Wikipedia:Teahouse

Dbfirs, a Teahouse host

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

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

AfD question regarding a cricketer.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Answered at AFD. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope all here are well. My question is about the current AfD discussion going on here regarding cricketer Tanzeel Altaf. I was reading WP:NCRIC and then WP:OFFICIALCRICKET, and it is shown that Altaf played from 2011 to 2014 in the Super 8 Twenty20 Cup using information from ESPNcricinfo [1]. According to WP:OFFICIALCRICKET, the Cricket WikiProject deems having played in this T20 cup to qualify as having presumably significant coverage. So my question is, would this rule in WP:OFFICIALCRICKET make it so the page for Altaf would not be deleted, no matter if the ESPNcricinfo page was the only SIGCOV? Thanks all for your help, and have a wonderful weekend. Ré union! 01:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go at answering this at the AfD. Reunion is aware. Commander Keane (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting Copyright Owner Permission To Use Image

I would like to add a facial picture to the following article Klavdia (singer), but i couldn't find any free licensed / public domain picture, so i found a picture used in this Article, with this direct Link. The picture seems to have an built-in caption referencing the photographer with copyright symbol, phographer's name, and a phographing company's website. The website doesn't show the pictures taken from the company, as it asks for costumer information. According To Wikipedia, i have to ask the copyright owner for permission, and more speccifcally if is it licensed if is it a free license / or on public domain and if not, based of (Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder). The problem is, when you click on the Email Template Page (Commons:Email_templates#Declaration of consent for all inquiries), it prompts the user to use a wizard tool, but in this case i want to provide the page for the copyright owner to fill out the template and send it back to me, according yo The Wikipedia Guide says, in order for me to check the license. What am i Doing?. Then if its correct i upload the image to wikipedia with mentioned tag, i ask the sender/copyrighter to forward the full mailling thread to the correct wikipedia page. Now, wouldn't this whole proccess discourage the copyrighter and also i am doing it all this correctly?, this is my first time. Any advice?

( I am aware of the "fair use" usage, but you can only upload it only to each wikipedia, and it isn't clear how to do it, and also i want to learn the procces, and upload to wikimedia, whcih can be use in other wikis, since the article is translated into multiple languages.

- Mant08 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright owner should be the one to fill it out. They are the ones who are allowed to make the release, so it's best if they do it directly rather than you being their intermediary. For the record, non-free images of living persons are almost never allowed (usually fails WP:NFCC policy-point #1 ("no free equivalent...could be created..."). DMacks (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mant08 You'll need to be in touch with the copyright holder by email in any event. If you can't persuade them to do the upload, then you can do it on their behalf provided they are prepared to send (usually within one week) an email to the volunteers at Commons from an address that's clearly theirs. The VRT page you linked explains that you would mark the file with a "permission pending" template after you had uploaded it: and, obviously, you need to tell the photographer the filename you used so they can mention that in their email to VRT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mant08 Wikipedia:A picture of you could be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both / all for your advises. Mark Question As Complete - Mant08 (talk)

Help with Draft

Courtesy link: Draft:Zurvan

Hi there, I created a draft for Zurvan, the Iranian divinity of Infinite Time. A Zurvan page was already created, which was redirected to the Zurvanism, because of that reviewer declined draft and suggested merging the content to Zurvanism article. But it is important to note that Zurvan was a significant divinity in multiple periods of Iranian religion. As a god of infinite time in ancient Iranian religion, a Yazata in mainstream Zoroastrianism, and as the creator god in Zurvanism, Zurvan had different roles and meanings across these stages. Therefore, it deserves its own article since Zurvanism article can only represent one period of time. How can I make the draft more capable of being published? Hirbod Hsp (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need reliable sources and more content. However, it looks like your draft can be merged with the article Zurvanism. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 17:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft says that Zurvanite theology regards time as "infinite" and boundless", but that "Ahura Mazda ultimately triumphs at the end of time". This will appear to some readers as a contradiction. Maproom (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hirbod Hsp I have no opinion atm on if these should be separate articles, but you should pick a better leadimage, see for example pics at Arimanius. Perhaps you can find interested editors in places like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zoroastrianism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas for an article?

I really want to write a good one, but I have absolutely no ideas. Could someone offer some? (make sure its notable and suitable for wikipedia please) Thank you, loserhead (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing a new article- the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia- is not the only or even best way someone can contribute. The vast majority of our nearly 7 million articles need some help. I'd go to the Community Portal where there are suggested things to do. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, thank you for the information. But I still want to make an article. loserhead (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Loserhead4512. Take a look at User:Cullen328#My redlinks where I list some topics that I think are notable. Other editors have successfully written several articles from that list. Here are some other ideas: The Billboard charts go back to 1913. Wikipedia has excellent coverage of hit songs from the last 60 years. There are many articles that can be written about hit songs from 80 to 110 years ago. There is a strong presumption of notability for state and provincial legislators, and Wikipedia does a pretty good job with those serving in the last 25 years. But there are countless legislators from the previous centuries who lack biographies. You could spend the rest of your life working on these areas. Cullen328 (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, thank you! loserhead (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Loserhead4512 See Wikipedia:Requested articles for inspiration, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Loserhead4512: There are also some other useful lists of possible notable topics, depending on your interest: For instance, Women in Red has lists of women divided by Occupation, Geography, or time span; FloridaArmy has a list of American history topics that may be notable at User:FloridaArmy/Missing Pieces. If you let us know your field of interest, we can certainly find a relevant list that might be more specific to what you want to write about! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will also stress, what are your personal topics of interest? Articles may be lacking on politicians, songs, artists, women, species, towns, etc., but if none of that makes your heart beat faster, why bother? I also always stress gaining experience by improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD why bother? Why not? If I want to write an article, does it matter what my personal interests are if it's a well written/accurate article?

I also always stress gaining experience by improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. I understand this, but I want to challenge myself instead of just staying in my comfort zone. If I never step out of it, I'll never learn. loserhead (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like plants, or insects? One of the first things I did here was create a bunch of bug stubs, and they're all still there. Not the most exciting thing in the world but it was good practice. MediaKyle (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaKyle Not really, but I wouldn't be against making an article on one loserhead (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have made close to 1,000 edits since starting your account, with a very low revert rate, and including, today, creating a draft, so, carry on. David notMD (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sockpuppetry? (I don't know where else to post this)

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to put this in. Although I've been using Wikipedia for a very long time, I'm new to editing and don't really know my way around doing a lot of things. This is the first time I'm making a report on a user (or pair of users) because it seems like a person is referencing themselves and using 2 separate IP addresses to do so—so it's like sock-puppetry too.

In respect to the Wikipedia articles “Determiner phrase” and “Sentence (linguistics)”, users 37.111.139.131 and 37.111.136.23 seem to be sock-puppets, or at least related. For starters, their IP addresses both begin in 37.111.1, which means they’re both from Sindh region of Pakistan (Link, Link). They both reference the same website in their edits—“BACE Academy” (Link, Link). If you go to the web pages linked, in both articles, it’s the same author—Engr Sharif Kakar (Link, Link), who is also from Pakistan (Link).

I think it’s very suspicious that two separate IP addresses from Pakistan are citing the same website for information, the author of which is also from Pakistan. It might be the case that the author of this website is referencing their own work and doing it under different IP addresses. It doesn’t make it any better the fact that the articles on that website and the edits on the Wikipedia articles seem to have all been done this April.

Again, I don't know if I'm supposed to make a ticket somewhere or something, but if someone more experienced and knowledgeable than me could guide in the right direction or maybe take over from here, that'd be excellent.

Edit: I was only able to know they were the same user because they both put citations as a raw link in the middle of the articles instead of formatting as a little number surrounded by brackets. Languagelover3000 (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever might be linking to that website, Languagelover3000, the content of that website is feeble. The page on sentences, for example, says that "Sentences are categorized into four functional types of sentences", which comes as a surprise until one realizes that what's meant is that the main clauses of English come in four syntactic types. (Actually in five, but let's not digress.) Presented as one of the four: "Imperative: Gives a command (e.g., “Close the door.”)". Summarizing all four: "Each type serves a unique role in communication, influencing tone and intent." Actually, no. "Get well soon", "Look after yourself", "Don't be shy", and "Go to hell" are imperatives, yet none is a command. Spoken with suitable intonation, "You will be here at 7 a.m." can be a command; yet it's not an imperative but a declarative. This website doesn't merit being cited for any fact/factoid about language. -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a bit to say / ask here.

So would you want to revert his edits / remove his content if they're unsubstantiated in your opinion?
What about the fact that there were two IPs referencing the same author, and both the IPs and the author were from the same place? Is that not more concerning than the content they're adding?
It seems then that the imperative mood has a bit more nuance in its meaning than simply being "commands". Wikipedia itself and Wiktionary say that the imperative mood can be used to represent a command, request or permission. As for the example sentences you gave, it seems that whether they are considered imperative or declarative sentences depends on how one analyses them—and on pragmatics of course. If we were to edit his content instead of deleting it, I think it'd be a good idea to include that. Or atleast to include that "some declarative sentences are imperative pragmatically" or something of that nature.
...5? What's the fifth one? I don't know.

Languagelover3000 (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Q1. Removing this stuff would get my approval. Would I want to do it? No, as I explain below.
Your Q2. This doesn't concern me (at this point). If one IP were blocked and another IP was clearly evading the block, it would.
Your Q3. Declarative, imperative and the others are syntactic terms. Their syntactic analysis is simple. "Get well soon" expresses a hope; the fact that it expresses a hope and not a directive (let alone a command) doesn't affect its status as an imperative. (Please digest A Student's Introduction to English Grammar before continuing.) "[S]ome declarative sentences are imperative pragmatically" is nonsensical. "Declarative sentences are also used for directives, questions, and exclamations" would be OK.
Your Q4. Better to split "interrogative" into "open interrogative" and "closed interrogative", as the two are so very different from each other.

-- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, for Q3, I just realised that the article already tackled this starting at "The form (declarative,"... Languagelover3000 (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "...imperative pragmatically", I meant that some declarative sentences sometimes act as imperative sentences, in the sense of being a command or request. I should have phrased it better. Languagelover3000 (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From its very opening sentence -- "In linguistics and grammar, a sentence is a linguistic expression, such as the English example 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog'" -- Sentence (linguistics) manages to convey to me that this is a truly bad article, and so it turns out to be. Little wonder that it attracts additional junk. I can't bring myself to attempt to sort out such articles, not least because I'm sure that a lot of the junk will be stoutly defended as backed up by "reliable sources" (junk sources peddled to gullible readers by otherwise respectable publishers). But back to your question, Languagelover3000. Pakistan is a very populous nation. Many people there have access to the internet. Would-be contributors to very many of Wikipedia's articles are not required to log in in order to do so. For many users of the internet, their IP numbers fluctuate. I see no evidence here either that the user of one IP number then uses another in an attempt to confuse, or that the person behind the IP numbers is the writer of these web pages. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't recognise Pakistan as a populated country or anything; it's that the user is referencing their own work. Look at the links I put initially and you'll see that the creation date of the web pages on the BACE Academy website and the edits on Wikipedia occur on the same day, suggesting that this author decide to put his information into Wikipedia right after publishing his content on his own website (repeating the links here: compare the date of this with the date of this and the date of this with the date of this). Yeah, perhaps the IP numbers fluctuated, but like I said, the fact that both editors are from the same place as the author doesn't help their case. Both editors even made the same editing mistake of putting the citations unformatted in the middle of the article. Languagelover3000 (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Languagelover3000, you should probably take this to sockpuppet investigations. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See, I originally wanted to do that but didn't know how. I've now decided I won't do it anyway. There's a ton of rules that you have to abide by before you make a request, and one of them is that the user be "a) the same [person] and [also] b) disruptive", and... well, they're not necessarily disruptive (or I don't think so atleast). Also, it is possible for the IP addresses to just have fluctuated for the user. Regarding them citing their own work, I was unaware of Wikipedia's stance on citing yourself before making this question. Languagelover3000 (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind again, I found a third IP address "37.111.181.121". They're also from Pakistan, do the same raw-link-in-the-middle-of-the-article thing and they cite the same website. Languagelover3000 (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely say that's sockpuppetry to be reported. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 11:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, yup. After I found the third one, I just decided to go through with it. Languagelover3000 (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

So I am making an article on the Leeds Historical Society in Leeds, Alabama, but Leeds Historical Society seems to already be a redirect to the Historical Society of Leeds, England. Do I make an article like Leeds Historical Society (Alabama), or do I change the redirect to an actual page? Vestrix (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would go the (Alabama) route, given that when someone looks up Leeds they usually expect England. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 00:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! Vestrix (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please add Spouse beneath present holder?

Can autoconfirm user please add present wife of the title holder to Template:Infobox hereditary title Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked this at Template talk:Infobox hereditary title which is the correct place for this discussion. However you have not supplied any rationale. Why would a spouse be added? It seems irrelevant to me. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be very active there and Wikipedia suggested I post here to find autoconfirm users. Not sure why spouse wouldn't be relevant? There's title holder and heir, why not spouse? Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellycrak88 The heir is for hereditary titles. Spouses are generally not notable, and we try to keep information about non-notable people to an absolute minimum. For example, I always remove the names of non-notable children. Polygnotus (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under British social custom, a wife is the legal and social equal of her husband in style and title. She shares his rank and assumes the feminine form of his title by courtesy but does not hold it in her own right. Therefore the spouse is normally relevant info. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellycrak88 Thank god we don't follow British social customs. Tea is deadly in large quantities. Cue "you will address me by my husbands rank" memes. Polygnotus (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellycrak88 - but the template is about hereditary titles, not courtesy titles. Maproom (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

harv or sfn error

In Sigmund Freud Archives, I added an item by Peter J. Swales under "Literature." Then I added footnote 3, unsuccessfully attempting to link it to the Peter J. Swales item. "View history" says "harv or sfn error." What did I do wrong? Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurice Magnus Does this help? See Template:Sfn. Polygnotus (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@talkThanks Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(parting the tent door) Wow! "I'd heard of this place". deja vu moment TTITD

excuse me, but yeah,I remember now. circa 2002 Floating World deep playa Zendo Project? Some of you were in the tent there too. right? Can I sit in back here too? #participate #Teahouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oneluckydog1 (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, grab a pew. Polygnotus (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kef (1705)

Hello everyone! I’ve been working on this draft for about a year, and I’ve ran into a bit of a roadblock. There’s only one single source describing the battle. And, as we all know, one source won’t suffice for an article. You can find the draft here: Draft:Battle of Kef (1705) TJ Kreen (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TJ Kreen Hola! I am not sure I understand what the question is. Polygnotus (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I should’ve clarified. My article was rejected for only having one source, even though only one source covers the battle. So, I’m looking for help in finding more sources for the battle. TJ Kreen (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TJ Kreen Hm that is a pretty specific request. The trick is usually looking at the history of related Wikipedia articles to try to figure out which editors are interested in that topic area and then checking their contribution pages to see if they are still active. Asking the WP:MILHIST project may also be a good idea. Polygnotus (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TJ Kreen Also note that the battle is described over at Tunisian–Algerian_War_(1705)#Battle_of_Kef and since that isn't a standalone article the sourcing requirements are lower. Maybe expanding that section is easier. Polygnotus (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have that section in my article already, but I appreciate the suggestion. TJ Kreen (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the parent article is the place for this kind of information if there isn't enough sourcing for a spinout. You can keep improving the content there if you find any more sources, and then spin it out if you end up with a sizeable chunk. -- asilvering (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Neutral' statements

When does an objectively correct statement turn into bias? What if there's a less-than-good program or product, but it's described as a 'disappointing' or 'lackluster' despite it being those adjectives? When are things bias by omission / inclusion? BigBoiWikiWhale (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob Lee 6939: Hello! It sounds like you have a specific example in mind. What is it? Draft:Randall Standridge? Polygnotus (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a lot of possible bias in 'my' draft, if anything this is me seeing where Wikipedia draws the line for bias.

I saw one whilst reading Next-Generation Bomber, '... the U.S. Air Force's aging bomber fleet'. This is an objective fact, but could be interpreted differently.

I had this same argument in Tommy Robinson with him being a member of a right-wing political group, but being identified as a extreme fascist. I had a remark about the direct mention of his prison sentence which I saw as bias by inclusion. (It was in the first paragraph which usually serves as a tl;dr)

sidenote:

my main issue in my draft is finding valid sources. Standridge is a less-than-renowned composer so I won't be finding any Reuters articles on him. The few I found are all probably biased.

~~~ BigBoiWikiWhale (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob Lee 6939 To answer your original question. This is a heavily discussed part of Wikipedia policy, described in detail at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iberian blackout?

I think it is article worthy NyanarWelden (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NyanarWelden It is already at 2025 European power outage. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would a user page that is built like an article that clearly is bogus with the sole purpose of doing that be against policy?

I am asking this as I found a user-page that is exactly that. It is titled "That Time I Got Reincarnated As A Big Fat Horse In The Middle Of Goddamn Saudi Arabia While My Entire Family Got Eaten By Catboys" (but goes under the user page name.) It might fall under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not but I am unsure of that. How did I find this? It's owned by a user on a website I used and thought I might see if they have a Wikipedia account. hi (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @NotABlanker. You can tag those types of user pages for speedy deletion under U5 criteria. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom_Day_(South_Africa) still displays 2025 as next date

How does one change it manually? Or does the infobox update automatically with a delay? --SchallundRauch (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SchallundRauchLike many such dates, the page needs to be edited (even a WP:DUMMY or WP:NULL edit) and saved. I just did that, and it automatically updated. - Arjayay (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, Thanks! --SchallundRauch (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It only requires a purge. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Oliver Sachs

Hello Teahouse community,

I actually wanted to add some information about some Central European impact and meteorite researchers to the German and English Wikipedia. I started with 'Sachs' because of his well-documented German Wikipedia page (see: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Sachs).

Here I have simply translated the German page into English and added the references accordingly. (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oliver_Sachs). I thought that the sources listed on Wikipedia (GND: 101129687X, VIAF: 170326124) would be sufficient. However, this does not appear to be the case. DoubleGrazing (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DoubleGrazing) rejected the entry with the comment: „No evidence of notability, and very insufficiently referenced.“ and referred to necessary entries e.g. in the ‘Web of Science’ or at ‘Scopus’. I hadn't had these databases on my radar before, so I'm really grateful to DoubleGrazing for pointing them out. He was also the one who referred me to the Teahouse community :)

Well, in the admittedly exotic field of Central European impact researchers and meteorite researchers, I would like to make one or two additions. In particular, there is a lack of English entries on this interesting and internationally recognised topic. I would have liked to simply start with one or two translations here, which can then be developed further via the community. However, I need to understand the rules of the game first. Let’s taktet he example of „Oliver Sachs“. Scopus lists him with 8 publications and 478 citations. Sachs began his career in environmental and climate research and later worked in meteorite and impact research. He is also listed in the Web of Science (Link: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/MYS-6182-2025). In the field of meteorite and impact research, but also in climate research, he has contributed to a number of highly cited papers, which, according to the citations, have now also found their way into teaching (for example https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11229). Where is my error in thinking? Did I quote or link incorrectly in the translation? I would suggest including the English version of ‘Sachs’.

The next thing I would have looked at was Dieter Stöffler's site (link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_St%C3%B6ffler). So far there is only a Spanish and Swedish translation. Scopus lists Stöffler with 12 documents (link: https://www.scopus.com/results/results.uri?st1=st%C3%B6ffler+dieter&st2=&s=AUTH%28st%C3%B6ffler+dieter%29&limit=10&origin=searchbasic&sort=plf-f&src=s&sot=b&sdt=b&sessionSearchId=31f098a0694967424b009596242da887). I have not yet found it on the Web of science. Does a translation into English even make sense here?

Maybe you can help me further?

Best regards

Meteoriten-Deutschlands Meteoriten-Deutschlands (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please be aware that the German Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears most of the references on that article are to the subject's own work. To put it simply, the subject in this case should either pass WP:NACADEMIC, or have enough secondary, independent coverage to be covered under WP:GNG / WP:NBASIC. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Meteoriten-Deutschlands, your edit after DoubleGrazing's decline was really helpful. I'm not totally sure why it was declined a second time (I'd have accepted it as "enough to be worth a real deletion discussion at WP:AFD", myself), but you can ask the reviewer who did that and see what they have to say. Can you explain where you got the birthday from, though? Only the year is given at the link provided. Please see WP:DOB for why we're cagey about these.

Dieter Stoeffler looks pretty obviously notable to me, given the obituary linked on de-wiki ([2]). You'll want to find a citation that verifies that he won the Leibniz Prize. Having a look at the wikidata item, in this case Dieter Stöffler (Q15455295), can be helpful for looking for hints of academic notability. -- asilvering (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not easy for me to look behind the wall. Maybe it's actually due to the topic of meteorites or impacts and Central Europe. Perhaps Germany and its data protection also make things more difficult. With this “Sachs”, a translation was still relatively easy due to the preliminary work of the various Wiki authors. However, this person is still alive. I had simply translated the date of birth from the German page. But you are right. The German National Library database only lists “1970-” . If a speaker is introduced in a lecture with his key life data, this is not enough. In the English translation by Christian Koerberl , which is still undergoing some revision, the same problem arises with the date of birth. Only a death (?) seems to solve this data protection problem. In the case of the deceased Riesgeologists (in German) “Stöffler”, "Gall", “Dehm” and others, this is much easier, as there is often an obituary from a university and the like. In the case of the current example “Sachs”, I would therefore have to delete the exact date of birth, because it cannot actually be proven? Let's stay with the specialists for the meteorite crater “Nördlinger Ries”, summarized as “Riesgeologists” (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%B6rdlinger_Ries). Many of them had several scientific focuses in their lives. Even undoubtedly world-famous people like „Shoemaker“ (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Merle_Shoemaker) or „Chao“ (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._T._Chao) had not worked exclusively on the impact craters of this earth.

In the case of the “Sachs” I started, it was obviously polar research. If I apply the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NBASIC here, the transitions are unfortunately fluid. Sachs" has written several published books (compare link: https://search.worldcat.org/de/search?q=au=%22Sachs%2C%20Oliver%22) and was involved in widely cited publications (link:https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=59240594900) then the WP criteria are not always clear. And yet a German-English translation like this, with an update if necessary, is also work.

I'm still not sure what to do with the “Sachs” I started. Maybe just delete it and give up the exotic project “Meteorite and Impact Researchers of Central Europe”? Or would it suffice to additionally update or link the sources with the databases of the German National Library, the Web of Science or Scopus?

Cheers, @Meteoriten-Deutschlands Meteoriten-Deutschlands (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you'd have to remove the exact date, though it's fine to keep the year. Academics with multiple published books are usually notable, since academic books usually get reviewed in academic journals - if you can find reviews of his work, that will help. Please don't put a translated title into the "title" field of cite book - that goes into the "trans-title" field instead. For those database entries, they're better placed in Oliver Sachs (Q116194073). -- asilvering (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we deploy the Score extension's vastly superior SVG output, please?

Hi, does anyone else actually

${\relative {g' a es}}$

(care) about the Score extension? Sometimes it seems like I am operating in a vacuum. Progress on features has ground to a halt, and sadly it is being left to rot on the vine. There is a ticket for making it output SVG instead of poor resolution PNG images T49578, which has been open for twelve years; I merged code for it two years ago, and it's ready to deploy. If you care about music notation on Mediawiki projects (WikiSource uses it a fair bit too), we need to get the "deploy new version into production" ticket T385404 progressed. What are we to do? How can we get this done? I don't want everyone to pile onto tickets and harass the engineers because they're busy and it's nobody's fault, but perhaps a few upvotes and polite words of encouragement or offers to help on the ticket would work? It's so frustrating to have it ready to go to just languish in limbo for years. — Jon (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathanischoice, I think you might have more luck asking about this at WP:VPT. -- asilvering (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering thanks for the tip, cheers. — Jon (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why no good lists?

So we got: Good articles, Featured articles, Good topics, and Featured topics, and then we have featured lists, but no good lists. Why not? TzarN64 (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because people don't have much creative liberty when creating a list. Polygnotus (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for answering. TzarN64 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Information

Hi Teahouse community,

Not sure if you can assist. I've been editing a page on a figure from medieval England and added info to what was already there about that person's siblings as it wasn't complete. Having just gone in to amend it, entire paragraphs (written by myself and I assume the original person who started the page) have been removed. The person who deleted the info (I found that out by looking at the editing history) felt that a person's siblings are of no interest, which to a certain degree I agree with but both me and the originator wrote their names and who they married, so readers can form a larger picture of the person concerned and the interlinking of medieval aristocratic families. I just want to ask - who decides what should be included on a page? As it stands - to me the page now looks incomplete.

Many thanks. JuliusJasper (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JuliusJasper, can you link us to the article in question, please? -- asilvering (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - here it is:

Margaret de Bohun, Countess of Devon. JuliusJasper (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A sample of what was removed is this description of a younger brother: "Edward de Bohun who married Margaret, daughter of William de Ros, 2nd Baron de Ros, but had no issue. Like his twin brother, he was a close friend of his cousin, Edward III. He died a heroic death attempting to rescue a drowning man from a Scottish river while on campaign." I don't know what this tells us about his elder sister (the ostensible subject of the article). -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraphs are a mix of what I wrote and what was already there. Should all of it be deleted though? A polite request to amend would IMO be more appropriate. JuliusJasper (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be very weird, actually. We want editors to be WP:BOLD, after all. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...See also the WP:BRD cycle. Polygnotus (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the simple answer to your question in general, "who decides what should be included on a page", is "the editors of that page", basically. If editors disagree, like in this case, the first step is to go to the article talk page and discuss why you think something should or should not be included. (Of course, you can also just shrug and go do something else; you're not obligated to follow through with the dispute.) That's something of a simplification, but you'll never go wrong by starting a talk page conversation.

In this case, I can say that I agree with the removal of this content - it really is quite a lot about people who are not the subject of the article. Now, if you have a secondary source about Margaret that talks about how all of this is relevant for her biography in particular, you might have a good argument for including it. As it stands, I think a simple sentence like "Her parents had x other children, including [a list of them, wikilinked]" would be helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. The problem is, is that not all of what was deleted was what I wrote - clearly the person who started the page had found out quite a bit that I hadn't known about, so I can't answer for much of the info that was removed. Ironically I logged on to amend some of it. The problem is many contributors give their time for free on here out of goodwill (inc both the writing and research) so helpful and respectful editing of pages would be appreciated. JuliusJasper (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of us give our time here for free out of goodwill. This kind of editing is fundamental to the Wikipedia process, and no one has done anything wrong here, nor have you been treated unhelpfully or disrespectfully as far as I can see. If you're worried that the content has vanished forever, don't be - you can recover anything from the page history, unless it's been revision deleted, which only happens in very specific circumstances (and hasn't here). -- asilvering (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Re the info can be retrieved - a lot of the info that was removed didn't belong to me but to a previous contributor, hence I'd be wary of putting any of it back. I understand that everyone is on here of their own volition but it would help if some of the editing was more constructive and that is probably down to the individuals concerned. I post less now than I used to, in part because I don't have the time to get involved in why something was done (unless I've made a genuine error on a page which has happened). JuliusJasper (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content doesn't belong to any of us. Please see WP:OWN. -- asilvering (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Antonio

Does anyone know what country he was from when the 1527 last stand occurred? Lordofcallofduty (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Antonio of Saluzzo? If that article doesn't give you the answer, try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some idle questions about sourcing

Can, say Encyclopedia Britannica contain citations from Encyclopedia Britannica? Can an article about the Greek wiki cite diffs on that wiki for a statement about literal changes to that wiki? Etc. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 11:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! I think those would be primary sources, which should be used only with care, as encyclopedic articles are mainly based on secondary sources. Britannica is usually a tertiary source, but they would be primary regarding their own activities (see also WP:ABOUTSELF). The second example might be especially tricky, because only descriptive statements of fact that can be verified without expert knowledge (such as experience looking at diffs) can be supported by a primary source. Perception312 (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Question

Hello to all wikipedians out here. I was wondering if it was possible to merge I-1K; I-2K; I-3K ; I-4K and the I-6K pages. The Pages by themselves are too small and sparsly referenced that i belive a siingle INSAT (satellite bus) page might be enough to contain all thier articles. Is my reasoning compliant with policies and if so, how can i start the work to merge these pages? RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4-RAZOR 01 If a merger were warranted, why not just expand the existing Indian National Satellite System article? I think your best approach would be to raise the idea at WT:SPACEFLIGHT, where most editors who will be interested will see it. Technical details are at WP:MERGE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Michael D. Turnbull; i did not consider meging it with the Indian national Satellite System aricle as The INSAT bus has also been used for Mangalyaan and all the Chandryaans. I belive also for GSAT,EOS and CMS sats also use one of these buses. RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about article introduction

Hi there, I have a question about Wikipedia guidelines concerning article introductions. My understanding of this from a few years ago was that the introduction is intended to summarize key points from the body of the article. Is that still correct?

I ask because I work at the Wyss Foundation, and it's not clear why half of the introductory section for that article is now about a separate organization (the Berger Action Fund). The claims about Berger are largely correct (though there are some important factual omissions from the cited sources), but again Berger is not Wyss, and this information is never referenced again in the body of the article, so I'm not sure why it's in the introduction.

I've made requests about Wyss Foundation content before using the article Talk page, but I want to make sure I understand Wikipedia guidelines correctly before I engage there again. Any feedback would be appreciated. ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ZH for Wyss Foundation. Yes, the lead of an article is a summary of the body. MOS:LEAD should have everything you need to know regarding this. Good luck. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ZH for Wyss Foundation. You are correct that the lead section should summarize the content of the body, and you can learn more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Given that these two groups are funded by the same man, and share offices and staff, and are sometimes discussed together in reliable sources such as the New York Times, it is not unreasonable to describe them both in the same article. More content about the Berger Action Fund could be added to the body of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I'm still a bit confused, though. There is currently no mention of Berger in the body of the article. Why, then, is Berger covered at length in the introduction? ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone some time ago added it without thinking of the lead being a summary. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a steals_leader and blocks_leader on the Infobox basketball league season

I am making a this article Draft:2024–25 in European women's basketball and I would like to introduce a steals_leader and blocks_leader parameter for the Template:Infobox basketball league season as I think that is useful information. Can anyone help me please? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! If you can hit the edit button, you may be able to hit "Submit edit request" or something similar to that, if you cannot, please add {{reply to|Valorrr}} to your message and I'll be happy to help. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 19:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add another column to an election table with Visual Editor?

I would like to add a column showing the % change in popular vote to the table "Summary of the 2025 Canadian Student Vote" in this article-[3] so that it resembles the table in this article-where the popular vote results were compared with the previous election's results. Is there a way to do with Visual Editor? Whenever I try to edit, it shows a bunch of fields that I don't understand or know how to navigate. Hiya2025 (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hiya2025, welcome to the Teahouse. The table uses a mixture of templates and wikitext. This makes it difficult to edit with VisualEditor. You have to manually insert data in every field with heading "[[]] Wikitext", similar to how the 2021 table looks in VisualEditor. Or you could use the source editor where you still have to add the same wikitext but all the code is visible at the same time in one large edit box. Tables are tricky. Make sure to preview before saving. Or work on something else until you get more experience with wikitext tables. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion requests and re-submitted copyrights release but no response from Wikimedia Commons

I have been trying to merge images and copyright releases for three images for the past three months. The copyright owner submitted the release form again on April 21, with the ticket number [Ticket#2025042110004161] and I requested the undeletion of the images relating to the releases:

File:Derek-Pratt-Oval-Pocket-Watch.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Derek-Pratt-Oval-Pocket-Watch.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

File:Derek-Pratt-Double-Wheel-Remontoir-Tourbillon.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Derek-Pratt-Double-Wheel-Remontoir-Tourbillon.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

File:Remontoir carriage of a tourbillon pocket watch made by Derek Pratt.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Remontoir_carriage_of_a_tourbillon_pocket_watch_made_by_Derek_Pratt.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

I am unsure as to why things are stuck and why I'm not getting any replies from Permissions (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)

The three images are instrumental in illustrating an article.

I would greatly appreciate the kind help from anyone who understands the intricacies of Wikimedia Commons. Louisetarp (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The background to one of these: c:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2025-03#File:Derek-Pratt-Oval-Pocket-Watch.jpg. (And, for the curious, these would presumably be for Draft:Derek Pratt (watchmaker).) It's a Commons matter, so should be taken up there, where your question is far more likely to be read by somebody who (unlike me) understands those intricacies. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How it's done

How pages get protected via arbitration enforcement? (contentious topics and general sanctions) CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CreatorTheWikipedian2009. Requests to protect an article go to WP:RFPP. You can also tell us what page you want protected here in case an admin passes by this thread. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing from "unknown" source

Kind regards. I wanted to ask if there was a precedent for citing from a reference whose origin is not known precisely. An example would be having a physical copy or picture from the page of a book, but not knowing or remembering its name, author or publisher. I wanted to know how this was handled with the traditional <ref><ref/> template, and how known information can be added (such as the library where it was retrieved from), assuming it meets the reliability threshold. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is massively contaminated with junk, and no doubt there are thousands of precedents, NoonIcarus; but their number don't justify it. However formatted, <ref>Page 35 of a book, almost certainly in English, and published in the late 20th century but no later than 1993.<ref/>, for example, wouldn't show the reader where to find the page. Therefore it would be unsuitable, however ingeniously one might use a Cite template for the purpose. -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]