Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly. Alternatively, you can contact an experienced editor by visiting your homepage and clicking "Ask your mentor a question about editing".

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

Genre questions

I was told to come here to ask if I could post these genre sources:

1. For For Your Love, there is an article (https://bluesrockreview.com/2024/11/10-british-bands-that-shaped-blues-rock.html) which says that this song is blues rock with experimental flair, so I was wondering if I can cite this song as blues rock and experimental rock
2. For Girls & Boys, I was wondering if I could cite the song as Eurodance by this article. And alternative rock and synth-rock by this article
3. For Just What I Needed, can I cite this song as punk rock and hard rock by this article
4. For Cool Night, can I cite the song as soft rock by this article. And proto-chillwave by this article.
5. For Strawberry Fields Forever, can I cite the song as experimental rock by this book
6. For You Are What You Is, can I cite the song as boogie rock from this article which calls the song a “boogie”
7. For Radar Love, can I cite the song as blues rock by this article. And progressive pop by this article.
8. For Crosseyed and Painless, can I cite the song as electronica by this article. And psychedelia, funk, and world music by this article by this book
9. For This Must Be the Place (Naive Melody), can I cite the song as indie rock by this article
10. For Psycho Killer, can I cite the song as shock rock by this article
11. For Shakedown Street, can I cite the song as rock by this article, cite this song as R&B by this book, and disco by this article
12. For Pump It Up, can I cite the song as hard rock by this book. And can I cite it as garage rock from this article
13. For When Doves Cry, can I cite the song as hard rock and progressive rock by this book
14. For Tight Rope, can I cite the song as jazz rock by this book, cite this song as ragtime by this article, and circus music by this article
15. For Johnny and Mary, can I cite the song as synth-rock by this article
16. For Major Tom (Coming Home), can I cite the song as space rock by this article
17. For I Wouldn't Want to Be Like You, can I cite the song as disco-rock by this article
18. For Talking in Your Sleep, can I cite the song as a rock song by this article. Can I also cite the song as a garage rock song by this book
19. For Solsbury Hill, can I cite the song as arena rock by this article. Can I also cite it as folk rock by this article

I’m sorry, I can get impatient with the talk pages, I was told to go here to ask help so I don’t get a vandalism warning, are the sources perfect? 209.96.222.65 (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

If you think they meet the reliable source guidelines, then I see no reason why you can't use them. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 11:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

IP editor. None of these sources look problematic to me. The worst that will happen if you cite them when you edit the various articles is that some other editor will revert your addition. If that happens, start a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, pinging the person who reverted you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Well the person was FlightTime phone and they said it was vandalism. Although, I was just editing Wikipedia 209.96.222.136 (talk) 14:30, :::25 June 2025 (UTC)

I assume that this was at User talk:209.96.222.65. But I see no accusation of vandalism there. Maproom (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

On my talk pages, I was accused of vandalism and got a block warning for my edits on Come Sail Away, Baby, I Love You, and Talking in Your Sleep, although I edited them with reliable sources. 209.96.222.65 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Neither User talk:209.96.222.65 nor User talk:209.96.222.136 has any mention of vandalism. What other talk pages do you have? Maproom (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:David Evans Shaw

I am attempting to submit a page Draft:David Evans Shaw as a biography. I have made two attempts. The first editors critique I understood and I removed issues related to "puffery" and this seems to have been resolved. On the second submission, I have received a rejection based on the comment that it needs to be written in a more neutral voice eg "encyclopaedic" there is also a mention of more varied references. I believe I have cited significant verifiable references, but have added more, and I have gone through and further tried to make the tone more neutral but am struggling to understand what about the article is problematic. Could someone take a look and give me some assistance to get this over the "neutral" hurdle? Draft:David Evans Shaw. Thanks in advance

Profberger (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

If you haven't checked the notices at the top of your draft I would suggest you do so. The links there do provide the best advice to improve the article, which anyone is likely to repeat here.

I personally would suggest reading the article aloud to yourself to see how it sounds. Or to check out various featured article biographies as those are well-made articles that can serve as an idea of what you should aim for in your writing.

The teahouse isn't really for pre-reviews but you should check out the reliable sources page in particular along with the notability page. I glanced over this and most of the references seem to be press releases from companies directly connected to Shaw. aquarium substrate^talk 16:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Profberger: here's something that will be easy to fix. Section headers should be in sentence case, not headline case or all-caps. Maproom (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Tagging own added content with Citation Needed Template

Hi, I have a question. An editor tried to add content to a BLP article, but I reverted it due to the lack of a reliable source. He later messaged me and admitted that he couldn't find a reliable source for the information, but still wanted to include it with a citation needed tag added to his own edit.

From what I understand, the citation needed tag is generally used for existing unsourced content, not for adding new information that can't be verified. Is it acceptable for an editor to add content they know can't be sourced and just tag it with citation needed? - Arcrev1 (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Arcrev1, and welcome to the Teahouse. That is not acceptable, as the editor is intentionally introducing original research.

Ideally, {{cn}} would never be used, because anybody finding uncited information would either find a source or remove the information, but in practice that often doesn't happen. I would call it disruptive editing to add the template when the information is first inserted. ColinFine (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft option

why is there no option to send draft for review?? BurningB (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

please tell me BurningB (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@BurningB If you are talking about Draft:Goldmines Telefilms, then you have successfully submitted it for review. Adding {{subst:submit}} did the trick and added the article into the queue of drafts waiting for review. You will now need to wait for someone to get to your draft and review it, so please be patient. However, the draft was started by @Tushar3011, so I pinged them. Generally, it is good practice to let the creator of the draft know if you are contributing to it. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 03:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was waiting for a response, but no one responded, so I checked the Draft article on Wikipedia and got there.BurningB (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

So, I have to let them know when editing or submitting?@Justjourney BurningB (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@BurningB The reason why I said that is because I encountered this idea before, and asked the teahouse here. @Jéské Couriano (pinging) told me that editors often get annoyed when they step in and help. However, according to WP:DRAFTMOVE, it says that any editor can jump in and help out with a draft, as the editing policy applies to drafts as well. I said it is good practice to ask the editor, but you're not required to do so. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 03:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

but why Wikipedia Not your own apply here??? BurningB (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about a page i read BurningB (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand your question, please write it again. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 04:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOT OWN or something idk, says not your property or something BurningB (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of content this BurningB (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

That's exactly what WP:DRAFTMOVE says, that you don't own drafts, and other editors can take action on it. I was just saying what my experience was with the Teahouse question (I asked back in February 2025) that I mentioned earlier. See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1248#Helping_with_a_draft. That was what another editor said (@Jéské Couriano). Justjourney (talk | contribs) 04:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

So you should decide whether to notify the draft's creator or not. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 04:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Justjourney. do you know how many days it needs to be reviewed? BurningB (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

BurningB, near the top of Draft:Goldmines Telefilms we read "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2–3 weeks or more..." -- Hoary (talk)

Incorrect Citations: Non-verifiable claim

I was looking at the history section of "7075 Aluminium Alloy" and noticed that the page claims that the alloy was made in secret in 1935. However, the source cited states that, "by 1935 (Showa 10), the Super Duralumin alloy had already been developed" and says nothing about it being made in secrecy. I then decided to check the citations of the article cited in the Wikipedia citation. Through this, I verified that the inventor of aluminium 7075 started working on the project in 1935, published a paper about it in July of that year, and filed for a patent in 1936. However, there was still no claim of all this being done in secret.

Would this be an incorrect citation? Can someone find out whether or not the secrecy claim is true? Am I overreacting to an incredibly mundane problem? What should people do when they come across citations that only verify part of a claim?

Thanks! Woodenturnip (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

If theres no source stating that the alloy was secretly developed, then the best course of action is to remove that claim. If a source can be found, then add another citation to the claim, verifying the statement about secrecy. Anyways, this would be better discussed on that article's talk page. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thank you! Woodenturnip (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a misreading, because the use of the alloy was a secret in the airframe of the Prototype 12 plane that became the Zero. One of the planes was captured, revealing the viability of the new allow to the United States. This paper on the history of Extra Super Duralumin uses the word 'secret' twice, and only in reference to the Zero that was captured. Hope that source can help. Just Al (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Few Roblox games having an article about it

Hello there fellow Wikipedians, I'm very new. But, please explain why do few Roblox games, that are Dress to Impress, Grow a Garden, and Sonic Speed Simulator have their own Wikipedia articles, while others games, such as Natural Disaster Survival, and Forsaken, have not? Are there still drafts related to separate Roblox games? NoteTaking3690 (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @NoteTaking3690. Notability on Wikipedia can be a strange concept. Articles are not created based on popularity, but the amount of reliable, secondary sourcing that prove the subject is notable on its own right.

Perhaps those articles don't exist simply because no one tried yet. You can attempt to create your own/improve someone else's drafts and submit them to WP:AFC for publication, but success is unlikely. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tarlby Ok, I took a look at the reference section in all of these three articles and I'm extremely surprised that all of these games are covered in significant media coverage, especially on the game journalism. I tried searching on Google, but would all of these games, (Dress to Impress, Grow a Garden, and Sonic Speed Simulator) be featured in news also?

I found a link that featured Roblox games: [1] NoteTaking3690 (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I also understand that the success is unlikely, when attempting to create a draft. NoteTaking3690 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Article improvment

I just updated an article named ''Kingdom of Northern Lusitania" and i wanted to know if i did a good job. This is my first and i want join the community and i want to learn from others and improve on my mistakes. I am sorry if i waste your time with more important madders but it would mean a lot. Historyguy4111 (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Historyguy4111, which part of this article is derived from which of the (very vaguely described) sources listed at its foot? Please use references to indicate this. -- Hoary (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:Referencing for beginners may help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review Support – Draft: The Matthew Tree Project

 Courtesy link: Draft:Matthew Tree Project

Hello, I am seeking help and guidance with the draft article The Matthew Tree Project, which was recently declined. The article was carefully written to comply with Wikipedia’s tone, neutrality, and notability guidelines. I removed all citations that did not offer in-depth coverage of the subject and focused only on reliable, independent, secondary sources. I also ensured the tone was factual and not promotional. Despite this, the draft was rejected again with a standard comment stating that the sources “do not show the subject qualifies” and that it “reads more like an advertisement,” which I respectfully do not believe reflects the latest revision. I would appreciate the input of more experienced editors to: Review whether the current sources do, in fact, support notability Suggest improvements I may not be seeing Advise whether this article has a realistic path toward approval Any advice or assistance would be very much appreciated. Thank you. Mark180378 (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mark180378, and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft reads like what the Charity wants people to know about itself.

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 exclusively 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.

I haven't looked at all your sources, but the ones I have looked at are either not independent of the Project (interviews etc), or do not contain significant coverage of them. (The Mayor of London source doesn't seem even to mention the project).

You need to evaluate all your sources against WP:42, make sure that you have several which do meet all the criteria there, and then make sure that your draft says only what those sources say.

One of the things that makes writing with a COI difficult (thank you for disclosing your COI!) is that what you know about the subject is irrelevant, except where it is verified by a reliable and in most cases independent, published source. ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine, thank you for your time you have spent reviewing this and for positing this helpful comment. Your reference to the London Assembly report sums up the challenge in writing the article as per the guidelines, in this case it seems the guideline to only use in-depth citations is at odds with referencing points of interest, i.e. in The Guardian editorial (link provided in article) Patrick Butler states "The MTP's work was cited as "possible model for the capital" in a recent London assembly investigation into food poverty. Labour member Fiona Twycross, who led the investigation, said she was struck by its long-term approach to finding a route out of poverty for clients. "Food banks are not things we should expect in our society. But I liked the Matthew Tree ethos. It was substantially less disempowering than others we saw." This statement from the Mayor of London has a prominent place in the final report and therefore is considered of notable value given the significance of the statement. It is very hard for a Wikipedia novice, like myself, to know how to write about, and link to, notable external information such as this within the guidelines, which is why I am asking for some experienced, independent assistance. Mark180378 (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Mark180378, you write about "the guideline to only use in-depth citations". There is no such guideline. Yes, you need to cite sources that deal with the subject in depth and are independent of it. But this doesn't exhaust the possibilities. You can additionally make a very limited use of sources that aren't independent of the subject (simply, in order to back up what can't be described as achievements); and, as long as they are reliable and independent of the subject you can additionally make considerable use of sources that don't go into depth about the subject. -- Hoary (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

PS "WP:42" isn't a list of what's acceptable as source material for an article. It's instead a list of what's acceptable as material "To establish notabiity [sic]". Once notabi(l)ity is established, you may not add shovelfuls of stuff gleaned from corporate brochures, interview transcripts, PR puffs and the like. (Indeed, you'd be wise to add none.) You may, however, add material backed up by rather fleeting descriptions within articles that are mostly about other matters, if these articles are from reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

HELP! Article keeps being declined.

I created a page for the television and magazine star Siobhan Wykes, who is very popular at the moment with her work at Best and on Vanessa.

The page can be found here. Draft:Siobhan Wykes

Basically, the person who seems to work for Wikipedia said this, followed by a couple of passive-aggressive remarks. "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 people). "

I've cited several references that were not created by the subject, such as the Hearst page which outlines her work and also Vanessa's YouTube page.

I've kept the article relevant, factual and backed it up with reliable sources e.g. not just hear say on gossip forums. The subject has a notable online profile and career both in front and behind the camera/microphone in broadcasting.

Has anyone else had such difficulty in getting their pages approved? At-least I tried! Thanks all. Mort22 (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Mort22 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and we usually advise that new users first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles, and using the new user tutorial first, before attempting it.

YouTube is not an acceptable source as it is user-generated, unless the video is from a reputable news outlet on their verified channel.

The other source is a very brief biography by her employer, which is not an independent source. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they are a notable person. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I've cited several references that were not created by the subject, such as the Hearst page which outlines her work and also Vanessa's YouTube page. Neither Hearst nor Vanessa are independent of Wykes, as they both employ her. See WP:INDEPENDENT for more information about what an independent source is and why we require them.

Creating new articles, especially about living people, is one of the most difficult things for new users to learn on Wikipedia. It might be helpful to gain more experience editing before trying to create an article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

"the person who seems to work for Wikipedia" They are here as a volunteer, as are we all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

And those "passive aggressive remarks" are standard templates – around 100,000 different people edit on Wikipedia every month, making many millions of edits between them – replies to standard problems have to be standardised "boilerplate", or the workload of the 'regular' editors (all volunteers) would be impossible. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195) 94.6.41.216 (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

It would be useful to read Wikipedia:Referencing for Beginners, so as to include usefully formatted references rather than bare links which really aren't much help to anyone. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Why are there so many pages for non-notable corporations?

The page Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests has dozens of requests for pages and contain nothing but a corporate logo, the stock price, and a list of other companies they have swallowed up (merged with). Many of the requests have extensive comments from editors, but nobody has referred them for deletion as not notable under WP:COMPANY#Primary criteria. Am I missing something?

It says: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject ... If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable ... Julian in LA (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Julian in LA: I guess very few people want to do the work outlined in WP:BEFORE that is needed to establish whether the article should be deleted. Per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, regardless of whether they are currently in the article. You are welcome to send them to WP:Articles for deletion if you are unable to find sources to add to the articles, but keep in mind that lots of good sources are hard to find. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Julian in LA, Wikipedia editors have deleted over 400,000 articles through the Articles for Deletion process and there are two other deletion processes as well. I routinely tag drafts and articles about non-notable companies for speedy deletion. Therefore, your comment that nobody has referred them for deletion as not notable is incorrect. That happens constantly and it is a lot of work to process all of them. You can help out. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the half dozen pages that I looked at. I assume the article would have a tag if it had been referred for deletion. Is there a place where I can look at deleted corporate pages and their comments? Julian in LA (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Julian in LA. No, only admins can view the contents of deleted articles. If the articles were deleted by the Articles for Deletion process, then you can search for the discussion that led to the deletion; but if it was one of the other processes, there will be no discussion.

As Raccoon says, you are welcome to read and follow WP:BEFORE, and if your conclusion is that the company is not notable, to propose the article be deleted. ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

If you need to see a specific deleted article you can ask at WP:REFUND for a copy to be placed in your user-space (that won't be done if the reason for deletion was copyright violation). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

How to upload your image to your article?

I am having a hard time uploading my picture from my computer into my article. I have tried various of methods but none seems too works and some others show me some random picture that weren't related to my content at all. Nguyen The Gia Hung (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

You don't upload it from your computer to an article, Nguyen The Gia Hung. If it's a photograph that you took (if you own the copyright), then you upload it to Wikimedia Commons (here). Once it's there, it can be added to any article here (or in Vietnamese-language Wikipedia, etc). It can also be added by anyone, to anything; e.g. to a website that promotes a political party that you detest. So be sure to read the "small print". -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

So how do I put the image into my article again? And I tried finding pic on wiki but there wasnt any image that its related. I have the link, and the name of the author who took the picture, and all of the info abt the pic but I can't put up the image on my wiki article, don't know if that help or will I get strike by copy right again. Btw, thankyou for the reply, helps alot and sry for my english Nguyen The Gia Hung (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Nguyen The Gia Hung, if you're sure that it's yours to upload and that you're happy to upload it, then the first thing you do is go to Wikimedia Commons' "upload wizard" and follow the instructions to upload it. (You haven't done this yet.) When you've completed the process at Wikipedia Commons, that website will tell you what code -- [[File:.....]] -- you should put in your draft or article. Copy this, and paste it where you want it to go. The result is likely to be good as is; but for more help, try Help:Menu/Images and media. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Nguyen The Gia Hung, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, copyright in images is complicated, and Wikimedia projects (including Wikipedia) take it more seriously than many sites on the internet do.

You say "I have the link and the name of the author who took the picture". That implies that you do not own the copyright on the picture. That in turn means that you do not have the legal power to license the picture in the way that Wikimedia Commons requires, so you may not upload it. You would need to get the copyright owner of the picture to upload it themselves, or else to send a message as explained at donating copyright materials.

As far as I can tell (I don't speak Vietnamese) you are having difficulty getting an article accepted. On English Wikipedia adding an image would not help that at all. I don't know the rules for vi Wikipedia, but I would be surprised if it were different in that respect. ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Help with editing

Currently I am writing an article about Vietnam nuclear development. I am completely new to this whole Wiki stuff, and it would mean the world to me if someone can help me edit (make section, upload image, copyright), I am available to call, or simply chat. Nguyen The Gia Hung (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Firstly you will have to write articles here in English. The vi.wikipedia.org may welcome contributions in Vietnamese. Assume everything is copyright unless you can prove otherwise. So most images are not acceptable. I would suggest that you find your sources first, and then base your text on those sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

And @Nguyen The Gia Hung, Help:Introduction is a good place to learn about contributing to wikipedia. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking at your sandbox, you were writing a huge background as if you were writing a report. This is an encyclopedia, so we do have other articles, so you do not have to write how the technology works. Instead write about the nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons, history, Government departments, laws and policies, nuclear medicine, study research and institutions, famous people connected to the subject. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Paragraphic question board feature

I have a suggestion that each paragraph of a wiki could have a little question board to not only stimulate community engagement and discussion but also to raise educational effectiveness.

I would envision the board to be a little button next to each paragraph or maybe even on the bottom right that expands into a comment and question section.

WIKIPEDIA DEVELOPERS PLEASE I LOVE YOU!

best wisherings, sigma lazalical51. 2603:8081:9C00:21E7:6DC4:2395:99C:6097 (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Well this wiki is so big that there are several question boards. You found one here. For questions beyond the teahouse there are the villiage pumps and reference desks. WP:RD is a directory page to point you to different pages for questions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Please also note that Wikipedia is specifically not a discussion forum. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The ongoing writing and editing nature of Wikipedia means any specific paragraph might not exist later. And with 7,014,824 articles, each having a few or few-dozen paragraphs (and tables, and photos, and diagrams...), finding and getting any sustained activity on any one in particular seems difficult. Instead, each whole article has a talk page for anything about any part of the article, and anyone interested in that topic can watch for discussions there. But Shantavira is right, those talkpages are only for the discussing article content and ways to improve it or add to it, not discussing the article's topic in general. DMacks (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Requesting copy of deleted draft article

Hello! I recently submitted a draft article titled User:FluxGen/sandbox, but it was deleted on June 10, 2025, under G11 (advertising). I now understand the guidelines and would like to revise it properly using reliable, independent sources. I have requested a copy from the deleting admin (Waggers), but haven’t heard back yet. Could someone please help me recover a copy of the deleted page so I can rewrite it in a neutral tone? Thank you! Rahul Upadhyay at FluxGen (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Remember to declare any conflict of interest by following instructions found here: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you are being paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of a company, then also read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. After you have declared your conflict of interest, you can work on the article in your sandbox then request it be moved into Mainspace at Article for Creation. Any edits you wish to make to an article should be requested.

For help on editing, check out Help:Editing and the five pillars of Wikipedia, especially the part about reliable sources. Wikipedia also has notability rules and notability guidelines that determine what can and cannot be an article, with specific guidelines for companies. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

You also asked this at the help desk. Please don’t ask in multiple places. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Personal attacks on a noticeboard

I was thinking about WP:NPA recently — what is the consensus regarding removing personal attacks against you that are placed on an admin noticeboard (like ANI or AN3)? Should you remove them yourself using {{RPA}}? Gommeh 🎮 14:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

If it's an egregious personal attack ("Example is a thief and smells of vomit") anyone can and should remove it. But if it's just a negative view of behaviour ("example is not here to edit Wikipedia and is just trolling us"), it should be left. WP:BOOMERANG can be applied if such remarks are made unduly. If in doubt, err on the side of caution, and leave it to others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I hope this question is not too 'silly' for this "Teahouse"

Talk:Sic#Is an oral (spoken) "original" still called a "source text"?

-- Mike Schwartz (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

If you've alreay asked on that talk page, there's no need to ask here. But yes, an oration is still a source/primary text. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Rashid_Gazzali

can you give me suggestions to improve this page and what im missing its my first contribution

Draft:Rashid_Gazzali. MUHAMMEDNIHALPM (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

MUHAMMEDNIHALPM it seems like you created the draft for the purpose of promoting Gazzali and his work. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for promotion. You most likely need to rethink how you approach creating this article, from the standpoint of an encyclopedia rather than a social media profile or personal website (as it is currently structured). More concrete advice is detailed at the Your First Article page. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

You generated your draft with an AI chatbot. It is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Do not submit it for review in it's current state. qcne (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @MUHAMMEDNIHALPM, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Red Links

Hello experienced Wikipedians!

I have been suggested this article Finley Hospital to edit because I'm new here. I noticed there are a large number of red links that don't lead to pages. I'm reading through WP:RED and I think I should remove some of them, but I'm having trouble figuring out which ones. Can anybody help with some tips on how to figure out which ones might be worth keeping and which ones should be removed?

Thank you! JesseL0vesT0ast (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@JesseL0vesT0ast A lot of those red links look they were stuffed in by someone doing promotion for the subject of the article. You can search to see if there is a relevant article. Names of projects or people will probably not have an article. But something like Becker's Hospital Review instead of "Becker's Healthcare" is a good fix. Just Al (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, after searching both the Telegraph Herald and Becker's web sites for the time range around the citation...nothing exists to support the text. Published articles from these sources _can_ be linked, but the editor who created it did not. This may be because it was an advertisement, not an editorial article. Or, the article does not exist. This article is a mess. Just Al (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

This edit appears to have been a major expansion/overhaul of the article with at least some content that several editors find problematic. Since then, it seems like editors have picked apart some of that edit but overall the article is still in that expanded/overhauled form. Is this form, prior to that point, a better basis for future work? DMacks (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

How to put in Nomination for GA

I want to put in a nomination for GA but I don’t know where I put in a nomination on the page. 8bit12man (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

8bit12man is there anything unclear with WP:GAI? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I know this might as well not be related but...

The NPOV Rule (WP:NPOV) is probably one of, if not the biggest rule of Wikipedia as a whole that should be respected. I think for military casualites, especially r**e, it's better to use the neutral "people" instead of just women 2601:600:8D82:6200:6CE8:3CB7:4C57:C3C5 (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

We have to say what the sources say. I assume you're referring to rape victims in wars, in which case they were almost exclusively women, as they are in non-military contexts aswell. WP:NPOV is about reporting all significant viewpoints, not introducing false equality to subjects where inequality is largely the issue at hand. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Are these photos properly licensed?

Hello, may I verify with you guys that these photos are properly licensed on Wikimedia?

• File:Cupofjoe-auroramusicfestival-2025-multo-screencap.jpg
• File:Vivoree Esclito in March 2025.jpg
• File:Maris Racal 2024.jpg

I'm used to seeing the "This file is free to use" golden banner. How do I know that these files have been properly licensed? Thanks so much. Bloomagiliw (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

All of these are uploaded to Commons, so Commons is the place to ask about them. You can try their Village pump copyright section as a place to raise concerns. I would say that in the case of the last two, almost certainly not. For the first, I think it might well be. But if you ask at commons you will get someone who knows for sure. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 08:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

how to make a new wikipedia page that is acccepted in Wikipedia's policies?

I tried making one but failed. May anyone explain me step by step how? Lelenoos (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Lelenoos, the first step is to choose a suitable subject. What is your intended subject? Maproom (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Lelenoos As the message on your talk page says, Wikipedia does not tolerate the creation of hoax articles. My advice would be to learn how to edit using a combination of suggestions on your home page and edits to existing articles on topics that interest you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Lelenoos, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

Why is it so important to you to create a new article? We have seven million of them, and many thousands are in desperate need of improvement. Creating a new article is not the only, or necessarily the best, way to contribute to Wikipedia.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Commercial reviews on Wikipedia?

Why is commercial review on Wikipedia?

What am I missing?

See "specifications" on Xiaomi YU7:

27 June 2025 revision, version 1297671759

2A00:801:7BE:B1F3:B9DA:3C2A:54BB:F27D (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

To which part of Xiaomi YU7#Specifications are your referring? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you are suggesting that there is far too much technical detail in that section, I agree. IN fact, more generally, the section is obviously mostly saying what the manufacturer wants people to know, and that is pure promotion, and I have tagged the article accordingly.

You are welcome to remove some of the excess detail and/or to rewrite it so that it is summarising what independent sources say, not what the manufacturer says. ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Help for deleted page (my error!)

Dear Everyone, I’d like to ask for your help with a page I tried to create in the past about NICOLA DUSI GOBBETTI. It was deleted for being promotional, which I completely understand. At the time I didn't know how to write a proper, neutral Wikipedia article, and I made mistakes without meaning to. I want to be clear that I have no intention of advertising or self-promotion. My goal is only to see if it's possible to create a truly encyclopedic, well-sourced page about this artist, who exists and is a recognized, reputable figure. You can find a lot o sources, articles, paper about him, owned by eminent italian museums. I’d really appreciate if experienced editors could help me in restoring the page, allowing me to draft the page and correcting that, if appropriate, to create the article in a neutral, encyclopedic way. I’m also happy to provide reliable, independent sources that establish notability. Thank you very much for your time and guidance! Pincherle Moravia (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Pincherle Moravia, was your deleted draft based on reliable published independent sources? If it was, please state those sources, instead of expecting volunteers here to find them over again. If it wasn't based on such sources, there's probably nothing in it worth restoring. Maproom (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am just asking how I can restore that page. I said I have all the sources, I do not need anybody to find them for me. I could write the page by myself, but Wikipedia says I can't do that anymore. So what can I do? Onky ask for a help. I thought this was a place where we could help each other. Why did you reply with such an anger? I said I am not familiar with Wikipedia. Pincherle Moravia (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

You can ask at WP:REFUND. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

can the mac studio become

The best article on wikipedia to read? I’m trying to do so but my edits keep being reverted 2023macstudio (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

No, you added "hi" as your first edit on Wikipedia, and then removed a sourced paragraph. Seasider53 (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

sorrry… it was a test. please do not inform my parents. I’m only 12 and I don’t want my parents to know 2023macstudio (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

That was in jest, but please have a read of the links provided on this page. Regular test edits will lead to your account being restricted. Seasider53 (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't know who your parents are, and making a test edit is a fairly common mistake that beginners wont get in trouble for. You may want to read Guidance For Younger Editors though. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 11:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

seasider say on my talk page my parents has been contacted 2023macstudio (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

As noted above, that was a joke (maybe created by a chatbot): now do you see the problem of using such bots? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

sorry. I will not use ai on wikis again 2023macstudio (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

can I use ChatGPT to write wikipedia

see I’m want to make article about Mac intel vs silicon processors article 2023macstudio (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

why did ut make the m5 chip that doesn’t exist 2023macstudio (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@2023macstudio Please don't use a LLM to do this. Amongst other problems, they hallucinate by creating apparent sources of information that in fact don't exist. More at this page. You should develop your skills by editing to expand existing articles with reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@mike did it hallujcate by making m5 chip 2023macstudio (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Your edits are being revered by a bot, so I would suggest you slow down and seek assistance. Seasider53 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

You can read the guidance for younger editors in Wikipedia. It is very useful. But please don't use AI to write Wikipedia content. Fabvill (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Otherwise the content itself will be fictitious, and can violate the Wikipedia copyrights. Fabvill (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)