From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Not sure how to get around the "Could not determine if this image is suitable" error.[edit]

Hi all,

First time editor here, so forgive me if this is a silly question.

I am trying to improve the page for the NSWRFS by adding the missing images of epaulette insignias that correspond with the different ranks. There are already about 5 or 6 images of different epaulettes, with about 9 or so missing.

I have some decent quality graphics of the missing ranks insignias that would fill out the table nicely, but I am unable to upload them because of a "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons" error.

The NSWRFS is a state government firefighting agency, and I see no reason as to why there would be an issue with uploading these images. I understand that the error also says to only upload photographs that you have taken yourself, but I could name many articles that use digitally-made renders no worries.

I'm sure there must be something obvious I'm missing, please help me out.


NotConga (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NotConga: Did you create the images you are trying to upload? If not, what source did you get them from? It sounds to me like there was a problem with the information you provided about the images, leading to that error message. Wikimedia Commons can host images that are public domain, or released by the copyright holder under an acceptable free license. What is the copyright status of these images? Somebody created them, after all, and that person owns the copyright regardless of whether the object portrayed is not copyrighted. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, NotConga. I suppose that you must be talking about New South Wales Rural Fire Service. Please give the complete name of an article that you want to discuss. The issue probably relates to copyright. Very simple designs are not subject to copyright protection. More complex designs involving greater creativity are subject to copyright protection. So, you need to find out whether or not the New South Wales Rural Fire Service retains copyright to their original designs, or whether they release the images into the public domain. In the United States where I live, the US federal government releases every photo and image created by their own employees while on the job into the public domain. On the other hand, many state and local government agencies retain copyright. So, you need to check with that agency. Cullen328 (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NotConga, you have now uploaded copyrighted images to Wikimedia Commons including a copyright symbol. This is completely wrong. Copyrighted content is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons in any way, shape or form. You do not have the authority to freely license copyrighted work. This is a legal issue. Please correct your errors. Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Cullen328 Hey mate, did a bit of googling and the such, and this says the content licensed under CCA 4.0 along with a statement to use as attribution, which I used and attached to the images. I made the changes and went to a make a cuppa, which is why I didn't reply for a while, my bad.
Not quite sure what the issue here is, especially considering there's already six(6) uploaded images depicting other various rank insignias. I'm not the most knowledgeable about the specifics of copyright, just trying to improve an article. Please let me know if I've missed a step or something else obvious, genuinely do just want to help.
Cheers NotConga (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NotConga, that page you linked to specifically excludes the State's Coat of Arms and any other symbols, logos or trademarks of the State of NSW or any Department or agency of the State (unless incidentally reproduced in using an unaltered document under the Creative Commons licence) from Creative Commons licensing. You cannot upload any such excluded symbols to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen328 (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah righto, my bad then. Just a bit confused now about how the person who uploaded the other six reference images got away with it. Should they be removed? Additionally, is there a way to circumvent this issue? If I take a physical photo of the epaulettes or recreate them in photoshop, would that still be subject to the same restrictions?
Also, if the coat of arms is and logo of the organisation is not licensed under Creative Commons, how can it be displayed on its page the way it is? This is all quite confusing, and to be honest, is starting to seem like a great waste of my time. NotConga (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NotConga, of the other six images, five of them are exceptionally simple designs of basic geometric shapes and text in a common font. Such images are not protected by copyright. The sixth has a crown that was probably first published over 95 years ago and would be in the public domain. As for the logo at the beginning of the article, a low resolution version is permitted for identification purposes under our policy on use of non-free images. See WP:LOGO for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328, I have liaised with with New South Wales Rural Fire Service communications, and they have approved the usage of the insignia for the purpose of public information via Wikipedia.
I do not want anymore trouble with this matter, so is there anyone I require to show proof to in order to have this approved?
Cheers NotConga (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NotConga, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Please also note that the NSWRFS cannot limit the usage to the purpose of public information via Wikipedia., Freely licensed material can be used by anyone for any purpose whatsoever. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328, thanks for the link mate, just a bit confused about which part of the article relates to my problem. Please forgive my ignorance, I have never been very literate in legal-ese. For reference: I am trying to donate images that have contain copyrighted materials but that have been cleared for use on this site via email. NotConga (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NotConga, when you write cleared for use on this site, that is a problem. Only the copyright holder can freely license the image and that will allow the images to be used by anyone on any website or any publication for any purpose without asking for permission. Attribution is the only requirement. This is a binding legal transaction and you and the agency need to understand the legal-ese. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, everyone, RFS states The NSW Rural Fire Service supports and encourages the reuse of its publicly funded information, and endorses the use of the Australian Governments [sic] Open Access and Licensing Framework (AusGOAL). … All NSW Rural Fire Service material on this website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence, except as noted below. [1] If the images appear on the website, then we're probably ok. I'm not familiar with the pocketbook app (e.g. mentioned at this file description ) Publications other than the website could have different licensing. The seal with the burning tree design does appear on the site: does that mean derived designs, like an epaulette that bears the burning tree, would be ok? @NotConga, Cullen328, Anachronist. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 07:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Pelagic. Did you read further down on that page where it says that it specifically excludes the State's Coat of Arms and any other symbols, logos or trademarks of the State of NSW or any Department or agency of the State? You can't just read the first paragraph or two. Cullen328 (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Cullen328. I saw the sentence but may have misconstrued the "agency" part. Though RFS is established by statute, it's not AFAIK a Department of the NSW government. I wouldn't have thought it an Agency either, but could well be wrong. "Other symbols or logos" does seem quite broad: I imagine the intent is to rule out impersonation or false claims of endorsement/affiliation, but it could knock out reproduction of any logo-bearing materials. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 10:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

season 2 will be filmed in Romania ?[edit]

the filming of season 2 will take place in Romania ?? EduarddRichardd (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EduarddRichardd For these types of questions, you should visit WP:Reference Desk. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 04:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the filming of wednesday season 2 will take place in Romania ?? EduarddRichardd (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a place for asking questions about something that isn't related to Wikipedia, please use ██ Dentsinhere43 is a new Wikipedian. 05:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EduarddRichardd and Dentsinhere43: WP:Reference Desk is exactly for asking questions about something that isn't related to Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wednesday (TV series)#Future says the producers are open to the possibility of a future series. No doubt when a Season 2 is reported in reliable media, the article will be updated. But we don't have a crystal ball, @EduarddRichardd. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 07:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, yeah, Reference Desk is the preferred venue for this kind of Q&A. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 07:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What show? Cwater1 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My wikipedia page not found[edit]

Hi wikipedia team, I am not sure that I am at the right place. It was so proud to have my wikipedia page here. For the last year there is my Wikipedia page named Jino Kunnumpurath and I do not know who created it. but now it is not found, I have contacted many colleagues who have wikipedia page about this. and they said the same that they do not know that who created their articles. and some of them told me that wikipedia team create articles it self. I am so thankful to you all to create my article. Now I cannot find it on google and even in Wikipedia. What happened ? I have searched in google and youtube for the solutions and I came to know that there is an option to request undeletion. but I cannot raise a request because it is showing that only wikipedia's registered users can only request for it. Somebody please help me to recover my page? Jino Kunnumpurath.

This is so confusing and I am not sure about all these things. I came here because I found that this is a way to contact Wikipedia team, if this is not the way. please guide me how can I do it. Thank you.

Regards Jino Kunnumpurath Jinokunnumpurathofficial (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is possible that an article existed but was then nominated and processed for Speedy deletion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). A Teahouse host who is also an Administrator may be able to confirm this. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not under this user name. No article or page was deleted. Filters did not stop any posting from this account as of this writing. Maybe user has written under another name? -- Alexf(talk) 14:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was created by sock. log 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jinokunnumpurathofficial, the post above means that the article was created by someone violating Wikipedia's rules (see WP:SOCKPUPPET). They were blocked and their work was deleted. A request for undeletion may be denied, but you can still try making such a request at WP:UNDELETE. Please see WP:COI if you intend to do any writing about yourself or related subjects on Wikipedia. (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, the article cannot be restored ? :( Jinokunnumpurathofficial (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please help me on this. I am not experienced. I got little bit idea Jinokunnumpurathofficial (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Jino Kunnumpurath, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place for new or inexperienced editors to ask for help, so it is the right place for you to come and ask. The "Wikipedia team" that you refer to is thousands and thousands of volunteer editors - including you and me - who work on what they choose when they choose. With few exceptions, anybody may create or work on any article - but editors are discouraged from working on articles about themselves or about subjects they are closely involved with - which is why the articles about you and your colleagues were created by people you didn't know.
Unfortunately, some editors are irresponsible and break Wikipedia's rules: the editor who created the article about you was one such, and so the article was deleted. As I am not an admin, I can't look at the deleted article, and see what its quality was. As others have said, it is possible that an admin would restore the article, though it will probably need some work to bring it up to standard, and ideally somebody unconneced with you should do that work.
Please understand that, though you were "proud to have [your] Wikipedia page", Wikipedia's articles are not for the benefit of their subject. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then we want there to be an article about you (though it will not be your article, or for your benefit, except incidentally). If you do not meet these criteria (most of us don't) then there cannot be an article about you.
A point about your user name: while I believe that the name you have chosen, "Jinokunnumpurathofficial" is acceptable under Wikipedia's rules, please understand that "official" has absolutely no standing in Wikipedia. As I said, (almost) anybody can edit an article, whether they use their real name (as I do), a made-up name (as many editors do), or choose not to create an account at all, and edit without being logged in (so they will be identified by a number).
On the other hand, all information in a Wikipedia article should come from a reliable published source: personal knowledge or recollection is not accepted unless it has also been reliably published, whether it comes from the subject or anywhere else. Therefore whether your account is or isn't genuinely used by Jino Kunnumpurath is irrelevant (except for the question of editing with a conflict of interest), and again "official" means nothing to Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for this detailed explanation. So I got something about how wiki works. I chose this because jinokunnumpurath username was not available. Anyway could you please help to get the article back. Jinokunnumpurathofficial (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The user name User:Jinokunnumpurath is not in use. And you were told earlier in this thread how to request undeletion of the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, I requested an undelete option as an editor suggested above. any help from your side. Jinokunnumpurathofficial (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jinokunnumpurathofficial: I can understand how disappointing it must be to find that the article of which you were so proud has gone. Unfortunately, many people who would like to see themselves on Wikipedia have similar experiences, and very often don't understand why. However, I shall try to explain some of the issues concerned, in the hope of helping you to better understand the situation.
  • The article was deleted because it was created by an editor who was found by a checkuser to be evading blocks on other accounts. (A checkuser is someone who has access to Wikipedia's technical logs, so that they can check on the editing history of people who use more than one account.) The checkuser described the account as "part of a spam ring". I don't have access to the technical logs, but as an administrator I do have access to the deleted editing history of the various accounts involved, and there are such striking similarities between the editing of the person who created the article about you and the editing of some of the other accounts that even without seeing the technical evidence, I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a connection to the other accounts, and that the account in question was being used to evade blocks. I don't think there is any reasonable likelihood at all of the deleted article being restored.
  • Trying to get an article about yourself on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as you will see if you read Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest. I note that you have set up an account for the sole purpose of getting coverage after yourself following the deletion of an article which was created by someone described as "part of a spam ring", but that you say you don't know who created that article.
  • In order to be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, a subject is required to satisfy certain notability guidelines. Obviously you can read those guidelines if you wish to, but unfortunately there are rather a lot of them, and they are rather long. (In my opinion Wikipedia has far too many policies and guidelines, and most of them are far too long, making it difficult for new editors to know what is required.) However, the central point of the notability guidelines is quite simple: to be considered notable, a subject needs to have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I have checked the references which were given in the article, and I have also made my own searches for information about you. Nothing I have found comes anywhere remotely near to indicating that you satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You are to be found on such sites as IMDb, instagram, facebook, deezer, spotify, and so on, but none of those is of any value at all in establishing notability. Anyone at all can set up a Facebook account and write about themselves; anyone at all can publish their own work on instagram, deezer, spotify; anyone who has ever done anything whatever in the film industry can have a page about themselves on IMDb. Likewise, someone's own web site, interviews with them, write-ups of press releases, pages on web sites with connections to the person in question, and so on and so on do not indicate notability.
  • You are, of course, free to take whatever steps you choose in order to try to establish yourself as the subject of a Wikipedia article, including requesting restoration of the deleted article, paying someone to write an article for you, or whatever else, but my honest advice to you is that you would be better advised to put your efforts instead into seeking publicity for yourself in other places. As I have already said, the likelihood of the deleted article being restored is virtually nil, and because of the failure to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, any article about you is likely to be deleted, so any time and work you put into seeking publicity on Wikipedia is likely to be wasted.
I don't know how helpful what I have said may be to you. Obviously it is not likely to be welcome to you, but I think it is actually more likely to be helpful to you to let you know what the situation is, rather than give you false hope by encouraging you to put time and effort into what is virtually bound to end in failure. JBW (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. I have a article I have created and I want to get it approved and made into a page. I need help getting an image in, but go onto my page and you will see my sandbox link. You will see my page. Thanks a bunch! User:Robins bird talk 21:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: User:Robins bird/sandbox Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 22:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Robins bird@Sungodtemple, it appears that the scaly leg article represents another term for or manifestation of scaly foot. As it contains a lot of how-to information and not a lot of reliable medical sources, it might best be turned into a WP:redirect to the scaly foot article. Quisqualis (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scaly leg has been an article since 2004 and is currently a redirect to Scaly foot. It would probably be better to improve the Scaly Foot article. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks.
User:Robins bird talk 22:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will say that the scaly leg article is a more in-depth "zoom in" for lack of words on the scaly foot article. The Scaly Foot article is more of the general, all types of mites look at the condition. My article was more or less for the single variant of the disease. I appreciate the feedback, and I will try to help improve the preexisting article and edit in my sandbox less. Thank you!
User:Robins bird talk 22:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's stop stupid sexist comments[edit]

Hello, I recently read the biography of one English woman singer. I was shocked to read the comment about the difference in age (9 years...) between her and her "younger" boyfriend/husband. There are so many men with women 20 years younger!! I think it's high time this sort of remarks/comments disappear from Wikipedia pages. Cheers, Cris (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please tell us which page you are referring to and it can be addressed. Theroadislong (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vague threads like this help nobody; we're not psychic and don't innately know what article you're referring to. Details are important if you hope to get anything resembling a useful answer. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Cris, many of the source materials used in writing Wikipedia's articles are older and/or inappropriately sexist. If an article is edited by a user who doesn't notice the sexism, that particular prejudice will find its way into Wikipedia. I recommend noting this deficiency on the talk pages of such articles, with a suggestion as to how you would rephrase the passage, and allow about 10 days before modifying the article's text yourself. Quisqualis (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a fundamental problem with older subjects where we may be forced to use older biographies and articles. The old sources will write with the social norms and moralities of their time. We cannot change what our sources say. In some cases, having a younger husband would have been seen as quite scandalous. We need to report factually how this affected the person's life, albeit without supporting a stupidly sexist viewpoint, but we might be stuck with a source that does support the stupidly sexist viewpoint because it was written at a time when this viewpoint was considered respectable and normal. All we can do is distance ourselves by choosing our wording: "According to X's biographer, Y, she destroyed her career and social chances by marrying an inappropriately young partner, and was obliged to spend the rest of her life living in a shoebox north of Sheffield". We don't even have the option of adding "a partner considered inappropriately young by the moral standards of her age", because we'd have to find a source to indicate what the moral standards of her age actually were, and even then, we are running the risk of building our own moral discussion (see WP:SYNTH) instead of merely reflecting what X's biographers genuinely said. It is hard to discuss moralities with which we do not agree, while remaining neutral and true to sourcing. It requires a very careful balancing act of wording.
But having said all the stuff above, which applies to historic figures, if you come across stupid bits of sexist trivia that aren't really a major part of someone's life, by all means trim them out of the article. Magazines love to put in these little bits, which have the feeling of two people having a gossip over an office coffee ("Oooh, and you should see her boyfriend! I mean, I shouldn't say, but have you looked at his ears... I mean, well..."). These are "human interest" additions, not necessarily relevant to someone's life and career. We're a nice boring encyclopaedia that's not obliged to try to appeal to the inner gossip. We can safely remain factual. Elemimele (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A search found this in Medina (singer): "From 2012 to 2014 she dated and lived with Danish singer Christopher, who is 9 years younger." She is Danish so I'm not sure it's the one you read. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been controller hacked can someone loop me back to 2016 november.[edit]

Ive been controller hacked would someone one please loop me back to november 2016 (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this question about Wikipedia? If not, you may ask at the Reference desk, with additional details to enable them to understand your problem. Quisqualis (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reset button is behind your left ear. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 06:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding images under public domain[edit]

Hi! I am currently working on an article for my art history class and I'm trying upload images of art pieces that are under the public domain. I'm uploading them through the Upload Wizard option but it is asking me for the exact day, month and year the image was taken. What am I supposed to put on there if I am not sure of that information? Marieaburto (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Marieaburto. Even though an art piece is in the public domain, a photo or drawing of that piece of art may be copyrighted. You may want to read Wikipedia:Copyright, which provides links to other copyright articles. Best wishes on your article draft. Karenthewriter (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marieaburto, if you don't know, you may put the year or even the century, if you know it. If you get an error message, you can contact the Commons:Help desk. Quiqualis (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Marieaburto. Copyright law is complex. My understanding is that a photo of a two dimensional work of art such as a painting that is in the public domain cannot be copyrighted. On the other hand, a photo of a three dimensional work of public domain art such a sculpture can be copyrighted. This is because there is an element of creativity involved in selecting the angle, lighting the object properly, perhaps selecting a backdrop, and so on. You should be uploading public domain content to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen328 (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Marieaburto! Hit the pencil button to change from calendar picker to free text. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 06:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Does wikipedia have a real discord? or is that made by fans? The Power is There at Your Command (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an unofficial one, see Wikipedia:Discord. Official means of communication should be on-wiki or on IRC. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok. good night. The Power is There at Your Command (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing my banking information on my Wiki account[edit]

Hello -- I have a new bank. How do I change that information for my wiki account? Harrywt (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Harrywt. Are you talking about donating to the Wikimedia Foundation? Your phrasing makes me slightly concerned because you said your wiki account. I don't really know much about them but there's scams out there where people will claim they can do things for you on Wikipedia if you pay them. For your sake, I hope that's not the case.
But if you're talking about donating to the WMF, I'd suggest emailing on how to change your banking information. Surprisingly the FAQs don't cover this [2]. I'd also suggest looking into if you really want to donate, honestly. There's some threads at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) that are more critical about the fundraising campaigns. Ultimately it's your choice, though. Does this help at all? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Harrywt, your wiki editing account can optionally have an email address but we don't store your banking details. Recurring donations are managed separately, see ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 07:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ASSIST. WIKIPEDIA. with. the. sales. of RAYMOND. CHOW. art,drawings, prints. paintings.[edit]

CAN I. RAYMOND. CHOW. ARTIST. OF. 63 PLUS. YEARS. professional. artist assist. in. soe. art sale on. line 2 assist. WIKIPEDIA. of. which I am on, included. as. RAYMOND. CHOW. artist. description? (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I am afraid I'm not sure what you are asking (and your very very unconventional use of full stops (periods) after almost every word makes it hard to decode). But it sounds as if you are asking if you can use Wikipedia sell your work. The answer is an absolute and resounding NO! Please see NOTPROMO. ColinFine (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to be about Raymond Chow (artist). I note that its section "Commissions and collections" is completely unreferenced. -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the "Career" section is very poorly referenced. David10244 (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newby Queries[edit]

As you may well have gathered, I am very new to this. It is my intention to re-write the existing Wikipedia page about RAF Locking. I have sought t understanding the editing process and have a number of questions. Hopefully this is the right place to ask.

1. Having noted the need to cite every entry on the page, I am surprised that the item about the RAFLAA monument has no referencing. How could that be? It is not a problem, I will have a citation appropriate to this entry.

2. On the subject of citations, I shall be drawing heavily on the content of a book. I understand that each citation needs to list the page number. Is this strictly necessary given that the book has a very adequate index?

3. I expect to undertake editing over several sessions, probably on successive days. Can I simply save my work after each session? Does this save to sandbox? When I’m eventually ready, I presume I press “Publish”. Will this cause my work to become available to the public or will it now pass through a process of validation?

Any guidance would be most welcome. Thanks Stephen Pemberton Stevepem (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stevepem Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you notice something that lacks a reference, and have one, please add it. As this is a volunteer project, things like that slip through the cracks often. Yes, page numbers should be provided for as complete a citation as possible. "Publish changes" should be interpreted to mean "save", it used to say that, but was changed to emphasize all edits are visible to the public. There is normally not a "validation" process(unless the article is Pending Changes protected). You are welcome to either add edits one at a time when you are able to make them, or you could do something like draft a large edit in your sandbox first. It's up to you. There are also ways to mark an article as under construction, or indicate a large edit is in process. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Stephen, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. Thank you for wanting to improve the article RAF Locking. To answer your questions:
  1. . It is a policy that every claim in a Wikipedia article be verifiable from a reliable published source, but it is not policy that every statement must actually be cited. However, a lot of editors (including me) take the view that if you're going to put information in, you must have a source for it (otherwise you can't be confident that it is appropriately verifiable) so why not put it in? So those who review new articles and recent changes often require full referencing. In the past we were less careful about this, and there are many seriously underreferenced articles (though on a quick look, RAF Locking looks reasonably well referenced), but improving the referencing of an article. is always a welcome change.
  2. . It is strongly preferred to give the page, to assist a reader in checking a reference. You can use a named reference and the {{sfn}} template to avoid repeating the whole reference. See WP:REFB.
  3. . The best way to do this is to make incremental changes to the article, updating the public article as you go. If this won't work you can copy part or all of the article to your sandbox, work on it there (every change to anything in Wikipedia is public, which is why the "save changes" button is now called "publish changes"; but your sandbox won't be found by external searches, only by people who know to search inside Wikipedia, and the article won't be changed. Then when you are satisfied, you can copy your change back to the article.
A couple of caveats:
  1. Copying within Wikipedia is permitted, provided the source is acknowledged; so you should record the copying both before and after, normally in the edit summary: see copying within Wikipedia.
  2. If you will be working on your sandbox for more than a few hours, it would be worth putting the {{under construction}} template on the article, to warn other editors.
  3. If you are making substantial changes, it is probably a good idea to discuss them on the article's talk page first.
ColinFine (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. One addition: the guideline is that it should be reasonably obvious what each citation supports (WP:CITEFOOT). In this article it's unlikely you'll be saying anything contentious where the citation needs to be very close indeed to the contentious statement, even attached to a particularly contentious word. You might have a short paragraph of text summarising information taken from within a few pages of a book. In this case it is sufficient to have a single inline citation for the paragraph rather than repeating near-identical citations sentence by sentence through the paragraph. I.e. you can say "The sun is the thing at the middle of the solar system. It's hot. It's big. It's round." and put a single citation at the end, rather than four individual references to successive pages of the same book. Of course if anyone reverts or complains that you're not supporting the information, you should then put in the individual citations because it's become contentious, but in reality so long as the reader can readily verify everything you've written, you should be okay. And I would recommend working on the actual article in situ rather than in a sandbox; it is generally helpful to make a lot of small changes rather than one enormous change, because then if anyone disagrees, they can discuss it with you edit-by-edit, and revert individual bits that they don't like, rather than having to deal with a massive fait accompli in one lump. Elemimele (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: RAF Locking.
You say: "It is my intention to re-write ..." then "I expect to undertake editing over several sessions, probably on successive days. Can I simply save my work after each session? Does this save to sandbox?" When I’m eventually ready, I presume I press “Publish”. Given that the article already exists and looks to be decent (if perhaps a little brief), then the general practice it not to re-write. Rather, do a series of small, self-contained edits, one detail at a time, making gradual improvements. And you can do them on the live article. But if you are unsure, then use your sandbox to practice those small edits. Make good use of the "show preview" button to check their effects before you save/publish them. Hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stevepem One additional note, if the book you have is self-published (by any author), it does not qualify as a reliable source in Wikipedia, and neither would an unpublished manuscript. If the book has been written by you and published by a quality publishing house, see WP:CITESELF. Quisqualis (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to create Extra Sandbox ?[edit]

Please I would like to know How to create Extra Sandbox ? Knpower23 (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Knpower23, click on User:Knpower23/Extra Sandbox, edit, "publish" (which just means "save, publicly"). -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Knpower23 You can iust change the "/sandbox" part of the urlto whatever you want(eg. sandbox2) and it would become another new sandbox RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 14:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proof of Fermat's little theorem.[edit]

Dear member, it's been a while since I visited this site.

I have written a proof of Fermat's theorem.

I am quit insecure.

It would please me if a mathematician reviews my proof and lets me know if my proof is valid and correct.

I'm grateful for any help I can get.

An answer on this page would be fine.

Yours Censirely yours Wim Coenen.

Wim Coenen (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)'s_little_theorem Wim Coenen (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Proofs of Fermat's little theorem instead. Shantavira|feed me 13:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Shantavira,
I’m aware of the existence of the article in Wikipedia..
The existing proofs in this article differ from my proof, as my proof is a proof by mathematical induction.
I will not ad my proof to the proofs of Fermat’s little theorem, unless I'm absolutely sure my proof is valid and correct.
Hence my request to you to review my proof more closely.
Thanks in advance, Wim Coenen (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are not confident in your proof, you could suggest it using the article's talk page. Most Teahouse editors are unlikely to be experts in that branch of mathematics, but editors who have that article and its talk page on their watchlist will hopefully have the relevant expertise. If you don't get a response there, you could try a relevant WikiProject. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wim Coenen Whether your proof is correct or not, it cannot be included in any article in Wikipedia unless it has already been published elsewhere in a reliable source. By policy, Wikipedia does not publish original research. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Turnbull's reply is key - English Wikipedia requires that content (your proposed proof) is published in a reputable publication that can serve as a reference. I suppose you could post the link at the discussion page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics but any confirmation you get there would not be justification for adding your proof to the existing article. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wim Coenen Right, Wikipedia is not the place to first publish new mathematics, and it's not the place to get mathematicians to look at new (original) research. Plus, you asked almost the exact same thing, here at the Teahouse, in December 2021. Back then, it was an analytical proof; now it's proof by induction. Apparently the answers a year ago were not clear enough. Some of our editors are mathematicians, but don't look to Wikipedia to verify mathematics of this kind -- look for a reputable publisher for peer review, and submit a paper for their consideration. David10244 (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I added an infobox to Quinton Reviews, I would like my *proper* credit now. Drjump! (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Teahouse#Quinton_Reviews. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drjump!: "proper credit" is not really a thing on Wikipedia; any edits you make to an article will be visible in the article history. --bonadea contributions talk 14:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drjump!: The history here appears to be that you created a draft Quinton Reviews in October, subequently abandoned (rejected?), then someone else created Quinton Kyle Hoover in November. You credit yourself on your User page for Quinton Reviews, which is your own business. There is no place within Wikipedia where article creators are acknowledged other than going back to the beginning of article View history to find the first edit. For Quinton Kyle Hoover, not you. Recently, you attempted to add a second Infobox to Quinton Kyle Hoover - twice - reverted twice. Please do not do that again, as that would be considered 'edit warring', which could lead to you being temporarily blocked. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything I wrote was true. It's called a reboot. If this edit war continues, let's just delete the entire thing. Drjump! (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and one more thing to end the madness. Drjump! (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, there is no independent notability for the Youtube channel. I suggest that you spend a bit of time, a few months at least, editing existing articles before you jump into article creation. --bonadea contributions talk 21:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drjump! You already asked this -- were the answers hard to understand the first time? You are getting the same answers this go-round, because the policies have not changed. And the article won't be deleted on your say-so. David10244 (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose delete [Category:Radical theology][edit]

Hi, Propose delete [Category:Radical theology]. Lacks Wikipedia:Notability as a well-defined term. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FatalSubjectivities, see WP:CFD#HOWTO. It's probably much easier with twinkle. WP:N is about articles, but you may be right anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, FatalSubjectivities. Categories are not articles, and do not necessarily need to satisfy notability requirments: they are meant to be an aid for navigating Wikipedia articles.
The two questions are, Is this category likely to be useful? - i.e. is it a category that people are going to see as natural for the subjects in it; and Is it appropriate to put subjects in this catgory? This second question is important where the category might be contentious (eg the national, religious, or sexual identification of individuals), but not in many cases. I guess here it is possible that it would be, in that there might be disagreement as to what theological matters are "radical": in that case, it would be wise to confine it to subjects whose sources describe them as radical. ColinFine (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion Sorting[edit]

I am LordVoldemort754. I am active in deletion discussion so I want to know that Is there is any gadget in preferences which can help me to add deletion sorting easily and fast in any deletion discussion. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 15:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LordVoldemort728 See User:Enterprisey/delsort. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for very urgent comment. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I add script in any namespace which starts from User:LordVoldemort728/ or I can add script in the User:LordVoldemort728/common.js and User:LordVoldemort728/vector.js only. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LordVoldemort728, sorry, not my area of expertise. I used the ScriptInstaller Enterprisey recommended, I remember that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Thanks. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How to use this script User:FR30799386/copyvio-check? ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Visual editor and JSTOR articles[edit]

Using Visual Editor to add a JSTOR URL to a citation for an article from The English Historical Review I notice manual edit doesn't appear to have a specific field for journal names and volume details. Is the the only way to include journal details and JSTOR using Visual Editor to delete the citation and use automatic edit? Mcljlm (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mcljlm. Using the source editor gives you much more flexibility than the Visual Editor. See Template:Cite journal which I have used many times. Cullen328 (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will the JSTOR and article details appear Cullen328 if I delete the citation and use automatic edit? Mcljlm (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mcljlm, you can use the Visual Editor and it will show the fields for {{cite journal}}. Choose "Cite" then "Manual" then "Journal". At the left there will be a list of all the template fields. Click the box beside "JSTOR" (near the bottom of the list) and it will appear on the right to be filled in. Enter the "jstor" number there and the template will generate a link to the article. Do not use the "url" field for this. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clicking Journal leads to all fields being empty. After filling in the details the citation appears as:
Douglas, David (May 1946). "The Earliest Norman Counts". The English Historical Review. 61 (240): 130. JSTOR 555396 – via JSTOR.
Adding "page=" in front of 130 results in: Douglas, David (May 1946). "The Earliest Norman Counts". The English Historical Review. 61 (240): p.130. JSTOR 555396 – via JSTOR. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help).
Adding |page= infront of 130 results in |page=130. JSTOR 555396 – via JSTOR.
Should the template appear with details? What do I need to so that p. appears in front of 130? Mcljlm (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mcljlm, what it should look like is this when you save it:
Douglas, David (May 1946). "The Earliest Norman Counts". The English Historical Review. 61 (240): 129–156. JSTOR 555396.
For a journal article reference the pages are usually the pages that the article occupies. It can be just the pages you are citing, but in either case there is no way to have it say pages in the format that "cite journal" uses. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there anyway I can include JSTOR and p.130 without using Source Editor which I don't understand well enough to use? If not perhaps you StarryGrandma or someone else could add the JSTO URL to citation [2] in the 2nd paragraph of William Longsword. Mcljlm (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mcljlm, I have done so. Sorry that our referencing system can be so confusing. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@StarryGrandmaThanks. Interestingly, in my attempts there were times when there was a hyperlink from the title to the article; not sure how that came about. Now readers will need to know the link is in the JSTOR . Mcljlm (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving a stub[edit]

I'm new and have corrected a few typos so far, this question is more involved than typos!

While reading "A walk through the year" by Edwin Way Teale, I wanted more information about one of his entries about an Italian naturalist, Donati, who collected seeds. Wiki has a page for Vitaliano Donati that is marked as a stub. Teale's book (my wording) states:

all of Donati's possessions including seeds gathered from Africa were stolen before his trip home. The thief found a packet addressed to Carl Linnaeus which contained the seeds and sent it on to Linnaeus in Sweden. The ship Donati was on in 1762 was wrecked and all drowned. [if the thief hadn't taken the seeds and sent them on, they would have been lost]

I don't know where Teale got his information but I'd like to add this nice tidbit about the seeds to Donati's page, which simply says that Donati died traveling on a ship in the Indian Ocean. It doesn't say it was wrecked and all was lost including all people.

Is there anything I can add to the current page now? Where would you suggest I find documentation to add the ship wreck information and connection to Linnaeus and seed packet? There are notes in the back of Teale's book, but none relating to Donati or Linnaeus. Teale died in 1980.

Thanks so much for any help!! Ctterminator (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since Teale was a respected professional in the field who published things, his publications can be used as sources; you can put the tidbit in, citing Teale as your source. If you are in two minds about the reliability, and think Teale might have been speculating, you can always say "according to Teale....", in which case Wikipedia is correct even if Teale gets disproven! We don't have to find sources-for-sources, only sources-for-Wikipedia. Elemimele (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Ctterminator. Edwin Way Teale was a respected naturalist who won a Pulitzer Prize. His book should be considered a reliable source for Donati's sad fate. Feel free to expand Donati's biography, citing Teale's book as your source. If you can find additional sources, that would be even better. Referencing for beginners may be worth reading. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cant log in[edit]

my account is @The Power is There at Your Command, I got logged out, I dont know when, but i noticed when I went to remove content from my sandbox. Now I cant log in. I dont know why this stuff always happens to me 😭. Im getting a message that It wont let me log in to prevent hijacking. (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try another browser, or try deleting and cookies in your current browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page[edit]

Hello, I am an unregistered IP with a question on talk pages. More than a month ago, I have made new sections in talk pages or edits to talk pages that say that a specific change should be made (They are backed with reliable sources, at least I think so. Also, the edits were on a different IP address)

The pages are these pages: (I was the IP) (I made the section and wrote it)

It has been, as I said, more than a month, and nobody has responded to the edits i made in the talk page. Should I be bold and make the changes I want anyway, or should I close the discussion and not do anything? And if it is the first option, should I notify that I made the change in the talk discussion? 


2601:600:9080:A4B0:E17F:37BC:DEDE:4979 (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say, yes, Go for it. But be prepared for the possibility that somebody who either didn't see the discussion or didn't think about it enough to argue, will revert you, in which case invite them to join the discussion: see BRD. ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading photos[edit]

I uploaded a photograph and I got a copyright strikes.

I have permission for the material I am uploading and it's about the work of a musician.

What can I do so that I am not banned by my mistake?

(All my edits contain solid information and the musician will check the wiki page once I am done.

Thank you in advance for your time. Ratfae (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ratfae, and welcome to the Teahouse. You uploaded the image to Commons, so it is there that you should address the issue. The message telling you it has been deleted is on your User talk page in Commons, c:User talk:Ratfae, which is separate from your user talk page in English Wikipedia. That notice explains the problem, and has links to pages that explain in more detail.
But in summary, "I have permission" is not enough. Commons requires that all material uploaded to it is freely for anybody to reuse for any purpose, commercial or not. In practice, that means either that it is in the public domain because it's old enough that copyright has expired; or that the copyright holder has explicitly released it from all copyright and put it in the public domain (unusual, but the US Federal government, for example, does this with some material); or that the copyright holder has explicitly released it under a free license such as CC-BY-SA.
What this means in your case is that the copyright holder of the picture (who is probably the photographer, not the subject) needs to tell Commons formally that they release it under a license which will allow anybody to alter or reuse it for any purpose as long as they attribute the source. If the copyright holder is willing to do these (you cannot do it for them) you need to get them to follow the procedure in donating copyright materials. ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you for your quick and crystal reply. I uploaded a selfie, so the photographer and the musician was 1 person but I will discuss that with him once more for fear that I will be banned by my mistake. If you wouldn't mind I go on asking another question. I am going to upload infos and resources and texts to the same articles within the next days and it will take me some time before those are properly done with the links, the references etc Is there a time limmit on that? I get notifications that my article is not "reliable" but I am not done with that yet and it will take me some time to put all that work in order.
Thank you in advance once again for your time and patience Ratfae (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ratfae If you are asking whether you can add to the article "in the next days" and then add references after "some time", that is not advisable. You could, but your new info might be deleted as unreferenced. Wikipedia has no deadline, so you should gather the reliable references first, and add the material and the references at the same time. David10244 (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you for your reply Ratfae (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A couple of further points: you will not get blocked or banned for an honest mistake, unless you keep on doing the same thing after you have been told.
What is your connection with John Philip Shenale? The way you talk about him above strongly suggests that you have a conflict of interest. This doesn't prevent you from editing material about him in some circumstances, but you need to understand the implications.
Further, you appear to have created John Philip Shenale Discography directly in mainspace, with no independent sources at all. Please read your first article and notability to understand why this was a very bad idea, and why the article is likely to get removed - if somebody thinks that Shenale meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then they might move it to Draft space; otherwise they will probably delete it. Frankly, unless you (or somebody) finds suitable independent reliable sources for John Philip Shenale, then both pictures and discographies are a waste of everybody's time. ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am new to this and I am still trying to figure it out. I have seen the remark about a reliable source outside wikipedia and I added an external link for it at the bottom of the page which has gathered his credits. it's ALLMUSIC Ratfae (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello again, Ratfae. The consensus is that Allmusic is reliable for reviews , but not for biographical details (see WP:ALLMUSIC) so, though while it may help, it is not going to be enough on its own. In any case, all you are citing it for is a list of attributions. To establish notability, we require several sources, each of which is all three of reliably published, independent| of the subject, and contains significant coverage of the subject - see WP:Golden rule. This is for establishing that Shenale is notable - I'm not sure how we apply notability to standalone discographies; but please have a careful read of WP:discography and pages linked from there.
I'm sorry that you're having a difficult time. Frankly, I always advise new editors to spend at least a few months learning how Wikipedia works by improving existing articles before trying the challenging task of creating a new article.
I notice that you haven't replied to my question about your connection with Shenale. This is important. ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought that I replied to that question earlier on but I guess that was a reply to someone else who asked me the same question. I am not a family member, I am not his employe or employer, I am not in the music industry, I have not been paid for what I am writing on wiki and I have not put any personal opinions about his music or whatever subject I have edited or I will edit in the future. (I think that I may have talked with 3 different persons so far. I am not done with the edit. I added Discogs as a refference and I will add more the days to come. I have not prepared a text which I copy and paste. I add things as I gather them from google) I live in Europe and it's way after midnight so I am about to go to sleep. If you have any more questions I will answer them tomorrow. Ratfae (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I uploaded a selfie, so the photographer and the musician was 1 person" Are you saying that you are the subject of the article? Quisqualis (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quisqualis, that's not the impression I got. I took it to be a selfie taken by the subject. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ratfae, Based on User_talk:Ratfae#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest it seems that although no money or employment is involved, you clearly know the subject and are in touch with them. This seems like a conflict of interest to me. The subject's opinion of the article doesn't really matter in this case, as long as it's factually correct and suitably sourced, as ColinFine outlined above. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your help. As I mentioned at an earlier reply, I won't try any more edits. (I have replied to different persons and at some point I got confused and I was mistakenly assuming that everyone was aware of my previous replies here.) Don't worry. Everything is ok. Ratfae (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Draft:John Philip Shenale Discography ever does become an article (the "discography" of whose title would be lowercase), then its content should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. That's the reverse of the order that it's in now. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Chronological_ordering. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photograph was taken from his facebook and it is public so that everyone can see it. It was his selfie. I can send you the link if you want, I am not JPS. Ratfae (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to read again what ColinFine told you at 21:52 yesterday. It isn't enough that everyone can see the photo. For it to be used on Wikipedia the copyright holder needs to release the copyright so that anyone (not just Wikipedia) can use it. See WP:Donating copyright materials. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have read what he told me and that's why I didn't try to reupload this photo or any other because so far I haven't come across one that meets the requirements. Ratfae (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red-line in Distinguish statement[edit]

I just augmented the Distinguish statement in the article for the band Dum Dum Girls, and my addition is red-lined. I stand by my edit-how do I remove the red-line? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pete Best Beatles - I've corrected it to what I assume you want. As explained at Template:Distinguish you need to enter "text =" and then wikilink the relevant sections - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that's exactly what I intended. Didn't know about the template article. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help needed for Draft:Ronnie Lahiri[edit]

Help needed at Draft:Ronnie Lahiri Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 22:36, 4 Decemr 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lord Alan B'stard. Please identify the very best three to five sources that are reliable, that are fully independent of Lahiri and that devote significant coverage to Lahiri. For the benefit of other editors, there is extensive discussion of this draft at User talk: Robert McClenon. Cullen328 (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Cullen328 From our last discussion I need clarity on fully independent, significant etc. as these seem to be applied arbitrarily. I have tried to give as few sources as possible to support the statements in the articles so as to avoid the tag of reference-bombing. As far as I can see all the sources I have cited are independent of Lahiri (no discernible Conflict of Interest) and are reliable ones. The only unreliable source I have used is "Republic World" which is on a Wikipedia blacklist of some kind. The discussion at User talk: Robert McClenon has been also moved to the talk page of Draft:Ronnie Lahiri Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lord Alan B'stard, returning to the original topic here, you have been asked to "Please identify the very best three to five sources that are reliable, that are fully independent of Lahiri and that devote significant coverage to Lahiri". That's a vital question which only you can answer, as you have read them.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Quisqualis As I explained, I don't understand the meanings of these terms ... as used in Wikipedia ...Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lord Alan B'stard, Sorry, for clarity on the independence of sources used to establish notability, seeWikipedia:Independent sources. Quisqualis (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources are independent of Lahiri who is one of the most notable films producers of India. For eg. the first source in the article, its a 30 minute news documentary feature on the duo anchored by a top independent film critic of India on a leading TV news channel which captures their significant body of work and interviews them. I have not used any of the interview statements by the duo. So why is this not reliable and independent of Lahiri etc.? The reviewer implied it was paid news/marketing without any proof. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion would be better taken to the Reliable sources noticeboard, as you're not seeing that PR professionals (of which you might be one) release updates on their clients, which certain, low-quality publications pick up to populate their pages with "news". Wikipedia editors can spot this, based on timing coincidence, wording and other factors. That is why we doubt so many of your sources. A lot of "news" gets endlessly cycled around the Web this way, until it is superseded by the next PR release and the articles it spawns. The Indian news media (are you listening, Times of India?) are not too scrupulous about using a PR release or promotional announcement as the basis for a news article. Such sources are, at base, not independent of the subject. Quisqualis (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not a PR professional. I'm a legal professional. Also AFAIK I haven't used low grade media sources. So I take umbrage at some of your aspersions. Please pick out which of my citations are the really bad ones so I can learn. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lord Alan B'stard, You really seem to believe in your guy. If he's really all that, it may just be WP:TOOSOON for an article right now. Also have a look at Other stuff exists, for why one poor article does not merit another. Quisqualis (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Quisqualis I have no WP:COI for this article. I'll have the same learning issues for whichever article I start next. So better to learn on this one. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since it is implied I have some connection with this person, which BTW I don't, the background is like this. About 17 days back the Supreme Court of India ordered the release of the 6 assassins of Rajiv Gandhi. As part of my legal research I saw the film on the assassination ie. Madras Cafe and made an edit there to redlink the producer. I then decided to write a stub article, which got unfortunately got reverted and put to draft. That is why I am here over the weekend. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have spent a fair amount of time trying to explain to Lord Alan B'stard the type of sources that establish the notability of a topic. I told them at the very beginning of our interaction that they should transform the bare URLs in their draft into complete references with bibliographic information. They did not do so. At the very beginning of this discussion, I asked them to identify the best three to five sources about this person. They did not do so. Instead, they went to an article Kalpataru Day about an Indian topic that I had edited and expanded twelve years ago and gutted it, removing every single reference, including a scholarly book published by the University of Chicago Press. Then, they gloated about their article gutting on my talk page. This is clearly retaliatory editing, and I do not appreciate it. Cullen328 (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly object to the word gloating. I was according you the courtesy, as original author, of informing you of my actions.Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When was the watchlist introduced?[edit]

I can't find it at Help:Watchlist. Ovinus (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ovinus, try the Reference desk for this. Quisqualis (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quisqualis - the variety of help noticeboards around makes it quite confusing. My personal stance is that we should help anyone with a Wikipedia-related question who shows up here. The reference desk is one of the most archaic and confusing areas on the site and I really don't think it's helpful to direct people there when it's perfectly possible to help them here. casualdejekyll 16:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That help page was created in 2004. So just before that, i'd assume. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Watchlist help was created in January 2003‎.[3] That's the oldest watchlist mention I found. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are comments in the talk page archive going back to 2002 see here. Polyamorph (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems Brion VIBBER is the person to ask Polyamorph (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It predates mediawiki, it was added way back in the Phase 2 "php script" days. I think it was added here [4], September 29, 2001. Here's a feature request thread from March 2002 where they added the functionality of automatically watching talk pages when you watched an article and automatically watching articles you edited [5]. (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing so {{ADVERT}} can be removed[edit]

Hello! I recently edited American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. I don't think its ready to have the advert tag removed but I wanted to know if anyone could to a look and let me know if the changes were in the right direction? Thank you! Martiansizzle (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disclaimer: I am fairly new at Wikipedia. It seems your article is sourced / supported only by its own corporate website. You have to find many more independent reliable sources to establish the notability of the organisation. Hope this helps. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am fairly old at Wikipedia, Martiansizzle. This edit of yours was definitely an improvement. As for where to go from now, Lord Alan has pretty much the right idea; however, you don't need many more independent reliable sources; you merely need some independent reliable sources, perhaps no more than three. -- Hoary (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how to publish my wikipedia[edit]

Hi, I would like to know the process to appear my wikipedia article when searching. I have published my wikipedia article, but it did not appear when I search on Google. How can I do with this and what next step should I do to have the result? Thank you. Drhao (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User page is wrong place for an article, also not in English, so nominated for Speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi I mean, I would like to provide a famous doctor profile on Wiki. How should I do the next step. For example , I would like to create a page like this for a famous people ( Thank you Drhao (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drhao: See WP:YFA and WP:AFC. You are attempting to write an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged here. You should not try to write about yourself. If you do, WP:AFC is the only venue available to you because you have a strong conflict of interest regarding yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He is not talking here about an article on himself (ie. his deleted user page). He now wants to write an article on some famous doctor. He is unable to grasp the concept that Wikipedia articles are written collectively and not owned by the originator. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His statement above "I have published my wikipedia article" refers to the user page that was an autobiography about himself, in which he portrays himself as a famous doctor. It is reasonable to assume that is what he wants to publish. That is apparently his purpose here. Even if he wants to write about some other doctor WP:AFC is the proper venue for him. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Dr. Phan Thanh Hào now exists, in Vietnamese, with no references. It was submitted to English Wikipedia via AfC and Declined. Drhao advised to consider Vitenamese Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question moved from top[edit]

How do I make a comment or criticism of Today’s Featured Picture? Wis2fan (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wis2fan, and welcome to the Teahouse. I guess it depends a bit on what kind of comment. If it's about the picture itself, you can pick on the picture, which will take you to its description page, and then pick on the "Talk" tab. I'm not sure how many people will look at talk pages on images, though. If it's about the subject or creator of the picture, either the caption or the description page should have a link to the subject or creator (if there is a Wikipedia article about them). If it's about the featuring of the picture on the main page, perhaps Talk:Main page.
As always, discussion on any talk page should be about how the relevant Wikipedia page can be improved, rather than anything extraneous to Wikipedia. If you have a question about the picture, then the reference desk might be appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from top of page David10244 (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I search in the Teahouse?[edit]

I cannot find a search field for the contents of the Teahouse, only for the "Help pages". Bernhard.rulla (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Bernhard.rulla (talk)! At the top of this page, on the right & below Contents is a search box called "Most recent archives". You can use that to search the most recent archived pages of the Teahouse. Hope this is of use! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Bernhard.rulla (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pronouns for a robot[edit]

Do we use singular they or neuter (it/its) pronouns for robots? Ricciardo Best (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ricciardo. I guess it depends how far you are humanizing it/them ;-) But normally I would expect it. ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ricciardo Best, welcome to the Teahouse! In the context of a Wikipedia article, I would say it depends on how the sources refer to it. For example, Amazon Alexa uses it/its, but C-3PO uses he/him. casualdejekyll 14:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia picture database[edit]

As I have understood, all picture files (jpg etc) at Wikipedia are uploaded to a picture database and from there linked into an article as needed. Question: how can/do I access the picture database in order to search it for available photos? Bernhard.rulla (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Bernhard.rulla. There is no single database. The largest repository of media files for the many Wikimedia websites is Wikimedia Commons, which contains about 50 million files, mostly photos and other images, but also including video files. Everything there is either in the public domain or is freely licensed for re-use by anyone for any purpose, although many files require attribution. You can go there and use its search functions to find what you want. But also, each individual language version of Wikipedia has the option to allow the upload of certain non-free images with restrictions. Typically here on the English Wikipedia, they are low resolution versions of things like corporate logos, movie posters, book and album covers, iconic historic photos, portraits of people who have died, and the like. These are low resolution images to protect copyright, and are harder to find unless you know exactly what you are looking for. There are legal limits on re-use of these images, and normally, they are only used in a single Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Bernhard, and welcome to Wikipedia. Most pictures (and other media) used in Wikipedia are held in Wikimedia Commons, which is another Wikimedia project like Wikipedia, with files, categories, user pages, searches, etc. If you go to Commons:Help it should get you started.
A minority of media used in English Wikipedia is held in English Wikipedia itself, usually because the items do not meet Commons' criteria of free licensing. One way to find them is to look at Category:Wikipedia files; or you can do a search, setting the Namespace to "File" (see Help:Searching). ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Bernhard.rulla (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All that said, Commons isn't as sorted, categorized, and tagged as it could be. Because it's a project run by volunteers doing it as a Fun Hobby. It's a work in progress. DS (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons is like a view into an alternate history where Wikipedia never became popular. Spooky. casualdejekyll 16:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two different statements basing on the same internet article[edit]

Writing an article I use one newpaper article as reference for two different statements. Should I provide the citation to the same article for

  1. both of these statements (same citation appears two times in the reference list)
  2. only to the first statement and leave the second statement without citation

... ? Bernhard.rulla (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again, Bernhard. Normally you should put the citation on both statements (though there is a degree of editorial discretion). But you don't have to repeat the citation - see WP:NAMEDREF for how to reuse citations. ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Bernhard.rulla (talk)! You can use the same reference more than once, it just needs to be named & then can be used for multiple refernces. The reference will end up with a,b,c etc. that will point to the different sentences using it. There's a Wiki page about doing this here. An example of its use:
Lorem ipsum is pseudo-Latin.[1]
Lorem ipsum sometimes called "Greeking".[1]
==Example References==


  1. ^ a b "What does the filler text “lorem ipsum” mean?" By Cecil Adams at
Edit: ColinFine (talk) beat me to it!
Hope this is of help! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Bernhard.rulla Bernhard.rulla (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are images inverted?[edit]

My Wikipedia skin is the regular Vector 2022, dark mode. When I see emojis, the colours are inverted like this: INverted Emoji.png. Why? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 10:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a leftover of how the dark mode gadget works: as you might have figured out, it inverts the colors before applying some color fixes. Clearly, this in specific was either missed or found to be unneeded to fix. Perhapes Wikipedia talk:Dark mode (gadget) can help you? casualdejekyll 14:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dunno, I personally like the orange-red emoji. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 15:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, I forgot to ping @Grimmchild. I'm a little rusty at this! Welcome to the Teahouse! casualdejekyll 14:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Refer to an existing ref[edit]

Please let me know how can I refer to an already existing ref on a page. I tried <ref name="refname 1,2" /> but the ref. changes into 5 and 6 Avandenheuvel (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Avandenheuvel, welcome to the Teahouse. The existing ref must be named, not just have a number. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repeated citations. If you still have problems then save your attempt and link the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Avandenheuvel and welcome. To clarify what PrimeHunter said: the first time the source is cited needs to be given a name, and then later uses can refer to the name. (I put your sample ref above between <nowiki> and </nowiki>, because otherwise the unclosed ref swallowed the rest of your question, and indeed the rest of the section). --ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Puffery in sources[edit]

Could someone please clarify for me exactly how editors should handle wp:puffery when it's cited? For example, if a source specifically calls something "the best" or "one of the best" or uses other such terms expressions. A recent article I've seen uses "It was considered one of the best". Is that a sufficiently neutral tone? Is one source sufficient for such a claim? Or would it be preferable to remove that kind of adjectives? MaxRavenclaw (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the teahouse, @MaxRavenclaw! Per MOS:PUFFERY, a construction like "x source said that y was one of the best foobars in the industry" is a better idea, but the best idea is to approach why the source proclaims something the best and talk about that [typically the noteworthy achievements of the subject of the article] instead. casualdejekyll 15:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Thank you. So would you say that my edit here [6] is good? MaxRavenclaw (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaxRavenclaw: Yes, I would say that that is an appropriate and neccesary edit. casualdejekyll 15:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before removing puffery derived from sources, we have to make sure that it really is puffery. For example, in our article on Shakespeare we have " He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist". This is not puffery, and it would be wrong to remove it; it is an encyclopaedic fact supportable by any number of reliable sources that he is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language. (We're perhaps a bit anglocentric in the rest of the sentence, where perhaps the Germans would make a case for Goethe (amongst others) and the French might feel a bit aggrieved about Molière). But the point is this: there often was a thing or person widely regarded as "the best" of something in their time, and we have to remember that a neutral tone shouldn't prevent us from telling it how it is. But always provided the opinion is a reflection of a good range of solid sources. Elemimele (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFK Jr. entry[edit]

Why isn't Kennedy's most recent book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, included in the bibliography of works by him? Markdery (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Markdery - Welcome to the teahouse! I propose another question: why would an encyclopedia, which has the specific purpose of providing a summary of information about the subjects of its' articles, contain a complete, indiscriminate bibliography of an author? Per MOS:TIMELINE, a list of all of an author's works can be inappropriate for their article if the list is not supported by the prose of the article.
This may be a matter best suited for Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. casualdejekyll 15:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Markdery: It is included. It's the 2021 book at Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#Selected works. It's also mentioned in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#COVID-19. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aligning Userboxes[edit]

I'm trying to align userboxes like the ones at the start of this page: but I can't figure out how, can anyone help me? 1Little Danny (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@1Little Danny: Welcome to the Teahouse! This sort of thing is most often done with the confusingly named Template:Babel - it is not limited to babel userboxes and can be used with any userbox. You can also do it with
<div style="float:right;">
{{Example userbox}}<br/>
{{Other example userbox}}<br/>
{{Third example userbox}}<br/>
etc, etc. See, for example, how I've done it on my user talk page. casualdejekyll 16:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much! 1Little Danny (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use image with two people in it: one of living and the other is deceased[edit]

Suppose I upload a fair use image where the subject is a deceased person. I upload a fair use image that contains the subject of the article plus a living person. Would this be in violation of the WP:BLP policy? I don’t have a particular article in mind. I’m just asking just for reference. Interstellarity (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Interstellarity. As far as I can see, the only relevance of BLP to images is Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light, which is presumably not at issue here. But you also ought to consider the NFCC, particularly "Minimal usage". Perhaps it would be appropriate to crop the image to remove the living person - or perhaps it wouldn't. It all depends on context, and why the image meets the "Contextual significance" criterion for non-free use.
(By the way, I suggest not using the phrase "fair use" in talking about images in Wikipedia, because our criteria are not quite the same as "fair use" as it is usually understood. say "non-free images".) ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Interstellarity. If you are uploading the photo under the terms of Non-free images #10, then the living person should be cropped out before uploading. Cullen328 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your answers. Based on what you said, living persons are not allowed in non free content. Exceptions would be handled on a case by case basis. Interstellarity (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citeseerx links appear to be broken[edit]

This is not especially new, I've just slowly realized that I'm not just particularly unlucky in encountering this problem. It appears that every link shown as an explicit "citeseerx" link is broken. As an example, in Citeseer#Further reading, there is a CiteseerX link which displays "This page could not be found". Typically you can locate the relevant content with a CiteseerX search, but that's kind of annoying. How does one pursue getting this fixed? Fabrickator (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the link seems to be generated inside {{cite book}}, I'd start by asking at Template talk:Cite book. If you get no joy there, try the WP:Village pump. It would be helpful if you'd investigate on the Citeseer side how the URLs have changed, and whether there is a simple fix. ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fabrickator: It's discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1#citeseerx links are ALL dead. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PrimeHunter: Thanks for the reference. FWIW, archived Citeseerx links (archived prior to October 2022) seem to work okay (at least some of the time), e.g. ... Fabrickator (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Matthew de Lacey Davidson[edit]

Hello I am confused why this article was rejected. It is not dissimilar to other articles (like that of Donald Ashwander) and it does not use promotional materials, and uses acceptable sources such as composer's organizations and academic org's. You can't apply rules of popularity to modern classical composers - otherwise even Salieri would never qualify to be in Wikipedia. This seems arbitrary. Please advise. ABMR01 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ABMR01. Your draft was declined, not rejected. There is a major difference. A person is considered notable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia biography if and only if they are the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that are entirely independent of the person. These are not "rules of popularity". This is a very well established principle that has helped make Wikipedia one of the most popular websites in the world. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen328, this rather surprises me. WP:Notability (music) says "Musicians or ensembles [...] may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." There are twelve of these. The ninth is conveniently succinct: "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." Unfortunately it doesn't say how "major" is defined; but let's imagine (i) that everyone agrees that such-and-such a music competition is "major", (ii) that a single short article in the NYT says that Joe Schmoe got third prize for it on three occasions, and (iii) there's no reason to suspect that the article was a hoax or joke or similar. My understanding is that Joe is thereby "notable" and therefore merits an article, regardless of how little evidence there is of interest in him beyond that one NYT article. -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hoary, earlier on, that guideline says, Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion. An already existing article about a topic that meets one of those standards cannot be speedy deleted for lack of notability but it can go to Articles for Deletion. The community can decide (and often does) that the topic lacks significant coverage and should be better covered, for example, in a list article "Winners of Prize X" instead of a freestanding article. Meeting one of those rules of thumb is an indicator, not a guarantee of notability and eligibility for a freestanding article. As to whether or not an award is "major", certainly there are awards that generate an enormous amount of coverage in the music press and the general press for their winners, but awards do not fall neatly into binary "major" and "minor" categories, and there is a continuum or spectrum of the importance of awards. An editor who wants their topic to be deemed notable has a motivation to call a middling award major. Other editors should treat such claims with skepticism and ask for evidence. In most cases, winners of truly major music awards are already notable before their wins. Back to your hypothetical: It seems highly unlikely to me that the New York Times would regularly cover a specific annual music award but that specialist music sources would ignore it and its winners. Cullen328 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen328, I know, my example is farfetched. But it's conceivable. "Joe Schmoe, Poland's Favorite Manxman" could refer to some annual Polish competition, little known in the US (let alone in/on Man) but verifiably (thanks to the Polish press) Big In Poland, in which the unassuming Joe (who stays in Holiday Inn, where he eats take-out) has got three podium positions on the trot. Yes of course you are right about Wikipedia editors' inflation of middling to "major". (Yet puffery is so pervasive in drafts (and articles) that I'm not so troubled when I see "major": after all, it's a relatively innocuous alternative to a miscellany of more or less nauseating options: "prestigious", "iconic", "legendary", and so forth.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thatguy1987 said: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. (emphasis mine).
Your sources are primarily, well, exactly that: primary. Wikipedia isn't interested in what somebody says about themselves: we want to create articles based on what people unrelated to the subject of the article say about them. An article such as yours which is entirely based on what the person (i.e., de Lacey Davidson) has written about themselves cannot be verified to be true, and more importantly for Wikipedia's purposes, cannot satisfy WP:GNG. casualdejekyll 19:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for Donald Ashwander, the New York Tines published an obituary after his death. That is the type of coverage we are looking for, although it need not be an obituary. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a side note, I think the AFC process can be frustratingly vague about their declines. A new Wikipedian needs more then a paragraph of explanation sometimes, and that's okay! That's the entire point of the teahouse! But would it really have killed the reviewer to drop you a link to Wikipedia:GARAGEBAND? casualdejekyll 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for Antonio Salieri, that article has 69 references to exceptionally high quality sources. It is all about the quality of the references. Everything else is secondary to reference quality. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ABMR01: Also, have a look at WP:COMPOSER. These are the "rules of popularity" for composers. He must meet one of those criteria. This isn't negotiable. It is not clear, after looking at your draft, which of those criteria are met by Matthew de Lacy Davidson. The most important criterion is having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the person, but lacking that, one of the others would also suffice to suggest that he may be notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could humans somehow adapt to new planets / satellites (like Titan)?[edit]

Could humans somehow adapt to new planets / satellites (like Titan) with genetic functions like adaption to consume it's metan, plants, or maybe animals? (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about using or editing Wikipedia, it is not a general question asking forum. You could try the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @, welcome to the teahouse! This is a place for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. General knowledge questions are better suited for the Wikipedia:Reference desk, or your search engine of choice. casualdejekyll 19:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though, note that each Reference Desk says at the top We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate, so you would need to recast your question to ask people to point you to published discussions on the question, rather than ask the question as you have above. ColinFine (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Titan (at least on the surface methane oceans) is unlikely to have life like ours[7] and no celestial object other than Earth has been found with life, although organic molecules like tholins have been found on many. I do apologize if I stepped out of bounds in terms of being able to answer items. ✶Mitch199811✶ (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are user pages meant to be serious?[edit]

A simple enough question, but just in case it's meant to be serious, is it, or am I allowed to be silly on my user page? Sorry if this is a stupid question. I just don't want to unknowingly break rules. 1Little Danny (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, 1LittleDanny, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, it's not a stupid question. The answer is that a certain degree of light-heartedness is allowed in user space, but remember that our primary purpose is creating an encyclopaedia: nothing else. See WP:UPYES for more information. ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This helps clear things up, thank you for your quick reply. 1Little Danny (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@1Little Danny - WP:USER is the relevant policy. TL;DR: User pages are a freeform space to write about your wiki activities. Be silly, be serious, it doesn't matter. Don't be promotional, don't be uncivil. casualdejekyll 19:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I want to make sure that I'm not breaking rules, so if I am, let me know. 1Little Danny (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@1Little Danny: My own user page has featured elements of silliness for almost the whole time I've been here (nearly 16 years), and no one has complained yet. Just don't go overboard. Deor (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only thing you should not do is make it seem like you're an admin or part of the WMF when you aren't as that is not permissible. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resorts article[edit]

What is the proper way to create a page? Pebble Beach Resorts, which is referenced in a number of related pages, would like its own page. Is there a resource that can do this for them? Mgendronaugustyn (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mgendronaugustyn: you're looking for WP:YFA, with the caveat that you need to read WP:COI, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP first. These are a series of guidelines and policies developed by the community on the creation of a Wikipedia article.
Ultimately, the most important thing to remember is that Wikipedia is not for advertising. If your goal is to advertise on Wikipedia, you will not succeed. casualdejekyll 20:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything User:Casualdejekyll said is accurate and useful. On the other hand, those resorts are extremely well-regarded and I suspect there are a number of reliable sources available. The Lodge at Pebble Beach does have an article and I'd be shocked if the golf courses don't--they do at Pebble Beach Golf Links. User:Mgendronaugustyn, is there some reason that these two links don't cover the necessary material? Even the ownership group Preferred has a page about it.
Your initial phrasing is PBR "would like its own page." That seems a pretty specific thing to know about a company's likes, hence Casualdejekyll's reasonable concern. Are you inquiring on the company's behalf? Are you connected in some way (employee, stockholder, management, customer)? You can tell us; we don't intend to punish someone for actually asking the question instead of acting rashly. We appreciate the boldness. BusterD (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pebble Beach Resorts is its own entity. The Lodge at Pebble Beach and Pebble Beach Golf Links are entities under the umbrella of Pebble Beach Resorts. My company is their PR counsel, so, as such, are unable to create a page for them. Mgendronaugustyn (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if Hobby Lobby can have preferences, morals, and a specific religion, why can't other companies have likes? David10244 (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Mgendronaugustyn, and welcome to the Teahouse. Besides what the other replies have said, please note that even if an article is created about Pebble Beach Resorts (whoever creates it), it will not be "its own page". The company will not own it, will not control it, and will be limited to suggesting edits to it, which an uninvolved editor will decide whether and how to implement. The article should be based almost entirely on what independent commentators have published about the company, not on what the company says or wants to say. If it should happen that reliable sources publish material critical of Pebble Beach Resorts, that information will probably go into the article, whether the company likes it or not. ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite so. BusterD (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know. Mgendronaugustyn (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to edit[edit]

I want to edit a page and this is my first time doing this and I don't want to mess up anything on that page (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello IP! Welcome to the Teahouse. You may be interested in our tutorial or our intro to contributing. Both are excellent resources to get you started on editing. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry. Remember, you can always practice editing in your personal sandbox. If you make a mistake, it can be easily corrected, since every page has a history of (nearly) every previous revision. You can also look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines at WP:POLICY. The two pages UtherSRG noted are very important for getting started, so you can start with those. Feel free to ask more questions if you're sure how to proceed. I hope you enjoy Wikipedia, and decide to stay! Professor Penguino (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@IP editor from Arizona: you've already successfully made far more than your fair share of unconstructive edits since 2014, but they have mostly been reverted as gibberish. You've been told what comes next. Quisqualis (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quisqualis - Stable IPs are a rarity nowadays; I have zero confidence that this user is the same person who made the bad edits 8 (!) years ago, and even if they are, it has been 8 years. No need to be hostile to them! (This is the Teahouse, after all.) casualdejekyll 02:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a long history of flawed edits coming from this IP address. If you are truly new to Wikipedia, registering an account wil give you a clean (empty) history. David notMD (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The block log suggests that this IP address actually belongs to a school, which would explain the long history of unconstructive edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a multitude of reasons why someone may not want to create a user account and we should respect that. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to delete a user page[edit]

I made User:NotDragonius/November 2022 Franch invasion of Thorgon a while ago just as a personal project, but today I shared it with someone and it's now constantly being changed by them. How can I delete this page? NotDragonius (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NotDragonius: You can add {{Db-userreq}} to the page for an admin to delete it. RudolfRed (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can blank your user page, or you can ask for it to be deleted by pasting {{db-U5}} at the top, and an admin will come along and delete it. Normally, you could use {{db-user}}, meaning that the author has requested deletion; but that option is not available if anybody else has edited the page: I think that in this case, since the content is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia, {{db-U5}} is more appropriate, because that's what WP:U5 means. ({{db-userreq}}, which is what RudolfRed suggested you use, is the same as {{db-user}}, and not appropriate in this case, I believe).
Oh, and please don't create hoaxes on your user page again. See WP:UPNO. --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ColinFine: WP:U1 says "Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user." Can you help me learn why this not appropriate? There is no mention of it being limited to who has edited it. Maybe you mean WP:G7. RudolfRed (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, RudolfRed. I was thinking of WP:G7 - or, rather, I assumed that WP:U1 had the same restriction as G7. My apologies. ColinFine (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, that garbage image will have to come off Commons. DS (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NotDragonius, @DragonflySixtyseven: For the record, Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE seems to suggest that this is {{db-hoax}} anyway. casualdejekyll 02:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I fix this?[edit]

At the first paragraph of Family History Research Wiki#Reception, there are individual statements with 5-7 inline sources piled up and one with even a dozen! How can this be fixed? Hoping to consolidate/conglomerate them somehow. Any advice on the matter would be much appreciated. Thanks, WeWorkGuest (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi WeWorkGuest. While there's really no limit as to how many citations can be added in support of a particular bit of article content, some people feel that more is always better and end up doing something called WP:REFCLUTTER. It's perfectly OK for you to be WP:BOLD and assess the situation in terms of WP:RS and WP:RSCONTEXT, and then you can trim the number of citations to eliminate any redundancies or poor quality ones. You can also be WP:CAUTIOUS as well and start a discussion about the matter on the article's talk page. There's not really one "correct" way to fix something like this, but as long as you leave a clear edit summary for any changes you make, others will at least no why you made them. If you do trim things down and then are subsequently reverted, you should start a discussion about the matter on the article's talk page and try to resolve any differences of opinion that way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IF Wikipedia mostly does not allow blogs as refs, how about deleting the 12 blog refs? David notMD (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To put this in context, the article was proposed for deletion, and the addition of an enormous quantity of low-quality sources was a response to save it (here: [8]). The technique worked, because the PROD-proposer removed their deletion tag. But it doesn't reflect how an article should look. If you want to make a statement "This resource has been discussed by expert how-to-book authors" the ideal source is a secondary source, such as a newspaper article that says "this winter we got interested in genealogy and found that a whole collection of interesting how-to books were directing us to the Family History Research Wiki". Popping down the local library and rounding up every how-to book you can find, to check whether they refer to the wiki is bordering on original research, and the books themselves are actually primary sources for that statement, not secondary. But mostly it's not very helpful to the reader: if the reader actually wants a complete bibliography of how-to genealogy books, a literature-list would be much more readable than a set of numbered inline citations. Elemimele (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article creating[edit]

Can any one of you tell me how to create a wikipedia article please? Sheevpalpa4 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sheevpalpa4: see WP:YFA and WP:AFC. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about the naming of a first part of a wikipedia article?[edit]

Hello what is the official name of the summary at the start of wikipedia articles? :) - Descria Air Calvary (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lede or Lead. David notMD (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
C'est le "Lead". (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'll find information at MOS:LEDE. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why "lede"? "Lead" is fine, and matches normal English, but Wikipedia is the ONLY place I have ever seen "lede". My spellchecker doesn't believe it's a word. The first use of that word in the linked article is in a sentence that says " It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never seen it elsewhere either, but I assume it's to draw a distinction between the "lead" of the article and Lead the material or the concept of leadership. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct "The introduction to a news article is called the 'lede' and is usually in the first paragraph as in an essay. The 'lede' is a deliberate misspelling of 'lead' to prevent confusion in the days when printing was done with lead type.". Theroadislong (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WHERE is the introduction to a news article called the lede? (Yet again, my spellchecker wants me to correct that word's spelling!!) HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HiLo48 - wiktionary:lede#Etymology_2 would be a great place to start casualdejekyll 19:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, so it's American! Didn't think it was real English. OK, moving on from my sarcasm, can American editors please recognise that is is NOT part of English in other parts of the world, and stop making absolute statements about its use as if it's a global phenomenon? HiLo48 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HiLo48: I didn't see anywhere where American editors made absolute statements about its use as if it's a global phenomenon - do you think you could point me to where this was? Perhaps a Diff? casualdejekyll 20:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think they were referring to the wiktionary entry you linked in which it states the term originated from the US. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's relatively clearly the exact opposite of that, though? casualdejekyll 20:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. Based on their userpage they seem to have a strong dislike for Americanism. The word originated in the US and spread elsewhere. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's in the OED. Not sure what else you need to convince yourself it's an acceptable English word. The default windows spellcheckers don't accept it in US English either, btw (I just switched languages to check). -- asilvering (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 15 for an EXTENDED debate. Personally, I will use Lead from now on. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem with non-notable filmography[edit]

I'm working on Lauren Giraldo, a notable social media personality whose filmography is, annoyingly, mostly unnotable. There are a lot of non-notable web series in her filmography which I cannot reliably source; the obvious choice would be to remove them, but if that's not a complete filmography, should I just name the section "Selected filmography"? Additionally, her part in the indie film Hope Springs Eternal as Zoe is mentioned by reliable sources, but her character's name is unmentioned. Do I just not include the name of her character? And what about her shows which are covered by reliable sources, but do not have their premiere or end dates? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Vortex3427. "Non-Wikipedia notable" and "not reliably sourced" are not generally the same thing, at least in my opinion. Article content doesn't necessarily need to be Wikipedia notable for it to be included as explained in WP:NNC, but it does need reliable sourced. Maybe try asking about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and see whether the members of that WikiProject might be able to help you sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the items on the list haven't been published in reliable sources, as they are self-published online web series. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Referencing to non-English sources[edit]

Hello, is it allowed to reference to/cite non-English sources? It would be interesting to me being a native German. Best regards! Bernhard.rulla (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes; see WP:NONENG. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Bernhard.rulla. German language sources are perfectly acceptable when English language sources about the topic are lacking. But if sources are readily available in multiple languages, then English language sources are preferred on the English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Bernhard.rulla (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It can also be very helpful to readers if you give a translation of the titles. If you're using the Visual Editor, click on the citation to edit it and a menu will pop up; search "title" and you should be able to find the one for "translated title". Please leave the original German titles in the "title" field! It's very hard for people to follow up on sources if the titles are silently translated. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wednesday ad sound file[edit]

Hello! In the Wednesday article I would like to insert a sound file of a spotify ad of Wednesday. The thing is I don't know how to incorporate it into any the article sections. Thank you! RoseWaterSkies (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia should not include advertising in any form. You would need to demonstrate how that would objectively improve the article. Shantavira|feed me 15:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia frequently includes advertising. Sports stadiums are routinely identified by their sponsored, commercial names, even though they are almost always less useful geographical locators than their official names. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HiLo48: For that matter, there are articles mostly about advertising, like Burma-Shave. Shantaviraj's second point is right, but their first could have been phrased better. Frankly, I want to know what an ad for Wednesday would sound like... it's better than Tuesday? casualdejekyll 20:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, RoseWaterSkies, and welcome to the Teahouse. To add to what Shantaviraj has said: you are wanting to add non-free content to an article, since the ad will undoubtedly be copyright (we usually think of this in terms of images, but it applies equally to video and sound). Wikipedia has tight controls on the use of non-free media: it must satisfy all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. Criterion no 8 is: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding: this criterion is often invoked for adding covers of books or albums to articles, and indeed it is used for the poster already in the article: File: Wednesday Netflix series poster.png. But it is hard to see how you could justify adding an ad in this way - and, furthermore, adding another non-free item to the article would probably fall foul of criterion 3a: Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
If there happened to be enough significant independent discussion of the ad (as opposed to the film) to make it notable, then there could be an article on the ad, (like the John Lewis Christmas advert), and then it might be appropriate to include a screenshot or an audio clip; but not for the article on the film. ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ISSN: Should I list it when the magazine didn't have it yet in that issue?[edit]

I've noticed that a magazine I've been citing to (namely The Rainbow (magazine)), which ran monthly from July 1981 to May 1993, began publishing its ISSN number in the February 1984 issue. I've also noticed that looking up that ISSN number in WorldCat (0746-4797) shows the entire run of the magazine going back to 1981, thus including the issues before The Rainbow apparently received its ISSN number.

So my question is: is it appropriate to list a magazine's ISSN number when you are citing to an issue of the magazine from before it received that number? Carney333 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Carney333, and welcome to the Teahouse. Since the purpose of a citation is primarily to assist a reader in getting hold of the source, and you say that WorldCat doesn't distinguish issues before the ISSN, I cannot see any reasonable argument not to include it. ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello! I am currently updating a page for a former boss of mine, just because the last time any additions were made was in 2017. I disclosed my employment, but it looks like another current employer, (who doesn't have an account) made edits so there is a banner stating that there are undisclosed edits made. Is there anything I can do to get it taken down myself? Or do I need the other employee to state that from his IP address he is receiving payment? I am a new editor so learning wikipedia can be pretty confusing. Thanks! Gsmouritzen (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The other IP, if he is a mercenary, shouldn't be editing as an IP, full stop. IPs are ephemeral enough that any disclosure on one is meaningless and so they need to get their own account. As for taking the banner down, that's unlikely to happen, especially since the undisclosed edits remain in the article's history. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, there's nothing wrong with editing as an IP per se, but editing as an IP with a conflict of interest is not great because it's impossible to make the required disclosure. Until everyone who is suspected of being a paid or CoI editor has disclosed their CoI or payment (or of course denied it!), the banner has to stay. Personally, I'd recommend tiptoeing away from that article and hoping no-one notices it exists: to me, it reads like a resumé/CV, is overly promotional, and ripe for some serious culling/neutralisation. Elemimele (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not impossible, but they'd have to fully disclose in every edit summary and/or on the talk page every time a related edit was made, which would be quite a pain. A user page template is much easier. (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy: Article in question is Eduardo Dolhun. David notMD (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal Sandbox Clearing[edit]

Does the personal sandbox ever clear itself? I'm going to make something that may take a while to come to fruition, so I need to know if it clears. 1Little Danny (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Only the general sandbox at Wikipedia:Sandbox gets wiped periodically. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@1Little Danny: User sandboxes can be blanked or deleted in rare cases if they contain disallowed content like copyright violations. If you want room to work on multiple Wikipedia-related things then you can make multiple sandboxes or subpages, e.g. Special:MyPage/sandbox2 or Special:MyPage/Draft article. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello again, LittleDanny. Nobody is likely to touch any of your personal sandboxes, unless you do something naughty in one of them (such as a copyright violation, blatant advertising, or a personal attack), or unless you request deletion by putting {{db-userreq}} in the top. ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@1Little Danny: As others noted, your sandbox is generally safe. You can check out WP:UPYES and WP:UPNO for things you can and cannot put in your user pages (including your sandboxes). UtherSRG (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability of Michel Campillo[edit]

I was looking to start the AfD process for Michel Campillo as he doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines for academics and was initially written by a user with a history of creating poorly-written biographies. However, as a relatively inexperienced user, I just wanted a second opinion before doing so. Thank you. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sgubaldo: Welcome to The Teahouse! So, when deciding the best thing to do is pull up the most relevant notability policy and go through the items in that policy and see if any of them match the claims in the article. In this case, the relevant policy's list of items is at WP:NACADEMIC. Once you've gone through the list and have not found any of them to be a match to something in the article, you have another decision to make: whether to go through formal AFD, or whether to simply PROD the article. A simple PROD may be all that's needed, is a little easier, and is less drama-inducing. If the PROD is contested and you think the notability question has not been answered, then elevate it to AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Sgubaldo (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He passes WP:PROF: [9]. So I doubt you can get this deleted at AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I should have read that more carefully. I'll improve the article instead. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing wrong information[edit]

I am a linguist, and work on Ossetic and Circassian dialectology, as well as fieldwork on the underdescribed languages of northern India (Bhadarwahi, Kishtwari). However, when I edited information in for Ossetic, they were edited out for lack of citation by people who know nothing about these languages. In many cases, it is hard to provide explicit citations because some of it is my own work or through conversation with colleagues, not from published sources (which, in the case of the minority languages I work on, aren’t numerous). E.g., the phonology chart for Bhadarwahi is simply wrong. It is based on Dwivedi’s grammatical sketch, but Dwivedi absolutely misidentifies the phonological contrasts in the language. I want to correct it, but feel that my edits will be taken down again. How to go about editing? I had quit Wikipedia after the incident with Ossetic, but want to come back. Mitannijsko-Arijskij (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Mitannijsko-Arijskij, welcome to the Teahouse. The simple answer to your question is: use published sources. If there are none, don't add the information. WP:Verifiability is non-negotiable. If you want to cite research that you yourself have published, it's a bit tricky in that you have a conflict of interest, but not impossible. WP:SELFCITE has further information. (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that, but what if the published sources are simply wrong? Or misinterpreted? Should the wrong information remain on Wikipedia? I’d say even if one is not allowed to edit correct information in, the wrong information should be deleted. Case in point is Dwivedi’s description of Bhadarwahi phonology I mentioned earlier (and this matter is known among us Indo-Aryanists who work on the northern langages). And notwithstanding Dwivedi’s being wrong, even some of the things that are correct in his grammar have been misinterpreted, e.g., his <ç> (which is meant to stand for IPA /t͡s/) has been misinterpreted as IPA /ç/ and presented as such. This stems from notational misunderstanding more than anything else. Mitannijsko-Arijskij (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what if the published sources are simply wrong? Or misinterpreted? Should the wrong information remain on Wikipedia? - That's a complicated question that depends on the quality of other available sources. If the only verifiable source on the question of, for example, "what consonants and vowels are used in Ossetian" is a work from 1964, then it looks like the journals need to catch up. That's an issue you take to someone in the field to get them to publish a new source, as Wikipedia can only say what's already sourced. casualdejekyll 18:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for <ç> vs /t͡s/, it sounds more like the correct thing to do is to add a note to the table saying it uses Dwivedi's symbols, not the IPA - if thereś no source for the IPA symbols, we can't add them. casualdejekyll 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mitannijsko-Arijskij - the standard of inclusion for information on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. No citation? No inclusion. Even if it's the truest truth that was ever true. casualdejekyll 17:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You win the internet today with your quote:
No citation? No inclusion. Even if it's the truest truth that was ever true.
MahaNakhon (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aw, thank you. I'm just trying to help. casualdejekyll 18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is frequently a huge problem with the credibility of wikipedia and I find the "if there aren't better sources, tough" attitude that a lot of editors take to be extremely counterproductive. Here's my advice: yes, the incorrect information should absolutely be deleted. No, wikipedia should not have old and incorrect information simply because it was believed to be correct in 1960 and no specialist has bothered to write otherwise for 60 years since it's completely obvious to specialists that it's wrong. Our commitment to verifiability is supposed to guard against falsehoods and hoaxes; it's not a suicide pact. However, you will continue to run into the problem you have here if you make changes that add unsourced material (don't do this at all, no matter how sure you are that it is true!), and probably also if you simply delete material without explanation. Most of the people who do this are vandals or don't at all know what they are doing, and other editors have no strong reason to believe you are not one of those people, so it is very easy for them to err on the side of reverting your edits even if they are very sensible. Instead, explain the problems with the article on the talk page, using whatever sources you have to support your position. Leave it for a bit to give other editors who are watching the page time to chime in. If (when...) no one objects after a week or so, make your deletions/rewordings and refer to the talk page in your edit summary (eg: "removing WP:OR, see talk page" for wildly incorrect source interpretation/ventriloquism, or "removing extremely dated information, see talk page"). If someone objects, it is now their responsibility to talk it over with you on the talk page, and you stand a much better chance of getting somewhere. I also recommend looking for related Wikiprojects on the Talk pages and joining them. -- asilvering (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The best reference maker[edit]

I would like to be able to make full references (title, author, access date, etc.) automatically from just a "bare" URL. What would be the best tool for that? Firefox plugin "Wikipedia-References-Creator" is pretty good and does exactly that. What other alternatives are there? MahaNakhon (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MahaNakhon, see Help:Citation tools for a list. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One on one virtual assistance[edit]

Greetings! I am new to Wikipedia and wanted to see if Wiki offers live guided assistance that will walk through a Word draft I created and allow me to solicit their direct feedback/input? Love2TravelGuy (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Love2TravelGuy, welcome to the Teahouse. There is no such service on Wikipedia, but there are WP:IRC and WP:Discord servers where Wikipedians hang out and might - if asked nicely - give you some tips. (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for this insight. Whom could I email to make such a suggestion? Love2TravelGuy (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Love2TravelGuy, the only people I can think of would be the Growth team over on MediaWiki. Generally, business is not conducted via email on Wikipedia, and we don't have a suggestion box as such. (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this! Also, does Wikipedia have an LMS that allows for new user orientation with an intuitive/interactive walk through of the product? 2600:4040:2925:5900:4C63:1EC2:BA5B:CC0 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what the acronym LMS stands for. We do have Help:Introduction and WP:ADVENTURE, which are new user tutorials. (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This works and thanks so much (and apologies in advance for all these questions!) :) I appreciate all input. Will check this out now. And LMS - Learning Management System (apologies for not spelling that out initially). Cheers! 2600:4040:2925:5900:4C63:1EC2:BA5B:CC0 (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make sure to log into your account. We can see your IP address. To redact see WP:OS. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 22:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles in other language Wikipedias[edit]

What should I do if there is an article in another language Wikipedia that doesn't exist here? Is there a way I can mark it for translation or something similar? Lilliraune 18:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Lilliraune, welcome to the Teahouse. The options are outlined here - basically, you can either translate it yourself, add it to a list of requested translations, or ask a translator directly. (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do note, however, that English Wikipedia has more robust standards and enforcement of same than most other projects. A 1:1 translation (i.e. a translation without otherwise altering the article's content and context) isn't often an option. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Walk me through my first entry...Please?[edit]


I am trying to create my first entry, introducing Wikipedia to Mikaela Davis, Harpist.

I attempted to begin a Topic. Is this how one goes about making an entry for review or am I being led down an obscure path? If not then can someone please step by step me? thankfully? Also, when an initial entry is made...How long does it take to get approved and searchable? Thank you for our time. Championgabay (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Championgabay Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user talk page, which is for communication with you. New users cannot directly create articles, and must use Articles for creation. The process does take time.
Do you have a particular interest in your work being searchable, such as an association with this person? 331dot (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once you have created a referenced draft via Articles for creation, you then submit it for review. In time (days, weeks, sadly even months), a reviewer looks at it an either accepts, declines or rejects. If declined, reasons why are given. You can fix and resubmit. If accepted, there is a period of up to 90 days before outside searches such as Google can 'see' the article. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Championgabay - Welcome to Wikipedia! I've created Draft:Mikaela Davis for you as a place to work on and finish your article before submitting it. Before you continue your work on the draft, however, I must tell you that we have rules about what is and isn't accepted as an article for the encyclopedia. The standard for inclusion as a separate article in the encyclopedia is the General Notability Guideline, which states that topics are presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or, in normal person English, when it has received coverage in sources such as books, articles, newspapers, scientific journals, etc. On Wikipedia, factual statements about living people must be cited to a source - otherwise, anyone could write whatever about anyone, and that's a recipe for disaster, as I'm sure you can guess. The relevant policy is Biographies of Living Persons, or BLP for short. Thankfully, these two requirements are kind of a two for one deal: if you have the sources for notability, you can use them to cite the factual statements in your article.
Not every topic meets the GNG. Don't be discouraged! Feel free to edit other articles, or create an article on another topic. For example, my first accepted article was Synapturanus danta. There are plenty of articles that you or anyone else can write. If you have any particular interests, you might want to join a Wikipedia:WikiProject, which is an open group of editors that coordinate articles on a specific topic. If you have any questions about all of this, feel free to drop me a message on my user talk page and I'll help you as soon as I can. casualdejekyll 21:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Submission (Quick Review)[edit]

Hello, I am trying to get an article approved for an athlete's wikipedia page. The page has been submitted and currently in the review process. However, I wanted to try and expedite this process. How can this be made possible? LancePrater212 (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LancePrater212, there is no way to get Draft:Arthur Price III approved more quickly. AfC is a volunteer effort.
To get your draft quickly deleted or declined, you can tag it under WP:G7, paste copyright violations on the page, or promote Price as the best track and field athlete the world has ever seen.[Humor] Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 22:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that kind of humour is appropriate at this moment. casualdejekyll 22:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LancePrater212 - there is no "quick review" process, and unfortunately biographies are some of the most clogged areas on Wikipedia. However, to tell you my personal opinion, I don't think Draft:Arthur_Price_III will be accepted - your sources are primarily school newspapers and press releases. You should read up on WP:RS to see what sorts of sources we expect. casualdejekyll 22:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have declined the draft because it's not clear to me how they would pass WP:NTRACK? Sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sad truth of AFC is that the more impatient somebody is about getting their draft reviewed, the more likely it is the draft will get declined anyway. casualdejekyll 22:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Side note: @Theroadislong, if I was interested in becoming an AfC reviewer, how would I go about doing so? casualdejekyll 22:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the criteria to become a reviewer, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Theroadislong (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, there IS a way to expedite an AfC review, LancePrater212. You can submit a neutrally written, well-referenced draft about an obviously notable topic, and almost any AfC reviewer would be happy to accept it promptly. Cullen328 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I correct the coordinates of an article with no Coords entry?[edit]

The article on the Phoenix Cluster has the wrong coordinates listed in the coordinate tag at the top of the page. It's listed as 23h 23m 40.9s, −42° 41′ 54″, but it should be 23h 44m 40.9s, -42° 41′ 54″ as correctly shown in the infobox. I thought I'd quickly fix this, but I can't see the wrong coordinates anywhere in the article source! It looks like it's being sourced from the infobox, but then it's weird that it ends up being wrong. What's the right way to fix this? I guess I could manually add a {coords} myself, but that seems like brushing the real problem under the carpet. Amaurea (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Amaurea - The problem was with {{Sky}} - I fixed it in this edit. casualdejekyll 00:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Amaurea, the coordinate tag comes from the template {{sky}} at the bottom of the page. It has been fixed. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to change quotation marks to italics?[edit]

In the Bibliography to Abraham Lincoln, Eric Foner's book (not article) is in quotation marks instead of italics, and I can't figure out why or how to change it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maurice Magnus, it is using the "cite journal" template instead of the "cite book" template. I have fixed it. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@StarryGrandma Thanks. I see that all you had to do was change the word "journal" to "book." Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

article that was published is completely gone from site[edit]

Hi, I have been working on aedp (accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy) for years. It has been published for 2 years. The article is gone from wikipedia. there was no indication and talk page is gone too. Could someone please help me with this. Carrie Ruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Carrieruggieri. That article has been redirected to Diana Fosha, and that topic is discussed there. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there is not a discussion there. Carrieruggieri (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carrieruggieri, Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy. There have been several attempts to force this article into the encyclopedia against consensus. That is not a good idea. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that was in 2017. it is a completely different article now. After the deletion in 2017 it was completely revised. It is published in 2020. Carrieruggieri (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article draft was declined at AfC twice following the 2017 deletion, and then someone circumvented the AfC process and moved the draft directly to mainspace. Although that is not strictly forbidden, it is certainly unorthodox following an AfD deletion and two AfC declines. That type of thing tends to upset uninvolved editors. The topic is currently covered at Diana Fosha, and the redirect leads interested readers right there. My suggestion is to gradually expand that section of the article in strict compliance with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Once that section has grown enough with solid content (as opposed to padding), then splitting the article may be appropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Academic quality[edit]

I remember at some point a few months back seeing an article (likely a Featured Article) that had been listed among a select group of articles that were of academic quality. Like, a rung above FA. Do we have such a project? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that I've heard of, Krisgabwoosh. Are you perhaps thinking of an A-class article (a rung above GA)? But the A class is little used. -- Hoary (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I change my username?[edit]

I accidentally made a spelling error in my username and didn't realize it. TheBigSomker (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. Sarrail (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only contribution of "TheBigSomker" to Wikipedia has been the question above. Therefore simply forget it. Sign up as "TheBigSmoocher" or whatever single username you wish, and use that. Simple. -- Hoary (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense actually and thanks! TheBigSomker (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cow Bayou[edit]

Im having trouble with the coordinates. 30°16′N 93°56′W / 30.267°N 93.933°W / 30.267; -93.933Coordinates: 30°16′N 93°56′W / 30.267°N 93.933°W / 30.267; -93.933 is what im working with right now but when I put it in User:HelpingWorld/sandbox, it doesnt show the map with the coordinates. Any help is appreciated.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]