Wikipedia:Teahouse#Translation help

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]

Thank you so much for finding that! I was translating the same author's works by hand, so it is incredibly likely that I misread or just didn't see it. Great work! Woodenturnip (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is just for the Wikipedia Adventure User:WillKomen. PawPatroler (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:WillKomen] PawPatroler (talk) 01:55, 30 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]

Alr, tysm. I would definitely see more about that. Once again, thank you for your help. Nguyen The Gia Hung (talk) 01:36, 30 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]

So how can I upload a picture without dealing with copyrights? Is there any other way? Nguyen The Gia Hung (talk) 01:37, 30 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]

Thank you both for looking in to it. This may all just be way out of my depth but I'm happy to watch and learn and help out where I can. JesseL0vesT0ast (talk) 15:43, 30 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]

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]

 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]

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]

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]

Hello, @Hachiko91919.

I have no idea what the copyright policy of the Khmer Rouge was, if they even had one. But in most countries, copyright is automatic - unless explicitly waived, or extinguished by the (long) passage of time, everything is copyright. This means that it is up to you to provide explicit evidence that this image has been placed in the public domain. ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 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]

@ALittleClass There are ways to find any text in the source code of articles. See Help:Searching, especially this part about using insource: Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:25, 30 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]

Hello, @Thiesen. The only tyhing I'd add to D'n'B's reply is that if an article has so many primary sources that it's a job to find the secondary sources amongh them, that's a red flag. ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 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]

Hello, @Ateeb Ali Syed. I'm afraid that appeals for collaborators are very rarely successful here at the Teahouse. What you are essentially saying is, "Will somebody put their own time and effort into creating an article which is of interest to me?" It's possible that you may find somebody who responds to that, but not likely. Perhaps you are more likely to find somebody if you ask at WikiProject Pakistan - I don't know.

Generally, your experience is a common one for people who have not yet understood Wikipedia's policies on notability and suitable sources.

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; and not much else. I doubt that many of your sources meet the criteria in WP:42.

Also, your current draft reads like what Kapadia or his organisations want to say. But 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.

I don't know for certain why somebody thinks you are a paid editor on this: my guess is that it is because

1. . You declared yourself as a paid editor on another article in a similar area
2. . You uploaded a picture of him, saying that an email licensing it was on its way from Kapadia (which surprises me a little, because it is obviously not a selfie, so it must have been taken by somebody else. Given that he was giving an interview, I would have expected the copyright to lie with the publishers of the interview, not with him; but the OTRS team will not doubt look at that). This suggests that you have some sort of relationship with him.

These certainly do not prove that you are paid in connection with this article, but it sets up a presumption. You are welcome to overturn this presumption by explaining clearly what your relationship is with Kapadia. ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 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]

Is "wiki-markup" the same as any othe "markup" text? Does it use the same "language" type stuff and all? Is it best to just call it "markup" or "wikipedia markup"? Is there anything specific to it that is not found in other markup languages? I am not a coder. If I am using the wrong terminology, please let me know as I like to learn. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has similarities to other markup text, but ultimately is not the same. For example: in Markdown, to link to the Main page you would need to do [Main Page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) whereas for Wikipedia markup it would be [[Main Page]]. Likewise, it is different for BBCode as well. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 21:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While working on Thermococci, I intended to add phylogenetic trees as seen in Haloarchaea. However, I found it difficult to work with the Clade template inside of the table which is needed to contrast information from the 'The All-Species Living Tree' Project and the Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB). I would like to request for anyone who is interested/familiar with this topic to create the table, sources needed can be found in the Haloarchaea article. I will keep working on other sections, feel free to contact me if you need help to find more information. Thank you. HC226 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HC226 If you don't get a good reply here, you can try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah I know I can ask for help on the project page but I thought I would have a higher chance of someone interacting with my request here first. HC226 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the adventure... PawPatroler (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PawPatroler, the Wikipedia Adventure doesn’t require you to make any posts at the Teahouse. You can use the WP:SANDBOX to test out edits. GoldRomean (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedians, how could I cite videos as a source on this website? What type of videos should I upload in order to insert videos in this article in any topic? MediaWatch179 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaWatch179 if a video counts as a reliable source, then it can be cited, probably using the cite:web template. The example that comes to mind is a reputable news outlet's verified youtube channel. As for uploading videos, that is a separate process. You would have to upload the video to Wikimedia commons, assuming you hold the copyright, and add it to an article with [[file:name here.mp4|thumb|caption]](assuming the video is mp4 format; you might have to chage that extension). But only do this if the video itself is part of the article - don't cite a video by putting it in the article. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaWatch179 Assuming the video is WP:RS (self-published videos are generally not) you can use Template:Cite AV media. You can see one example at cite [1] in Louis Tomlinson, note the included time-stamp. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can somebody please help me out with this article? It was moved to draftspace an year or so after being published because it did not conclusively meet WP:GNG but could meet in the future. I did some research and found more independent sources that could fulfil some of the criteria under WP:NPROF, but I have been blocked from editing due to COI. How can I go about improving the article and getting it re-published? Thanks! Shashy 922 (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use the Edit Request Wizard. Cabayi (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shashy 922 I'm not quite sure what the protocol is here, now that the article is back in draft. You were blocked from editing it in mainspace but given you have declared your COI, I personally think it is OK to directly improve the draft, provided you then submit it for review and don't just move it back to mainspace. Using the wizard is not necessary for drafts, even for paid editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Turnbull Thank you so much for your reply!

I actually thought the same, so I tried to edit the draft directly, but it turns out my block still prevents me from doing so, even in Draft space.

Given that, I was thinking of a detailed edit request on the Talk page using the Edit Request Wizard — just to make sure the changes are transparent, policy-compliant, and available for independent review. I also thought submitting it formally might help address the notability and COI tags still on the draft.

Would that be a good way forward? And if you're open to it, I’d be really grateful if you’d consider reviewing the request once it’s posted. I’d genuinely appreciate any help or feedback.

Thanks again! Shashy 922 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Star Mississippi, who applied the block. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Cordless Larry

I am against removing this block because of how @Shashy 922 behaved with respect to this article throughout their editing history and I only blocked after they continued not to hear feedback. They remain an SPA placing requests on multiple admin talk pages concurrent with this request. I have no reason to think they won't badger folks to review their edits or move the article. That said, if they file an unblock and another admin opts to unblock, they're welcome to. I thikn Shashy needs to show willingness and capability to edit elsewhere. Star Mississippi 01:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also courtesy ping @David Eppstein who shared similar concerns here. Star Mississippi 01:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American documentary filmmaker, musician, and advocate for Multiple System Atrophy awareness. Known for award-winning films Fighting MSA: Austin Crawford’s Story and Driven to Help (both listed on IMDb and featured on Rotten Tomatoes). Full draft and references available. 2600:1008:A030:2D72:D84B:D02D:25E8:D56E (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC) ==[reply]

• Austin Crawford – American documentary filmmaker, musician, and advocate for Multiple System Atrophy awareness. Known for award-winning films Fighting MSA: Austin Crawford’s Story and Driven to Help (both listed on IMDb and featured on Rotten Tomatoes). Full draft and references available. 2600:1008:A030:2D72:D84B:D02D:25E8:D56E (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Submit your draft to Articles for Creation for review by an experienced editor. There is no need to duplicate an entire question in the title of the section. Plus, you didn't actually ask a question. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanna know plz Lucasku69 (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If language is merely "inappropriate", Lucasku69, I simply ignore it. (I certainly do if it's directed at me, though if it's really fruity I add it to my user page.) If it's directed at somebody else, then I tell the perp on their user page to knock it off. -- Hoary (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lucasku69. Language that is inappropriate to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another. Genuine personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia, nor are threats of violence or racial or ethnic slurs. In all but the most extreme cases, your first step is to ask the other editor to stop. In extreme cases, file a report at the Administrators noticeboard/Incidents, following the instructions at the top of the page carefully. A less high profile option is to ask for advice from a currently active administrator, like Hoary or me. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teahouse. Can someone direct me to guidance about referencing television programmes? I'm looking at Annabelle Neilson, which has a number of references to things Neilson said on television programmes. I have looked at WP:RS and particularly the definition of "published", which says "any source that was made available to the public in some form ... an accessible copy of the media must exist". If a television programme is no longer available online, even to subscribers to that channel, is that a problem - does it mean an accessible copy doesn't exist? I'd like to cut some of the detail from this article, but would want to review the sources before deciding what to cut, and can't do that if the episodes are not available. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tacyarg! If there is no available copy of the media at all, it sadly doesn't count as verifiable, although some libraries or archives might preserve rare episodes that aren't available online. In general, this material might not be WP:DUE if the only reference that exists is the episode where it was said – if there hasn't been further reporting on these comments, especially in secondary sources, they might not be worthy of inclusion and you can safely remove them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chaotic Enby, that's helpful. Tacyarg (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is there any place in Wikipedia, where I will ask other editors to help write an article? I will show them sources and they will say whether the article has notability and then help me write the article properly. Fruit Orchard (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit Orchard, whether the subject of the proposed article appears to be notable. (Very few articles are themselves notable.) Here, in this thread, specify the subject you propose, and present links to three sources that deal with it/her/him in depth, can be presumed to be reliable, and are independent of each other. If the subject is shown to be notable, you can create the draft (or article). The more obvious it is that you've put work into it, the more likely that other editors will want to help. -- Hoary (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

==West Bengal political murders/violence==

1- The Electoral Process and Political Violence: An Observation from the Different Elections in West Bengal

2- https://indianexpress.com/article/research/politics-of-violence-in-west-bengal-when-history-keeps-repeating-itself-5205222/

3- https://www.nytimes.com/1971/03/09/archives/an-average-campaign-day-in-west-bengal-10-political-murders.html

4- https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/explained-what-drives-political-violence-in-bengal-birbhum-killings-1932889-2022-04-03

5- https://www.economist.com/asia/2023/07/20/why-are-politics-in-west-bengal-so-violent

6- https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/birbhum-arson-bengal-remains-prone-political-violence-1929002-2022-03-24 Fruit Orchard (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fruit Orchard The first link doesn't work for me and is an odd URL in any case that would be hard to evaluate. The others look usable. However, I suggest you look carefully at the existing article Politics of West Bengal, which has subsidiaries like Nandigram violence. Maybe, as a new editor, you would be better seeing if your sources could be incorporated into these existing articles. You could also ask on their Talk Pages whether a split to cover the violence in general is appropriate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link not opening is the first link that appears on top here(written by S Paul). https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=west+bengal+political+murders&btnG=

Also I didn't include all links. he mentioned 3 or 4. Still I added more. There are many more articles about political violence and political murders in West Bengal. Since 1971 every election has multiple murders. Like this 1989 news report. https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/special-report/story/19890515-west-bengal-witnesses-rise-in-political-killings-816070-1989-05-14

And there are individual articles as 1991 Kandua hand-chopping which is directly related to election results. Fruit Orchard (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first one: Shibu Paul. "The Electoral Process and Political Violence: An Observation from the Different Elections in West Bengal." International Journal of Science and Research, Volume 12 Issue 12, December 2023 doi:10.21275/SR231201152043. IJSR is a strangely comprehensive title: I'd expect it instead to be specific to political science or whatever. And its website seems extraordinarily eager for submissions, and reads rather like the website of a vanity publisher -- so I have to say that the journal seems rather suspect. But yes, as Mike Turnbull suggests, read Politics of West Bengal, think about what to do; and if you conclude that an article on violence there would be a good idea, make the suggestion on Talk:Politics of West Bengal. This talk page doesn't look at all active; therefore, post a note to both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject West Bengal inviting people to head to Talk:Politics of West Bengal and contribute to the discussion there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I wonder whether you think the computer game Nox Archaist (which has the last appearance of Lord British is encyclopedic and should have its own article? There is a book about the game's creation, plus maybe some reviews, but it's hard for me to tell whether it's enough sources (or if their quality is alright)?

Best wishes!

--Kaworu1992 (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the book? Who's it by, who published it? DS (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kaworu1992, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You can determine the quality of the sources by evaluating them against all the criteria in WP:42.

So, to take your book: if it was published by a reputable publisher (not self-published, or through a vanity press); if nobody involved with the game played a significant role in the creating and publication of the book; and if the book contains significant coverage of the game (which, by your statement above, it does), then it will probably contribute to establishing that the game is notable, though a single source is not usually enough.

But if, for example, the book was written by the game's producers (even if in collaboration with other people), then it is not independent, and will not contribute to notability. ColinFine (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book is called The Making of Nox Archaist, the author is Mark Lemmert, and it was published by 6502 Workshop (the company which created the game).

I suppose then it is not the right kind of source? Okay, better to know now than after writing a whole article :-P ;-)

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hm... I believe I could, besides the book, add articles from VICE and ShroudOfTheAwatar. Maybe some more googleable resources. I dunno how this influences the encyclopedic thing.

And what about the Kickstarter?

--Kaworu1992 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Entry for Sir Walter Raleigh Note 90 - Oldys' book was first published in 1736 - not 1706 - but I can't change it Wrk1945 (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wrk1945, welcome to the teahouse. I added a heading to your post. References are usually not written where they are displayed but where they are used, in this case Walter Raleigh#Raleigh's descendants. See more at Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a userbox with Östersunds FKs logo, but it got removed by a bot. Several other userboxes have football team logos, so why is this different? Does the image have to be in the public domain or does fair use work? Rockfighterz M (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Rockfighterz M. Fair-use is only valid for mainspace articles, not anything on user-pages. DMacks (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is there any way to put this logo on the userbox using free files? Rockfighterz M (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Rockfighterz M. Only if you could persuade the copyright holders (presumably the football club, or perhaps the person who designed the logo) to release it into the public domain or under a licence such as CC-BY-SA.

You are free to approach them and ask them to, but you (and they) should understand that in order for the logo to be uploaded to Commons (and used outside the very restricted circumstances of WP:NFCC) they would have to license it in such a way that anybody in the world would be able to reuse or alter it for any purpose, commercial or not, without asking permission (see WP:donating copyright materials). The owners of most logos are not usually willing to do this. ColinFine (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! Appreciate the help! Rockfighterz M (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - The CEO of the company that I work for is looking to add a page about the company. Could you please advise where he should start? He already has a draft page ready. MariusP2301 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MariusP2301, as it happens we have a guide in place for exactly this question. What To Do When Your Boss Tells You To Edit Wikipedia tells you exaclty what you need to know. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Thanks so much for the helpful answer, D'n'B! I really appreciate it and will definitely check it out

. MariusP2301 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MariusP2301: I suggest he starts by reading WP:Ownership of content, WP:Conflict of interest, and especially the Terms of Use. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great. I'll be sure to let him know about this. TYSM, Jeske Couriano!! MariusP2301 (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MariusP2301 Please see WP:BOSS. While it doesn't describe the exact same situation, its advice should still be followed. In short: They should stop working on it. If the company is already notable, someone would've written a page about it by now. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take a look at this. TY MWWV. MariusP2301 (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was the fist link posted in reply to the OP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

I translated a German article for an English Wiki page.

But I was told at the end that I can't publish it.

Could somebody of you publish the article?

Thanks Supersäure (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Supersäure, und Wilkommen im Teehaus.

I'm afraid that translation from another language Wikipedia is often not straightforaward. You cannot publish your draft because it does not conform to the standards of English Wikipedia (which may well be different from those of de:Wikipedia).

In particular:

1. It has no references (well, it has one, but that does not even mention Hasenstab-Riedel, and so is of little use). This means that effectively everything in the draft is unsourced - this is not permited, especially for an article about a living person.
2. It contains external links in the main text, which is not allowed

An article in English Wikipedia should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable publications, and little else.

Translating an article from another Wikipedia is of little use, unless that original article cites sources adequate for English Wikipedia.

I have added a header to User:Supersäure/Sebastian Hasenstab-Riedel which will allow you to submit it for review; but until you add sources that show how he meets either the academic criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or the general criteria for notability, and make sure that pretty well everything in the draft is cited to a reliable source (see WP:REFB) it has no chance of being accepted.

I recommend you study your first article, and then begin again, starting with finding sources which conform to WP:42, and then writing text that summarises those sources. You can of course refer to and even use parts of your translation, but only if the text summarises what one of the independent sources says, not if it includes information not in the sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm new to editing, mainly having begun to make a page for a musical that opened on the west end recently. I'm not quite sure how to improve it, but I feel like it isn't developed enough to submit yet. Any advice would be very much appreciated!! Draft:Oscar At The Crown. Snekjoy (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of your sources says the show was a "Brooklyn Hit". Yet your draft says virtually nothing about that, has no independent US sources, and reads like a press release for the UK version. Fix those issues, then submit it for review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Snekjoy, 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) 21:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Unexpected story of Vijay shashwat studios

Can't we write about a living person who hasn't won any award yet? Vijay Kumar shashwat (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the feedback on your rejected draft says. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Vijay Kumar shashwat

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable publications, and very little else.

Writing an article - which is much more difficult than most people realise - begins by finding several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42. If you can't find several such sources, you will know that there is no point in continuing with this article, as it will never be accepted.

If you have found several such independent reliable sources, then you need to effectively forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say, citing them as you go. ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vijay Kumar shashwat A few years ago I wanted to write an article about a writer, but had trouble finding good references. I started an offline computer document and started collecting information from the few sources I had. It took about a year but I kept working on the article project in my spare time and eventually had enough good information from good references to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. Just because you can't get your article accepted right now doesn't mean you can't keep trying.

Studying Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners may help you, and looking for Wikipedia articles on similar subjects can be useful to see what to strive for. Best wishes on your future Wikipedia work. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can look at Wikipedia:Backwards, which talks a bit about writing the article from the sources, rather than writing first and finding the sources later. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing my first article and I'm wondering if BWARS, AntWeb and GIBF are reliable sources for me to use or not?

My article is here, and the references used are BWARS, AntWeb and GBIF. I just need some advise on whether I need to find and cite the original text which will be a pain and take a lot longer, especially with my limited time.

FranticSpud (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @FranticSpud and welcome to the Teahouse! I've seen species articles sourced from GBIF, and it shouldn't be an issue for WP:NSPECIES, especially since they quote the relevant sources. However, they still fall under WP:TERTIARY (as they compile what other sources have documented about the species) and it could be ideal to track down the sources themselves if you want to expand the article more in depth. AntWeb also links to a lot of research articles that could be a starting ground for that. BWARS doesn't really cite sources and I would be a little bit more careful – they haven't been discussed at WP:RSN yet, although you can open a discussion there if you want further feedback. Good luck! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen BWARS in several books and journals with the authors clearing trusting it, but I’ll definitely double check. If I have time I’ll try and find the original sources but I don’t usually have too much time and it is very time consuming comparatively FranticSpud (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @FranticSpud. I'm afraid that writing Wikipedia articles properly is indeed time-consuming - and finding the right sources is a big part of that time. ColinFine (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes, the list of "Most studied earthquakes" has two 34s and two 35s.  In the default order 36 and 37 are between them.  I would fix it but I am unsure how to do it. Beatles777! (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Beatles777! and welcome to the Teahouse!

Looking at the source, that does seem to be a mistake, I've fixed it! If you want, in the future, you can ask at the talk page, or look at our tutorial to learn how to edit tables yourself! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the talk page for the current Embodied Imagination page I notified of my intent to submit a bold rewrite (please see talk page for specifics). I have (attempted to) publish the proposed rewrite for review and feedback from experienced Wiki editors but have received an automated filter notice that the attempt has been disallowed because of 'trying to add an email address to this page'. I've never used Wikimedia prior to this, so any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks

PerspectiveHub PerspectiveHub (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't find the filter notice you mention so I can't comment on that. But in the talk page post you state that you work with people related to the subject, even the founder. First of all, it is strongly discouraged that you edit articles that you have an affiliation with, as it is almost impossible for anyone to remain truly neutral in that circumstance. More importantly though, you must disclose this conflict of interest. In your case I think it would also count as paid editing. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That specific edit filter is private, as email addresses are considered personal information, so only edit filter helpers and administrators can access it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" you must disclose this conflict of interest." ..."in the talk page post you state that you work with people related to the subject, even the founder.'

As you mentioned, I did disclose it. PerspectiveHub (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PerspectiveHub! Email addresses aren't needed in articles – beyond linking to an official website if there is one, encyclopedia articles aren't really the place to add contact links. In this case, you can simply remove the email from your proposed edit. Once that is done, you can publish the rewrite on the talk page and use {{Edit COI}} to submit it for review. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful advice, thank you. PerspectiveHub (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how do I add a tag to request an updated US congressional district map? Specifically, conservative climate caucus. I updated the table, but need the corresponding map to reflect the changes. WCNo47 (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WCNo47: You can make a request to editors who make and edit maps over at the Graphics Lab by selecting the "New request" button at the top of the page. cyberdog958^Talk 05:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! WCNo47 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1582152/ Abbas Moulaey (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question of some kind, Abbas Moulaey? -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to update the Member of Legislative Assembly from Moradabad from 1957 but I dont have supportive links and references, how should I go about it Abbas Moulaey (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess, Abbas Moulaey, that you'd need access to a first-rate Indian library. If you're lucky, some usable source will have been scanned and uploaded to the Internet Archive, so you could look there. I don't like to sound ungrateful, but I have to say that Indian OCR can be very poor. For this reason you'd be wise to look for a variety of search terms. ¶ Please read and digest Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/2 (or Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/2 if you're using the "visual editor"). -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’m looking for help from an experienced editor who might be interested in writing or reviewing a draft article about a science fiction novel titled Eclipsar, written by Blake Varnadoe. The book has received independent coverage from multiple reliable sources, including: FOX 5 Atlanta (WAGA-TV) – original feature segment and article WRBL (CBS Columbus affiliate) – independent news coverage LaGrange Daily News (LDN) – print/online article WTVM and WLTZ TV interviews A radio interview with WELR-FM Wider reader response via Amazon, Goodreads, etc. Although I am connected to the subject, I’m aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest and neutrality policies, so I’m not planning to write the article myself. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor could evaluate whether the subject meets notability criteria and consider creating the article. If helpful, I can provide source links or a rough draft in Wikitext to review. Thank you! BlakeVarnadoeAuthor (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a good use of your time to keep pursuing this. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 05:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm asking is if someone can evaluate and write the article for me as I don't want COI. BlakeVarnadoeAuthor (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second D'n'B's comment. If somebody wrote the article at your request, that somebody would thereby have a conflict of interest. Incidentally, if you have enabled email for BlakeVarnadoeAuthor, don't be surprised if you receive offers from self-described experienced, expert editors to create an article about your book or yourself (for a fee). Retain your money, your composure, and your dignity. -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @BlakeVarnadoeAuthor, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The fact that you are even asking this suggests that you have a (common but completely wrong) idea that Wikipedia is an appropriate place to promote (i.e. tell the world about) your book.

It is not: promotion of any kind is forbidden in Wikipedia.

If your book has been written about significantly, by people wholly unconnected with you who, in reliable published sources, then there could be an article about it. The article would not belong to you, would not be controlled by you, and would not necessarily say what you would like it to say (if, for instance, several critics panned it, the article should and would say that, and you would not be able to get it removed). ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you add links to your user page? (I don’t code or use computers very often so try explain as simple as you can please :) 😂) Lucasku69 (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same way you add them to any other page, Lucasku69. Please see Help:Cheatsheet. -- Hoary (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a draft article about the French-American indie pop band Pearl and the Oysters, and I would greatly appreciate a review or any guidance regarding its notability and use of sources. While I have a decent understanding of Wikipedia, I’m having some trouble actually writing the article, as most of the available information is rather sparse or dry, to say the least.

I’ve done my best to include a range of reliable, independent references, but would be grateful for a second opinion before resubmitting through Articles for Creation. I do believe the subject is notable, though, I’ve found it challenging to locate in-depth coverage online thus leading to my trouble in drafting it. You may view the draft here:Draft:Pearl and the Oysters

Thank you kindly for your time and assistance.

Warm regards, Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Issac I Navarro

I think that you'd benefit from having a read of some well written articles about music to get an impression of how to write in a neutral tone about something that is inevitably going to be a bit a bit subjective. For example consider that sentences like "Collaborations with artists.. enriched their sound" are neither neutral nor does it really contain a verifiable statement of fact, whereas "Peal and the Oysters collaborated with...on this album - and a reviewer described the collaboration as enriching" (if that's the case) would be. Remember that interviews are not considered independent, so they do not count towards notabilty. Proffesional reviews and news articles do though.

Happy editing! -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...But be aware of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking from reviews. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I submitted a draft about Prakruthi N. Banwasi that was rejected for not showing notability. However, the subject has:

• A full-page profile in The Hindu (3 Sept 2000)
• A feature-length article in The Sunday Times of India (7 Oct 2001)
• Multiple articles in Bangalore Weekly and Prajavani
• Recognition in the Limca Book of Records
• National media coverage for police training programs (Economic Times, New Indian Express)

These are cited inline, and a Talk page note explains offline source verification.

Here’s the draft:

Draft:Prakruthi N. Banwasi

Can someone advise whether this meets [[WP:BIO]]? Or what else is needed for acceptance?

Thank You Likith Athreya (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that it will not be considered further, plase note that the Times of India is not generally considered a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered as a reliable source? Please let me know so that I can check whether i can find them.

Thanks. Likith Athreya (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided 17 references including The Hindu. Are none of them reliable? Likith Athreya (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They may be reliable. But, to establish that Banwasi is wikinotable, each source needs to be reliable and indepedent of him and include extansive discussion of him. None of the ones I checked did that. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone. Could you help with this draft? I need to find any reliable sources. Thanks. СтасС (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, СтасС. I suspect that many of the best sources on this subject are likely to be in Korean and that most Teahouse volunteers can't read that language. It might be worth asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’ve written a draft article about Open Intranet in my sandbox: User:Drop-m13!/sandbox

Could someone help me review it and move it to mainspace if it meets notability guidelines? Drop-m13! (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to Draft:Open Intranet, Drop-m13!. It needs citation of reliable sources that are independent of Droptica and the people making up Droptica. When you have fixed this and any other problems, click "Submit the draft for review!" ¶ Surprisingly, all your edits have been related to Open Intranet. Are you perhaps related? -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help, and for moving the article to the 'Draft' namespace. I appreciate your feedback and will work on improving the article.

Yes, I am related to Droptica. My aim is to create a neutral, well-sourced article about the open-source solution that meets Wikipedia's standards. I also understand that I should disclose my affiliation with the topic. Should I mark this in the article itself or elsewhere? Drop-m13! (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drop-m13! WP:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI has instructions for disclosing your conflict of interest. That whole page has everything you need to know, but there is a concise version at WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Please be aware that if you are associated with this project, it may not be possible for you to write a neutral article about it on your own – that's just human nature. To bring this draft to acceptable standards, you need to write from reliable, independent sources, not from your first-hand knowledge. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please help on the draft Draft:France 2025 syringes attack please, thanks! DinhHuy2010 (talk · contribs · logs · rights · email · sandbox · links to user page · global contribs) 08:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DinhHuy2010, your draft is a single, short sentence. So essentially you're saying "Please create a draft for me." Sorry, no. But two pointers: not "syringes attack" but "syringe attack"; not "Fete" but "Fête". Now, please consider doing some more work yourself. For that, more pointers: France is a pretty big place; where in France? June has quite a lot of days; which day? Were there precedents? Have there been copycat attacks? Is there a suspect? Is a motive suspected? Et cetera et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank for some advice... DinhHuy2010 (talk · contribs · logs · rights · email · sandbox · links to user page · global contribs) 09:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]