Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cordless Larry, 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

Limit on submissions

Hello everyone, I am currently editing my draft article Draft:Cedric Koukjian for neutral language and notability. My questions is: Is there a possibility for permanent rejection? whether by too many submission or decision of comunity? or It is safe to resubmit a few times for approval? Thank you Aston3421 (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

There would be a chance that reviewers will be fed up, and issue a rejection. Another possibility is a WP:MFD to see if the community wants to delete the draft, and salt it. The thing for you to do is find sources on the person, that are independent, which means not written by a gallery he exhibited in. If there are no such suitable sources, then move onto something else. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Aston3421 just noticed you uploaded a picture of Koukjian as "Own Work". If you took this photo and have connections to Koukjian you have to declare these per the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy. If you did not take the photo, you cannot upload it as your own work unless you are sure you personally own the copyright to it -- photos can only be uploaded by the photographer/copyright owner or else by someone else if the photos are licensed under a free license already. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised this was rejected as not notable, though, the sources seem fine to me -- maybe ask the reviewer for details? Nevermind, didn't realize that sources written by a gallery that exhibited him don't count? Mrfoogles (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Mrfoogles Thank you for having a look at the article. The disclosures have already been made with admin @331dot on my talk page User talk:Aston3421#Your submission at Articles for creation: Cedric Koukjian (April 23) He walked me through the copyright part and gave me the go ahead.

Concerning the sources, I actually discovered that I was supposed to mention a gallery exhibiting the subject as per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals this is why it was mentioned.

Is there any recommendation you can make so I can improve the article? anything that can help me out getting it accepted? Thank you Aston3421 (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I decided to remove the mention of the gallery. I believe you are right and it somehow doesn't fit with the referencing convention. Aston3421 (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, that's not what I was getting at. Removing references doesn't help with notability -- essentially you have to have ~3 reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide significant (i.e. not just a random namedrop) coverage of the topic (WP:THREE is a good essay (not policy) on this, or look at WP:GNG, which is policy). I would say just find 3 sources that seems reliable, independent of the source (e.g. not interviews), secondary (published somewhere, not a blog) that provide a paragraph or two, then put that on the reviewer's talk page and ask if those sources would be acceptable per WP:THREE. If they aren't they'll probably point out why. Personally, I think

• https://www.admiddleeast.com/story/why-pierre-and-cedric-koukjian-are-an-art-duo-to-have-on-your-radar
• https://ge.archivescommunales.ch/uploads/r/archives-de-la-commune-de-cologny/9/f/0/9f052b91aa582419646f938d3cbb5c0e432454b69b0cb79e0a900a268c99b352/20200210_Tribune_Rives_Lac.pdf (although a little short)
• https://ibb.co/xs6msVx (not the most reputable link, but sources are explicitly not required to be online anyways)

would do the job. Tone-wise the article looks fine-ish to me. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, it's probably best to declare that you are Cedric Koukjian on your user page -- that's where people look most often. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

How to edit the phrase that appears below article names in the "Add a link" box?

I mean when adding an internal link in the Visual Editor. EntropyReducingGuy (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@EntropyReducingGuy If you are referring to short descriptions, then you should click on the first template called "Short description" and press "Edit". The eaisest way to edit them, however, is by enabling the Wikipedia:Shortdesc helper gadget in your preferences. – Isochrone (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

10x EntropyReducingGuy (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Resubmitting an article

Hey team. I drafted this article a few weeks ago about a journalist: Draft:Emma Camp (journalist). I'm not totally sure what about it failed the notability test, and would love help! Voltshock11 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, having an op-ed published in the NYTimes, while admirable, does not make her Wikipedia-notable. So, too soon in her career to establish her as notable. David notMD (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

There are a number of reliable, independent sources that respond to her piece, and comment on it. However, there aren't many independent sources that actually talk about her. I think you might be able to make a case for an article on her essay in the NYTimes -- I can't find much that talks about her other than talking about her piece in the NYT, though. Essentially, articles written by her or published by institutions she works/volunteers at are nil for notability; interviews are not useful; and the numerous sources responding to or commenting on her article make a better case for her article being notable than her. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

If you do decide to take it in that direction, maybe "Emma Camp New York Times essay" would be a good title? Mrfoogles (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Editing others drafts

Am I allowed to edit other people's drafts? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid Yup, better to ask on the draft talk page first but yes. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:DRAFTMOVE, an article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, move, rename, redirect, merge, or seek deletion of any draft. Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid: What Yeshivish613 posted above is true, but creators of drafts can be very territorial; so, even if only doing so as a courtesy, it probably would be a good idea to at least discuss what you'd like to do with the creator before editing the draft, unless your edit is needed to address a serious Wikipedia policy matter that can't wait (e.g. copyright policy violation) or is such a non-contentious formatting change (e.g. fixing a syntax error) that the creator is almost certainly not going to have a problem with. Drafts aren't articles and thus aren't necessarily expected to be of the same qualities as an article; for sure, you can make suggestions that you think might help improve the draft, but unilaterally stepping in a rewriting things as you see fit (even things as seemingly harmless as changing a citation style or date formats) can rub people the wrong way and potentially lead to edit warring or other serious problems. Most people are happy to receive feedback about their drafts, but not too happy when they feel someone else is trying to take over the draft. Please keep that in mind. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Teahouse blocked

Why is the tea house blocked so many times? 2003:EE:6F10:1AAD:F092:85B6:A2C5:463D (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably because trolls ask nonsense questions. --Onorem (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

As Onorem said above, a troll has been vandalizing this page, which is why you might be unable to edit this page for some time to prevent such behavior. This unfortunately affects new users, who are the target demographic of the Teahouse. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 15:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Onorem, the issue is not "nonsense questions". We can deal with those easily. The troll/harasser/long time abuser repeatedly threatens to kill Wikipedia administrators. Please do not guess at answers. Cullen328 (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, the troll also enjoys posting partly-readable gibberish (or just “nonsense questions”) at every noticeboard with threats in them, but yes, they are the reason why the steakhouse and other venues are constantly protected. E_F⁵ 17:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Teahouse*, I hate mobile editing and do apologize. E_F⁵ 17:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

April 1st renames coming in early this year, I see. Perfect4th (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Can we have a steakhouse? King Lobclaw (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

King Lobclaw, I was in Amarillo, Texas last year and eating at The Big Texan Steak Ranch is a dramatic experience. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Can we bring back List of country subdivision flags in Africa

List of country subdivision flags in Africa is a important page and please repost it, i need it for my animation and many others find it useful Coool13 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Coool13: Welcome to the Teahouse. I suspect you're talking about Draft:List of country subdivision flags in Africa. The draft was deleted due to inactivity (it hadn't been edited for six months). You will want to submit a request over at this page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

User boxes

I would like to add my own user boxes to my page. How do i do that? Trying to get my passengers to stop screaming during normal turbulence.(Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Boeing747Pilot. Does WP:User boxes answer your question? ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That helps a lot. Trying to get my passengers to stop screaming during normal turbulence.(Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Reusing the citation for a source that's been updated since original publication date, access date change

I started adding some names to a table listing DOGE employees, reusing an existing source. But then I realized that the source has been updated since its original publication date (original: 2/6/25, update: 2/20/25, unclear if there were intermediary updates), and the citation only shows the original publication date and the original access date, which is also different from the date I accessed it. Do I need to worry about either issue and create a second citation for the same source, using the publication date of the update and my access date? And if the answer is "yes," should I somehow list both the original publication date and the date of the update? (I'm not sure how to do that without creating a citation error.) Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

HI @FactOrOpinion. It all depends on if the updated source page has deleted information that is in our article. If the current source page contains everything needed, then just update the access date and do a reuse of the source. If the some information has been removed and is still needed, the find the old copy of the page in an archive and make that a separate source with a different publication date. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll have to double-check, as it's used as a source for ~30 different pieces of information, but it certainly looks like they (ProPublica, a reliable journalism non-profit) are adding content to the source page without deleting any of their earlier content, so the current version should still reliably verify all of the WP content sourced to it. I'll update the access date for the citation. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Quick question about OR & notability

I stumbled across this page just by happenstance: World Championship Old-Time Piano Playing Contest and Festival and though I'm sure it passes notability for inclusion at WP, it seems that the External links and Citations do not provide adequate sources for the staggering amount of content provided. Wondering if this might be WP:OR or maybe even WP:COI. Also, two articles that have been created based on this page: Adam Swanson and Martin Spitznagel seem to only claim notability associated with the contest. I understand that WP:MUSICBIO has certain guidelines for notability, but I'm not sure this award is notable enough for inclusion. If so, that would allow some 100 winners to be included at WP based on this award alone. I am not seeing any other notability claims except for World Championship Old-Time Piano Playing Contest and Festival for these 2 subjects. The opening paragraph is entirely devoted to winning the same contest. The other content is based on primary biography sources. Is this contest award notable for a stand-alone criteria? Maineartists (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It does seem grotesque, Maineartists, yes. Much of it is devoted to the many "rules". Within this, there's a reference to a PDF file titled "World Championship Old-Time Piano Playing Contest and Festival 2024 Official Contest Rules". Readers could simply be directed there -- other perhaps than for a rule that has brought about commentary in reliable sources. An advantage (aside from compactness): If/when there's a new PDF for 2025 or 2026 or whenever, readers can be referred to it with a very simple edit to the article. The lists of winners seems excessive too; I suspect that MoS comments on this. I don't see clear signs of Wikipedia-defined "notability" in the article, but haven't started to search for sources that haven't yet been cited. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary. Excessive was my first impression on the Contest and Festival page, too. Any thoughts about the BLP articles notability generated solely on the basis of the "winners" claim? The criteria door has to be opened first to allow other lesser sources to build a good article on a subject; does this "winners" claim merit enough for inclusion at WP and does this open the door for all the other nearly 100 winners to be included? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Maineartists, I am not convinced that this competition is notable. The references are very weak. The most comprehensive is from the University of Mississippi, but they sponsor and host the event so that is not an independent source. The other sources are mostly small town newspapers reporting "local resident won an award" type coverage, without significant coverage of the competition. I am very confident that winning the award they give is nowhere near a prestigious enough honor that winning it confers notability on the recipient. WP:NPERSON says a person is likely to be notable if The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. This award is neither well-known nor significant.

On a side note, external links do not contribute to notability. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. It does seem a project dear to the heart of the creating editor (who I should have notified for this discussion, my apologies. I will do so now) as its founding is mentioned in this article: Monticello Railway Museum. Perhaps it can be merged there, or to the Monticello High School (Illinois) football field where it is was later moved, or even more appropriately at the Monticello, Illinois page. Removing the extensive list of winners and replacing it with the more conventional link to the website page for further reference would cut the content down to a more digestible stand-alone section for merging. The Rules and Divisions are unnecessary, as you know. As for the BLPs, I'll do a little more digging, but I'm only finding "is an award-winning" claim in their bios to circle back to this one contest. At the very least, the new merged section can at least include a short sentence of notable winners and mention these two musicians. Thanks for your expertise on the matter. Always appreciated. Maineartists (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Another point. Let's assume for the moment (benefit of the doubt, sort of thing) that the article can pass the Wikipedia notability test. Things like "rules", "past winners", etc. belong primarily on the contest's own website, not here. Shouldn't any mention to such items (in their generality) in this article simply be links to the relevant page within that website? And if the organisation's own website doesn't list them, that suggests that they may not be notable enough to be in this article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Maineartists, given that the competition has not been held in Monticello, Illinois since the 1980s and has been held in Oxford, Mississippi for the past nine years, I doubt that Monticello is the best place for the content. 2025 readers looking for information about the event are most likely interested in the Ole Miss incarnation. Feline Hymnic, I agree completely that the arcane ruleset is not appropriate, but if the competition is notable, then a list of winners is probably appropriate. The amazing thing to me is that the event has survived for half a century, hopping around Illinois from Monticello to Decatur to Peoria to Champaign and then eventually to Oxford, Mississippi. Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Cut down the rules section a bit. The "divisions" section should likely be turned into "Winners" and some detail removed. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Cullen328. I see that now. My mistake. It has certainly moved around over the years. It has settled here at [The Old Henry] in Oxford, Mississippi. Mrfoogles, an extensive list of this undue weight should be relevant reason to readers and linked to notable subjects listed at WP. Once again, linking the contest website's winners list from the subject website is sufficient for those interested in the article page topic. As editor Feline Hymnic said: "wikipedia is not a substitute for an organisation's own website." Not one of these winners (except Marty Sammon) have a WP article other than the two that the creating editor created and linked themselves. Which is a circular defense for notability right now. Maineartists (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am the editor that created that page. I have looked at it again, and I overall agree that the rules could be taken out. The past winners column, however, should stay in my opinion, because all of the championship-related pages on Wikipedia that I took inspiration from have complete winners lists. That said I will find more citations for it in the coming days. I am new to Wikipedia and creating articles, so any pointers would be much appreciated. AAPRM (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, AAPRM. Thanks for joining. At some point, the discussion should shift over to the article page itself. For now, the question of notability is being discussed regarding the contest itself and the 2 BLP articles stemming from having solely won this contest. Could you reference some "Championship" article pages here at WP that you took inspiration from? Most lists at WP do merit some notability (especially at the local level); otherwise, a simple External link to the list and/or a sentence naming a few well-known artists within the article stating: "previous winners have been ..." should suffice. Maineartists (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I agree, that may be the way to go. The article that I took the most inspiration from was the Air Guitar World Championships page, and this lists the winners in a table. AAPRM (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hm. That page certainly raises questions on notability itself. But that's another can of worms. I've continued the discussion at the topic's article page: Talk:World Championship Old-Time Piano Playing Contest and Festival. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft page help - sufficient notoriety?

I appreciate any and all help you can offer. This is my first article drafted for submission - Draft:Inovair - and I hope that your feedback helps make this a successful submission.

I've been researching the Build America Buy America Act as it relates to the Wastewater industry. I observed that Wikipedia has very little information on the subject. I thought I would start with something simple for my first article contribution, a manufacturer. I checked the wikipedia page history for a similar manufacturer (Atlas Copco) and my initial submission is on par with that article's initial submission in terms of depth of subject. But is the information in my article sufficient for 2025 expectations? Do I need to summarize information from the source documents to add more details about the company?

Any other feedback you have that would help make this submission successful? Thanks in advance! Kedo-gearhead (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Kedo-gearhead, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your draft doesn't currently demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia notability requirements for businesses (see WP:NCORP), and simply serves to demonstrate that this company exists. But that is not sufficient for an entry in this encyclopaedia - there are millions upon millions of similar business doing a fantastic job. Reading those guidelines, it's essential to use sources that don't simply mention a company, and are not simply citing press releases, insider business magazines or their own website. Indeed, your final citation about Global Ground Support doesn't mention the company at all'. We need to see at least three in-depth and independent sources that actually talk about the company in some detail.

My other worry is your upload to Wikipedia Commons of this image. It is suspiciously small and lacking any metadata, and its name suggests perhaps yo had it emailed to you. Did you actually take that image? If not, it cannot remain on Commons ,as you would not have the legal right to claim it as your own or to release it for free commercial use.

Have you been asked (or paid) to create this article, or are you an employee of the business, or somehow connected with it? If so, you would have a strong CONFLICT OF INTEREST, which you would need to declare by following the guidelines in that link before editing the Draft any further. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! It sounds like the topic is not a good fit, as mainstream news about federal funding criteria for municipalities and wastewater treatment plant advancements is limited to none. Kedo-gearhead (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kedo-gearhead, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's unfortunate that you have chosed as your model an article that has been tagged for a year with serious issues - promotional language, and inadequate sources. If you are going to look at existing articles as models, please choose good articles or featured articles, rather than any random dross that happens to be hanging around.

Nick has given you good advice: I will offer more general advice. 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 realise that your account has been around for a couple of years, but with only 15 edits to your name, I still count you a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! My first edits were super straightforward. Is the Atlas Copco article a good place to look at disagreements happening, as I don't want to purposefully cause any strife? Kedo-gearhead (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Kedo-gearhead, here is a minor point, but one worth keeping in mind: The term we use on Wikipedia is notability not "notoriety ".

I am certain that Atlas Copco is a notable company, but to be frank, Atlas Copco is a very poor quality encyclopedia article. The most important element in a Wikipedia article is the quality of the references. What is needed are references to reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic, and the article prose should summarize those independent references. A large majority of these references are affiliated with the company and therefore not independent. Also, most of the content was clearly written by editors affiliated with the company without proper disclosures. So, the article ends up being the company telling the world about itself. That is the purpose of the company website, not the purpose of what ought to be a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Puzzling redirect

I noticed that Political economy has very recently, and at time of writing, been redirected to Comparative economy, and the short description made less descriptive and given a pejorative slant. To my understanding, "Political economy" is the standard scholarly term for the academic discipline that the article describes, and the previous short description was neutrally informative. Perhaps there's a controversy over terminology? What's my best course of action here? Thanks for your advice. Protalina (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC) Protalina (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the article was moved today by @Closed Limelike Curves. They posted a Talk page comment last month about splitting off part of the article, but got no responses and apparently decided to move the article instead, though the article is still framed in terms of Political economy, not Comparative economy. I'm not sure what your best course of action is (hopefully a more experienced editor will chime in soon), but I think the main options are reverting the move per WP:BOLDMOVE or responding on the Talk page about whether the move was appropriate. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. Protalina (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if I confused you, and yeah, there's a bit of a naming clash in that the term "political economy" pre-1910ish used to just mean "economics", and is still sometimes used to refer to the body of work called "political economy" by its authors. ("Protoscience" isn't meant to be derogatory TBC, it's just a description of a young/new scientific field!) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The reason for the move and reworking is I'm trying to free up the title "political economy" for an article on that, but if you have alternative suggestions we can discuss those on the talk. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I don't have enough knowledge of the history of economic thought to comment further on the substance. Perhaps, though, it would be productive to outline your plan at WP:ECON and get feedback there – apologies ofc if already done ;-) Protalina (talk) Protalina (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Where to discuss a page facing legal trouble

Hi, due to the recent Sambhaji legal trouble, Execution of Sambhaji has been moved to Draft:Execution of Sambhaji. I was wondering where to discuss this with other editors, since it seems the person who draftified the article is being persued legally themselves.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 11:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Speederzzz I'm not sure what you mean by facing legal trouble, but Wikipedia doesn't really have any control over what happens out in the real world; however, if someone is using their Wikipedia account to post anything which might be considered a violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats, then you can report them to an administrator at WP:ANI. Wikipedia policy takes a fairly hardline against anything considered to be a legal threat, and those making them are blocked (typically quite quickly) until they rescind their post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedians have been sued by the government of Maharashtra (see [1]) and now (presumably out of fear, one editor draftified the aforementioned article. I just wondered what steps should be made and where I can discuss what is happening.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't do too much about a government suing its citizens, unless a government official posts threats to do so on Wikipedia. If the Maharashtra government decides to take action against Wikipedia itself, that's a matter for the Foundation's lawyers. I'm going to return the page to the encyclopedia for now. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

But I'm not asking anything about the legal action itself, just where it would be best to discuss what to do with the draftification. I wonder what the best place would be to discuss questions like "Could it harm editors in real life if I undraftify it?" "Is it normal procedure to draftify such articles?". I'm not asking for answers for how to solve the lawsuits, just where to discuss what my conduct as an editor should be in this situation!

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

There isn't really one universal answer. The help desk might be a good starting point. In some cases a WikiProject might be appropriate. WP:VPM is another option. The admin boards AN/ANI could be good if you think that admins could be interested, especially if there's a user conduct issue or something needing admin tools or experienced editors who don't afraid of much. I note that the broader "Sambhaji" issue has already been raised and can be currently found at most of the above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This matter is already being discussed extensively at WP:Administrators' noticeboard #Article being reported to cyber police. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hello!

I also recently asked this question in c:COM:VPC, but I may need additional clarification.

{{Top icon}} says that you must not use icons with attribution licenses, however, if I attribute the author in the tooltip, and include the URL of the license as specified by section 3(a)(1)(C) of the legal code to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, is it OK?

Here is an example of what I mean (feel free to RevDel if I have accidentally commited a CopyVio with this) QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 13:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

While you are providing the needed attribution, it stuffs the tooltip with information not relevant to what the image is meant for. Essentially, it's possible but not plausible to do so, and thus really, really, really not recommended. I say just use a PD/free use image. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 08:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Religion based Articles

Hey, Need guidance from editors, As we know the first chapter of the Holy Quran, Surah Al Fatiha begins with the verse, but some versions include with, A`udhu billahi minash-Shaitan nir-rajim (I seek refuge with Allah from Satan, the accursed). Unfortunately I couldn't find the information about the reason for this on the article -- Al-Fatiha, So can I step further to add it and pls lemme know if there are any issues associated with it. Thanks! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @JesusisGreat7. I'm not sure what you are asking. (Note by the way: No, many of us do not know anything about what the first chapter of the Quran says. Please do not make assumptions).

If you are asking whether you may add some information to the article, then yes, provided you have a reliable source for the information you are adding. (And that source really should be more than just citing some versions that have the verse. It needs to be a discussion about whether and why the verse is included - but the first part of your question sounded as if you haven't got that information).

Alternatively, raise the question on the talk page of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that, though I have put a note on the talk pages of islamic related editors, Regarding my question I mean the current article doesn't have an article on the thing which I an going to add so basically I was asking guidance before editing so to prevent edit revert!! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, @JesusisGreat7. You can't prevent edit revert - any edit you make, some other editor may disagree with, and revert it, according to BRD. But by making sure anything you add is neutrally written, and cited to a Reliable source, you can make it less likely that another editor will revert you.

There is nothing special about religious subjects as opposed to any other, except that some editors get very protective about what should or shouldn't be said, and how. ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @JesusisGreat7, I commented on this last night and reverted it because I confused the thing you were talking about with the Basmala. Sorry about that. It looks like the phrase you're talking about is most commonly referred to in English as the Audubillah or Auzubillah, and it's clearly important in Islamic practice, but I'm having trouble finding English-language sources that describe that importance. I suspect there might be more Arabic sources discussing the subject in detail, but obviously it's hard to search for those sources and interpret them without knowledge of Arabic. If you can write a new section of Al Fatiha about the Audubillah, and provide reliable sources for your claims, that would be a really good start. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually I posted the same question into talk pages of multiple editors, and they guided me that the phrase is not a part of the Surah Al Fatiha, but it is a common sentence that can be spoken while reciting any verse, So the article should have no or very less information about it! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I had a peek at Wikipedia library and came up empty but Google Scholar has some promising possible leads for RSes. [2] Note the spelling there is Audhubillah - which is the only English spelling I could find that returned any results. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps Salah or Rak'a could mention it? You may already know this, but WikiProjects can be a good way to find editors knowledgeable about a topic, such as WP:ISLAM in this case. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Inverting logo color

Hi everyone! I recently created a page and I'm continuing the process of filling it out as much as I can. The available logo I pulled for the page is mostly white text with some blue. Is there any guideline against altering the logo by changing the white for black so that it's readable against the white background? I assumed that it'd be poor practice to change the logo's colors myself, but I was curious if there's any direct rules. Thanks! 30Four (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@30Four There is some advice at WP:Logos#Dark mode. I don't think you should be tweaking the logo yourself, as the whole point of logos is that they are as the originator designed them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in that direction, Mike! Unfortunately, this logo is a png file, not an svg required by that Dark mode/skin invert option. I'll just leave it white since it appears to be the proper logo, unless a different editor has another suggestion. I figured that it wouldn't be right to change the logo myself, but you never know until you ask. 30Four (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Finiteness Follow up

Discussion on the notability of this topic is ongoing, and it was suggested to bring the discussion back here to the Teahouse. Kevincook13 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You should probably explain more, or people will be confused. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to let the editor who suggested that we talk further at the Teahouse lead the discussion, but I will explain more. Kevincook13 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kevincook13, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is true that some reviewer comments on Draft:Finiteness suggested you ask for help at the Teahouse, but unless you make it clear what you are asking for, we're not going to be able to help you much.

What I will say is that a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources say about the subject, and very little else. It doesn't look to me as if any of your cited sources talks specifically about the concept of Finiteness (it's possible that the third one has a section on finiteness, but a search in the Internet Archive didn't turn up anything).

There are two consequences of this. First, everything in your draft is either unsourced, or not about finiteness. Secondly, notability as Wikipedia uses the word is crucially dependent on sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Sources which reference the concept of finiteness do not always do so using that particular term. Kevincook13 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Finiteness has been rejected, meaning that you should stop wasting your (and other editors') time on it. Maproom (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The editor who rejected the article is the one who suggested opening up the conversation again at the Teahouse. Kevincook13 (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The editor who rejected the draft directed you to Teahouse so that someone could explain what "Rejected" means, not to dispute that your draft did not deserve to be rejected. There is no potential to salvage the draft. Please put it out of its misery by putting Db-author at the top inside double curly brackets {{ }} so that an Administrator will be notified to delete the draft. If "Finiteness" deserves an article, perhaps in time someone will compose it, but bringing it to the attention of the generalists at Teahouse is not the way to find that person. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that your draft looked like a dictionary entry. Wiktionary is our corresponding dictionary. We already have an article on finiteness in maths. However there is no article on finite being. So if you do want to write on the topic, find sources and expand on that philosophical / theological aspect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Finiteness currently redirects to Finite, a disambiguation page. From 2007 until very recently it also offered a single sentence of explanation attempting to describe what finite means, stating: "Finite is the opposite of infinite." On the talk page I commented that the explanation was circular. Two other editors suggested that it might be a good idea to write a finiteness article.

My draft is short, making it look more like a dictionary article, but it focuses on the state of being limited or ended, as opposed to focusing on the term finiteness as is appropriate in a dictionary. Kevincook13 (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I did request that you withdraw the rejection. I appreciate the discussion we had, and your expressed willingness to continue it here, along with other experienced editors. I would like to discuss the lead paragraph.

Does the lead paragraph describe a concept (as is appropriate for an encyclopedia), or does it describe a term (as is appropriate for a dictionary)?

Does it describe a notable concept?

Does it contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia, as would be expected from a lead paragraph?

In which ways does the lead paragraph detract from Wikipedia?

If the lead paragraph does describe a notable concept, as would be expected, then is the entire article worthy of deletion?

You suggested that you would be willing to accept the article, with the warning that it might be nominated for deletion. I definitely do not want you to accept an article that you esteem a candidate for deletion. I thought that editors accepted articles because they are acceptable, not because doing so facilitates deletion. Kevincook13 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Robert_McClenon you are the one who wanted to move this discussion between you and I to the Teahouse, which I started on your talk page, and which you took to mine. You told me that you would have participated in the original Teahouse discussion, if it weren't for the fact that you didn't notice it before it was archived. You said that you always participate in discussions of articles that you have reviewed, as long as you are aware of them. Are you planning to participate? If you are, please add a little note here to let us know. Kevincook13 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@David notMD one of the things that supporters appreciate about Wikipedia is that editors freely exchange ideas, rather than simply make or comply with demands. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

What part of "If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over." do you not understand? 05:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

My Questions

I see that one editor has stated, correctly, that I rejected the draft, and that that means that discussion is finished. So I think that I am asking the other experienced editors here whether they agree that I was right in rejecting this draft, or whether I should have only declined it again, and also whether there is any procedure for discussing a draft or a topic after a draft has been rejected. Do the other editors think that User:Kevincook13 should be able to rework it?

I am sort of uneasy with the idea that rejection is final-final if the draft was submitted by a good-faith editor, which in this case it was. If rejection is final-final, then maybe I should never reject a draft that is submitted by a good-faith editor. (Some drafts that are rejected are submitted either by conflict of interest editors or by trolls. I am not asking about them. This draft was submitted by a good-faith editor whom I think has gone down a rabbit-hole.) Is there any way that a good-faith editor whose draft is rejected can discuss reworking or starting over? And is there a way that a reviewer can ask for third-party comments on their decision to reject an article? If not, maybe I shouldn't reject drafts by good-faith editors, because I don't want to make a final-final judgment against good-faith submissions.

Also, I made an offer to User:Kevincook13 that I was willing to revert my acceptance and accept the draft with the understanding that it was likely to be nominated for deletion. I was willing to let the submitter get his draft into mainspace and let the community be the gatekeeper. What I would do would be to request that the blocking redirect be deleted or moved so that the draft can be moved to mainspace. Is Kevincook13 ready for that?

Those are my questions for the other editors and for the submitter. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

As a non-AFC reviewer, I have no opinion over whether the draft should have been rejected over being declined or letting it pass through to mainspace to be AfD'ed by other editors. What I can say, after looking at the draft, is that it is, in its current form, inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The thoughts aren't organised, and the tone sounds off. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what to do in this situation, regarding Portugal’s article page

Know that table in the top of all country pages? Shows a map, population, gdp, all that stuff. Well, after looking at the pages of other countries like Spain and Latvia, I noticed that they include recognised regional languages in the “native name” category of the table uptop, I assumed that was reserved for official languages only (such as Catalan in Spain), but those tables included recognised languages as well! (Aragonese and Asturian for Spain, Livonian and Latgalian for Latvia), so I wondered “why doesn’t the table in Portugal’s page include the name of the country in mirandese? A recognised language of portugal since 1998”. I asked in the talk page, got no response, waited 4 months, asked again, still no response. Is it just a stupid question to the point of not needing answering and im just missing something?

My current theory is that it must have something to do with the internal law of how each country recognises their languages, but I haven’t found any criteria for it either (I did ask on the Wikipedia subreddit, but no one answered). Couldn’t possibly have to do with the number of speakers, given livonian has 20 or so native speakers and is still included. The name of portugal (Portuguese republic) in mirandese is also known information, given there’s a mirandese Wikipedia with the portugal article, the name being República Pertuesa, so can’t be lack of info either.

I don’t know if im just being a nuisance, but apologies if so MdMV or Emdy idk (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @MdMV or Emdy idk. My immediate thought was that the answer was "because nobody has added it". But in fact that is not the case. This was discussed in 2012, at Talk:Portugal/Archive 5#Mirandese title and at Talk:Portugal/Archive 6#National language.

I haven't looked at the discussions, so I have no idea how persuasive the arguments were. But you should be aware of them.

What I will say is that there is no rule such as you are suggesting above: like many things in Wikipedia, it is a matter of consensus among editors. Please have a look at WP:BRD and (if necessary) WP:DR. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Well that’s just stupid in my opinion what happened in 2012, that guy’s just saying it shouldn’t be added because it’s useless info? Wikipedia’s the home of info! And no one necessarily agreed or disagreed on anything, the discussion was just cut short. Mirandese is not official in portugal but it’s recognised as a regional language. I have already asked twice on the talk page and no one cared to agree or disagree, so a consensus seems a bit out of reach, is it that bad if I just add it? MdMV or Emdy idk (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

it was one singular guy undoing edits, that doesn’t sound like a consensus, just an unresolved dispute that died out I guess MdMV or Emdy idk (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @MdMV or Emdy idk, you're not being a nuisance. :) That box you're referring to is called an "Infobox" by the way.

From the thread above, it looks like the discussion in 2012 wasn't very complete. I think the Latvia infobox is a good example for how we could handle this, and Spain is a good example for what to do when many languages are recognized. I think that, for all the reasons you indicated, adding the Mirandese name to the Portugal infobox would be a good idea, and you should do it. I would suggest looking at the wikitext of the Latvia infobox to see what templates they use to get the names to look the way they do, and emulate that on the Portugal infobox. It might help you to know that the ISO 639 language code for Mirandese is mwl.

It is possible that an editor might not agree right away, and revert your edit. You shouldn't be so worried about this possibility that it stops you from making good-faith edits to improve the wiki. But it is kind of a bummer when people don't see the value of your edits, or when you work hard on an edit only to realize that it didn't comply with policy or improve the article. I would suggest this mentality: edit boldly, then if someone reverts it, have a discussion to try and arrive at a decision together. This is sometimes called the bold, revert, discuss cycle.

Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you need help editing some complicated bit of templating markup or navigating editorial politics. Good luck, have fun. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Citing a two part interview

 Courtesy link: Sacred Reich Working on a page, and I want to organize an interview with a member of the band (Wiley Arnett) which is split into two parts. (Part 1, part 2) Since there are two seperate web pages for the interview, do I make a full citation with both URLs and turn parts 1 and 2 into short footnotes? If so, how? —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 03:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle & Fade The article doesn't currently use the {{sfn}} template for shortened footnotes and per WP:CITEVAR you should be sticking to the method already in use. Since your two-part interviews are both transcripts in web pages, I'd be inclined to cite them separately, and then you can mark information coming from one or the other at appropriate places. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

ccTLD codes

Wiki has two letter country codes Top Level Domain (ccTLD) auch as .au for Australia.

What are the three letter "sports codes" such as AUS for AUSTRALIA?

Is there a list of these scTLDs? ----MountVic127 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

There is one at Comparison of alphabetic country codes. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 09:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

How do I edit named references?

The David Icke article has a source with an error. Source 27, a Vice article, states "Cite error: The named reference ":0" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)."

When I hit edit, I do not see any such error visible in the visual editor. When I switch to the source editor, the references disappear and I only see the 'reflist' template.

I can click on the named references icon in the source editor and see that there are two references named ":0" but I cannot figure out how to remedy that for the life of me!

How do I fix that? Thanks in advance!
 Delectopierre (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit the whole page with the source editor. Chane one of those :0's to another name, preferably a meaningful short name (like an author surname). But if there are reuses of a reference you will have to decide which one to change it to. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Delectopierre I fixed it for you with this edit. By changing the reference name to NYT2018, it has gone from being a faulty reference at [27], to a separate reference at position [196]. I'm unable to check the the cited quotation is actually in the reference as it's behind a paywall. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Delectopierre and Nick Moyes, I am a subscriber to the New York Times and can confirm that the 2018 Greenblatt quotation is accurate and appears in the cited reference. This is a perfect example of why a mnemonic like "NYT2018" that is meaningful to humans is superior to a machine assigned reference like ":0" as a reference name. Cullen328 (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Cullen328 and Nick Moyes, thank you both for your assistance, and for resolving that error.

That said, I am still unable to view any of the the named sources, no matter which edit button I choose.

Interestingly, Nick Moyes, when I view that diff, it says no changes made. I can confirm that when I view the article, the error is resolved. But something strange seems to be happening with named sources for me.

I included screenshots of both of the items I mentioned above. Am I just looking in the wrong place? (I couldn't figure out how to embed the screenshots with proper alignment, so here are links):

• Cannot see named refs
• No changes

Delectopierre (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

You are not seeing any changes because you are looking at a visual diff, and Nick's change only affected Wikitext. If you click on the Wikitext button near the top of the page you will see the changes.

I don't quite understand what you are saying about not seeing named sources. Your screenshot is showing the end of the article. Are you expecting to see the sources in the wikitext of the References section? That's not the case -- the sources are in the body of the article, at the point where each superscript number appears in the formatted page. CodeTalker (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

If you click on the Wikitext button near the top of the page you will see the changes. I haven't ever used source edit to view diffs, this is so much easier to understand! Wow.

the sources are in the body of the article, at the point where each superscript number appears in the formatted page Oh boy. Yep. That makes perfect sense now that you say it. It's not intuitive to me that they would all be listed at the bottom when using visual editor, but not in source editor. But once you mentioned it, I understood why.

Thank you for your help! Delectopierre (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Trying to be my the best editor I can be.

I have a question which, upon further reflection, looks more like a soliloquy (musing to self) at this point. My draft article on William Graham Sumner's masterwork Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals was labeled as "promising", because, well, it is. That being said, I want it to look something like a cross between the pages on the orator, statesman, and political philosopher Demosthenes and Niccolò Machiavelli's page Discourses on Livy. Any idea how to up my Wikipedia game and make my page a polished gem? How do I learn the mechanics of editing efficaciously? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

SpicyMemes123, welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia:Your first article should be a good start. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 13:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

SpicyMemes123, the first titled section of Draft:Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals is "Title". It's completely unreferenced. In "Title" and below, reference what the draft asserts. Radically shorten the (immense) block quotations. What did reviews of it published from 1906 to 1908 say about it? How has its reputation fared since? -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

"How has its reputation fared since?"

Thank you for bringing that question to my attention. I wasn't thinking of that. The work was always in print but never a best seller, according to the 1940 edition of its re-print. I'll be sure to add a section regarding the circulation (in academia and in the public sphere) of Professor Sumner's ideas. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, I'd be inclined to title the eventual article "Folkways (book)". -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

SpicyMemes123 First impression on reading you question here at Teahouse, what struck me was your style of writing: wordy and heavy. Then I clicked on your draft and was completely overwhelmed. Remember: less is more. Readers type in "words" to search for topics, if they do not precisely type in your title: "Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals", they will never render a result. WP is an encyclopedia, not an Academic Thesis or Study. At present, this article runs the risk of major scrubbing and heaving editing due to Personal Opinion, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and certainly lack of WP:RS. Everything you state in this article must be backed up by a reliable source and authority on the subject. Otherwise, it is just your opinion and original research that most certainly will be challenged. Good luck. Maineartists (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

SpicyMemes123, I do not think that you fully understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an online 21st century version of Reader's Digest. Your draft has a monumental overuse of direct quotations from the book, and a radical shortage of references to and discussion of critical commentary from reliable sources completely independent of Sumner. Here, you call the book a "masterwork". Who says so? Your draft calls the book "a landmark interdisciplinary work". Who says so? If it is you who is drawing those conclusions, then that is original research which is forbidden by policy. Your draft has just two references to independent, reliable sources, one of which is a brief Encyclopedia Brittanica article and the other is an article in an academic journal published in 1958. Demosthenes has 204 references. By that metric, you are about 1% of the way there. The backbone of any Wikipedia article about any topic ought to be the references to reliable sources completely independent of the topic that devote significant coverage to the topic, and the role of the Wikipedia editor is to summarize what those independent sources say about the topic. On style and tone, abandon the rhetorical flourishes, and write concisely and directly, like Hemingway did. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Maineartists, you write that if [people] do not precisely type in your title: "Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals", they will never render a result. Not so. Let's try with the current draft. In the search box that's at the top left of my browser window (but perhaps elsewhere within yours), I type just Draft:Folkways: A -- and I already receive the suggestion "Draft:Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals". But I agree (and have already suggested) that the current title of the draft is pointlessly cumbrous. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes. I always forget about the drop down menu with "pages containing" at WP. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove all the quotes from the book. Incorporate what people wrote about the impact of the book on society (referenced). David notMD (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@SpicyMemes123 I agree with what David and others have said. Cut all the quotations and replace them with an External Links section (see WP:EL) with just one link to a viewable copy of the book (see here). If you feel the need to use the book as an actual citation, remember that it's important to cite the relevant page number or numbers to which any statement refers.

What you have appeared to have drafted thus far is somewhat equivalent to an inordinately lengthy 'Plot' section about a film or play, but without any coverage of its contemporary 'Reception', nor any 'Cultural Impact' it has had down the decades. That is what an encyclopaedia should include. So, its finding those resources that write about the book and its impact that you should focus on after very major pruning of the 'Contents' section. But, well done on starting your very first draft article, and I hope you find the feedback given here of some help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'plot' analogy. That's seriously useful. I'm finding that collecting my thoughts into a concise stream of words is harder than it seems because, without giving myself undue airs of pretension, writing with rhetorical flourish is second nature to me. But Wikipedia is not the place for poesy. Wikipedia is more, erm, utilitarian, right? Nevertheless, I'll keep working at it and come back if I have more questions. I find that the criticism of my page is constructive. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@SpicyMemes123 Yes, absolutely right. We aren't writing an essay to impress our tutors or our peers; we are writing to collate, condense and simplify what others have already published in reliable works, whether in academic periodicals or mainstream media. I remember some years ago being taken aback by the writing flourishes in certain newspapers published in India. It was as if the authors were trying to show off their fantastic command of the English language, whilst actually making them unnecessarily hard to read - almost Victorian in style.

Plain English should always be our goal here, and all flourishes and fancy turns of phrase (or is it turn of phrases?) left behind whenever we start to edit Wikipedia.

There are various reading age tests one can deploy to determine the complexity of our writings. Aiming for a reading age of an 11 year old was my self-imposed upper limit when I was employed in the museum sector to create exhibitions. And even highly complex Wikipedia articles should be written so as to be comprehensible to a first year undergraduate studying that subject.

Like you, I'm also a great lover of positive criticism - an excellent way to improve what one does. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

"And even highly complex Wikipedia articles should be written so as to be comprehensible to a first year undergraduate studying that subject."

That reading benchmark is extremely fair and, for me, practicable. I will do it. Thank you for, for lack of a better word, discipling my thought process. I aim to make Professor Sumner's Folkways masterwork (of which several hundred works went into the production of that single composition) accessible to as many readers as possible. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

List of important publications in philosophy section on 19th century, provides links to articles about books in that realm which may serve as models for how to write about books.

How was the book received by academics, students and the public? Are there published reviews to serve as refs? David notMD (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for hyperlinking that list of important publications in philosophy! That's a seriously useful page for me. Thanks again! SpicyMemes123 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Feedback on re-doing list article

Hi there, I have recently redone this list article [3] and was wondering if it was possible to get feedback on it before I do all the other letters (or where I should go for feedback - peer review/wikiproject lists??). I redid the references, footnotes, associated nav template, start of the article etc (before: [4], after: [5], changes: [6]) and was wondering if someone could advise me before I go ahead and spend time doing all the other ones. Many thanks in advance for your help! Anguswiki (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Please link to articles using readable wiki links e.g List of airports by IATA airport code: G. The Talk pages found at Talk:List of airports by IATA airport code: G indicate that WP:WikiProject Aviation would be a good place to ask. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Is their a way to make it so only I can edit my articles

Can I make it so only I can make edits on my source TJGhicl (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@TJGhicl no. See WP:OWN. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi TJGhicl. As SHushugah posted above, we don't really "own" the content we create or edit on Wikipedia, and least not in the sense we can lock it to prevent others from editing it. Wikipedia is essentially a website where we can post content as long as it complies with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and as long as we agree to release what we post under Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL copyright licenses, which pretty much allows others to edit or otherwise reuse what we post with very minimal restriction. This is part of the wmf:Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use all of us agree to everytime they click the "Publish changes" button to make an edit. So, if you feel this type of thing is too limiting for you, there are perhaps Wikipedia:Alternative outlets available that will provide you with more control than Wikipedia gives you. Some of this outlets even have software that's similar what Wikipedia uses. Now, if your question has to anything to do with Draft:Canyon Springs Stem Academy, then "locking" the page isn't going to make the draft OK to add to Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written about subjects which meet Wikipedia:Notability. For schools, particulary at the elementary/junior high school level, this tends to be quite hard to do because not many of them receive the kind of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources necessary to meet Wikipedia:Notability (schools). You can try asking about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools for more details if you want, but I think you'll probably receive feedback similar to that you've already received on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Any ideas about why this article draft would be flagged?

Hi there! I’m wondering if anyone can offer insights on why the draft page for Juan Ruiz Naupari (here) is being flagged for immediate deletion under the G11 criteria (which states that it’s because of blatant promotion”.

The article, however, doesn’t seem to fit the G11 criteria for immediate deletion, as the G11 description literally say “ Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion”, and the article seems to be written in a neutral point of view. Do you have any specific examples of information not being presented from a neutral point of view that we could revise? I have visited read the guidelines numerous times and careful but I’m still not sure why this is being specifically flagged for immediate deletion under G11. Rodrigoruiz1988 (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

A speedy request can be removed by anyone, and user:Significa liberdade had already done so before you posted this. Meters (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Quick correction: A speedy deletion request can be removed by anyone except the article's creator. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Yup, I should have checked who created the article before writing that. Meters (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you as user:Electricmemory who requested the speedy? Meters (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Meters I just declined the Draft, and not requested Speedy deletion, it was actually requested by User:Electricmemory. Taabii (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Rodrigoruiz1988, the draft doesn't seem neutral to me. It's entrirely based on sources with close connections to the subject. The only independent source is a page of the Dalai Lama Official Website which doesn't even mention Ruiz. Maproom (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I’m genuinely interested in understanding how EUROTAS and LA Yoga can be considered related sources to the subject of the article. They’re independent of him as far as I know and as far as I can tell.

I also found a few more articles in Mexican news outlets that should strengthen the article’s claim to notability. Rodrigoruiz1988 (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Rodrigoruiz1988. The LA Yoga piece might be independent, if the author has independently researched Naupari; but it is much more likely that either it came out of an interview, or that they know each other. As for the EUROTAS, as far as I can see it does not even mention him. What is the point of a citation which does not mention the subject? ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

We cannot base our qualification of an article on the supposition that “it likely” came from an interview, though, can we?

Maybe I got the EUROTAS link wrong but it was supposed to be this one where he is the main subject of the article as he was a pannelist and presenter at the Oxford EUROTAS Creative Bridges 2024 conference. I’ll double check the draft to make sure it’s correct. Rodrigoruiz1988 (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

If this individual is a collaborator with EUROTAS, then sources that are connected to their collaboration, such as advertising their participation to encourage people to come to a conference, that's certainly not independent.

Was this written with the aid of AI? There are a few rather bizarre passages at the end of the "Early life and education" and "Recognition and influence" sections. In more than a decade, I can't recall ever seeing a bio that included sentences telling the reader that the preceding content was unverified and/or unreliable. If the author of the article doesn't think the subject is notable, I'm not sure how a reviewer or a reader can be expected to think so (see: there is little significant coverage in mainstream academic or journalistic outlets to establish broader notability). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rodrigoruiz1988: Might you have a WP:COI on this topic that needs declaring? Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Not really. I’m not related to the subject. I happen to have a very common Spanish and Mexican last name, but related to the subject. It is the 21st most common last name, so high chances sharing a last name. Rodrigoruiz1988 (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

"Minimal Usage"

So when I upload an image on Wikipedia, I am able to do all the steps, but on the "describe how this is minimal", I get confused. What should I put in the box for it? Liam9287 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Minimal usage could be just using it one time. Also using the image at reduced resolution is minimal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Liam9287, minimal usage of images applies only to non-free images. If an image is freely licensed or in the public domain, then you do not need to worry about minimal usage. Normally, a non-free image is used in only one article. If it is used in two articles, you need to write a separate rationale for each one. Non-free images cannot be used outside of article space. They cannot be used in drafts or on user pages or talk pages or here at the Teahouse. That is another aspect of minimal usage. You need to explain how the image helps the reader better understand the topic. Non-free images cannot be used for the decorative purpose of making the article look nice. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liam9287: Some of your recent uploads of Canadian company logos actually seem to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection (see also c:COM:TOO for reference) in both the US (where the Wikipedia servers are located) and Canada (the country of first publication) and probably should've been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons instead. I've converted the licensing of a few of these, but there are many others you should probably also ask about at either WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC to see whether they too can be converted to a public domain license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this isn't bad - it's actually good if any of them are too simple to be eligible for copyright. It's not really a problem to upload an image as non-free (if it complies with WP:NFCC) when it really should be considered free. From what I can see, User:Liam9287, you're doing your best to err on the side of caution and upload potentially non-free images as non-free - which you should be commended for. As Marchjuly said, you can always ask at those links (the Media Copyright Questions or MCQ page here, or the Village Pump for Copyright or VPC on Commons) to determine if they're possibly free (i.e. not original enough to be eligible for copyright in the first place) before you upload them. But when in doubt, erring on the side of caution is great! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I had no idea these could be free since they are company logos, thank you! I am still a little bit confused on what to actually type into the minimal usage box. Maybe something like "This file will only be used in (article name) and is low resolution."? Liam9287 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Userboxes

If an userbox is hosted on a subpage of another user page (like User:Username here/userbox name), do I have to ask that user for permission to use their userbox? Justjourney (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

If you have to ask for permission on a user page, you have to ask permission if it is on a user sub page. Bduke (talk)

@Bduke Can you please clarify if I can just use it, or ask the user first? Also, what happened to your signature? Justjourney (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Justjourney, userboxes are freely licensed content. They can be re-used by anyone at any time for any purpose, without asking anyone for permission, as long as misrepresentation is not involved. If you want to ask for permission as a courtesy, that is fine but is completely optional. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

To clarify the above, you probably do not need to ask anyone to use their userbox, but you seemed to be implying that that you did in some cases. Also, sorry for not signing off correctly. It is late at night here! Bduke (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Decline article

Could someone please provide me with guidance on improving my draft http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Airpaz ? Your feedback would be greatly appreciated and also I'm using reference from here agoda and trip.com. But I'm still got decline. Jodysetiawan23 (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Jodysetiawan23, the fundamental problem here is that none of the nine sources cited are independent, reliable, and providing significant coverage of the subject. The sources are all press releases, short sections about routine company activities, and one directly from the subject. WP:CORPTRIV ought to provide more guidance on what trivial coverage of a corporation is. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

You've also listed the logo as your own work. Do you personally own the rights to the logo of this travel company? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response User:CoffeeCrumbs

Could you provide specific examples of what constitutes trivial coverage of a corporation?

Regarding the logo, I do not own the rights personally; it is owned by the company. Are there any steps I need to take for the logo? Jodysetiawan23 (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Someone else has already nominated it for speedy deletion.

Trivial coverage is listed at WP:CORPTRIV as noted above. Things like basic reporting of expansions and mergers and partnerships are not considered notable unless the coverage of them is significantly more in-depth than found in any of these sources. I gotta admit, after doing some searching, I don't believe the sources exist at this time to demonstrate Airpaz is a notable company. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Please help

You have reacted to a new page, Paul Werner Glaser, I am trying to launch. Is there anything wrong with is? Of so, I can"t find it in your comments. best, Andi Andipost (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Paul Glaser

@Andipost: We do not accept content that isn't in English. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Good news is that German Wikipedia does. Within their own rules etc, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Neither Paul Werner Glaser nor Draft:Paul Werner Glaser currently exists, Andipost. Draft:Paul Glaser is perfunctory and in German. (Most earlier versions are now "deleted": this one [which you cannot now view], from June, is one of many far better developed, English-language versions. Liz "deleted" it in December because it had been abandoned.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Would you like to work on an earlier, now-"deleted" version, Andipost? -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

What is meaning of Original research according to Wikipedia policy

Original research means publishing your thoughts your personal experience which can be sourced or unsourced? For example Indian samosa give good taste is example of original reasearch? Hellorld4 (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. David notMD (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I am confussed tell me The example provided by my is original reasearch? I have read twice but Didn't understand, are personal experiences and thoughst is part of original reasearch policy? Hellorld4 (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The article Samosa has an enormous amount of detail about that food but does not say in Wikipedia's voice that they taste good. Instead, the article summarizes what reliable sources say about the flavors of the many varieties of samosas. If a Wikipedia editor was to add their personal opinion that samosas taste good or samosas taste bad, then that would be original research and not allowed. Cullen328 (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I will add that personal experience/opinion cannot be referenced, and so does not belong in an article. If there is a situation in which your experience/opinion can be referenced - for example you write food articles for a major newspaper - then Wikipedia asks that you do not add text that uses your own publications as references. David notMD (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Brand Caprinos Pizza attempting to promote on their respective page

This issue has been going on for about 4 months by now since October. is there any way to stop this? - WinterJunpei :3 13:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Is their pizza any good? lol

Just trying to add a little levity to an annoying situation. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This is an interesting situation. You created the article, but recently an IP (non-registered) editor has been adding promotional content, which you and another editor have been removing. The IP has been cautioned on the Talk page to stop. The article itself, without the promotional content, has been tagged as possible not Wikipedia-worthy for not having references that meet Wikipedia standards for corporations. The interference problem could be solved by someone starting an article for deletion nomination, but I doubt that is what you have in mind. David notMD (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Winterjunpei, I agree that the article needs more references to reliable sources that are independent of the company, but I suspect that the pizza chain is probably notable. I am an administrator and so I have pageblocked that IP from that article. Please work on improving the references. Cullen328 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to find that template which I can use to directly quote from the primary source as an explicatory footnote.

The question is the title. Thanks in advance if you can help me out -- a ne'er-do-well who wants to do well. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@SpicyMemes123 most of our standard citation templates have a parameter |quote= you can use for a quotation: there are even options to use a foreign-language quotation and its English translation. See the documentation at {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} or {{cite journal}} for examples. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Question About A Submission

Hey All- Quick question about a submission, I've tried to create a page for Thomas Haugh (basketball) he's at Uof Florida, and is having an exceptional year. Was wondering why it may have not passed inspection back on 12/24. Hoping there's some help you all can provide. Thanks! GrassrootHoops101 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Please see the message at the top of the draft for the reason that the draft was declined(not just the templated message in the red box, the reviewer left a comment below it). You have resubmitted the draft for review; the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The Comment left at Draft:Thomas Haugh applies - he does not yet meet the criteria for a college athlete to be considered notable. David notMD (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

In your experiences, can this change as a player improves? Or should I wait until he becomes worthy of criteria? Should I work to make a compelling argument that he does? GrassrootHoops101 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

A lack of notability is certainly not for all time- he certainly could meet it in the future. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He is in the middle of his 2nd year. This is basically too soon. If you compare his progress to Ryan and Xavier (your high school teammate mentions), those article have college stats, but they have either committed to NBA or are already in NBA. Also, describing performances in individual games should not be in the article. If the draft is declined again you can leave it until the end of this season, to then update if he has had a much better 2nd year and declares. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

From the last ref, appears he is not a starter? Maybe 3rd year college he is a starter with more minutes and scoring. David notMD (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense! If he has a tourney run, or takes over the starting role. It would prove to be significant and the updating would suffice! Thanks for the overview! GrassrootHoops101 (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Copyright to use for images I've been given permission to use?

This may be a dumb question, but...

I am trying to get a photo of John Laurens's gravestone. The only problem? I don't live close to South Carolina, where he lies. I'm going to either contact people who have already photographed the headstone or ask people who live there to take an updated one and give me permission to upload it on here. However, I'm unsure what copyright I'd put it under. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Ali Beary _(talk!) 16:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It would be easiest if the photographer themselves was the one to upload it to Commons. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, @331dot!

In the instance the photographer doesn't know how to use Commons or just doesn't want to, would there be a copyright I could put it under, or should I just force (not actually) them to upload it? Ali Beary _(talk!) 16:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I would ask that at Commons, but you uploading an image someone else took would require a statement from them that they are releasing the image under a copyright compatible with Commons'(allowing for reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution), and you would need to work with those at Commons to show that. That's not too hard as I understand it, but, again, it's much easier if the photographer themselves uploads the image. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Ali Beary. In that case they (not you) would have to send the mail mentioned DONATEIMAGE (it says it refers to images already published online, but I believe it applies to unpublished images as well) ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Ali Beary _(talk!) 16:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way: Permission for you when it comes to images and their use on Wikipedia means nothing. Wikipedia would be the one needing the permission as it's hosting the image. (And as a rule, we won't seek it out or use images where only Wikipedia has permission.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

A Page I Created Weeks Ago Is Not Indexed On Google

Hi,

I have been creating Wikipedia pages since early January and I have successfully published a few. However, I noticed that a page, Iremide Adeoye, that I created over 3 weeks ago is not indexed on Google. Whenever I Google it, I can only find Wiki links to pages it is connected to but never the actual page. I also haven't received any notifications saying there's something wrong it. What could be the problem? I need assistance please. JohnInyiriOgba (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@JohnInyiriOgba pages are only indexed after they've been marked as reviewed at new page patrol, or if they have remained unreviewed for ninety days. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. This helps. JohnInyiriOgba (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Help getting a successful publishment of a martial arts pioneer from the late 1800s-early 1900s

]Draft talk:Tatsusaburo Nakayama is my draft. I have been working on this for a year and a half, and recently spent much time researching more sources and info to add to the draft. Originally, the draft was sourced from the Wiki Japanese page (not sure why the Wiki Japanese page exists but the Wiki English page never has)...but it was my starting template, then I have added from books, magazines, and websites, additional info. I am a wiki page-submission newbie, but I feel in the Martial Arts community, this individual is worthy of having his own English page; so I hope I can get it tightened down enough, to pass submission. My prior submissions failed mostly on insufficient citations, of which I have spent much time researching and adding in the last few months. Can anyone who is accomplished at getting submission approval help me get it accepted? It seems there are so many technical things related to wiki approach, philosophy, format, etc....that must be known beyond just the details of the article itself, and it is quite overwhelming to know when it is 'sufficient' and ready to resubmit, with good chance of success. All help is appreciated. Davidwtaylor1 (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Davidwtaylor1, I can try to rework the way you have used references to make it conform more to the Manual of Style and point out issues, but will leave accepting or declining the draft after that. Give me some time. Thank you Reconrabbit 21:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

thanks Recon, I appreciate any and all help! Davidwtaylor1 (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

That's going to be quite a task, Reconrabbit. The oft-cited "ibid. Threadgill, Tobin and Ohgami Shingo" seems to mean "Threadgill and Ohgami, op. cit." -- but Wikipedia doesn't use "op. cit." (or "ibid."). (The combination of a named reference and Template:Rp would help, of course.) What's a lot more alarming than the mere format of these citations is that the stated ISBN for this book, ISBN 978-1-7334223-2-1, is unknown to WorldCat; and Google only knows of it via Wikipedia and Wikipedia scrapes. There is evidence here of the existence of the book (titled Shindō Yōshin Ryū; note the macrons). It's reviewed favorably, but described as Selbstverlag. Self-publication is alarming; that matter aside, is the book available from any publicly accessible library anywhere; and if not, is it proper for an article to use it as a reference? As an example of a Japanese-language source, what is presented as if a web page reproducing "Mastering the Mystery of Kicking From '2D' to '3D' Techniques" within a special issue of Secret Kick Monthly (though in Japanese, with unspecified titles) turns out to be merely some retailer's page advertising a copy (in "good" condition) that they're selling of 秘伝の蹴り　蹴りの奥義を極める　「二次元」から「三次元」の技へ, an April 1998 supplement to the magazine 空手道 (Karatedō). I can't find this supplement at either CiNii or WorldCat, though I may just be insufficiently caffeinated for the task. -- Hoary (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit quality control: capture cards

Hey guys. I'm relatively new to editing, and just wanted to double-check something.

I found the redirect Capture Card -> Video capture and chose to update it to point to Video capture#Devices specifically, then tweaked the article to mention "this functionality is typically performed by a dedicated video capture device, colloquially called a capture card." Then I noticed that this is a stub article with basically no citations.

I'm kinda struggling to find any sources that aren't either advertisements for cards or AI generated sludge. But we clearly can't settle for "citation: /wiki/Capture_Card redirects here".

I did find this, but there's not much meat here. https://restream.io/learn/what-is/capture-card/ Should I just do it? And what do I do in the future? Was "edit first, cite later" okay for trivial ones like this, or should I have held back? NomadicVoxel (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@NomadicVoxel in my opinion, the "colloquially called a capture card" is a WP:SKYISBLUE situation, where you technically don't need a citation. You're right that it's not an ideal situation, though.

The source you've found isn't the ideal type of source, given the circumstances of its publication (more as an instructional thing for using a related platform, rather than an independent look at capture cards), though it would be bare-minimum reliable for some basic facts. This book is pretty dated but seems to have some content on capture cards. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Elli That makes sense yeah. And I appreciate the help with digging for a citation. You too, @Reconrabbit. Though it looks like user @StarryGrandma beat us to finding a source for that one (TY).

Three good sources on the topic, I think I'll give it a better look tonight. NomadicVoxel (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@NomadicVoxel: Does editing in a mention even work? --Nope, a mention causes a notification only if made in the same edit in which you add your signature. So here I've notified you, and now I notify also Elli. See WP:PING for more help. --CiaPan (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This chapter of a book published by Apress, part of Springer Nature, might have some info: doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-8841-2_5 (Quote: "It’s helpful to have a video capture card or device that captures video as AVI files to your computer.") Reconrabbit 21:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying copyright tags for an image

Greetings! I have found an image with the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 KR) copyright tag and I was wondering what option or copyright tag I should enter when uploading this to Wikimedia Commons. This is because when uploading, I was told by the prompt that I had to have a valid copyright tag in a template such as Template:"Cc-by-2.0". Thanks in advance! ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken I'm afraid you cannot upload it. CC-BY-NC-SA is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for letting me know. I'll try to find an alternative image. ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)