Wikipedia:Teahouse

GreenMeansGo, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is currently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (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. ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

There is currently 1 user(s) transcluding the {{Help me}} template looking for assistance from Teahouse volunteers.

Feedback on Article

Hello! I am a newcomer to Wikipedia as a part of an online communities class dedicated to wikieducation. I have been working on an article for Gourmet Makes for a while now which is now in the mainspace. I would greatly appreciate any feedback, edits, or advice from more experienced Wikipedia users, so I can make this article as effective and as perfect as possible. Thanks so much in advance!!! Bunchabananas (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Permission sent from photographer to me -- can I upload the pic?

After attempts through the last couple months, I finally got permission to utilize a photo for this article I've been developing: Richard Raymond (publisher)

Stewart Brand, the creator of the image (in 1963), has sent the photo to me by email, and he expressed his permission to use it in the article. I can forward the email, if that can support the process.

I'll be very grateful for info preparing me to proceed. This will be my first time attempting an image upload.Joel Russ (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Joel Russ, thank you very much for creating the article and requesting a picture for it. Usually, with exceptions described at WP:NFCC, permission for use in an article only wouldn't be sufficient. Please have a look at commons:Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder for detials about licensing and the verification process. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, ToBeFree, for your prompt reply. I'll quote from Stewart Brand's email:

"Here you go. Shot by me at Dick Raymond’s home in January 1963.

Free to use every which way. WikiMedia, Creative Commons, etc."

Likely to pass muster? (I can forward the email as proof.)Joel Russ (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Forwarding such an e-mail wasn't accepted for the piano video on my user page; I had to ask the creator to send an e-mail to the VRT address themselves. The instructions on the linked Wikimedia Commons page are good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Joel Russ, such a vague email statement is not enough. Brand must explicitly freely release the image using the precise legal language of an acceptable Creative Commons license or equivalent. Here, for example, is the text of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, most commonly used for images these days. This is a legal transaction that must be done correctly. Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Basically, the photographer has to fill out a form and email it to a specific wikimedia address, for legal certainty (Wikipedia doesn't want to get sued). Mrfoogles (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Donating copyrighted materials; that outlines the process. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Joel Russ what I've done in the past is to first upload the photo to Commons, ticking the box which says someone else gave permission and will send an email to VRTS, then reply to them and say something like "Thanks so much for the photo, for legal reasons Wikimedia requires you to contact them directly to release it, I would really appreciate if you could do this by emailing the text below to permissions-commonswikimedia.org", then fill in the declaration at WP:CONSENT and put it below. Hope this helps. Yeshivish613 (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying that. I emailed Stewart and told him that he, not I, is the person required to license his images. Stewart replied to my email this morning, saying he has consigned the two images he sent me to a CC BY-SA 4.0 license. So, I uploaded the images to Wikimedia Commons, as you suggested.

At this point, I'm hoping that Stewart (who is now 87 years old) did the licensing properly. I've got no idea how one confirms the licensing.Joel Russ (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

How to become an admin?

My name is Aiden and I’m from Georgia. I really liked reading Wikipedia articles and I did a little editing before I started an account. Honestly it’s been really good to have something to take my mind of the chemo even though they say i might not be responding to it. One of my doctors told me I shouldn’t let my condition prevent me from pursuing my dreams, so now I’m asking how I can become a Wikipedia administrator, even if only for one day? Thank you to anyone who has any advice. L$Aiden$L (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The standard process for becoming an admin involves a week-long public vetting procedure, during which people will ask you questions about your previous actions on Wikipedia, your knowledge of procedure, and what you would do in various hypothetical situations. Then people state that they either support you becoming an admin, or oppose you. When the 'bureaucrat' counts the 'support' and 'oppose' opinions, they check each one to make sure it's actually from a genuine Wikipedia participant, and not someone who joined just to say "I SUPPORT THIS PERSON BECOMING AN ADMIN".

I hope you understand that giving someone admin access, without their having shown that they can be trusted with it, is an extraordinarily bad idea.

Good luck with chemo; I hope to see your edits in the future - and who knows, maybe you'll get to become an admin the normal way! DS (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Someone else put a message on my talk page about it so I understand that you’re supposed to have alot of edits and stuff but (Redacted) so I haven’t had much opportunity to get alot of edits. The problem is that because of my cancer I might not have time to do alot of edits. I promise I can be trusted though. L$Aiden$L (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@L$Aiden$L: Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, editors want to see that the person applying to be an administrator can be trusted, and that's shown by their behaviour on the site, usually spanning back years. The process can be very grueling and sensitive questions may be asked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Becoming a Wikipedia admin is very difficult and usually only possible if you're already very experienced, unfortunately. But really, admins are just regular editors who can ban people, delete articles, and suchlike, which is definitely not the core of what Wikipedia is about. If you're trying to do something big you could definitely go for a featured article -- while it is difficult, anyone can write one of those. I'd recommend doing something like that, or just finding what you enjoy about editing Wikipedia and trying to reach milestone there -- even if you were an admin for a day, there probably wouldn't be much to do other than read deletion discussions and read people complaining about things. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I enjoy editing Wikipedia but have no desire to be an admin. I did try for a good article once (failed, unfortunately -- the topic was too new). Administrators are needed, but they're not really the purpose of Wikipedia. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

(Redacted) I don’t know how I would write a really good article that could make me an admin. I just want the chance to live out my dream even if only for one day because I might not have alot of time left. L$Aiden$L (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi User:Cremastra do you also have cancer that isn’t responding to chemo? L$Aiden$L (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

(WP:GAs are more attainable – I've written a couple and I'm also <20 years old. –me)

No, I don't. Cremastra _talk 00:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Let me know how attainable it is to write a few good articles when you have cancer that isn’t responding to chemo. L$Aiden$L (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

You don't have to write a brand new article to make a good contribution to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I've seen this question asked before. To put it another way- what would the Boston Red Sox say if you asked if you could be their starting pitcher in an actual game to fulfill a dream while you are battling a medical concern? They would likely have much sympathy for you, but they also have a responsibility to their fans and their business to put the best team on the field they can for a game. They can't just let anyone be the starting pitcher or center fielder, no matter what the reason. It's the same as possessing the admin toolset(and that's what it is, a toolset more than a role). It can't be given to just anyone, no matter what the reason. And as noted, what would you do for a day? You don't need to have the admin tools to be a good contributor. You don't even have to write an entire new article. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it’s interesting that admins are saying you don’t need to be an admin, all you have to do is write good articles. Would they still be saying that if they weren’t admins? L$Aiden$L (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I'm not an admin and I'm saying you could write good articles. But people have different goals and different priorities. If you find you enjoy writing articles and feel satisfied after writing one – go with that. Cremastra _talk 00:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Well since my doctor is talking about stopping the chemo and leaving it up to “the universe”, I guess what I would enjoy is getting to be an admin on the website that has been my only source of comfort. L$Aiden$L (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I would still say that. Possessing the admin tools is an enhancement to work on Wikipedia, not a job in and of itself. The tools are only given to people who show a need for them, how it will aid what they do and how that benefits the community. I get what you're saying, that your need is that you're battling a medical issue and may not able to use Wikipedia much longer- but that's your own personal need, not a need that affects your Wikipedia work. If you say- spend your time fighting vandalism, you can then argue that giving you the tools will aid your fighting vandalism. If you participate in a lot of Articles for Deletion discussions, giving you the ability to delete articles would allow you to close those discussions.

No matter your personal situation, you won't be given the admin tools just as the Red Sox or the Atlanta Braves won't make you their starting pitcher for an actual game; the American people won't make you President of the US for a day, if that were your dream. Some things might happen- the Braves might let you throw out the ceremonial first pitch; the President might let you tour the White House and sit at his desk; Wikipedia will let you contribute to an article. We're not trying to crush your dreams, but dreams have to give way to reality sometimes. Contributing to an article has a bigger impact on Wikipedia than merely possessing the admin tools for a day. I would suggest that you find a topic you're interested in that you can contribute about; then your username is preserved in the edit history of articles on that topic for as long as Wikipedia exists. I wish you the best. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Hello @L$Aiden$L: there is a test Wikipedia where you can test the admin tools. Leo^talk 01:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, creating any article, let alone a Good article is a hard task. Even raising an existing article to GA is a hard task that typically requires making scores of edits to improve the article and then addressing everything the GA reviewer said is still not good enough. If you enjoy Wikipedia, you may find a good early step is to work on improving existing articles, especially if there is a topic you like and know about. See Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:42 for why adding content calls for adding references. David notMD (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Even though it won’t be possible for you to become an overnight admin, here’s something you might enjoy: a virtual experience of “meeting” candidates from past elections, following the questions asked by the current admins and the responses the candidates made, and seeing the final vote tallies. I did this a few months back to get an idea of what admins do, wanting to expand my not-all-that-far-from-newbie understanding of what goes on in Wikipedia that "plain vanilla editors" like me rarely (if ever) see. I found it fascinating. If you think this might appeal to you, then:

• Go to the archives for successful admin requests over the years.
• Scroll down to the 2025 table and click on either of the editors' names.
• Now you can read what the candidate said by way of introduction and his or her responses to the mostly "what-if" questions tossed out by the current admins.
• Similar information is available for successful admin elections over earlier years, which appear below 2025. Enjoy!

And ... thoughts and prayers, @L$Aiden$L. Augnablik (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@L$Aiden$L: Based on your userpage which says I really want to be a Wikipedia administrator so I can help block vandals and delete bad articles just like my heros and my own personal experience with having that as a special interest as a kid, you can help "block vandals and delete bad articles" without being an administrator. Specifically, I think you should set yourself a goal of passing the WP:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy.

You will not become an admin in the timescale you are discussing, as other have said. However, you can definitely get vandals blocked and delete bad articles. This is an attainable goal for you because it only requires free time and an ability to learn the policies. Since you are stuck in the hospital, you will be better at that than most people.

Right now, to gain edits (as WP:CVUA recommends you have 200 mainspace edits), you can install WP:Ultraviolet and look at Special:RecentChanges. You might also consider finding a Category:Wikipedia backlog (described at Wikipedia:Backlog) and starting to clear it. For example, Category:Succession box misuse tracking. I just removed one article from Category:S-bef: 'before' parameter includes the word 'created' with a simple one-line change. [1]

Feel free to leave me talk page messages if you want more advice. I hope to see you make contributions in the next few weeks. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Can Fandom be used for references?

I'm drafting articles for multiple Overwatch characters but am having trouble finding references, and I was curious if Fandom could be used for references. Someone please get back to me as I am somewhat new to Wikipedia. AlexEditsStuff (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Sources must be considered reliable by the community's definition, and as a user generated site, Fandom does not fit under our definition. Even Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source for other Wikipedia articles. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Where can I find good references for these types of articles? AlexEditsStuff (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi AlexEditsStuff - Overwatch is a video game, correct? Well, the editors over at Wikiproject Video Games have made a list of sources they believe tend to be reliable for video-game related content. No promises, but you might have luck looking at through those. Good luck! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 02:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes you can't, and then you shouldn't try to make a WP-article on the whatever. Existing is not enough, see WP:BACKWARDS. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston (Overwatch) could be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Consensus against use of Fandom (website) can be found at WP:FANDOM. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@AlexEditsStuff Are the characters themselves had a significant coverage ?

Do you want to write an article for each characters or only the major characters ?

A draft on a minor character could be rejected and not declined without significant coverage.

Read this about the difference between "rejected" and "declined" : "Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Draft decline or reject help".

I advise you to read the message wrote by "Gråbergs Gråa Sång" in "APRIL/06/2025" at "05:06 UTC".

I advise you to read the message wrote by "Cullen328" in "APRIL/06/2025" at "06:52 UTC".

Now , I think you have the knowledge necessary to advance in this work. Good editing ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm doing articles for the playable characters that don't have one, Genji, Reaper, Mauga, etc AlexEditsStuff (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@AlexEditsStuff Thanks for your message ! I think all playable characters are notable. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Unblock access and edit permission

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § Unblock access and edit permission

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Request to cancel access ban Armin fozuni (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Your account is not blocked. To what are you referring? 331dot (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Based on edit history, I think it's Daylamites. Also based on edit history I'd be disinclined to do it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I can't edit in Persian. Someone has blocked me. They don't know why. If you could please unblock my IP, I've received a message saying, "Go to Duck or Spare." Armin fozuni (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Administrators here have no power or control over fa.wp, which is a separate project with its own standards and practices. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, tanks Armin fozuni (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you know someone who can help me? Armin fozuni (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You would need to put in an unblock request on your user talk page on fa.wp. We are completely unfamiliar with that particular Wikipedia's standards, practices, and admin corps. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

In Persian, if you mean "I can't because it's blocked and won't allow it" Armin fozuni (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You are indefinitely blocked and have no talk page access on fa.wp, but we cannot help you here. Pinging the blocking admin user:Tisfoon (who is sometimes active on English Wikipedia) in case they care to comment. Meters (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

okey Thank you. Armin fozuni (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

From looking at the block log and putting it thru Google Translate, I get (roughly): "WP:DUCK sockpuppet of Armbbfazz^(fa)", who is themselves indef'd for (roughly) misrepresenting sources, not providing sources, and ignoring warnings to that effect. From a quick translation of a handful of Armbbfazz' edit summaries I get the sense that fa.wp's DUCK block is justified, given it tracks with what Armin's written on en.wp. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano and Meters: This user has been indefinitely blocked on Fawiki for multiple reasons, including disruptive edits and sockpuppetry. His previous account (User:Armbbfazz) was also indefinitely blocked due to vandalism. By creating different accounts and making the same edits on the same pages while ignoring all warnings, he has engaged in WP:GAME. As a result, his multiple accounts will remain blocked permanently on Fawiki. Tisfoon (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. They are currently temporarily blocked here for these disruptive requests: refusing to listen when we say we cannot help here. DMacks (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Accessing NEW images from Wikimedia Commons

Stewart Brand, the photographer & copyright holder, has provided photos for this article I've been developing: Richard Raymond (publisher)

Stewart has apprised me by email that he's now consigned the photos to public availability, having used the CC-BY-SA-4.0 option. This would have occurred within the last 16 hours.

However, doing a Wikimedia Commons search by the subject's name (trying both Richard Raymond and Dick Raymond, as he was usually called) seemed to turn up nothing. Is there a typical time lag for image availability? What can you tell me?Joel Russ (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Using the search mode of a wikipedia or commons site should be nearly automatic. There is sometimes a lag when material is *removed* (false positive) but I have rarely encountered the type of problem you are describing. Try asking him what filenames he used, or what his username is when he uploaded them. DMacks (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I tried some searches, and unfortunately there are (as you note) several possible name combinations; and also, these are several people with this name. DMacks (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Joel Russ. Who uploaded the pictures to Commons? Presumably you didn't yourself, or you'd know where to find them. There is no user on Commons with that name (though of course many users use a pseudonym), so you'll need to ask Brand if he uploaded them. If nobody has uploaded them, then they won't be in Commons: the don't appear there magically.

Unfortunately, while releasing them under CC-BY-SA is enough, informing you of the fact is not. He must either make a public declaration (eg publishing them on his website with the licence), or inform Wikimedia directly. The easiest way to do this, if he is willing, is for him to upload them to Commons, and then he can claim them as his own work and say that he has licensed them as required. The alternative is that he sends a mail to Wikimedia as explained at donating copyright materials and then you upload them. ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

This was already discussed above. @Joel Russ, what do you mean that he released the photos under a CC BY 4.0 license? There are multiple ways one can release a picture, do you mean he uploaded it to Commons? Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I emailed Stewart last night, explaining to him that I could not apply for CC licensing. I sent him the URL for the page that explains how he could do that. By 8:30am PDT, Stewart had emailed back to me, indicating he had done it; saying simply. "So consigned."

Stewart has been a brilliant man most of this life, but he's now 87 years old. So I remain a bit concerned.Joel Russ (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

According to his article, he's actually 86, and he must have understood copyright when he campaigned for the image of the earth to be released in 1966. 😄 Yeshivish613 (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Though seriously, it could be that he emailed it to photosubmission@wikimedia.org, which would take a few days for it to be uploaded. Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

That gives me hope. Thanks again.Joel Russ (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Annotated links

How do you edit an annotation in an "annotated link"? For example, I am looking at the annotations from the "See also" section of the Philanthropy article. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Iljhgtn. To use {{Annotated link}} in its most basic form, the editor simply puts {{Annotated link|Article B}}, and the annotation note part will be automatically pulled from the Article B's short description. TO modify it, you'd have to modify the Article B's short description. Sometimes that's a good idea, sometimes it isn't - if, for whatever reason, you wish to modify the annotation without changing Article B's short description, I believe you'd have to simply turn it into a regular link instead. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you that answers my question. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

AfD question

In an AfD, occasionally, I am persuaded away from my initial !vote from a Keep to a Delete or vice versa, in those instances, should I strikethrough my initial !vote and make a comment about the change? Or should I simply edit my !vote away from what it initially was? What is the best protocol for a change-of-mind in an AfD? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:AFDFORMAT advises to strike rather than silently change it. I usually add my new explanation as an indented response to my previous one (striking as necessary) so it's clear I am correcting myself. Others simply post a new comment in chronological order (with a comment that they are changing their mind) and strike the old one. DMacks (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

But strike in all cases. Ok, that works. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:PROMO question

Sometimes while patrolling new pages I came across pages such as User talk:Updatetv and User:Pecola Samara Coleman which contains only a few sentences of user's own biography or company introduction. Does these constitutes WP:G11/WP:U5? If not, is there any other actions that need to be taken? Syn73 (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Syn73: I personally would leave a message on their talk page informing them that this is against the rules and ask them to remove it. If they don't comply within ~48 hours, then remove it yourself. Plenty of new users simply don't know all the rules (I don't blame them, it's a sea of links and acronyms out there), and it's much better to explain to them what's wrong and giving them the opportunity to rectify it rather than deleting their contributions and shoving angry templates in their face. PhoenixCaelestis · Talk · Contributions 12:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Understood, thank you very much! Syn73 (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk page question

I recall seeing a talk page banner saying something along the lines of "this webpage has copied text from Wikipedia and not vice versa. Do not consider this to be a copyright violation". Does anyone know what that banner is? Brent Silby (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Backwards copy}}? DMacks (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one. Thanks! Brent Silby (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

DYK article preview text

The article preview for one of todays DYK articles Sekijin sekiba reads as File: Three ghosts by Vishchun.png|thumb|right|6th-century sekijin (ICP) from Iwatoyama Kofun, Fukuoka Prefecture , but I can't figure why it would display this way when I look at the source code - any advice? Underswamp (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Underswamp, welcome to the Teahouse. Page Previews had cached a revision [2] which was reverted the same minute. A dummy edit [3] updated the preview. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Underswamp (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Overall opinion on a draft

I would appreciate any high level advice on this draft that I started, to know if I am going in the right direction and if there are obvious things I need to fix Draft:Radu Isac. Thank you! Viopatra (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Viopatra Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have submitted your draft for review; the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Viopatra (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Viopatra I am not a reviewer but there are a few things you should do to improve your chances of the draft being approved. First, comment at the top to show which sources best meet our golden rules for sourcing: being independent and with significant coverage in reliable sources. For example, the BBC is reliable but you have just given program listings in citations #8 and #9, so is not significant. The Guardian source #14 is mainly based on an interview, so is not independent, and so on. Your use of bolding does not follow the manual of style: see MOS:BOLD. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input, appreciate this! I removed the bold in the text. For the sources, The Guardian source is an article that quotes multiple artists, not sure why this would not be considered independent. Viopatra (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian is independent but the issue is whether it is giving significant coverage to Isac or merely quoting his views after interviewing him much as if he had provided them with a press release. We don't want to base articles mainly on what people say about themselves but mostly on what sources report without prompting: that's explained in detail in Wikipedia's guidance on how we judge topics to be notable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Review of Draft Article in Submission

Hey All,

I'm still new to the processes here on Wikipedia and wanted to ask about the processes for reviewing articles, as well as wanting to ask if there is anyone that can help with reviewing an article that I have submitted. I have been working on Draft:Nashville's Highland Rim Forest for submission, which has gone through many edits and was recently resubmitted for review, and I was wondering if there is any way to proceed with the review process faster. There's a lot happening around this forest area in Nashville currently and I would like to get this information out there to connect with pertinent issues and ongoing discussions.

User @Rusty Cat gave some good feedback on the initial review, which helped with editing, but I still need some help with further for hopefully accepting the article, and if anything is missing or needs to be edited. Thank you! CreekBAnd38 (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @CreekBAnd38, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, there is no way to speed up the process. It involves one of the reviewers looking through the drafts, and choosing to review your draft. Drafts which are obviously not acceptable may get reviewed quicker, because the reviewer can see they will be quick; but there is little else you can do. ColinFine (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@CreekBAnd38 One obvious issue with the current draft is the way you have done the referencing. We don't use external links in the main text: they need to be converted to proper citations or placed as a separate "External links" section at the foot of the article (see WP:EL for the guidance). Also, I see a bunch of reference numbers just above the section header at Draft:Nashville's Highland Rim Forest#Conservation History of NHRF but I'm not sure why they are there. If they are citations for the table, they should be within it: there's no reason to have that table hidden by default. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Need help on creating an article for a serial movie in a franchise of movies

Draft:Surge of Power: Revenge of the Sequel is the sequel to Surge of Power: The Stuff of Heroes

I have added citations but I don't have any content that would be considered neutral as I have not seen the movie. I have no idea how to rewrite the draft or if it would be accepted if rewritten.

Thank you for your time. JohnJonesSOP (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

JohnJonesSOP, your draft has been rejected. At the top of it, you see "STOP". Unsurprisingly, that means stop. Stop wasting your time, and others' time, on this thing. -- Hoary (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @JohnJonesSOP. As Hoary says, this is irrelevant in this case, as the draft has been rejected. But more generally, whether or not you have seen the movie is of little consequence, because what you know, think, or believe, about the subject you are writing an article about, is almost irrelevant. An article should be a neutral summary of what independent reliable sources have published about the subject, and very little else. The writer's knowledge shouldn't enter into it.

More generally, 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) 09:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Feedback on my Wikipedia article

Hello everyone, as part of my Online Communities class, I had to work on and improve an existing Wikipedia article. I decided to improve the Hanoi Train Street wikipedia page. It would mean the world for me if you can provide me with your feedback on this article. Thank you BenjiDauNEU (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

BenjiDauNEU There is a conflict on how often per day trains pass through Train Street. Also, toward the end of the article, there is history content followed by more about it being a tourist attraction, so the latter is repetitive. Otherwise, very interesting. David notMD (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

getting professional help for editing

Greetings, Can you send me the invitation next time you have a Teahouse forum for editing?

thank you (Redacted) Richard A Hooker (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Richooker I'm not sure what you're asking here. This page is for asking questions on WP-editing, and anyone can look at it/participate or search in the archived discussions if they want. WP doesn't have any workshops on how to edit if that's what you're after, but we have stuff like WP:TUTORIAL and Category:Instructional videos on using Wikipedia in English. You can also try searching Youtube, maybe there's something good there. Or just google, I recently found a "Top 5 Wikipedia writing services ranked" article, but my default assumption is that these services are probably WP:SCAMs. Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing might be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

No replies or comments on a 5 day old articles for deletion discussion. What happens now?

I created the article AMP (streamer collective) on March 31. I initially made a draft for it before that so that I had a place to put together a decent start of an article first before it was put into the mainspace. It was accepted through Articles for Creation (AFC) soon after I submitted it for review once I had a decent draft made.

A few days later on April 3 a user proposed it for deletion per WP:PROD. However the deletion discussion (that discussion is here) hasn't gotten any replies or comments so far since then. I've never had an article I created get proposed for deletion and then not have at least a little bit of discussion occur soon after.

So what happens now in a situation like that? Like I said before I have never had this happen before. As such I have never dealt with such a scenario and though I'd ask about it here because of that.

Thanks in advance to anyone who replies. Greshthegreat (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Greshthegreat. This happens a lot with deletion discussions due to a chronic shortage of participants. If not enough people voice their opinions in the standard one-week period, it might be relisted for one or more weeks to get more participation, or possibly closed as "soft delete" if there's nobody arguing for keeping the article (articles that are soft deleted can be restored upon request). If discussion is minimal after several relists, it might be closed as "no consensus", and the article is retained. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion and explain why the article should be kept.

Note that WP:PROD is a different process than WP:Articles for deletion—looks like the editor initially tagged it with PROD but then switched to AfD. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

How to reduce the width of the species table?

Many genus articles such as Theristicus, Balearica, Antigone, etc, have species tables that are too wide to appear beside the taxobox, and instead appear underneath it. Obviously this is not good, as it usually leaves a ridiculous amount of empty space above the species table. So how do you reduce the width of the species box? I couldn't figure it out despite a lot of experimenting. Bloopityboop (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bloopityboop: You shouldn't. You don't know the width of a reader's display, so can't finely adjust content this way. Infobox widths are set to display condensed information in an easily-readable way; making them narrower will reduce readability. The species tables, on the other hand, have large amounts of whitespace as a result of how they display images and maps in individual columns. I could argue that they should really be "plain" text divided into sections, as it seems that having them as tables is for formatting reasons only (which is forbidden). Bazza 7 (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking for Advice/Feedback

Hi, I am looking for advice and feedback as I begin attempting to improve an article before nominating it for Good-class. This is my first time attempting such improvements to an article - is there a specific place to ask for criticism and feedback? Or is this the best place?

The article I am working on is Bill Vukovich. I have created from scratch his early life section, based largely off of his two existing biographies. I have done little to no editing on the other sections of the article at this time.

I am wondering if my tone is neutral and encyclopedic. Perhaps there is too much detail? I am also wondering about citing. Am I citing too often? I also wonder if there is a format that would allow me to occasionally insert passage quotes into the note/citation. The Sfn format I was encouraged to use does not seem to allow this.

Thank you all. RegalZ8790 (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Something that you don't ask about, RegalZ8790, but: Where I'd expect to see the name of a website in a reference, you instead often provide the domain name, sometimes even with "www." in front. Rather than "Bill Vukovich". www.mshf.com., how about "Bill Vukovich". Motorsports Hall of Fame of America? -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

How to mark categories for deletion?

Hi, I made a simple error with categories (title case instead of sentence case) and I have a few of them now that are useless because I created the properly named categories instead. There is no reason they should still exist. How do I delete them?

Category:Herbicides by Numeric HRAC ('Numeric' shouldn't be capitalised, similar error in subcategories) RustyOldShip (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @RustyOldShip, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please go to WP:CFD. ColinFine (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Help with my first draft article, that just got refused for not respecting NPOV rules

Hello,

I'm happy to improve the content of the submitted article. As this one is very long (6000+ words), with some technical parts, I would like someone who could help me identify the conflictual parts.

Thanks in advance Pgrondier (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Pgrondier, and welcome to the Teahouse. Without looking in detail, I can see that Draft:Accounting for sustainability: the C.A.R.E. project reads very much as what CARE wants people to know about them.

Wikipedia has almost no interest in what the subject wants people to know about them. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources have published about the subject, and very little else.

It is likely that your best course is to throw away what you've writen, and start again, forgetting anything you may personally know about the project, and concentrating on summarising only what those independent sources have said about it. ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The majority of content, including the Phases sections, is not referenced, and is what the C.A.R.E. project says about itself. Delete all that. Basically start over. And, I am guessing that a lot of the content is copied from C.A.R.E., and copyright protected. Copying is forbidden. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia files

Hello, I was wondering if the non-free file File:Reese-Robinson scene in 42.png could have the black border parts cropped out of the picture, much appreciated. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Yovt I've done the crop. A bot will come along later and lower the resolution, as required by the non-free provisions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

First Article Pending Review

Hi! I'm relatively new to editing and finally decided to try my hand at a new article last month. It's been awaiting review in the New Page Patrol for a little over a week and I was wondering if anyone would have the time to take a look at it and give me some feedback? I did my best to provide NPOV, and am pretty confident it meets the notability standard as I was able to find plenty of documentation via reliable sources online (I chose a band that has pretty high profile coverage and used a similar sized band's page as a template). Would greatly appreciate any guidance from a more experienced editor! Thanks :)

The Thing (rock band) Ernst the Junger (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Others may choose to weigh in, but IMHO it looks quite good for a first attempt. I'd remove the spotify link; it doesn't help your article. BusterD (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the quick hit back. Ernst the Junger (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

By looking at the categories you've applied, you can see many other like articles for modeling. While you're browsing other articles, go to their talk pages, and see what WikiProject banners might be appropriate for this article. BusterD (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Factual information in conflict between two articles. How do I reconcile the two?

I would like to flag conflicting statements in two articles. The artcle on the Archbasilica of Saint John Lateran claims it is the oldest basilica in the western world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbasilica_of_Saint_John_Lateran#:~:text=and%20the%20oldest%20basilica%20of%20the%20Western%20world

However, the article on the Aula Palatina or Basilica of Copnstantine in Trier Germany claims it was built between AD 300 and 310, at least 14 years before the archbasilica was first built.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aula_Palatina#:~:text=built%20between%20AD%20300%20and%20310

Should I simply delete the claim in the first article or is there someone more knowledgeable than I who should rectify the conflict in claims?

Thank you,

Tim Heitman Theitman451 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles rarely claim anything. Sources on the other hand often make assertions or claims. What wikipedians often do is to say something like "The Vatican regards x as the oldest..." or "UNESCO identifies the dates of construction as..." or some such. When there are significant disagreements between sources, it's not unusual for articles to discuss source disagreement itself. For a new editor, it's sometimes helpful to ask a more experienced editor here to repair it so that you have a model of good behavior to follow. We expect you to edit WP:BOLDLY, knowing newbies sometimes make mistakes, none of which will actually damage the pedia.

It's a good observation, though. Something an old-timer might not pay attention to. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Right/necessity of creating art. on notable village

I have started a discussion on a concrete case here, which would profit from the participation of experienced editors. I am arguing that a Transylvanian Saxon village with notability and its own distinct, centuries-old character, deserves its own article, which I had already brought beyond the status of a stub. A fellow editor deleted it arguing that villages, which are currently part of an administrative unit, in this case: a town 5 km away, which was formed/declared in 2004 by adding two villages to its territory (the town is "one of the smallest and least urbanised ones in the country"), must necessarily be dealt with as part of the article dealing with that town. I am looking forward to hearing your opinions. Arminden (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Not changeable ref

Hello guys! On this page, i have found very often some refs that cannot be changed either from visual or source editor (in the source editor it shows just a "ref name") and the ref doesn't repeat before. But, when i click their number out of the edit mode, it shows me a normal ref.

Can somebody say me (please!) what is this and how to modify them?

Best regards,

Dimitrie569 (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The refs are defined at the end of the article I suppose. Please, see Wikipedia:List defined references. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I understand now :)

Dimitrie569 (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Is the citation acceptable and credible

I’d like to get feedback if my citation are considered credible and acceptable. I’ve removed YouTube and others that editors have adviced me to remove.

Draft:Matthew Lani Ashleyashville (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Ashleyashville, my comment above in "Looking for Advice/Feedback" applies here too. -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

How to remove page issue level of mahroos siddiquee nadim article

Mahroos siddiquee nadim article Sukhi vale (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahroos_Siddiquee_Nadim

@Sukhi vale: None of those sources are acceptable:

• We can't use Medium (no editorial oversight)
• Google Scholar is completely irrelevant for a football player
• We can't use Tring (online storefront, too sparse)
• We can't use The Players' Agent (too sparse).

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

To add to this, the player simply isn't notable. He may have more coverage in foreign language news, I wouldn't know, but looking him up in both the news section of Google and the main search there's nothing on him. It seems as if it's simply far too soon to make an article. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)