Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

ns12

ns4

Looking for more feedback

Hello Teahouse :) I've asked for help a few times here and I always get some solid criticism! I am waiting for my Draft: T-Money (rapper) to be reviewed in the articles for creation queue, in the meantime, does anyone have any additional pointers/edits for me to incorporate? Thanks everyone! Taevchoi (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

"The element of vinyl spinning, rap freestyle, storytelling, and dance remain a key component in the theme of hip hop today, lending credit to T-Money as one of the originators of the sound for hip hop in the mainstream." ¶ One element, or more than one? One component, or more than one? What does "the theme of" contribute to this? "Lending credit to": meaning that it must be returned later? Does "hip hop in the mainstream" mean "mainstream hip hop"? ¶ "Original Concept was one of the first of many artists to sign with Def Jam, which remains one of the most notable recording labels in the music industry today" ¶ In this article, which is not about Def Jam, why say "which remains one of the most notable recording labels in the music industry today"? ¶ "T-Money displayed his acting ability with the portrayal of several other popular characters" ¶ How is this better than "T-Money portrayed several other popular characters"? ¶ "with the last episode going down as a significant page in hip hop history" ¶ What has its significance been? -- Hoary (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Taevchoi, your draft is still shot through with promotional words, phrases and sentences. You need to go thorough the draft carefully and ruthlessly, eliminating every single trace of promotionalism. The content about "T450 Style & Launch Inc" is inherently promotional because there are no secondary sources in your draft discussing it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

AH I didn't realize that would be considered promotional. thank you! Taevchoi (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Honorary Fellows at Oxbridge Colleges

I was checking the list of Honorary Fellows listed for Emmanuel College, Cambridge and noted that several of those listed on the Wikipedia page are not listed by the College (eg Andrew Fane and Sir Leslie Fielding). That suggests the Wikipedia list is out of date. I wonder if there ought to be a policy of stating the date the list was most recently updated on the public face of the page (rather than it being accessible from the talk page only accessible to editors). (Much of the content of Wikipedia is out of date - so I favour a general approach to inserting 'as at April 2024' when making an edit of something that is likely to change over time). Newhaven lad (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Newhaven lad, it doesn't look like this is meant to be a current list of Honorary Fellows? It only says "current" in the sentence A list of current honorary fellows is published in the Cambridge University Reporter, Special No. 2, 2015., which appears to be describing the list linked in the footnote, not our list. -- asilvering (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - but a casual reader (not an experienced editor who will know this is probably out of date) may be better served by the addition of a date. If it is not meant to be a current list - and it is not a list of everyone who was ever an Honorary Fellow - then it is either a random list of notable people who were at one point a fellow - or a list of fellows at a point in time. Better I think to be clear. I realise that I may be being too purist and happy to leave this for editors' decision. But - unless there is a reason not to - I will add dates when I edit such lists. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The appropriate place for this kind of discussion is the talk page of the article in question. You're free to make whatever edits you think are necessary without any previous discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the advice. I'm still getting used to the conventions for Wikipedia discussions Newhaven lad (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Newhaven lad. You might find the information in WP:ASOF helpful. You're correct that it's generally better to use more specific date references than more general relative time expressions for the reasons given in WP:RELTIME; however, even more specific references like "As of XXXX" can still become outdated (sometimes relatively quickly) if they're not regularly monitored and updated. For this reason, using a template like {{As of}} often helps because it adds articles where the template's being used to date-related maintenance categories that are bit easier to monitor. Now, having said that, it's OK to be WP:BOLD and make such improvements that you deem necessary; at the same time, though, others might BOLDly disagree with your "improvements" and revert them outright or otherwise modify them. If that happens, try to work out a solution through article talk page discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

fwiw @Newhaven lad, I really doubt there's anyone who will object to boldly editing that article, especially if you give a rationale on the talk page. It's not very high-traffic. -- asilvering (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice - very helpful Newhaven lad (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Henry Cavill as Wolverine

Henry Cavill is reportedly going to portray Wolverine / Patch in Deadpool 3, I added it on the talk page of Henry Cavill, but no one has replied. Please, add that information 190.21.184.81 (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any posts on that topic on the talk page. You can add a message to the talk page including {{edit semi-protected}} along with an edit request, including sources. RudolfRed (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I was confused because you put it on Talk:Henry_Cavill but linked to the movie article. Its only been a short while since you posted. Be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Someone already replied ,but he hasn't added it in the article 190.21.171.147 (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

how to make a template

how to make a template like Template:Bobby Vee? Samchristie05 (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Samchristie05: See {{Navbox musical artist}}, on which your Bobby Vee example is based. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

like this Template:Robert Goulet Samchristie05 (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to place a number after Arabic text but it keeps going back to before the text, what am I doing wrong?

I noticed that at Ahmed Alattar, the date of birth in the lead paragraph has his name in Arabic in the middle (at least on Chrome for Windows, I don't know if other browsers are rendering it correctly), but I haven't been able to move the name to before the full date, so what is going on there? Tube·of·Light 13:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tube of Light Since Arabic is written right-to-left, it got confused and decided "8" was part of the Arabic string for some reason. I've fixed it. -- asilvering (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That explains it. Thanks! Tube·of·Light 03:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Re: Silas Bronson

"Relisting" after an unsuccessful go-round last week, now archived.

As stated before, an article on Silas Bronson (1788-1867)--Middlebury, Connecticut philanthropist, and the namesake of Waterbury's library (I used to live there)--has been on my to-do list for years, and has recently been up for grabs as my next AFC project. During yesterday's research, this next reference came up--but as it's from a publisher of already dubious notoriety, I doubt this will amount to anything worthwhile. (To say this may be the best-looking modern one outside the library's official site, which already counts as PRIMARY, might as well be an understatement.)

• Sullivan, Raymond E. (October 2010). Breakneck: The Early Settlement of Middlebury, Connecticut: From 1657 to Its Incorporation as a Town. iUniverse. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-4502-5632-2. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.

As I'm preparing this post--lo and behold!--a more promising alternative has caught our eye via Open Library.

• Anderson, Joseph (1896). "History of Waterbury: Libraries, Book-stores, Literary Societies -- Silas Bronson". The Town and City of Waterbury, Connecticut. New Haven: The Price & Lee Company. pp. 1013–1015. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Archive.org.

Beyond that, more viable sources are needed; once again, calling on the S.S. Cunard (talk · contribs) and WP:Connecticut for help. I'll update if I find more in the meantime. (From what I can tell, our sources have more hits on the library than the man himself; even Newspapers.com clippings from his lifespan [the vast majority of them] only amount to passing mentions at best. Perhaps we may try to refocus our mission on coverage of the library in due course?)

Also: Does it count as COI if I'm writing about the library as one of its former patrons? (Remember, I'm now a Florida resident.)

Take care, and if all goes well, see you back at the draftyard. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not a COI. -- asilvering (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Slgrandson, you seem to be looking for help in writing a draft? If you already know the specific people you want help from, posting on their talk page/the WikiProject talk page would be the thing to do; alternatively, you could create the draft and then make a post on its talk page, directing or pinging others to that post. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Already taken care of. (But considering the activity level of where I posted, I'm not sure when/if it will take off...)

If you've got any more pointers, @Cunard: I'd like to hear. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Slgrandson, if you'd like to collaborate with someone, the usual thing to do is post on their talk page and start a discussion - I'm not sure why you've carried this to the Teahouse? 57.140.16.48 (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've carried this to the Teahouse?

If only to sort things out and gear up before AFC. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

how to learn source code

Hello everyone. I'm new as an editor. I'd appreciate any suggestions on how to learn source code. Thanks in advance. Birdephant. Birdephant (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Birdephant: Welcome to the Teahouse. You may want to take a look at the cheatsheet to learn what the rudimentary wiki markup is. The source editor should also have buttons that add the appropriate code. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Once you are happy with the basics, an excellent way to learn markup is by studying (and starting to modify) existing code. Find articles that you like the look of, and open them in the source editor, to see how it has been done. If you find a bit of markup, or a template, or even some nested templates, that confuse you, copy the code into your sandbox, and rearrange it to make the function more obvious (eg put all parameters onto separate lines; use spaces and tabs to line up corresponding open/close brackets). Make small changes and see what effect they have - the Preview button is your friend here. Refer to the documentation to understand what you see. Ask questions here - sometimes the why is more important than the how. Enjoy learning. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 18:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Birdephant Just adding to what's been said: I've left a welcome message for you on your talk page. It contains a really useful link to Help:Introduction. If you follow that, you'll see two parallel sets of editing guidance; one for WP:Source Editor and one for Visual Editor. Most experienced editors still prefer to use Source Editor as its more powerful and usually easier to see where mistakes have occurred. But it's not to WYSIWYG as Visual Editor. It's very easy to switch back and forth between them - just click the dark, slanted pencil icon in the upper right hand corner of either editing tool. Good luck on your very own 'Wikipedia Adventure'! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines to go thru for education institute related articles

Hello hosts and other editors, can you suggest mos/ guidelines (or policies) to read if you want to make or edit articles of university? From ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 18:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm familiar with WP:NSCHOOL, but I'm not sure if there are any manuals of style that are specific to universities or schools. Maybe someone else can chime in if I'm wrong. Mokadoshi (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Change Board President Name | Westminster School District (California)

Hello,

Hope the week is going well. We are looking to update the name of our Board President to Frances Nguyen.

Wikipedia shows our former board president. This is for Westminster School District.

Could we also update our district logo?

Thank you. 2605:A601:A733:F900:88B6:E121:7AE5:ABE1 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like another user has already done this. Let me know if you have any questions, Mokadoshi (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that user - WSD CTO - seems to be operating a role account and editing with an undeclared COI, which isn't great. IP editor, please review WP:COI and use the talk page (Talk:Westminster School District) to make edit requests in the future. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yiqi Luo (骆亦其)

Yiqi Luo is a Liberty Hyde Bailey Professor at Cornell University. He is an ecosystem ecologist/biogeochemist.

The overall goal of the research in his lab is to advance predictive understanding of biogeochemical cycles of terrestrial ecosystems under the global change. Key scientific questions to be addressed include: (1) how global change alters biogeochemistry of terrestrial ecosystems and what is the underlying mechanism for such alterations, and (2) how the changes in biogeochemistry of terrestrial ecosystems feedback to global change. These scientific questions are addressed by integrating data with ecosystem models. The main approaches include process-based modeling, data synthesis, data-model fusion via data assimilation and machine learning, and theoretical analysis.

His lab developed the DYNAMIC DISEQUILIBRIUM framework to assess future land carbon sink dynamics, the MATRIX APRROACH to unify land carbon cycle models, and the TRACEABILTY framework to diagnose the uncertainty in model predictions of land carbon cycle. Luo-Ecolab (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question? Also, your name implies you have a conflict of interest with the draft you created for Luo. Conflicts of interest are required to be disclosed. Please read the plain and simple conflict of interest guide to learn how to disclose. Additionally, it is not allowed to have a username that represents the organization you represent. Your username should represent you as an individual, not your company or organization as a whole, and multiple people may not ever use the same account. Please read the username policy and request a name change to a more appropriate name. Let me know if you have any questions, Mokadoshi (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Luo-Ecolab, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. That does not mean that anybody can create a new article successfully without first acquiring the skills necessary to do so.

Every day hundreds of people who do not yet have any idea what the requirements are for a Wikipedia article, try to create an article. Usually, they have a frustrating and miserable time, and can't even understand the feedback they get.

i always advise new users to not even try to create an article until they have spent a few months making improvements to existing articles, and learnt about fundamental concepts such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability.

One of the things that makes it even harder if you have a conflict of interest is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Since you are associated, this means that almost nothing from your own knowledge is relevant, unless it has also appeared in a truly independent source. ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Your account is blocked until you apply to change your User name. Four of your attempts to create drafts have been Speedy deleted for copyright infringement (you used content verbatim from copyright protected sources). Your second attempt at a draft about Draft:Yiqi Luo 骆亦其 was Declined for lack of references. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that Yiqi Luo occupies an endowed chair professorship at Cornell University, he likely meets Wikipedia's standard for academic notability. What is essential will be to incorporate referenced content that is about him, rather than just about his research. At List of Cornell University faculty, see section Biology, ecology, botany, and nutrition for example articles. David notMD (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thinking about first article; Notable enough?

Hey everyone, I've been looking at starting my first article. Specifically this article would concern the Thing-Thing series of flash browser games. I wanted to do this mainly for knowledge austerity, especially since these games were quite popular on several flash game sites back in the day.

Would this be a topic notable enough for an article about the series? I definitely think an article per game would be more than overkill, but a single article covering the whole series may be notable enough.

Thoughts? EsperPike (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse! The general rules of notability would apply here. In short, it basically says that if there is discussion about the game in reliable, independent, third party sources, then it is fine to have an article. Examples of these types of sources can be articles published in major news outlets. As an example, the article on Line Rider references articles in The New York Times, Gamasutra, and GameSpot. Let me know if that helps you, Mokadoshi (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mokadoshi!

I've found articles about the series on both Rock Paper Shotgun and TheGamer, both gaming focused news sites, as well as discussion of the games on reddit and Newgrounds.

I understand these other two sites aren't reliable as references, but just looking for sources of notability.

Would this be enough? I feel that I've stumbled across less-notable articles in my (admittedly small) editing history, but I don't want to jump the gun on a bunch of work. EsperPike (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of the game on Reddit and Newgrounds would not be acceptable to be included in an article as user generated content is generally not allowed. However, the other two sources you found are probably fine. Neither of them have been discussed enough to have been included in the list of reliable sources but that doesn't mean they aren't acceptable, video game publications are sometimes too niche to warrant wider discussion. The general rule of thumb is to try to find a minimum of three sources that are reliable and independent from the game publisher. Also, I forgot to mention the video games notability page. This is basically the same as the other guideline I posted, it just gives more examples that are more helpful for video game articles. Mokadoshi (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Rules on deletion

New editor here, I'd like to suggest deletion of one of the pages that was recommended automatically. I know WP:PROD can't be used if there's a contested deletion on record. This article has one WP:G11 on record that was revoked within a minute by the same user that added it. Does that preclude the use of WP:PROD? The article is Workday Adaptive Planning, the WP:G11 is from November 2011. TJS808 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally to request pages for deletion you can nominate it in Articles for Deletion. However, it's my opinion that this is unlikely to be deleted. The article cites references to high quality sources such as Fortune Magazine, and it's fair to say there are other high quality sources that could be found on the internet to add to the article. This indicates the subject probably meets the required notability guidelines for corporations, which means it can have an article on Wikipedia. I've only done a cursory look, so I could be wrong. If you disagree I'd highly recommend you don't take my word for it and go ahead and nominate it so the community can discuss it. Let me know if that helps, Mokadoshi (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The Fortune source is a serialized list of minor venture capital news, which by my reading of the guidelines, isn't enough on its own. I'm guessing you'd recommend the normal AfD process then? TJS808 (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep, go right ahead. Also, just curious, have you edited on another account before? You seem to be impressively prepared and knowledgeable about Wikipedia for a newcomer! Mokadoshi (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I've probably made a few IP edits, nothing memorable, but no other accounts. I just read up on deletion guidelines before posting here, didn't want to sound too stupid. Thanks for the help! TJS808 (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask in the Teahouse or you can message me on my Talk page. Happy editing! Mokadoshi (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Help

I need help making my userpage. I try to add text but if I do it goes INTO the user box. If anyone can help, please respond or edit my userpage directly, thanks. GamrrOverDue (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi GamrrOverDue. Fixed by [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Question on Notability

Hey! Sorry asking for help, again. I was reading some questions above to help my understanding. I need help with notability, do we need to be noteable or does the thing we're writing about need to be notable/popular? GamrrOverDue (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Also another question: How do we make a cool name or highlighted/colored, I've seen some others with this and I'd like to try. GamrrOverDue (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi GamrrOverDue. The subject of an article should satisfy Wikipedia:Notability or one of the subject-specific notability guidelines linked there. The article should have sources showing that it does. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature for the other question. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Popularity does not always mean Wikipedia-notability. General advice is learn about Wikipedia rules by working to improve existing articles before attempting to create a new article. David notMD (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

How do you change your password on Wikipedia?

How do you change your password on Wikipedia? WalWalgreens (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @WalWalgreens and welcome to Teahouse. You can change your password by going to Special:Preferences and clicking the Change Password button. Mokadoshi (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit description

Is there a way tó change it? I find it very annoying when i don’t finish it or Make a spelling mistake, but í accedintally click submit. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Blackmamba31248. If by edit description you mean WP:EDITSUMMARY, then there's no way to change it once you've made the edit. You can, however, make what's called a WP:DUMMYEDIT to correct any errors you might've made in an previous edit summary. Dummy edits, however, tend to work best when you make them right away, and there are no interving edits between the edit summary you're correcting and the dummy edit itself. If too much time has passed and too many other edits have been made before making a dummy edit, it might actually be more confusing than helpful. In such a case, you might just have to live with the original error and explain it as needed if someone asks about it someday. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

i want to create a musician entry

question about how to create a new musician entry (Draft:Elizabeth_Goodfellow_(musician)). i made one without a template. i submitted it and it was declined as I failed to include very many references. I now have some more. But I also will need a disambigouation AND thought I might as well start with a nice template to ensure compliance with standard formatting etc. Where do I find one? where can i find a template Diatom.phage (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

No, Diatom.phage, it was not declined because it lacked very many references. It was declined because it failed to show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Three such sources would have sufficed; fifty passing mentions would not have done so. There does exist a biographical template. I forget where it lives, but it wouldn't help you. You're perhaps thinking instead of an "infobox". For most kinds of people, biographical infoboxes are useless. That's a minority opinion, but even the proponents of such infoboxes would tend to agree that they do nothing towards demonstrating either the notability of the subject of a draft or the appropriateness of promoting the draft to article status. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Random reference at the bottom of the Main Page?

Also, nowhere does it show a footnote. Can someone remove this? - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 02:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I see no reference at the foot of the main page, Dentsinhere43. -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary, it was definitely there, but this was already posted and resolved at WP:ERRORS (see Special:Permalink/1221473057#Today's FA). Queen of ♡ | speak 06:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

This looks like a cool place. I've been editing for about a week, maybe more. Ok, straight to the questions. How do I upload a photo and add it to an article? Tonkarooson (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, Tonkarooson. First, who took the photo -- you, or somebody else? -- Hoary (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't reply to the one above for some reason.I didn't do any pictures, I just wanted to know for the future. Would I have to come back? Tonkarooson (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you had trouble posting to this thread, Tonkarooson; anyway, as you can see, I've moved your response into the existing thread. If you want to upload a photograph that you took, then other than in extraordinary circumstances you own the copyright to it and you are free either to release it under a copyleft licence (which is what people normally do) or to waive all your rights to it ("place it in the public domain"). If the photograph was taken by somebody else during the last X years or was first published more than Y years ago, then usually that person owns the copyright to it and almost certainly you do not. If you don't own the copyright to it you must not pretend that you do. If the photograph was taken more than X years ago or was first published more than Y years ago, it will have entered the public domain and you may upload it, explaining how it has entered the public domain. The values of X and Y vary according to where the photograph was taken or first published, or the nationality of the photographer, etc: it's all explained at Wikimedia Commons. If all this seems complex, it is. Anyway, Wikimedia Commons is where you do your uploading. Unless, that is, you have a very good reason for uploading something that is conventionally copyright ("all rights reserved", or similar), in which case you upload it here with a claim of "fair use" for such-and-such a specific purpose in an article (not in a draft, a talk page, etc) -- but a "fair use" claim is additionally complex, so please forget it for now. Once you've got the photo in Wikimedia Commons, using it in an article is pretty easy. -- Hoary (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I just created my 1st article. Any advice

Hello wikipedians,

Just created my first article, RyzallNoh, any advice to improve my page would be appreciated.

Thanks

RyzallNoh (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

RyzallNoh, quote: Ryzall demonstrated resilience by embarking on a bold foray into event production. Undeterred by the challenges, he ventured into this endeavor with determination, acquiring practical expertise through hands-on experience and drawing insights from seasoned luminaries in the field, including Khairudin Samsudin, Suhami Yusof, Hussin Saaban, Razi Salam, among others. What reliable source, independent of the subject (i.e. yourself) says that this demonstrated resilience, that the foray was bold, that he was undeterred, that the producers were "luminaries", that (like whiskey or Parma hams or whatever) they were "seasoned", etc? Or to cut this business short (as I've only looked at one part of a single paragraph, and there are several more paragraphs), let's agree that you have uploaded an advertisement for yourself to a website that's not a PR conduit but instead an encyclopedia, for which the advertisement is utterly unsuited. Please rewrite it very radically, today; it might then not be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

To avoid speedy deletion, I have moved it to draft where you can work on it. Theroadislong (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Certainly, I made significant revisions right away to ensure its preservation. RyzallNoh (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Now at Draft:RyzallNoh. David notMD (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, RyzallNoh. There are two things that it is important for you to realise.

First, that writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged one Wikipedia, and slmost nobody manages it successfully.

Secondly, that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

First find the sources (none of which should have been written or published by you or your associates, or based on an interview or a press release).

Then forget everything you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources say about you.

Do you see why it is difficult to write an article about yourself? ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

RyzallNoh, be aware, too, that if you do succeed in writing, or getting someone to write, such an article, and that article passes muster, then in general, anybody will be able to come in and edit the article. And if the edits are relevant and well-sourced, even if you don't like them, there will be very little or nothing you can do about it. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Citation bot

Could someone please go to the citation bot (User:Citation bot) & activate it for the article Christianity in India to see if it's working or not? There are bare urls in the article. I tried activating it by typing "Christianity in India" after the activate button, but it didn't seem to work.2409:4071:6EB8:C308:5573:D1CE:ADB2:69E4 (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I would love your contributions

I would like to know whether any of you have encountered a Fulgoridae species. I am currently working on filling the gap of Fulgoridae articles on Wikipedia, especially with photos. If you are not sure which species, I can identify it. Please upload them on Commons and provide the link. For reference of what you can expect them to look like, check https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?taxon_id=54944. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that they are found on every continent but Antarctica. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts are generalists, advising on how to edit and create Wikipedia articles. I doubt any Host would recognize a Fulgoridae insect even if one flew up their nose. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I am just asking after seeing the reference of what it should look like. I, as I mentioned, were up to creating Fulgoridae articles, and I needed photos beacause people, as you may know, when it comes to insects are more interested in seeing a photo than reading an original description or a Wikipedia description or comparison between similar species. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I had never heard of fulgorids, and if I've ever seen one, I probably mistook it for a moth. But there are plenty of pictures at Commons. Maproom (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a good amount, but a few are dictyopharidae. My main focus is completing Pyrops, which commons lacks. Pyrops is found in S and SE Asia. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Still, any other species are welcome, from any side of the world. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

no. I will ask. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Snf with multiple authors

Hi. I have an Snf template which has 2 authors. When I add the 2nd surname to the 2nd field, the link (that you click on citation number) doesn't work. I have to use 1st surname and the year of publication. How can I use both surnames (and year if possible)? Sincerely, Aredoros87 (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aredoros87. The link on the citation number worked in both versions but the link on the reference text to the bibliography didn't work in any of them. Fixed by giving both authors and year like in the bibliography.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Aredoros87 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

A small additional point: the template is Template:Sfn, an abbreviation of "shortened footnote". You're welcome to keep using an referring to it as "snf", and Template:Snf redirects to the right place anyway, but it might help to switch to the more common name. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that for me. Aredoros87 (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Article

Create new article TheLordOfLight-Lightlord (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a question? Might it be answered by the instructions at Wikipedia:Your first article? Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for the question. To create a new article, you must be autoconfirmed, which means you have made at least 10 edits, and your account is at least 4 days old. If you are not autoconfirmed, you can create a draft and submit it for review. I recommend you read the following pages: WP:Your first article, WP:Autoconfirmed, and WP:Drafts. Thank you!  Kentuckian |💬   13:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There are many gods and religions in Game of Thrones. Not clear if any might warrant a separate article. David notMD (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@TheLordOfLight-Lightlord, even if you are autoconfirmed, I strongly suggest that you do not put an article directly into the mainspace. Instead, if you want to create a new article, you should create a draft, or use your sandbox. Thanks.  Kentuckian |💬   18:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Shantavira, Kentuckian, and David notMD: Please ping new, signed-in, users when you reply to them on The Teahouse. In this case, @TheLordOfLight-Lightlord: FYI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@TheLordOfLight-Lightlord: See Religion section in Themes in A Song of Ice and Fire, R'hllor, for some referenced coverage. Is that enough? David notMD (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Miscount of GA articles

My issue is pretty simple, the bot claims that I have 4 GAs but in reality I have 5. What can I do about it? Thank you. The Blue Rider 14:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider: The bot's talk page is probably a better place to ask. There or WT:GA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

New Wiki Page

Hi, I've been working on a new page (article). I have been in touch with AirshipJungleman29‬ who has been very helpful with make changes and improving the article. I would like to submit for review. Should I wait for AirshipJungleman29‬ to review it one more time or shall I go ahead and submit the "review link"? Thank you Journalist19 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Journalist19/sandbox Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^Ex-Mørtis 16:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It's really up to you, Journalist19. When you submit it, it might be several weeks before it gets reviewed, during which time you can consult @AirshipJungleman29 or any other editor, and make your own improvements to it. On the other hand, it might be reviewed in ten minutes: we just can't predict when a reviwer might pick it up.

In any case, when it is reviewed, you should get some feedback about it. ColinFine (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You say "a seasoned automotive journalist" is he covered in salt and pepper? Please give the dry unadorned neutral facts and content like "His insights and analyses aim to provide a deeper understanding of the evolving automotive landscape and its key contributors." is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Are you writing about yourself by any chance, if so please read WP:AUTOBIO. Theroadislong (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There are 13 references. None has a title that suggests it says much about the man. But possibly several do. Which of the 13 are the most substantial? 1.33.56.248 (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Before any action, you must address the PAID query on your Talk page. If paid, then acknowledge on your User page. If not paid, but COI (see WP:COI), acknowldege that. If neither, explain how you came to create this draft about this person, including a photo you claim as your own work. You have now, on your Talk page, confirmed paid status. Declare that on your User page. David notMD (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

je voudrais cree un artice commen puige fair

comment puige cree n artice Eluwner (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Translation: I would like to create an article how to do it; how does puige[?] create an article 57.140.16.48 (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

puige --> puis-je asilvering (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. If you want to write in French, try the French Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Learning how to write NPOV is mind blowing

I absolutely love making edits that are NPOV and encyclopedic. I used to struggle on writing with a neutral tone, (felt impossible) but after practicing for almost six months I've really started to understand it better.

Now when I see people writing things here or online that sound like fluffery, I seriously get sick to my stomach! Wikipedia hasn't been easy to learn, but its been fun and rewarding, and despite many 'biters' in the beginning, I am ultimately grateful for the scrutiny I faced on my earlier edits because It made me want to do better.

Anyone just getting into the community, I encourage you to stay and work your edit muscles, Wikipedia is pretty awesome for that! Comintell (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Comintell: I agree. Practicing on Wikipedia has made me better at identifying dishonest journalism.

On the downside, it has made my everyday writing kind of boring, just-the-facts style. There's an art to mastering the creation of "compelling prose" that is enjoyable to read but still neutral, and I haven't mastered it. A few years ago I read the book The Unauthorized Version by biblical historian Robin Lane Fox and was amazed how artfully he could present dispassionate arguments. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Haven't mastered it yet either, but now I consciously see, and recognize when (anything) is written in an NPOV style. I've now started to finally realize what my high school lit teacher meant when she would say "This essay starts out with too much fluff," and the over-dramatic 'ChatGPT style' of writing just sticks out like a sore thumb to me now. Almost feel slightly embarrassed, because it's like I couldn't tell the difference between 'good' and 'bad' writing.

There have definitely been editors who crossed the line with toxicity, though now, I am so grateful for the constructive criticisms I've received here.

"There's an art to mastering the creation of 'compelling prose' that is enjoyable to read but still neutral," is such a well-put and beautiful quote. And like you, I also haven't mastered the craft yet, but I wholeheartedly agree with your observation of it being a powerful art form. Yes, if a 'piece-of-prose' is 'too neutral', it can certainly be 'too-boring.'

There's a time and a place for fiction writing, research writing, and of course, encyclopedic writing – still, as you said, when the piece has that perfect balance of compelling, interesting to read, and neutrality, and perfectly executes that 'art form,' I think it really stands out as quite unique and the opposite of boring. When an editor (e.g. me when I first started) writes with 'fluffery,' (in a promotional style,) or uses Peacock words, such practices can and will stain an article about even the most notable subject.

I now feel as though the promotional style of writing reads like the immature babbling of the subconscious mind. It's almost like the words written by a student whose goal was just to "write well" based on nothing more than what their imagined idea of such; almost like one who is not a writer, clearly LARPING as one.

The awful, bias-laden, and silly style of writing that reads like the frantic clacks of a marketing intern working for an oppressive regime, a disillusioned individual, or the self-published manifesto of an ego-maniac, should be critiqued and frowned upon. Anyone can write biased and promotional propaganda, in fact, for non non-fiction writers, (and people in general), puffery seems to be a default style of writing all are born capable of.

Reading some of my old edits, I cringed and asked myself "why didn't I ever read this out loud before?" Alas, some instances, where I once felt as though other editors were being unreasonable or mean, I now see as genuine and justified critiques of my past work, which I now view as nothing short of garbage.

RE: "Identifying dishonest "journalism," I agree to an extent. One of the more confusing things for me, was the WP policy that explains that secondary sources don't have to be neutral. Without caring or giving into any political hoopla, I've seen sources that lean with bias on both sides, and sometimes its hard to tell what's expressly dishonest, or just bias/misinformed. The Forbes contributor fiasco (i.e. WP:Forbescon) was definitely eye opening, because I always assumed that such an outlet would have strict editorial standards, which turns out to not quite be the case.

Not to continue my rant, but another BIG amazing eye-opener was starting to learn the difference between primary/secondary sources, (a process some probably learn about in college or decent schools, which I did not have the luxury of), because it's a vital part of researching, performing a sane analysis and understanding of information. Getting involved with Wikipedia has been tremendously educational and valuable to me, and I am still learning a lot *So far from perfect still*.

PS, going to check out the book you mentioned, and also saving your quote "There's an art to mastering the creation of "compelling prose" that is enjoyable to read but still neutral," to my notes (It's a great quote)

Ok i'm done, sorry for novel, have a nice day/night! Comintell (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

How do I get approved for reading an article?

So I've seen some articles have these audio files that play the articles, and I want to update some of these, as I see that some of them are quite outdated. How do I put an audio file of me recording an article to Wikipedia and get it approved?

Jesoysauce (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I think you should visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, which has information on how you can do that. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

would this count as personal info

can I send someone my username on Fortnite? Ill delete it after, and well talk on fortnite EdenBAnn (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but this is definitely not the place to talk about Fortnite or epic games unless it is to edit the articles ^48JCLTalk 22:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

sounds good, thank you EdenBAnn (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Are typos still possible?

I looked and it seems like there are bots that catch them. So I don't know if I should be looking for them. Also, it's good that you included cake in the picture. No tea, but I will do a QA audit on the cake and have water instead. [I guess I got lucky and saw a picture of cake, but it was nice while it lasted] 75.142.254.3 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely! Here's a typo that I just fixed before writing this. Typos are sometimes left undetected, you're likely able to find some if you look up "site:en.wikipedia.org [insert typo]" on a search engine. See also: Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings and Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. B3251 (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If this is an area that interests you, check out the WP:TYPO team. It is a never ending task. RudolfRed (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I read this question, then found and fixed 26 typos in 23 minutes without much effort. DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I correct typos frequently. Most are my own typos. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Me too. I've never seen a bot correct any of my edits. Sometimes I wish they would.

If I see an IP address leave an edit summary that just says "typo", I have learned from experience that there's a good chance this is an unconstructive edit that needs reverting, especially if it's a substantive change. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Weird. That one's even an improvement - but definitely not a typo. -- asilvering (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

A lot of people use WP:AWB to fix typos. So, it's not usually bots making the corrections, but human editors (with a program that makes this faster). -- asilvering (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has covered the entire Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/R for over 12 years, I am finding far fewer typos than I used to. Although there are fewer, I probably still catch about 750 per week. I suspect that this reduction is due to most browsers now having real-time spell-checkers, but it may be that there are more editors searching for typos; the one thing I doubt is that there has been a steady improvement in peoples ability to spell correctly (or many other words!). - Arjayay (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Self-published sources for industry awards

I'm looking at contributing an update to Miriam Buether's article, to capture her 2024 Olivier Award for Best Set Design. To me, it'd make sense to point to the Society of London Theatre's page on winners, but I'm wary that it might be considered a self-published source - would it be better to try to track down a news article which echos this info?

If it would be appropriate to use this page, I'd also appreciate a little help on how to cite it - so far, I have the following, which has neither a date of publication nor an author:

{\{cite web |url=https://officiallondontheatre.com/olivier-awards/year/olivier-awards-2024/?awards-view=winners | title=Olivier Awards 2024 |access-date1 May 2024}}

Sean 10:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sboy365: when you're using a source just to support a non-contentious fact like that, you can use a close primary source, no problem. (In fact, I'd argue that the original source, ie. in this case the organisation awarding the OAs, is probably the best and most reliable source for that information.)

The {{cite web}} template accepts, but doesn't require, parameters such as date, author, etc. Access-date is more important, so readers can see how current the citation is.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please how do i upload images on Wikimedia commons without getting deleted

Hello, I've been trying to upload the images Obara_new_cover.jpg and Dare_Olaitan.jpg on Wikimedia. But, the images don't have a copyright license, and the images keep getting nominated for deletion. Can I use the template (Non-free use rationale) to stop my images from getting deleted or is there another way? Aivrie (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aivrie. Copyrighted images (with non-free licences) aren't allowed on Commons. Non-free images intended to be used under WP:NFCC should be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia (instead of Commons). You should click the "upload a non-free file" button at Wikipedia:File upload wizard instead of the other button, or any other way of uploading, it will ask you a few questions and tag things correctly for you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Views on articles you've edited

Hi Teahouse hosts! I'm a relatively new editor and I'm loving it.

Just wondering about the "Views on articles you've edited" section on one's homepage. Above the number, it says "your recent activity (last 60 days)". Does this mean the view number is only within the last 60 days? Or is it all-time views? I'm also wondering this because my view number fluctuates.

thanks in advance! Emmybris (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Emmybris, glad to know you're enjoying Wikipedia! It is indeed the view number with in the last 60 days, which is why the view number fluctuates. Cheers! Kline • talk • contribs 12:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding WP:CHEESE

I have been in a debate with an editor regarding a topic which I have formal education in. The issue is that several reliable sources (interviews with doctors) have made statements about something that they are not experts in (the function ultrasound devices). The claim they are making is something that is literally impossible; I would know as I am a medical physics graduate student who has taken literal classes on how these devices work. I can show from various sources that it is (or at least should be) very clear that the claim being made by these doctors is not possible as the mechanisms these machines work with is incompatible with the statement. However, there are likely no sources at all (much less reliable ones) that explicitly state that this claim is false because. I, in essence, in the starting phases of WP:CHEESE.

How do I address this? Blast335 (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Which article is this debate on exactly? I can't really help you here unless I have context. TypoEater (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be in an edit-warring like dispute at Heartbeat bill with User:Avatar317. The correct place to resolve this is at the Talk page of the article, where a discussion is already ongoing. The tone has gotten a bit heated. Wikipedia asks that editors dispute content without implying incompetence on the part of other editors (or claims of competence on one's own behalf). References rule. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned WP:CHEESE not to imply any incompetence on Avatar317’s part, but rather to convey that the 5 references I gave that explain how ultrasound imaging devices work being ignored made me relate to the astronomer in the essay. Blast335 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Blast335: Wikipedia much prefers what is stated in reliable published sources to the opinion of someone who shows up here claiming to know better. If as you say you "can show from various sources that .. the claim being made by these doctors ... is not possible", then do so. Meanwhile, don't expect to be taken seriously. Maproom (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I did. I gave 5 reputable sources that explain how ultrasound devices work. Since none of them stated that they don’t detect electrical signals they were ignored. Hence my comparison to WP:CHEESE. I mentioned that essay not because I mean to imply that Avatar317 is incompetent but that the issue at hand is of a similar nature. Blast335 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Blast335, you need to find sources that address the issue directly rather than ones that get to your assertion through WP:SYNTHESIS. Because this deals with medical issues, you'd need those sources to comply with the requirements at WP:MEDRS. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

My point is that the chances of such a source existing is essentially zero. Could you find a source that directly addresses the fact that a thermometer can’t take a picture? I’m not meaning to be snarky when I say that, I’m trying to demonstrate why what you’re asking me to do is almost certainly impossible. Also wouldn’t this burden of proof work both ways? If they can’t find sources other than interviews other that interviews with doctors about abortion laws mentioning this claim to discredit the phrase “heartbeat” doesn’t that mean the claim fails? Blast335 (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Blast335, if this is something you've figured out, probably someone else has, too, and if they think it's worth commenting on, they'll comment on it. If literally no one anywhere is mentioning this in a source that is reliable, we go with what people are commenting on.

Now, what you can do is question the sources that are saying that it is "detecting electrical activity(?)" or whatever you are objecting to. If those sources are lay sources rather than MEDRS sources, that's a valid argument. If you get pushback on that argument at article talk, I'd take it to the MEDRS talk page at WT:MEDRS and ask folks there for advice. They are very committed to making sure WP does not contain medical information sourced to non-MEDRS sources.

And, yes, if there was a commonly-held belief a thermometer could take a picture, there would very likely be someone commenting on that somewhere in an RS.

In the meantime, don't edit war to your preferred version. WP doesn't have to be correct NOW, except in very limited areas. Valereee (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Except it’s not commonly held. I’ve never heard the assertion outside of the specific context of abortion rights advocates responding to heartbeat claims by anti-abortion proponents. That said, your point is noted. Blast335 (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Need help in declined draft

I need help in submitting my declined draft. Harwant Singh Arora (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Harwant Singh Arora. You have asked for help at WP:AFCHD. Please don't ask at different places, as it just duplicates effort. ColinFine (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Yash Wadali Declined for reasons given for the Decline and at AFCHD. See WP:NMUSIC for some guidelines about what an article about a musician must contain. Very briefly, there needs to be references about the person, not just a listing of their songs. Teahouse Hosts are here to advise, not to co-author. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Not A Question

Just wanted to apologize about my issues in the talk session EdenBAnn (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Translating Korean article into English

I want to translate a Korean article (https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%9C%A4%ED%9B%84%EB%8D%95) into English. The article is about a politician in the neighborhood I live in. I've been a user of Wikipedia at least since 2005, and it's only now that I've signed up to contribute. I have benefitted so much over the years from Wikipedia, and seeing many, many Korean articles missing English counterparts, I would like to participate in helping translate existing Korean-only articles and in time, contribute new articles that don't exist yet.

I somehow found the Content Translation tool, and loaded up the above link to get the WYSIWYG side-by-side translator page. But there is an error saying "Your translation cannot be published because publishing is only allowed to more experienced editors on this wiki." What is the threshold I need to meet or experience I need to get to be able to begin translating? Is there a certain number of edits I must do to be able to begin translating pages? Please advise. Thanks! Dailynovice21 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Dailynovice21: per WP:CXT, that tool is for use by (and I quote) "extended confirmed users (editors who have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits to the English Wikipedia)". HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dailynovice21, aside of not being able to use the Content Translation Tool, be advised that you may need more references than those in the kowiki article for the rest of the facts. See WP:BLP for the policy governing biographies on enwiki. – robertsky (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggested Edits in a different language

How can I get Suggested Edits in a language other than English? All the Suggested Edits are showing up in English, but I want to work on non-English articles that needs edits. Thanks. Dailynovice21 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Dailynovice21, welcome to the Teahouse. Since this is English Wikipedia, all our articles are in English (of some variety). If you want to edit articles in other languages, you will need to go to the Wikipedia in that language (I see you've checked out ko.wikipedia.org and zh.wikipedia.org, those are two examples) and sign up for whatever recommendation process they have, if any. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

revison

hello I just wanted to let you know I didn't make any recent edits to monchiu peteue 207.136.241.18 (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. IP addesses frequently get reassigned; whoever was using your IP back then made those edits, and it has now been reassigned to you. Sooner or later it will probably be passed to someone else. If you want consistency, I recommend creating an account, it's both free and easy. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Won't let me upload pic

tryna upload a pic of my dog that I own, but wont let due to the file name :

• My dog Koa, or called koko.jpg

EdenBAnn (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@EdenBAnn, welcome to the Teahouse! That's occurring because the file koko.jpg already exists. Try another name for the picture? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

oooooohhhhhhhh, I get it, ok! EdenBAnn (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

actually, I don't?

Koka my doggie 194uunnzzdodod.jpg

How does someone have this named, I think something is wrong. EdenBAnn (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, EdenBAnn. Please not that Commons:Commons:Project scope says Uploaded files are within scope only if they comply with all of the following conditions. Every file ... Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.

While that last condition is interpreted quite widely, I'm not sure it covers a photo of your dog. ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

oh, sorry! Apologies for any troubles I've caused. EdenBAnn (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)