Wikipedia:Teahouse#resolving links to copyvio used in references

Hello!

I submitted an article (Rebecca B. Alston) for review, and it has been accepted. I have two questions: 1) what do I need to do to resolve the conflict of interest banner that is still on the article? 2) When will the webpage itself be created? I searched it manually and it seems to not be created yet. Archfusionpro (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:The article (or webpage) Rebecca B. Alston certainly exists. (Its section headers are all in headline case, they ought to be in sentence case.) Maproom (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Archfusionpro The COI banner is there probably because the text contains such gems as "{{tq|Bio Forms communicates a distinction from her earlier geometric work while retaining a subtle indication of geometric vocabulary, moving towards more fluid, exploratory forms that reference organic decay through viral compositions. These works elucidate a dynamic microcosm rendered through a unified approach merging painting and drawing techniques.}}" which are not cited to a source and read like as if written by someone with a COI. Clean out all such material and the COI will be less obvious. As to "search it manually", do you mean you tried to use an external search engine to find the article but failed as it hasn't yet been indexed? That's because, although the AfC process is complete the article has not been reviewed by the new pages patrol and won't be available to search engines until it is, or 90 days have elapsed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the response. As for the sentences in regards to the example mentioned, these are found in sources that have been listed and included. Does each sentence have to be cited to said source? When this is completed, will the COI banner be removed? As to "search it manually", I meant via the Wikipedia search, not Google! The explanation makes sense, I appreciate the follow up! Archfusionpro (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Content like "These works elucidate a dynamic microcosm rendered through a unified approach merging painting and drawing techniques" cannot be included in Wikipedia's voice you need to use quotes and state who said it. It is YOU that has the conflict of interest and you should be using the talk page to request edits, not editing directly. Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Is it possible for you or someone else to review and rectify said edits (such as verifying/properly citing sources and creating pull direct quotes from the curator that wrote several pieces about her, similarly to the quote from Dr. Pat Pinson)? I have been under the impression that this space was to do so to circumvent editing directly. I am a bit confused because there was the mention in a prior interaction to "clean out all such material". Archfusionpro (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Archfusionpro We have a policy for biographies of living people that all material likely to be challenged must be cited to an inline source. It isn't enough to have a source somewhere in a biography that does in fact back up the information: it should, for example be at the end of each relevant paragraph and if it is a quote then it must also be stated who used these exact words (with quotation marks). I didn't make any assumption about which editor had the COI but if it was you then you should now only suggest changes via the article's talk page, perhaps using the edit request wizard. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{U|Theroadislong}} should have ensured that the promotional fluff was removed before accepting that draft. I would not have acccepted it in that state. Feel free to clean it up. The COI tag is not going to be removed until an uninvolved editor reviews the article and deems the tag no longer applicable.

:::::As a COI editor, you may remove promotional material, revert obvious vandalism, make minor corrections to spelling, grammar, numbers, names, dates, etc. and you may add citations to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Anything more substantive than that, you should propose on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The role of an AfC reviewer is to accept drafts that have more than 50% likelihood of surviving an AfD. It is a very low bar. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes...thank you {{U|Ca}} for explaining this, users sometimes mistake the role of reviewers, we are not here to ensure that drafts are perfect, but that they stand a good chance of surviving an WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::A draft doesn't have to be perfect. But a reviewer should also not approve a draft, no matter how notable the topic, if the purpose of the draft is promotional, as this was. That should be cleared out before approval. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Incorrect... there is no requirement for reviewers to remove promotion, that is not part of our remit. Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and moved to mainspace. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I didn't say reviewers are required to remove promotion, I said the promotion should be cleared out prior to approval; it doesn't matter who does it. Also, AfD isn't the only consideration. We are all required to abide by Wikipedia policies. Reviewers, also, are required to ensure that drafts they approve don't violate core policies, especially if the draft includes passages that are flagrant violations. WP:NOTPROMOTION in this case forbids the use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. There are two ways a reviewer can address the problem: clean up the draft prior to promoting it, or decline to promote it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::: {{U|Anachronist}} Check the article history I accepted the article and then I edited it for neutral tone, removing unsourced hagiographic content and unsourced puffery. Theroadislong (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::You certainly did, and that's great, but you did miss a couple of things quoted above. Although that was a mistake, I am not without sin myself to be casting stones; I can say confidently that I probably make more mistakes than other experienced editors. I'm just sayin' I would have made the draft acceptable before accepting it or I would have declined it, but the cleanup got done and that's the main thing. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::You clearly think you could have done a btter job, perhaps you need to become a reviewer, we need many more the back,log of drafts is getting ever larger. Theroadislong (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Who knows if I would have done better. You did a good job removing the most egregious stuff but you missed a couple of things. We all make mistakes, heaven knows I do. And yes, I do on occasion patrol new pages and review submitted drafts; both areas are backed up. I'm also an administrator, and there's no end of messes to clean in that role as well. For years I've been feeling that Wikipedia has grown too big for the small crowd of active editors that we have. I keep seeing the same small handful of usernames I trust over and over (you're among them). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I would like to create a page on the music artist The Stupendium. I would create it but I don’t have the time nor do i have the info. If some people would like to help me i will create a draft and put it here. (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Boeing747Pilot, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but if you're not able to put the time into finding the essential reliable independent sources required to establish that The Stupendium is notable, then it is very unlikely to happen. While it's not impossible that somebody will see your request and want to work with you, it's not very likely: why should a volunteer editor want to? (Maybe if somebody else here is a fan).

:In its present state Draft:The Stupendium has zero chance of being accepted, because it has only a single source, whose reliability is disputed (see WP:GENIUS), and does not really have significant coverage of the artist.

:Please see your first article. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes i am aware of the fact the article is very short. I don’t plan a submitting it within the week or maybe even the month. I have a lot to do and will put as much time in as i can. And i know The Stupendium is known. I will put more sources in and hunt to find anymore. (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::See WP:BACKWARD. You should write the article forward, by finding the sources first before you even start. Don't worry about the time it takes. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thats a really good idea because info is useless without a source to back it up! Thank you! (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I've created a draft article for the Dutch artist Draft: Dries Verhoeven. Since I have 'autoconfirmed' status, I believe I'm able to move the article to mainspace. Would that be appropriate at this point? I feel the article is essentially complete now.

Before doing so, I'd appreciate having someone proofread it to catch any issues I might have missed. Could anyone suggest where I might find someone willing to review it?

Floriano95 (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Floriano95}} Hello and welcome. You've already submitted the draft for a review; if you want feedback on it, or someone to check it for errors, you should allow the review process to play out.

:I can say that you should remove the external links from the "chronologial overview" section; if these are intended as references, you should format them as references instead, but they seem to just be links to his own website to document the existence of his work; an article about him should not merely list his entire portfolio, but works that are discussed in reliable sources independent of the subject. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Also, a section on Selected works with just a few listed is more appropriate for Wikipedia than a long list. David notMD (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for your feedback. In my research before creating this page I found a lot of English-language wikipedia pages of Dutch artists with long lists, such as Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker and Renzo Martens, Ivo van Hove. So my assumption was that this is common practice. Floriano95 (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the feedback, I will remove the references to the artists site, and add references to theaters the shows played at. That is what you mean right? Floriano95 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

There is an article that I believe was deleted in 2018 that based on more recent events and history has more sources now than it did previously. I could start fresh, but if there was a basic article to go off of that I could restore and then build on, that would seem to me to be easier. How do I go about that? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:We can give a better answer if you tell what the subject is. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Sure, this Liberty Justice Center. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Iljhgtn If. after reading WP:Articles_for_deletion/Liberty_Justice_Center you think that the topic would meet the notability guidelines, can apply for a WP:REFUND as described at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::It did not appear to then from the history, but as of more recent sources becoming available, I think it would now. So the article would need to be updated a bunch I am sure, but getting that as a start would be a good draft to work from. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you I just did that then. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Um, you can't use WP:REFUND to restore articles that were deleted via an AFD discussion. You probably figured that out by now. Contact the deleting administrator {{U|Sandstein}}, who may be willing to restore the article to draft space for improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I did message that admin for that purpose exactly. My mistake in trying to first use this process of WP:REFUND. Should I delete this post now? Or wait for it to be automatically removed? Iljhgtn (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Iljhgtn, as now noted at REFUND, I do not object to a restoration to draftspace or userspace, but I do not perform such undeletions myself. Iljhgtn, you should seek to improve the article in draftspace and to submit it to WP:AFC. Sandstein 14:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes. Responded there as well, whom should I ask then for help in moving the now deleted article to draft space so that I may work on it there? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{U|UtherSRG}} restored it to Draft:Liberty Justice Center. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes I saw that already and have been working in it. The draft should have enough sources and new information to firmly establish notability so I have also already submitted the draft for review. The backlog seems to be pretty deep though. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I've made a couple of minor edits. I think it looks good.

::::::::::You're experienced enough to take a small bite out of that backlog whenever you feel inclined. There's no position, appointment, or user right required to review submitted drafts. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Thanks. I think those were constructive additions and changes. Who now takes the draft and moves it to the main space? Are you able to do that @Anachronist? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Anyone who is able to move a page can move a draft to main space. The only time you'd need an admin to help is if there's already something at the destination (like a redirect, in which case you'd put {{tl|db-g6}} at the top to have an administrator delete it to make way for a page move), or if it's create-protected. I can help out there if needed.

::::::::::::A good thing to add to your Preferences is the AFC helper script, found in the Gadgets tab under the Editing section. It gives you a Page Review tool in your Tools dropdown at the top of a draft page. This lets you review drafts and put the correct tags on them. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I just added that on your recommendation. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Somehow my draft article has been tagged as "Biography" by someone, but it's actually about his life as a medical researcher and his discoveries and works.

Is this the result of a normal WP classification process? Henrilebec (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Henrilebec: do you mean your pending draft Draft:Gerald Louis Burke? (Please link to the article/draft you refer to, so it's clear what you're talking about, and so that others don't have to go looking for it.) This is a biographical article, since it is clearly about a person; you say as much yourself ({{tq|"about his life"}}). Also, where are you saying it has been "tagged"? Why is any of this a problem, in your view? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks - I'm not an experienced editor and I hadn't placed that tag, so I was curious where it came from. Henrilebec (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Henrilebec}} I guess you refer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Gerald_Louis_Burke&diff=prev&oldid=1282902229]. It's a normal process and it's certainly a biography so there is no problem. Pages can have multiple WikiProject tags. I don't see good reason for {{tl|WikiProject Academic Journals}} but I have added {{tl|WikiProject Medicine}}. PrimeHunter (talk)

There are a lot of Wikipedia articles about do's and don't's, I'm fine with any tips, but I'm mostly looking for any tips that I should know for editing and vandalism. So are there any tips that I should know that aren't listed on those articles? GiftedGirI (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @GiftedGirI, would this be of any interest to you? Knitsey (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::@GiftedGirI Do you think that you need more ressources that the useful ressource mentionned by @Knitsey ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes! That seems to be what I am looking for and thanks for the input! GiftedGirI (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I am good for now but if I do I will let you know :) GiftedGirI (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:@GiftedGirI: there is Wikipedia:Tips. They can be a bit old and include much more than editing and vandalism fighting. If you click this link it should take you randomly to one of the over 1000 tips from there. Or you can visit {{tl|totd-random}} and keep clicking "fetch another" (you will have say "Yes" to purge the page each time). Commander Keane (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Ok, thanks for the advice! - GiftedGirI GiftedGirI (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi all,

Recently, I have wanted to edit articles and add images related to the place I live, but I've resisted doing so because I don't want to reveal my location. So, I'm considering creating an alt for that purpose. Having read through WP:SOCKLEGIT, this appears to be a permissible use, as long as I disclose it and don't engage in true sock behavior.

So my question - what's the correct way to disclose this? Obviously, I don't want to have a link between my two accounts, as that would defeat the purpose. What I'm thinking is to have a chunk of text on both of my accounts stating that I have 2 accounts for privacy reasons and that I'm happy to privately disclose the identity of the other to admins or checkusers with a valid reason. Would that be enough? I'm open to suggestions. 9yz (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|9yz}}, I suggest that you send an email to the Arbitration Committee disclosing your plan as soon as you register the second account. If anyone asks if you have another account, you can just reply "yes, and I have disclosed to ArbCom". Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Cullen328 gotcha, I'll do that. Do you think I should still include some amount of text on my userpage(s) stating I have an alt? 9yz (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|9yz}}, if you choose to do so, I suggest that you say essentially the same thing with completely different wording on the two user pages, and avoid editing the same articles. That would make it more difficult for another editor to make the connection. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Cullen328 yep, that was my plan! Thanks for your feedback. 9yz (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I suddenly found myself with an "alt" account after I got my original account Amatulic renamed. That account is still there, although the user page and talk page redirect to my current name. I do disclose it on my user page in the first paragraph. But... there doesn't seem to be anything preventing me from using that old username in certain circumstances, like when editing from a public computer in a library or some similar situation where someone could gain access to my current account. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I was referred by Wikipedia's internal suggestion tool to the page for "Michela Wrong", saying: "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (July 2018)." I am struggling to find the promotional/biased language (aside from, maybe the "over 20 years" bit which seems like we should just have a date of her first article). I see in "Talk:Michela Wrong" one editor was concerned than an account was created to promote her work about 14 years ago, but she seems like a prominent journalist and author to me. Can any experienced authors offer perspective/guidance on this? ErrataNonGrata (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Also, as I'm looking through the page's history it looks like there have been substantial rewrites, source additions, etc. Would this be a candidate to have these flags removed from the article? If so, how would I handle a similar situation in the future? ErrataNonGrata (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would start by looking to see who added the template, and look at what they discussed on the talk page. If they added it without any comments, you can leave a comment on the talk page asking for their rationale. Iknowyoureadog (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{courtesy link|Michela Wrong}}. The image in her infobox shows her, apparently at a book launch, promoting her own book. This is fair enough, but may give an impression that the article is promotional. I have aimed to correct this impression by cropping the way the image is displayed. Maproom (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::I removed the tags, as they dated to a time (2018) when the article only had three references, and was shorter. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks to all of you, this was really helpful for me to watch and learn. ErrataNonGrata (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1= Good advice has kindly been given. There is no more for the Teahouse to do in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)}}

It strikes me as incongruous that we are allowed to cite sources in non-English languages on the English Wikipedia. How can we verify information if we can't read it, or if it's not even accessible to us? Is this discussed somewhere? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, this is discussed at WP:NONENG. There is longstanding consensus that non-English language sources are completely acceptable, though it's preferable to cite English-language sources when possible. However, removing access to non-English language sources would decimate much of our content bout anything outside the Anglosphere. They're treated a bit like offline sources, in that respect - while of course online, easily accessible sources are better, sometimes we just have to take it on faith that other that these high-quality source say what other Wikipedians are telling us it does. Besides, many Wikipedians speak multiple languages, and you can often get a rough idea as to whether a source verifies the content through the use of machine translators (though they should be used with caution). GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::@GreenLipstickLesbian Thank you for the link, but that only states the policy—there is no discussion or explanation. I am skeptical of the "take it on faith" idea because it goes against all the policies on notability, verifiability, reliable sources, etc. It's specifically because this has been designated an English Wikipedia, where the articles, comments, etc must be in English, that it's contradictory to allow sources that are not readable by the population this Wikipedia is intended for. It's not only a matter of verifiability; often I'm referring to the source because either the statement has been badly written and therefore isn't clear, or because I'm hoping to find an expanded discussion of the particular statement. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::For policy pages like that, most of the discussion will have been on the talk page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3AVerifiability%2F&search=%22foreign+language%22&ns0=1&searchToken=7hss2n8bqkp0aotmu1knu5s5a]. As you can see, this has been discussed before. On a personal level, I do get your point about foreign-language sources being harder to verify. They are. The thing I do disagree with you is the idea about trust- the vast majority of good articles (and probably Good Articles) use offline sourcing that may not be easily accessible. And yes, sometimes that backfires. I do a lot of CCI work, and I absolutely run into issues with source falsification or mistranslations that are much harder to pick up on because the sources were offline or not in English. However, the benefit (more information!) does ultimately outweigh the costs. Or, at least, it has so far. And, ultimately, I'd rather check articles against online foreign-language sources than offline English language sources. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:There is no requirement that a source be free or easy to access; you or anyone is free to learn a language in order to be able to review a source. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Not helpful. Using that reasoning, why bother with an English Wikipedia at all? Why not let people write in whatever language they choose? I expect better assistance from an admin. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Ghost writer's cat, I can't read x language but some editors can. The project relies on that fact that those editors are competent. x language sources are going to cover their area/topics much better than English sources (which may be biased). The odds are a American source isn't going to cover a chinese politican (who meets WP:NPOL) at all or will do it poorly. {{!xt|Why not let people write in whatever language they choose?}}, They can? There are ~341 active wikis. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@CF-501 Falcon This isn't just about editing, it's also about reading the articles. I wouldn't expect to find non-English footnotes with additional information in an English-language book, which is essentially what this amounts to. And no, in the English Wikipedia, we cannot write in whatever language we choose. As I stated below, if I want to read an article in Swedish, I'll go to the Swedish Wikipedia. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|I wouldn't expect to find non-English footnotes with additional information in an English-language book}} That may be your experience but it's far from universal. As I trained in European and Asian history I was always reading English-language monographs and textbooks which referenced primary and secondary sources in other languages, and yes, I could read and verify some of these myself. Maybe this is not done in the areas you work in, but you can't generalise this to every subject area covered by the encyclopaedia. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::+1, A well written book will have local sources. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:As with paywalled sites or ones that are no longer online, sometimes we have to look at things from a different angle. If you go through the history of the article you should be able to work out who added the info. You can then look at their userpage, talk and other contributions. If they are a much checked editor, with Featured and Good article content, then you can take some reassurance that much of their other content has gone through scrutiny, and you are pretty safe to trust their work. At the other end of the scale if their talkpage has a plethora of warnings about misinterpreting sources and eventually a retirement or block, then reverting an edit you find implausible but can't check can be reasonable. Of course much of Wikipedia will be somewhere in between those extremes. If the other language source is easily available and you don't trust the person who used it, you could try finding a Wikipedian who speaks that language and ask for their help. A query on the talkpage of the relevant Wikiproject, might work, or you could go looking to see who has the relevant userbox on their userpage (:Template:User fr is the French one), check if they have edited recently, and if so ask for their help. ϢereSpielChequers 20:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Google Translate. It is helpful to me for reading sources in other languages. Not so good for some Middle Eastern and Asian languages but quite good for European languages. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::That works only for material that's on-line. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I think your arguments may be about effort? If there is a dusty old book in stack at a remote library that has great knowledge for an article and a Wikipedian is willing to get there, I think we should use it. It is going to take a lot effort to verify facts from that source. It takes a lot of effort to learn a new language to understand a source, but machine translation, OCR or your multi-lingual colleagues can help. The want for only viewing information in articles that can be verified in English from freely (as in beer) available online sources is reasonable, but that is currently not Wikipedia's model. Given the licensing, anyone is able to fork English Wikipedia to make a project those goals, but you are unlikely to get support from the Wikimedia Foundation. One of the Foundation's goals is to let people write in the language they choose (there are over 300 language variants) and there is the Abstract Wikipedia project as a first step towards unification. Commander Keane (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Commander Keane As to your last point, we are not allowed within the English Wikipedia to use whatever language we choose.

::::People keep responding with, essentially, "That's how it is." That's not addressing my question. The question is why?? This is the English Wikipedia; the information should be in English. What's the objective of that rule? I assumed it was to provide a Wikipedia for English-speaking people, but it's not helpful if the source is in another language. If I wanted to read articles in Swedish, I'd go to the Swedish Wikipedia. Everything else here is required to be in English, so why do the sources get a pass? It doesn't make sense. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I can't explain it any better. You may have to accept that your desire is too limiting for everyone else. The information here is available in English, if you are not willing to put in effort to look at the sources in other languages that is on you. It is helpful for the others that are willing, and they out number you. The reason is that the collective knowledge of the world isn't recorded purely in English language sources. Commander Keane (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Commander Keane "not willing to put in effort to look at the sources in other languages" isn't a fair assessment, nor a fair assumption. There's an overly-general assumption in the responses here that the sources are all going to be available on-line and translatable. They're not. If someone uses as a source a physical book, written in another language, that's on a shelf somewhere in the world, you are correct that I'm not willing to "put in the effort" to find the book, get possession of it, and then have it translated. I challenge your statement that there are "others that are willing, and they out number" me. (I'm dismayed just by the number of editors who argue over an edit without even checking the source material when it's only a click away.) For all the policy, guidance, templates, essays, and what have you here on reliable sources, verifiability, notability, etc, things sure get loose when it comes to sources that the majority of us aren't even expected to be able to access. I'm amazed there hasn't even been any discussion on this, apparently no more than a couple sentences of explanation in total. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Ah I see. Maybe your issue is trust then. If you don't trust user-generated content like Wikipedia then you should ignore the text and just read the sources listed at the bottom that are accesible for you. Wikipedia is a project that provides the sources, so you are free to read them and generate your own understanding about a topic instead if you wish. I trust the Swedish speaking Wikipedian visiting that dusty libary shelf near Stockholm that is bilingual, you don't. That's fine. Maybe there is an essay on trusting Wikipedia somewhere. English Wikipedia has over 6,000,000 articles and is a top 10 website, so I would say others put more faith into it than you and perhaps that is so obvious that it isn't documented. I trust that when Ghost writer's cat makes an edit based on an online, available, English source that it is okay. And I can check it if I am in doubt or I trust others will check even if it off-line and in another language. You are proposing a source-limiting fork of Wikipedia that may have been tried before, I'm not sure. An alternate project that trusts experts instead of users to write an encyclopedia would be Britannica. Commander Keane (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{u|Ghost writer's cat}}, the incidence of references to offline paper sources in obscure languages is very low. The English Wikipedia is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world. It is not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Our bilingual and multilingual editors are an enormous asset to the project, and they should not be disrespected so cavalierly. It simply would not be possible, for example, to write comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of Japanese history and culture without summarizing Japanese language sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Cullen328 I resent your assertion that I've been disrespectful—there's no evidence of that whatsoever. I'm only pointing out the incongruity that all articles and discussion must be in English yet the sources are not held to the same requirement. Why restrict to English only? Have non-native English speakers been disrespected by being required to write their articles and comments in English? To your last point, are you suggesting there is not comprehensive coverage of Japanese history and culture in English publications? I have serious doubts about that claim. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{u|Ghost writer's cat}}, your highly idiosyncratic views on this matter are out of line with longstanding consensus. Your argument boils down to an ill-informed view that the monumental work by editors who write English language summaries of reliable sources in other languages ought to be removed from the encyclopedia, and that is disrespectful of those exceptionally valuable editors. You try writing a Good article or Featured article on a significant Japanese topic using only English language sources, and see how far you would get. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::@Cullen328 Please stop with the personal attacks. I've not suggested anything be removed. I started this section by asking for any existing discussion on this topic; I see there is none, which means there is no "long-standing consensus". If you have only opinion and no concrete information to share, I respectfully request that you don't comment further. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Not sure how Cullen's comments were personal attacks, but whatever.

:::::::::::::Anyways, yeah, Cullen's right. Good luck trying to get enough English sources for Altanbulag, Selenge to reach Featured Article status That's not going to happen. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Ghost writer's cat, There is consensus. @GreenLipstickLesbian, gave you a link in their response. If you want another link of the talk page discussion look [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3AVerifiability%2F&search=Non-english&ns0=1 here]. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::And definitely try it on a not-that-significant topic! I spent a decent amount of time working on Hanako (elephant). I used English-language sources where possible, but it relies very heavily on Japanese sources. Because, surprise surprise, English-language newspapers do not report on a statue of an elephant being erected at a Japanese train station, or license plates being created in honor of the elephant. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}{{u|Ghost writer's cat}}, don't you dare tell me not to comment further. I will comment where I want and when I want. I engaged in no personal attacks. I criticized your idea, not you. I know nothing about you but I consider your idea deeply flawed and will continue to say so as long as you articulate it. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Cullen328 My "idea" is a question and a request for discussion, either past or present. If that's your concept of a "deeply flawed idea", which you will continue to shut down, then this Teahouse is pointless. Good job. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Ghost writer's cat, I am afraid you have the wrong way. The Teahouse is for helping new editors not holding discussions on established policy. There are more appropriate forums, such as the Village pump or the talk page, for holding discussions on policy. Note: If no one objects, it may be best to close this and move it to a more appropriate page. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I’ve made a submission to AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Ability with Innovation) that’s received no responses.

I’m not on a tirade to get this page deleted or anything, I’m more just curious about the process of AfD. This article came up in my newcomer tasks and when trying to find sources to improve the article, I thought the subject matter may not be notable. I’m making this thread(?) not to get the article deleted faster, but to figure out if I did anything wrong/suboptimally when making the AfD submission.

Are there things I can do to make it easier for others to participate in the discussion? Are there reasons nobody has replied to my submission yet, or am I just unlucky? SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:The discussion is listed on the AFD page, where people can see it and decide to comment, or not. If it doesn't get much participation, it would get re-listed. You could also help people out by explaining why you think the subject isn't notable. Did you do a search for sources, and if so, what did you come up with? As it is now, you're asking others to do the work for you to verify that the article qualifies for deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::You’re right - I misinterpreted the convention and thought (wrongly) that the proposer should mostly stay out of making arguments.

::Is it acceptable for me to edit the submission? Or should I make a new comment (sorry, I’m unsure of terms) with additional information? SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Depends on what you are changing. A new comment would be clearer. Currently when someone sees it they don't see a clear reason why it is not notable. Maybe a source assessment table (if interested use User:DannyS712/SATG.js) or a specific deletion reason would draw more attention. Happy editing, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you both for your help. I've added a comment with more detail as to why I think it's worth considering deleting.

::::Hopefully this will make it easier for others to participate in the discussion! SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure, you can edit the submission to add context and clarification, and also respond to the comments of others who participate. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I was looking at DaRealHaribo user page and I believe that it falls under WP:U5 for speedy deletion as the use has not contributed outside of their userpage and it appears to be more of a personal webpage. The only other mention outside of Wikipedia that I could find was this [https://www.youtube.com/@DaDevilDe Youtube account] so it doesn't meet WP:N either (its currently also in a draft state here). However, I don't want to accidently nominate something for deletion. Please advise. Thanks. Thewindbird (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:U5 or G11 might be appropriate. Or provide a polite warning {{subst:uw-advert1}} on the talk page and see if that editor cleans up the user page. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. Thewindbird (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm hoping to help edit articles and thought it might be helpful to review a series of articles flagged for the same thing. Is there an easily accessible tool that will let me do that? I've done lots of searching but only found guidelines. If not, is there an easy way to get to the Wikpedia suggested articles for editing that shows articles with templates? ErrataNonGrata (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:See Template:Backlog status Moxy🍁 03:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:@ErrataNonGrata There are several tools which help find articles with a given cleanup template but the one I find most useful is [https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/index.html WikiProject Cleanup Listings] because it subsets the listings into topic areas so I can focus on topics I'm interested in. You can download the lists into a local spreadsheet for sorting if you want. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I’ve been working in the swimming industry for several years now and have developed deep knowledge about various swim brands, clubs, and companies that contribute to the sport. I recently attempted to create a Wikipedia page to share this information and highlight some of the key companies in the space.

However, my draft has been declined twice, and I’m not entirely sure what I’m doing wrong. I understand Wikipedia has strict guidelines for notability and reliable sourcing, and I want to make sure I'm following them correctly.

I’d really appreciate help from someone more experienced to guide me in shaping the article the right way. My goal is to contribute useful and verifiable information to the platform—not to promote, but to inform.

Is anyone available to help me review and improve the draft? Or point me in the right direction to get support from a mentor?

Thanks in advance! Dennisaxim (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{courtesy link|Draft:FINIS, Inc}} {{mhair}}jlwoodwa (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, That's the draft I was mentioned. Draft:FINIS, Inc Dennisaxim (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Dennisaxim}}, most of your references are reprints of press releases sent out by the company. A couple are links to the company's own website. The Bloomberg reference is simply a run-of-the-mill database entry. What is required are several references to reliable sources completely independent of FINIS that devote significant coverage to FINIS. There are currently no such references in the draft. What, if any, is your relationship to FINIS? Cullen328 (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for your reply — I understand your concerns. I don’t have any direct relationship with FINIS. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a swim coach, and my intention was to share my personal experience and knowledge. I initially planned to write about swim methods, techniques, and the equipment brands commonly used in training, hoping it might be helpful to other swimming enthusiasts.

::::While researching, I noticed that some of the brands I currently use already have Wikipedia pages. Since FINIS didn’t have one, I decided to start with it as my first contribution. I do plan to work on articles related to other swim products as well in the future.

::::Are there any recommended tools or methods to help find valuable, independent sources? Or if possible, could you help me rephrase parts of the article to better align with Wikipedia’s standards? Dennisaxim (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Cullen328 could you help me? Dennisaxim (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am sorry, {{u|Dennisaxim}}, but no amount of rephrasing can transform a non-notable topic into a notable one. You are far more familiar with the range of sources that cover swimming related companies than I am. If you want to write about this topic, it is incumbent on you to find high quality independent sources to use as references. Cullen328 (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Cullen328 ok. I think where I'm struggling is determining whether the sources I've collected are valuable or not.

:::::::Are there any tools to help filter or evaluate the reliability of sources? Or any best practices you recommend for finding and assessing high-quality sources? Dennisaxim (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{u|Dennisaxim}}, there are three tests that must be applied to a source to determine whether it is of any value in contributing to the notability of a topic, which can also be described as the eligibility of the topic for a Wikipedia article. The source must be reliable. The source must be completely independent of the topic. And, the source must devote significant coverage to the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Cullen328, ok I got it.. thanks for your time. Dennisaxim (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that states "A = B", and another reliable source (or even the same source in a different location) that states "B = C", can you state in the article "A = C", citing both sources, or would that be considered original research? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Typically no, as per WP:SYNTH. However, certain things like routine calculations, images, and translations and transcriptions are exempt from that rule. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::@GreenLipstickLesbian It sounds like YES, it IS considered original research, aside from those exceptions. Did I understand that correctly? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Yes, you did. Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have a question about the article I'm editing right now: Draft:Nick Rogers

I have been working to find sources to reference all of the awards and recognitions mentioned in the article but a lot of them are old school print only documentations which are really difficult to source today. How do I go about referencing sources for this kind of information as well as any other information where it might be hard to find direct online secondary sources? SlavaLi (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, @SlavaLi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Finding sources is hard - I think we've all been there. The good news is that, on Wikipedia, you are allowed to use offline, print-only documents that aren't availible online. They have to be reliable and independent, of course, but they're fine. You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Offline sources. In this case, however, I have access to a website called Newspapers.com, and I've been able to find some of those sources online. It's late for me, but I've left links to them on the draft's talkpage. Hopefully they come in useful! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::I have the person's CV and Biblio that's about 56 pages long as well. Would this be an acceptable documentary source for some of the recognitions and awards mentioned in the article? SlavaLi (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::CVs and other sources published by the subject can, in some cases, be used for limited information. Articles shouldn't be sourced primarily to self-published sources, and self-published sources can't be used to cite any claims that are potentially self-serving or aggrandizing. Where exactly that line is can vary a little. For example, it would normally be okay to cite somebody's personal website to back up a birth year. However, you can't use it for awards or prizes. You might be able to use it for things like job titles, so long as there's no reason to doubt the source's authenticity. I'd try having a look at older newspapers or journals first, as well as reviews of the books he co-authored. (If such reviews exist, of course). Those will be what you need to prove that Rogers is notable by Wikipedia standards. Once you've established that, you can look at older publications by the colleges and journals he worked for, to establish that yes, he worked for them during certain periods of times. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: {{u|SlavaLi}}, missing from the first response to your question, but present in the second one is that although print-only and offline is okay, the material must be published. That is a crucial distinction; even if offline and print only, it must be possible for someone to find and access the print document if they are willing to spend enough effort to do so. So, something in the bowels of the archives in the Cairo Museum, yes; but a letter written written by Robert Oppenheimer to your grandfather when they worked together on the Manhattan Project and locked away in your storage space, not okay. Mathglot (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{u|SlavaLi}} Citing his journal articles (most of your refs) is not counted as establishing his Wikipedia notability, although for academics it is appropriate to have a Selected publications section which references 5-10 journal articles. And a subsection if any books authored.

On the current English home page, Main Page, under the "On this day" it states that in "1725 – J. S. Bach's cantata Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, was first performed on Easter Monday." If you click on the link for the cantata, it shows it was first performed it on 2 April 1725. April 2 is correct. If would like to know what happened on April 21. Beatles777! (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oh wow, good catch. Put this in the main page's talk page under "Errors in 'On This Day' ". PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 11:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi Beatles777!. It was composed for Easter Monday which was 2 April in 1725 but today in 2025. The different date is why it says "first performed on Easter Monday" and not merely "first performed". PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Ooh, for some reason it didn't occur to me Easter Monday was on different days, haha.. silly me. 12:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC) PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Perhaps I'm missing something crucial, but even though it was performed on Easter Monday in 1725, it still should have been on an April 2nd OTD, no? It's a short list of things that happened on April 21st, not Easter Monday generally. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Probably, but it's still a mater for Talk:Main Page, not here, to decide. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, can we use content from GrandViewResearch.com as a source on Wikipedia—is it considered reliable and accepted by the community? Dennisaxim (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Dennisaxim that website is not mentioned in the archives of the reliable sources page but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22GrandViewResearch.com%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 it is used already 73 times] in various articles, so I would say it is OK in general. Of course, as with all sources, it depends on what information you want to back up with that source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, 

I'm currently working on adding the team history for a retired football player. Due to the player's long career with over 10 transfers, I need to use a specific format template instead of the standard 10-club section provided.  However, I'm not entirely sure how the formatting works in this case. Here's what the description says:

---

Club 1

The first (senior) club that the player has been contracted at. Up to 39 clubs can be added using the parameter names "clubs2", "clubs3", etc.

---

Can anyone provide clarification on how the formatting for these parameters works? Specifically, how do I use "clubs2", "clubs3", etc.? Can someone provide an example of how it should be structured?  Thank you in advance for your help! AjinGixtas (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

We have archived Talk:Curt Weldon however there is no link to the archived wikipage, can someone fix this.

Also, the same issue with Talk:Rhyl

Regards Guiy de Montfort^talk 13:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Curt_Weldon&diff=prev&oldid=1286717146 this]? There are a few ways and layouts, but this one is easy:) DMacks (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Perfect, that works. Guiy de Montfort^talk 16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Error Message Occured During Translation Process.png

File:Desired Language.png

Hi! I'm working on translating the article "Zero Population Growth" into simplified Chinese, but I wasn’t able to publish the translation because it says I'm "not experienced enough to publish translations." Does anyone know why this is the case and how to resolve it? Thank you very much! Zli39 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Zli39 According to your global contribution log, you have only made 3 edits on zh: Wikipedia. If you had only that few here on en: Wikipedia, you would not be autoconfirmed and likewise would not be able to create articles directly. You'll need to ask at the zh: helpdesk or teahouse whether the rules there are the same as they are here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m a new user that joined on Wikipedia. And I already started editing on this site. Can you please share something that I needed to contribute to Wikipedia? I’ve been trying to figure out on how to add info to sections. Clubtoon112 (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:The task center is a good place to check out if you're not sure how to contribute. It breaks stuff down into difficulty levels based on editor experience. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Explain on community, not the writing only. Clubtoon112 (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Could you elaborate? I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're specifically asking for. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It’s the Wikipedia community. Not just the editing. Clubtoon112 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Below writing, is the community on the task center. Clubtoon112 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have been working on the article Jean-Mohammed Abd-el-Jalil and would like to upload an image of his priestly ordination card from 1935, which is notable and unique because it features Qur'an verses. The only source I have for it is scanning an image of it from the book Massignon - Abd-el-Jalil : Parrain et filleul 1926-1962, a edition of the letters exchanged between the subject of the article and his godfather, Louis Massignon. Would uploading a scanned image of the card for the article fall under fair use? M.A.Spinn (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, {{u|M.A.Spinn}}. Wikipedia's policies on use of Non free images are stricter than the legal doctrine of Fair use. That being said, the image you describe probably meets WP:NFCI #4 as long as it is accompanied by referenced critical commentary describing how unique the card is. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:The prayer card, and therefore a 2D image of this 2D item, might be public domain (completely free, not a non-free fair-use exception). Do you know where he was ordained--France, or Morocco, or somewhere else? Is the creator of the card itself actually known (would this person have done it himself, or someone in particular among his mentors, or just the work of some anonymous administrative person in the church)? Are you able to link to the book's page where the scan is? Depending what creative elements (if any) vs plain-text it contains might also be relecant. DMacks (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::The ordination took place in Paris in 1935. I'd have to double check but I don't think the artist signed the card and it has no copyright notice on it. I can source the page from the book it is scanned from and the book itself sources it to the [http://www.archivesfranciscaines.fr/ Franciscan Archives in France]. So what we're dealing with is a scan of a scan of archival material from the 1935 with no author or copyright notice listed. The creative element is Arabic calligraphy combined with Christian iconography. M.A.Spinn (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Best I can determine is that it would be free in France but not free in the US. So it cannot be placed on commons (not free in both original country and US), and it can be placed on enwiki (US host) as non-free fair-use. It could also be placed on frwiki without restriction now. On January 1, 2031, it becomes PD in the US, so it could be placed on commons, used on all wikis, and not require fair-use handling. How's that for chaotic? DMacks (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It works for my purposes! M.A.Spinn (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! An article I submitted was recently declined, and the feedback received was regarding notability of the subject and that the article reads more like an advertisement (there were also some edits needed but I think I've addressed those). Can I ask for more clarification on the notability part? I'm surprised the subject is not considered notable, he was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for his work co-hosting a podcast that has gained international recognition, among other successes. Can I ask for more details so I can make the necessary corrections and submit a better version of this article for reconsideration? Thank you for any advice you can provide. Kinfolx1114 (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{Courtesy link|User:Kinfolx1114/sandbox}} Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! Kinfolx1114 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hello, @Kinfolx1114, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked at your draft, so I'm answering in general terms: what somebody is or does, does not of itself contribute to notability as Wikipedia uses the word. Notability mostly means "Enough independent material about the subject has been published in reliable sources to base an article on".

:::Some kinds of activity or achievement - such as winning a major prize, or being appointed to certain posts - create a presumption that the person is notable, but we still need the reliable independent sources to base the article on. Winning a Pulitzer Prize is probably in that category, but only being nominated for one is not. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Hello @ColinFine! Thank you! The official definition of notability makes me feel that he is qualified, just from coverage in reliable independent sources. But I appreciate that being nominated for a Pulitzer is not, alone, a reason. I'll take a second look and make sure I linked enough resources, I thought I had but will check again and see if there are opportunities to improve. I know you haven't read the draft but if you get a chance to glance and form an opinion on notability, I would appreciate the feedback. Thanks again Kinfolx1114 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Kinfolx1114}}: the first sentence of your sandox lists seven activities that Thomas has devoted himself to. But it never makes it clear which of them (if any) he's notable for. It repeatedly states that he's been in prison, but it never explains what he was found guilty of. (Yes, I'm aware that in the US, being imprisoned depends on skin colour and the ability to afford a good lawyer as much as actual guilt – but the reader still needs to be told.) Maproom (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hello Maproom, thank you for that feedback! This is helpful, I'd like to ask two follow up questions: The first sentence mentions that he is most known for his hosting of Ear Hustle podcast, but the other titles are less notable but referenced. (for example, 'writer' is backed with citations of published work, 'curator' is cited with an article covering curation at the Museum of African Diaspora, etc.). Would it be more appropriate to say the notable role first and then mention the others? Or do all activities have to be notable to be mentioned? Also, you mentioned that the reader needs to be told (re: details of his experience in the criminal justice system), is it a requirement for the article to be considered? Again, thank you! Kinfolx1114 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Apologies, I meant to tag you! @Maproom Kinfolx1114 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Kinfolx1114}}: so he's best known for his role in Ear Hustle. The body of the article explains that he's its co-host. The first sentence of the lead should state that he's its co-host, and that is what he's principally notable for. His other activities can be mentioned later.

::::The body of the article reminded me of Gogol's novel Dead Souls. At the end of one chapter, the central character is travelling freely through the Russian countryside. At the start of the next, he is in prison, with no explanation of why. This is not a literary device by Gogol; it's because he inadvertently destroyed his manuscripts for some missing chapters. There's no requirement for the article to explain why Thomas was imprisoned, but it seems odd to omit it. Maproom (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I got a message when I try to use XTools that says; "Your access to XTools has been blocked due to apparent abuse or disruptive automation. If you are a bot, please use our public APIs instead, which are optimized for this purpose: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/XTools/API For inquiries, please contact tools.xtools@toolforge.org". I do not know what to do I have never spammed XTools or anything. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:@History6042 See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#XTools_down?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Timothy Snyder

Views on threats to democracy and pursuit of freedom

[edit source]

This message appears:

This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (April 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Could someone please give five or more examples of some text that does not appear to be appropriately encyclopedic? In a perfect world, I could make changes that would allow for the removal of this comment.

The comment came after a recent update of about nine new paragraphs. Initially in 2022 there had been concerns that I addressed, and I am not sure how the newer text became more of a problem.

Thank you for your kind guidance!

The more specific you are, the better. I understand the principle of encyclopedic tone, but am sure that the text is an exceptionally faithful report of what Snyder has said, and can provide the original text as needed if that helps to reveal any bias introduced at my end. LBDon (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @LBDon. This tag was placed by @JooneBug37 (as can be seen by viewing the article history), so it would be good to directly ask him why he placed the tag, and to continue discussion on the article talk page.

:At first glance, this section seems disproportionately long: the article should mainly describe what independent, secondary sources have said about Snyder, instead of simply restating his own words. It also blurs opinion and fact with extended paraphrasing, implicitly describing his own views as true statements, e.g. {{tq|False emergencies to disguise lawless policies and destruction of official records work not only against the security of Americans, but also against our freedom}}. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::AWESOME, helpful raccoon. I will do that. LBDon (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hello, @LBDon. Please remember that {{HD/WINI}} ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you, ColinFine. LBDon (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Cut the Views on threats to democracy and pursuit of freedom section by 90%. David notMD (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you, David notMD. LBDon (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It would be possible for me to footnote every single sentence in the recent update, but there would be the same footnote after every single line in any one paragraph. There is absolutely no personal interpretation/editorial content added (by me) though I did avoid quoting every single sentence because the exact wording is not a quotation. Typically, as you can see, a single paragraph corresponds to a single public statement by Snyder.

I am sharing this because it may eliminate one or five rounds of back and forth:) LBDon (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:LBDon, if, typically, a single paragraph in a draft or article summarizes or quotes a single public statement by the subject of that draft or article, it's probable that something is very wrong. If each utterance is so percipient, courageous, outrageous or gnomic that it brings commentary from reliable sources independent of the subject, it might be permissible to summarize that commentary in a whole paragraph. But concision is a virtue. -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, Hoary, you are quite a writer! LBDon (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I cannot seem to navigate my way back there to see historical questions and your responses. Thank you. LBDon (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:In general, old questions are archived. The navigation box for the Teahouse archive is at the top of this page.

:If you want to go to older questions, I know of two ways: If you still remember the Headline of the question, you could search it in the search archives box at the top of this page. Or just browse through the archives in general via the links there.

:The alternative, if you want to go back to one of your previous questions is going via your contributions page. Click on any of the headlines for your questions in brackets. That will either take you to appropriate section, or it will open a box with a link on your screen if that section has already been archived. LightlySeared (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::And another way: If one of your sections on the Teahouse is archived, the bot that does that should leave a link to that section on your talk page. LightlySeared (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you, LightlySeared! LBDon (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|LBDon}} On the right side of the page, under the box with the table of contents is a box that says "Most recent archives". In that "Most recent archives" box, there is a search box. Try searching your username, and your previous questions should come up. Alternatively, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Go+find+it%21&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3ATeahouse%2FQuestions%2FArchive&search=LBDon&ns0=1 here] is a link to your previous posts here. Cheers, and happy editing! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, Relativity. LBDon (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello is this draft okay? Draft:Sanjib Bhattacharjee Flyhigh223! (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Flyhigh223!}} You have submitted the draft, the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Currently looking at it, going to update when done. – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 00:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you @Sparkle and Fade! Flyhigh223! (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Apologies @Flyhigh223!, but I'm going to have to put the article assessment on hold because I'm currently handling disruption regarding a user right now. Once again, apologies, and I will update when possible. – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 22:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I came across the user User:Titan Technology Corporation (Titan), and reported to UAA. Later, I found that the user overlinks quite a lot. So I welcomed the user, then templated the user for the overlink. Looking back, I think maybe welcoming the user and reporting to UAA in addition to templating them may come across as bitey. Is there a better course of action I could have followed? —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 03:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @Mint Keyphase. I see no problem with that you've did. You can always write a personal message rather than template, but that is optional. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::How should I go about dealing with the edit the user had already made though? I am not too sure if a mass revert would be appropriate, especially considering the time passed... —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 05:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I've been searching through your edit history and don't know what you're talking about. Can you link it? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 15:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I did not actually go ahead with the mass revert per concerns above. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 03:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::You can revert them if the edits aren't appropriate. I see no problem. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I have a question regarding referencing. I've been clicking the "random" button on Pages with broken reference names and trying to clean up said broken references if I feel I'm able to. While doing this, I've come across several scenarios where I'm not sure how to proceed, and I would appreciate some guidance.

• Zond program contains a broken reference that is defined in Zond 7, linked right above the broken reference. In this case, the book is available on Google Books, and supports the information given.

• Filibuster (military) has a broken reference to a YouTube video. While the video appears related, YouTube is not a WP:RS (and from my skim of the video, the quote its given next to doesn't appear in it).

• A while ago at 2027 in spaceflight, I believed I was able to identify a broken reference name from context clues in the name, but I didn't think the information in that article adequately supported the information it was next to (in conjunction with the other source provided for that item in the list, there was also some discussion on the talk page, but the editor who added the reference never responded).

In these example cases, I've had enough information (available book, video in a language I speak, enough passing familiarity with a topic) to either know the source supports the claim or have concerns about it. My instinct is that it would be appropriate in these cases to fix the reference name, even if I have concerns, but I'm not sure.

I guess in general, in cases where a source can be identified as the source the inserting editor intended, but it's not adequate in some way (unreliable, questionable relevance, etc), or I can't personally verify the information it's claiming to support (offline source I don't have access to, language barrier, etc), is it better to leave the reference broken for a better equipped editor to handle, or fix it despite the potential concerns? NovaHyperion (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I found a really nice job for student editors (psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, medicine, or the history of science and medicine): writing a new section History of Functional neurological symptom disorder. See: Talk:Functional_neurological_symptom_disorder#History_rewrite. Is there any way I can tell anybody about this? Lova Falk (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Lova Falk I suggest you try leaving a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::30pxThank you! Lova Falk (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I noticed the following edits at Outfit7 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outfit7&diff=prev&oldid=1286798837] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outfit7&diff=prev&oldid=1286798757], by another editor (an admin, Drmies). I reverted them because for the first one, the edit summary was "there's a main article for that", and I did not understand the idea that just because another article had that information meant it should be erased from this one. For the second one, I reverted it because they wrote "please write up text with reliable secondary sources, not spam links" and as per my understanding, a link showing that an app exists and belongs to a specific entity can be used as a reliable primary source and I did not see why it would be treated as a spam link. My own edit summary was "I don't understand what is wrong with listing the apps made by a company. And Play Store links showing an app was created by the studio are not spam by any reasonable definition IMO".

After I reverted it, it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outfit7&oldid=prev&diff=1286853422 reverted back] by the same editor and they wrote in the edit summary "Talking Tom & Friends, the worst article on Wikipedia, already has that list. and yes, commercial links are spam. if you can't verify it properly, with secondary sources, maybe it shouldn't be in here". Now I am confused by the mildly blunt tone and also a bit offended (since I did spend a fair bit of time a few years back modifying much of the Talking Tom & Friends article, though in hindsight my own edits weren't great back then and now others have also altered it somewhat and now I don't have the time to trim and maintain it anymore), so rather than revert again and risk escalating things because of my emotions, I am opting to instead ask here regarding these two questions. What is Wikipedia's policy on repeating lists in two articles and what is the policy on Play Store links to prove the existence of an app in a list of apps by a company? Tube·of·Light 12:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:UPDATE: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATube_of_Light&diff=1286854108&oldid=1283048033 on my talk page], Drmies wrote, referring to my edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outfit7&oldid=prev&diff=1286815311 "Play Store links showing an app was created by the studio are not spam by any reasonable definition"]--a commercial link where one can buy something, in this case an app, is the very definition of a spam link. I can understand their POV but I am not sure, if Play Store links are spam links, then by that logic shouldn't every URL for political parties, corporations, NGOs and so on be removed for being spam links that promote them? If not, what exactly are the guidelines on this? Tube·of·Light 12:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::I can imagine a very strict interpretation of WP:SPAM that would treat many such links as spam links. And already you'll find that, for example, a press release from a political party website that has no independent third party coverage is often not considered a due reliable source for this (among other) reasons. But also there is a general perspective on Wikipedia that the presence of something on the website that may violate a policy is not a justification for including material that absolutely does violate policy. And direct sales links are spam by even the most generous of interpretations of that policy. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, but in that case what else can be used as a source for proving that the apps belong to the developers? Or should the app list be erased if no other source can be cited? And does that mean that by extension, IPad Air (6th generation) and most tech product pages should have the website parameter erased as it will lead to a direct sales link on most of them? Tube·of·Light 03:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Reliable sources are ideally academic sources such as journals and books from academic presses. Failing that a reliable newsmedia outlet and other traditionally published books would be good choices. If an app is not spoken about by reliable sources it is likely not a notable app. As for IPad Air I really don't know having not looked at the pages in question. Simonm223 (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, please advice if this is the right place to share this, or where should I reach out about our project?

We at Wikipedia:Projekt_Fredrika are excited about Finland-Swedish band KAJ (group) that will be representing Sweden in the Eurovision 2025. It is a great opportunity for Swedish Finland to get attention, and improve KAJ related articles on Wikipedia. Already in page views you can see that for example Ostrobothnian and KAJ's home municipality Vörå have received many times more views in March after the qualification event Melodifestivalen compared to the whole year before. We have made a KAJ project page for anybody that would like to join us in this theme, not just in Swedish and English, but other languages too: Wikipedia:Projekt_Fredrika/KAJ.

We also have especially notability related question for experienced Wikipedians. Perhaps @78.82.201.71 @85.76.164.54 @Apharius @Hej Simon @CeolAnGhra could give us some guidance and help? I have copied the questions here from the project page for easy commenting. Many thanks!

• The group itself: Reading Wikipedia:Notability (music), KAJ (group) passes notability criteria in several ways:
• # Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.: Yes, in Yle (2013-), Hufvudstadsbladet (2013-), Vasabladet (2009-)
• # Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Yes, Bara bada bastu in Sweden and Finland
• # Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition. Yes, they won Melodifestivalen 2025
• # Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network: Yes, on Yle
• The musicals (Gambämark, Botnia Paradise) are amongst the most successful in Finland; notability should be there
• Of the eight albums Gambämark and Botnia Paradise are the musicals; Kaj 10 is an extensive live production; the other six mark stepping stones in the past 15 years of the existence of the group; however, they have been almost unknown outside Swedish Finland until Melodifestivalen 2025, and judging their international notability is difficult
• Of the over one hundred singles by KAJ, Bara bada bastu is clearly notable. The other songs face the same dilemma as the albums (little known outside Swedish Finland until February 2025). However, not describing any of the songs might not be the best line of action. Jåo nåo e ja jåo YOLO ja nåo has already been entered and edited by seven different authors. Is it OK to enter other songs from the same category :sv:Kategori:Låtar av Kaj, such as :sv:Taco hej (me Gusta), :sv:Pa to ta na kako? and others which may be coming up?

• On KAJ (group)#The significance of dialect and language to the group, there was a marker {{Essay-like|date=April 2025|section}} which caused us to do what we thought of as a thorough rewrite to make they style more encyclopedic. But the message reappeared. Any advice on how to further improve it?
• On Bara bada bastu#Media coverage in the United Kingdom, there is a similar marker {{Tone|date=April 2025|section}} although we had written the section "as encyclopedic as we could". Any advice?

• Also on Bara bada bastu#Media coverage in the United Kingdom, we got markers {{Primary source inline|date=April 2025}} and {{Failed verification|date=April 2025}}. Indeed we had misplaced the quotes within the section, so that the quote referring to the Youtube recording ("primary source", we suppose) should be more prominent at the cost of the other quotes (from Daily Express and Metro (British newspaper). We reordered the references. Did we get it right?

• Anything against creating a template Template:KAJ (group) like the one in Swedish :sv:Mall:Kaj (humorgrupp)?

• Currently, {{ill|Kevin Holmström|sv|Kevin Holmström|fi|Kevin Holmström|he|Kevin Holmström}}, {{ill|Axel Åhman|sv|Axel Åhman|fi|Axel Åhman|he|Axel Åhman}}, and {{ill|Jakob Norrgård|sv|Jakob Norrgård|fi|Jakob Norrgård|he|Jakob Norrgård}} are redirected to KAJ (group). What are the requirements to create individual articles for them?

::Sorry, I can't help with your main questions but on en:Wikipedia the advice (from WP:BANDMEMBER) says that {{tq|Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability.}}. To do that we would fall back to the general biography notability guidelines, which might be met if there was significant coverage of solo albums, for example.Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse Community,

Good day! I’d like to request an investigation into two specific users — Careybull and 71.229.251.189 — who have been making salacious edits to both the Peebles Corporation and R. Donahue Peebles pages. Upon reviewing each user's contributions, I noticed that they have only edited Peebles-related pages. For instance, if you check the Peebles Corporation article, you’ll find edits from 71.229.251.189 that include improperly cited references, altered context while still relying on the same source (rather than supporting the changes with a new one), and several unsourced updates. Meanwhile, Careybull’s edits appear to lean more toward the whitewashing of referenced information.

It appears that both users may be using the platform with the intent to manipulate or distort Peebles’ credibility. If you could look into this matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, and I look forward to your response. ~~~~ Axeia.aksaya (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:This isn't really suited for the Teahouse; user conduct issues are discussed at WP:AN(though you must notify anyone you bring there). 331dot (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. Axeia.aksaya (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to edit the monument infobox template but would like to make sure I do it correctly. I want to move the coordinates parameter to be more consistent with other infoboxes (building, protected area, etc). When looking at the code for the monument infobox template, particular items are numbered as label2, label3, label4, ... and similar. I can manually make the changes such that the numbers remain ordered but this seems like the incorrect way to do this. Is there a recommended method for adding an item. For example, it seems that the 'coordinates' label should be inserted after the 'location' label in the monument infobox template.

Would appreciate redirection if this is the incorrect channel to pose this query. High five. Tiled (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Best to bring this up at Template talk:Infobox monument, That said there is a sandbox for testing edits Template:Infobox monument/sandbox. Play with the sand box then post at Template talk:Infobox monument. Moxy🍁 16:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Atop|1=If there are problems with the Vinland article, then Talk:Vinland is where they should be discussed. -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)}}

There is a long-standing problem with the "Vinland" article. Some people are trying to claim that a consensus exists that places "Vinland/Wineland" in present day Newfoundland or New Brunswick. I edited the article this morning to better reflect the true situation that there is still a major debate underway over the true location of "Vinland/Wineland." In the 1965 book by Magnusson and Palsson, - "The Vinland Sagas", they reported that a "...majority of scholars..." had inclined to the view that Vinland/Wineland was in New England. See pages eight and forty-two. Their statement still holds 100% true today. The book is STILL being used today as a college level textbook. Bringing up this point about New England having more support among scholars apparently upsets many people who want to push the idea that "Vinland/Wineland" was confined to Canada. It is true that L'Anse aux Meadows in north Newfoundland is so far the only proven pre-Columbian European site in North America, but it has never been accepted by scholars as the true site of "Vinland/Wineland." One of many problems with identifying L'Anse aux Meadows as "Vinland/Wineland" is that wild grapes do not grow in Newfoundland. That has long been a major problem for academics who are also certain that "Wineland" is the only proper interpretation of "Vinland." The "Pastureland" interpretation has never been accepted by Icelandic scholars.... and the sagas are written in the Icelandic language. My question is this, - how to correct the "Vinland" article to report the true story... that the location of the area is still in dispute and that New England cannot, and should not be excluded from the "academic discussion"?? Rockawaypoint (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Those editors who have been watching the Vinland pages made it clear to you a long time ago that using outdated sources such as Magnusson and Palsson - that predates the original excavation of l'anse aux meadows is inappropriate as is the use of WP:SYNTH and self-published or unreliable sources that attempt to place Vinland in New England despite the absence of any credible archaeological evidence. The advice I'd give you now is the same advice I gave you in February: use current reliable sources. Your arguments mostly depend on a personal interpretation of the Vinland Sagas that assumes these are factual historical documents - this is a flawed assumption. Please stick to RS. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Your claim that Magnusson and Palsson's book is "outdated" is your opinion ONLY. The book is cited still,... today... sixty years after it was published!! I think you have a problem with this book because there is no doubt it is in the "authoritative" category and definitely a "reliable source." For you to try and say it is not reliable reveals a great deal here. The book is cited "all the time" today. It has long been considered a college level textbook. The 40 page introduction is considered extremely valuable and the translation is considered to be highly reliable,... maybe because it has been done by two highly respected Icelanders. You are also 100% incorrect in assuming... I am assuming anything. To try and say I assume "...these are factual historical documents" is ridiculous!! How long have you studied this topic?? What gives you such a wealth of knowledge about it? Do you think you are better equipped to judge Vinland/Wineland's location than Carl Ortwin Sauer? He is still considered to be the "Dean" of American Historical Geography. He placed Vinland/Wineland firmly in southern New England. Are you going to deny he is a "reliable source" in this topic involving Historical Geography?? Rockawaypoint (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This is not an appropriate place for an extended content discussion. Nor is there any point in rewarming an argument that was thoroughly answered in January. If you have any new current, reliable sources to present that demonstrate literally any archaeological evidence of Norse colonization in New England please present those sources at the relevant page discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The book by Magnusson and Palson makes clear there is only ONE academic consensus about the location of "Wineland".... New England. And again.... do you think you have more qualifications than Carl Ortwin Sauer in the field of historical geography?? Rockawaypoint (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I’m off to bed, but it is true that this is just a rehash of an old argument by a single purpose ed. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::That is ONLY your opinion. You seem to have a very hard time acknowledging Carl O. Sauer took a firm position favoring southern New England as Vinland. He was probably the most qualified of all academics to say where Wineland had been. This paper from 2011, - "Sauer's Berkeley School Legacy: Foundation for an Emergent Environmental Geography?" says about Sauer, - "By almost any measure, Carl O. Sauer was one of geography's premier twentieth century scholars." Sauer is still highly reliable today. Come to grips with what he wrote about the Wineland controversy. Rockawaypoint (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:The short answer to your question is: if you cannot convince the other editors at Talk:Vinland, then you cannot "correct" the Vinland article. If you're told by almost everyone that you're saying the same things over and over again, then you've lost this one. The Teahouse is not where these article-specific discussions go; there's no benefit to arguing about Sauer here. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Well, that is really too bad. It is interesting in a way to see how narrowminded people can be when the subject of "Vinland/Wineland" comes up here and elsewhere. Same with how some people believe they are well informed but turn out to be only misinformed. Rockawaypoint (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The article's Talk page has location discussions dating back more than ten years. Peruse all that, and only then start a new discussion if you believe you have reliable sources to add to the debate. David notMD (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::There is NO consensus as claimed by Simonm223 that supports Newfoundland or New Brunswick as the "answer" in the Wineland debate. That is ONLY the preferred choice of a small group. The entire issue of Wineland's location is still up in the air... there is no "final conclusion" as suggested in the first paragraph. Even Birgitta Wallace, one of the Parks Canada archeologists at L'Anse aux Meadows, has written in Gwyn Jones' "The Norse Atlantic Saga", 1986 edition, that it "...is impossible to equate northern Newfoundland with Vinland." [see page 300.] Many other reliable sources say essentially the same thing... "Newfoundland is NOT Vinland." But Wikipedia's Vinland article is saying it is.

::::So where are the "reliable sources" that say New Brunswick or Newfoundland IS Vinland as reported in that first paragraph. It is NOT true. Rockawaypoint (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Then in 1988 they finished the initial excavation of l'Anse Aux Meadows. Archeological evidence trumps attempts to divine the setting of a hughly fictionalized account such as the sagas. But, again, this is not the right place for this discussion. And, again, we had this discussion to exhaustion in January already. Please provide reliable sources drafted after the major Archeological find at the appropriate article talk. Please do not tag me into the teahouse conversation again. Simonm223 (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Abot}}

Hello! So I would appreciate help in understanding notability on Wiki, and if someone is willing, helping me put some artists on a page. I'm updating this page for my school project. And myself, and others (based on the history) have tried to add [https://lundeensculpture.com/bio-george/ George Lundeen] as a notable person. He is from this town, has multiple sculptures featured in the town, including on the city's seal, and his fame goes beyond the local town, he has sculptures in other countries and he runs an art school. But how do I justify he is notable? I can find plenty of information about him on the internet that appears to make him seem worthy, but since the content has a trend of being removed, I wanted to ask for help. If the answer is, that he isn't worthy, that's fine, but I would like to learn. Because someone added a list of people in the noteworthy section and I do not see how they are more notable--like this scientist Why is he noteworthy? Is it because he is dead? Or because he already has a Wiki page? Does having a Wiki page immediately justify you as notable? Thank you for any help you can provide NrmMGA5108 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, pretty much a requirement for an existing Wikipedia biography article before a person can be deemed "notable" for a town/city/university list. David notMD (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:NrmMGA5108, this seems to be about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holdrege%2C_Nebraska&diff=1286430816&oldid=1286385122 this edit] in particular. Sample: "Holdrege has 11 sculptures throughout the town that have been created by 4 artists native to Holdrege. These artists global recognition and have sculptures placed at locations worldwide." (Perhaps better: "Eleven sculptures across the town have been created by four artists native to Holdrege.") Elsewhere in the edit: "The mission of the NPM continues to be..." (but Wikipedia isn't much concerned with "missions"), and "Our first displays appeared in the courthouse halls..." (I hadn't realized that Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation had displays in courthouses). But to your question: "But how do I [demonstrate (?) that George Lundeen] is notable?" By first creating a policy-compliant article about George Lundeen. Such an article must show that Lundeen is notable, as Wikipedia understands notability (which isn't how I, personally, understand "notability" and very likely isn't how you understand it either). -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:@NrmMGA5108 To add Lundeen to Holdrege, Nebraska, "notable" isn't quite the WP-issue here, this is WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION. Basically, you need a decent source WP:RS, independent of Lundeen, saying Lundeen is from Holdrege. [https://www.google.se/books/edition/Hastings/W3olv5LyiywC?hl=sv&gbpv=1&dq=%22George+Lundeen%22+holdrege&pg=PA128&printsec=frontcover] looks ok by me, but you may know others. If you want to add stuff about his sculptures in Holdrege, you need sources for that too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::That said, IMO this guy is WP:NOTABLE, and I've started a draft on him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Newspapers.com has loads of articles on him. My favorite so far is {{cite news |work=The Rock Island Argus |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/699688924/?match=1&clipping_id=170916941 |date=25 Jan 1998 |via=newspapers.com |title=Deere deer dear |last=Pearson |first=Rita}}

:::owing to its title. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Has that one moved in the WP-library? I'll have to apply. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. There was recently a Signpost article about WikiProject AI Cleanup that included some AI generated images that the project removed from articles. Some people on Commons now want to delete the images from there due to being out of scope but we can't because the images are technically in use. Which just seems like a weird reason not to delete the files but whatever. Does anyone know if there's a process for removing images from the Signpost or can I just do it? Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Ask at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost, perhaps? In the interest of preservation, you could add the pics locally to en-WP and put those in the Signpost article instead, thus "freeing" them for deletion on Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Please, I need help for the correct title : Let's Go! (2011 film). Thanks Jacques Ballieu (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Jacques Ballieu, requests for uncontroversial page moves which you cannot do yourself should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. However in this case this is the only film which is called Let's Go!, the others are without the exclamation point at the end, so further disambiguation is not necessary. Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)