those are disallowed. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

About the band Genesis

I see the page about the English band, Genesis. Shouldn't they be considered past tense since they played their last show last week in London? It starts out as "...are an English rock band formed at...". I figured it should be "were an English band." Jason 72 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Genesis (band) 💜  melecie  talk - 02:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This may be under discussion at Talk:Genesis (band) already, Jason72. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

someone please help in publishing this page Draft:Saurabh Vaibhav

I'm a newbie here learning day by day from my mistakes can someone please help with this article (Draft:Saurabh Vaibhav) Koundinyajayanth (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

hi Koundinyajayanth and welcome to the teahouse! your main goal here now is to find reliable, independent sources that state that Vaibhav does indeed meet the notability guidelines for music and musicians. I'd also like to note that one of the sources you used is a Wikipedia article, Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety, which is not allowed due to being user-generated content. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we use parentheses or commas when talking about a former name?

For example, should the Qonce article say:

Qonce (formerly King William's Town) is a town in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa along the banks of the Buffalo River.

or

Qonce, formerly King William's Town, is a town in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa along the banks of the Buffalo River.

I know it doesn't matter that much but I'd rather be consistent. Is there a guideline addressing this? Desertambition (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Desertambition, outside Wikipedia, either would be fine. For virtually all users of Wikipedia, either would be fine. A tiny number of Wikipedia editors think that this kind of thing is important. Let them worry over it. Mentally, toss a coin: one side commas, the other side parentheses. Use the result. If a few obsessives then want to change it or (even more ridiculously) argue over it, let them. Use your own time and energy where it matters. Or if you must fret over this -- Why? -- then model it after an existing article that's sure to have been examined by many editors, for example (after removing a reference that's really unnecessary): "Chennai (/ˈtʃɛnaɪ/ , Tamil: [ˈt͡ɕenːaɪ̯]), also known as Madras (the official name until 1996), [blah blah]". -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

MY personal opinion is use commas if the information is relevant and parens if it is an informative aside that could be deleted without compromising the need to convey information (but then, I'm a grammar addict). David notMD (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I'll keep that in mind and try not to think about it too much lol. Desertambition (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Meena Aryan or Dravidian?

Is Meena Aryan or Dravidian? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda, try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Karsan Chanda, the archives of this page will show that you have been repeatedly reminded that this page is for questions about editing and using Wikipedia, and not for questions about Indian history, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy delete a Bulgarian article

My idiot classsmate made a page called bg:Европейска литература, and it is pure vandalism. It should be speedily deleted, but I do not know how to do so in the Bulgarian wiki. 93.123.119.139 (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You will want to ask on the Bulgarian Wikipedia using whatever forum they have to do so. We can only help with issues here on the English Wikipedia. All language versions of Wikipedia are separate from each other. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

...and the page was auto-deleted by the bot PSS 9, so nothing to worry about, ip user. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Problem replacing picture

John Brown Farm State Historic Site - the picture in the infobox is black and white. If you click on it you'll get the color version, which I just uploaded to commons. But the thumbnail will not display in color. deisenbe (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a caching issue. But worse than that, please don't upload colourized versions over an original B/W version. It needs to be uploaded as a separate image. I'm going to revert it back to the B/W version. Please upload it again and reference that version from Wikipedia. - X201 (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Deisenbe, per File:John Brown's grave - 1896 S R Stoddard.jpg it seems you were reverted. Also, I think there is some opposition around to use color versions of bw:s, but I don't know if there's any written guidance somewhere or just local consensus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's the Commons overwrite rules, only small colour changes are allowed. Going from B/W to Colour isn't a small change. It's because Commons images are used on multiple wikis, one single change there can have massive implications. - X201 (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It isn't colorized. The color version is the original. But I will upload it separately. deisenbe (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Deisenbe Understood. If a similar problem should occur, try WP:BYPASS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there any established mechanism to propose a change of variety of English used in an Article?

Trapezoid is written in American English. In American English, Trapezoids and Trapeziums have opposite meanings when compared to British English (or rather any other variety of English outside North America. Since MOS states that Wikipedia doesn't prefer any variety over another, I think that BE should be used for the article. How do I propose this on the talk page? Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You do not, Lone Warrior 007. If it's written in American English, that's the way it stays. (And yes, if it had been written in British English, that's the way it should stay. But it wasn't.) Unless, that is, you can present a compelling reason why it should be in British English. Evidence of "British" rather than "American" usaage in journals published in Australia, Canada, Germany, France, Brazil, etc might be persuasive. -- Hoary (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. Is the following passage (which I copied from that page) not a sufficient reason to change it?

All European languages follow Proclus's structure as did English until the late 18th century, until an influential mathematical dictionary published by Charles Hutton in 1795 supported without explanation a transposition of the terms. This mistake was corrected in British English in about 1875, but was retained in American English into the modern day. Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a good start, Lone Warrior 007, but it's only a start. MOS:RETAIN isn't the last word on the matter of competing conventions, but there's a general agreement among the sensible majority of WP editors that it's a good thing because it avoids a lot of silly squabbling. Therefore if you want a switch, you should provide overwhelming evidence for the benefits of switching. (For a start, how do English-language but non-British dictionaries of math(s) define the two terms?) -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I'll try to research a bit more about it, but as Elemimele has written, the issue isn't just purely aesthetic, hence I am of the opinion that preponderance of evidence should suffice in this case. Anyways, thanks for the helpful replies! Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You will find the above policy at MOS:RETAIN. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a case of MOS:RETAIN, Shantavira, Hoary. The point about Retain is that in a rather cosmetic way, we retain the language in which the article was written, to avoid petty little arguments about whether color is spelt with a "u", and to make life easier for the reader, who may be confused if garbage and rubbish are found in the same sentence. It is also a matter of common sense that when writing about an American subject, one would use the language that an American would use. MOS:RETAIN has no real consequences for meaning, it's more a matter of courtesy and convenience. In this case, however, we have a word that has a totally different meaning in the two languages. The problem is compounded by the Trapezoid article beginning "In English outside North America, a convex quadrilateral in Euclidean geometry, with at least one pair of parallel sides, is referred to as a trapezium...", i.e. what the reader expects to be a definition of a trapezoid is dressed up to look like a definition of a trapezium. The large table was a very sensible idea towards making it clear what's what, but unfortunately introduces inclusive and exclusive trapezoids and in a way makes things even more confusing (see also talk page, where it's confused other readers).

The second compounding factor is that while the disambiguation page for Trapezium explains what's going on, the disambiguation for "Trapezoid" doesn't. So no, simply not changing anything leaves a horrible mess in place.

If you, LoneWarrior look at the talk page, you'll find it's been discussed already. The current unsatisfactory situation is actually the result of the US population being greater than that of the UK, and therefore 6 people (probably) from the US said "the article's about trapezoids, that's what we called them at school, anything else would be confusing" while one bloke from the UK said "well I don't and I'm confused" so consensus was stick to trapezoid. That's fair enough, but it could be made more clear for those of us unlucky enough not to be born in North America.

@Lone Warrior 007:, if you think the confusion is not adequately addressed in the article, or people are likely to come to this article expecting something different because they've been misled by a disambiguation page, then yes, you do discuss any changes you can think of that might alleviate the situation, at the relevant talk-pages. That's what talk-pages are for. Elemimele (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, gosh and blimey! Thank you for clarifying. I had no idea the subject was so complicated.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Following Hoary's advice, I'll research a bit more about it and then start a new discussion on the talk page. Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Shantavira, Hoary, I'm sorry, I was maybe a bit ferocious there. @Lone Warrior 007:, I'll be happy to get involved in any discussion, and I hope some of those who've discussed before will have the article on their watch-list. I'm sure something can be done to make the situation more clear. Obviously there was no consensus to move the article to a new title previously, and since its title can't satisfy two groups of readers with diametrically opposite opinions of the meaning of the word, I wonder whether we should abandon hope of a better title, and instead write a very clear, simple explanation of the ambiguous nomenclature at the start, with a statement of which nomenclature the article is using. The nearest analogous situation I've encountered previously was Chlorogenic acid which has a selection of isomers, and someone changed the way they're numbered so that 3-CGA and 5-CGA swapped positions. Ever since then, both names have been used for both isomers all over the place, with total confusion. I'm sure an amicable and useful solution can be found. Elemimele (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Question with the article Ehelepola Nilame

A question. The article's subject's name was, at this revision, given as Ehelapola Senevirathne Senanayake Chandrathilake Wijesundara Dissanayake Amarakoon Wasala Panditha Mudiyanse and an IP changed it to Ehelepola Wijesundara Wickramasinghe Chandrasekera Amarakoon. I tried searching Google and Google Books but couldn't find any reliable source to support either (most if not all results I got were taken from Wikipedia itself). Can someone try finding a source and citing it? If not, what must be done? —Svārtava (t/u) • 11:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Svartava, I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka. -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, thanks for the quick response. I have one more question: in usual cases like this (not this or any one specifically), where the original creator added an article with any particular detail (like name in this case) without a direct inline citation and another editor changed that detail, also without a citation; then, is it supposed to be simply removed? —Svārtava (t/u) • 12:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Svartava, I'd remove it. If anyone objected, I'd tell them that the onus was on them to provide good evidence by which the material could be verified. (NB I haven't really answered your question; somebody else is welcome to try.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Citing Data Sources

Hello! I'm wondering how I would go about citing some data? I had just previously translated a graph from German and I was thinking that providing a source to the data of the graph would be really useful. The data in question is from Introduction to Time Series and Forecasting by Brockwell & Davis and, as far as I know, the data itself does not have a DOI link. In this case, should I cite the textbook itself or something different? Moon motif (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Moon motif, if this is a book, cite the book, with the relevant page number(s). -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia library

Hello, sorry I have not been able to do much as a Teahouse host and now I am asking a question lol. Any who I’m here to ask about what the Wikipedia library is as I have been invited to it randomly. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Kaleeb18, it's explained in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library and the links therefrom. -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk-page archiving?

Apologies for my April-Fools-use signature. Is it not advisable to archive my talk page by year or so? Any answers are appreciated. Thanks. Xinghua (she/her) • Talk 15:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:FOOLS, on the english Wikipedia April fools starts 00:00 1st April (UTC) and ends 00:00 2nd April (UTC). That being said, I don't see there is a need to archive your talkpage over here. If you still want to do it, please see Help:Archiving a talk page. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Rename a file I uploaded? Update info about a file I've uploadcd? Get a list of files I've uploaded?

I mangled the name of a file I uploaded. Can I change the name? Or can I delete the file then add it again with a good name? So long as I've transcribed the mangled name right, the file is:

Michael O'Connell, textile artist - photo of his hanging 'Variety of British farming' in situ the 1951 Festivasl of Britainthe 1951.Festival of Brirain hanging.jpg

The name should be:

Michael O'Connell, textile artist - photo of his hanging 'Variety of British farming' in situ in the 1951 Festival of Britain.jpg

Can I update the info I provided for the file? In this case I can add a note about the copyright status of the artwork in the photo.

Is there a way to get a list of the files I've uploaded? Tpsoconnell (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tpsoconnell, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can see them by looking at your contributions, at Special:Contributions/Tpsoconnell. Furthermore, you can pick "uploads" at the top to filter only uploads. I'm not sure about renaming: on Comons, you can only request a rename, not do it yourself, but I don't know about files uploaded to WP directly. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tpsoconnell: You can use {{Rename media|new filename|rename reason}} on the file page to ask that File:Michael O'Connell, textile artist - harvesting, detail from his hanging 'Variety of British Farming' in the 1951 Festival of Britain.jpg is renamed (for files residing on Wikimedia Commons, you can use the related template {{rename}} over there). A list of files you uploaded can be found here for files uploaded to the english Wikipedia and here for files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for renaming files in Wikipedia. This is the only place the file is issued. You can upload the file into commons with the new name, or transfer it to commons and rename it as a part of that process. Then the file can be used worldwide. --Broichmore (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

That advice is for the future, because after looking at it, its very likely copyrighted, by the author. File renaming is totally unnecessary, but helpful; the ID data within the file is important. --Broichmore (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Need help

I have completed citing half of Draft:Pollicitation in French civil law but now the rest seems difficult. I don't know anything about this topic and also it's difficult for me to find sources in another language. I don't know why I took this topic up at the first place, but now I cannot have this article deleted or abandon it, so what should I do? Excellenc1 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Excellenc1. Since you have met the requirements, you may access more sources via the Wikipedia Library (link here for courtesy). If you wish to have the article deleted, you may put {{Db-g7}} at the top of the page. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: It won't be deleted unless you ask it to be or if it is not worked on for six months. You can take a break and work on it later if you like. You may also want to ask for help at the Wikiprojects you listed on the talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@3PPYB6: and @RudolfRed: I meant to say that I don't want the article to be deleted in case I abandon it. I am asking for a way to get others who know about the topic to continue it (because I don't want the work done till now to just get deleted). And as for Wikipedia Library, I started using it almost a month ago; it doesn't specifically get me info about the exact topic (based on my usage for Draft:Parc du Thabor). Excellenc1 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Excellenc1—In that case, my #1 piece of advice is: make it get the attention of multiple WikiProjects. There, others will find your draft and likely improve it. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 18:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely! It's especially good to reach out this way because French-speaking users of Wikipedia might have an easier time finding sources :) Your draft looks great, by the way - you've clearly put a lot of hard work into it.Birdsinthewindow (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@3PPYB6: How do I "get the attention"? Excellenc1 (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

How the article is eligible in Mainspace which is already rejected AfC many times

The article B4blaze, which was in AfC and has a huge AfC rejection log also the author was blocked due to paid edit. Later Somebody moved the draft to mainspace see the history. Which guideline the article satisfies and how the article is eligible in mainspace. Still the article is not approved by AfC. How it is possible. Earlier I have warned the same draft author for promotion Onmyway22 talk 16:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Could potentially be WP:Draftify, though AfD may be a better option. Annki777, care to explain why you felt the article was ready for mainspace?Slywriter (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

B4blaze had six Declines and a Rejection before Annki7777 cut refs from 21 to 5, cut half of #bytes and moved it to mainspace. David notMD (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: He displays in his user page that he is an AfC reviewer but I didn't see his username on AfC participant’s list, Also there is no notification of AfC approval on authors talk page. also the interest shows a sockupuppetry or a paid edit. The author was blocked by @Jimfbleak: for undisclosed paid edit months ago. Later other novice accounts and IPs came to the draft after the author's block. Finally, Annki777 came and moved it to the article space. The user @GSS: declined the draft first and commented that the references are seems to be paid press release, see reviewers comments. I also warned and reverted paid approaches to this draft earlier. In my research I found there is no newspaper in this name and nothing found other than an entertainment website company Onmyway22 talk 20:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Onmyway22, any autoconfirmed editor can skip AfC and move a page from Draft to mainspace. No special privilege required. It's bad form but not prohibited and the editor takes responsibility for the page. Community is then free to follow other processes including AfD to remove the page. I'd like to hear their reasoning, though this may need to be escalated as the Teahouse is not the proper venue to evaluate the circumstances and behavior. Slywriter (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

PS I see BB has moved page back to draft.Slywriter (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In the process, restoring the previous Declines and Rejection. David notMD (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

What are IP users?

I've seen a lot of people refer to them as that, how do they work? Blocky44 (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Blocky44, and welcome to the Teahouse! "IP users", or anonymous users, are users who have not created an account, or, are simply logged out. As we have no other way to identify them with a unique username, we have to use their IP address to give them attribution. IP users basically have the same experience as logged-in users, minus a few perks such as having their own user pages, editing protected pages, or gaining certain user rights exclusive to logged-in users. This is why we encourage so many IP users to create accounts. Hopefully this helps! — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought they just chose to name themselves that. Blocky44 (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blocky44—No worries; it is very confusing to most users, as many log entries and editors may still refer to their user pages as attribution, giving off the impression that they are an account under the username "xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx". Happy editing! — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

A person without an account, working on an article from more than one computer or phone (say at home and at work), will likely show up as two related but not identical IP numbers. David notMD (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocky44, "IP" is shorthand for Internet protocol address. You can find out more at IP address and WP:IP. Cullen328 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you help with the article "Draft:Tzancă Uraganu"?

Can you help with the article "Draft:Tzancă Uraganu"? This is my first time doing English Wikipedia. I don't know how to delete the draft. AlexBTR (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@AlexBTR Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! If you’re the author of the only substantial content on the draft (it appears that you are), and you would like for the page to be deleted, just add this template onto the top of the page: {{db-g7}} An admin will then take care of the rest. Hope I’ve helped. Helen(💬📖) 19:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Title of my first article is wrong and I don't know how to change it

I wrote an article about an author, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wlbujo/sandbox

But the title is my user name and sandbox. It should be the name of the author I wrote about and I just can't figure out how to change it. Wlbujo (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wlbujo: Welcome to the Teahouse. At the bottom of the page is a templated box that has a Submit your draft for review! button. clicking on that will submit it into a review backlog for a reviewer to look at eventually. If it passes, the reviewer will rename it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I changed the title to Draft:Christopher “Bull” Garlington. For future reference, top menu, More, has Move under it. David notMD (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

When you are ready to submit, put subst:submit at the top of the draft inside double curly brackets {{ }} on keyboard, to right of "P". Once submitted, it joins the backlog of ~3,000 drafts waiting for review. The system is not a queue. Reviewers pick what they want to review. Could be days, weeks, or sadly, months. You can continue to work on the draft. David notMD (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you so much. I am so lost here! Wlbujo (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This is only applicable if a user is autoconfirmed (at least 10 edits, at least 4 days old). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please suggest the best way to contribute to medical topics

Hi there, my name is Robert and I am a medical doctor, but almost more importantly ;) I am working with an ontologist to define a medical domain specific ontology and this is forcing me to nitpick and spend a lot of time in getting down in the gory details of concepts and related terminology that are used in current life in often confusing ways.

Avid passive user I think I might help a little bit more actively but am completely new to this so please forgive my naivety.

Just as an example today I stumbled on a (medical) Signs and Symptoms page and edited in on a couple of lines where I feel there's not much debate in changing things, but as I read along I found a section called Syndromes which is described against all of the knowledge and evidence I have gathered in the last months. Specifically to explain myself most of the consensus I have gathered is that a syndrome is charachterized by a cluster of often co-occurrent signs/symptoms and that when the cause (etiology) is then discovered, the same cluster can be then called a disease. The current writing not only gives a different interpretation but gives questionable examples.

What is the way to discuss my opinions (and show the supporting evidence I have gathered) and discuss with good people with different opinions and settle for an agreed course of action ?

Thanks for your guidance (and forgive any oddities in my writing as I'm not an English mother tongue) Rjalexander (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rjalexander. Expert editors are welcome but you cannot add your personal knowledge to the encyclopedia. You must summarize and cite published, reliable sources, so start by reading Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). You can find additional resources at Wikipedia: WikiProject Medicine. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Replying at same time Medical/health articles must comply with WP:MEDRS, meaning that all content must be supported by references that are published in reputable journals or books, and represent reviews, systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The place to start a discussion of proposed changes is the Talk page of the article. There, one hopes to reach consensus with other interested editors. A constant problem is that talk pages may have few visitors, hence no replies. But take heart! Wikipedia policy is WP:BRD. That means be Bold in your edits, and if Reverted (reversed) Discuss (at Talk). David notMD (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Doc James is one of our most experienced medical editors. You might want to touch base with him. Cullen328 (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Weighing in on this discussion, I noticed that you mentioned a desire to discuss your opinions with other editors. A good place to do that is the talk page of the article in question! See WP:TP for more information. When you're discussing your opinions and your research, remember that Wikipedia has a rule against original research (see WP:NOR), so facts have to have reliable, published sources directly related to the fact before they can be added to an article. I'm glad you're considering becoming more active - I'm sure you'll make a great editor, given your good manners and extensive knowledge. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

At Signs and symptoms the Syndrome section has no references, but there is a link to the article Syndrome. If there is better content - with references - there, you could develop a summary from what is there, with references and replace what you dislike in the S&S article. If you choose to do this, your Edit summary (at bottom of where you have edited, above Publish changes), should state where you took content and references from. Copy/paste from one Wikipedia article to another is allowed if attributed. David notMD (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Where can I find recent-created articles?

Dear Wikipedia contributors,

Could you kindly help me to find a page (or category) in Wikipedia to having access to recent-created articles? In other words, is there a page that the articles which were created recently (were not reviewed) being listed there? In another words, is there a page that we find new articles? Best Regards. Brian O'Conner 19:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:NewPages. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Brayan ocaner You may also like to check out Special:NewPagesFeed, which is slightly different in that it has more search filters. For example, you could configure the settings so that the feed only shows you unreviewed articles, or perhaps those with no citations. Happy editing! Helen(💬📖) 23:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Mouseover to show previews of Wikimedia Images?

Mousing over a "media:image_filename.ext|Image" Image link yields a popup showing image_filename.ext, but is there any way to code in a mouseover that will show a thumbnail of the Image itself, as happens with links to Wikipedia articles? Pontchardon (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion

How do I nominate an article for deletion for April fools? 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Personally I would advise against doing so. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

But do you know how? 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Mr Reading Turtle, 331dot knows how, and I know how too. Nominating it as some kind of joke would waste people's time; so no, we're not going to waste our time helping you waste other people's time. Please do something constructive. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Like nominating Category at WP:Categories for discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't share the same views as them; Mr Reading Turtle, for specific instructions, visit WP:FOOLS and after WP:AFDHOWTO. Be sure to follow them very carefully so you don't get into any accidental trouble. Have fun! Panini! • 🚢 00:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't really understand the page, can you give me step by step (I'm a newcomer) 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

If you're this new to the community, while it'd be great for you to join in on the fun, it might not be worth it yet until you've learned the ropes a bit more. I'm all for the fun, and please don't take this personally, but maybe hold off until April Fools comes around next year? Bsoyka (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you've been given some bad advice by Panini! as explained in Wikipedia:Rules for Fools#General and I don't recommend that you follow it. Nominating an article for deletion simply as an April Fools' joke (which seem to be the who point of the OP's question) is going to be considered disruptive and almost certainly lead to admonishment and possibly even to your account being blocked. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/columbidae that you started is malformed so the disruption is minimal, but someone is still going to need to clean things up. Please don't do anymore of this unless you do so correctly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strike out unnecessarily critical part, and add clarification (underlined). -- 02:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)]

I agree that new users to the wiki might want to hold off on participating in April Fools, but [nominating] an article for deletion simply as an April Fools' joke is pretty common and a recurring and mostly accepted part of the holiday here. See Wikipedia:Rules for Fools § Joke deletion nominations and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing § April Fools' Day. Not to be rude, but if this is disruptive, why are all the people who've participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2022 still able to edit the wiki? Bsoyka (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

That log is a special page set up specifically for April Fools' jokes and the corresponding AFDs are formatted as such. The one created by the OP appeared to be malformed and wasn't added to the joke log or the regular log page; so, it was basically floating out there in space accomplishing nothing. In hindsight though, my tone was perhaps more harsh then it needed to be and less understanding that it should've been, and I've amended my original comment to soften it a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Updated comment LGTM, thanks. Bsoyka (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Free images

Hello! I'd much appreciate some assistance on determining whether specific image files are free for use on Wikipedia or not. Many of the sources do not flat out tell you, and if the image is coming from a company or group it's a bit risky for one to decide on their own. If you'd like me to link the images I want to check just for reference, I could do that too. Thanks in advance! TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Trevortnidesserped! In general, unless the creator very specifically says an image is under a Creative Commons license or is in the public domain, you can and should assume that all rights are reserved and it's not a free-use image. However, there are some exceptions under fair use for images such as company logos; see WP:NFCC for those rules. If you'd like to link the images in question here, I'd be happy to take a look. Bsoyka (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Trevortnidesserped. You might find the image at the top of c:Commons:Licensing and some of the examples given in c:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter helpful, but it's probably a good ideal to assume that any image you didn't create yourself is protected by copyright and that copyright is held by someone else. Of course, things are more complicated that that especially since copyirght laws can vary quite a bit by country, but that basic assumption is probably a good place to start. Visible copyright notices used to be explicity required (at least under United States copyright law), but that's no longer the case. Further complicating things is that many websites hosts images created by others and thus the website has no copyright claim over the original image. The website might be hosting the content under a claim of fair use or they simply might not care; moreover, in some case, they might knowingly try to claim copyright over content they didn't create (which is essentially "stealing") because they think nobody is going to notice. What these other sites do is their business, but Wikipedia tries to ensure (as much as possible) that all content it hosts meets Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files and only host content which can be clearly demonstrated to be either within the public domain or released under an acceptable free license. There are some exceptions such as non-free content, but these are highly restricted (even more so that US copyright law). So, if you didn't take the photo yourself, paint the painting yourself, produce the TV show or movie yourself, write the book yourself, design the logo yourself, etc., then someone else did and that person is going to be assumed to be the copyright holder of the work in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 01:33, April 1, 2022 (UTC) [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to fix copy-paste error per below; missing text is underlined. -- 01:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)]

@Marchjuly: Courtesy ping, FYI your message appears cut off. Bsoyka (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Thank you for noticing it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Trevortnidesserped, here is the short version: Unless you have solid evidence that a certain image is free of copyright restrictions, then you must operate under the default assumption that the image is restricted by copyright. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses! My bad for not specifying but I meant more-so for uploading files, that can be difficult especially for older images because they are often mass-duplicated and it's hard to find the origin. Some of the images in question are the single cover art for "Nobody Like U" from the Pixar film, which can be found on Spotify (here's what it looks like: https://www.whiskynsunshine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/NobodyLikeU_4Town_050087503208-1024x1024.jpg) and the cover art for Sugarhigh by Jade Anderson (here's what it looks like - https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71GN655TePL._SY355_.jpg) This was good to know though because I was also wondering what the case was for files that were already on the site. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Trevortnidesserped, any image created by a major contemporary media outlet like Pixar (or pretty much anyone else) will be copyrighted for 95 years. Policy guidance for limited usage of a low resolution version of this image can be found at Non-free content (images). That policy must be followed precisely. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Trevortnidesserped: I think it's safe to assume that both those image are copyrighted and the copyright holder are likely the record companies that released the singles. So, you're not going to be able to upload either of these to Wikipedia or Commons under an acceptable free license unless you can clearly show that the cover art has been released as such with the copyright holder's WP:CONSENT. It might be possible to upload these files locally to Wikipedia non-free content per item 1 of WP:NFCI, but that will largely depend on how intend to use them. Generally, it's OK to use this type of non-free cover art for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about albums and singles, but it's much harder to use it in other ways or in other types of articles as explained here. It should be OK for you to uploaded the files using {{non-free album cover}} for the copyright license and {{non-free use rationale album cover}} for the non-free use rationale as long as their uses is limited to the infoboxes of "Sugarhigh" and "Nobody Like U"; you should, however, try and find a source as close to the original copyright holder as possible just to make sure there are no issues with Wikipedia:Non-free content#Meeting the previous publication criterion. In this case, Amazon should be fine for "Sugarhigh", but I don't know what the website "Whisky + Sunshine" has to do with the other single and it might be better to try and find something a little closer to the original source. The links you provided above are also direct links to the images themselves which is helpful, but it's also a good idea to provide a link to the webpage where the image can be seen being used for verification purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Using a physical document as a source

Hi there,

I have found some old physical documents that I would like to add as source to an article.

I'm unsure as to whether this is allowed (I haven't found anything looking around), and if it is where the best place to scan and upload the documents is to make them publicly viewable.

Thanks in advance.

Ealder3301 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ealder3301. Offline paper documents are allowed as references, as long as the document has been published by a reliable source. So, unpublished letters, diaries, notes and routine government documents are not permitted. If the document has been published by a reliable source, then provide all of the bibliographic details in your reference. Also, be careful about the proper use of primary sources. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ealder3301. Just going to add that there's no need for you to upload the document for use on Wikipedia to cite it as a source as long as the original source of the document is considered reliable per Wikipedia's standards. The document, however, should be something published and reasonably available to allow it to be verified in some way. Uploading the document might seem like a good way to aid in the verification process, but it could create a copyright issues that might be difficult to resolve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Rejection Reason of Submission Inconsistent and Non-Applicable. How to Proceed?

Hello there,

I submitted a post to AFC in accordance with your policies. The submission was promptly denied by a novice editor.

I disputed the reasons for the rejection on the reviewer’s page, and the reviewer simply cited new ‘reasons’-- one of which was contradictory to their previous request. The other reason was listed without providing the appropriate policy link. The reviewer then directed me to this Teahouse page.

The post in question is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hacker_Noon

The discussion and appeal is here, number 33. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RPSkokie#Re:_AFC:_Hacker_Noon

Please review all pieces of information. I understand the rejection reason, and it is simply not applicable. If there are changes to be made, they seemingly should fall well within the scope of what an editor may be willing to tweak. It's a tastefully sized post.

I was directed here, however I’m under the impression that there is a different area for appeals.

Happy to proceed with the appeals process as instructed in your response, as per cited policies.

Thanks so much!

Ellen Escvca (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at your draft Draft:Hacker Noon it was declined NOT rejected, I would have also declined it as advertising. Paid editing is held to a higher account. Theroadislong (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Escvca: You claim that RPSkokie is a "novice editor". Note that they have more than 3700 edits, when you have less than 30, all related to a page you are paid to create. At any rate, arguments from authority hold little weight here, but I suggest you drop that line of reasoning sooner than later.

The reviewer cited WP:CITEKILL which means "yes, there are many sources, but most or all of them are bad". As it stands there are more than 70 sources, with no indication whatsoever of which show notability. We need sources that are simultaneously (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable, and (3) deal with the subject at length.

Your best bet at this point is to provide the three best sources you have (make sure to read that link to understand why). (Just three links, no need for a long wall of text of critical commentary.) Before you attempt to do that, I would note that the very first source you cited on the reviewer’s page, this Guardian piece, falls immediately on account of (3) (the only mention of Hacker Noon is as the website on which the subject of that piece published an article).

If those sources do not exist, do not bother making any more effort - good writing will not pass a draft that fails the notability tests. If they do, then we can discuss other fixable issues, such as the bold font in titles (don’t do that). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Declined post and editing help, NPOV

Hey! I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. I submitted a page to be reviewed and it got declined because it was said to read like an advertisement.

I'm not trying to make it sound like an advertisement, I just can't think how to change the wording without straying far from the source that I got the information from. I looked at the Wiki Neutrality page, but I feel like I've changed it enough to read normally. Can anyone help to look at the page and give me more pointers? Or ways that I can ask other editors to help me read through my page to help? I've seen pages accepted with much less and almost no sources, so I'm a little confused how this couldn't have been accepted.

GlobalAaloo (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)