Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thx56 (talk | contribs) at 21:09, 10 January 2025 (→Picture Formatting: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, a Teahouse host

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


Wikitext

I am trying to make a userbox and let users put It in their user page. But it will go to wikitext instead of plain text. How to make wikitext go to plain text? and I can't change it to visual because I am editing a Wikipedia page. Ned1a Wanna talk? 02:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nedia020415 I'm not really sure what you mean, but WP:UBXCREATE has instructions for creating new userboxes. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I understood correct: To display wikitext as plain text in a userbox, use the tags around the code. For example: <nowiki>{{YourUserboxCode}} Ayohama (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ned1a Wanna talk? 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nedia020415 Template:Tl is nice and generates something like {{Example}} for example or use Template:Mra for the code/outpout:
Markup Renders as 
{{Example}}
This is an example of a template. For help with templates, see Help:Template.

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ooh! Thank you I will put that. ;) Ned1a Wanna talk? 22:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the icons so weird

I was looking through Wikipedia and special articles and noticed the icons are in frutiger aero style, why so? I mean, you could just ask wikipedians to volunter to redesign the icons or hire a graphic designer ❦⌬ IsaqueCar ⌬❦ (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, IsaqueCar. I for one only ask fellow volunteers for help when I'm stuck, or when I'm acutely aware of my ignorance. (Thus I've recently asked for help with numismatics, of which I'm ignorant, and, indirectly, with the Czech language, which I can't read.) Hiring professionals of course costs money. Is the alleged weirdness likely to impair understanding of encyclopedic content? -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @IsaqueCar. Until I searched and found Frutiger (typeface) I hadn't the slightest idea what you were talking about. I still have no idea which icons you mean.
If you are talking about part of the user interface, then be aware that most Wikipedia editors (who are generally the people that hang out at this page) don't have any involvement in this, and it's better to bring this up at WP:VPT. If you're talking about something within an article or series of articles, then the talk page of those articles, or of a relevant WP:WikiProject, is the best place to bring the matter up. ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: I looked for Frutiger Aero, which was more enlightening.
@IsaqueCar: Why not so? Design is a subjective thing: as long as the icons are visible and clear in meaning, then there's not really a problem, is there? Bazza 7 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it just feels weird to have such old looking icons on a modern website ❦⌬ IsaqueCar ⌬❦ (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it is very subjective. I exclusively use Monobook because I like the older look of it. Every design can have wildly differing opinions depending on who you ask. Thx56 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Icons like in those info boxes "this article contains information..."
Some icons of wikiprojects will show you what i mean ❦⌬ IsaqueCar ⌬❦ (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also special articles normaly have lots of notices so it's also a good example ❦⌬ IsaqueCar ⌬❦ (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translation and references issue

Draft:Christine Meyer

This artist was marked as missing in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Women in rock music and so I decided to translate the Norwegian article. I was, however, not allowed to do so, so I've saved my suggestion at the link mentioned first in this post.

Secondly: The references I've added are not recognised as such. I'd be grateful for any pointers as to why. Thank you! :) Birdesigns (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For References, if using double curly brackets, use "reflist", not "references". I fixed it David notMD (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Birdesigns (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Birdesigns, and welcome to the Teahouse.
When you say you're "not allowed to do so", I'm guessing that you tried to use the content translation tool? This is only available for editors who have at least 500 edits (which you have not, even though your account is nearly ten years old). This is because so many newer editors do not understand English Wikipedia's requirements on sourcing and notability, and that many other Wikipedia's have less stringent requirements.
In the case of your draft, you have three references for one single claim in the article, and no references for anything else. This is not adequate sourcing for an article in English Wikipedia, which should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. (As far as I can make out, few if any of the sources in the original no:Christine Meyer meet the criteria of WP:42).
Unless the original is well-sourced to approaching the standard required of new articles in English Wikipedia, I believe that the best approach to translating is to treat it like a new article with perhaps some input from the original, rather than relying on translating the content . ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Colin. The sources I include are mainstream (albeit local/regional) newspapers, and the offical website (management) for the artist. There is not much else to reference than the explanation of who she is and her most known performance. Birdesigns (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Birdesigns. Regional newspapers are often reliable, but the source needs to be independent and have significant coverage of her too. The sources I looked at only had a line or two about her (generally in that one role). And anything from her official website is not independent, and cannot contribute towards establishing notability.
If you cannot find sources to establish that she meets either WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG, then she does not meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm fine with that, but admittedly a bit annoyed since she was on the "red list" and all I did was trying to make her blue. Should there not be a curation of that list before we are encouraged to red-to-blue fix it? Or is deciding that someone isn't notable a part of the fixing process? If so, how does one go about to let others know that the best is to not publish the article? Simply edit the source of the list and delete from there? Birdesigns (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdesigns: I can understand you frustraton, but please remember that the top of that page has a panel including the words:

Please note ... that the red links on this list may well not be suitable as the basis for an article. All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria with reliable independent sources.

(emphasis in original). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andy – appreciate the pointer. :) So, do I simply ignore those on the list which I reckon aren't meeting the requirements, and let others decide whether or not to delete them? Is there somewhere I can write a small note on my thoughts on the person's notability? Birdesigns (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Is he notable Chetan Maddineni ? 175.101.60.14 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Chetan Maddineni appears to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines based on his roles in notable films and coverage in independent sources. Ayohama (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about sources doesn’t meet WP:ICTFSOURCES 175.101.60.14 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, IP. I looked in all of the sources that are currently referenced. Here they are, with my comments:

None of these six sources counts toward evidence of notability. For all I know, other sources, not referenced here, show that Chetan Maddineni is notable. I haven't looked (and perhaps am hobbled by my ignorance of Telugu and Hindi). Which independent sources are you describing above, Ayohama? -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does editor classification work?

how is an editor considered either new, intermediate, advanced or mentor, and what are the requirements for such roles? ❦⌬ IsaqueCar ⌬❦ (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @IsaqueCar. I'm not aware of any such classifications used in a formal sense. "Mentor" is a role that an editor may take on. Where have you seen these used? ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
special articles that include info about editing "(type of edit) is suitable for intermediate editors"
"copy-editing is suitable for begginer editors" ❦⌬ IsaqueCar ⌬❦ (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. I don't think those are formal, defined, terms. They're being used loosely, to give an indication of the level of experience required. ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not aware either, Wikipedia:User access page doesn't specifically mention "new," "intermediate," "advanced," or "mentor" classifications. However, it outlines various user groups based on permissions, such as unregistered users, autoconfirmed users, extended confirmed users, and administrators, which represent different levels of experience and access. Ayohama (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot what page i saw it on ill search for it ❦⌬ IsaqueCar ⌬❦ (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Experience levels are recommended for various functions (For example being a Teahouse Host, at least 30 days and 500 edits). David notMD (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Task Center uses this style. I'd describe it as based on self-assessment. In reality it's going to relate to experience and knowledge of policies, guidelines, and other relevant practices. I'd think almost all editors with fewer than 100 edits are going to be noobies, but there could be exceptions for some tasks, such as people who have used a similar wiki platform before, or people with professional writing experience. There are people with many thousands of edits and years of experience who couldn't do stuff within an 'intermediate' category, but also many people who could do things within a few weeks of learning. As mentioned above, Wikipedia:User access levels are formal classifications. Everything else is woolly and hand-wavy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Newcomer Homepage describes tasks similarly, although with ‘Easy’, ‘Medium’, and ‘Hard’: for when you are beginning to edit, for when you have completed some easy edits, and for when you have learned Wikipedia best practices, respectively. But there are no requirements for new/intermediate/advanced as said above and that too is based on self-assessment. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We also have something at Category:User Wikitext, which admittedly is also informal and self-assigned, and actually is only seen in context to Wiki syntax. Lectonar (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needing help with contest

I want to join the guild of copyeditors' backlog of Jan 2025 but the signup instructions are too confusing ❦⌬ IsaqueCar ⌬❦ (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome, IsaqueCar! To sign up, go to this backlog page and click the blue “Create your article list” button in the Signing up section and save the page. That will sign you up for the drive. The Totals section below the signup explains how to use your article list. Be sure to read the guide to basic copyediting first, and happy (copy)editing! Perfect4th (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a category to a page/talk page

Hi,

I’d like to add a category to an article’s talk pages and cannot see the HTML in the source code. According to my searches as to how to do it, I should see the category source code to add a category to, but I don’t see it. Thanks for your time Elinoria (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the source editor which I presume you are using, you add a category by adding a link to the category at the bottom of the page. An example would be [[Category:Example]] Thx56 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! That’s exactly what I expected, but when I try to edit the entire page, I don’t see any source code for the category. If I try pasting the category at the very bottom of the page, nothing appears in the preview.
Do you have any suggestions?
Elinoria (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Elinoria. I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
The Wikicode [[Category:category-name]] may actually go anywhere on a page: it's just convention to put it at the bottom. And you won't see anything when the page is rendered except in the list of categories at the bottom.
If you are talking about your user page, and you mean that when you edit source you can't see any "[[Category]]" statements at the bottom, that's because the categories are inserted by the templates that you have added to the page, and since it doesn't show you the expanded code of the templates, you don't see the "Category" statements.
Does that answer your question? ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If not then please link the page and name the category. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Managed it eventually! Elinoria (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It worked - I was confused by it not showing up on the preview. When I published, it appeared. Thank you. Elinoria (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R-Salt

This was mentioned in connection to the recent New Orleans attack, but there does not seem to be Wikipedia article for it. If someone in the chemistry world wants to write an article about it, please do. Keith Henson (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1,3,5-trinitroso-1,3,5-triazine (R-Salt) is an insensitive energetic that has previously been used as an improvised explosive. Keith Henson (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Hkhenson, and welcome to the Teahouse. While you're certainly allowed to post such a request, I want to tell you that the chances of anybody acting on that request are very low. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and prople work on what they choose. While it's possible that somebody will see your request and act on it, it's not very likely.
There is a recognised place for requesting articles, WP:RA; but in all honesty, the take-up there is very low as well. Something that might work better is to ask at a relevant WikiProject - perhaps WT:WikiProject Chemistry: that will at least be seen by people who have an interest in Wikipedia's coverage of chemistry.
Generally, if you want to see an article created, the most effective way is to do the research (find the sources to establish Notability) and do it yourself. Doing that will have the side benefit that if you can't find suitable sources, you'll know that the article cannot be written. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The intersection of WT:CHEM and WP:TH is non-null:) Feel free to add cited info to R-salt, which I just turned blue. DMacks (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! It's sometimes said around here that Teahouse-people don't start articles on request, but that isn't always true. Sometimes we feel like doing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång will remember this question leading me creating this one about Armored mud balls a couple of years ago. It's far less likely that anyone would ever want to create one about a businessman, cryptocurrency fad or 'some here-today-gone-tomorrow' minor celebrity. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes we really want WP to have that article. Earl Bailly was inspired by a question at Commons, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s incredible! I love the name Delectopierre (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm often on the fence for these...promoting involvement by newer editors to create articles on topics of their interest (increased involvement is good, and demonstrated willingness to engage in collaboration) vs doing it myself (especially if it could benefit from specialized literature resources or where some people might not feel comfortable writing publicly about certain topics even if "anonymous"). DMacks (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube

If a reliable source posts a video on Youtube, is the video a good source to rely on? WikiPhil012 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube as a source is generally usable if the outlet themselves posts the video to their verified channel. As an example, a video by CNN uploaded to CNN's own channel is fine. That same video uploaded to "NewsLieTracker"'s channel isn't. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but in name of the website do i put the publisher, or YouTube? WikiPhil012 (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'd put the publisher, and put YouTube in the via parameter. Ca talk to me! 02:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WikiPhil012. You should probably take a look at WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK before adding any links to YouTube videos to any Wikipedia, even as part of a citation. If the source itself is considered to be a reliable source (as defined by Wikipedia), you can still cite it without providing a link to YouTube; just make sure you provide as much information as you can about the original source in the citation as explained in WP:CITEHOW. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can put YouTube videos on Wikipedia. 2001:44C8:455C:91:C1B3:EC6C:4318:1D05 (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That last comment is true in some cases, but false in most. See WP:YOUTUBE, as already cited. ColinFine (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

promotional template

can white44tree please add promotional template to Deko article on wikipedia? White44Tree (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well i added the promotional template. Ned1a Wanna talk? 00:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does the content appear promotional? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 00:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yea... removed it sorry Ned1a Wanna talk? 00:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vacuity (see the article, and its earlier AfD) isn't the same as promotionalism. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what about Bryce Gheisar page add promotional template? White44Tree (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does anything about the contents of that article appear promotional to you? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are primary sources okay for a (minor) controversy section?

Currently working on the article Sacred Reich (a section at my sandbox), and I'm considering adding a (specifically minor) two-to-three-sentences-long controversy paragraph pertaining to the name of the band, sitting under the "Name" heading after the name's origin. Currently, the only relevant sources are these two interviews with lead guitarist Wiley Arnett and with the band respectively. The former has a story about how they were nearly stopped by police from doing a gig, being mistaken for a neo-nazi rally because of the name, and the latter having a sentence about the band receiving a letter from someone after the release of Surf Nicaragua, who "had the wrong idea about us and didn’t like the One Nation lyrics." (Note: One Nation is a song about anti-racism and bigotry.) However, since these are both primary sources, I still hold concerns on whether or not this should be included in the final article. If anyone can provide another opinion, it'd be highly appreciated.

—Sparkle and Fade talkedits 04:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello —Sparkle and Fade. I know nothing about the band, but I suggest you write that during an interview Wiley Arnett stated the band got its name because of – whatever reason was given. Perhaps a better source for the name origin could be found later on, and then the article can be edited. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sparkle & Fade: primary sources can be used to verify facts (straightforward and non-contentious ones). If the question is "where did this band get its name?", then arguably there is no better source to answer that, than the people who actually named it, ie. the band members. Even if you find a secondary source, say a magazine telling us where the name comes from, the information almost certainly ultimately traces back to the band members anyway. But as Karenthewriter suggests, rather than simply stating it as an absolute fact like "the name comes from" you should refer to that primary source and phrase it as "according to Arnett, the name comes from" (or words to that effect). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

susanhollowayscott.com reliable?

I'm currently working on upgrading an article to Good Article status, but there's still one citation left that's needed. Unfortunately, the only source I can seem to find is susanhollowayscott.com, which is a blog. I know that some blogs are allowed, so is this one trustworthy, or is it unreliable? Help! Ali Beary (talk2me!) (stalk me?!) 18:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ali Beary. WP:BLOG says when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. According to our article on Susan Holloway Scott, she is a writer of historical fiction, and her blog seems to be mostly on historical subjects, as you might expect. She has no doubt done her research, but unless she has a track record as a reliably published writer about history, it doesn't sound promising. ColinFine (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your refs 1,2 and 3 are to her website, and therefor not independent and not contributing to confirming notability. David notMD (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article content states what she has written, but does not have content or refs for what has been written about her. This is Start class at best (the current rating) and needs significant work before being upgraded to C-class, let alone nominated for GA. David notMD (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OP nominated Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton, not Susan Holloway Scott. Tarlby (t) (c) 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, query pertains to raising Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton to GA, and want to know if effort can use Scott's blog as a reference. In that case, I agree with ColinFine that while Scott publishes historical fiction, she does not quality as an academic historian with bona fides. David notMD (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and Notability

Just because sources exist for a subject does not necessarily mean that it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, correct? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RedactedHumanoid Correct. WP:GNG sources are wanted, not, for example, subject's social media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RedactedHumanoid. There can not be an Wikipedia article unless the subject is considered notable. Sources exist about me, including mentions in a few local newspaper articles, but that doesn't make me Wikipedia-article-notable. If you haven’t already done so reading Help:Your first article may be of help to you. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. I was just wondering cause I very recently obtained NPR rights, and wanted to know if just because an article with sources meant that it was notable, since I forgot. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Page about Indian Educational linguist - Rama Kant Agnihotri

I am in doubt if the person is nitable and whether he should have a wikipedia page.

Full name - Rama Kant Agnihotri

Profession - Professor (Retd.), faculty at Uni. of delhi.

Wrote many books, including, Routledge published: an essential Hindi grammar. Ruderaksh11 (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruderaksh11, do you mean Draft:Ramakant Agnihotri? Schazjmd (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ruderaksh11, it's merely a draft. Let's see how the draft develops. I have to say, though, that it's seriously defective. Consider this somniferous sample: "Rama Kant Agnihotri’s work has been pivotal in leveraging India’s rich linguistic diversity as a tool for social justice and educational equity." I think this means "Rama Kant Agnihotri’s work has made India’s linguistic diversity a tool for social justice and educational equity"; but I'd have to look at the source to be sure. However, the only source provided is by Rama Kant Agnihotri himself, so it can't be used to verify a claim for an achievement by him. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the draft, you should not have article-like content on your Use page and should stop any work on Draft:Rama Kant Agnihotri (2). As for the unsubmitted draft Draft:Ramakant Agnihotri, needs work before being submittedfor review. David notMD (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Ballester

2 weeks ago someone added something in French to the article Jean-François Ballester. According to Google translate it's about the place and grave, where he was buried. As they put malformed "ref"-tags around it, it's not clear to me, what they intended to do. So: should the sentence be deleted, or could it be used somehow? Maresa63 Talk 23:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reference was for his mother and sister being coaches, so I moved it back up to that line. I removed the addition in French (location of his grave), as there was no source to support it. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/data/images/1315374-Thomas_Robert_Bugeaud.jpg

Can I just check this is out of protection, it was painted in the 1840s, does it being a digital image have different / changed protection? LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LeChatiliers Pupper Faithful 2D representations/photos of paintings that old would be in the public domain, as that article explains. When you upload the image to Commons, make sure you include your immediate source, i.e. the weblink you gave here. More complex copyright questions should be directed to the Commons helpdesk at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need a biography written on Wikipedia

As a naturopath and holistic healthcare practitioner, I'd like an experienced Wiki writer to feature an article on my expertise. If any of you can help then please reach out soon. Dr. Mojibul Haque (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Mojibul Haque Posting a request here at the Teahouse is more-or-less an invitation to scammers to "reach out" and take your money, as the link I've added explains. If you are (or become) a wikinotable person, then a volunteer will likely notice and write about you. There are reasons why you may regret having such an article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Dr. Mojibul Haque. To put your request in other words "I want to use Wikipedia to promote my business". Promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia.
If several people who have no connection with you, and have not been commissioned or fed information on you behalf, choose to write at some length about you in reliable sources, then you would probably meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and an article could be written about you. Such an article would not belong to you, would not be controlled by you, would not necessarily say what you want it to say, and would be able to be edited by almost anybody in the world except you and your associates. If it happened that there was reliably published material that was negative about you, that would probably be discussed in the article. See an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing
If you have not been written about in that way, then no amount of work, and no amount of money, is going to be able to put an article about you in Wikipedia: see WP:AMOUNT.
Please focus on other means to promote your business. And don't, whatever you do, pay somebody to write a Wikipedia article about you: see WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your submission of a draft about yourself at User:Dr. Mojibul Haque/sandbox has been declined. For a living person, all content must be verified by valid references (see WP:42). References need to be to publications about you, not sci journal articles for which you were a co-author. Those are useless. David notMD (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Mojibul Haque: I feel I should point out that alternative medicines (and those who practice with same) are in a contentious topic, with part of the issue in the topic area being promotion such as you're attempting to do. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See that Naturopathy is designated on its Talk page as a contentious topic. David notMD (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the WikiCup

What is the WikiCup, that’s my only question. Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiCup Lectonar (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Yuanmongolempiredynasty, The WikiCup is an annual writing competition on Wikipedia, where participants earn points by contributing to articles across various categories. The goal is to encourage high-quality contributions and promote engagement. Ayohama (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you just edit to get points? Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yuanmongolempiredynasty it's friendly competition, and for some people a fun way to motivate themselves. We're both WP:SERIOUS and WP:FUN. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, then what are the judges for? Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Muck Rack a Self-published source?

Hey, Hope you are doing great, I'm here to ask about Muck Rack. Is it a Self-Published source? Taabii (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure but their journalist profolios/profile are automatically generated and may contain errors. I wouldn't consider it a reliable source for a comprehensive list of any journalist's article. But I'd consider it fine to put it in an 'external links' section, especially if the profile is a verified one. Ca talk to me! 14:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ca Thank you for your reply. Taabii (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

about create new page

it require article to create new page you might help me to understand Jeandamour.rw (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jeandamour.rw, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Trying to write an article before you have spent time learning how Wikipedia works is likely to lead to disappointment and frustration, and probably a lot of wasted effort.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft..
Looking at Draft:Sheka umubwiriza (which is where your attempted article currently is), it appears that you have done the obvious thing of starting by writing what you about a subject. Unfortunately this is writing the article BACKWARDS - because Wikipedia does not have any interest at all in what you know about Umubwiriza (or what I know, or what any random person on the Internet knows). Wikipedia is almost only interested in what has been published about him in reliable sources by people completely unconnected with him. Unless you start by finding such sources, you are very likely wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If English is not your first language, I recommend editing in a Wikipedia version that is in another language. You can see List of Wikipedias for a list. Ca talk to me! 14:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect note

When I go to Aliasing_(factorial_experiments) from my Chrome browser, a note appears at the top, (Redirected from Draft:Aliasing (factorial experiments)). This note does not appear in the editor, and also does not appear if I go to the article from within Wikipedia. Why does it appear, and how can it be eliminated (or should it)? Johsebb (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This note means that you were sent to the article from a redirect page. This is not a problem and likely just means that the page that is saved in your browser is the redirect page and not the actual page. (What probably happened here is that the first time you visited the article, it was a draft, which was then moved to the final article, leaving a redirect.) Again, this is not anything you need to worry about - it is completely normal to be redirected sometimes. TypoEater (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Looks like I need to clear my browser. Johsebb (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch?

I'm currently working on Draft:Cooper Pants Factory fire, and while updating the "Aftermath" section I noticed that one of the links in the lead bugged out, producing "post-open">Fujita Scalepost-close">" in regular text instead of Fujita Scale. Does anybody else see this? It's been happening for months, and I can't for the life of me figure out what's happening. EF5 16:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the wikitext, no idea why. I've removed it. Schazjmd (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that’s… odd. I’m not sure what it is, but I’ll ask around at the VP. EF5 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you use the visual editor, and I've seen VE add odd stuff to wikitext occasionally. Schazjmd (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unblocking request

Can someone help me with request please? Elliyoun (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elliyoun Welcome to the Teahouse. In a word: "No".
You have been partially blocked on one article page only for continued disruption across a three-year period. Your appeal was reviewed today by an administrator and declined. Feel free to edit constructively anywhere else on Wikipedia's other 6.9 million articles, but do not try to assert your own view of how things should be; always base everything upon what Reliable Sources actually say. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elliyoun There was no need to email me off-wiki. There was nothing private that needed discussing, so I am replying to you here instead. I took a look at your edits made when you were logged in and as an IP. Your edits were repeatedly reinserted after their removal, and were unsubstantiated. There was no attempt to discuss things on the article talk page and one administrator even recently observed that repeated attempts to make these edits had been happening over a 9 year period. Actions that are repeated over and over again without any attempt to justify them and gain concensus on the relevant talk page are disruptive — hence your single page block. You are free to edit elsewhere and are asked to leave your personal views behind when you do so. Please don't email other editors off-wiki without good reason. We edit openly and publicly here, and emails should be used very sparingly, and only when a degree of privacy is absolutely necessary. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think my message was direct and clear: No explanation was given about reversing the changes and instead, someone repeatedly was just deleting them. I'm not sure where you got 9 years history of my change because I've started using Wikipedia since 2022 only. I'm sorry if you are unhappy with the message which I sent, but anyway the same message and concern indicated here. Elliyoun (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elliyoun See WP:COMMUNICATE and consider joining the discussion at Talk:Elyon#What's_"Elliyoun"_all_about?. Btw, do you see why this edit [1] wasn't helpful? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I responded your query there. Elliyoun (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MiszaBot configuration

On the MiszaBot config for automatically archiving talk pages or other pages, what does the "counter" part do? What if that field is left blank? I just adjusted the parameters for the MiszaBot on this page for instance if anyone wants a real example to answer me in relation to. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn It is the current number of the last used archive. It can be left empty so that it operates using default numbering. You can read further documentation at User:MiszaBot/config. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone not leave it blank then? Leaving it blank looks to me like it would nearly always be the best option. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn in this case, it could be removed entirely so no one is tempted to fill in answer, but as the documentation mentions, sometimes the format isn't a number, but prefixed with text, e.g "Archive #1" instead of "1". ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shushugah. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn: counter is used for numbered archives. It tells the bot which number to use in the next archiving. You start by manually setting counter = 1 unless there are already archives. When the bot has filled up an archive to the allowed size, it automatically increments counter. I don't know what happens if you omit a counter value while asking for numbered archives with Archive %(counter)d. Maybe the bot will refuse to archive. Or maybe it will set counter to 1 and start archiving like if it had already been set to 1. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so whenever you are creating a new one from scratch and there is no archive, "counter" should be populated with "1"? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn: Yes, if you want numbered archives and not yearly or monthly archives. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start a conversation about naming of natural disasters?

Hi,

It occurs to me that as climate change increases the number of natural disasters, and those disasters lead to more destruction, there will be more and more confusion around names. Therefore I feel it would be helpful to start a discussion that might lead to a policy / guidance on how to name them.

This is currently happening with the Palisades Fire (2025) and Palisades Fire (2021). See the 2025 fire talk page for more (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=1268426822&title=Talk:Palisades%20Fire%20(2025))

Where do I start that sort of discussion? I know it takes time to create policy, and it may or may not lead to any. But it seems useful to start that conversation now.

Thank you!

delecto Delectopierre (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Delectopierre: Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather is a good place to start?-- Ponyobons mots 18:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Delectopierre I'm not sure if this is relevant to the particular fires you refer to, but I would just add to the above by stating that we do not invent names for things here. Wikipedia follows what other reliable sources say about things and how they call them. Should multiple high-quality sources use alternative names, we do have the ability to create WP:REDIRECT pages so that anyone typing one, lesser-used name, will be sent to the right page using the most accepted name. This is not fixed in stone. Thus you can search for Kiev and Kyiv and arrive at the same page. That particular change took a lot of discussion before a consensus was reached. With ongoing events such as the most recent Palisades fire, it may be that hindsight and WP:RS will allow the best form of discussion of page nomenclature in each case. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes thanks. I'm not talking about naming things. This is occurring because fires -- at least in CA -- are named by dispatchers as a way to make it easier for the firefighters to communicate over the radio. e.g. the fire at 123 main st becomes the 'Main St. Fire' and nothing is preventing the same thing from happening the following week/month/year. This creates a situation where there can be multiple fires known as the Main St fire.
This is in contrast to hurricanes, for example, as the national weather service retires a name once a storm with that name becomes significant; at least as I understand it.
As such, it seems to me that it would be helpful to come up with some guidance on how articles are named for natural disasters that share a name in the real world. Delectopierre (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Delectopierre: Don't overthink this. The existing policies cover this just fine. If–and when–sources change the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we follow accordingly. Future fires in this area will be unlikely to be named "Palisades Fire" even though it isn't formally codified, just like the Thomas Fire isn't a name you're going to hear again out of all likelihood.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not patronize me by suggesting I am overthinking this, and please don't WP:BLUDGEON me by responding to every comment I've made to someone else regarding this. Delectopierre (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are overthinking it, which is common when you encounter Wikipedia's policies and procedures anew. It's not bludgeoning when I'm saying nothing about you and am answering the questions you pose pretty directly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just asked you not to use that phrase and you repeated it. This has gone from patronizing to willful disrespect. Cut it out. Delectopierre (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been treating you with great patience but you refuse to trust me. I have about 200 times the amount of edits and 3 times your tenure here and I'm sharing the thorough understanding of policies and guidelines I've accumulated. Call it what you want, but WP:PRIMARYTOPIC becomes beautifully simple once you read it. If you need more specifics, different wikiprojects may have their own guidelines about how that general policy applies, but they're all ultimately basically just that. I've been through your situation numerous times. Don't cast the WP:ASPERSION of "willful disrespect".--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Delectopierre: To add to what Nick says, it is frowned upon to post about an ongoing decision making discussion elsewhere (unless it is to raise serious misconduct concerns) as it could be considered WP:CANVASSING, particularly when the incipient consensus is leaning against your position.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delectopierre, in this case, the relevant guideline is WP:DISAMBIGUATION and the applicable subsection is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It is all clear and well-established. Cullen328 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in WP:DISAMBIGUATION that discusses how WP would treat, eg, two planets named Mercury. Delectopierre (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? In that hypothetical situation there probably wouldn't be a primary topic. But this is not analogous to that situation. This is more like Typhoon Tip being by far the most notable storm named Tip, even though the name was never formally retired.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng can you point me to any policy that says its frowned upon to discuss future improvements based on a current conversation? Delectopierre (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Delectopierre: I already did. You can't do it with the appearance of trying to sway a discussion you're involved in.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did not. You said it's frowned upon and referenced a policy. And in your words "it is frowned upon to point to a policy shortcut without explaining how it applies to the exact situation at hand."
I came to teahouse because I am relatively new and want to improve this encyclopedia. You coming here and inserting yourself in this discussion is not a friendly thing to do to a newcomer such as me. Delectopierre (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike them, I explained clearly how that policy applies here instead of just pointing to it. You linked the ongoing discussion. How do you expect others to react to that? I'm explaining things in a civil manner. Wikipedia is complicated and there are many rules to learn. Please read others' responses too as I agree with them as well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Well I made a userbox with an image. But when I use the full image like normal just takes the screen up. and when I use thumbnail image it has this border around it. How will I fix it? Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 00:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nedia020415  Fixed, by specifying a size for the image. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @CanonNi! ;) Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 02:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help with draft article

Hello!

I am a new wikipedia user, I was hoping to create an article for a song:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bird_On_The_Buffalo

I have used several independent sources, but seem not to qualify for article creation at this time, due to not meeting notability criteria.

If I could have a couple pointers in the right direction, that would be great. Thank you! Forester56 (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Angus Stone is considered article-worthy, as are his six albums, and a small number of songs on those albums, perhaps Bird on the Buffalo does not have enough published about it to justify an article. Most of your refs acknowledge the song and video exist, but do not provide at-length reviews of the song or how it was received. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asking about wiki Inuit

Hello, I’m reviving the Inuit Wikipedia, but sadly I don’t know Inuit and the rest of the ones I know doesn’t even know the existence of the language. What I do then? Protoeus (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inuit wikipedia is here Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 01:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still, can you revise my work to fix possible grammar mistakes? Protoeus (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What work? Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 02:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My new articles on Inuit Wikipedia. Protoeus (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me specificly, Which articles? Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 02:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All articles i create there, (Example: the Jal 123 article) Protoeus (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't. Just follows rosguill's comment Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you do not speak a language, you should not be writing articles for that Wikipedia project. Someone did that on Scots Wikipedia and severely set back the project, [2] creating a ton of additional work for people. Left unchecked, you can actually end up corrupting databases of the Inuit language that assume that the Wikipedia project is in well-written Inuit. signed, Rosguill talk 02:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't write articles in languages that you aren't fluent in. That's a recipe for disaster. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protoeus, I note you've already created one article on Inuit Wikipedia. Creating articles in Inuit Wikipedia without knowing how to speak Inuktituk is not a bannable offense, because I don't think that's ever been considered before, but I think it's a reasonable argument for deleting the article. DS (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing quoted material from ancient books in the Library of Ireland to credit source and also the host family it was written about.

All of the information has been rewritten from the source of the Annals of the Four Masters! An Ancient Book from the Library of Ireland! And a Lineage has been added! if someone else used this first it is still not copyrighted as it is source material taken from the same place for a different purpose but still withing the same context! CRBradley8051 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave everything you write in your sandbox or draft space, because it's clear you aren't yet ready to create articles that have a chance of acceptance. Submit for review if you like - that will give you a better idea of the problems. Deb (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @CRBradley8051, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read your first article carefully. What you have put in Draft:House of O Brolcháin does not in the least resemble a Wikipedia article, which should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have published about a notable subject, and little else. ColinFine (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DOB

Just recently I entered into a discussion with another editor regarding a DOB edit for a BLP: Talk:Roisin Conaty. It raised several questions regarding contentious content and RS when it comes to DOB and BLPs. Since leaving my last reply, I have been perusing similar BLP pages on WP and having stopped at 50 found that 48 did not have any cited sources; let alone ones that were backed by RS which would satisfy the editor in question's reasoning. I could list them all here, but toward what end? It is extremely rare to find multiple "widely published" RS that state DMY for BLPs. It has already been backed by RS that this BLP was born in 1979; how "contentious" could it be to include "March 26"? I am at a loss here, considering there are countless articles at WP that allow DOB without "widely published" RS. Maineartists (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Allow" is an interesting word. If you see a detail in an article that doesn't have a proper source, feel free to remove it. DS (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"If you see a detail in an article that doesn't have a proper source, feel free to remove it." That is rather a unrestrained invitation to an open season for removal of practically any sentence found at WP lacking a "proper source" at the end of it. Not only is that incredibly unproductive, but highly nonsensical. I am specifically referring to DOB of a BLP and it being labeled "contentious content" when search engines render the same DOB (MDY) innumerable times over, and certain WP policy apply: "the subject does not object to the details being made public." It's one thing to argue WP policy, but quite another to defend WP:COMMONSENSE. Maineartists (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the discussion you mention but I think that you should be weighing WP:BLPPRIVACY against WP:ABOUTSELF. If, for example, someone says on their own verified social media "It's my birthday today", or their website includes their DOB, I would be happy to use that, despite such media in general being primary and unreliable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Turnbull The BLP herself has confirmed she was born in 1979: [3] "I'm 41" (2020 Interview) and [4] "Conaty was born in Camden 40 years ago" (2019 Interview). How much more of a public statement directly from the BLP can one get? Maineartists (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are perfectly fine sources. I thought that your issue was the exact date, not just the year. Note that there is a template {{Birth based on age as of date}} that can be used to cover a level of uncertainty. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was - in a way. I was arguing the policy: "the subject does not object to the details being made public." One would think if the BLP in question saw the innumerable search engine hits that state MDY that at some point - it would stand to reason - they would make a statement of correction: "This is not my birth date." In keeping with Martha Stewart who pointed out on television certain details on WP that were incorrect; or BLPs who have taken to the Talk Page to correct errors at their articles. If the BLP is open to disclosing being born in 1979, why one earth would they object to March 26? considering it is widely stated over the internet and associated with 1979? It makes absolutely no sense. I understand WP requires RS; but this one is a little over the top. Why would March 26 be contentious but 1979 not? Simply because the BLP didn't add the MD in an interview? As I wrote, there are very little RS articles that state: "Such-and-such was born on DMY" in an interview / profile piece. Copy editors find this to be trivial filler / fluff. Exactly how many celebrity websites (as the original editor suggested as a RS) state: "I was born on DMY"? Just thinking out loud here. Regardless, thanks for the template {{Birth based on age as of date}}. Maineartists (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May not be relevant in this case but DMY dates are more of a privacy issue than just the year as many bank accounts etc. use that as part of their security checks, as do many website logons. Also, don't forget that search engines often take WP, especially Wikidata as gospel, so our figure can get copied all over the place. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now you've just created a "chicken and the egg" scenario when it comes to search engines taking from WP. Considering more people today believe sources that WP have deemed "deprecated" than WP itself. I simply do not buy into the concept that WP manufactured March 26 from which all other search engine hits have copied from across the WWW; since there were sources that claimed the DOB long before the 2011 WP article creation. I understand The Sun is considered a deprecated source, but this article interview: [5] with the BLP which links to this article [6] states March 26, 1979. If someone wants to "steal bank accounts etc", I'm quite sure "The Sun" (1.2 million subscribers) would be a great place to start; not WP. Maineartists (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to get suggestions on Talk page be seen by editors?

Hi community,

I'm on Wikipedia on behalf of Tencent, hence I would not make any direct edits to any branded pages. I have left some suggestions onto the Tencent Cloud page and would appreciate if any editors who may be interested in the Tech space would help us review our suggestions there.


TencentCommsYeran (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TencentCommsYeran: The best way to do this is with the {{COI edit request}} template. See also: the edit request wizard. JJPMaster (she/they) 03:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TencentCommsYeran: please also see Wikipedia:Edit requests § General considerations: you are far more likely to get a response to an edit request if you provide detailed and specific suggestions. We also discourage promotional content that reads like a press release. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 06:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Filmography

I am looking to add a filmography to a page. I am using the template "filmography simple" and have added the first listing. When adding subsequent line items, they are in their required fields, yet do not show/populate on the page. How can we make the additional credits visible? Thanks. Luv888 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Luv888. Would I be right in guessing that 1) you're talking about Draft:Best Psychology in Film, and 2) that you've actually solved the problem? I'm afraid my mind-reading skill isn't working very well today. ColinFine (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Task completed. Luv888 (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using LLMs for finding sources

Ok, I don't understand this, What is the problem in using chatbots for finding sources(reliable). Is there any rules regarding this? My submission got declined partly due to this.----Warriorglance (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that chatbots will never say "I don't know". If they don't have an answer, they'll make something up.
If a chatbot pointed you to a real source, and you used it, then that's not why your submission was declined. DS (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cites in Draft:Desom, Kerala (which is what I assume we're talking about here) have the URLs appended with utm_source=chatgpt.com, which doesn't necessarily invalidate the source, but suggests that the draft may have been LLM-generated.
@Warriorglance: if (?) these are genuinely bona fide sources, then do yourself the favour of at least unappending the utm source parameter from the citations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Warriorglance DS pretty much covereged it, but, essentially, chatbots and LLMs (Such as ChatGPT) are really good at finding patterns. If you show a new one a collection of red triangles and blue circles, then ask it to guess what colours circles are, it'll tell you that "circles are green". Doesn't that sound silly to you? Circles dont have colors! Well, it's how machine learning works - they don't think, they find patterns. And they're really good at it! If I gave one a thousand scans of human brains, and asked it to look for anything that seemed weird, it could probably tell me if any of the brains had a tumour. But it doesn't know what a tumour is, or how to treat one, or why we even care about tumours in the first place! The same in true in the case you're asking. If you ask a LLM to give you a list of reliable sources, it will give you sources that superficially resemble reliable sources. For example, it might "know" that websites which talk about astronomy using long words are more likely to be reliable than websites which don't talk about astronomy using long words. So it gives you websites which talk about astronomy, regardless as to whether or not those websites are reliables sources or not. Alternatively, it may know that print sources are often very reliable. LLMs can't read print sources, however, so it makes up a fake one because that's what large language models are designed to do - talk to you. You actually probably could have an AI search sources for you, and pull out sources with the most relevant keywords. However, again, that's not what current large language models are designed to do. Could that change someday? Absolutely! But for now, you're going to get much better results by doing the research yourself, say, at a library or by using Google Scholar.
In this particular case, I see you're trying to write an article about a metereor shower. I've had a look around for you: this meteor shower is already mentioned in a mainspace article, at Ursa Major#Meteor showers. There, it is supported by one source- an article published in 2012 in Sky & Telescope. Perhaps before you try writing an article from scratch (which is one of the most difficult tasks possible - I edited Wikipedia for six years as an IP before creating this account and making an article), you expand the section there? You can always split your work into a new article at a later date, if you think it's worthy of a stand along page. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot...👍👍You certainly made editing more easier ----Warriorglance (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may certainly use a chatbot to find a source. But you should not cite that source in a Wikipedia article without checking that the source exists, and that it says what the chatbot claimed it says. Maproom (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Warriorglance, at this point, chatbots and other AI/LLM tools are incapable of determining whether or not a given source is reliable for use as a Wikipedia reference. So, a request to a chatbot is just roughly equivalent to a Google search. In either case, you will get a list of possibilities, and it is up to the human editor to separate the wheat from the chaff to identify the highest quality reliable sources that convey information useful to include in an encyclopedia article. The ability to identify truly reliable sources is the most important skill of a Wikipedia editor, and expecting "artificial stupidity" to do that job is a big mistake, at least in 2025. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Warriorglance, LLMs are basically trained on an accumulation of (stolen) material which can include outdated info and they also tend to make stuff up. If you are still going to use these programs to find sources (even though Google is an option), exercise caution and verify their existence by searching them via a search engine. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 18:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding a contents index for categories

I have posted a suggestion to expand a contents index for categories to cover non-default name spaces. Anybody interested in discussing or implementing the idea please see Template talk:Automatic category TOC § Special subsections for namespaces. --CiaPan (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting or creating a list article

I'd like to request or create the article List of animals in memes, with links to existing articles for animals that have been in memes. I'm not sure if I will have enough time and sources to create a full article on my own, and this would be my first. I considered submitting a requested article, but I'm not sure if I need to include sources or proofs of notability. Additionally, I considered submitting to requested lists specifically, but the page is inactive and I assume it's not supposed to be used.

Would it be more appropriate to request an article, or start a draft myself and ask for help reviewing or completing it? Nick McCurdy (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick McCurdy, what you would want to look at is the list notability guidelines. Has "animals in memes", as a group, been discussed substantially by reliable sources? (It's possible it has been; I really don't know.) If so, a list of them might be notable, but if not, such an article would be a nonstarter. So, as always, first thing to do is look for sourcing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page citations

The article for Tony Sewell has the maintenance message about needing additional citations. Some parts said "citation needed", and I added reliable sources to those parts, and now I'm wondering: should I remove the message, or are there still more citations needed in order to remove it? Thank you! Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Wikieditor662! If you think you've solved the problem that the maintenance tag was calling attention to, then please feel free to be bold and remove the tag! The worst thing that will happen is somebody adds the tag back. If you're ever unsure, however, you can always ask for the opinion of the person who placed the tag - which in this case was @Cordless Larry:. At that point, either they'll agree that the article doesn't need a tag, or they can point to other, maybe more subtle issues, that they feel need addressing. Either way, the article is improved and everybody is happy. Thank you for doing your part to add information to Wikipedia! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts, Wikieditor662. However, I feel it would be premature to remove the template because there's still material in the article that isn't supported by references, even if it's not indicated by in-text "citation needed" tags (the template at the top of the page is an alternative to those). The "Teaching" and "Educational improvement" sections are where the remaining sourcing issues appear to be. Cordless Larry (talk) Cordless Larry (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate Article writing

Good morning team, please as a Research student, i want to know the accurate ways i can contribute to wiki projects especially in terms of Article writing. i want to know the 'do's and don'ts of article writing, and secondly, aside national newspaper reference which other sources are accepted? TessiDon (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TessiDon Welcome!
WP:TUTORIAL is a good start on WP-editing in general. Do's and don't on creating articles: WP:BACKWARD and WP:YFA. If you intend to write about living people, see also WP:BLP. It is recommended to get a hang of WP-editing before trying to write new articles, if these are not good enough they will be deleted. University press books are often good sources. WP:RS discuss what is reliable in general, and at WP:RSP you can find a list of sources that has been repeatedly discussed, and the current view on them. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since starting your account you have been very busy doing copyedits. For some, your work was reverted. I suggest you revisit those to understand why an editor took this action. It could be as simple as a disagreement on writing style. As to creating and then submitting drafts for new articles (see WP:YFA), I second the advice on learning by improving existing articles before essaying to create an article. What you created and submitted from your Sandbox was far too short and unreferenced to be a valid submittal, and thus jsut wasted a reviewer's time. David notMD (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern,

I have tried to use the add a citation tool on the Do They Know It's Christmas? page with the following link: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2025/01/10/do-they-know-its-payday/ but it doesn't work. I am unclear why the link isn't being picked up or identified as such.

Any ideas how to fix or resolve this issue?

Greenpark79 (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tested with reftoolbar but no, no autofill. All I can say is "that sometimes happen". When it does, I fill in the blanks manually. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

deleting Draft:Church of Our Lady of Zvonik page

Hello, I have been having trouble with Draft:Church of Our Lady of Zvonik. I created the arical, but it was sent to draft for being incomplete... after further edits, I converted it back into an arical, however there is still a redirect... can that be deleted? and if so how? thank you! ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Emperor of Byzantium, the article Church of Our Lady of the Belfry includes the verbless sentence "The remains of The Church Our Lady of Zvonik, located over a cavity of the west wall above the Porta Aurea of Diocletian's Palace." Church of Our Lady of Zvonik is now a redirect to that article. Are you claiming that these are in fact two different churches? Maproom (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Maproom, Thank you for your quick reply, No its the same article, however it has its own talk page Draft talk:Church of Our Lady of Zvonik, and appears on Xtools as a draft... I know I made a mistake in the recoding of it, but not sure where I screwed up? ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that neither talk page contains any discussion. I thnk there's no harm in a redirect having a talk page, though it's not usual. I don't know about Xtools, maybe someone else can help? Maproom (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut to indicate "Citation Needed"?

Hi all,

New to Wikipedia here. I find it useful to interrogate whether sources are cited or not, and I like visual editing more than source editing. But is there a way to indicate that a citation is needed on the visual end? I read about how to add it in source editing, but it can be a pain to go switch the type, find the same sentence in a whole different layout, then copy over the template. Any suggestions? Oraclesto (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! The visual editor lets you insert templates such as [citation needed] by clicking Insert > Template and searching for the desired template. Perception312 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oraclesto. I believe there should be a puzzle piece icon on the top bar. Clicking it would allow you to insert any template in the visual editor. Tarlby (t) (c) 17:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, @Tarlby and @Perception312! That is super helpful. I just gave it a go on the daily page, and it worked! Oraclesto (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read a lot but I still don't understand how images work here?

For example, what if there's only one image of something OR if the person who made like a song cover art cannot be contacted or is unknown? CrimsonScarletBurgundyy (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. It might help us to better answer you if you describe exactly what it is you are trying to do. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically: copyright is complicated. For historic images and cover art, we use small, reduced-resolution versions, and a fair-use rationale. DS (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CrimsonScarletBurgundyy, there is no need to contact the creator of cover art when a low resolution version is being used as non-free content. It is necessary to fully comply with WP:NFCI, and cover art is covered by #1 of that policy language. Cullen328 (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

x page

what happen to x page on wikipedia? White44Tree (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It redirects to Twitter, if you're wondering why it's named Twitter instead of it's current name, X, see Talk:Twitter/FAQ. Thx56 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Formatting

I was editing the Huapalcalco page to try and fix something where the picture would "bump" the table of contents. I fixed this, but now I'm wondering, is it permissible for a picture to be above the infobox, and if not, where do I put it? User: Thx56 | Talk to me! 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that I've put it below the infobox, but that puts it into the background section User: Thx56 | Talk to me! 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=1268649981"