Wikipedia:Teahouse#Is this source reliable and am I able to use it?

Shortcuts

• WP:TEAWP:TEA
• WP:THWP:TH

Finnusertop, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

Help Wikipedia

• To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
• About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly. Alternatively, you can contact an experienced editor by visiting your homepage and clicking "Ask your mentor a question about editing".

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

I was looking at the history section of "7075 Aluminium Alloy" and noticed that the page claims that the alloy was made in secret in 1935. However, the source cited states that, "by 1935 (Showa 10), the Super Duralumin alloy had already been developed" and says nothing about it being made in secrecy. I then decided to check the citations of the article cited in the Wikipedia citation. Through this, I verified that the inventor of aluminium 7075 started working on the project in 1935, published a paper about it in July of that year, and filed for a patent in 1936. However, there was still no claim of all this being done in secret.

Would this be an incorrect citation? Can someone find out whether or not the secrecy claim is true? Am I overreacting to an incredibly mundane problem? What should people do when they come across citations that only verify part of a claim?

Thanks! Woodenturnip (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If theres no source stating that the alloy was secretly developed, then the best course of action is to remove that claim. If a source can be found, then add another citation to the claim, verifying the statement about secrecy. Anyways, this would be better discussed on that article's talk page. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Thank you! Woodenturnip (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there was a misreading, because the use of the alloy was a secret in the airframe of the Prototype 12 plane that became the Zero. One of the planes was captured, revealing the viability of the new allow to the United States. This paper on the history of Extra Super Duralumin uses the word 'secret' twice, and only in reference to the Zero that was captured. Hope that source can help. Just Al (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there fellow Wikipedians, I'm very new. But, please explain why do few Roblox games, that are Dress to Impress, Grow a Garden, and Sonic Speed Simulator have their own Wikipedia articles, while others games, such as Natural Disaster Survival, and Forsaken, have not? Are there still drafts related to separate Roblox games? NoteTaking3690 (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @NoteTaking3690. Notability on Wikipedia can be a strange concept. Articles are not created based on popularity, but the amount of reliable, secondary sourcing that prove the subject is notable on its own right.

Perhaps those articles don't exist simply because no one tried yet. You can attempt to create your own/improve someone else's drafts and submit them to WP:AFC for publication, but success is unlikely. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarlby Ok, I took a look at the reference section in all of these three articles and I'm extremely surprised that all of these games are covered in significant media coverage, especially on the game journalism. I tried searching on Google, but would all of these games, (Dress to Impress, Grow a Garden, and Sonic Speed Simulator) be featured in news also?

I found a link that featured Roblox games: [1] NoteTaking3690 (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also understand that the success is unlikely, when attempting to create a draft. NoteTaking3690 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page for the television and magazine star Siobhan Wykes, who is very popular at the moment with her work at Best and on Vanessa.

The page can be found here. Draft:Siobhan Wykes

Basically, the person who seems to work for Wikipedia said this, followed by a couple of passive-aggressive remarks. "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). "

I've cited several references that were not created by the subject, such as the Hearst page which outlines her work and also Vanessa's YouTube page.

I've kept the article relevant, factual and backed it up with reliable sources e.g. not just hear say on gossip forums. The subject has a notable online profile and career both in front and behind the camera/microphone in broadcasting.

Has anyone else had such difficulty in getting their pages approved? At-least I tried! Thanks all. Mort22 (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mort22 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and we usually advise that new users first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles, and using the new user tutorial first, before attempting it.

YouTube is not an acceptable source as it is user-generated, unless the video is from a reputable news outlet on their verified channel.

The other source is a very brief biography by her employer, which is not an independent source. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they are a notable person. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited several references that were not created by the subject, such as the Hearst page which outlines her work and also Vanessa's YouTube page. Neither Hearst nor Vanessa are independent of Wykes, as they both employ her. See WP:INDEPENDENT for more information about what an independent source is and why we require them.

Creating new articles, especially about living people, is one of the most difficult things for new users to learn on Wikipedia. It might be helpful to gain more experience editing before trying to create an article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the person who seems to work for Wikipedia" They are here as a volunteer, as are we all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And those "passive aggressive remarks" are standard templates – around 100,000 different people edit on Wikipedia every month, making many millions of edits between them – replies to standard problems have to be standardised "boilerplate", or the workload of the 'regular' editors (all volunteers) would be impossible. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195) 94.6.41.216 (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to read Wikipedia:Referencing for Beginners, so as to include usefully formatted references rather than bare links which really aren't much help to anyone. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests has dozens of requests for pages and contain nothing but a corporate logo, the stock price, and a list of other companies they have swallowed up (merged with). Many of the requests have extensive comments from editors, but nobody has referred them for deletion as not notable under WP:COMPANY#Primary criteria. Am I missing something?

It says: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject ... If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable ... Julian in LA (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian in LA: I guess very few people want to do the work outlined in WP:BEFORE that is needed to establish whether the article should be deleted. Per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, regardless of whether they are currently in the article. You are welcome to send them to WP:Articles for deletion if you are unable to find sources to add to the articles, but keep in mind that lots of good sources are hard to find. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julian in LA, Wikipedia editors have deleted over 400,000 articles through the Articles for Deletion process and there are two other deletion processes as well. I routinely tag drafts and articles about non-notable companies for speedy deletion. Therefore, your comment that nobody has referred them for deletion as not notable is incorrect. That happens constantly and it is a lot of work to process all of them. You can help out. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the half dozen pages that I looked at. I assume the article would have a tag if it had been referred for deletion. Is there a place where I can look at deleted corporate pages and their comments? Julian in LA (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Julian in LA. No, only admins can view the contents of deleted articles. If the articles were deleted by the Articles for Deletion process, then you can search for the discussion that led to the deletion; but if it was one of the other processes, there will be no discussion.

As Raccoon says, you are welcome to read and follow WP:BEFORE, and if your conclusion is that the company is not notable, to propose the article be deleted. ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to see a specific deleted article you can ask at WP:REFUND for a copy to be placed in your user-space (that won't be done if the reason for deletion was copyright violation). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a hard time uploading my picture from my computer into my article. I have tried various of methods but none seems too works and some others show me some random picture that weren't related to my content at all. Nguyen The Gia Hung (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't upload it from your computer to an article, Nguyen The Gia Hung. If it's a photograph that you took (if you own the copyright), then you upload it to Wikimedia Commons (here). Once it's there, it can be added to any article here (or in Vietnamese-language Wikipedia, etc). It can also be added by anyone, to anything; e.g. to a website that promotes a political party that you detest. So be sure to read the "small print". -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So how do I put the image into my article again? And I tried finding pic on wiki but there wasnt any image that its related. I have the link, and the name of the author who took the picture, and all of the info abt the pic but I can't put up the image on my wiki article, don't know if that help or will I get strike by copy right again. Btw, thankyou for the reply, helps alot and sry for my english Nguyen The Gia Hung (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen The Gia Hung, if you're sure that it's yours to upload and that you're happy to upload it, then the first thing you do is go to Wikimedia Commons' "upload wizard" and follow the instructions to upload it. (You haven't done this yet.) When you've completed the process at Wikipedia Commons, that website will tell you what code -- [[File:.....]] -- you should put in your draft or article. Copy this, and paste it where you want it to go. The result is likely to be good as is; but for more help, try Help:Menu/Images and media. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Nguyen The Gia Hung, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, copyright in images is complicated, and Wikimedia projects (including Wikipedia) take it more seriously than many sites on the internet do.

You say "I have the link and the name of the author who took the picture". That implies that you do not own the copyright on the picture. That in turn means that you do not have the legal power to license the picture in the way that Wikimedia Commons requires, so you may not upload it. You would need to get the copyright owner of the picture to upload it themselves, or else to send a message as explained at donating copyright materials.

As far as I can tell (I don't speak Vietnamese) you are having difficulty getting an article accepted. On English Wikipedia adding an image would not help that at all. I don't know the rules for vi Wikipedia, but I would be surprised if it were different in that respect. ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I am writing an article about Vietnam nuclear development. I am completely new to this whole Wiki stuff, and it would mean the world to me if someone can help me edit (make section, upload image, copyright), I am available to call, or simply chat. Nguyen The Gia Hung (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you will have to write articles here in English. The vi.wikipedia.org may welcome contributions in Vietnamese. Assume everything is copyright unless you can prove otherwise. So most images are not acceptable. I would suggest that you find your sources first, and then base your text on those sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And @Nguyen The Gia Hung, Help:Introduction is a good place to learn about contributing to wikipedia. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your sandbox, you were writing a huge background as if you were writing a report. This is an encyclopedia, so we do have other articles, so you do not have to write how the technology works. Instead write about the nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons, history, Government departments, laws and policies, nuclear medicine, study research and institutions, famous people connected to the subject. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion that each paragraph of a wiki could have a little question board to not only stimulate community engagement and discussion but also to raise educational effectiveness.

I would envision the board to be a little button next to each paragraph or maybe even on the bottom right that expands into a comment and question section.

WIKIPEDIA DEVELOPERS PLEASE I LOVE YOU!

best wisherings, sigma lazalical51. 2603:8081:9C00:21E7:6DC4:2395:99C:6097 (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well this wiki is so big that there are several question boards. You found one here. For questions beyond the teahouse there are the villiage pumps and reference desks. WP:RD is a directory page to point you to different pages for questions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that Wikipedia is specifically not a discussion forum. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ongoing writing and editing nature of Wikipedia means any specific paragraph might not exist later. And with 7,015,459 articles, each having a few or few-dozen paragraphs (and tables, and photos, and diagrams...), finding and getting any sustained activity on any one in particular seems difficult. Instead, each whole article has a talk page for anything about any part of the article, and anyone interested in that topic can watch for discussions there. But Shantavira is right, those talkpages are only for the discussing article content and ways to improve it or add to it, not discussing the article's topic in general. DMacks (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I recently submitted a draft article titled User:FluxGen/sandbox, but it was deleted on June 10, 2025, under G11 (advertising). I now understand the guidelines and would like to revise it properly using reliable, independent sources. I have requested a copy from the deleting admin (Waggers), but haven’t heard back yet. Could someone please help me recover a copy of the deleted page so I can rewrite it in a neutral tone? Thank you! Rahul Upadhyay at FluxGen (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to declare any conflict of interest by following instructions found here: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you are being paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of a company, then also read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. After you have declared your conflict of interest, you can work on the article in your sandbox then request it be moved into Mainspace at Article for Creation. Any edits you wish to make to an article should be requested.

For help on editing, check out Help:Editing and the five pillars of Wikipedia, especially the part about reliable sources. Wikipedia also has notability rules and notability guidelines that determine what can and cannot be an article, with specific guidelines for companies. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also asked this at the help desk. Please don’t ask in multiple places. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about WP:NPA recently — what is the consensus regarding removing personal attacks against you that are placed on an admin noticeboard (like ANI or AN3)? Should you remove them yourself using {{RPA}}? Gommeh 🎮 14:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an egregious personal attack ("Example is a thief and smells of vomit") anyone can and should remove it. But if it's just a negative view of behaviour ("example is not here to edit Wikipedia and is just trolling us"), it should be left. WP:BOOMERANG can be applied if such remarks are made unduly. If in doubt, err on the side of caution, and leave it to others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can you give me suggestions to improve this page and what im missing its my first contribution

Draft:Rashid_Gazzali. MUHAMMEDNIHALPM (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MUHAMMEDNIHALPM it seems like you created the draft for the purpose of promoting Gazzali and his work. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for promotion. You most likely need to rethink how you approach creating this article, from the standpoint of an encyclopedia rather than a social media profile or personal website (as it is currently structured). More concrete advice is detailed at the Your First Article page. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You generated your draft with an AI chatbot. It is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Do not submit it for review in it's current state. qcne (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MUHAMMEDNIHALPM, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

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. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello experienced Wikipedians!

I have been suggested this article Finley Hospital to edit because I'm new here. I noticed there are a large number of red links that don't lead to pages. I'm reading through WP:RED and I think I should remove some of them, but I'm having trouble figuring out which ones. Can anybody help with some tips on how to figure out which ones might be worth keeping and which ones should be removed?

Thank you! JesseL0vesT0ast (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JesseL0vesT0ast A lot of those red links look they were stuffed in by someone doing promotion for the subject of the article. You can search to see if there is a relevant article. Names of projects or people will probably not have an article. But something like Becker's Hospital Review instead of "Becker's Healthcare" is a good fix. Just Al (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, after searching both the Telegraph Herald and Becker's web sites for the time range around the citation...nothing exists to support the text. Published articles from these sources _can_ be linked, but the editor who created it did not. This may be because it was an advertisement, not an editorial article. Or, the article does not exist. This article is a mess. Just Al (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit appears to have been a major expansion/overhaul of the article with at least some content that several editors find problematic. Since then, it seems like editors have picked apart some of that edit but overall the article is still in that expanded/overhauled form. Is this form, prior to that point, a better basis for future work? DMacks (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to put in a nomination for GA but I don’t know where I put in a nomination on the page. 8bit12man (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8bit12man is there anything unclear with WP:GAI? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't put a nomination on Wikipedia:Good articles. Instead, you put an article's nomination on the article's talk page itself. Strongman13072007 (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV Rule (WP:NPOV) is probably one of, if not the biggest rule of Wikipedia as a whole that should be respected. I think for military casualites, especially r**e, it's better to use the neutral "people" instead of just women 2601:600:8D82:6200:6CE8:3CB7:4C57:C3C5 (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have to say what the sources say. I assume you're referring to rape victims in wars, in which case they were almost exclusively women, as they are in non-military contexts aswell. WP:NPOV is about reporting all significant viewpoints, not introducing false equality to subjects where inequality is largely the issue at hand. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried making one but failed. May anyone explain me step by step how? Lelenoos (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lelenoos, the first step is to choose a suitable subject. What is your intended subject? Maproom (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lelenoos As the message on your talk page says, Wikipedia does not tolerate the creation of hoax articles. My advice would be to learn how to edit using a combination of suggestions on your home page and edits to existing articles on topics that interest you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Lelenoos, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

Why is it so important to you to create a new article? We have seven million of them, and many thousands are in desperate need of improvement. Creating a new article is not the only, or necessarily the best, way to contribute to Wikipedia.

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. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is commercial review on Wikipedia?

What am I missing?

See "specifications" on Xiaomi YU7:

27 June 2025 revision, version 1297671759

2A00:801:7BE:B1F3:B9DA:3C2A:54BB:F27D (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To which part of Xiaomi YU7#Specifications are your referring? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you are suggesting that there is far too much technical detail in that section, I agree. IN fact, more generally, the section is obviously mostly saying what the manufacturer wants people to know, and that is pure promotion, and I have tagged the article accordingly.

You are welcome to remove some of the excess detail and/or to rewrite it so that it is summarising what independent sources say, not what the manufacturer says. ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are other members allowed to request a refund of my deleted sandbox? There is no incident I just want confirmation. akidfrombethany!(_talk|^contribs) 18:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule against it, it's up to admin discretion. Personally I would find a request from a user to restore a different user's deleted sandbox a bit odd, but unless the content is obviously inappropriate I don't think I'd have a reason to decline. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well then. :(

Is there an option to specifically request that the refund is disallowed? akidfrombethany!(_talk|^contribs) 02:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no specific option for that. However, an admin who was asked for such a thing would want a good reason. And would check the content first, prior to restoring it. DS (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would most admins honor it if I put a polite message on my userpage asking not to? It's not like anything bad is on the sandbox, just things I don't know why I posted 😅 akidfrombethany!(_talk|^contribs) 04:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AKidFromBethany Beware the Streisand effect. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally: No. When you created the page you placed the content under an Open licence.

However, if what you wrote is not suitable for use as (or in) an article, it is likely that any such request would be declined.

If you inadvertently included personal information, for example, you can request oversight, which will prevent recreation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I am trying to create an article about "Dr. Caleb Jacobson", he is an American Sex Therapist and ordained rabbi known for his interdisciplinary work on sexuality and religion. He is the current president of the International Association of Psychosexual Therapists (IAPST). I have written a draft article about him and submitted it for AfC (Article for Creation) but it was decline because it was badly written and other reviewers noted some of the references cited were unacceptable. I have also read about wikipedia COI because I work with Dr. Caleb Jacobson on freelance basis for his website development and other virtual tasks, and I understand that where there is a conflict of interest, it is best to not create or edit an article directly, instead it is advised to suggest edits on the talk page. Based on this information, I will like to know:

• The best approach to create an article with COI
• What should I include in the initial draft to remain neutral (I assume just the title and a short description of the subject should be enough)
• How can I get neutral editors to contribute to my draft (will it ever get noticed in my draft)

Thanks in adance for your help.

Ramoni Ayinde Ayinderamoni (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ayinderamoni, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

And that is without even considering COI. With a COI, it's even harder, as you've started to find out.

The thing to remember about a Wikipedia article is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

This means that you first need to find sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42 - reliable, wholly unconnected with Jacobson, and containing significant coverage of him. If you cannot find several such sources, then you should abandon this project.

If you can find the sources, then you will need to effectively forget absolutely everything that you know about Jacobson, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say - even if you disagree with them all. (This is why writing with a COI is so hard).

At that point, you could submit your draft for review. If it passes, you can then add a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information from non-indpendent or primary sources (see WP:SPS) - but limiting yourself solely to independent sources at first will improve your chances of getting the draft accepted.

Thank you for declaring your COI. However, it is not clear to me from your words "work with Dr Jacobson on a freelance basis" whether you count as a paid editor in Wikipedia's terms. Please read that page, and if appropriate make the specific declaration. ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely within the scope of WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello team, Is he notable Mahendra Nath Kondla? 2409:40F0:164:F945:85E1:2390:1AA:2604 (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In order to determine whether somebody is notable, you need to check whether he meets the special criteria (if there is a relevant set), in this case WP:NPRODUCER, or the else general criteria WP:GNG.

I doubt if anybody is going to be willing to check that for you. But you can look at the conditions in WP:NPRODUCER and see if Kondla seems to fit them; and you can look at the sources currently cited and see which if any meet the conditions in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've encountered a list page containing links to articles that redirect back to the list page. It's therefore full of blue links even though a large number of the pages need creating. In that situation, should I leave it alone, unlink the non-articles, or some other action? I imagine there are other examples, but the one I found is List of waterfalls in Scotland. I've left a similar question on its talkpage, and I've put the non-articles into a maintenance category Category:Listed articles redirecting back to the list. There are just over 200 of them. (I may have skipped some in AWB that I didn't need to). My question is the general one though, not about this specific case. What, if anything, do we do in this situation? Thanks --Northernhenge (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think (could be wrong), per WP:SELFRED you should probably unlink in those situations. GoldRomean (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – yes, that does seem to apply here. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Northernhenge: I once made {{No self-redirect}} for this situation but didn't promote it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah – that's useful. I've just tried previewing it on a few of the links and it looks like a really good solution. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an editorial tool, long ago I discovered the Help:Link color#Redirect CSS trick. Not quite what you're asking, but might help identify which links need attention. I find it especially useful when updating nav-boxes, where MOS guideline specifies not to use redirects in most cases. DMacks (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – I'll have a look. --Northernhenge (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I use Wikipedia Content Translation tool to Translate articles from English to my native language. The problem I face while using Content Translation is that it doesn't translate infobox templates fully. It only translate the the parameters (replaces the template with local template). But it doesn't translate the wikitext stored as value. I can translate small ones. But if its Big and contains a lot of links, its hard very to translate.

Is there any way translate these values of infobox (which is usually written in wikitext) ? Nimon didarul (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may find some help at WP:Translate us or its talk page.

Otherwise, you will need to ask on the Wiki into which you are translating the content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I invite new editors to the teahouse? StopLookingAtMe1 (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the new editor has or seems likely to have a question, then yes. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone suggest me what should I do? Lelenoos (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like "blatant hoax" as a description of the deleted content of your sandbox, Lelenoos, then perhaps we can agree on "work of the imagination". If you'd like to use your imagination, then Wikipedia is not the website for you. A different website might be. Also, it could be a good idea to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Cultural genocide in Tibet

Dear All,

I would need some help with my draft article - Cultural Genocide in Tibet, as my submission to Articles for Creation has been declined a couple of times. I have tried to follow the comments but it is quite difficult to write in an encyclopedic manner, given the nature of my topic.

Would appreciate if anyone could help me out.

Thank you. CHANMUNKIAT (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may like to discuss your draft with the subject experts at WT:WikiProject Tibet or WT:WikiProject Human rights. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why my articles are always declined? Crystlnbrr (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystlnbrr You seem only to have created one attempt at an article, in your sandbox. That was a one-paragraph definition of the term wiki, which already has a full article in the encyclopedia, which you can compare to see how much it differs from your attempt. In addition, your only source seems to be ChatGPT, which we don't use as a source. Please read Help:Your first article carefully. My advice to new users is to start by expanding some of the existing 7 million articles to learn how Wikipedia works. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to edit the page for Carl Schmitt, a lawyer, jurist, political theorist and an unapologetic supporter of the Third Reich and Nazism. His biography and legacy cannot be fully considered outside his association with the National Socialist party.

My edit - adding Nazi to the introductory description - was rejected.

I understand how the word nazi can be abused when indiscriminately used to attack someone politically but this is an ACTUAL Nazi theorist and apologist.

Thoughts? TheEdPar (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is the current revision, nobody has undone it. However, you added the details to the "short description" instead of the lead text (opening paragraph).

Somebody else may come and change your edit (or undo it entirely, e.g. because it's quite verbose for a short description). If you don't agree, then as above WP:DR explains what to do. Cabinetkey (she/her • ☎) 14:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to ask if there is an article on wiki that lists the licensed English-language anime/manga news websites that are considered reliable sources? Honestly, apart from Anime News Network, I don't know any other website. Haram999 (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Haram999, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources for sources vetted by WikiProject Anime and manga. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thank you Haram999 (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i Tried to post my Bio In Wikipedia, But Declined Why??? As a Creator i Need Showcase My creativity to the Public, there is any option for listing in wikipedia, my website as digital marketing Strategist In Saudi Arabia Salmanulfaris Designer (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes like posting your resume or to drum up clients. Use social media for that. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Also know that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I'm sure someone will clarify this soon. Looking at your sandbox, you need to have a read of WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:V. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a site like LinkedIn. Hope this helps. Knitsey (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are references to seantcooper or Sean Cooper game developer and he is all over the internet, where is his page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicate_(1993_video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Carpet_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Octane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullfrog_Productions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_(video_game)

Links across the web: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hvn9v8_U2MU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPcrM2eQg88 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbugSrK7cIU&t=418s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE4F-JrWCwQ&t=6s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTN2A28i6Fk&t=747s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUcYUYJnaXw

Lots of love Seantcooper (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Seantcooper, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications (i.e. publications with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking: not social media, wikis, blogs, or youtube apart from official channels of reliable publishers). and very little else. What the subject says or wants to say, or what their associates say, in any medium, is almost irrelevant.

You are strongly advised not to attempt to write about yourself (see autobiography); but unless somebody can find several sources about you that meet all of the criteria in WP:42, then it is inadvisable for anybody to spend time trying to write an article about you either.

The crucial factor is what we call notability - which is, roughly, that enough independent reliable material has been published to base an article on. Notability is not inherited: it is quite possible that there has been enough independent writing about your games to base an article on, but not about you - or vice versa.

If you can find suitable sources, then it is possible somebody will be willing to write an article about you - perhaps suggesting it to WikiProject Video games - but the first task for anybody trying to write such an article will be to find such sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teahouse, Thanks in advance for your help. I'm new to wikipedia page creation and have been rejected three times now for 'lack of significant coverage' for this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_McKay_(cyclist) Do you have any suggestions for improvements? In recent redrafts I've added as many reputable references as I can find. And when I look at other wikipedia pages of equivalent level cyclists they seem to have much fewer and less reputable references so I'm a little confused as to what I might be missing. Any help or advice gratefully received, thanks! Sample.tea.ratio (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Sample.tea.ratio, and welcome to the Teahouse. The only sources that contribute to establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability are those that meet all the parts of WP:42: they are wholly independent of the subject and their associates, they contain significant coverage of the subject specifically, and they are reliable sources. Most of the current sources in the draft do not seem to me to meet those criteria, though I haven't looked at them all. Inserting a source that does not meet the criteria is a waste of eveerybody's time, unless it provides verification for a particular piece of information which is not available from a better source (and if the problem with the source is that it is not independent, eg an interview, that the information in question is such that it is acceptable for it to come from a non-independent source: see WP:SPS).

As for other cyclists: Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles. Ideally, somebody would go through them all, improving or deleting them; but for some reason few of our thousans of volunteers are keen on spending much time on that. If you can identify some existing poorly sourced articles, perhaps somebody would look at them. Either way, we evaluate drafts and new articles agaist our current standards, not against what already exists: see other stuff exists.

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. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback - much appreciated. Sample.tea.ratio (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pol Pot.webp Can I use this Pol pot image? (like the original Pol Pot article in WIkipedia have this image until the file have been deleted) Hachiko91919 (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've uploaded it saying " Unknown author" and then asserting that it was released under a Creative Commons License - how could you know that if you don't know who the author is? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been edited the licening of the image, the licening reads: "This work is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." So, I can use it again for the Pol Pot article after I edited? Hachiko91919 (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did you reach the conclusion that it was inellgible for copyright? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you find a list of all the articles which use a certain website as a source (as an example: I could type in "https://www.kompas.com/" and find all the articles which use this as a source)? I recall once doing this, but I forgot how to do it. ALittleClass (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:LinkSearch? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the use of a primary source merely neutral, or does it actively detract from the quality of an article? On the one hand, if a fact has no secondary sources supporting it, it probably isn’t worth mentioning, but on the other hand, the editor might nevertheless think the fact is important. I understand that primary sources do not enhance notability. Thiesen (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are useful in many cases for uncontentious claims of a factual nature, per WP:ABOUTSELF. If a person says in an interview "I was born in Pasadena" or if an organisation says on their website "we were founded in 1992" and no-one is claiming otherwise then those probably are the best sources for that sort of thing and in those cases does add to the overall quality of an article. If someone says on their social media "I am the foremost expert in my field and every person I've ever worked with has yielded to me without exception", then you can probably give that a miss. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Thiesen (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ahmed Kapadia is a article I have been trying draft, for many days now, but for some reason it get declined, and when I ask for their help no one replies me, no the article have been categorized as that I am in viloation of a policy, and reciving some undisclosed payments, but that is not the case, I have been finding and learning the deatils that I put in the post, but can it is still has issue, now I am seeking help that can anyone help me imporve this. Ateeb Ali Syed (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is 199.192.122.199 again, speaking from another weird alternate account I have since I’m somewhere else. I’m still waiting for Iceland to be added to the 0-4-0 article. Just because the 0-4-0 is a common wheel arrangement doesn’t mean Iceland shouldn’t be on there. It’s like not adding the JNR Class D50, D51, or D52 on the 2-8-2 page because it’s common. 184.60.230.19 (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping Andy Dingley whom you were conversing with at Talk:0-4-0#Should_we_add_Iceland?. Although I'd also like to remind you that everyone here is a volunteer and no-one is working to a deadline, perhaps your tone could reflect that. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The place to discuss this would be at Talk:0-4-0#Should_we_add_Iceland?. Where you've so far failed to convince anyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]