Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:TH)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Hoary, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host
New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.


Help for page creation

Good morning

Yesterday I submitted the page I am creating for review

Draft:Gianni Lora Lamia

But it was declined telling me to make some corrections before submitting it for review again.

I am a new editor and I kindly ask if you can help me correct this page


Thank you very Much Phx-Racing (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell what specific help you are seeking? 331dot (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know what I have to do to correct the page, what are the things I should correct or modify
Thank you very much again Phx-Racing (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Phx-Racing. Most of your citations are bare URLs. These are unsatisactory, because they make it harder for reviewers to evaluate the reliability and independence of the sources. Your citation should include title, author (if available), publisher, date, and page number, at the very least.
I haven't looked closely at your draft, but it looks to me as if far too much of it is not about Lamia. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about the subject (in this case Lamia) and very little else. ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phx-Racing I ran citation bot on the draft, which helped a bit but there's still a lot of work to be done. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help, I have already made several corrections, inserting more reliable citations as well. I know this, but in any case I wanted to say that even if several resources cited are links, but they are links to the official website of the Dakar Rally, where you can check the entry list of the participants, the results of the stages and the final classification of the race, I think that this is an irrefutable proof of the driver's participation in the race. I kindly ask you if you can continue to help me, as I have already said I am new as an editor
Thank you again Phx-Racing (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have a few sentences/paragraphs without sources. In a biography, every piece of information needs to be sourced. I think you could probably slim down each section too, they're all quite wordy in prose. Try and be concise. qcne (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I've also filled in most of the bare references for you.) qcne (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phx-Racing, the infobox for your draft says that Gianni Lora Lamia was born in 1965 in the Kingdom of Italy but that kingdom did not exist in 1965 because it was abolished by a vote of the Italian people in 1946. You need to do a much better job with accuracy. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your precious help,I have fixed this error Phx-Racing (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources must be reliable sources. Whatever shows up as the first result on google (which you have referenced) is not a reliable source. Ultraodan (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phx-Racing, the section "Range Rover No Stop Record 1989" has no stops (periods, ".") until its very end. It would benefit from more stops. It mentions "the fearsome Sahara desert"; why is the reader being told that it's "fearsome"? ¶ That section isn't unusual. Consider this single sentence: After only three stages he found himself 16th overall fighting for the top ten until halfway through the race where in the stage that reaches Niamey in Niger for the rest day, an electrical problem sent him far back in the general classification, after, the rest day the race is somewhat disturbed by terrorist threats and the organizers, anxious to ensure the safety of the competitors, decide following information received from the French Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defence, a huge airlift is taking place to transport hundreds of drivers and vehicles of the Dakar rally across the desert between Niamey and Sabha in Libya, after reports of a planned rebel attack. And why is the reader told that an airlift of hundreds of drivers and vehicles is "huge"? ¶ Also, the photo captions are most puzzling: I don't know how to start to parse Gianni Lora Lamia and Emilio Giletti Technical Cars Check Paris Dakar Cairo 2000 Paris Parc floral du bois de Vincennes. -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you help, I have already made some corrections and shortened the descriptions trying to make them as short as possible, also regarding the photo captions, I ask you if you could please check every now and then and suggest me what could be the things to correct Phx-Racing (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phx-Racing, the most conspicuous photo is captioned "Gianni Lora Lamia Nissan Motorsport Team Dessoude at the 21st 1999 Granada–Dakar Rally". First, if I take this literally I infer that there were many Granada–Dakar rallies in 1999, and this was the 21st of them. As this would of course mean that Granada–Dakar rallies occurred more often than once a month (hard to believe), I guess that you instead mean "the 21st Granada–Dakar Rally (1999)". Secondly, "Gianni Lora Lamia Nissan Motorsport Team Dessoude" hardly conforms to the patterns of English noun phrases: the simplest fix would be to simplify it to "Gianni Lora Lamia" (deleting "Nissan Motorsport Team Dessoude"). -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP/unregistered editing

What official policies or guidelines guide IP/unregistered editor conduct and specifically govern how registered users are supposed to interact with such IP/unregistered editors? Is there any difference in terms of how their edits are to be viewed or interacted with? If, for example, an IP makes an edit that has no edit summary, could that be summarily reverted? Especially if the edit does not appear to be constructive? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iljhgtn and welcome to the Teahouse. Unregistered editors must be treated the same as those with an account. There are some restrictions on them such as never getting autoconfirmed. If an edit by anyone is unconstructive it can be reverted and then discussed (within edit warring policies) but a lack of an edit summary is not a reason for this. Since many IP editors are new to the project WP:NOBITING would also apply. Ultraodan (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do IPs put edits places like on Talk: Main Page then, which has protection yet also has comments from IPs? Nebman227 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help & ask for suggestion of Reliable Source for my Draft

Hello good morning from Indonesia. Basically I've registered for Wikipedia since 2015 but only contributed for several edits on several articles and just started my new article 2 days ago as a draft in English Wikipedia. I've created a draft for Draft:Winston Utomo and just declined with reason "This submission is not adequately supported by "reliable sources"". Honestly I've got several references on the draft but maybe I'm not fully understanding yet which one more or the most reliable one (example, https://www.fortuneidn.com/tag/winston-utomo ). Can anyone here help and give me some advices? Rachael Adrino (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rachael Adrino: Since Utomo is still alive, the stricter standards of WP:Biographies of living persons applies, which means you need to have a cite for every claim the article makes. Putting a source at the end of the paragraph is not enough; it's more likely you will need one at the end of each sentence, and possibly some in the middle of sentences. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thank you, so I need to put the references (both I've added and the new one) in every sentences as possible as I can right, since I've created the article about living person?
And will you help me for checking the draft after I do several edits based on your suggestion next? Rachael Adrino (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rachael Adrino: You'll want to cite the references (Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once is helpful here) at the claims they can directly support, yes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll read & do my best for my first draft here. Rachael Adrino (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck, Rachael! Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rachael Adrino: He may not be Wikipedia-notable, meaning that no amount of improving referencing will succeed. Documenting company funding does not contribute to a founder's notability, nor does documenting what are considered not Wikipedia-significant awards and honors. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the best solution regarding this? should it be maintained with the existing references or should it not be included in the article? Please provide me some advices. Rachael Adrino (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which three or more references - English or other - meet the criteria of WP:42? The financial deals content and non-famous awards content can stay, but the draft has to have references that are at some length - not just name mention - about him. David notMD (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about these sources:
I think they were meet the requirements, but if they were not, please explain to me then wisely. Rachael Adrino (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review – Draft:Taxila Business School

I have drafted an article about Taxila Business School and submitted it, but it was declined. I have since made improvements based on the feedback and added reliable sources.

Could an experienced editor please review my draft and provide suggestions for further improvement?

Here’s the link: Draft:Taxila Business School

Any feedback or guidance would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you! Jdesuza (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jdesuza. Apart from the paragraph on the legal case, the article is merely telling run-of-the-mill information about the college - the sort of thing that would appear in its prospectus.
That's not what a Wikipedia article should do. 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 entirely 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.
And even the legal case hardly seems significant. What is it about the school that meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability? Unless you can answer that, there is no chance of the article's being accepted.
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. (I see your account has been around for a couple of months, but you created this draft on your third edit, and most of your 52 edits have been to this draft). ColinFine (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Thank you for your detailed feedback and for taking the time to review my draft. I understand your concerns regarding the notability and sourcing of the article. I now realize that Wikipedia prioritizes significant independent coverage rather than promotional or routine information.
I appreciate your guidance on improving my understanding of Wikipedia’s core policies before attempting to create an article. I will take a step back and focus on contributing to existing articles to familiarize myself with the principles of verifiability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing.
Regarding the legal case, I see your point about assessing its significance carefully. I will also re-evaluate the sources used and work towards ensuring that any future edits are based on substantial, independent coverage.
Thanks again for your constructive input. I’ll refine my approach and continue learning to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. Jdesuza (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdesuza I took a brief look at the book citations #11 and #12, since I thought that if the school had been written about in books, that would be good evidence of wikinotability. Apart from the fact that you haven't provided page numbers, which a full citation would do, I discovered that each book has less than a sentence about Taxila, which is hardly significant coverage. I therefore conclude that your draft is unlikely to pass muster. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you for reviewing my draft and for your insights regarding the book citations. I understand that for Wikipedia, significant and in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources is essential for establishing notability.
I appreciate your feedback on the citations and will work on improving them by providing full references, including page numbers. Additionally, I will re-evaluate the sources to ensure they meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability and provide substantial coverage of the subject.
Your guidance is valuable as I refine my approach to editing on Wikipedia. If you have any further suggestions on strengthening the article’s sourcing, I would be grateful for your insights. Jdesuza (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a comment on sourcing but please do not use large language models to create articles or talk page comments. We want to interact with people, not AI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Finiteness

Hi, I am working on Draft:Finiteness, and was recently informed by a reviewer that the article is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The reason I started working on the article is because two other editors suggested that it might be a good idea, on the Finite talk page. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IT may be a good idea, but not what you have created, now declined several times and then rejected. I recommend you ask that the draft be deleted by putting Db-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top. David notMD (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also agree that it may be a good idea to have a finiteness article. If it is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I request that the rejection be withdrawn. Kevincook13 (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kevincook13 I did not mean to convey that I personally thought it was a good idea. Given the Rejection, your path going forward is to ask that the current draft be deleted, and start over. Having written that, the editor who rejected it has provided lengthy comments on why it was rejected. Please do not try again unnless you can address all the shortfalls of your draft. David notMD (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That rejection is ridiculous, and it is possible for an article to be written. However it probably does need to start again from scratch. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remake wordmarks?

Hey there! I was working on adding logos for the article Pahoa High School and I found that there were two logos: one with words on the side of the logo and one without words completely. Because most places seem to use the one without words, I was wondering if I could use a logo without words for the main image and a wordmark for the words on the side of the logo, similar to how universities work. However, when Googled, I cannot find any official wordmark, but only the logo with the words on the side, linked above. In this case, would a custom wordmark be able to be created for the article, or should it be omitted completely?

To create the custom wordmark, I would either just crop out the logo (if that's allowed) or find the custom font used by the school, and use an editor to rewrite the words under Free Use. Theadventurer64 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theadventurer64 I see newsletters used the old logo bug 'P' by itself up until 2022. The new logo is listed as just the 'P' on the athletic store ordering site. There are a lot of versions that have different fonts for the text of the school name. Not sure any one of them could be called the official logo. If the organization uses that format on its web site, you might screen grab it from there. Definitely don't try to reproduce the logo and pass it off as official.
[ Not an expert, but familiar with the specification process. As a designer in a former life, if the logotype is specified, then it's part of the logo. If it's not spec'd, then there is no logotype. Sadly, this means that every project will add their own interpretaion of a font and layout because there isn't a spec. That's my 2 cents. I've worked from spec identity manuals from organizations as large as MetLife with Snoopy graphics, Pacific Bell, Salvation Army, and contributed to and created corporate identity myself. ] Just Al (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, thank you for the advice! Theadventurer64 (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you help

I need help making a wiki page for Comic Studio[1]

Pls help... Wiki Fan49346824908 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Fan49346824908, it doesn't look as if you've started. Before you start, please read Help:Your first article and think hard about what it says. -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse Hosts are here to advise on specific queries, not co-author. David notMD (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Wiki Fan49346824908. Read Help:Your first article. And submit thru Article wizard. Thank you and welcome to Wikipedia! Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 01:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't look to me like it would be a notable enough website to warrant an article. I wouldn't put time into it. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Guidance: Improving Terren Peizer Article to Meet Wikipedia Standards

Dear Wikipedia Editors, I am reaching out to seek guidance on how to improve my contributions to the Terren Peizer article so that they align with Wikipedia’s standards. My previous edits were removed due to concerns regarding copyright violations, close paraphrasing, and non-compliance with Wikipedia’s policies. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort that Wikipedia editors dedicate to maintaining the integrity of articles, and I want to ensure that my contributions are compliant, neutral, and verifiable. Understanding and Addressing the Issues I have carefully reviewed Wikipedia’s guidelines on: ✅ Neutral Point of View (NPOV) – Ensuring the content is fact-based and free of promotional language. ✅ Verifiability (V) – Only including information that is backed by reliable, third-party sources. ✅ Copyright and Plagiarism Policies – Avoiding direct copying or close paraphrasing from external sources. ✅ Proper Citations – Formatting sources using inline citations with <ref> tags and Wikipedia’s {{cite web}} and {{cite press release}} templates. To address these concerns, I have completely rewritten the content using original wording while maintaining factual accuracy. I have also removed self-published sources and replaced them with independent, authoritative references such as SEC filings, DOJ reports, and reputable news organizations. Request for Advice Before resubmitting my edits, I would greatly appreciate any guidance on the following: Does the new version meet Wikipedia’s standards? If not, what additional improvements are needed? Are there any specific formatting or structuring issues that need to be addressed before submitting? Would it be better to add information in smaller sections first (e.g., starting with "Early Life and Education") rather than submitting all at once? My goal is to ensure that Terren Peizer’s Wikipedia article remains accurate, well-sourced, and aligned with Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines. I genuinely value your expertise and would appreciate any feedback on how to properly contribute without causing issues. Thank you for your time and assistance! I look forward to your guidance. Best regards, Wikipedia Username: Jameschurch001000 Jameschurch001000 (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameschurch001000: We do not entertain requests made via chatbot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a bot. Can you help Jameschurch001000 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At Terren Peizer I reverted your most recent contribution because it included bolding of scores of words. The only content that should be bold is the first use of his name. You may have meant to Wikilink, which is done with double brackets [[ ]]. You added a section titled "Business Leadership and Investments" with no references, that to some degree repeated existing content. Try again, and in smaller chunks, so that all is not reverted when some is not correct. David notMD (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're the first person on here that makes sense and actually helped. I'll try again. Jameschurch001000 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameschurch001000 Looking at the edit history on this article, I'm wondering, why do your edits repeatedly delete or de-emphasize the criminal charges and sentencing in the lead? It seems like you're deleting the references to crime, and burying the changes with a volume of other edits as a distraction. Do you have a WP:conflict of interest here? Are you being compensated for these edits? Just Al (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources from AP News and the Justice Department. Hopefully, that will end the questionable justifications for the deletion. Just Al (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been asked here and elsewhere if you have a COI. Please reply before doing any more editing. If yes, you are restricted to proposing changes at the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't delete any information. I just add. It that a problem. NO COI. However the fact that I can't add data make me think that the user Tacyary is being paid to keep the current data and not allowing other to add. Thoughts Jameschurch001000 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jameschurch001000, when we look at this edit of yours, the summary you provided for it, and your description (immediately above) of your edits, what should we infer? -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several experienced editors have reverted the list-of-companes content you have added. Take that as a sign that there is a problem with what you want to add. If you insist, post your proposed changes on the Talk page and seek consensus. David notMD (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you all employees of Wikimedia???? Jameschurch001000 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please do not cast aspersions. Employees of Wikimedia who edit in their capacity as employees do so with usernames including the text "(WMF)". Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help? Or Not Jameschurch001000 (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameschurch001000: Wikipedia is a collaborative project whose participants are all WP:VOLUNTEERs. Some employees of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) may also be participants, but their status doesn't give them any special privileges; they are expected to edit in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines just like everyone else. Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD in trying to improve articles, but in cases where others feel we've been too bold, they can try to improve on what we've started or simply just undo it altogether. Unless what they're doing is something that's clearly contrary to some relevant policy/guideline (usually this is mentioned in a edit summary), it's advisable to assume good faith and try to resolve any disagreements in accordance WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION.
So, if you made a change to Terren Peizer that was WP:REVERTed by another, particularly more than once by different editors, the WP:ONUS falls upon you to seek a WP:CONSENSUS for the change on the article's talk page. If you're able to convince others that making the change is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, this shouldn't too hard to do. You don't need to convince everyone, just enough so that a consensus to make the change is established. If, on the other hand, you try to justify the change for reasons not really related to Wikipedia, you'll find convincing others to be difficult and the change is unlikely to be made. For reference, WP:NOTEVERYTHING that can be reliable sourced about a subject warrants inclusion in an article; it's often the case where what's included is a matter of editorial discretion, and this can be subjective; this is why consensus-building through discussion is important when they're are disagreements over what to leave in and what to leave out.
Anyway, the best place for you to discuss all of these things is at Talk:Terren Peizer because that's were those interested in the subject matter are likely to be found. It's also where any record of such discussion should be kept for future reference. Most people should be more than happy to answer your questions in more detail as long as they are questions about how to make the concerned article better in terms of relevant policies and guidelines, and not just random musings about Peizer in general.
Finally, please keep in mind that when dealing with articles or article content about living people, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (BLP) is the primary policy that is applied, and it applies to content about all living people (not just those mentioned in a article) and all Wikipedia pages (not just articles). -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image backed-out for not having a valid free use rational

Hello,

Please can I ask a question about a small problem I have run into.

I was doing some updates to the Bridgwater_United_W.F.C. article, because it is somewhat out of date. I noticed that the Bridgwater_United_F.C. used the club Crest of a Robin, so I copied that from the men's team page, to the women's team page, which seemed harmless enough.

However, the logo has been backed-out by a bot for not having a valid free use rational. I have spent a long time reading about this, but have ended up feeling somewhat overwhelmed by the information I have read and not any further forward in what to do about this problem.

It really is not urgent and not the end of the world if it were not added, but it is the first time I have come across this problem since joining wikipedia.

Have you come across this before and can you help offer some pointers as to what I need to do to re-add it please? It may help if I run into this problem again.

Many Thank CherryDolphin (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CherryDolphin. I assume you've read WP:FUR already, so I won't go too deep into explaining how to use fair use images. But basically, the bot reverted your edit because you didn't create a second fair use rationale for the new article you added the image to. Fair use rationales are used for each page the image is used for, not just the image itself. Tarlby (t) (c) 23:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tarlby Thanks for the reply.
I had read that, but still was not clear on how to create the fair use rational or where exactly to add it to? Is it added into the page, or the image? I cannot see a fair use rational on the Bridgwater_United_F.C. page that I copied the image from, where did they add it? Is there a simple example of someone else doing what I need to do that I could copy? Apologies if these are stupid questions. CherryDolphin (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CherryDolphin, please see the "Summary" within File:Bridgwater Town FC logo.png. You'll see the existing fair-use rationale ("FUR") there. You can copy the FUR, paste a copy of it, edit this copy where appropriate, and save the result. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CherryDolphin: You should make sure that the logo used by the men's team is clearly the same primary logo being used by the women's team; don't just add the logo to the women's team's article because it looks nice or because it's used by the men't team. Many women's teams have their own seperate branding from their men's team counterparts and you should used the logo the women team uses for their branding. In addition, in previous discussions about this type of non-free use, they're have been many arguments made stating that [such logos should only be used in the article of parent entities of sports organizations/teams and not necessarily in articles about child entities of such organizations/teams (see item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI for more details). Wikipedia's non-free content use policy tells us to minimize are use of non-free content as much as possible because even a single use is considered quite the exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files; this means addition uses of the same file (even in different articles) can be much harder to justify, and a consensus has emerged over the years that such additional uses aren't automatically compliant and that no image at all is an acceptable alternative. So, logos used for women's teams, youth teams, B-teams, minor-league teams, reserve teams, etc. should be as team-specific as possible and not necessarily be the same logo as the parent club, which in many cases is the men's team. This might seem unfair in a sense, but it's the way Wikipedia's non-free content use has been applied for many years. Adding the missing rationale for the use in the women's team's article to the files page should stop the bot from removing the file again, but someone could still challenge that particular non-free use of the file if they feel it's not policy compliant. Finally, if this and this are the same Bridgwater United W.F.C., then it seems the women's team might indeed be branding itself differently from men's team; therefore, the branding specific to the women's team should be used instead of the branding for the men's team. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Marchjuly and @Tarlby
It has been interesting to to learn more about the fair use of images.
The twitter and facebook pages are indeed the correct ones for the team. I tried to find out more information about the branding, but could only find this Actually this was a match I attended in person and is what prompted me to do the updates to their page. It does confirm that the branding for the women's team may be different from the men's team, so I have decided it is best to not to add the club crest/image after all.
The only change I have made is to remove some of their squad members who I know for certain now no longer play for them. (They now play for AFC Bournemouth Women). I have also sent an email to the contact address on the Bridgwater United website asking for an up to date teamsheet. I will do any other squad updates, if I hear back from them.
Thanks again for your help. CherryDolphin (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to automatically archive sources

Hi! I'm working on pages of 2025 Asian Winter Games which will end in two days. I'm archiving sources from official website but I'm afraid that these information might disappear after the Games is over and that I might not have enough time to archive all these sources before they disappear. So I'm wondering how to automatically archive sources instead of archiving them mannually? Qby (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qby, I don't know if this is what you are looking for but check the InternetArchiveBot. This will let you run it on the specific page. Goodluck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are non english sources considered unreliable?

And if yes - isnt this a bit discriminatory - i wrote an article about a bulgarian event, providing bulggarian media sources, that happen to be well respected and long standing, but gor the generic "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources". So, can i rely on someone that has a bit of knowledge aboutthe media landscape in bulgaria give a review or is it too much to ask? Dontoblerone (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dontoblerone I'm not sure that I'd infer that the sources were unreliable. It's possible there were only passing mentions, not significant coverage. I don't know the particulars, just looking at the message you said was used. Just Al (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well they were all articles dedicated exclusively on the subject, so definitely not a passing mention. Dontoblerone (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DontobleroneNo, you can not rely on that, since people knowledgeable on Bulgaria are probably pretty few on en-WP. That said, per WP:NOENG, Bulgarian WP:RS can be used here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dontoblerone, sources in other languages are just fine, as long as they are reliable. In order to establish notability, the sources must also be independent of the topic and devote significant coverage to the topic. When I use Google Translate, your sources show all the telltale signs of being generated by press releases or other promotional activity by the film festival organizers, and therefore not independent. That is the problem as I see it, not that they are in Bulgarian. A secondary factor is that your references lack full bibliographic details such as the name of the publication, the author, the date of publication and the original title in Bulgarian. This information is useful both to readers and reviewers, and omitting it makes volunteer reviewers less willing to evaluate your draft because those references just look sketchy. Cullen328 (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328
They are different media - 2 different newspapers, a radio and online site, i can not tell if it's press release or not, but the text is different each time, still for me independent means not directly connected to the subject of the article, i have no idea how they are writtem.
For me it's a discriminatory treatment in the sense that most articles have the same or less refrences, you may not be willing to adimit it or it can be subconscious for you, but it's pretty clear.
anyway, good job wikipedia, stay anglocentric. Dontoblerone (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, your draft was not rejected because the sources are not in English, but because they're mostly routine coverage in the form of announcements of a schedule, and a program. Dege31 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dege31, so what type of newsmaterial is needed for a festival event? they happen and people publish news about their schedule, aim and so on. I mean, i just checked several other festival pages and they have the same or less sources, but apparently there is not a problem. For me it's clearly a form of discriminatory treatment. of course i cant tell if it's based on language/region but it's my best guess.
just a small example - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lund_International_Fantastic_Film_Festival
1 source - the site of the festival
2 references - aggain the site of the festival -
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Haapsalu_Horror_and_Fantasy_Film_Festival Dontoblerone (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dontoblerone, that article you linked to is tagged at the very beginning as having obvious problems with sourcing. I hope that your goal is to write a problem free article, not one tagged for obvious problems. Cullen328 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer.
My goal is to comply with the rules, but as the rules sometimes are not clear i try to interpret them by checking what is allowed on wikipedia in similar situations. Dontoblerone (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dontoblerone, English Wikipedia currently has 6,953,786 articles of vastly different quality. When you talk about what is "allowed" you are implying that all of those articles have gone through the type of scrutiny and assistance that Articles for Creation and the Teahouse offer. That is not true. As for Lund International Fantastic Film Festival, that article was written in 2012 when standards were much lower. The editor who created it had only six edits in total and did not submit it to Articles for Creation. The Teahouse was only a month old and just getting started. Back then, editors were allowed to create new articles immediately. Scrutiny of new articles was much lower. That editor just wrote the new article in the main space of the encyclopedia with their very first edit, made a handful of other edits, and then disappeared. Wikipedia gets tens of billions of page views each month, and that article gets 40 to 100 views a month. Please be aware that hundreds of poorly written articles get deleted every day, and your goal should be to write a much better article than that because both search engines and readers prefer Wikipedia articles that are not tagged for quality problems. Cullen328 (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone perhaps share the sources in question? Because, backing up what others have said, no, sources do not have to be in English but, yes, the non-English sources must be reliable and must establish notability per the appropriate guidelines. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are
1) this article in "Capital" newspaper - https://www.capital.bg/light/neshta/2023/10/30/4543082_purvi_bulgarski_horur_festival/
It's pretty long - it includes short history of bulgarian horror cinema and then presents the festival that article is about. the paper itself is 33 years old and there is a wiki article about it.
2) this article in "Sega" newspaper - https://www.segabg.com/category-culture/bulgariya-veche-ima-svoy-festival-na-uzhasite
describing the second edition of the festival. this newspaper is 27 years old one of the more respectable ones in the country and there are wiki articles about in 3 languages, not in english for some reason, maybe i can try and write one, but should i bother?
3) this discussion about the festival on the bigest non state owned radio in bulgaria - darik
https://darik.bg/kakvo-da-ochakvame-ot-festivala-posveten-na-horar-filmite
4) two articles in bulgarian cinema specific sites - operationkino.net and kinobox-bg.com. one of the editors argued that they are blogs, i dont know how that to tell what is what, but they have section with description and editors board.
https://kinobox-bg.com/final-na-vtoroto-izdanie-na-its-alive-horror-film-festival/ Dontoblerone (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Sega coverage looks solid; based on your description, the Capital coverage also helps build a case for meeting WP:GNG (although most of the relevant content appears to be behind a paywall, and one that is easily mistaken for being the end of the page if you're not expecting it and not fluent in Bulgarian, so I don't blame a reviewer much for missing it). Audio sources, while not strictly forbidden per se, are much less useful than text sources for verification purposes, as even when one is fluent with the language they're hard to search for specific information (and they're essentially impossible for a non-fluent editor to access). The Kinobox source, however, is not useful, as they say themselves Организаторите изказват благодарност на всички свои съмишленици и партньори, включително...на KinoBox България за незаменимото медийно партньорство--this is not an independent source. signed, Rosguill talk 19:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is "other stuff exists". Dege31 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dege31 do you read the links that you post? to quote "Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted, these may be effective arguments". So it's case by case.
I find your answers condescendening and a bit biased. Can it be because you are from the other part of the balkans? Dontoblerone (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid personalizing content disputes. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dontoblerone, ethnonationalist personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Assume good faith is an important behavioral guideline. Be very cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328
i agree entirely - the ethnicity of someone should not be used as a measure of judgement for the merit of an aricle. That's my case here - i am asking if something is deemed important or not important based on the country of origin. Dontoblerone (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dontoblerone, it is clear that it is easier for English Wikipedia editors to write about topics well-covered by English language sources than sources in other languages, and that the problem is exacerbated when a language such as Bulgarian has only about 8 million speakers. But if you are implying that Wikipedia as a whole is biased in favor of Estonian and Swedish topics and biased against Bulgarian topics, then I think that is a dubious notion presented without evidence. Bulgaria, after all, is a Featured article of very high quality that has gone through a comprehensive peer review and summarizes nearly 400 reliable sources. We also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Bulgaria where dozens of editors work to improve articles on Bulgarian topics. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328
Thanks for the reply. btw i picked a random article about another festival, actually 2 articles - one swedish and one estonian, just as an illustration of the different standards used, but you have covered that, so thank you again. it could have been other articles, because there are tens of them. I decided to create an article following the guidances on the site, but apparently i'm failing. Dontoblerone (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK but let's summarize the advice you've received:
  • The newspaper sources are likely reliable.
  • En-Wp does not express any prejudice against non-English sources.
  • Go to WP:RS/N to determine if the "maybe blogs" count as SPS.
  • Don't engage in nationalist off-topic arguments.
You actually *are* getting what you hoped to get; we're just asking you to be nice too. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the cinema website question I'd suggest opening a question about their reliability in WP:RS/N. The first two sources look like WP:RS to me. Simonm223 (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about good faith edits

Hello, I found this ip making some good faith edits here [2] and [3]. I reverted [4] these edits due to the user not supplying a edit summary and removing content. Shortly after, the user readded the information, now with a edit summary [5]. I decided the edits were fine, but I want to know if any more interventions are needed. Should I revert these users edits again or should I leave them be? Justjourney (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No further action is needed. They've adapted their behaviour and provided an explanation. If you disagree with specific content edits, you can follow WP:BRD process with them. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops...

I didn't realize someone already warned this user User talk:89.24.58.116. Should I revert my warning or leave it be? Justjourney (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did the IP in question make any edits in between the time they were first warned and the time that you warned them at? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like they are blocked now. Justjourney (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say just leave the warning, not a big deal tbh. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving question

On my user talk page, I just set up archiving. I have a notice at the top of my talk page. Is there a way I can keep that notice automatically once the bot archives the talk page? Justjourney (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justjourney According to the documentation at User:ClueBot III, you can use the parameter |headerlevel= to control that. I think that your talk page is already set up to leave the notice unarchived but you can check once the bot first runs. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Justjourney (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

citing patents

I'm a new editor learning best practices for citing facts in articles and want to learn more about citing patents. I read that patents are to be used with caution as self-published primary sources and that oftentimes the same information is available in a different non-self-published source.  I edit in technology and science so most of the relevant patents are applied for and self-published by major non-profit/for-profit organizations on behalf of inventors who are subject matter experts. Is it advisable to include patent citations that support facts better than other sources?  Is the filing or licensing of patents by major organizations relevant to notability? How can I balance citing a freely accessible patent versus similar information in a source that is behind a paywall? ProfessorBioTech (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ProfessorBioTech On the point of a WP:PAYWALLed WP:RS vs a WP:SPS (?) patent, go paywall (or even WP:OFFLINE). No, filing of patents do not contribute to notability, but if independent WP:RS notice and bother to write about it, such coverage might contribute to WP:GNG. I don't know if you found WP:PATENTS, but if not, there's the link. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ProfessorBioTech. You could perhaps cite a particular patent just in support of basic uncontentious factual information about it (if such information is encyclopedically relevant to readers), but you probably need to be careful trying to cite it for any interpretations or claims about whatever the patent is for and instead use WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT sources for such things. In a way, citing a patent is sort of like citing a tweet or other type of social media post made by the subject of an article; it's probably OK for non-contentious information about the patent or the patent holder, (date, name, number, filer's name, etc.) but not OK for any kind of exceptional claim or interpretation (e.g this is the best invention ever). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced source searching

 Courtesy link: Draft:What Happens Next (webcomic)
I'm trying hard to find sources for this webcomic draft to bring it to mainspace, but I'm having a very hard time finding anything using Google and its subengines (mostly Google News), the reliable source engine, and other sources listed at Wikipedia:Advanced source searching (with the query ""What Happens Next" +webcomic"). If anyone else can provide more ideas for web searching, it would be appreciated. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 04:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkle & Fade I looked at archive.org and WP:LIBRARY, but for this subject, I got nothing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sparkle & Fade I'm a big fan of Max Graves' work, but it might be WP:TOOSOON - a lot of webcomics can take a while to be notable. A webcomic that's only been around since the end of 2021 simply might need a while longer to be discussed by media- I wouldn't be surprised if the subject matter is also a balking point for more 'mainstream' comic media/reviews since it centers on queer/trans characters. I would be totally willing to help out with sources/the draft itself, feel free to reach out on my talk page. Sarsenet (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the latest tech devices, should there be the name of an unreleased device in the "Successor" field?

Hello! I've come to notice that on the Galaxy S25 and the Galaxy Tab S10 articles, there are the names of unreleased devices in the Successor field in the infobox (The Galaxy S26 and Tab S11, respectively). Should it be there, or should the reference be removed? Hinothi1 (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hinothi1. Have you checked to the article's talk page to see whether there's already been some discussion regarding this? If there hasn't, maybe try asking at for input at one or more of the WikiProject listed at the top of each article's talk page. My first assessment is that such content might be OK to possibly mention somewhere in the article as long as it's reliably sourced and makes sense encyclopedically, but perhaps not just let in the infobox. This type of article isn't one I'm too familiar with and there's really only a general description of the |successor= parameter found at Template:Infobox mobile phone. The edit made to Samsung Galaxy S25 was by an IP; most likely they meant well, but probably just aren't too familiar with Wikipedia. Lots of time, people see or read something about a subject and just want to add it asap to the relevant Wikipedia article (if one exists) thinking that anything goes and don't really worry about WP:V. WP:REDLINKs are, in principle, OK for articles when they meant the conditions of WP:REDYES, but I don't know enough about Samsung mobile phones to say whether that's the case here. Perhaps, if Samsung has officially announced these as being successors, simply adding citations verifying as much to each infobox is all that's needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a completely unrelated note Hinothi1, the "talk" link in your WP:SIGNATURE is to User talk:UserBob. Why have you done that? The "talk" link in a Wikipedia account's signature should, in principle, be to their user talk page and not someone else's. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Reversion

Hello, Can I please have feedback on this reversion and the accompanying message I left on the user's talk page? Sircheezball (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a specialist about "policy of Wikipedia" and "guidelines" but I think your feedback on reversion was done in a civil way. Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Sircheezball! I believe as long as any reversion is based on reliable sources, and that you notify the user whose changes you reverted, it's perfectly okay! TNM101 (chat) 15:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translation review

i think i need a more experienced editor to review my translation Draft:Embassy of Russia, Helsinki in order to get it published. but i don't really know what i should do in practice. how can i get my draft approved? Draft:Embassy of Russia, Helsinki Warpfrz (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Warpfrz: I've placed the AfC template on the draft, that way whenever you feel you're ready you can send it to be reviewed by clicking that blue 'submit' button. A reviewer will then run the proverbial ruler over it at some point, and publish if it's publishable, or else give you feedback on what needs improving. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Warpfrz I don't see any major issues but you could use the infobox {{Infobox diplomatic mission}} and fill it out much like the Embassy of the United States, Helsinki. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or get it accepted first, then the Infobox. Having an Infobox does not contribute to being accepted. David notMD (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of Minecraft mobs

I am working on a draft of an article titled List of Minecraft mobs. Currently it is only half done. Should i delete the empty rows (the ones with placeholders) or keep them? Mast303 (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this has been submitted to Articles for Creation. If you would like this to be moved into the encyclopedia (to mainspace) now, I would remove the placeholder rows. However, I suggest that you finish the list first, before asking that it be moved to mainspace. Toadspike [Talk] 16:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair warning: A very similar list was recently deleted (see this discussion), so it is possible that your AfC submission is declined, or if you move it to mainspace, the list may get deleted. Toadspike [Talk] 16:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why is there no trivia?

you know how in fandom there is a trivia part? here's an exemple: https://woohoo.fandom.com/wiki/Flora#Trivia why doesnt Wikipedia have the same? i would be cool! Douglas15amor (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas15amor - please see MOS:TRIVIA - Arjayay (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline for Draft Article I Started?

Hello all, I started a draft article Draft:Josephine Semmes several months ago. Then my life got very busy and I paused it. While my life is still very busy, I would like to know when is the deadline for submission. I seem to recall that the draft will automatically be deleted at some point? How do I find this date? Thank you very much for your help. Aurodea108 (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Aurodea108. There is no deadline for submission. If a draft has not been edited in six months, it will be deleted; but you can ask for it to be restored: see undeletion. Alternatively, if you make a minor edit in it as the six month point is approaching, it will reset the clock. ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Making an article with Grammarly

Hi, am I able to make an article with Grammarly? Basically I will gather some sources and use Grammarly to create a base for my article, It's more like a starting point for me for my first article. And I also edit any of the mistakes Grammarly may make. I always check before uploading. Liam9287 (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liam9287. The short answer is no, you cannot and should not use Grammarly. See this essay for more on that, Wikipedia:Don't use Grammarly. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about this, last time I asked about Grammarly they said I could use it to edit articles, so this is a little odd. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1238#h-Questions regarding copyright and copyediting-20241018192500 Also, I am aware of the English thing, and I dismiss them because I know Grammarly is based on American English. I also dismiss Grammarly trying to edit links or references, as I know that is crucial for articles. Am I not allowed to use it anymore? Liam9287 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep me logged in for up to one year

I often log in and log out each and every time that I choose to do some editing, but I see there is an option to "Keep me logged in for up to one year". I am just curious, but why would anyone choose this option? Or conversely, why would anyone not choose this option? Why is it limited to "one year" and not simply "Keep me logged in until I sign out" then if its truly just a long-term option?

Curious how many of you choose this or are even aware of it? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping logged in saves time and effort, and may also log the user in to the partner projects (eg Wikiversity). I suppose if someone else could be using that computer, you should log out every time. A cookie is supplied to last a year. But on occasion everyone is logged out because of some security issue, so logging in happens more than once a year in reality. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard other websites use a similar function. In my opinion, I'm pretty sure it's to prevent accounts being hacked into when the owner can no longer keep it in check. Tarlby (t) (c) 23:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting an article assessed

How do I get an article assessed, specifically Leon O. Morgan, among others? Sushidude21! (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Sushidude21! and welcome to the Teahouse! you can request for an assessment of an article to A, B, C, Start- or Stub- class in Requesting an assessment. FA or GA assessments are located over at Featured article candidates or Good article nominations respectively. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page draft rejected

I wrote a page on a non-profit organisation I am involved in (The Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA)) that was rejected firstly for lack of references. I added many book and article references to the organisation as well as a lot of cross references to related legislation, organisations and subjects. However, I have now been rejected again because the draft was considered not to be:

Its really strange to me that a page on this organisation that is 50 years old and is the main maritime archaeology body in Australasia, mentioned in many books and papers, shouldn't meet these criteria. I thought I had added a lot of material that meets all the criteria in the second response. Until the page is published its hard to get others to add material and I can't even add the logo to a draft page.

I'd appreciate any advice on what the threshold is mean to be for these things. They seem pretty subjective but I'd like to know where to direct my effort and avoid too many more drafts as the process is much slower than I remember from years ago

Draft:The Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA) Lordjaysus (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that almost all the book and article references I added are reliable, secondary and strictly independent of the organisation, being written by leading scholars of the discipline and published by major publishing houses, so that's a big part of why I find this feedback confusing - it seems to be asking for what I have already done Lordjaysus (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Lordjaysus and welcome to Wikipedia! I haven't read your provided sources yet (and they seem to be actual books, which is valid but may be harder to access for other editors), but each of the terms in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent have specific meanings in Wikipedia:
  • in-depth basically just says, "does this source focus on the subject of the article or just briefly mention it?" for example, a news article on Person XYZ doing some accomplishment is in-depth coverage for XYZ, while one on Organization ABC doing D thing, where Person XYZ just so happens to be a member isn't in-depth coverage of XYZ (but is for ABC).
  • reliable (source) means, "is the source actually reliable or trustworthy?" in the sciences, that would be published peer-reviewed papers and such, while in news, you should verify their reputation, if they are well-known for fact-checking and accuracy.
  • secondary just means secondary sources, one step removed from and analyzes and interprets a primary source. for example, a book talking about research done by researchers A, B et al is secondary because it interprets and reviews this research, while the research paper A, B et al is the primary source here.
  • independent means that your sources do not originate from or are in any way related to your subject except for reporting on it. for example, press releases and interviews with the subject are not considered secondary because they are directly related to the subject (the subject publishes the press release, they are part of the interview).
not all sources have to follow all of these (you can use some primary sources as long as you are careful with their use and at least reliable for what they are reporting), but to prove a subject's notability in Wikipedia terms, you need at least a few sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lordjaysus Just an editor like you, but noticed that the draft reads like a promotional brochure, not an encyclopedia article. A question for citation might be: If something is 'pivotal', who said it, and why? Also, the first source Staniforth, who was the president of the AIMA, who also writes newsletter articles and training materials for them, might not be an independent source of information about the organisation. You might want to ask those questions on the talk page for the article, which currently does not have any discussion. Just Al (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=1275616788"