Wikipedia:Teahouse#Dropdown menu bug in other wikis

Hello I was wondering if it would be acceptable to use a llm to gather sources and then verify them myself and use them? Cheers OwlLemons (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have tried this. If you try it, be sure to check each and every single one of the sources you get. In my case, I observed a high incidence of hallucination, where the source didn't exist, the author didn't exist, the ISBN didn't exist, or the source referenced didn't actually contain what the AI said it did. I did get a couple of decent sources but the reliability of the AI suggestions, I found, was quite low. And the AI annoyingly provides them in a supremely confident, assured way, to sway you into taking its word.

:This was a year ago. Things may have improved.

:But definitely do not cite a source blindly if given to you by an AI. Check it out. Go to the library if you have to. You'll find that you'll be doing as much work validating the AI-generated sources as you would finding the sources yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::@OwlLemons, LLMs have improved at this since @Anachronist last experimented. They still present many of the same problems, but much less badly. One thing they absolutely struggle to do, though, is to give you appropriate sources. Sometimes, they'll give you sources - real ones! - that no one in history has ever cited before. This presents some real problems for balanced wikipedia editing, since one of our major principles with regards to article sourcing and content is WP:DUE. So, I wouldn't recommend them for source-hunting either. However, there's something they are becoming quite useful for, which you may find convenient: finding a source you're thinking of when you already know what it is. Let's say you've read something before, but you can't remember what source you read it in. You're sure you've read it - but who wrote it and where? An LLM is great for this, because it can search much more quickly and effectively than you can, and you can easily and immediately tell if it's wrong. If it gives you results to things you haven't read, you know that's not it. If it gives you something you have, just open the source, check the location it specifies, and see if that's indeed the thing you remember. -- asilvering (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok thanks for the information! OwlLemons (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @OwlLemons! LLMs should not be used to do much of anything - they love to hallucinate and make stuff up. You can read WP:LLM (an essay about the usage of LLMs on Wikipedia) if you want more information. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 23:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:No. Cremastra (u — c) 23:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes. Why wouldn't it be acceptable? It doesn't matter where the sources come from so long as they are reliable sources. If you're really asking if you can use the text that LLM gave you along with those sources, the answer is no, that would be plagiarism. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::It wouldn't be plagiarism, since AI text isn't copyrighted. It would just be dumb. Cremastra (u — c) 22:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Much of AI text actually is copyrighted, because the AI often uses verbatim phrasing from copyrighted sources it trained on. This becomes quite evident if you ask an AI to write an article and then you check those sources that it didn't hallucinate. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::[citation needed] Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Try it yourself. In my experience testing a few kinds of prompts a few months ago, I did experience this problem. -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Cremastra It would be plagiarism, even if it isn't copyright violation. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

How much knowledge is there on Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have the same amount of knowledge as with paper encyclopedias? How do you gain experience? Knowledge542 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @Knowledge542, welcome to the teahouse! Wikipedia probably has more knowledge in it then any other encyclopedia ever. That's one of the benefits of being an online encyclopedia - it all gets updated and expanded in real time! As per your second question, simply edit! If you're unsure what you can do, I'd suggest checking out the task center for a good list of things you can try out. From there, you can do all sorts of stuff - copyedit, source, categorize, and maybe even write an article once you feel you're ready! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 20:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::@PhoenixCaelestis How could Wikipedia have more knowledge than any other encyclopedia? Knowledge542 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Knowledge542, by volume alone? The World Book Encyclopedia claims to have over 17,000 articles in the 2025 set. Wikipedia has over 6 million. When I was a kid, we had two different full sets Funk & Wagnalls and the World Book, and a third set that was written for an audience of children learners. I read them. A lot. I tried to read cover-to-cover. For World Book, the jump references were too enticing, and I'd end up pulling out a different volume and reading that article. The articles were well edited. But, there were not the many thousands of contributors that Wikipedia has. And, there are only so many pages available. Some encyclopediae are more concise based on subject, or just to keep the page count low. Wikipedia does not have that physical limit. It does not have the same level of editorial oversight. Some articles are sparse or badly written. But they exist, or can be made to exist fairly quickly. This is not the case with an encyclopedia that is frozen in time. Even with the annual yearbook updates, the World Book became stale. Countries changed. Historical and scientific assumptions were disproved. We went from atoms being invisible to printing a photograph of an atom...a huge change in perception, and expensive addendum to a printed encyclopedia.

:::Have you read much of a conventional encyclopedia set? What has your experience been? Just Al (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Just Al @PhoenixCaelestis Yes I read a convention encyclopedia set and they look spectacular to me. I wish Wikipedia would be in print. What is the reason on lack of editorial oversight? Knowledge542 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::My experience has been fine to me. Knowledge542 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Primarily, Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers in their own time. Published paper encyclopediae have paid writers, editors, proofreaders, fact-checkers, and other support staff to keep the business running. They also have deadlines. In publishing, there are drop-dead dates that mean an article is pulled and replaced if it is not deemed acceptable when the layouts are locked in before the printing process begins. An article must be polished, or it is scrubbed for another date (or not at all). That pressure will limit the count of articles, but also improve the quality of the few that remain. At Wikipedia, there are no deadlines. And drafts are acceptable to publish because it allows other editors to participate or provide advice. It's always a work-in-progress. Just Al (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Just Al However, are World Book encyclopedias still relevant today, despite being published annually? Knowledge542 (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I’m still waiting for responses. Knowledge542 (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I suppose this is a question on protocol or etiquette or ethics(?). Is there an appropriate method for me to send a personal note to a user whom I believe I recognize? For instance, hypothetically, suppose I read Colin Fine's AboutMe page and I was fairly convinced, from his picture, his name, and his IT & Linguistics background, that I knew him back in the 1990's when he was on an extended trip to St. Louis, and I wanted to say Hi. What is the best method, other than posting a hypothetical question on The Teahouse, to do so? Sickingm (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Sickingm}}, some users (including {{u|ColinFine}}), have an "Email this user" link, about ⅔ of the way down the list of links at the left of their user page. You won't be able to find their email address from it, but you will be able to use it to send them a personal message. Maproom (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::^ That's a great observation. The user setting is at Special:Preferences | Email options | Allow other users to email me Just Al (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, @Sickingm. I think I know who you are, and I tried to email you, but you haven't set up an email address, so I couldn't. ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::@ColinFine It looks like @Sickingm added their email onto their user page after you posted this comment. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 23:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there a term for the opposite of WP:Whitewashing? In other words, the desire by some editors to exert a Herculean effort to include a negative piece of information or something? As opposed to the Herculean effort to remove a negative piece of information. I am just curious if such a term or policy or essay exists. If not, then may it should. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Iljhgtn, I think that there’s no official name for the opposite of whitewashing, the behavior is still covered by core content policies like WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:COATRACK. Similarly, If no clear term exists, proposing an essay or coining a suitable name could be a valuable contribution to the Wikipedia community’s editorial discourse. - IMO Fade258 (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, I am familiar with those policies, and could read up more on this. I think I might need to write my first essay then. I am open to suggestions on what to call it... "blackwashing" sounds awful and inappropriate, but something that effectively means the exact opposite of "whitewashing" would be good. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, You're absolutely right "blackwashing" carries problematic connotations and should be avoided. Since, you're looking for a term that clearly and appropriately conveys the opposite of "whitewashing". I would suggest a term "Smearwashing". Fade258 (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::What about simply smearing? Augnablik (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, I was just about to say that. -- asilvering (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Isn't this "opposite of whitewashing" often the purpose behind creating WP:COATRACKs? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Tarring? -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:smear, malign, calumniate, libel, slander, asperse, disparage, degrade... TLJ3 (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::vilify TLJ3 (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Many of the above could be good shortcuts for the essay. I'll get to work on it next week or whenever I find the time. If anyone wants to help I'd be open to having an extra hand in it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I've found an article with a link to a dead site (specifically citation six on Joseph Fletcher). I've found an archived version at [https://web.archive.org/web/20141206172212/http://www.riverbendds.org/index.htm?page=fletcher.html], how would I go about replacing the citation? Vəssel ^{[talk to mə]} 10:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Vəssel Welcome to the Teahouse. There is general advice at WP:LINKROT. If you run into problems with creating the new citations after reading the instructions, just ask back here for more advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Vəssel For better or worse, with the help of your providing the archive link, I have fixed this.

::Presumably there are bots that go around repairing what fraction of the links they can, with whatever limited ability they have. It's considerably easier when someone has provided a good archive link, but then again, if a good archive link is readily available, then (I wa under the impression that) the bots should be fixing them.

::Properly fixing an archive link (assuming the bots will never catch up) is at least one of the better unmitigated improvements you can make to Wikipedia, and you can be sure there will be ample broken links to work on. The challenge often is actually to find a working archive link. You often need a bag of tricks to locate good archive links, and to my knowledge, there is no place where it's written down, and often what you need to know is not obviously documented. So you can spend a fair amount of time in some cases and pat your self on the back when you've succeeded with a particularly challenging case. Fabrickator (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, huh - with this one I just plugged it into the wayback machine and it already had an archive. Maybe I was lucky. Vəssel ^{[talk to mə]} 13:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Vəssel Thank goodness it already had an archive, because the link was broken as of December 2023, and once the link is broken, it's too late to create the archive. But that means the link has been broken for over a year, why had the bots not fixed it in that period of time?

::::I would suggest that if Wikipedia doesn't have the resources to keep links working, then the project is on a doomed mission. It take a lot of volunteer resources to make WP what it is, the size of WP constantly grows, but if links break and don't automatically get fixed (even when the archive is readily available), then the project is on a downward trend that will continue to get worse. Fabrickator (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Have a look at User:InternetArchiveBot, a bot that can help you proactively add these archive links ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I had assumed that we have something running InternetArchiveBot and similar bots across all articles ... if we're supposed to be relying on manual invocations, that would not seem like a particularly viable solution. Fabrickator (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I thought so too, but now I can't find documentation for this. In any case, even if a bot is crawling article links automatically, there's a lot of crawling to do so it doesn't hurt to manually poke the bot for articles that we want to prioritise. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Why don't articles related to this use a hyphen when there are two genres, like comedy horror, instead of comedy-horror with a hyphen? — ArćRèv • talk 13:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Who can say? Feel free to boldly edit and make such a change; then start a discussion if other editors disagree. See also MOS:Hyphen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Pigsonthewing}} There are no editors who disagreed — I'm just asking why, in almost all film and television articles on Wikipedia, the first sentence lists multiple genres without hyphens. For example, it says "Blank is an American comedy horror film" instead of "comedy-horror." Is this part of Wikipedia's standard guidelines? I'm just a bit confused. I looked at the Manual of Style (MOS), particularly the hyphens section, but it's quite long, and I couldn’t find a clear reason why genres aren’t hyphenated. — ArćRèv • talk 12:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

How do I stop an image being constantly added to my Wikipedia page that I dislike? StanleyTimberlake (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:It might help if you provided a free image that you do like. That doesn't necessarily prevent someone from trying to use the other image, but it would give an alternative to those who want to include images on every bio. --Onorem (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|StanleyTimberlake}} you can't remove the picture simply because you do not like it. I recommend that you upload a better image instead, but please note that if it is a taken by someone else then we need permission from the photographer. See Wikipedia:A picture of you. MKFI (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yep, see Wikipedia:Ownership of content. GoldRomean (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|StanleyTimberlake}} Something else you can do is take a selfie with your phone and upload it so it can be added to the article about you. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|StanleyTimberlake}}, I assume that the page you a referring to is Tracy Wiles, as you refer to this as "my" page. If so, keep in mind that this is not "your" page. You do not own it, and you have no control over what other editors might add or take away from it. This is something that everyone who is the subject of a Wikipedia article should keep in mind. Mike Marchmont (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:@StanleyTimberlake You might find the info at Wikipedia:A picture of you helpful. Like stated above, this is Wikipedia's article about Tracy Wiles, not your article. A picture of the article subject is generally considered a good thing around here, and my personal opinion is that that picture is better than no picture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Alternatively, simply update Tracy's website at [https://www.tracywiles.com/portraits-and-headshots this URL] to indicate that the photographer Ruth Crafer has licensed one or more of her images as CC BY SA 4.0 and we can copy it/them over to Wikimedia Commons. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Don't {{Tq|1="simply update Tracy's website ... to indicate that the photographer Ruth Crafer has licensed one or more of her images as CC BY SA 4.0 "}} unless the photographer has understood what that means and agreed to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Raboe001, ping to you since we're talking about your picture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Noting alternatives at Category:Tracy Wiles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have a question regarding copyright in regard to maps of kingdoms from books sourced,(Draft:Kingdom of Aboh), in my draft here I uploaded a map for the Kingdom of Aboh, however I'm unfamiliar with copyright rules and I uploaded it through Commons Upload Wizard, is that constituted under fair use for the site ? Dangermanmeetz (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Also to prevent my draft from being declined/deleted when reviewed. Thanks! Dangermanmeetz (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Dangermanmeetz}} Do you know who made it? Do you know when it was made? Do you know if there's any copyright on it? Please also see WP:COPY and WP:YFA. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yea I credited the author, it was made in 1971, but I don't know how to check if there's copyright on it, that's why a moderator(?), sent me this link to see if you would be able to identify it. However, after checking Common Uploads Wizard description:f you do not own the copyright on this file, or you wish to release it under a different license, consider using the Commons Upload Wizard." It seems I'm safe to use it ? Dangermanmeetz (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion from that explanation. You don't own the copyright, so you can't use it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::than whats the utility of the Common Upload Wizard ? The description says IF you don't own copyright, use this medium. Otherwise its a pointless tool,no? Dangermanmeetz (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I also see maps used on Wikipedia that were created within the last decade or so, are they also are copyright owned. Dangermanmeetz (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If you can point at a specific one, we can try to answer that question. But probably the answer is going to be "that, too, is copyrighted, and should not be on Wikipedia". Unless a passing copyright-fluent editor sees them, well... -- asilvering (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Regarding your question about the Upload Wizard: its purpose is to make uploading files to Commons much easier. The classical method requires more technical knowledge. As the image at the start of the wizard notes, if you don't have permission to freely upload something then you mustn't upload it to Commons. Where did you read that "if you do not own the copyright on this file [...] consider using the Commons Upload Wizard"? Maybe you misread something (that's okay, that's why we are here at the Teahouse). Happy editing! –The Sophocrat (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hello, @Dangermanmeetz, and welcome to the Teahouse. Copyright is complicated, and Wikimedia projects are more careful about it than many sites on the Internet.

::::Materials may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons only if they are free to use - meaning that either they are in the public domain (either by having been explicitly released there, or by reason of their age), or they have been explicitly released under a suitable license such as CC-BY-SA.

::::A map from a book published in 1971 is probably not in the public domain (though this depends on a number of factors, including which country it was published in). It is also unlikely to have been licensed as Commons requires (and Commons would require an explicit statement of such licensing).

::::Wikipedia (not Commons) does allow non-free material to be uploaded (to Wikipedia) and used, but the uploader needs to be able to justify that the way the material is used meets all of the criteria in the non-free content criteria. I can conceive that a map of a historical kingdom might be usable in that way. However one of the criteria is that non-free materials may be used only in articles, not in drafts - so if you take that route, you should forget about the map until you have had the draft accepted as an article. Illustrations - even maps - do not make any difference to whether drafts are accepted, which depends on quality of sources, suitability of text, and notability of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Ok perfect! Thanks so much for the response! I'll just add it into the article after the draft is deemed acceptable. Dangermanmeetz (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:If you ask at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, preferably with an external link to (or offer to email a copy of) the one you shouldn’t have uploaded someone will make you a new, open-licence version. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I would like to request this as a article here on English Wikipedia, thanks. Rowing in Scotland BigKrow (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, {{u|BigKrow}}. We already have Scottish Rowing. Are there any "Rowing in Country X" articles that you would like to emulate? Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you in advance.

I’m still new to editing Wikipedia, and I’m trying to understand how article titles and structure should work when there are multiple places with similar names.

I recently came across two articles that seem to refer to the same botanical garden in Nara:

• Manyo Botanical Garden
• Manyo Botanical Garden, Nara

However, “Manyo Botanical Garden, Nara” does not exist as a real or official name.

The actual name of the garden is Kasuga Taisha Manyo Botanical Garden, located within the grounds of Kasuga Taisha Shrine in Nara.

In Japanese, the garden uses the classical character “萬” instead of the modern “万”.

There are also other botanical gardens in Japan with similar names, such as:

• Ichikawa Manyo Botanical Garden
• Kokubunji Manyo Botanical Garden
• Dazaifu Manyo Botanical Garden

Each of these is a separate facility in a different city, with its own background and features.

Given this, I’m unsure whether it’s appropriate to have both a general article titled “Manyo Botanical Garden” and another titled “Manyo Botanical Garden, Nara,” especially when the latter is not the correct name.

Since I’m still learning, I don’t feel confident making structural changes myself,

but I’d really appreciate any thoughts or guidance from more experienced editors on how this might best be handled.

Thank you again. CamelliaNote (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:However "real name" can reasonably be interpreted, CamelliaNote, I think that "Manyo Botanical Garden" and 萬葉植物園 are "real names". After all, like them or not, they're what Google Maps shows. (No, I certainly do not claim that Google Maps is infallible.) I think that [https://www.kasugataisha.or.jp/manyou-s/ www.kasugataisha.or.jp/manyou-s/] is what could be called the official web page; it says "Manyou Botanical Garden" and 春日大社 [in a small font] 萬葉植物園 [in a large font]: putting aside the romanization of 萬葉 for a moment, I think this can more plausibly be interpreted as "Manyo Botanical Garden" (as a part of, or run by/for, Kasuga Taisha) than as "Kasuga Taisha Manyo Botanical Garden". The title "Manyo Botanical Garden, Nara" should be interpreted not as "The garden named 'Manyo Botanical Garden, Nara'" but instead "The garden named 'Manyo Botanical Garden' that's in Nara" -- compare the article title Fuchū, Tokyo: nobody claims that there's a suburb named "Fuchū, Tokyo"; instead, there's one named "Fuchū" that's in Tokyo and shouldn't be confused with the other one (in Hiroshima). (And romanization/spelling: en:Wikipedia normally uses Hepburn romanization, according to which 萬葉 is "Man'yō"; however, this may clash with the rule of using the most widely used name, correct or otherwise.) HTH -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you very much for your detailed and kind reply.

::Your explanation comparing the title “Manyo Botanical Garden, Nara” with “Fuchū, Tokyo” was very helpful and cleared up my misunderstanding.

::I now understand that “Nara” in the title is not part of the official name, but rather a geographical disambiguation, and I appreciate your insights about how it appears on Google Maps and the official website.

::I’m still learning how to edit Wikipedia properly, so your guidance means a lot.

::Thank you again for your thoughtful support. CamelliaNote (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for the kind words, CamelliaNote, but my support was perhaps insufficiently thoughtful. I didn't look at the other article you linked to, which I now look at and see is titled Man'yō botanical garden, a title that arguably clashes with the titles of the articles on man'yō gardens to which it links. This all adds up to ... a bit of a mess. No solution I can immediately think of is simple and unlikely to get some opposition. Perhaps the best thing for you to do is keep quiet about the matter while you accustom yourself to en:Wikipedia and its sometimes odd titling, and when you have an idea that you're pretty confident is good, put it forward on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you very much for your kind and thoughtful reply.

::::I’m still very new to editing Wikipedia, and I was actually feeling a bit discouraged yesterday after realizing that I had made some mistakes in an earlier edit.

::::This question about the botanical garden came to mind while I was reflecting, and I decided to post it here—though I now feel that it may have been too early for me to raise such issues. Still, I truly appreciate your response and your insights.

::::Thank you again for taking the time. CamelliaNote (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@CamelliaNote You can probably add a redirect to this article as an alternative name (or longer name). Just make sure that the name is plausible and exists. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 16:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Hoary}}, it doesn't strike me as a mess. Wikipedia has an article Art gallery, and many articles on individual art galleries. The same can work for Manyo Botanical Garden, it's not a problem having both the articles that {{u|CamelliaNote}} mentions. Maproom (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Maproom, your first sentence aside, I warmly agree. Whether you care to write it 萬葉 or 万葉, the word/name is (according to Hepburn) pronounced man'yō (corresponding to マンヨウ). Both the apostrophe and the macron are commonly dropped for one reason or another, resulting in manyo (which, taken literally, corresponds to マニョ). マニョ is not pronounced like マンヨウ. So, man'yō or manyo? Or, as now, two different forms within the same article? -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

: Frizzle (chicken breed)

They are not using correct pictures

this is their actual look

https://poultrykeeper.com/chicken-breeds/poland-chickens/

https://backyardpoultry.iamcountryside.com/chickens-101/frizzle-chickens-unusual-eye-candy-in-a-flock/ Fruit Orchard (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Is any of these any good, Fruit Orchard? -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Social media says the way Frizzle chicken looks like, but in same article links to Polish chicken which is described as Frizzle chicken online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruit Orchard (talk • contribs) 11:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:We can't decide such matters on the Teahouse; please start a discussion on the article talk page, and post a link to that discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:While, as Andy notes, Teahouse can't really settle these things, both the sites you link to actively assert their rights to the copyrights of their photos, and do not release these materials under a Wikipedia-compliant license, which must allow irrevocable use of the photographs by any party, with attribution, for any reason whatsoever. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't see anywhere where the OP was asking us to use images from those pages; they merely cited them as evidence to support their comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks, I mistakenly thought that was the implication. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey! Just wondering, are there any active users with the "Researcher" user rights right now? I checked the stats page, but it doesn’t seem to show any recent updates. Is that user right still in use or has it kind of faded out? Just curious, thanks! 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 08:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:@JesusisGreat7, I'm not a Teahouse host but I can still answer this for you. This description of the "researcher" user right states that there are 0 users with this user right. This probably mean that the role is not used by anybody right now. Of course, if the role was faded out, the role would be listed at the "Former levels" section instead, so assuming the page is up-to-date, the role has not faded out yet. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 11:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Its still listed at Special:ListGroupRights#researcher, so as far as the software is concerned, the right still exists. Given the assigned permissions I suspect it was kept around for future use even if it was created for a specific project. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:As a run-of-the mill administrator, there is a list of 15 rights I can change in user accounts, and 14 rights are grayed out that I cannot change, including obscure rights like importer, researcher, founder, etc.

:WP:RESEARCHER says a researcher can "perform a title search for deleted pages, view deleted history entries, and view deleted contents." Honestly, that isn't exactly what I thought "researcher" would mean. Any administrator can already do those things, and there are hundreds of us. I imagine the right was deemed redundant with administrator rights and it hasn't been necessary to grant those abilities to non-administrators. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Got it, thanks y’all! Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 16:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm new. This is for a sandbox. EvanSimms (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|EvanSimms}} Assuming you're willing to release it under a Creative Commons licence (0, By, or By-SA), you can upload it to Commons. However, an image will not help a draft; reviewers are looking at your text and sources and will ignore images. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::But how do i get it onto Wikipedia EvanSimms (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hello, @EvanSimms, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wherever possible, images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, so that all Wikimedia projects can use them.

:::Provided the image meets Commons' requirements for licensing (as Jeske said), and meets also Commons' COM:Project scope, you can upload it to Commons using the upload wizard. Once an image is on Commons, you can add it to a Wikipedia article or other page - I believe that at the end of uploading, the wizard will give you the magic string you would add to the page. ColinFine (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|EvanSimms}}. Uploading photos that you have taken is relatively easy, but there are limitations. If the thing you are photographing is itself copyrighted, then the copyright restriction will also restrict your photo. So, you need to be careful about modern paintings and sculpture, movie posters, book covers, commercially packaged products and so on. On the other hand, common landscape photos, photos of utilitarian objects and plants and animals and photos of celebrities appearing in public are fine. Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

This is now the second time a major RfC was archived without being closed. Would anyone who has the ability to be able to go through and properly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&oldid=prev&diff=1290878626 close this]? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Iljhgtn, if you need a formal close on it, post it at WP:RFCC. You can also add the do-not-archive tag to it. -- asilvering (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I did not know about this tag. Would have been useful. It has already been archived for now though and I brought it back from the archive once.. might be overkill to do so a second time. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, and if you post it at RFCC people there are used to fishing old RfCs out of the archives, so that's not a big deal anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Someone had mentioned it might already be there, how can I check? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::CTRL+F. And yes, it is: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_Euro-Mediterranean_Human_Rights_Monitor]. -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Seems like its been there for a moment then.. I commented on the feed. Looks like we just wait now? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a backlog currently here. Would any admin mind stepping in and reviewing some of these? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Iljhgtn, the place to post about backlogs is WP:AN. But don't post about this one there - this isn't much of a backlog at all. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ok, thanks asilvering. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

What is the guide when writing about a celebrity, can someone here help me draft one Born A Geek (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Born A Geek, the guideline for people can be found at WP:BIO. I would strongly recommend that you gather all/most of the sources about that person before writing the draft, to avoid writing it backwards. There is a comprehensive guide at Your first article. Good luck! Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Born A Geek, here's an example of what not to write: {{Olive|[Name of celeb]'s style is characterized by authenticity, humor, and relatability, appealing to both local and international audiences. His content blends entertainment with education, often highlighting cultural pride and social issues.}} Why should the reader believe this? Which source, independent of the celeb, says (i) that the celeb's style is characterized by this or that, or (ii) what the celeb's content blends, or (iii) what it highlights? (The celeb's Twitter/"X" account is a particularly poor source.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|Born A Geek}} See also WP:BACKWARD and write your drafts forward instead. That is, find all of your reliable sources first, before you write a single word! These sources must be independent of the subject and provide significant coverage as explained succinctly in WP:Golden Rule. Only then should you start writing an article based on what those sources say, not based on what you know or what the subject says about himself or herself. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Born A Geek I've left you an expanded welcome template with a lot of links on your talk page. That should get you started. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes in the visual editor there are arrows pointing down and left replacing spaces. There is also this: " ", which you can only see in editor. I want to know what these are. If you need an example of these "arrows" see TRANSP.

Pro-anti-air (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Pro-anti-air: {{welcometea}} You are most likely referring to carriage return symbols, which designate that there has been a line break there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Pro-anti-air}}, your "this" is a non-breaking space.   Maproom (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:By interesting coincidence, @Pro-anti-air, I asked the same question at the Help Desk just a few weeks ago ("Arrow symbol mystery," Archive 67) and received the same reply.

:What I'd really like to understand is why the symbol shows up in Visual editor only some of the time, not every time there would be a carriage return (line break) in the markup. Augnablik (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::In my experience it shows up when there is a single carriage return in the source code, which does not create a line break in the formatted text. If it shows up only sometimes when that happens, I have no idea - but that's how I've triggered it myself. -- asilvering (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I was looking over the Apollo 13 (film) article when I saw the claim in the lead that it was "considered to be among the best films of all time", and then cited "The New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made", published in 2004. I was unsure about how to take this claim, looking at user aggregate websites like IMDb or [https://letterboxd.com/film/apollo-13/ Letterboxd] the average rating is good, but not in the top 1000 of either website (although I'm aware we're not supposed to take user websites like this as sources, this is just to get a ground feeling). Apollo 13 didn't show up on any of the list of the best films of just the decade that I looked up. [https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-lists/the-100-greatest-movies-of-the-nineties-195513/][https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-90s-movies/][https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-movies-90s-stars-lists/2021-toronto-international-film-festival-the-wheel-photo-call/][https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2020/5/1990s][https://www.bfi.org.uk/lists/90-great-films-1990s] (I couldn't find a list that included it on the first page of google). Examples of very acclaimed films that do not have the "greatest films of all time" label in the lead include High and Low (1963 film), Sátántangó, City of God (2002 film) and Before Sunrise, which seem to have to have all gained a higher level of critical acclaim than Apollo 13. What's the best way to determine whether a movie (or any work more generally) should have this label? ALittleClass (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:ALittleClass, how about changing that to "It is listed in The New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made (2004)"? (I'm assuming that it is so listed. I haven't checked.) Compare Citizen Kane, the article about which tells us that it "is frequently cited as the greatest film ever made." This is accompanied by a note citing 16 or so such citings, so OK -- uh, no, scrub that; no, it isn't OK, as every one of the citings is British (as if Brits had a world monopoly on taste!) and only from an extraordinarily limited range of British sources at that. -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:@ALittleClass There is an essay that gives some advice about this at WP:GREATEST. My opinion is that all records can be broken and hence are only valid at the time they were made, if ever. Hence an encyclopedia like Wikipedia should always explicitly state the source and date for the claim. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello greeting to editors. I’m really new to contributions. I want a tutorial. How do these editors welcome me as a newcomer? Would there be a homepage? SeekHousing1900 (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Welcome to en:Wikipedia, SeekHousing1900. You'll find tutorials linked to from Help:Contents. -- Hoary (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. I need more on how a website works. SeekHousing1900 (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure Is this what you are looking for @SeekHousing1900? Knitsey (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Knitsey Yes it is. SeekHousing1900 (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Great! Have a play with it and see how you get on. Good luck, Knitsey (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Your home page is at Special:Homepage; Wikipedia has a "home" page at Main Page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

If someone adds themselves to a list (see List of Australian street artists), is it a conflict of interest that should be reverted? Sushidude21! (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Sushidude21! Not necessarily. It can be reverted if it conflicts with WP:LISTPEOPLE. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have removed that entry and two others which have no article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've removed two more entries. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse,

I'm fairly new to editing on Wikipedia and wanted to ask for some help regarding maps.

I’m interested in learning how to:

Create interactive maps on Wikipedia/Wikimedia (like those where you can click on regions or hover for info).

Add or edit boundary maps for specific areas (like districts, cities, custom zones).

Possibly upload and use my own custom boundary maps if the existing ones don't work for what I need.

I’ve seen some amazing interactive maps on various pages and would love to understand the process. I’m especially curious about which tools/templates I should use, and how to format/upload GeoJSON or any other required files properly.

If there are any beginner-friendly tutorials or sandbox examples I can check out, I’d really appreciate it!

Thanks a lot for your time and help!

Warm regards, Wikiuser829 (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Wikiuser829 There is a lot of information you may find helpful at WP:GRAPHLAB. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)