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".
I was doing suggested maintenance on this article Dr. Mehta's Hospital. In an attempt to click on the link for the 4th reference to clean up the citation, it took me to a page where I was bombarded with threat popups. What do we do in this case? Can someone with wiki ninja skills fix this and share the process? JesseL0vesT0ast (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, sometimes this happens because there was a reference linking to a legit source, but the domain expired and someone malicious bought it. (Or sometimes not malicious and just out to make a buck -- you'll see older links occasionally redirecting to porn sites, unfortunately.) If you want to rescue the source, your best bet is to copy the URL directly from Wikipedia and check the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine for archived versions of the original source. If a good copy is found, you can replace the original link with the archived one. See also: {{Webarchive}} -- Avocado (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the cite templates you can use "url-status=unfit" which will stop the link from being clickable. "url-status=usurped" is another possibility if the replaced page is not harmful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there — I’m a new editor and I’ve drafted a Wikipedia article in my sandbox about a European research software company called Tellet.
I’ve tried to keep it neutral and sourced with independent coverage (e.g. MT/Sprout, Silicon Canals, Emerce, etc).
Would someone be willing to take a look and let me know if it’s suitable for the Articles for Creation process, or what I might need to improve?
I'm so new I don't even really know how to share the link? My user name is Goizargi prawn but should it be Goizargi_prawn ?!
Thanks in advance! Goizargi prawn (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome! That sandbox link appears to have no content, so there's nothing to review. You can create a wikilink by putting something in square brackets like this: [[User:Goizargi prawn/sandbox]]. It looks like Goizargi_prawn because URLs can't have spaces in them. GoldRomean (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Goizargi prawn, 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.
When people create a Wikipedia account, and immediately plunge into the very challenging task of creating a new article about a company, it is very often the case that they are trying to write about their own company or employer; so I'm going to ask - do you have a connection with Tellet? If you do, then please read about editing with a conflict of interest; further, if you are in any way employed by the company you are a paid editor, and must make a formal declaration. If you have no connection, that's fine, but it will save you further questioning if you make that clear.
Whether you have a connection or not, what often happens when a new editor tries to create an article is that they write what they know. To be blunt about it, Wikipedia isn't interested in what you know about a subject (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows), unless you are summarising what independent sources have published about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say you added 24 refs but only 12 are shown, and you affirm that it's not that the refs are being reused. Your edits show you adding references and then setting the urlstatus to "live" (which FYI isn't necessary here). The most likely thing seems to be you made an edit adding more references that got hit by some technical error and didn't publish properly. If you can give use more information about (1) where specifically in the text you added these missing references and (2) what problem are you encountering with the refs that made you add the urlstatus parameter? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your help!
You're right — I was trying to build a full reference list for my sandbox draft here: [[User:SummoneRise123/sandbox]].
I added 24 <ref> tags manually, but only 12 show up in the reference list at the bottom, even though they aren’t reused. I also used the url-status=live parameter in some places because I saw it in other templates and thought it was required — thanks for clarifying that it isn’t necessary here.
It’s possible some edits didn’t save correctly, or I made a formatting mistake (like an unclosed tag). I’ll go back through the source and check it out.
If needed, I’ll clean the references section and re-add any missing sources.
SummoneRise123 - reflists need <references /> or {{reflist}} whereas you have <references> - and we don't want a list of references at the end, please put them in the relevant place in the article, or make them External links. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SummoneRise123 - as explained above, you did not add a reflist, you added <references> which does not produce a reflist. I have now corrected this to {{reflist}} which produces 2 lists, one for the references in the article and one for the list under references. You need to incorporate the list in the article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently trying to understand how this "reflist" etc.. works. Will fix it tommorrow hopefully. I'm going to watch few videos about it. SummoneRise123 (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the url-status parameter is for when there are archived copies of webpages. Often webpages disappear, but we can still access archived copies of them at the Wayback Machine, so we add an archive url parameter and set the "url-status" to dead. Sometimes, though, we add archive urls preventatively, in anticipation of the link going dead. To change the display of the reference to make the primary link go to the live webpage we make the "url-status" live.
Basically:
{{Cite web|title=This webpage is live |url=https://www.example.com |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20250301002714/https://example.com/ |archivedate=1 Mar 2025}}
Yeah, I did use AI to help draft the page, but I realize now I really should’ve checked those links better. I’m going through everything again to make sure the references are legit and not made up.
If you spot any specific ones that look off, just let me know. I want to get this right and improve the page properly.
In the same way that a LLM makes up references, it is likely to make up the information that is supposedly verified from the reference.
So, not only would you need to check that all the references exist, you would also need to check that all the references are relevant to the subject, and contain the information that the LLM has decided to attach the citation to.
I believe that this will be more work than writing the draft properly yourself, working frorward from the sources.
You have a similar problem to writing the draft BACKWARDS (which is something inexperienced editors often do) - only worse.
Help! Two people have edited the article I submitted about my dad, who was a football coach at Central Missouri State College. The article was for the catagory Mule football coaches. The editors do not like my sources because they are not available to be checked on the internet. This article was written using primary sources per my mom’s scrap book, newspaper clippings only those with the paper and date of the paper were used. And the various articles in our alumni newspapers and local newspapers. The dates of my sources range from the 1940’s to 2000. I totally get it that a 1943 article I sourced from the Salt Lake City Tribune might not be available on line.
My dad belongs in the catagory as it is factual he was the football coach at Central Missouri State College.
So,I will willing provide info requested. However, three editors have at one time looked at this article! I would like some consistent criteria. I can resource my submitted article sourcing mainly his articles from our Daily Star Journal dated 1984 and 2000. He retired in 1984 and died in 2000. Andy Yinger (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem? Your article has been accepted and is a published Wikipedia article. You are responding like they said rejected. Maybe you made a mistake when you read it?
The editors do not like my sources because they are not available to be checked on the internet.
They are right to do so, becauseverifiability is policy.
This article was written using primary sources per my mom’s scrap book, newspaper clippings only those with the paper and date of the paper were used.
You can scan the newspaper clippings (and upload them to web.archive.org). If you know the Newspaper's name, author of the article, date of publication/issue, then you could cite it.
@Andy Yinger Just t clarify Wikipedia's policy on sources. While they must be published and from a reliable source, they do not have to be currently available online. See WP:OFFLINE for the details. Hence, if you have an old newspaper clipping, you can cite it using the {{cite news}} template. Many old newspapers are by now in archives such as at newspapers.com but they are valid for use here even if not now accessible through the Internet. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Andy Yinger, and welcome to the Teahouse. As others have said sources do not need to be online, but they need to have been reliably published: your personal recollections or unpublished papers are not acceptable. National or regional newspapers are usually regarded as reliable - local ones not always (and it depends on what the information is that they are being used to verify).
Please do not scan them in, as @TurboSuperA+ suggested: unless they are old enough to be out of copyright, this will be a copyright infringement - and Wikipedia has a policy of not even linking to copyright infringements. But it's not necessary to scan them - you can cite an offline sources giving important information like title, date, author (if given), publication, page. ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point on terminology: when we say primary sources, we mean things like letters, or birth certificates. Use of primary sources on Wikipedia is restricted to a few special cases. Newspaper clippings are secondary sources.
On The creation of a page dedicated to The Hydropathes
Hey everyone, I would like to ask if experienced editors think the French literary club "The Hydropathes" deserves its own article. The group has a page on the French Wikipedia and I have managed to find a couple thesis and several articles talking about its artists and influence. However, I have also noticed that (in general terms) the movement is covered in the Émile Goudeau page. Is it enough as is or could its notability grant it an article on its own? HC226 (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HC226, the articles Émile Goudeau and fr:Émile Goudeau are largely about the Hydropathes. Is Goudeau notable other than for the Hydropathes? If not, then how about moving "Émile Goudeau" to "Les Hydropathes" (or "The Hydropathes"; offhand I don't know which would be preferable) and of course revising it accordingly? -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Goudeau's only notable work (by which i mean of continuous importance on the study of french literature), seems to be "Dix ans de bohème", a memoir often used to study the artistic development and bohemian life in Montmartre. However, this book does not have a page here nor in the French Wikipedia. Outside of that, it seems he had minor roles in some of Montmartre's clubs and cabarets. Any other long-lasting impact he may have seems to have directly originated in or be related to "The Hydropathes". HC226 (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With this in mind, I think that moving Goudeau into a new page dedicated to "The Hydropathes" would be a good choice.
Just a quick question about citation. If I am using a direct quote from a source, is it ok if I use APA 7th edition to cite it? For example, "cordial candy contains cherries with a little kirsch." (Smith, 2023). Would this be ok for a citation? Thank you for your help. Erin865 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to use the regular Wikipedia inline citation format, which creates a footnote. Just make sure to enter it right after the direct quote. In regards to the format used on the source, you can keep its original format by simply pressing "manual" when creating the citation. If you need more information about how and when to cite on Wikipedia you can check here or,for information specifically on inline citations, here. HC226 (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, great. With the direct quote I created the footnote. At the end of the write up, do I need to also cite the article I got the information from? I direct quoted from the same source that I did the write up on. Thank you for your help. Erin865 (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate/send the work you did? If you used the editing tool the footnote created automatically is enough. However, if you feel like the article can help readers get a substantial amount of additional information on the subject, you can put it in the "Further reading" section. HC226 (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, citations in this list are not required because every entry is wikilinked to an article about that person, and those articles should contain all the citations necessary. If the citation used in the list is not used in the actual article, it would be a good idea to add it there (supporting appropriate text, of course).
If someone were added who would probably qualify for an article, but does not have one yet, it would be useful to have a citation; the name might also be red linked to encourage the creation of one.
Brief descriptions are useful, sufficient to distinguish the person from others with the same name, or confirm if a half-remembered name is likely this person: one line should be ample as all the details should be in the linked article. Some of the existing descriptions are, in my judgement, unnecessarily long. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.210.159.137 (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page is full of unnecesaary additions including citation in front of people whose article already exist. I would like if you invest a bit of time reading WP:Citing sources. You do not need to c
Cite everything that exist in article, only if X said to Y that Z happened in W, this is where you have to add atleast one secondary source to prove the claim.
I somewhat disagree with 90.210.159.137, Excellenc1. While the existence of linked articles helps establish that people in a list are indeed notable and so citations might not be necessary to establish that, I think that citations are necessary to demonstrate their appropriateness to the list - in this case, that they "are associated with the Mayiladuthurai district" (I'd also note, incidentally, that "associated with" is a bit vague as far as list inclusion criteria go). Cordless Larry (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellenc1: taking just one example, your description of S. R. D. Vaidyanathan reads "Might be known for contributions in medicine, arts, or another field.[citation needed]". That is unhelpful. It would be better to have a quick look at the article about him, and write "musician". When editors do give citations in "Notable people" sections, they should be to support the claim that the person is indeed from that place. Maproom (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for help to create a wikipedia page for our organization
Hello, sir. We are from Indian Pentecostal Assemblies, Coimbatore, South India. We are a religious Organization.We would like to create a page for our organization so that people would know about our organization in wikipedia. So, please help us create an article. Indian Pentecostal Assemblies (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Teahouse, I'm currently working on fixing up the Tlingit language article as it's in pretty bad shape. As I already mentioned on its talk page, almost half of the article, including the entire Grammar section, was written by one person: Dzéiwsh/James Crippen, a Tlingit linguist, who also didn't cite anything inline. My second problem with this article, and the one I need help from someone with, is that I think a lot of the Grammar section is too detailed, technical, and not notable enough to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia (and has no citations besides the ones I added!). I definitely don't want to delete huge swaths of it, though, if a more experienced editor can tell me I shouldn't. I don't know if this is the right place to ask my question, especially because I have already posted it on the article's talk page, but I'm impatient and I really need an experienced editor's advice about what should happen with this article. Thank you for all of your assistance, EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @EllaMinnowPea371, that's a great question, but ask it to 10 different Wikpedians and you'll probably get 12 different answers. I'll try to give you mine. Technically, inline citations are not as required as they first seem. Everything needs to be supported by a reference, and those little footnotes make it a whole lot easier to find the text, but if you remove text that is supported by a general reference (especially one that's internet accessible), then other editors can get annoyed. Especially if you don't replace it; it's an unfortunate reality that we don't have enough editors to maintain many of our article, so if you chainsaw an entire section, chances are that nobody's going to replace it. Personally, I only remove material without replacing it if I believe having no text would serve our readers better than having the text. For example, if the original writer was known to have made things up, or plagiarized often, or the material is otherwise dubious, then yeah I'll remove text wholesale and tell other people who get annoyed at that that they'll just have to deal with it. Similarly, unsourced information about living peop!e can be removed on sight. But being overly technical wouldn't be enough for me; it's suboptimal writing, of course, but given how little people pay attention to the Tlingit language, I personally think it's better than nothing. (Others may disagree) Now if you'd like to rewrite that section, or trim some overly detailed parts, then that's you going to make other editors and readers happier with you and shouldn't get as much pushback, no matter how radical the changes are. In this particular case, you can probably trim quite heavily, removing all the editorializing and getting things down to just the bare facts. (The editorializing here is the main issue for me; NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia, perfection is not) Then, hunt down sources for those facts, and try to rephrase then in a way that would make sense to somebody without a PhD in linguistics. That's going to take a while. Getting the appropriate amount of detail is going to be the hardest part- in Wiki-speak it's actually called WP:DUE, not notability, as an FYI, as notability is more related to "should we even have an article on this subject at all - you can have a look at categories articlesCategory:FA-Class language articles articles or Category:GA-Class language articles to get an idea about what that might look like. And good luck improving the article, and thank you for what you've done for it already! I was born in Southeast Alaska, so I always get excited when I see new editors taking an interest in the region. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋09:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, EllaMinnowPea371, that it was Crippen who added a preprint of his book to the list of external links. Unlike many preprints, this one (as far as I can see) doesn't have a request that it not be cited. I haven't started to read it, but Lingít Yoo Xʼatángi: A Grammar of the Tlingit Language looks to be what its title promises. If it was indeed Crippen who wrote most of the grammar content of this article, I suppose that most of it can be sourced to his book (or its preprint). This is likely to be exhausting work, of course. And ... was the book ever published? (WorldCat doesn't seem to show that it was.) If it wasn't, does this matter? Suggestion: Choose some chunk of the description of the grammar that you think is particularly rebarbative, and ask about it (probably better in Talk:Tlingit language than here). Then we (you, GreenLipstickLesbian, me, anyone) can discuss whether/how to simplify it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious about this diff. I inserted the template in the wp:first sentence, and it was changed it back to how most articles look. Is there a guideline that says we shouldn't use that template in the first sentence? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you PrimeHunter and Andy. I made this edit, adding an age to the first sentence. I think that fact is of more general interest than someone's exact birthdate. Is it against any guidelines to explicitly state someone's age in the first sentence? Biosthmors (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there's a MOS entry on that but it does make it more difficult to keep the article up-to-date, so I'd advise against and just leave the birth date. The infobox template updates automatically. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently it is citing a BirdLifeInternational evaluation from 2016, but there is a more recent evaluation done by the same source in 2024, which can be found here:
https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22681130/264093087
The formatting used in the citation uses the "cite IUCN" template. I am unsure what to put in the "|page=" section of the template, and it keeps breaking. The description on the template page is really confusing also. How would I go about doing this correctly without breaking the link? Thanks. Dekadoka (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dekadoka The URL you linked here goes to a webpage of the current information. If you click on the small right-pointing triangle just below where it says "The Red list Assessment", you'll see full citation information including a DOI and the peculiar "page" number they use, which starts with an "e". If you edit the source of the Wikipedia article using these two pieces of information in the same way as the current cite, I think that will work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, got it to work! Have to be very careful with the DOI since having even a slight difference messes everything up. Dekadoka (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I see my password for my account? I’m trying to log on on a different device, and I can’t do it because I can’t find my password. Please help. I tried to reset the password but it never sent the confirmation email to my email. Please help. Ramekin99 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramekin99 You are currently logged in, so your browser should "know" your password. Chrome / Edge and I assume most other browsers have list of passwords within their settings. On Edge these are stored in the "wallet". Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ramekin99, welcome to the Teahouse. You cannot see your password in your account. Nobody can see it, not even server administrators, because it simply isn't stored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser?wpTarget=Ramekin99 tells me "This user has not specified a valid email address." If you cannot find the pasword in your browser then you could try mailing ca@wikimedia.org and ask if they will store a given email address in your account. If they consider it then they will want evidence it's really you and not somebody trying to hijack your account so remain logged in so you can answer questions from the account. If you weren't logged in now then I would have suggested you start another account after reading Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 1972 Finnish miniseries turned movie called “8 Deadly Shots” is about Pasi, a farmer who becomes drunk and eventually kills some policemen. The series was based on an actual shooting that happened in 1969 when the suspect shot the four cops with a rifle and was caught. The real life culprit of the crime was Tauno Pasanen, born 1934. Though the miniseries has its own article, the only instance of the article on the real life incident is on, of course, the Finnish Wikipedia. Should the thing have an English article? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article subject must have demonstrable "notability". Wikipedia:Notability (events) says, in a nutshell, that "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." If you believe that you can create a draft about the event that demonstrates notability (so defined) and adheres to en:Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines, then you're welcome to create it. The interim title might be Draft:Pihtipudas shooting incident. -- Hoary (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it meets the criteria in WP:Golden rule, why not? It would be a good complement to the article about the miniseries.
Though it's likely the best Reliable sources will be in Finnish, that's OK; en.Wikipedia only prefers English-language sources if they (i) exist and (ii) are as good (or better) than the non-English ones, and given the high incidence of English literacy in Finland (I've been there :-)), there should be no problems with obtaining accurate translations (you're allowed, indeed encouraged, to collaborate with other Wikipedians).
You've probably been active on Wikipedia long enough now to pick up the basics, so why not gather some good sources, read Help:Your first article, and then start a draft via WP:Articles for creation. You can spend as long as you like improving it before you submit it for review, and if it's not up to standard the first (or second, or . . .) the reviewer will advise what needs to be improved. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.210.159.137 (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finnish (and probably Scandinavian) newspapers of 1969 and later would likely be valuable, as might any sources used by the Finnish Wikipedia article (which I haven't tried to find, as I only know three words in Finnish, one of them obscene :-) ). 90.210.159.137 (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“1969 A man from Pihtipudas in central Finland shot four police officers who had arrived to calm him down and arrest him.”
From: Yle- Friday’s police death in Finland second since turn of century.
Yep. Not much policemen were killed in Suomi land compared to Yankland when the 21st century began. The shooting is mentioned in the article. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve drafted a Wikipedia biography article about Xishmiya Brown, an Indian model, actress, and media personality. The draft has been thoroughly cleaned for neutrality and is supported by independent, reliable sources, including:
Mid-Day
Financial Express
DNA India
Free Press Journal
Fox Story India
IMDb filmography
Because I have a close connection to the subject, I’m requesting that a neutral editor please review and submit the article through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process, to avoid any conflict of interest (COI).
Here’s a public link to the full draft PDF:
📎 [1] (replace with a real link if hosting the file)
I’d be truly grateful for any help or feedback. Thank you so much for your time and support!
You are permitted to submit the draft yourself via Articles for Creation; that's what it's there for. In fact, you have to, both as an unregistered user and as having a COI. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your pdf-link goes to [https://chat.openai.com/share/Xishmiya_Brown_Final_Wikipedia_Draft] ... No neutral editor will fall for that, to say the least. --Maresa63Talk04:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Xishmiya: neither the "Early life" nor the "Personal life" sections have any citation, so how can readers verify that they are true? It is part of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people that all such statements have inline citations to reliable publications. If you can't provide these then the material must be deleted. Also, all your web sources would be much better with full details of their authorship, dates and source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Paid and COI editors tend to flood BLPs with "awards." How do I know which should stay and which should go? I'm currently removing anything sourced to tabloids and awards like "30 under 30" which don't seem really due to me. 🧙♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what any guideline might say, so just my two piastres: If there's an article about the award, or at least a substantial paragraph about the award, good. If the award-presenting organization has an award, maybe. If the award's website makes it clear that the contest for the award is "pay to play", no. However honorable it might be, an "honorable mention" is not an award. Being on a shortlist for an award is not getting the award -- though being on a shortlist for an indisputably major award (the kind written up with significant commentary in non-gossipy news websites) might be worth a mention. -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia pages for Assyrian towns, many of them include a Romanized form of the Aramaic name. In this particular case, I would like to bring up the Assyrian town of "Harbol," which is under the Wikipedia page Aksu, Silopi.
The Wikipedia page for the town of Harbol, as well as many other Assyrian towns on wikipedia, officially source their romanization from an individual British scholar named David Wilmshurst, who documented almost all of the names of Assyrian towns in his book, The Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Church of the East, 1318-1913
The main problem here is... he documented all of their names in a Romanized form, not in actual Aramaic script.
So recently, someone put the Aramaic spelling of "Harbol" in the article (ܗܪܒܘܠ H-R-B-O-L) which is exactly how it would be spelled in Aramaic, but he didn't include a source for the name. Another user active on Wikipedia for Assyrian towns reverted it and said that there needs to be a reference.
The problem is there aren't any real academic references for a lot of Assyrian town names, including this one. In the case of Harbol, I only found 3 sources attesting the actual Aramaic name:
A Facebook group for the people of that town which included the town name in Aramaic in the group name.
A video from an Assyrian news channel which used the actual Aramaic letters to write the town's name in the title
An attestation of the town's name in an Aramaic article from a website called mesopotamiaheritage.org.
Would the first two sources suffice? What exactly can someone do if there is no written Aramaic attestation or readily available written attestation of a name? Why isn't it just enough to be able to reverse the romanization into Aramaic?
The user who reverted the addition of the name in Aramaic script, claimed in another post that adding the name is "invented content." Is this really the case? Parzillum (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I’ve written a draft article about Leonard Rabinowitz, a real estate developer and film producer, with citations from the Los Angeles Times, Forbes, WSJ, and Executive Global. I’m aware of the conflict of interest and am looking for a neutral editor to review the draft and move it to article space if appropriate.
Hello. I have placed the draft in Draft space at Draft:Leonard Rabinowitz and added the appropriate information to allow you to formally submit the draft for a review.
@LRabin Whether or not this is an autobiography, this would be immediately declined if submitted as-is. It does not conform to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people in relation to inline citations: it has many unreferenced statements. This is one of the problems of writing with a COI: see this essay. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In which case they should, I suggest, change the username to L(whatever)Rabin to clearly differentiate themself from him and avoid the appearance of impersonation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.210.159.137 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard on the OBBA talk page this is low-quality, taken from X, but perhaps temporarily we can use it on the critical Second Presidency page and OBBA page. The White House has not yet released other images.
Yes it is, you cannot simply take snapshot of any work and publish it. What would be better is "a high quality unedited image", this at least for the sake of authencity, but others opinion can differ. Sys64wiki (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mussia was referring to the fact that all works made by the United States Federal government are public domain. The U.S. Copyright Act clearly states that copyright protection in the U.S. is not available for any work of the federal government.[2]
However, we don't know if the video was made by a government employee in official capacity, or if they are simply using someone else's footage with permission. Not everything that appears on a federal government website is a government work (something created by a U.S. government officer or employee as part of their official duties). Content on federal websites may include protected intellectual property used with the right holder's permission. Before using U.S. government materials such as text, trademarks, logos, or images, check with the federal agency or program that manages the website to make sure the materials are not restricted.[3]
I'm wanting to add an image to the Handkerchief code article (and potentially others) of a chart that has been screengrabbed from a scanned book publicly available on the Internet Archive. This chart also appears on a clipping from a magazine, and images of this clipping have been posted online (not by me). The image is of the lesbian version of the hanky code from the USA in the 1970-80s. It was published in multiple books and magazines, and was subject to scrutiny by other lesbian and womens' groups at the time (which I plan to add to the article). It was also the basis of a book discussing the code that had a reputation for being banned from womens' bookstores.
The mens' version features on the article and appears ostensibly to be of similar copyright to my own planned submission. I know little about what constitutes a copyright violation and the help graphic on the Wikimedia wizard suggests much of what I've seen on Wikipedia doesn't actually qualify as being usable.
If I can't use either the clipping or the screenshot I've taken of the scanned book, would I be able to copy the table verbatim and properly attribute it? Would I need to present it as a quote?
Micahtchi, start by assuming that the illustration is conventionally ("All rights reserved") copyright. Can you point to any evidence that it isn't? If it is indeed conventionally ("All rights reserved") copyright, then you may still be able to use it if you claim that the use of it in the Handkerchief code article (or wherever) is "fair use". Please read up on this: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. And then digest and think of the implications of what you've read. (This is legalistic stuff; it can't be made so very easy to read.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look through the histories, and it seems like Cát Hải has been both a redirect and disambiguation page, and has some edits after the information from the older article was copied in. There are also some minor differences between the two articles (an image and one word added in several places, as far as I can see).
It doesn't seem productive to have the same information in two places, and I'm not familiar enough with the article subject to know if one is preferable over another. My question is, is this correct, or should it only exist in one place? And if it is the latter, what is the correct way to go about fixing this? NovaHyperion (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if it is the latter, what is the correct way to go about fixing this?
Thank you all for your responses! I have yet to encounter a merge/redirect situation, so I appreciate the guidance on how to handle them if one comes up in the future. I'll try and find some examples of other situations like this and weigh in on that discussion. NovaHyperion (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial edits made after article is protected (on Imane Khelif)
Hi. I'm relatively new here and and I just looked for information. I read that claims that Imane Khelif might not qualify to female boxing is, I quote wiki page first paragraph "false claims". I looked further and discovered wiki talk page and already closed discussions on that. Somebody prtected the page in June "as preventative measure" and then edited the page that she is a female and there are false claims out there.
I felt hopeful hoping to get new quality links on that drama, but... I disappointed heavily in wikipedia. :(
I googled and at in this point of time, nobody has presented any proof what are test results. And Imane refrained from going to the events required testing. I would not call the situation that there is truth known only to wiki truth police. It is definitely deliberate vandalism. Since there is over thousands of entries on talk page. And it is obvious that the topic is indeed controversal to say the least.
I know Daniele personally. He is a peaceful and virtous human being. He loves humanity. So do I. Can you please add in the section "known as" the following true statement: "Being a pacifist". What exactly should be wrong in being a pacifist? Could you please explain that to me and the whole world? Thank you for being so kind. You don't believe in GOD? That is a problem. You want to get to know GOD? I am happy to support you. Have a wonderful day ahead in the name of Jesus Christ our LORD.
I am very pleased to write you about the truth of Dr. Daniele Ganser. You want to know more about Daniele Ganser? There are plenty of videos on YouTube from him. For sure the one important video that demonstrates he is really doing the work for unifying humanity and therefore for peace, is this one: go to YouTube and type in "Daniele Ganser Menschheitsfamilie". As it is in German, you may not understand it. However, he is describing what he means with "Menschheitsfamilie". Menschheitsfamilie means in English something like "Family of Human beings" and this includes all of our species, regardless of religion, nation, sex, etc. He uses this word to make clear that all human beings are connected on a spiritual level to a higher power. You may call this power God, Holy Spirit, Universe, Allah, whatever. His Father was a Christian Pastor and his Mom was a nurse. Daniele visited the Rudolf Steiner Schools. I hope, you know who Rudolf Steiner was, if not, just ask Wikipedia :-) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner. As you see, Rudolf Steiner believed in Reincarnation and Karma. Here you have got the video in German, maybe you can ask one of your colleagues to have it translated in English: go on YouTube and type in "Dr. Daniele Ganser: Mein Gespräch mit Tahir Chaudhry".
Daniele was the first person in Switzerland that discovered that on 9/11 there were 3 Towers which collapsed, see WTC 7, even though no plane flew into it. He worked with structural engineers from the ETH Zurich to analyze why WTC 7 collapsed. They were to 99% sure that it was blown up. This is not a conspiracy theory, but a scientific study. I think you can do your studies yourself about WTC7. Here you have a link, which is stating the same by a US Fireman: https://internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com/did-world-trade-center-building-7-really-collapse-due-to-an-office-fuel-load-fire/.
Anyway, we have to finish with all that lies about Daniele. He is a very friendly person, who believes in the good of humanity and he has also online courses here, which help people to become peacemakers: https://www.danieleganser.online. Does all this information help? Do you need anything else to write the truth about Daniele? Tell me what you need and I will organize it for you. Thank you for being a supporter of Love, Justice and Peace. In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord please receive my heartfelt regards
Nobody has said that there is anything wrong in being a pacifist. What is not acceptable in Wikipedia is adding unsourced information to an article - and "unsourced" means "not backed up by an independent reliable published source". Unpublished information, whether from the subject, or anywhere else, does not belong in a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message. Yes of course it was me. And I will never stop until the truth about Daniele is written in the article of Wikipedia. And what is wrong with proselytising? If you do not believe in Jesus Christ it does not mean that he does not exist my dear friend.
How do I find a neutral editor to help me submit my information? I am Patricia Rea, daughter of John Rea, who a lawyer for a church trial in 1975, which was critical to the ordination of women in the Episcopal Church 2601:19B:200:7190:D4B9:DC12:1719:27A3 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Patricia, and welcome to the Teahouse.
It is not easy finding somebody who will collaborate on an article - you are asking somebody to spend their time on something which is important to you. If you are lucky enough to find somebody who also finds the subject of interest, then they may; otherwise your best bet is to do at least the spade-work yourself. You might find such a person at a relevant WikiProject, but I'm not sure which one would be best - perhaps WikiProject Women in Religion? or WikiProject Anglicanism? (The latter says it is semi-active, but if you post a request on its talk page, there may be people still watching that).
It is not clear from your question just what you want to add. Are you talking about writing an encyclopaedia article about your father? That is possible, provided he meets the criteria of notability (which are mostly about how much has been written about him, rather than about what he has done). Or are you looking to add some information to an existing article, perhaps Ordination of women#Anglican?
If you want to add to the existing article, you could just be bold and add it - but it might be better to discuss it on the article's talk page first.
If you want to create an article, then you may do so despite your conflict of interest (but you should disclose that clearly); but creating an article is hard for new editors. 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) 14:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to Revert Demonstrably Erroneous, Slanted Version
I made a correction to an article on archangels, but it was reverted without comment to the previous erroneous version. I am unable to revert it again to my version. The current version has axes to grind and is not objective. It focuses on a spurious work of the 6th century on angelic hierarchies and states that this is official Catholic theology. This is demonstrably false and in any event the article should not immediately focus on Catholic theology. Logically it should discuss where the term archangel is found in the Bible as I have done. No one today cares about the Pseudo-Dionysius' speculations on angelic hierarchies. They care about the Bible and accepted Apocrypha like Tobit. Toroid (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have opened a discussion on Talk:Archangel, which is the best thing to do.
However. "This is demonstrably false" is worth approximately 0 on a Wikipedia talk or discussion page.
Present your arguments with citations to reliable sources, and be open to hearing others' arguments - especially about the scope of an article, which is what you appear to be referring to above.
Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and works by consensus among interested editors: see WP:BRD.
It would have been helpful to have pinged @Remsense on the talk page, since that was who reverted your edit; but I have done so here, so they should see this discussion. ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they may care about both. Since the concept of Archangels is (personal opinion) wholly imaginary, all historically influential writings about the topic are, or should be, of equal interest to those interested in it.
You are involved in a Content dispute, the Teahouse is not the place to resolve it; follow that link and work through the procedures it describes, beginning with discussions on the article's Talk page with the others involved aiming to reach a consensus. You entered your first post there only just over an hour ago – give others time (measured in days) to respond.
[Disclaimer: I have not previously edited or even read the article in question, but have a general interest in the history of religious ideas.]
Well, you are in the right place for that. As the largest encyclopedia in history we do have an article on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as well as many other topics from political history to obscure species of shrew, for your edification and reading pleasure. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It will depended on the individual circumstances. Some of your searcher results include text like "a Hebrew translation edition" and "Revised English Translation Edition", each of which is correct adjectival use, and may be a title or quotation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits20:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly edit articles about historical figures from my small hometown. Due to this, information is often limited to just a few historical society websites. I've been spending a lot of time researching and contributing to these articles, but it seems that other users keep removing my additions, citing reliable sources. I'm working with what's available, so it's a bit disheartening. Here is a link. 20m00 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, that there are plenty of interesting topics for which adequate sources simply aren't available to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. (Confusingly, sometimes there are articles on these, which were generally created before we got as careful about sources - these should be improved or deleted, but there aren't many people that want to spend time on them).
If the sources don't exist, then there is no point in spending time on a subject, because it is not going to meet the criteria.
See User:ColinFine/William Anelay for a draft I was working on for a while, until I realised that my principal source had been published by the company, and so was not independent, and could not be used. I was disappointed - I would really like to see an article about Anelay's. But unless somebody can find better sources than I could, it is not going to happen. ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @20m00, as another user said findagrave.com is considered generally unreliable. You can find more information about the consensus on the site here: WP:RSPFINDAGRAVE.
Found out it was because one of my sources was Findagrave. Remove and it remained. Thank you for the assistance. 20m00 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone! Can you please explain on why is social media not a reliable source? What will happen if you cite social media sites as a source? Why does social media site seem to become widespread than other religions sources, such as newspapers and academic journal publications? 216.9.110.11 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse.
The basic answer is "because anybody can write more or less anything they want on Social Media" - without any fact-checking, or even if they know perfectly well that it is false or made-up.
In certain limited ways, social media can be used as a source about the person who has posted material (providing it can be established that they are really who they claim to be).
Some newspapers, and some academic journals, have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control - these are the ones we refer to as reliable sources.
A third party in this context means someone or something other than the person who posted the info on social media. That includes individuals, companies, products, pretty much anything other than the person who posted. (Or if the social media post was from a company or a school or a band, then anyone other than that same company/school/band is a third party.)
So if you're writing an article about Avocado Smith, and on Avocado's verified Facebook account they claim "I was born on July 5th, 1975", then that's a claim about themself -- a first party. So is "My favorite food is avocado". Since those claims are about themself and are very "unexceptional" claims (nothing that makes them unusual, nothing that would grant or detract from prestige), you can use those posts in Wikipedia as primary sources for that information, but only in an article about Avocado Smith.
If Avocado Smith, on their Facebook page, posts "my mother is five feet six inches tall", that's also an unexceptional claim. But it's about someone other than themself -- a third party. Even in an article about Avocado Smith, you're not allowed to treat anything Avocado says about anyone else as true based on social media. So you can't use that post in Wikipedia as a source of information about Avocado Smith's mother's height. Because that's information about Avocado's mother, who's a third party. Similarly, if Avocado Smith posts on Facebook that Madonna wears a bracelet that Avocado sent her, you can't use that information in Wikipedia, because it's about Madonna, who's a third party.
Also note that social media posts don't count toward the 3 independent reliable sources required for notability for most subjects on Wikipedia. ColinFine did a good job explaining why we have these rules. -- Avocado (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit Conflict] I understand it to mean that If A says X about themself on their own social media account, it can be taken as verifying that they have at least claimed X about themselves. However, if A says Y about B (a third party), it cannot be taken as verifying Y about B, because it's just A's unchecked (by any editor or fact checker) opinion. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.210.159.137 (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then any editor is encouraged to remove that information. Even more so if it's on a biography of a living or recently deceased person (WP:BLP). We take WP:Verifiability very seriously.
An editor who makes a habit of adding such poorly sourced information -- especially to BLPs, or especially if they've done it repeatedly in spite of warnings on their WP:TALKPAGE -- is liable to be blocked from editing until they satisfy an administrator that it won't happen again. -- Avocado (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've been working on a draft article about Bushwick Avenue in Brooklyn, New York City. The draft was recently declined because it needs better sourcing and possibly a clearer structure.
I've added some historical context and cleaned up the route description, but would appreciate your advice on:
Finding reliable, independent sources that demonstrate notability.
Improving the lead or structure further.
Anything else that can assist prepare it for resubmission.
Hi there, I've been wanting to create a page for Silverborn: The Mystery of Morrigan Crow for a while now - it's a part of the Australian Nevermoor book series by Jessica Townsend and was released in late April - but I am unsure of how to actually create the page. I would say that the book meets the notability criteria of "appearing in two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself" as evidenced by this review from the ABC and this review from a Melbourne book retailer. If someone could direct me on how to create a page, that would be great. Thanks. Cornonthehunt (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Your two sources might qualify, but I'm dubious: the first one, while it does talk about the book somewhat, has a great deal of Townsend talking, and so is not entirely independent; the other has little more than a plot summary.
The two would be useful in addition to some stronger sources, but I don't think that they on their own are enough to establish notability. It is quite likely WP:TOOSOON. ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not many countries are featured in the article. Thanks to Germany, this wheel arrangement was used across many of Europe. My issue is with two Scandinavian countries, Denmark and Norway. The two said countries’ own nationalized rail networks, Danske Statsbaner and Norges Statsbaner, both owned 2-10-0’s, adapted from German design. Class 63 for Norway, and Class N for Denmark. I think you know what’s about to happen. Should they be in the article? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "users behind it", if you meant Article creator or editor of a spcific article, that exists in "page information" and "view history" section, respectively. Sys64wiki (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@VictorTheVictorious, you'd have to ask the British Library, but I don't believe so, since the BL isn't a circulating library and to my knowledge doesn't offer online access to much of anything. It might work on-site, though. -- asilvering (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, I'm a somewhat new editor on Wikipedia. I've been working on the Assyrian continuity article, adding sources and expansions where I can, trying to boost its quality. I would appreciate any tips or help in discerning reliable sources and non-reliable ones, and if these sorts of sources would lead to a boost in the quality of the general article. I'm also curious about the good articles process and how one could possibly get to this status and the steps to take for it. Thank you. Gamigos123 (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamigos123, you are about to step into a minefield. I'll swing by your talk page, but the short version is: you're going to want to work on literally anything else as your first GA. -- asilvering (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, technically, to log out from other sessions we have other command in the preference menu. You would not log out from other session merely from changing passwd. Sys64wiki (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above file I want to add to JNR Class C61, depicting C61-19 hauling a 7 car passenger train along the Ōu Main Line. This photo shows a glimpse of what the class may have been used for during their working lives ranging from 1947 until 1974. However, there’s a problem. Adding an image to a talk page or the Teahouse is easy as pie, but adding it to the article is like trying to solve for X blindfolded while riding on the roof of a Lambo going 1,000 mph with your hands coated in a sticky glue. HELP ME ADD THIS THANG TO THE ARTICLE!!! 199.192.122.199 (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind if I take this line for me, sounds cool, is like trying to solve for X blindfolded while riding on the roof of a Lambo going 1,000 mph with your hands coated in a sticky glue.Kangarooblock06:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I would like to access certain sources such as Bloomberg.com that pose a paywall in order to be able to access its information. I'm curious if there is an alternative to subscribing to every digital newspaper/magazine. While I am subscribed to a number of them, I do think it is wasteful to pay for those that I would need less often. Thanks. Kvinnen (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm 
Courtesy link: Hal Yinger
Courtesy link: OBBBA for those like me who don't have a clue what OBBBA means. Shantavira|feed me 07:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
