This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
Let's say there is one textbook, or one book/report published by an international society of scientific specialists, which covers all the basic information about an article's subject. The book does not contain all information about the subject of course, but further information would be more advanced content than should be presented in the main article. Also, let's assume that the latest advancements in this subject are not at the fundamental level. In general, the writers of this book would be more knowledgeable than any Wikipedia editors, so they have the authority to decide what is essential in an overview of the topic. In such a case, could the Wikipedia article be essentially a summary of the book, relying primarily on that source, and using almost no other sources? If so, are there any examples of this? If not, why not? 2603:3024:1912:4100:F017:8AE0:7E29:4036 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
If there is only one book discussing the topic then the topic would not meet the criteria of WP:GNG. We need to see multiple reliable independent sources discussing the topic. If it is a notable topic there will be many sources that discuss the topic. McMatter(talk)/(contrib)18:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, as McMatter says. You can think of it like this: "notable" in Wikipedia jargon doesn't mean "worthy of note": it means "that several independent people have noted, in a non-trivial way". If essentially nothing has been written about the subject other than that textbook, then that condition is not met. ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mcmatter and ColinFine: That's not what I meant. The book would cite many secondary sources itself. In this situation, there would be a lot of sources discussing the topic, but this book has compiled them, so that the book alone would be able to cite all content in the article. 2603:3024:1912:4100:F831:C40F:5F49:6667 (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
In that case, the book should be cited as well as the most comprehensive of the secondary sources cited in the book. An editor would need to read them before citing them. Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
And note also that the bulk of those sources cited need to be from people who were not the originators or primary investigators of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the teahouse! Here is how you can do this. Please add | module = {{Infobox musical artist|embed=yes | genre = [[GENRE HERE]] }} to the end of the the infobox. Happy editing, Heart(talk)03:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @ShowaCurator: Hi there! Musical genres can be a sensitive topic regarding some artists, and editors may have already come to consensus on which genre(s) to list. First, read Template:Infobox musical artist#genre. Then, check the infobox for comments regarding the genre parameter. You might even want to check the article's talk page for previous discussions. If you decide to be bold and add a genre, you should also add a published independent reliable source as a reference, as well as a clear ]edit summary. If your edit is reverted, then you can use the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and discuss it on the article's talk page. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much. But may I know if it is okay to change the infobox that is already for a person to a musician, actually, she was a singer. Because when I put the code the parameter is rejected because already in person template. I want to change but I am afraid I will ruin the list that is already established. Once again... Thank you very much :D ShowaCurator (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@ShowaCurator: I see you added the correct genre with a source in the edit summary. You could also add the source as a reference in the infobox. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Doing that might result in people being more concerned about their number of edits instead of the quality of their edits. There's a lot of information that is higher on the priority list for people to know, IMO. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
If it is okay to continue on this topic:
I don't know if exists, but some sort of award or recognition for quality edits could help in terms of that issue. For example, editing the mathematics articles can be challenging and the edit help a lot of readers of Wikipedia articles. Starlighsky (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
People (for example, me) can put on their User page indicators for articles they have raised to Good or Featured. David notMD (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@1IceCloudStation Please let me know if you have any feedback on the improvements to the "Your impact" section (or about the homepage in general). I work on the Growth team, and we are continuing to make improvements to make that page more useful to newer editors. KStoller-WMF (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I just want to add that it turned out that there are two societies with the same name giving an award. The more prestigious one, which was in the article, was actually the most difficult to confirm with an internet search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I am reading this article Emil Artin and I found the majority of the article, namely "Early life and education" and "Career" sections, to be mostly devoid of any reference and written in a non-neutral tone. It's an exciting life story, to be sure. It would be even better if the story is backed up with references. 89.245.157.175 (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. It certainly would be better if the article were sourced and edited. But the Teahouse is not really the place to ask for people to work on an article. You might find somebody here interested enough to do so, but you might not. (Remember that all Wikipedia editors are volunteers who work on what they choose to work on).
Some things you could do are:
If you have the time and the interest, you could work on it yourself. Anybody may edit (almost) any Wikipedia article. I see there's a biography linked that is available online.
You might ask at one of the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page if there is somebody interested in working on improving it.
I was going to suggest tagging the article as in need of references, but I see somebody else has just done that. ColinFine (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
User:ColinFineUser:ContributeToTheWikiUser:GoingBatty Thanks for the reply and edits. I would also like to tag the article for cleaning up all trivial details about his life, including but not limited to his non-notable conversation about Andromeda and whether University of Goettingen is "considered the 'Mecca' of mathematics at the time". I can read the German article on him, that article is very concise, in the form of a curriculum vitae. Only what University degrees he held and which major mathematical discovery he made are included. His emigration to US is covered with one sentence, whereas the English article includes which furniture he shipped. WP:NOTDIARY I myself is not familiar with the history of mathematics and therefore can not make improvements to the article. 89.245.157.175 (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to discuss how to improve the article is on the article's talk page: Talk:Emil Artin. If you don't receive a response in a few days, then asking some of the WikiProjects to discuss on the article talk page would be the next step, as ColinFine suggested. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Put the refs in the text after the content that is being confirmed by the refs. The software will insert superscipted numbers in the text and list the refs under Referencs. David notMD (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Film or TV Film?
A Short Film (which isn't actually that short, as it's 28 minutes long, which is above the minimum of 22 minutes for a TV programme to be classed as a short on IMDB) was shown at a prestigious film festival, where it won an award.
It possibly got shown in other festivals around the world too, however I have no idea whether it did or it didn't.
73 days later it was shown on TV, as part of a series showcasing first time filmmakers short films, where it most likely got more attention and viewers than all the festivals put together.
I disclosed that i was paid to edit on wiki and included all the necessary documentation on my article as was mentioned on wikipedia still my draft keeps on getting declined i need help publishing my draft Ogresbaku (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Ogresbaku, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that "as we want our article live" implies that, like many people, you have a fundamental miunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.
If your company does not meet those criteria, then every second spent on trying to write an article is time and effort wasted.
If your company does meet those criteria, then an article is possible, and you are permitted to try and create one. You will want to read WP:BACKWARD.
Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If some of those reliable sources say things about Namah Pictures that you really really hate, it will still be your duty under Wikipedia's policy of neutrality to put those things in - and if you don't, somebody else will add them. (See WP:PROUD).
Finally, There is no deadline - you may want the article about your company (which is not, and will never be "your article") live, but Wikipedia wants it compliant with its policies before it goes live. ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
How to do an edit without people getting rid of it
Welcome to the Teahouse, WONKAKlD. What I think @Lettherebedarklight was implying is that 'anyone can edit' so if you make a mistake in one of your own edits to an article, you are not able to prevent someone else removing it. But you can start a discussion with them on their talk page if you want to politely query their rationale for reverting your edit.
The only place where it's not generally OK for someone to remove an edit (providing it falls within Wikipedia's policies) is in your own user pages.
The simple answer to your question is, of course, to only make edits that improve the encyclopaedia and which are neither copies of copyrighted content, nor unsourced or claims that cannot be substantiated from Reliable Sources. I took a look at some of your contributions, and it's pretty clear that some clearly fell into the trap of being WP:UNCIVIL around 5th June. So avoid doing anything like that again and always deal politely and respectfully with other volunteer editors. That way you will neither have your edits undone nor find yourself blocked for a lack of civility to others. Oh, and keep your views and personal biases well away from Wikipedia, including on talk pages. This is a serious project and schoolboy insults and attitudes won't wash here. I hope this helps and explains the best approach to constructive editing in future. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
WONKAKlD, in addition to what everyone else said, it's a good idea to avoid contentious topics like politics until you're more familiar with Wikipedia's practices. Edits related to politics usually received more scrutiny and are more likely to be reverted if they don't closely align with reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
What Does a Green Circle with a Green X Mean?
I saw, in my Global Contributions Section, the green circle and green "X". It sounds like it is a good thing, but can't find exactly it means. Starlighsky (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
@Starlighsky: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see the icon on Special:CentralAuth/Starlighsky, and a few other editors' accounts, including mine. Hovering over it states "new account". Clicking on the (?) next to the icon brings up the explanation "Indicates that the global account was created automatically when that local account was created." GoingBatty (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I must have touched something by mistake, but the search button on the top right hand corner has gone missing, The is most annoying! Can anyone help. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MountVic127 (talk • contribs)
I have a few requests on Wikipedia for actions that autoconfirmed users can perform (for example: a semi-protected edit request on an userbox), and it's likely that one or more of them might not be reviewed by the time I become autoconfirmed. If this happens, what is the best practice to follow? For instance, in the example above, do I make the edit myself, and if so, how do I signal that the semi-protected edit request no longer applies? Alpha514 (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and although I've tried to read the edit page I really do not understand how to edit. The bot keeps erasing my edits and I don't know how to cite my references. Please help. Thanks. Microinthemorning (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Microinthemorning, here's what you added to an article: The consumption of muktuk has been associated with outbreaks of botulism. (Sorry but I don't know how to reference this and the help page does not help. The articles are listed in the talk page. Please help.) If you don't know how to add a reference to an addition to an article, don't make that addition. Instead, on the article's "talk" page and only there, suggest the addition. Which "help page" failed to help? And did you see Help:Referencing for beginners? -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
The sentence you added about botulism is now tagged with 'citation needed'. I recommend you practice creating refs in your Sandbox until properly formatted, then copy/paste into the article. David notMD (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Vandalism pattern found on Wikipedia and Fandom
I have noticed a strange pattern of vandalism on both this Old revision of List of The Smurfs video games and a few revisions of various unconnected websites on Fandom, made by various different IP addresses in the same range (I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to disclose IP ranges or not). One of its editing patterns is adding MD-XX vs, and MNT-XX (where XX is a number from 00 to 99). Alpha514 (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Alpha514: It seems like you already warned the IP, what exactly is your question or concern? We don't have much say in blocking IPs on other websites - Apmh03:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Don't worry about being a nuisance. As long as you are attempting to be a good person and you are learning from your mistakes, you will be fine but don't be reckless. If you just want to start off with something smaller, look for a grammar mistake. ✶Mitch199811✶22:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Considering this is the Teahouse, perhaps a bit of a bitter brew is in order: the way to not be a nuisance is to accept that sometimes, you are wrong, and other people are right. And just as you can ask others to help, they can also decline, and pressing is in poor taste. For example, a month ago on your user talk, someone cleaning some copyvios you made spent a lot of time explaining the rollbacks and why they couldn't restore your good edits: everyone here is a volunteer, time is our most valuable resource, so no one is entitled to anyone else's time. Generally, even if you disagree, it is better to accept someone's refusal than to keep insisting on your way. It indicates a willingness to hear and collaborate, which people tend to look kindly on. Call it confirmation bias, but a skim of your user talk [history] doesn't provide an abundance of evidence that you've changed...yet. Start today, and you may find your editing experience smoother. Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 23:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I recently drafted an article on Foundation prayas and wanted to get it reviewed and want know know some suggestions to make it better and I also want some help to make it better by getting more citations and sources. It is difficult to search for sources alone. FakeFree (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. FakeFree. There are two ways to get your draft article reviewed fast: First, write an outstanding, neutrally written, well-referenced policy compliant draft about an obviously notable topic. Such a draft will be reviewed fast and accepted. The second way is to write a non-neutral poorly-referenced, promotional draft about a non-notable topic. Such a draft will be reviewed fast and declined or rejected. Drafts that are borderline may take a much longer time to be reviewed. Do your very best to write the first type of draft. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
FakeFree Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? There are thousands of drafts currently awaiting review, in no particular order, and a limited number of volunteers to conduct reviews. The only reason you can have to "jump the line" is to do as Cullen328 suggests. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
there is no specific need of speedy review, just this is my first time making a article so i am a bit excited. FakeFree (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I just joined yesterday and created an article on emergence of video games but editors found to tage speedy deletion can you suggest why my aticle isnt published Mehreen125 (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Mehreen125, actually it was your creation Draft:Mehreen Jamshed that was "speedily" deleted. It read like a "position wanted" ad. You've also created Draft:The Evolution of Video Game Design but haven't yet submitted it for review, let alone had it rejected or deleted. ¶ Suggestion: Get some practice improving and augmenting existing articles before attempting to create a new one. -- Hoary (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Mehreen125, please log in as Mehreen125 before editing. I'll take the start of your (not yet submitted) draft as an example: The page provides an overview of the emergence of video game designs. Wikipedia articles don't comment on themselves. Video games belong to early ages of our lives. Not to mine (which predated them). But you probably meant "people's lives". From what I observe in the train, I'd say they belong to people aged ten or so to fifty or so. Of course I could be wrong, but I expect my wrongness to be demonstrated via the citation of reliable sources, and not just declared. we have built a relationship with them by enjoying ourselves with our friends, competing and winning with them. From what I observe, they're mostly player versus algorithm. But of course the pronouncements I make about video games "off the top of my head" are worthless. Where are the reliable sources? I don't provide any, but you don't either. This article will highlight the emergence of video games from the early ages to the advanced sophisticated video games today. Articles don't describe themselves. Which reliable sources call the games advanced or sophisticated? (My own impression is that they tend to be of bland characters with very big heads, jumping, firing weapons, blowing things up, and trying to avoid fire from weapons. Not quite In Search of Lost Time or Ulysses. My impressions are of course worthless, except that they do make me question what Wikipedia articles and drafts assert.) ¶ But more fundamentally, there's the matter that Shantavira brings up below: Wikipedia already deals with this subject (and Wikipedia doesn't accommodate "content forks"). -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Thankyou so much for such detailed description it had cleared many points. can you suggest a topic where I could start Mehreen125 (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Mehreen125, maybe read an article on a subject that you already know about, notice what seems to be a defect in that article, and then, using reliable sources (and not "common knowledge", "common sense" etc), fix that defect. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
It's really best to first gain experience by spending much time editing existing articles, not just one time, before attempting the very difficult task of creating a new article. This should be weeks if not months. Some people are here years before attempting to write a new article. If you first gain experience, you are more likely to succeed and less likely to experience disappointment and frustration. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The archive only exists to preserve the content; it is not the author or owner of the content. You should not include the name of the website in the citation. The {{Cite news}} template has an archive_url parameter you should link the archive in. WPscattert/c16:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I believe archive URL is meant for if you got it off of something like the Wayback machine. In this case I would put The Times as a normal URL. ✶Mitch199811✶16:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
You would probably need to modify the first URL to make it correct (like adding a top-level domain), but yes, it would count as the original. I will see if I am able to help you find the original URL. ✶Mitch199811✶16:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I was looking for something else (the name of the actor who played a character called Alistair or Alastair in a film, where the credits are missing from the only copy online), when I stumbled across this story by the same filmmaker, so thought I'd use it to reference a few of the statements in his barely referenced article.
As far as I know, those PDF files for various The Times newspapers, have been uploaded directly to the Wayback Machine.
I know how to add normal references for websites which are now dead, but I've never added a added a reference for something directly added to the Wayback Machine before. Danstarr69 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I would try my best to find the original URL. I am sorry, but I am not certain what to do if you cannot find the original URL. ✶Mitch199811✶17:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Danstarr69. Remember that a URL is not required for a reference (unless it's solely a web resource). {{Cite news |last=Allen |first=Carol |date=7 January 1999 |title=Tuned into the Angels of the North |pages=37 |work=[[The Times]] }}, generating [2] is a complete and adequate citation.
I'm also not convinced that uploading a scan to the Internet Archive isn't a copyright violation: certainly it would be if you scanned and uploaded that paper somewhere. (Having said that, I realise that I don't know why the Internet Archive as a whole isn't a copyright violation, so there may be a get-out). If it is, then you must not link to it. If it's not a violation, then there is no reason not to use the url field point to this online copy of the resource, as exactly the same convenience to the reader as most url parameters. It may be hosted at the Internet Archive, but it is not an internet archive in the usual sense. --ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean by "internet archive in the usual sense"? Is it the case that "archive_url" is only meant to point to archives of internet pages? If that's the case, it explains why @Danstarr69 was having issues including that without a url parameter, and given the copyright concerns as well I would suggest leaving the archive link out completely. The reference is still perfectly valid without one. WPscattert/c18:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree (in fact, that's more or less what I said). What I mean by "internet archive in the usual sense" is that the Wayback machine archives whatever it finds on the web: we trust that its archives are faithful copies of the original websites, whose reliability depends on their original publisher or host.
What we have here is somebody of unknown reliabilty uploading scans to the internet, and using the IA as the host. (I didn't know that was possible, but that's what we have). It seems to me then that we can treat neither the uploader nor the IA as a reliable source for it. Obviously, the Times is usually a reliable source, and I'm not seriously suggesting that the scan has been doctored; but in principle, that scan is not a reliable source. In a way, though, that is irrelevant, because it's not the scan that is cited even if it is linked, but the column in the newspaper. ColinFine (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
^Allen, Carol (7 January 1999). "Tuned into the Angels of the North". The Times. p. 37.
By the way, the copyright question I raised above is addressed in WP:Copyrights, where it says: The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. But it seems to me that that would not cover this case. I will ask on the talk page there. --ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Probably an obvious question but… how do you come up with new articles? I know of WP:RA, and I've made a few articles off of red links, but I feel like I'd be more engaged if I thought up an idea for an article. Capsulecap (talk • contribs)02:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
You might be interested in Women in Red, which has all sorts of lists of women's biographies that have not been created yet. That's where I go if I want to write a new article. Alternatively, most stubs only have a few sentences, meaning you're basically creating the article from scratch anyway, even if it's not technically through a "new article" process. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Capsulecap: good ideas can come from anywhere. Just make sure your subject meets the WP:NOTABILITY standard before you invest too much effort - the major way to do this is to gather all the best references first, and be sure that several of them are reliable, independent sources that cover the subject in depth. One place I have gone for ideas is the list of recent recipients of the Companion of the Order of Australia (I'm Australian - you might like to use the highest award in your own country). That still isn't an automatic qualification, but it's a good probability that the person is notable.Gronk Oz (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Capsulecap, and welcome to the Teahouse. I remember my early days of Wikipedia, when I was desperately trying to find a subject to add. It took me a while to realise that creating new articles is not the only way to contribute.
If you have a particular topic that you want to write about, fine. But if you are casting about for a subject, why not put that energy into improving some existing articles? We have lots, and huge numbers of them are in a bad way. ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Want to write an article for an entreprenuer.
Hi, I want to write and article for a quite famous entrepreneur and influencer Prikshet Sharma. Haven't found any references in influencing in media except on YouTube. Haven't found any references in media about his entrepreneurship. Markodarko76 (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Markodarko76: I don't mean to sound disparaging, but how famous is he really if nothing has been written about him? In the absence of reliable sources, it is probably too soon to have an article about him.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Markodarko. "Famous" does not necessarily mean notable in the way Wikipedia uses the word. If you can't find much published about him, then he probably does not meet the criteria. ColinFine (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Your history of contributions shows no evidence of a draft (perhaps under a different IP). Recommended path is create an account and follow guidelines at WP:YFA to create and submit a referenced draft. David notMD (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your choice of words suggests that you may have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. When you say "prepare a page for", a better characterization would be "write an encyclopaedia article about". This may seem picky, but it often makes a significant difference for new editors. What the activity would consist of would be:
wholly unconnected with him (nothing written or published by him or his associates, or based on interviews or press releases) that contain significant coverage of him. If you can't find any, you'll know not to spend any further time, as no article is possible
Writing a draft based on what those sources say, not on what he or his associates say or want to say. (If you are associated with him, this may involved forgetting what you know. It may also involve reporting information or views about him that you deeply disagree with)
The Wikipedia Library used to have simple on-wiki applications for its offerings. Now it doesn't. I've read about 10 of TWL pages and nowhere do they now give any instructions of how to apply, whether generally or for specific publications. Can someone help me? I'm interested in databases such as Newspapers.com, The Times Digital Archive, NewspaperARCHIVE.com, JSTOR, etc. How do I apply for those and others? Softlavender (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Softlavender, you should be able to go to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ and click "Login via Wikipedia", follow the login flow, and have access to many sites from there (ebsco, proquest, and JSTOR are probably the most useful part of the default set. Others can be applied for from there.) Assuming your account meets the requirements lists there, but I think it does? In general you need to click to databases from the Library. Does that work or are you getting particular errors? Skynxnex (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Skynxnex, I'm already signed in there via Wikipedia. I find I can access the Gale library, but I cannot view any newspaper pages on Newspapers.com. At the link I am simply offered a 7 days free trial. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah sorry I misread your question. From https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ click on the "Available Collections" search facet near the top. And then "apply" for the ones you want. For newspapers.com specifically, I recall when I asked for newspapers.com access about 9 months ago, you needed to share an existing newspapers.com account, but I recall it being documented. Skynxnex (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@Softlavender When I access my Library account via the standard link, I can see a "Service information" button below the listing for Newspapers.com that confirms that there is an issue at present being worked on at T322916, as Skynxnex thought. I see you are asking about progress at WT:The Wikipedia Library, which is the best place for detailed answers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Minimum length for GA
I plan on soon improving my first article to GA. I'll start with something small and manageable, but WP:GA? mentions nothing about minimum length. As an example, take Bull (pharaoh). It stands little chance of being meaningfully expanded by its very nature. I could add some stuff, clarify the references etc., but it won't dramatically expand. Does the article of His Oxness, Bull the Majestic, stand any hope of ever becoming GA? 〜 Festucalex • talk18:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I just updated a depreciated link in George M. Fredrickson (ref number 7, the Stanford obit.). I used H:AAS, so I think I did everything right. My question is should I update the "access-date" field in the reference to today's date, or is it proper to leave it as the original access date (2018/11/9)? Thanks!
Hello, Gallium314. I'm not convinced an access-date is needed once an archived version is used, since Template:cite web (for example) says of access-date: Not required for linked documents that do not change, and an archived version won't change. However, the examples there all do use access-date as well as archive-date, so I guess you should keep it - and, assuming you've verified that the archived version does support the relevant claim, you should update the access-date. ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have to disagree with Lettherebedarklight. In your position, I would put as access-date the date at which the archiving service got a snapshot of the reference (in the case at hand, 2022-07-24), or failing that, not change it at all. I do not think it is proper to give today’s date (2023-06-09), because the original link is down (at least for me), and therefore you did not really access it.
The argument for changing it to 2022-07-24 is that the Internet Archive allows you to access the reference as it was on that date. The argument against is that the Internet Archive might be lying about that (sounds unlikely, but I don’t know it for sure). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)16:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
This time I agree with darklight, Tigraan. It is not important when it was published or when it changed, or even when it was archived, except to allow the reader to find a version which supports the claimed data. Every time an editor checks that the link still supports the data, they should update the access date. My argument is that the version archived on archive-date will not change, so access-date is not needed; but I can see value in setting the access-date to the date when the archived version was put in the citation, as that amounts to an assertion that the editor adding the archived version in question has checked that it supports the text. ColinFine (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I would generally agree with this, although personally I don't consider the use of |access-date= to be necessary when |archive-date= is populated. XAM2175(T)15:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
The Teahouse is a place for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, not for asking questions about characters in a 30 year old video game franchise. Do you have any questions about editing Wikipedia? Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Seems like you answered the question for yourself. I would also like to say that the Teahouse is only for questions relating to Wikipedia. If you would like to ask a question about topics not related to Wikipedia, you can try the reference desk. Capsulecap (talk • contribs)15:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I am specializing in World War I, and I was wondering if I could publish a "Reference Library for World War I" on Wikipedia that lists all important books found on "The Internet Archive." Here's their link: https://archive.org/
Having online resources like this allows Wikipedia to blow away any print resource, like the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Thanks. Lord Milner (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Every one is connected to the Internet Archive, so they can be brought online, read & used. Just go to achive.org, and create a free account. I looked over your WW I library, and I think many (at least half) of the books listed might be accessed from IA. The only issue here is Wikipedia's policy on third party links. This is a super stable platform, the cite was created by a grant from a millionaire, and it's intent is to scan and load all books of mankind. It's based in San Francisco, and a bunch of Chinese girls do all the work. I don't know (or care) where all these books come from, but I'm sure they cleaned out the San Francisco public library. The point is, there is a tremendous amount of old material loaded, and Wikipedia would be doing a great service if it officially sanctioned it. 🙂 Lord Milner (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@Lord Milner, Bibliography of World War I is already an article in mainspace, not that user's "WW I library". You are free to add links to the IA works to that article, as indeed has already happened to some of the books listed there. Similarly, if you have found IA works that are not listed, you could add them too. We just have to be careful not to cross into territory disclaimed by WP:NOTDIRECTORY.On the other I would consider your "secret stash" at Talk:War Policy Committee to be improper, as hosting a collection of references that aren't necessarily of use to that article is not the purpose of a talkpage. You should move it to a page in your own userspace, like User:Lord Milner/World War I Sources, or see if members at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history can identify somewhere else appropriate.Also, when linking to an IA work that the user needs to borrow (as opposed to one that is unrestricted), make sure you use the |url-access=registration parameter to indicate that fact to readers. XAM2175(T)15:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, BloomChef, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that it's unlikely anybody here is going to "help you finish the article", because (like most new editors who try to create articles) you have written it WP:BACKWARD, so the task is not "finishing" it, but starting from the beginning again. ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Limited pronouns in settings
Hello everyone! I am ready to start editing and have made a few small adjustments to my personal settings but noticed that the pronouns to choose from are quite limited (to masculine he/him, feminine she/her, and they/them). Is there an option that would be more inclusive of everyone? Bincturd (hy/hym) (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Bincturd, I don't know the technical details but there has been some discussion at Phabricator:T61643 (closed as declined several years ago but duplicate tickets have been associated with it), which is the ticketing system for MediaWiki in general. That ticket is closed but it has some far-past and recent history of the question issue. My impression, and I may be wrong, that the software itself is limited to three gender options that particular instances (like English Wikipedia, German, Japanese, etc) could customize how they like. So I am not saying this the right tract, but the discussion may need to be figuring out how to gain enough general supporting to extend MediaWiki (the actual software that runs Wikipedia) to support more gender options. Hopefully someone with more current experience in this topic as it relates to MediaWiki will also chime in. Skynxnex (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello teahouse! I am working on the Charm quark article. I am citing a lot of academic journal articles using sfn. Many of the journals have multiple authors.
I am looking for a good way to make proper in-line citations. Suppose I have this article:
If I do {{sfn|Aad|2022}}, the footnote will say "Aad 2022", but I want "Aad et al. 2022". What should I do?
Rightnow (as in the article), I am putting 4+ authors in the citation and sfn, so the sfn automatically uses "et al." This feels not right. There must be some better way doing this. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
In the full citation, add |ref={{harvid|Aad et al.|2022}}, after which you'll then be able to call it with {{sfn|Aad et al.|2022}} This is also how you'd do it to cite works by title or publisher (for example, |ref={{harvid|Anonymous Work|2023}} could be called by {{sfn|''Anonymous Work''|2022}} to produce "Anonymous Work 2023").As an aside, I would lose the |page=717 parameter from this particular citation, as placing the paper number in the issue field is (in my opinion) enough. XAM2175(T)14:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I am clicking on the "random pages" page, but lots of those pages appear to be fine. How do i find good pges that have the banners (or whatever they are called) up top that need lots of work? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Awesomesauce. Are there other areas too? Is that everything? There is a lot there too, so any suggestions on areas to focus on.!? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Are "edit summaries" required? I am just finding it useful to go to "random pages" and add or remove "wikilinks" as needed. Do I need to leave an edit summary for that or for other "minor edits"? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Iljhgtn Oh yes, we love those. Yep, around here it is. If I mean Washington Post I type WaPo. And if you wonder something like "What is hotcat", try searching wp:hotcat. On gadgets, I recommend WP:TWINKLE, but you have to wait a few days. If you stick around and edit, you'll get access to the WP:LIBRARY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have suggestions for improving an article, that article's talk page is the place to make them. Please note that all information should be backed up by a reliable source; but an opinion piece is by definition somebody's opinion and so is not usually suitable as a source. (It is possible that she cites some reliable sources that could be used - I haven't watched the video).
Note also that informing people "what an inspiration he is" is specifically not part of the function of Wikipedia: that would be regarded as soapboxing. A Wikipedia article may quote a reliable source saying "XYZ is an inspiration", but must not say any such thing in Wikipedia's voice. ColinFine (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
found error and missing articles regarding "dragonlance" - what to do?
I'm simply trying to fix some mistakes regarding the comics / graphic novel publication of the dragonlance (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dragonlance) stories which I listed here:
As it turns out, there were 3 different publications with that name, as my draft details:
1. Dragonlance Saga - a TSR Graphic Novel (1987) by Roy Thomas
2. Dragonlance Comics - by DC comics
3. Dragonlance chronicles - by DDP (Devil's Due Publication) ocmis
The only exiting wikipedia entry is this: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dragonlance_(comics) which leads not to the original publications form 1987 by TSR, but rather to a DC comics spin-off.
Moreover, in the wiki page for the writer of the 1987 publication, Roy Thomas here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Roy_Thomas - has an error. the link to the dragonlance comic in the references of that page, redirects the above Dragonlance_(comics) page - which wasn't written by him at all.
In addition, the Dragonlance comics publication from 2005 by DDP (Devil's Due Publications - when the property was no longer TSR but purchased by Wizards of The Coast / Hasbro) is not mentioned anywhere on wikipedia.
I'm not really a comics expert, I just happened to notice these errors and inaccuracies and wanted to create some simple page for the saga publication so i can fix the erroneous ref at the Roy Thomas page, and also create links to the DC publication existing page and to the non-existing page for the DDP publication, in hope someone else will come along and expand them in the future.
As stated before, I would like to put up minimal articles / pages, just so it is understood there were multiple publications - in hopes that someone else comes along in the future and expands on them.
Hello, Robot55, and welcome to the Teahouse. We don't really do "minimal articles" now - we used to create stubs as placeholders, and there are plenty still around, but reviewers and new page patrollers don't tend to accept them into the encyclopaedia any more. An article should be properly referenced or not included.
What you could do, provided you can cite a reliable source, is to add a paragraph to the Dragonlance or Dragonlance (comics) article explaining that there was a separate publication. Maybe it would be best to discuss the issue on the talk page of one of those articles first, and get agreement from other editors. ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
When to and not to redirect piped links?
I recently visited https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Combinatorial_game_theory, and when it listed examples of some combinatorial games, listing Chess, Checkers and Go, Checkers was actually referenced as [[Draughts|checkers]] and Go was referenced as [[Go (board game)|Go]]. Those articles are actually called Checkers and Go (game) respectively. Under WP:NOTBROKEN, should I change them to straight up remove the pipe? To clarify, I find that since the article is just Checkers, which is what you end up reading, that we can remove the pipe, and for Go, we can change the pipe to remove the redirect, as we don't see Go (board game) anyway. (This is a general question, by the way.) Thanks! TwoCanadians (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, TwoCanadians, you are very welcome to correct "[[Draughts|checkers]]" and "[[Go (board game)|Go]]" to "[[checkers]]" and "[[Go (game)|go]]". If a redirect goes via a roundabout route (or worse), fix it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
TwoCanadians, I expressed myself poorly. I should have said "if a piped link takes readers who click on it via a roundabout route (or worse)". But since I mentioned fixing redirects, let's take a quick look at those. As a humdrum example, [[Mark (name)]] currently redirects to [[Mark]]. Nothing wrong with this; but if there were, and if you wanted to edit the former, then you'd click on Mark (name), arrive at Mark, and, very near the top of the latter, read "(Redirected from Mark (name))". Clicking on the latter would take you to the redirect (and not to the target of the redirect). You could then edit the redirect, just as you'd edit a regular article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying! Funny thing is, I just checked that redirect, and it actually redirects to Mark#Names, which no longer exists, creating a new question that I'd like to ask about: now that I've checked what the section wanted to take you to, and I understand why the person removed did remove it (there was already a list of notable people with the name Mark in Mark (given name), should I change the redirect to take you to Mark, as that is what it takes you to now (since there isn't any Names section), should I take it to the section that had Names in it, that being people, or should I take it to the list of names in Mark (given name)? Nice way to hit two birds with one stone with that example actually necessitating a fix. TwoCanadians (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate for me to upload a chart explaining the views of a white nationalist to wikimedia commons?
For purposes of debunking them in a different community I have made an image explaining views of an antisemite (according to the ADL) and I think it might be helpful to upload it to wikimedia commons. The image is a fairly dense explanatory image which explains hateful ideas and does not debunk them so I'm afraid an unknowing person might come across it and take it at face value instead of criticizing the ideas there. Is there a way I can upload it appropriately or a protocol for this kind of image? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian)01:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
What are some good gadgets and things for a new user to select? I have been searching the menu and seeing what to add. What is ""Hotcat""?
For edit summaries, there seems to bea gadget that allows to you pick from a menu of edit summaries to leave. Is that one that is popular too? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
i dont know if is officially a gadget or if it is just something on the list of things you can select. My edit summaries are all from that drop down menu. you can let me know if youu think they are acceptable or not?? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
default edit summary
is there a way to make a default edit summary auto-fill, if you make a lot of the same type of edit back to back? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Iljhgtn, welcome to the Teahouse. If you start typing an edit summary, previous summaries you have used should be listed. If you click on the previous summary you want, you can "kind of" autofill. Hope that helps, Schminnte (talk • contribs)19:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to ask of how can I publish a draft once I'm done? The Wikipedia:Draft isn't helping me much and doesn't give much instructions. Can someone please give me instructions? That would be very nice. Thanks! DonGerardAngelo (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Put in template {{ACF Draft}} and click submit and it will be put in a queue. If you link the draft you were working on, I can add it for you. ✶Mitch199811✶02:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
No worries! If you copy that template with the squiggly brackets into the draft, then it will make a box that gives some details about the draft, warnings, and a button to submit it. ✶Mitch199811✶03:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to open a Deletion Review because I made substantial improvements (×4 size, more sources, create source eval table) to the article, but the closer closed the discussion quickly before any additional reply was made (post-article improvement). So there was no consensus and no quorum.
More importantly, the closure message did not mention any policy or guideline rather treated the situation only as a "tiring discussion". He stated that was a no consensus, but he didn't set the outcome to that, because some people did not want the article kept. The outcome should've been "no consensus", per a modicum of procedure. (And notability and merge guidelines point obviously to keep anyways.)
You could ask one of the people who !voted against deletion to initiate it for you, although the actual deletion review might need to notify everyone involved in the same manner to avoid WP:CANVASS, or you could create an account and become autoconfirmed and do it yourself. You could also, perhaps in combination with creating an account, request that an admin help you recover your version of the article and recreate it at Draft:Incels.is and have it reviewed there.
I went into this thinking there would not be enough reliable sources, but there are at least several primary sources in addition to passing mention in secondary sources. On the other hand, I don't see any particular need for a separate article from Incel, when a section would do fine. How long was your version of the article? This is going to be a distasteful topic to most or nearly all editors so I wouldn't expect a deletion review to gain much traction, especially seeing as rather than being primarily informative the primary outcome of such an article seems to be to promote and direct traffic to this site, which is not a desirable outcome. It verges on a kind of spam. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Anyone can start a deletion review on behalf of anyone (quoting the message), since it's the same process for starting XfD. (Canvassing only applies if there is a discussion going on.)
I cannot make a new account since I am WP:EWLO. It would be a great help for some one to initiate it for me. Also, I think it is reasonable to do DRV because the decision was very unprocedural.
Once there is a discussion going on (deletion review), you will have notified one participant based on them presumably agreeing with you, which would necessitate in my opinion notifying everyone else involved in it including the closer. Just asking someone or several specific people to initiate it for you would not be canvassing though on its own.
Yes, some sources are there, primary sources mostly, about the website specifically, also some passing mention in secondary sources as I said. It doesn't scream to me as something that needs a separate article though, it's just a subtopic of incels. There is nothing distinct about it as a topic and personally I am not going to do anything that would give more exposure to the site's address like having a Wikipedia article would do (not that I am expert in SEO). Other objectionable websites usually have a name other than the address at least, so our coverage is primarily informative.
All that said, this discussion is not the purpose of Teahouse so I will leave that for any actual deletion review or draft review I may notice, where I will say what I have said here. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Like I said, the article is named "AliExpress", aliexpress.com is just a redirect, and it is a major ecommerce site, not an obscure hate/cringe/whatever site which would be mentioned by its exact address. Stormfront is not located at "stormfront.org". Again, I'm not an expert in SEO, but this raises some alarms for me, when the Incel article is a perfectly good home for discussion of the site. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
The point I made was to split it since it was too large and the site itself is the sole subject of 3 academic papers, 2 think tank reports, 5+ media articles. If anything, leaving it on the incel article will give it more publicity. "incels.is" is not a very popular search term, while "incel" is. And keeping it here is more useful to people who are researching the site (there are many), rather looking at these sources that have been painted over as vaguely being about incel in general and absolute terms. Anyways, I will not continue to write my opinion here. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Copy editing
A lot of pages I try to edit are usually too hard or too minor. Most of the time it doesn't include copy editing. How do I find pages that are just right for me to edit?
@Eeeeeeeee465: We can't actually see your suggested edits page but I can say that editing topics you personally like is much easier. There are also even more things you can do outside of articles like participating in discussions such as requested moves or reverting vandalism - Apmh03:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Eeeeeeeee465: to pick up on Apmh's point about topics you like - let's look at how you can find lots of such articles. Imagine that an editor is interested in basketball (you may or may not be, but follow along the example). Look at any article related to basketball, say Basketball. You will see the link to its associated Talk page; click on that. On the Talk page, you will see that this article is related to several "Wikiprojects", including WikiProject Basketball and WikiProject Sports. If you follow the link to WikiProject Basketball, you will see a couple of parts of interest. First, you can add your name to the interested editors. Second, there is a To Do list. There is a list of "Cleanup articles" that need work, including basketball-related "stub" articles. Plenty of stuff here to keep any basketball fan busy, at all different levels of editing complexity. Of course, if you are interested in different topics, many of them have WikiProjects as well. Hope this helps.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Jigar1984, you are asked to demonstrate significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. As your subject is an "Indian Journalist and writer known for his extensive career in the media industry" since 1993, I'd expect to see such coverage on the web. Here, in this thread, provide links to the three best sources. -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Review Article in Sandbox
Can someone review my article? It’s still located in Amaramoore/sandbox. Please let me know what corrections are needed. Thank you :) Amaramoore (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I also have another question. Would a screenshot of an approval/permission to use an image be sufficient so there would be no copyright infringement? Amaramoore (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Amaramoore. I don't think it would. A screenshot really isn't evidence of anything. The copyright holder has to announce either publicly (eg on their website), or directly to WMF, that they have licensed the image appropriately. See donating copyright materials.
Hi everyone, there's a wiki article i've been working on that had a template which asked for users/editors to add new references to secondary sources on a page.
Now that I've done that, can I remove the template myself or will another user/editor need to do it themselves or give their approval before I can remove the template? Shehandd (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you feel confident that the template no longer applies to the page, feel free to remove it. Just be careful though, as some editors get into the habit of removing templates without sufficiently addressing the problem. There are some exceptions when it comes to deletion or proposed mergers, but all maintenance templates can be removed. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
To add to what JML1148 says, make sure you give an edit summary explaining why you think it is appropriate to remove the tag. ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Where do I find my deleted draft?
Hi, I drafted an article in my Sandbox that I sent for approval. The article was revised and then deleted, and now I cannot find my draft. I would like to improve the content to meet Wikipedia requirements. Krimed (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
it looks to not be good enough for wikipedia. if i am right, then please nominate it for deletion, since i do not have twinkle tool. which is what i think i need to nominate. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello again Iljhgtn. You don't need Twinkle to nominate for deletion, but it makes it easier. You can find the different types of deletion, and how to nominate or propose, at Deletion.
But before deletion you should usually perform WP:Before. Apart from cases of copyright violation, or blatant and irrecoverable promotion, an article doesn't get deleted just because there isn't enough in it, or because it fails to establish that the subject is notable: deletion requires that the subject not be notable, and that may take some research to establish. The article cited in that stub is almost certainly not enough on its own to establish that the company met Wikipedia's criteria for notability, but that doesn't mean that other resources don't exist - quite possibly not online. ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello Tachycardia512, and welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at your draft, I don't really think the issue is so much with the sources being unreliable as it is that the content on the page does not appear to be supported by the sources provided. Inline citations are extremely helpful to reviewers (though not explicitly required) in verifying the article. From what I can see, the only source supporting content other than university statistics such as ranking, job retention rate, etc. is ref 3 (a self-published source, which is generally frowned upon), which definitely does not support the entirety of the rest of the article. It seems possible that you may have written the article backward, writing the text of the article first and looking for sources afterward - this is extremely difficult to do. Finding sources first, then writing the article using only those sources, is often much easier and guarantees that the article is well-supported. For more information on reliable sources, you may want to read the reliable sources policy. Tollens (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
What constitutes an article as reading like an advertisement?
I don't believe the issue is any of the things you suggest, but rather the particular content of the article. Honestly, it's difficult for me to explain exactly why the article reads like an advertisement (though if others can point to more specific things please do) - I would suggest reading the articles on some other universities for examples. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the university's website, and so readers will likely not be looking for the same things that would be located there. As an example, the programs section is currently much longer than the history section - while I might want to know about the programs offered in detail if I was reading the university's website, I am much more likely to be looking for history in an encyclopedia. The same general issue also goes for the accreditation, admissions, and student life sections. If you are in any way affiliated with the university, please read the conflict of interest guideline before continuing further, and if you are being paid to edit in any way, you must disclose your employer/client (see here for how to do this). Tollens (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Tachycardia512: Fellow AfC reviewer here - it does in fact read like one big advertisement and will likely need a rewrite. For example, "The name Joyce embodies who we are collectively and captures our mission and values", along with other quotes, adds no information to the topic. However, this is not the only problem; your draft has no inline citations. It is heavily underreferenced given its sheer length. You may want to read the Wikipedia help articles Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Help:Referencing for beginners. Apmh18:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
A few examples:
"Joyce University offers"
"Students at Joyce University will experience"
"The job placement rate for Joyce University students (2021-2022) is 93%."
Language like this gives the strong impression that this text is meant to "sell" the school. It sounds what I'd expect the school website to sound like. But a larger problem is the complete lack of inline refs. WP:BACKWARD may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Tachycardia, and welcome to the Teahouse. A thing to remember is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If you find yourself writing something that the University has said, or might say, stop and ask, "Has some unconnected with the university said this?" If the answer is No, leave it out - it doesn't belong in the article. ColinFine (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
As a general rule, anything about the "mission" or "values" (or "vision") of an entity is completely unencyclopedic. The world does not care about anybody's mission statement; it is empty verbiage of no value to anyone. - Julietdeltalima(talk)00:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the WP:NOTCATALOG argument on both articles, although somewhat notable publications may need to remain on the page. Talk pages these days tend to be barren and rarely-viewed, so it is usually preferred to first make the edit you want (bold-revert-discuss). For Kojien I would start a discussion on the talk page pinging the editors who reverted you, to hopefully meet a consensus. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Kōjien "Is A Thing". It's a Japanese(–Japanese) dictionary. It's long established, very well known, and widely respected. It's notable. Because of all of this, it wouldn't be surprising if its publisher (Iwanami) also attached the Kōjien name to different lexicographic products; if it did, then whether these should belong to the same article would be debatable. People have used Kōjien for decades; and when they've bothered to credit it they've usually done so as plain Kōjien. A list of which edition came out when, preferable with a descriptions showing how these differed from each other, could be very helpful for somebody wanting to know about Kōjien. So I'm fully in favor of such a list. (I don't mean to say that I'm happy with the way this list is done.) I'd never heard of Amkette and assume that the article is right in saying that it's "a multinational technology company and manufacturer of computer hardware and consumer electronics". The hardware and electronics may be outstandingly good, for all I know. But I don't understand why there should be a list of the products of this company or any computer/electronics company (e.g. the company that made, or anyway marketed, the computer that has served me well for over a decade and at which I am now contentedly typing); WP:NOTCATALOG seems to apply. -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
How do I stop those banner ads on Wikipedia?
I have all boxes unchecked in Preferences, under Banner (except the bottom two which are grayed out). But every time I log in, I get different banners displaying above articles, at least 5 or 6 times per login. It is annoying. Doesn't matter if I click the X, or if I've already done that survey or not, they still display. It's getting ridiculous. How can I stop them? Grorp (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Grorp, and welcome to the Teahouse. What kind of banners? I am not getting any at present and the only ones I ever see are occasional banners for particular events that Wikipedia is holding. If these are actually ads for somethign unconnected with Wikiedia, then it is definitely not Wikipedia generating them, and I'd look and see if you have a browser extension or virus generating them. ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@ColinFine: I logged out and logged back in to get these screenshots. 5 wiki banners. 2 are duplicates. Pasted in the same order they displayed (I clicked on random articles). Last is screenshot of my preferences/banners. I shouldn't have to see these every time I log back in. Grorp (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@331dot: Cookies are deleted when I close my browser. Always been that way. Never had this problem with Wikipedia. Archive.org, yes, when they're fundraising (highly annoying), but never Wikipedia. Grorp (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't know why you're getting those: I see things like those from time to time, but I'm not seeing any at the moment. I suggest asking at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, are there best practices re: when to use links vs references/footnotes? To me, if there's a web page that adds good info to my article, I would link to it. What do experienced editors do on Wikipedia?
@Crystallake69: Welcome to the Teahouse - if there is reliable information online that supports content within an article, you would use a footnote. External links are rarely placed within text. Apmh23:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Please, NEVER use inline external links. Please, ALWAYS use references (which is what I believe Apmh means by "footnote"). There seems to be an exception in religion-focused articles for Bible verses and a few other religious texts but otherwise inline external links are associated by most experienced editors with spamming. Thanks. - Julietdeltalima(talk)00:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Why is this happening in my draft page? The content up to this point is fine.
'''MORE INNOVATIONS'''
Following the introduction of the smallest ARC Spec S and UnitVisID approved RFID inlay for Healthcare and Pharma applications, in 2022, Tageos launched the EOS-350 M700 inlays, the smallest ARC Spec U approved RFID inlays for baggage tracking applications for airlines and airports. A 17% smaller antenna than the next smallest ARC Spec U approved product leads to reduced weight and waste for baggage tracking labels<sub>.</sub><sup>[ 6]</sup>
Hi, Crystallake69 and welcome to the Teahouse. There's a heading start tag, ===, before "Following ..." and an end tag, ===, at the end of the paragraph. This makes the entire paragraph a heading. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs15:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi and thank you! I ended up using {{nobold}} as I didn't 'get' your instructions at first. Now I do! May I ask another question of you? I'm building a page for a company and it's completed and approved by the client. I use phrases like "leading provider of RFID technology" as it's true, but will that be considered promotional content by the editors? I"m still in sandbox mode. Crystallake69 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Crystallake69 Based upon I'm building a page for a company and it's completed and approved by the client. that you posted above, I strongly suggest that you careful look at the information I added to your user talk page about COI and paid editing because you seem to be doing both. In particular, it's very important that you fully comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure even if you're only editing in your user sandbox because a failure to do so will likely lead to your account being blocked. In addition, I also strongly suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) because that will determine whether a Wikipedia article about the company you're trying to write about will be accepted. You should also carefully explain to the company things like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Wikipedia doesn't have company pages in the sense that the company can exert any editorial control over what's written about it; Wikipedia has encyclopedic articles written about companies that reflect what reliable sources have been writing or saying (for better or worse) about the companies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
This does help thank you. Someone else did setup the page at my request. All I have added is a photo. But I understand the protocol. There are no further edits required on that page. Paulkneipp (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Mike. Unfortunately, that article is misleadingly set out. The descriptions actually follow the recipient. So for George Kneipp, it's "For service to education and the community" I have corrected this, since this page is not a COI. Paulkneipp (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Rey Kissen Hello and welcome. You edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place for the named user to tell about themselves as a Wikipedia user. To create and submit a draft, please use the article wizard. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@Rey Kissen: I assume you are talking about your draft, and not your user page. You can submit by pressing the button on the template at the top of the page. It will then be reviewed by experienced members of the community, who will either decline it or accept it. At the moment, it would almost certainly fail as it is unsourced. Please read WP:GNG. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
discussion
please tell are you guys available over here for my help
Barolaharsh We are providing you with help above. Please stop creating new sections of this page for every comment. Please edit the existing section above. This may be easier to do in desktop mode, even on a phone. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Can someone help with the formatting of this draft
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You were given reasons by reviewers, please.see their messages on your draft. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikiproject
Hi, Are there any other Wikiprojects similar to that of the Guild of the copyeditors that I can contribute or work on? 456legend(talk) 04:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I've added a couple of Youtube references, which I've backed up with a references from a news story and a book, however the Youtube references now say nothing other than the URL access date, when they're added automatically.
Should I add them manually, and add the usual stuff like the source dates, the video titles, the author (who they were posted by, this case an award winning filmmaker under his music alias), and the name of the website?
1AmNobody24 I'm not sure what that is, and I can't see it in the editing section of my preferences.
I'll be checking it out later though, as I'm busy writing an article right now, for a TV series of short films, which seem like they're all award winning, with a simple table, and a standard TV infobox.
I normally just stick to creating citations automatically, which I then edit slightly, by adding anything that's missing like article authors, changing the dates from numerical to alphabetical (as apparently that's what all reference dates should be, yet they're always automatically added with numerical dates), correcting titles (as sometimes they're different to the title in the story itself, or use the website name instead) and replacing URLs with the website names.
However if they can't be created for whatever reason (it mainly seems to be things like PDF links), then I manually create them.
What I would like to know however is how to correct and make all citations from a specific site say the same thing, every time they're added.
I've asked before but I never got a straight answer, and the corrections I requested weren't done properly
For example, when you add a citation from the website BFI Collections it adds:
Collections Search | BFI | British Film Institute as a title.
A numerical 2023-06-13 type date as with all references.
collections-search.bfi.org.uk as the name of the website.
@Danstarr69 For BFI Collections, it won't work automatically because of how that site is set up and it has to be done manually. I would make it like this: {{Cite web |title='Movie/Film Title' |url=https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/'Custom_per_film' |access-date=2023-06-13 |website=[[British Film Institute]]}}. But yeah, you won't get around of creating some manually, that's how it is. Nobody (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
They can be used as long they're not saying anything controversial.
It's just that since last time I used them (at least 9 months ago I'd estimate), the automatic citation templates have been changed by someone (something which I want to learn, but I never get answer of how), so now they only say the URL access date and nothing else. It doesn't even say Youtube as the website name in Youtube references anymore. Danstarr69 (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
It's not so much about being problematic, but more possible problems with copyrights; many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows, or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. Lectonar (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Lectonar there's no copyright concerns when the productions (films, TV shows, music videos, shorts, web series etc) have been uploaded by the owner themselves or the place they were uploaded originally.
The 2 links I've added, have been uploaded by the owner, and confirm what a news story, and a book say.
It's just 1 of at least 5 of their film related sites, and the one they're mainly focusing on apparently.
Their main site looks like this bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/
They've been slowly adding/moving stuff from their main BFI site, to the much more detailed BFI Collections site for years, as on the rare occasions I email them to tell them about a mistake I've seen, they will always say something along the lines of "at least it's correct on our collections site." Danstarr69 (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Not sure why its not updating, so any assistance would be most appreciated! (apologies in advance for if this is a silly mistake on my end...) SMT153 (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Large Blank space between cited articles and references
Hello,
I am seeking assistance to remove a large blank space between the Table where all articles of the author are cited and the section for References. I tried raising the references' section but it is stuck way below the article and the sources. A suggested correction would be very much appreciated, and thank you for considering my question. Keudal39 Keudal39 (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reply. The article is in French. It is translated from English into French so I don't know if I asked for assistance in the wrong "Teahouse". Kind regards, Keudal39 Keudal39 (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@Keudal39, the translation tool is still in beta, so it may have quirks. To get rid of an extra line break, I'd just wait until you're finished translating it, publish it, and then edit it in source text mode and delete the blank space then. Let us know if you have any trouble and we can help. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk14:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello Victor Schmidt mobil, thank you for your response and sorry for my late reply. I appreciate your support and I could have submitted my draft successfully. Akakakakakakakak (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@Akakakakakakakak: Now that User:Victor Schmidt mobil has added the templates, you should be able to find a button on the article that says "Submit the draft for review!" If you feel like you are ready to submit the draft, then click it. You can edit the page after it has been moved into the mainspace or denied. Capsulecap (talk • contribs)15:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, you shouldn't create drafts directly; rather, make a draft from the article wizard. If you don't use the wizard, you won't have the Articles for Creation templates that allow you to easily submit the draft. Capsulecap (talk • contribs)15:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello Capsulecap, thank you for your reply and I appreciate your advice. Based on the information you gave to me, I would like to learn more about editing an article in Wikipedia. Akakakakakakakak (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Talk page reply function
Hi. When I use the [reply] function to contact an editor on a Talk page, does that editor get a ping automatically, or do I still have to use the "ping" template {{u|username}} to get his/her attention? DaringDonna (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@daringdonna: if the page starts with "talk:", then you do need to use the ping template to notify the editor. if the page starts with "user talk:", the editor, but only the editor with the username following "user talk:", will be notified. lettherebedarklight晚安18:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Go to 2021 Detroit Tigers season page. Go to edit history, and put back Farm System table back below roster, then References section and external links section back to page; and then look into edit window and place Batting and Pitching tables below roster section. I messed up here, I deleted a specific symbol that I thought was supposed to be deleted to activate the batting and pitching tables. Hope this is an easy fix. I appreciate your time and effort. Thank you.Theairportman33531 (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Theairportman33531. Content inside <!-- ... --> is called a comment and not displayed. It can for example be used to add hidden notes to editors or to omit content which is not ready for display. In this case the tables are commented out because they have no data yet and there is no reason to display them to readers. If you add data and want them to display then remove both <!-- and --> in the same edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
You can use {{won}}, {{lost}}, and {{nom}} to produce coloured boxes with corresponding text:
Film
Award
Result
Film 1
BAFTA
Won
Film 2
Oscar
Lost
Film 3
Oscar
Nominated
Colouring the boxes without also using text is not helpful for many users, such as those who are colourblind or using screen readers - the templates above are preferred. Tollens (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Book pages
Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but does anyone have suggestions for what to do when citing a book, but you don't know the exact book pages? The reason is that some of the books are in e-book format and they don't always show page numbers Fanatizka (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@Fanatizka: Welcome, and thanks for citing your sources. You don't need to include the page numbers if you don't have them. {{Cite_book}} shows lots of examples of citations that don't include the page. RudolfRed (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if this is correct, but when citing Kindle e-books, I have occasionally used the {{rp}} template with the "at" parameter. For example, {{rp|at=Location 33}}. But if the e-book can also display the page number corresponding to the page number in the physical book (and many Kindle books can do that), then it would presumably be better to cite that number. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
It will depend on the exact nature of the book, but as has already been noted it's not always necessary. For instance, in addition to using |qoute= or |at=, you may be able to provide the name of the chapter instead (using |chapter=). XAM2175(T)14:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
You can make a lower heading level by adding one = on either side: ==Requesting changes (with reasons)== would become ===Requesting changes (with reasons)===. Note that this would not allow you to make a link as you described above, just because that's not how section links work - you can only specify one section. The first link you mention will still work, but the second one will still not do anything. Tollens (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm also not entirely certain why there is a heading in the middle of a discussion - no new header is needed there. Tollens (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
You can't as far as I'm aware. The first link you provide in your original question will still work - why do you want the main topic to be in the link? Tollens (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Since you presumably have to tell the bot which articles you have in mind, why not just maintain a list on your own UserPage? I assume you look at that from time to time and it has the advantage that other editors here could see your intent and maybe offer to collaborate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Let's say I have found a CC image from Flickr. How do I proceed with actually adding the image to Commons? Any help pages or that sort of stuff haven't helped me, could someone please explain? Thanks, RadoGaming7 (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey, how could someone create a userbox template? I am confused because the article on creating a template doesn't really specify on how one would do that. TruePennsylvanian (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I have been using the visual editor and it seems to have a built in version of grammarly or something similar to that in that it finds minor errors to fix and then i fix them? is this fine to do? is this helpful? Is anyone able to check on my edits and let me know how they look? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@Iljhgtn, hmm, I'm not aware of any Grammarly-esque feature built into the VisualEditor. Could you describe more specifically what the interface is prompting? {{u|Sdkb}}talk15:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
there is a little blue underlined thing that just seems to indicate that there should be a change made. if i click again, it lets me make the change in one more click, after letting me know with a small prompt something like "there should not be a space here", or if it is a typo it underlines it. i am using microsoft edge as my browser, could it be from my browser or some plugin that i am unaware of if it is not integrated into the "visual browser"?? i do not have grammarly as far as i know either.. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@Iljhgtn: To help us replicate this issue, which article are you editing? Which version of MS Edge are you using? Does it happen if you edit the same article with a different browser? GoingBatty (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
i dont use any other browsers, but i will find another article that this happens on and let you know right now. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
i think it is a microsoft editor thing actually, and not from visual editor or anything now that i look into it further, look at this link if possible edge://settings/languages
ok i found a decent example for you to replicate what i am seeing, but i am pretty sure it is just the edge browser giving met tips. Go to the page, 1967 in art, then you will see a couple different lines i will list out that have edit suggestions:
• Voice of Fire (painting commissioned for Expo 67 in Montreal) [here there is a space between "for" and "Expo 67" that my editor thingy is advising me to remove]
• Marguerite Huré, French stained glass artist (born 1895) [here my editor thingy is telling me that stained glass should be hyphenated to stained-glass]
i also just made some more minor copy edits of this style on the page for Doug Supernaw if you want another example of what sort of things it is suggesting to me and if that is helpful or not. i think occassionally it gets things wrong and i need to use my own brain and best judgement to determine when to use it and when to not. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Veverve! I have fixed the issue - the problem was that there was a stray left-to-right mark character (which is invisible) at the end of the date, and it broke the parser. Tollens (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
At what point is an article no longer considered an orphan?
Hello. I have been looking at Adele  's Wikipedia article lately, and I have been involved in a couple additions et cetera. However, there is a user by the name of @Martin19928 (talk page) who has been spamming the page. I have undone his revisions twice now, and I am on my way to undo them again, as they are trying to alter a quote to include new words not in the original quote. I have already left them a message on their talk page, and by looking at their talk page & contributions it seems that this is not their first infraction. How do I report a user for spam to have them unable to edit the article? I've been on Wikipedia for a couple of years and active for a few months, but I'm still learning. Thanks in advance! SSR07 (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Given the long history of disputes, it may be appropriate for another boring ANI case. It's less vandalism and more tendentious editing, in my opinion. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out, SSR07. This could be spamming (broadly defined) or vandalism (ditto) or gross incompetence; I'm not going to speculate. The falsification has (yet again) been reverted (not by me), and I've posted a warning on the talk page and also on the perp's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
please tell me why my draft was not accepted tell me a suitable reason , I am working day and night in wikipedia since last one month and guys made me disappointed. please review my draft as soon as possible otherwise i will leave wikipedia forever hope you will not disappoint your customer next time. Barolaharsh (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Brolaharsh, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks to me very much as if, like most new editors who try to create articles, you have written your draft BACKWARD.
What you need to do (once you have clearly declared your COI, as others have mentioned) is to look for places where people wholly unconnected with Factophobia have published significant coverage of it in reliable sources. If you can't find any, then you will know to give up this idea immediately, as the company does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
If you find some sources, then you should junk your draft and start again, writing a draft solely from what those indepedent sources say. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
Barolaharsh Please edit this existing section, instead of creating new sections for every comment. Do you have an association with this business? 331dot (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
actually i am new to wikipedia so i dont know much about can you tell what are qualifications for approvel of a draft Barolaharsh (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
and please tell what are the maximum limits to resubmit draft
And to answer your questions, people here for fraud and promotion regularly get blocked if they don't follow community rules. Drafts are approved when they meet Wikipedia's guidlines, mainly WP:GNG and other notability rules, WP:MOS, and WP:NOT. There aren't any limits to resubmitting, however do note that repeatedly submitting a draft with no improvement will often end in rejection, where you cannot resubmit. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
BarolaharshDraft:Factophobia has been Speedy deleted. In addition, all of your edits to various articles have been reverted (reversed). Do not start over unless you comply with the WP:COI request and the new draft has content verified by quality references. David notMD (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, CDRedstone, and welcome to the Teahouse! The use of the HTML style element is disabled to prevent misuse, but you can use CSS in other ways. For example, you can use the style attribute on HTML elements and some templates - for example:
<span style="background-color:orange; border:2px solid purple">Test</span> produces Test
The wikitext table syntax:
{| style="background-color:green"
! Header 1 !! Header 2
|-
| A || B
|}
produces:
Header 1
Header 2
A
B
If you want to apply CSS to the whole page for yourself only, you can create your common.css page and place any CSS there - it will be applied to every page for your device while you are logged in. Tollens (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be a great deal of partisan information in these two articles. Very biased information and renderings, characteristic of the culture wars in the U.S. Why no mention of Trump's accomplishments? Why no mention of Hunter Biden's laptop or Joe Biden's influence peddling in Ukraine? No mention of Joe Biden's declining mental state, part time presidency and limited speaking engagements that aren't heavily scripted? No mention of Biden weaponizing his Department of Justice in an attempt to remove his chief political opponent. Furthermore Trump asked his people to peacefully and patriotically protest on January 6th. You seem to have omitted that quite conveniently. 2600:1700:E3E0:97B0:E54A:FCED:D29D:109B (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
We do not echo far right talking points but rather insist on summarizing what reliable sources say about the real world. There are a lot of skilled and highly paid professional liars trying to get people to believe that black is white and down is up. Wikipedia is a different type of website. Cullen328 (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
This is a really simple thing and i think i might be stupid for asking this but...
Hello, SamTheKing5759. "Citations" is another name for "references" and they are by far the most important part of an acceptable Wikipedia article. A Wikipedia article summarizes the significant coverage that reliable, independent sources devote to the topic of the article. Verifiability is a core content policy. Citations, also known as references, enable the reader to verify that the content is accurate by reading the originsl source. Our goal is to present complete bibliographic information to the readers in the firm of Citations, also known as references. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
. . . and if you have already started (with some other IP number or with a username), then please specify the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
CopyVio rev-del
Hello can anyone help with a copyvio rev-del request. I couldn’t understand the template page, then I installed enterprisey/cv-revdel but the talk page and article are for good reason semi protected.
The article without question infringed BBC Copyright 2003 word for word “A frank… home”.
Had my first draft rejected but with positive feedback. I'm writing an article about a song, "Windrush Nation" - it's about the pioneers who emigrated to the UK in 1948 on the Empire Windrush and what they have gone on to achieve. I'm thinking of citing the ship Empire Windrush from which everything gets its name. I'm also thinking of citing Tilbury where it landed. The person who inspired the song is Chancellor of Heriot-Watt University, and I was thinking of citing them for confirmation of his status. These are all for context but would they be acceptable in the article? Windrushnation (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@ContributeToTheWiki The article in its current state has been declined, with reasons you should take account of. My main worry in addition to the comments made by the reviewer is that you appear to have included a complete copy of the lyrics of the song, which may be a WP:COPYVIO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
We (Life Radio UK & Reach Society) hold the mechanical copyright to the song and agreement with the writer. What is your suggestion? Happy to comply with best practice. Windrushnation (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@Windrushnation Sorry, I pinged the wrong person before! You are now entering difficult territory. You need immediately to read WP:PAID and comply in full with its provisions. The copyright issue is complex and I defer to others with more expertise as to what should be the next steps. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I would welcome some guidance on this. These are the facts
Wayne Bucknor retains 100% of Writer's Credit
Life Radio UK and Reach Society owns the Mechanical Copyrights
The songs was commission to be freely available for download and use by anyone who wishes to use it as part of their Windrush celebrations
We will not be receiving any payment for placing the article on Wiki - it is purely or public benefit.
Hello, Windrushnation, and welcome to the Teahouse. As regards the song, your purpose "to be freely available for download and use by anyone" is very much congruent with Wikipedia's mission; but it has to be done correctly.
If the lyrics have previously been published anywhere, then Wikipedia will assume that they are copyright, and cannot be used here, unless either:
the publication is accompanied by an explicit release of legal rights, either into the public domain, or under a compatible licence such as WP:CC-BY-SA; or
the copyright holder (not anybody else) communicates directly with the Wikimedia Foundation releasing the rights in that way: see donating copyright materials.
But the more general problem is that, like most people do who try the challenging task of creating a new article when they are inexperienced at editing Wikipedia, you appear to have created the draft BACKWARD. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. So your task is first to find the independent sources, and then to forget everything you know about the subject and write an article based on what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Windrushnation, and welcome to the Teahouse. As regards the song, your purpose "to be freely available for download and use by anyone" is very much congruent with Wikipedia's mission; but it has to be done correctly.
If the lyrics have previously been published anywhere, then Wikipedia will assume that they are copyright, and cannot be used here, unless either:
the publication is accompanied by an explicit release of legal rights, either into the public domain, or under a compatible licence such as WP:CC-BY-SA; or
the copyright holder (not anybody else) communicates directly with the Wikimedia Foundation releasing the rights in that way: see donating copyright materials.
First of all, I have applied for and been granted a change of username because my original one caused conflict with the article I have written - new username is @Ukmaroon.
Secondly, I will pass on the copyright paras to our music lawyer for advice. If I did not quote the lyrics by put a link to download the file, would that amount to the same thing? Ukmaroon (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
But the more general problem is that, like most people do who try the challenging task of creating a new article when they are inexperienced at editing Wikipedia, you appear to have created the draft BACKWARD. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. So your task is first to find the independent sources, and then to forget everything you know about the subject and write an article based on what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Leaving aside the early technical errors that I made, your response to the following would be the most relevant.
"Windrush Nation" is the title of a new song; the term has never been used before and so there are no extensive and independent sources out there. I am simply trying to make the public aware of it and to share the music, the copyright to which I co-own with Reach Society. The writer of the song was briefed and commissioned by us and I feel this is relevant to the origin and history song. In terms of the three citations, are they not relevant, or should be be included as 'links' instead? Doe the fact that this is something new make is unacceptable?
Finally, I curious to note inconsistencies in approval standards because after the first rejection, I provided a link to another editor and received "Good article. I recommend you resubmit it." Contributor 118,784
@Ukmaroon note that everyone here is a volunteer, and we all have differing levels of experience and knowledge of Wikipedia policies. When @Contributor 118,784 commented "Good article", they had been editing on Wikipedia for less than one day, and probably did not have enough experience to give that kind of advice. CodeTalker (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I can appreciate that but I am not to know and that resubmission could have led to my article being deleted. I suggest a better approval system. Ukmaroon (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The approval system is best performed by the reviewers who have left comments on your draft, and not random editors. You can "leave" the Teahouse by refraining from making any more comments in this section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I am working on an assignment looking beyond cultural appropriation into the level of whether any one or group has ever appropriated the experiences of another group as their own (specifically, the horrors of the Holocaust by unfounded insinuation or claims of genocide). Wikipedia is generally very well organised and simple to follow in terms of categories, but I am unable to find any article to this effect that would guide my reading. Is there anyone who might be able to point me in a good direction to start? Thanks much! Elizabeth.purdue (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I have been trying to create this article for the last two months, but it was getting rejected due to some or the other guideline mistake. Now I have tried to do it correctly for the fourth time according to the guideline and I think I have done it right, if I am missing something in this, please help. Naveenbbhardwaj (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
In relation to the blocking policy, is there a way to find out how long a user can be blocked for a certain violation of the rules? Dinoz1(chat?) (he/him) 12:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is not a set duration written into policy; it depends on the specific circumstances. Minor, first time matters generally get shorter and more specific blocks. Serious or repeat issues get longer ones. Admins are made admins because the community trusts them to make that decision. Is there a specific matter that prompted your question? 331dot (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Blocks are not a punishment, but a means of preventing disruption. The block should be proportionate to the need to prevent disruption. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, 331dot. I've just been lurking on AN/I, making a few block proposals and sometimes, I'm not really sure how long a user should be blocked for. I figured I'd ask on the Teahouse. Dinoz1(chat?) (he/him) 13:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to find old XfDs or relevant Talk page discussions pertaining to one specific template? I'm trying to figure out why Template:Infobox court case has so many parameters marked as deprecated, but there's nothing relevant on the template's Talk page, the template is used by multiple projects (i.e., no idea which one would have relevant discussions), and the original edit was made in 2014 by an editor who's been inactive for several years now. I'm trying to figure out if there's a more time-efficient way to determine whether the parameters are truly deprecated or someone was just screwing around with the TemplateData. –Galactic-Radiance(talk)19:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
pages to be deleted
I seem some pages as I navigate around that maybe could be deleted, do I do that myself? Or do I ask an admin?
Hello, Iljhgn, and welcome to the Teahouse. Only admins can delete pages, but anybody can nominate them for deletion according to one or other of the sets of criteria: see WP:deletion process. As for Ulysse Pastre, while the article does not cite any sources and so demonstate his notability, WP:NPOL says that people who have been members of a national or provincial legislature are presumed to be notable. So that article should not be deleted until somebody has done a thorough search for sources, and only if they cannot be found should it be deleted. It can certainly be tagged with {{refimprove}}.
@Iljhgtn: I agree with ColinFine. As an FYI: You can ask for an article to be deleted by putting the text: {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} at the top, replacing "reason for proposed deletion" with your reason. Anyone can disagree with your request; all they have to do is remove the tag. If the tag stays there for seven days, an administrator will review. If the tag is removed, the article won't be deleted. Usedbook (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
other than the twinkle are there other gadgets that i should get? what are the best gadgets other than the twinkle Iljhgtn (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Polka Dot Shorts Mobile view. Was working on this and added the citation via the magazine citation template. The link shows up but after it has “ cite magazine : Check |url= value (help)” I read through the linked help page thought it was a space that was an issue but it’s still saying the same thing. Any help appreciated!! Trey hodges (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Trey, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have fixed it, but I'm not sure what was wrong. I think there must have been a non-printing character embedded in the URL. I went to the page, copied the URL and pasted it in in place of what was there. ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Moved table of contents button for articles now can't find it
I inadvertently created a redirect with an (almost) identical title to an existing article, the difference being the existing article (Sculptors’ Society of Australia) had a curly quote. I'm surprised that it's possible to create an article title that contains a character not available on a standard keyboard. Is this one the only such title? I have requested a non-controversial technical move, but can someone with the necessary skills check? Doug butler (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks SGT, I didn't think that through properly. One difference is that the curly quote is deprecated while endash is (in such constructs) demanded. And I doubt the software would permit me to construct a separate article [[China-United States relations]] . Doug butler (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello! A few months ago, I became a pending changes reviewer and have since then used the permission only about a dozen times. Besides monitoring this feed, are there any recommended ways to increase participation in this program? Feel free to refer me to a different discussion space or someone with expertise! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Pbritti, pending changes reviewer is not super necessary, since any autoconfirmed user can revert or build on the edit, and have the edit automatically approved. Unlike WP:NPP or WP:AFC, there is very little backlog because there is so little volume. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
in the case of a handful of users and ips making disruptive edits a select few articles with the exact same things (in this case the articles on vídeo brinquedo and mockbusters), is it better to request protection on them, suggest that the people be blocked (again, for one particular ip), or is it a matter of personal opinion?
I recently asked for a page to be imported from German wikipedia (de:Stephan_Grill) to my personal space (user:Applepii/Stephan_Grill), so I can translate it to the English. I translated the page and I don't know what the next step would be, so someone can review it for publishing it in the English wikipedia. Do I use the "move" button? Thank you for your help! Applepii (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Applepii, "Einzelnachweise" (one of the headings) isn't one of the better known items of the English language. "Physics of Life" is a substantial section -- yet completely unreferenced. Make sure that it's referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I references Physics of Life and translated the according categories. Thank you also for adding the submit button. I did submit it now. Applepii (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Inserting images
I accidentally put an image at the start of an article instead of where it should go, so I backspaced it. Now, when I try to put it in the correct spot, it says it’s a duplicate and will only allow me to paste a link. Help! CitrusSoEpic (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Citrus, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are getting a message about duplicates, it sounds as if you are trying to upload the image a second time; but you don't need to upload it again to put it in an article. You have uploaded File:Flag of Utah (new).jpg to Commons, and can insert it in an article as many times as you like.
However, I'm dubious about its copyright status. You have uploaded it as "own work", and have made a specific legal statement I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license. How can you claim to be the copyright holder of a flag? Even if you made this image, somebody else owns the copyright on the flag (unless it has been placed in the public domain, which I know many US Federal images have, but I don't know about state images). I urge you to go to c:File:Flag of Utah (new).jpg and either i) clarify how it is that you own the copyright, or ii) if you have evidence that it is in the public domain, make that clear, or iii)nominate it for deletion.
Alternatively, is the image actually different from File:2022 Utah Flag design.svg, which does claim that that is Public Domain? If it is, you need to explain at your image's description page how and why it is different, as well as sorting out the copyright. If not, you can use that image in the article, and nominate your upload for deletion. ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
hello! I have been trying to fix issues with the article 2021–2022 Luzon sabungeros disappearance and have encountered difficulties- the copy-edit is for length and so summarization is needed, but it is difficult to figure out what is essential information to keep because I do not speak Tagalog, the language of many of the news articles that are sources for the page. is there a tag i could put on it for this? Lilacsoutofthedeadground (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I tried to embed two audios saved on Wikimedia here but failed to do so correctly and so, finally, I posted it them as external links. How do I embed those audios on the talk page there without any external link/s?-1Firang (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@1Firang: Hi there! You would first upload the files to Wikimedia Commons (or the English Wikipedia) and then link to those files, just like you would with a photo. See Help:Files for more info. GoingBatty (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Are short descriptions behaving strangely for anyone else recently? I now see them as the first line in an article, at the same size as the article body text (they should be in small). Eg at the top of this page it says Welcoming place for new Wikipedians (Edit) immediately above the teahouse banner. I haven't changed anything in my custom css or js files recently. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I began writing an article on Rhoda Lerman, an author, but am unsure of whether she is notable enough. I have her obituary from The New York Times,[1] and NYT has also covered several of her works over the years.[2][3][4] There are also scans of newspapers that were uploaded to her website.[5][6] I am unsure of whether this would be enough to warrant an article about her, am having difficulty finding any other sources, and would be appreciative of any advice or help other editors can offer. Thank you, EndTheory (✉ • ✎) 03:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC) EndTheory (✉ • ✎) 03:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
It says she has "critically praised novels" in her NYT obit, which is a pretty sure sign that she's notable, since authors who have written multiple notable books usually survive AfD discussions. I would start by looking for those reviews. Also, you might be interested in joining WP:WIRED? -- asilvering (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look for reviews. I joined WIRED just now, thank you for introducing me to the WikiProject. EndTheory (✉ • ✎) 18:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Contributions to Administrator Noticeboard discussions
Hi. Although I've read the AN pages, I'm still a little uncertain whether or not a non-admin editor who is not directly involved in an incident is allowed or welcome to contribute to a discussion (to make what will hopefully be received as a constructive comment). Seeking confirmation before I go wading in. Rupples (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Rupples: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1191. Yes, you're allowed as a non-involved editor to chime in. If you're unsure about what to say, you can always lurk more. It's never enough. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) You mean this. I've been on Wikipedia awhile, yet there's always places in Wikipedia's arsenal of guidance one hasn't ventured and that template page is one of them! Thanks very much for the info. Rupples (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Nathaniel Parker Willis' Daughter
I was looking through my university's archival collection, and I found a travel log text by Nathaniel Parker Willis that is dedicated to his daughter Imogen. While looking into the author I noticed that there is no mention of Imogen anywhere on the page. I don't want to make an edit based off of just one text, does anyone else know of any mention of a daughter by him?
Should music/album on discographies really link to external links?
Stumbled on Neal H Pogue and I am wondering if the tracks on his discography should be allowed to link his Apple Music rather than being plain text or linked to wiki articles if there were any. Danidamiobi (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep getting flagged for promotion. Not seeing any issues.
Hi!
Attached is my draft of an article about a Brooklyn-based contemporary art gallery: draft: Welancora Gallery. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and I have attempted to get my draft through multiple times. However, each time I get flagged for promotional language. Each sentence in my draft is thoroughly sourced with articles from established independent sources, none of the websites that are referenced were written by the gallery itself. Each source that I used says something almost verbatim what is in the submission to avoid any subjectivity and but also explicated enough to avoid plagiarism.
Each time I get declined, the response times get shorter and shorter. Which in one hand is really great that Wikipedia reviewers/editors are eager and ready to help out aspiring article writers. But on the other hand, one of my submissions was declined so swiftly and with such little explicit explanation that I must question if the new and edited submission was read or regarded.
I may be getting unfair strictness from reviewers because I signed the COI declaration. The requirements to sign a COI declaration are vague, I signed it to not only because I care about Wikipedia's encyclopedic integrity, but also because I wanted to ensure that I would not get flagged or any troubles down the line for volunteering to write this article for the gallery. I must make it clear, I am not getting payed to write this article. I volunteered because I love to write and edit. I am not getting any promotional benefits from writing this article, even if the language I used was subjective (which it is not, it is source-based).
In my most recent submission, I removed anything that I could see was encouraging language.
I mirrored the format and structure of other NYC galleries with published Wikipedia articles, ours is incredibly similar in tone and style.
I would appreciate any guidance because I would hate to see this get discarded.
Hi @INJCurator: you clearly have a relationship with this subject. For that reason, as well as the way this draft has been written, with much of the content unsupported by referencing, I'm guessing you've pretty much written what you wanted to say about the subject, and then found a few sources that may or may not support what you've written. Would that be a fair comment?
Instead, what you should do is find reliable and independent secondary sources that have on their own volition published significant coverage of the subject, and then summarise (in your own words, and without putting any spin on it) what they've said. This achieves a number of things. Firstly, it establishes that the subject is notable, meaning worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Secondly, it ensures that everything in the draft comes from sources that don't have an interest in promoting the subject. And thirdly, it allows the reader to verify that what is being said is likely to be correct.
Currently, this draft IMO cites at best only one such source, namely the Cultured piece; we need at least a couple more like that.
Until such time as the draft has been based on coverage from independent sources, it is inherently promotional, because it is you telling the world about the gallery, not summarising what others have said about it. (You may wish to see WP:YESPROMO which elaborates on this point.) Until then, it is also not possible to accept this draft, because notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, has not been demonstrated. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
At this point, I don't know what to do. I wrote eight sentences, all are fact supported by secondary sources. Can you tell me which references and which sentences to remove to get approved. The sentences I have written follow exactly what Greene Naftali Gallery, Jenkins Johnson Gallery, and Marianne Boesky Gallery have modeled on their pages, and the tone, structure, and types of sources are similar as well. Any specific edits would be greatly appreciated.
Hello, INJCurator. You have modeled your draft on one article rated Stub and two articles rated Start. That is roughly equivalent to modeling your homework assignment on the work of the worst of your fellow students. You should select Good articles and Featured articles as models. Your "Major exhibitions" section is referenced only to the gallery itself. We need independent reliable sources to determine that an exhibition is major, not the gallery. I was optimistic that you referenced four different New York Times articles. I am a subscriber, and so read those four articles. None of them devote significant coverage to the gallery. They are just passing mentions and are therefore of no value in determining notability. That was disappointing. You need to identify several independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the gallery as a business venture, not articles that briefly mention that works by Artist A were shown at the gallery. Eliminate every single word and sentence that is not verified by a reliable source, summarize the significant, independent coverage, and only then resubmit. Cullen328 (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC).
What about "A Rare Black-Owned Art Gallery Lands in Chelsea"? I don't have an NYT subscription, but that seems likely to be sigcov? -- asilvering (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Asilvering, you might think so, but that NYT article is about a different gallery in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan. The Welancora Gallery is in Brooklyn, and is mentioned only fleetingly: A veteran of the field, Vassell said she is keenly aware of pioneers, such as June Kelly in SoHo, and of smaller galleries owned by Black women, including Welancora in Brooklyn, founded by Ivy N. Jones, and Housing on the Lower East Side, run by KJ Freeman. That is clearly a passing mention that does not establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Hm, that's too bad. But it does suggest that the place is notable - you don't just namedrop a gallery no one has ever heard of like that, especially not in a sentence with "pioneers" in it, unless they're pretty well-known. Here's another useful source for the article: [7]. Part of it is an interview, but this isn't promo churnalism, it's a full editorial. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
My view is the source you've highlighted doesn't count towards notability. The content is not independent of the gallery as it's an interview with the owner. Questions are posed and answered but there is no added comment by the interviewer. The only independent comment is the paragraph below the two pictures (towards the top of the piece), but that doesn't amount to significant, indepth coverage as required by WP:ORGCRIT. Rupples (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. That is why I said "Here's another useful source for the article", and not "here is solid evidence of notability" or somesuch. -- asilvering (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
same name
Hi, I am creating a page for an Actor who happens to have the same name as a Professional Rugby player.
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Per the disambiguation guidelines, if your article is accepted, editors will have to determine which subject is the primary topic for that name. The primary topic's article will have the name as the title, and the other one will be either "Name (actor)" or "Name (rugby player)". (Or, if neither is the primary topic, the name will be a disambiguation page that links to both.) WPscattert/c21:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, SiChandler, and welcome to the Teahouse. In the long run, the answer is that one or both of the articles will have a disambiguating word in parenthesis in their titles - eg Will Rowlands (actor) or Will Rowlands (rugby player). But since you've (appropriately) created and submitted a draft, you don't need to worry about this: the reviewer who accepts your draft will sort out the naming appropriately. ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
In setting my preferences for notifications, I am asked about Web, Email and Apps. What does this mean? Do these refer to the manner in which I receive notifications?
Also, I see that notification can be triggered by a reversion, but suppose someone simply modifies an edit that I made (in an article that I myself may or may not have authored), or removes the material by simply deleting it, without using "undo". Is there a way for me to be notified of this? Johsebb (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
You can receive notifications in three places: on the desktop website, on the mobile app, and by email. You can choose to have all notifications go to all three if you like. I assume most people save email only for notifications they consider to be most important.
There is no way to be notified of a manual revert as far as I am aware. The best you can do is to keep the page on your watchlist, or check in on it periodically. -- asilvering (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Willem Ombelet page
Hello, I have a question about the content I added. Apparently any factual information based on external sources, like education, work, etc is flagged. In this particular case, the data come from a page in a magazine founded by Willem Ombelet, a peer-reviewed magazine he is editor-in-chief of. The data are correct. I wonder what the problem is? Karzel666 (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Welcome Karzel666,
If you are just putting external links into the body or are sourcing off of them in the External links section, then they may have been flagged and the body links may have been removed. See WP:EXT. If you can explain a bit further on what you are talking about then I can go deeper. ✶Mitch199811✶12:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The hyperlinks (and copyright violation) appear to have been removed from the text, but this leaves many of the proposed sections without references. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I want to write an article about a research institute in Iran. Due to the limited access to the Internet, I was able to find a series of news and websites that mentioned the Royan Center, for example, one of these sources was for UNESCO, in which Royan was mentioned. Written, but the article was not registered. My question is how can I find more resources about this important institution like Royan with limited internet access? In addition, I must say that Royan Institute has been an independent page for years and when I wanted to update its information, the page was completely deleted.
Please help me to create this page . Thank Katrina masbin (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
deleted. years deleted. Katrina masbin (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Mere mentions are not enough. Please read and understand the detailed messages on your talk page, and read WP:INDEPENDENT to understand what we mean by independent sources. I suggest you also study WP:YFA. --Shantavira|feed me09:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Carpimaps: As far as I can tell it just means you call yourself a host, and I understand your confusion because nowhere does it clarify the meaning of being a host - Apmh03:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Back when the Teahouse started one of the fundamental aims was to create a welcoming space - introducing the "hosts" who would be answering questions was part of that process. Rather than being helped by unknwon Wikipedian's you could be helped by people who had nice introductions and were chosen because of their commitment to maintaining the friendly environment being targeted. I think it was a good idea - part of making this a bit special. - Bilby (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Carpimaps Those who regularly provide answers at the Teahouse (like myself) may or may not formally be hosts: I am not. Those who have volunteered for the formal title have their names rotated through the welcome banner at the top of the page. They sign up using this page, which contains the criteria to do so. There are many historical accounts of the setting up of the Teahouse and the host system in the archives of its Talk Page. The most recent of these is WT:Teahouse/Archive_26#Deletion of inactive Teahouse hosts, if you are interested. Teahouse hosts do not have a "job to clerk discussions", or any other job. They are just people who believe they can assist the overall Project by answering questions from mainly novice editors, without expressing irritation when the same questions come up repeatedly. To be clear: anyone may answer questions here at the Teahouse but the main expectation is that the answer you give should be accurate and in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelinesMike Turnbull (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, WONKAKlD, and welcome to the Teahouse! Questions are archived after 2-3 days with no new comments in the topic, but these questions are still available. You can search the archives using the box right below the table of contents at the top right of the page. If questions were never archived and simply remained on the page, the page would be so long that it would be near-impossible to navigate - here is an example of a recent archive, and there are 1191 archives just like that one. If you're looking for questions you have asked previously, you can find them in your contributions. It isn't that big of a deal if questions are asked multiple times, people are happy to help. Tollens (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@WONKAKlD I agree it can be irritating to find that your question has been archived and, even if you see it in your contribution history the link there won't work because that link is not updated to the new archival location. The solution is to "subscribe" to the thread where you asked the question: you do that by clicking the link to the far right at the beginning of the thread's title: the Why? in the case here. Once subscribed, you will receive notification every time a new edit is made in that thread AND you'll be notified when the thread is archived so you'll know it won't get any more answers. The "subscribe" tool is available on all Talk Page sections and each acts independently so I find it extremely useful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@WONKAKlD:: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1191. In addition to the answers you've been given above, you may want to try out the Convenient Discussions script. Not only does it provide some more features than the current Discussion tool as well as highlight new responses and yours, if you look for a section that's archived, the script will try and scour through the page's archives to see if it can find it for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I am confused about how to write on a talk page. I was editing a couple of Wikipedia pages just fine but when I went to edit a talk page it wasn't clear. Could someone please help me with this? Hemmingweigh (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Hemmingweigh and welcome to the Teahouse. All pages are edited the same way but the details depend on the editor you are using and whether the Talk Page already has something on it or is blank. So, please let us know which editor (visual or source) you are using and please place a link here to the Talk Page you want to edit. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure how to ask an administrator but please could someone remove this user page from Category:Worship and the other content categories they have added themselves to. They also have a sandbox page with the same problem. Thank you in advance. 2A02:C7C:ACA7:4600:49DC:2D0:4F4:293A (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! When you spot this issue in the future, you can edit the user page to change the categories to category links by adding an extra colon. (e.g. [[Category:Worship]] to [[:Category:Worship]]). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Reversion
Suppose I edit an article on day X, and then I edit it further on a later day Y. If someone wants to revert edit X, will that also revert edit Y? Johsebb (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
No. And usually they cannot revert X, unless they manually edit the article and remove the text, because the edits in Y make an automatic revert impossible. However, if someone else wants to revert everything after and including X, they can do that by restoring the article to a previous version. -- asilvering (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@1Firang Go to the article history, click on the version you want to revert back to, and then click "restore this version" (should show up in a box at the top of the screen). -- asilvering (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Where’s best to take a question about ‘language barrier’ editors.
So I’m kind of a returning editor (my User Page will fill you in), and a report (I think it was either at AN or ANI) where an editor got snagged as using ChatGPT, got me thinking.
We surely have our share of editors who get CIR Blocks, under language barriers. Could these editors contribute productively on a wiki in their language? AGF says Yes, right? But all these people know is ‘that one big Wikipedia’. How much do we realistically point these users in the direction of other wikis, in their language, where they can thrive?
I suspect that one of the Village Pump’s areas is where to take this, RFC definitely doesn’t seem to be, but I could use a second opinion (so not WP:3O compatible, haha!) on where to take such a suggestion. MM('"HURRRR?)(Hmmmmm.)12:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Ooh, okay that last one is very much in the right direction. Where would I find stats on how much these templates are used? If you’re wondering where I’m going with this, I’m wondering if existing tools are actually enough to keep ‘horrible English, but otherwise productive’ editors within Wikimedia space, and if the tools aren’t enough, we can at least establish that they’re not, and try to figure out how to improve this situation. Less misguided CIR and NOTHERE (due to language barrier) blocks is always a good thing, right? Or am I looking for a solution in search of a problem, as I saw someone else say? The problem may be much smaller than I suspect, as far as I know. MM('"HURRRR?)(Hmmmmm.)13:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Matticusmadness: statistics, I have no idea, and yes, I saw that you are talking editor retention. But having been on here some time, and being rather active in many things concerning translations and the like, the problem might be not as great as you see it. We have those who make honest mistakes, they come to EN because they followed a "wrong" google link (or just had automatic translation activates); those are easy candidates, and won't get blocked here...they will disappear direction "native language Wikipedia" after having been shown the way. Then we have the ones trying to shoehorn in articles which have been deleted in "their" language Wikipedia; those are a bit more problematic, but will be dealt with via the deletion process and the like: they tend to lose interest. I won't talk about CIR blocks because I lack experience, but I have the impression they aren't that frequent, anyway. All in all, from the WP:PNT point of view, I see no great problems. Lectonar (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Main body reference numbers not changing to fit edits
I am editing 'thisarticle'. I have deleted some references and put in new ones. There is one reference (number 1) I cannot see in the main body but which remains in the reflist. Can I edit the reflist directly? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
It looks like that reference is being used in the infobox, under "Awards". The infobox references always come first in the list - I was confused about that for a while too. You can click the ^ next to each reference in the reflist, and it should take you to its position in the article, if something similar happens in the future. Tollens (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
In the past few days, my (Vector legacy) short descriptions have gone from small to normal font size. Did something change in Vector that would have impacted this to happen in VL? - UtherSRG(talk)17:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone have a good example of a list of university alumni in terms of formatting? I've been looking at the List of New York University alumni and would like to make revisions for consistency (for example, "Educators" is one table on the list while "Professors, researchers and scientists" is a separate table with various award winners in a separate table below that). I'd like to have a good example to refer instead of arbitrarily choosing a hierarchy or format. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you so much, this is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you for articulating your process as well-- it will make it much easier to find these things in the future.
We are looking for an editor with biography writing skills to write a page for Wikipedia
for and an American singer song writer and composer. Look forward to hearing from you soon! TheDuecce (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, TheDuecce, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the fact that you're even thinking of paying somebody to write about you on Wikipedia indicates that you have a (very common) fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which summarizes what independent sources say about a subject, not what the subject says or wants to say. Promotion of any form is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia.
If you find somebody honest to write an article about you, then they will tell you up front that they cannot guarantee that they can get an article about you accepted, and that if they do get an article accepted, neither you nor they will thereafter control its content, or be able to delete it if you don't like the content. Please read an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello TheDuecce. You may want to start your own website so that you will be able to post whatever you feel would be best, and not have to follow all of Wikipedia's strict rules. Also, with your own website, you won't have to worry about other editors coming along and deciding to add information that you would prefer not to have on your page. Best wishes on your promotional efforts. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
From your list, BeeJeeJay, I happened to choose architecture. The claim isn't referenced; but no matter, because what's mentioned in the lead of an article is normally stated at more length in the body of the article. But there's a problem: There's no mention of architecture (or none that I notice) in the body. So what's the source for the claim that he's written about architecture? As for other problems, how about "His wife, Christina, is the author of the bestselling novel, Drowning Ruth"? How do we know that she's his wife; and what, if anything, does "bestselling" actually mean? -- Hoary (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Tsk tsk, I'd been too sleepy/lazy to check the history. BeeJeeJay, check that the inclusion in the list of every item is shown in the body text to be justified. Remove any (such as architecture) that is not backed up, with a solid reference, in the body text. And then convert what's left to a comma-separated list. -- Hoary (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The same way you verify anything else in Wikipedia, namely: you find a reliable source that says that they are married, and then you add a citation to the source you found.
Writing a new article is a difficult task, and is usually better approached once you are an experienced editor. There's a risk that you could create an entire article, only to see it deleted after all that work. That said, you're not prohibited from attempting it, and if you want to try anyway, see WP:Your first article.
I've nominated probably half a dozen articles for deletion, by the same user (Amaekuma), that all follow the same formula of creating pages for Nigerian "entrepreneurs" or "social media personalities" and are entirely made-up of refs from those semi-legit looking paid-promotional articles you're seeing more of nowadays. Is there anywhere to report this? Its getting exhausting nominating pages only for new ones to get created over and over, with no repercussions.
Nswix (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Good morning everyone, thank you all for reading this and helping me out :) The page of “Sulaiman Al-Fahim” is subject to continuous vandalism as a few people keep removing valuable and credible information and sources without any plausible cause or reason. Thank you all for your time and help, awaiting your responses and intervention. Jacobmicheal232 (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I've checked the article and you are nearing close to an edit war. To prevent further escalation, could you discuss the disagreement with the user or discuss the situation on the article's talk page? 🛧Layah50♪🛪 (話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 03:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
St-Domingue Creoles
I am working with a group of students on the St-Domingue (Haiti) emigres who fled to New Orleans during the Haitian Revolution. To my and the team's surprise, they were directed to a page named "Dominican Creoles". Apparently someone or group has decided to rename the St-Domingue or Haitian Creoles as "Dominican Creoles" creating much confusion. The people of St-Domingue have never been referred to as Dominicans which is a much later term used after the creation of the Dominican Republic. Dominican means someone from The Dominican Republic or someone from the island of Dominica. The proper name which is backed by all historical records is St-Domingue Creoles or Haitian Creoles. I would appreciate if anyone could edit that page or send it to the team responsibe. Thank You / Merci. Kreyolbro (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
A question about an Upwork freelancer potentially misguiding clients
Greetings!
I'm seeking advice and need some guidance. I recently interacted with an Upwork freelancer named Sonali Kavdia. Her Upwork profile can be found at this link: *https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/sonalik.
I realize now that my actions contravened Wikipedia's guidelines, but there's more to the story:
I inquired with Sonali about the notability of my client's project, CookUnity. She assured me that she has close ties with a Wikipedia administrator who could verify the project's notability. After agreeing to this, she responded in a few days, claiming that the Wikipedia administrator deemed the group not notable and recommended creating a page on an alternative website, Wikitia. I acquiesced, and the page was established here:
wikitia.com/wiki/CookUnity
Later, however, I discovered that Wikipedia administrators do not collaborate with paid editors on Upwork, let alone suggest publishing on Wikitia. I would appreciate your advice and comments on the veracity of Sonali's claims. It also seems necessary to delve deeper into this matter, as there's a possibility that the paid editor on Upwork may damage Wikipedia's reputation by potentially propagating misinformation (though I may be mistaken). MitYehor (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, MitYehor. You need to fully disclose your Paid contributions status immediately. In theory, there is nothing that would forbid a Wikipedia administrator from expressing the opinion that a certain topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and suggesting an alternative website. In practice, it is difficult to imagine an administrator recommending Wikitia as an alternative, since it has such a mediocre reputation. But the bottom line is that scammers frequently invoke imaginary "Wikipedia administrators" created out of thin air. Honest people will give you the username of the genuine Wikipedia administrator, and you can communicate openly with that administrator. I happen to be a Wikipedia administrator who has done a few consulting jobs through Upwork. I have never edited a Wikipedia page for a paying client, and never will. Instead, I work with them off Wikipedia to help them understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I am completely transparent about my Wikipedia identity and my real world identity, which I also disclose on my user page. In my opinion, a large majority of Upwork "Wikipedia experts" are scammers and liars, although a handful are ethical. Let the buyer beware. Cullen328 (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Translating articles into English
Hi, I’ve used Wikipedia a lot over the years, and I thought it would be nice to help out a little bit in return. I’m a professional translator (Russian-English, French-English, Italian-English), so I thought I could work on some articles that need translated into English. However, it seems that English translators cannot translate articles until they’ve made 300 edits to Wikipedia. Is that correct? I’m a bit confused by this, as I don’t really see the connection between editing and translating. CiaranTranslation (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, CiaranTranslation and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe that the content translation tool can only be used by editors with sufficient experience of editing English Wikipedia, because inexperienced editors are less likely to be able to evaluate how appropriate a translation is for English Wikipedia. The problem is that many articles in many Wikipedias are not satisfactorily sourced: a lot of Wikipedias have less stringent requirements on sourcing that en-wiki (and even in en-wiki there are many older articles which would not be accepted if they were presented today).
Anybody can translate an article; but in my view in most cases this task is effectively "write a new article using some text translated from an existing article": the translator is responsible for making sure the result is adequately sourced. The CTT should only be used by those who understand this.
@CiaranTranslation You may find it easiest to start with existing English articles that are tagged with templates like {{Expand Russian}} (3,500 articles) or {{Expand Italian}} (4,200 articles). Then you can be sure your work won't be wasted as the notability requirements here are, presumably, already met. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps someone else knows. The text in question, for reference:
Hi [user], In order to complete your request, IABotManagementConsole needs permission to perform the following actions on your behalf on all projects of this site: Perform high volume activity High-volume (bot) access Interact with pages Edit existing pages; Edit protected pages; Create, edit, and move pages
@QuicoleJR See WP:BOTMULTIOP, in particular the bit about OAuth. The archive bot is one that any editor can activate but your Username will end up in its edit summary and you are responsible for its use. Many other bots run in the background and their edit summaries only contain the name of the bot itself. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, the link to the toolforge site brings you to a page to configure IAbot instead of run it. I've run it before in the past and still made the same mistake the other day. The workflow is to tap the menu button in the corner and go to Run Bot → fix a single page. Folly Mox (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not a page mover, but I moved an MMS list shell, and didn't leave a redirect behind. Is that just a feature of MMS delivery lists, or have I stumbled on a bug. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 11:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@Zippybonzo: It appears to be impossible to leave a redirect behind when moving a page with page content model MassMessageListContent (shown on "Page information"). I'm an administrator and usually have a working checkbox "Leave a redirect behind" on move forms. For the pages at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders#Mass-mail subscription list shells and your example User:Zippybonzo/MMS test list, the box is unchecked, greyed out and unclickable. I assume this is deliberate. As an administrator I can change the page content model so I guess I could change it to wikitext, move it with a redirect and change it back, but then I wouldn't really have moved an MMS delivery list. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia interface
My Wikipedia interface looks like that of a computer. Every time I open Wikipedia on my phone, the letters are so small that I have to rotate my phone to be able to see them properly. It wasn't like this before. What happened? Raquiolinha (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I did tap that. The letters are still small as hell. It's like it thinks that my phone is a computer. And the strange thing is that with Wikiquote and Wikisource that doesn't happen at all. Raquiolinha (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Raquiolinha: Did it stop saying "Mobile view"? After tapping it should say "Desktop" instead at the bottom. If it does then I don't know why it's still small. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Raquiolinha If you're still encountering the issue, try going to WP:Enable mobile version and click the "Go to the mobile website" link, this should redirect you to Mobile View. Alternatively, you can also manually append the front of the URL from https://wiki.riteme.site to https://en.m.wikipedia.org. If both solutions fails, try looking through your phone settings, if you've accidentally set the font size to small, you can refer to the following links: For Android (general only) or For iOS. If all three solutions isn't the expected result, you're looking for, kindly provide a screenshot. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)11:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I already selected the skin. letters still small. did you change this on purpose? Is this how I view Wikipedia on my phone now? because it's really messy having to zoom the screen constantly. Raquiolinha (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I didn't want you to reproduce my screenshot. That screenshot was to show the issue. Do you mind if I provide you with another screenshot, this time on another Wikipedia site, just to show you how I wanted the Wikipedia interface to be like? Raquiolinha (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Raquiolinha: You misunderstand: PrimeHunter was unable to replicate the issue as described in your screenshot. It would help if you would answer his questions. If the interface differs on another project it's most likely a skin issue. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
But I didn't want him to replicate the issue. what was in the screenshot was the issue that I wanted to get rid of. Raquiolinha (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Raquiolinha: Being able to replicate an issue on a different device is an important step in fixing the issue - if they can't figure out how your device is configured they cannot fix it. If you answer the questions they asked, we may be able to help: Do you see the options at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering when "Vector (2022)" is enabled? Are the options enabled? What is the operating system and browser on your phone? Tollens (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Raquiolinha: Do you see the options "Enable responsive mode" and "Enable limited width mode" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering when "Vector (2022)" is selected? Are the options enabled? PLEASE ANSWER! I'm trying to help but you make it hard. I have an iPhone. It sounds like you have an Android device. I cannot test what happens there. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Raquiolinha: It sounds like an Android/Chrome issue I cannot help with. iPhone uses iOS/Safari. Maybe this can help but I fear it would just mean you have to scroll horizontally to see the whole width of pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I once installed the app, just to see how it was. I didn't like the fact that, like Google, the app also saves my searches. Raquiolinha (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Is this a good way to try to at least limit advertising in a page?
I am editing Applus+ IDIADA, and when I started editing it I saw that it had large amounts of text that felt like advertising. Of course, Wikipedia must remain neutral. But is this a good way, and if not, how can I improve it
Hello, MyMystry. If you want to edit that article, your objective should not be to limit advertising language, but to eliminate every trace of advertising language. You can start with the second sentence, which includes the word homologation. That word is some strange combination of jargon and bafflegab, and its presence in the article serves more to confuse rather than to enlighten the readers. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh? I thought that homologation was the standard word when talking of checking whether a vehicle meets all the (very many) standards set for it. (The article does have problems of wording; as an example, I'm stumped by "connected vehicle functionalities".) -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
First thing you can do is to remove WP:Peacock terms.
Secondly, you should remove exceptional claims that come from the company's own website. If something is only featured on the company's website and not on any reliable sources, its probably not important enough for inclusion. Primary sources should only complement the secondary sources, not make up majority of the article. Carpimapstalk to me!16:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
What is a good book based on citations?
What is a good book can have polarized points of view as to what qualifies as "good", based on citations. Does Wikipedia have a policy on this issue? An application of this issue is, for example, where there are articles on publishers that need extended material to remove it from being a stub. If someone writes that some of the books that were published benefited society, is there a standard on what is a good book that benefits society?
Andipost You have properly added references. However, given the size of the draft, it is still underreferenced. Also, remove any external links from the body of the article and trim the list of 'Notable works'. It appears that multiple people control your account; this is not allowed per WP:NOSHARING. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
How to make an edit on every page
when you click you wiki account it suggests you to edit article but what is there to edit? Does Wikipedia instantly know when something is wrong? WONKAKlD (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
He doesn’t really have an account he’s never showed me his ip address he looked very frustrated and I could tell he wasn’t joking WONKAKlD (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
eh, materialscientist is one of the best admins who fight vandalism on wikipedia. the blocks are long to prevent them from vandalising wikipedia for a long time. lettherebedarklight晚安11:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Block duration is explained here. Bear in mind that admins also get frustrated with constant vandalism and would rather not have to block anyone. Shantavira|feed me11:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi 1Firang. There are some general suggestions about this given in WP:APPNOTE, but it might be easier to give you a more specific answer if you can explain why you think you'd might be accused of canvassing. Does your question have to do with this? If it does, you might be better off continuing the discussion you're having with the administrator who issued the "topic ban" and see what they have to say on the matter first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@1Firang This is often done by posting on the Talk Page of the Project(s) which are interested in the article. See WT:CHEM for lots of examples. Just keep your request neutral, without indicating your own opinion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I am talking about this edit. It has been flagged as canvassing when I was trying to ping 30 other editors who had edited that article before (those who had both view points - for and against). Now I want to know how to do this without getting sanctioned any more (see this - my topic ban)!-1Firang (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The problem there is that the article is a contentious topic with special procedures applying: by choosing a particular set of editors to ping you give the appearance of canvassing, even if that were not your intention. The article has 55 page watchers and it should not have been necessary to ping anyone. There are general ways to resolve disputes described at WP:DISPUTE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
How many of you edit by using the "random article" thing on the upper left part of your screen? I keep getting random pages about Poland, so I was curious how "random" it truly is? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I only get articles about sports -- which I know nothing about, which is funny. I stopped using it, and now I only get obscure Vietnamese villages. It's good to know it's not just something going on with me. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Teahouse help, I signed up a few years ago to volunteer and I signed back in today and I can't save a new page I am working on in my sandbox. My user name is DCdesign1. Can someone help make my Sandbox active again? I did save what I am working on in a Word doc, so I can try again, as long as my account is re-activated. Thanks!
link: User:Dcdesign1Dcdesign1 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello and and welcome to the Teahouse. Does an error message appear when you click "publish changes"? 331dot (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Using Generative AI/ChatGPT, etc. to write articles
Good morning everyone. I'd like to know if anyone else uses such AI to write their articles. While it automates what we as editors do, does it do it better? I do not use it myself, but I feel it has potential to do what we do, but faster, and maybe better. And so using it might mean better content can be put out faster. Just like to other editor's views on this. SenatorLEVI03:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
No it makes alot of things up, and writes in a very biased way. It could work if it is trained on wikipedia editing specifically and not just general purpose, but not ChatGPT. Personally i don't use it anymore Sebbog13 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
While certainly fast, using a LLM to generate a Wikipedia article does have several significant drawbacks, the largest in my opinion being a lack of sourcing. It is not currently possible to ask any LLM to use reliable sources and cite material appropriately (which is mandatory), and any output may be somewhat or entirely incorrect, while maintaining a confident/encyclopedic tone. Note that the person publishing an edit is responsible for every edit they make; if someone is routinely adding unsourced or erroneous information, the use of AI is not an excuse. However, this doesn't mean that you cannot use LLMs at all - they can be very helpful in providing critique and suggestions for human-written text, creating a general outline of the key points you may want to research (but not the actual content, just a summary to guide you), paraphrasing, or copyediting. Tollens (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
LLMs can be helpful for rephrasing text or summarising information, but they're not yet capable of writing policy-compliant encyclopaedia articles. They make stuff up – including, worryingly, references – don't understand proper encyclopaedic tone, can't assess notability or neutrality, etc. They're certainly faster, but nowhere near good enough to write encyclopaedic text. See this discussion for where the community is at right now on the topic. We recently had a longtime productive editor blocked indefinitely just for suspicion of LLM usage, and there's a current open discussion about whether to create a new criterion for speedy deletion to address LLM-authored text at WP:VPI. Folly Mox (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely, I don't think anyone means to suggest otherwise, but as of now they simply aren't good enough to meet all of Wikipedia's policies. Tollens (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@SenatorLEVI: Welcome to the Teahouse! I tried using ChatGPT once to write a Wikipedia-like article about a musician. (This musician already has an article, but it's not great.) After trying different prompts, I finally received something that looked like a properly formatted article with footnotes. It was great, until I actually read it. It contained albums that the musician didn't release. Also, every single URL had nothing to do with the musician. When I told ChatGPT that the URLs were wrong, it apologized and provided new URLs, which were also wrong. I didn't end up using anything that ChatGPT suggested to improve Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@SenatorLEVI There is extensive discussion at WP:LLM and its Talk Page. The developing consensus is that such a.i. should not be used either for creating articles or for responding on Talk Pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
ChatGPT itself had this to say on the subject: "While some editors may consider utilizing AI to automate the writing process and expedite content production, it's important to recognize the potential drawbacks. AI, although capable of enhancing efficiency, lacks the nuanced understanding, context, and creative thinking that human editors bring to the table. While AI can automate certain tasks, human editors possess the ability to exercise judgment, apply critical thinking, and ensure accuracy. Relying solely on AI for content creation may compromise the quality and depth of articles, as AI models are trained on existing data and may not capture the intricacies required for comprehensive and reliable information. Collaborating with AI as a complementary tool can be beneficial, but striking a balance that preserves human expertise is crucial to maintaining the high standards expected from Wikipedia articles." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs10:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
ChatGPT is a limitless source of shit that sounds vaguely plausible with no necessary connection to reality. Bringing it anywhere near Wikipedia would be flagrantly unethical. XOR'easter (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Remember to log in before posting. You have submitted your draft and it is pending. As noted at the top, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,381 pending submissions waiting for review." 331dot (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
(ec) I take it you are User:Cena.aly, just logged out? With a quick once-over, it definitely needs to be toned down. The draft has lots of "user-friendly" and "enjoy features", etc. These sorts of phrases are not neutral. Download instructions and usage recommendations are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The words "you" and "your" should not be in the article. Fixing those issues would be a good start. Useight (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
If you don,t Mind Can you do that for me, I,m Quite new to this, Instead its My First Draft, So It will be Nice of you, if you can Edit these things for me. Cena.aly (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately we aren't here to be co-authors. Feel free to take your time, we have no deadline here. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Cena.aly, and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at Draft:ReVanced Extended, I'm surprised to see that not one of your sources has "ReVanced" in its title. Not one.
Now, I haven't looked at the sources themselves, and it's possible that some of them do have significant coverage of ReVanced Extended; but I wonder if you might have done what nearly everybody does who tries to write a Wikipedia article before they have spent significant time learning what Wikipedia's requirements are, and written the draft WP:BACKWARD. The fact that a lot of the draft has no references tends to reinforce this impression. ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Teahouse team, I have done a couple of tweaks to my article above and others have helped to put it in a better shape to remove the tag on it. Before removing the tag, I need some expected opinions on where to tweak further to give the article shape.
Also, I have asked that the draft form be G7 since the article has been sourced and completed so I need some help to get this done. Thank you all Oceanview1590 (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I presume this will not affect the main article as the draft link now is also linking the main article in live space. Oceanview1590 (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Flpino: Your article was deleted due to it being exclusively promotional. It's very unlikely you're going to get it back through WP:REFUND, so try writing the article in a neutral tone, and find the source that you were using potentially using browser history. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have received a message from Dan that I posted a blank page and it has been rejected, I did this in error but have subsequently tried to submit a completed page, it's all a bit confusing and I would appreciate any help I can get, I am new to this platform and finding it rather bewildering, thanks, Clive Elliott Clivelliott (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I am making articles for albums and bands I enjoy and I just dont understand I keep getting the lacking notability on them and I see other albums with like 1 link and then mine is almost exactly the same and I dont get the problem. Xstepperson (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately there are a lot of stubs and similarly unsourced articles on Wikipedia as the standards are stricter for new articles than they used to be (and these articles are often deleted as unnotable). You're better off sticking to the notability guidelines rather than using other articles as reference points. Note that both Discogs and Genius are listed at WP:RSP as unreliable and sometimes unreliable respectively, so an article that only cites those two sites as sources will not be accepted. Read over the guidelines I just linked and look for some better sources. If they're out there then you should be able to get the article through. Take a look at Help:Your first article as well, if you haven't already. Good luck! WPscattert/c04:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
So you think just Allmusic is good? Because especially the band LeFT im doing has like nothing on them and thats why I decided to make a wikipedia page for it to add easier access to the information. Xstepperson (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Have a look at WP:BACKWARD. Wikipedia articles are written on things that are already notable, not just everything that exists, and certainly not to bolster their notability. If there's "nothing on them" from reliable sources then they don't belong on Wikipedia. Find the sources first, then write the article around them. WPscattert/c04:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I have a few questions about creating a new article
I want to make an article for Garten of Banban. Although I believe it is notable, there aren't many publications, articles, or what Wikipedia would conisder "reliable sources" on it. I have a few (would any of these work? I read the notability thing so I know some are marked as usually unreliable but there's barely anything to choose from anyway: 12345678), but I don't think I'd be able to directly reference any of them other than the official Steam page. I think this topic definitely deserves an article, but with the lack of verifiable attention and notability, I'm not sure it would get approved.
Secondly, a page for the game already exists in the Italian Wikipedia. It has no sources, but is quite extensive, and seems like it would only need a little bit of editing after translation. I'm not Italian and I don't know anything about translating articles though...
Basically, I want to know if you think an article with so few reliable sources would be approved. The Italian article seems like good proof of how notable it is, but maybe that one is actually on its way to deletion...
Also, can I use reference non-English sources on the English Wikipedia?
Hi @Henriio. From a quick look at the sources you linked, I can see some issues: Steam isn't a good source as it is a primary source; TVTropes, Markiplier, KnowYourMeme can't be sources as they are user generated.
You say "but there's barely anything to choose from", which to me suggests there are simply not enough reliable sources to establish notability for this game. Not being able to find good sources is a bad indicator.
Note also that the different Wikipedia languages do have different notability policies, so an article existing on the Italian Wikipedia does not necessarily mean it would be accepted by the English Wikipedia. The fact the Italian page has no sources is probably a bad indicator too.
On a positive note though, you can indeed reference non-English sources.
@Henriio, no subject inherently deserves an article on Wikipedia. If it's been covered by enough reliable sources to establish notability, then it can have an article; otherwise, it cannot. Asking how to get an article published without reliable sources is like asking how to make a bird fly without wings. That's just not how it works. WPscattert/c16:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
If you're using the Wikipedia app, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to go from the article to the talk page, but you could use the search function for the talk page (e.g. Talk:Batman). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
In the Android app, if you're reading an article, the "three dots" menu at the top right includes an option "Talk page". ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Also in the Android app, if you go to the bottom of the page, under the heading "About this article", you will see links to "View edit history" and "View talk page". Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Please I need Your Guide On An Article!
Hi Again Teahouse Team, I have an article I have been working on in my sandbox for a couple of months now and I need some help with suggestions and feedback before I get it published to the live space to avoid any tag. I think I have done a lot of research on it and wanted to make sure that everything is in good shape before publishing it. Any suggestions, please? Many thanks Oceanview1590 (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I assume you are referring to your sandbox1. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit it for a review and get feedback. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
In the Article contributions section, remove all mention of his participation on and interactions with panels. Ditto the list of minor awards. David notMD (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Article Idea
Would an article about the laws surrounding bigfoot hunting in every American state be considered noteworthy enough, or not? It would be a serious article in tone, with information about actual real laws regarding hunting of Sasquatches. I know this is kind of a stupid question, but I've been thinking about it for a while. HarmfulHurdle91 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
A law was passed in Skamania County, Washington in 1969 (on April 1, if that's relevant) making it illegal to hunt bigfoot.[11] The law was revised in 1984.[12]A law was proposed in Oklahoma in 2021 which would establish a bigfoot hunting season, but I don't believe that it was passed.[13]Not a law, but the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department stated in 2012 that it is legal to hunt bigfoot in Texas. [14]CodeTalker (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Some infoboxes have a "pronunciation" field. Most don't (I think that is a problem) and those that do often do not use it (many editors don't know it exists or find it more useful to place in the first sentence). If you find an article that needs this sort of detail added and you don't know how to do it yourself, you can add a {{Pronunciation needed}} tag. DMacks (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
What articles to nominate
How do you determine which articles you should nominate for good/featured article status? I have worked on many articles, but have so many nominations that I'm unsure if I should keep nominating them. AFH (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Augustios Paleo: I guess it would depend on whether you think an article clearly meets or is quite close to meeting the criteria for GA or FA status. I'd imagine many editors improving articles specifically for the purpose of eventually attaining such status are doing so with those criteria in mind. Most articles aren't GA or FA quality from the get go and require some serious effort on the part of one or more dedicated editors to help them eventually satisfy the relevant criteria. While it's probably not always the case, I'd imagine that most FA articles are ones that were at one point GAs and then continued to be improved upon. May be the thing to do if you come across an article that you didn't create or contribute significantly too would be to check its corresponding article talk page to see if there've been any posts related to GA or FA stuff. You could also check the article's page history to see whether there's one or more editors who have been making some serious contributions to it recently. Someone might actually have been or been working towards GA or FA status and you don't just want to jump in out of nowhere and make it seem as if you're taking over things. For articles you've created or significantly improved yourself, you probably just self-assess as to whether you think a GA or FA nomination will have potential to pass or whether it will be dismissed asap. You don't want to nominate too many articles that are going to end up being declined asap because that could be seen as making frivolous nominations. Another good thing to do would be to add WT:GAN and WT:FAC to your watchlist, and actively participate in the discussions there because that could give you better insight into how things work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Augustios Paleo, I'll just comment on GA. Just reading, digesting and thinking about comments and requests can take quite some time. The further reading and rewording can add a lot more. And some nomination processes can balloon (example). Perhaps I'm an unusually feeble editor, but I'd never undertake to deal with more than one GA at one time. How many could you handle simultaneously and well? -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
I got a partial block for 2 whole weeks and now I can't use The Wikipedia Library; the problem being that all the articles I usually edit require scholarly articles as reliable sources, which I would normally access through The Wikipedia Library. Is there any work-around on this? Or am I basically restrained to edit on Wikipedia for two weeks? Many thanks. SpaceEconomist192✐ 13:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The workaround would be for you to appeal your partial block and thereafter not get blocked in the first place. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Since I can't do anything productive I will just nominate articles to be deleted, I guess. SpaceEconomist192✐
Your partial block applies to only one article. There are still lots of things you can do to positively contribute to Wikipedia without the Library. Or, you know, take a break. WPscattert/c16:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@SpaceEconomist192: I don't understand why a partial block would prevent you from accessing resources in the Wikipedia library? The resources available there (newspapers.com etc.) have no relation to your partial block. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Aargh! "Since I can't do anything productive I will just nominate articles to be deleted, I guess." Therein lies the problem with so many editors on Wikipedia. Rather than expend real effort trying to improve articles, they think they're being constructive by simply nominating stuff to be deleted without putting in any effort beforehand. Nominating articles for deletion can, in itself, be productive, but it shouldn't be a fallback for inexperienced editors who can't think of anything else to do. I despair! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
i was making my wikipedia page/ account for first time so one of my friend told me to take a help from his collogue if u have a problem in anything. he is based in pakistan and i am based in USA. somehow now my account is been locked and all the hard woek that i did is wasted in a way because that page or account is not opening. i need help in this regard to get the access back for my page and upload the last remaining thing done which is just linking the references of my work.
your prompt help is appreciated in this matter. Seemab.muzafar (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Seemab.muzafar, I quote Seemab Muzafar is a talented Artist, a successful Host, and an avid Traveler. Her passion for exploring new Culture and sharing her experience with others has made her a Popular Figure in Pakistan’s Media Industry her contribution to Pakistani media and culture have earned her a place among the most respected personalities in the country. This was deleted as blatantly promotional. It wasn't me who deleted it; but had I seen it first, I wouldn't have hesitated to delete it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
hi @Seemab.muzafar and welcome to the Teahouse! the short answer, as Hoary has mentioned, is that it has been deleted. I heavily discourage creating an article about yourself, as not only is it hard for someone new (and harder if they are related to the subject) to write an article, there are also reasons why you may not want one in the first place even if it does get accepted. if you do really want to write an article, I suggest writing about something other than yourself (or anything you are personally connected to), and check out the following policies and guidelines to help you write it: Notability, Reliable sources, and Your first article. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 00:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Seemab Muzafar was Speedy deleted, and now Draft:Seemab muzafar has been nominated for SD, as it appears to be a copy or near-copy of the previous draft, which was promotional in wording, without references, with hyperlinks in the text (not allowed). The blocking problem - if still exists - may have been due to you allowing a second person to use your account to work on your draft. Each account must be used by only one person. David notMD (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Your edits so far don't suggest to me that you are here to build an encyclopedia; but if I'm wrong and you have a question about using Wikipedia, then feel free to ask the question, coherently. -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, im new to editing and am just wondering about archiving (live) websites that I am citing. Is there a bot which goes to the wayback machine, creates an archive, and then adds the link to your citation? BennBluee (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Even if the bot is not running on a given wiki, the Internet Archive create archives of almost every new external link added to every Wikimedia wiki, and has been since 2013. If a bot is blocked or disabled on a wiki, it does not stop this work.
so does this mean the IAbot is already active on english wikipedia and will add archive urls to any external links I add? BennBluee (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think so AFAIK, IA Bot only archives websites automatically. To actually add those archive links to Wikipedia articles, you need to send a request to archive that page. Some pages are not archivable because of paywalls or other technological restrictions. You need to verify that the archive links are actually useful. Carpimapstalk to me!02:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
To clarify, Internet Archive will create archives of websites linked to by wikipedia (you will see "wikipedia outlinks" or something like that in the reason for scan on the IA website). That's an IA process and has nothing to do with editing the articles here; it makes no edits to wikipedia when it does this. That's not the same as the IAbot you can use to add archive links to articles. -- asilvering (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Your main question has already been answered, so I'm just putting this here to clear something up: The Internet Archive operates independently of Wikipedia and it has its own bots crawling the internet and archiving pages without any input from us, as well as people who archive pages manually. It's a fantastic resource that we use a lot, but it's not part of Wikipedia, it's its own thing. You can look up archived links or archive them yourself if you go here: https://archive.org/web/ - there is a pretty good chance that the pages you're using have already been archived. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I spend a lot of time creating it, so I would be really grateful, if it wasn't in vain. I am a bit frustrated, because everytime I fix something that is critizised, something new comes up, so it would be really helpful, if some lovely soul out here could tell me more in detail what needs to be changed.
The last thing that came up was that the article relies too much on non-independent sources, so it would be soooo helpful, if someone could tell me which sources I used exactly are to be considered independent / non-independent. Also I am wondering if that actually is the case, because standing alone, some of my sources might not be reliabel, but I often have three different sources from different organizations that are telling the same story - doesn't this make it reliable? It would be great, if someone could explain this to me.
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Karla.koala. Having removed those references to his own CV, it might then help us if you identified just the THREE best sources that you think show him to be Notable. You may have fallen into the trap of adding far too much detailed information that cannot be verified from sources independent of him. Buit, to be honest, until his CV has been removed as a sources of 'facts', there's no point doing anything el;se right now. You can use a CV to substantiate a date of birth, but nothing else, please. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello Nick, thank you for your input. I deleted the CV as a source. You might be right about some details.
The following sources are the ones I would consider to best show his notability and to be reliable at the same time, I could not really decide on three, so its five, I hope that is ok. I would be grateful if you could evaluate this point of view of mine and maybe tell me which ones are the best three:
Hi again, Karla.koala Your first source, though official-looking, would appear to be a personal blog, not an institutional one. Whilst its editors are both professors of human rights, I still feel it is not as sound as one managed by the ECHR itself.
That said, our notability guidelines for judges and politicians (see WP:JUDGE) does indicate that a position on an international level makes them notable. I see they are currently a redlink at List of judges of the European Court of Human Rights. The other sources are OK, albeit somewhat 'insider'-based. But WP:JUDGE should mean that an article is merited. Finding mainstream newspaper media that talk about him is helpful, too.
My suggestion is to severely trim down the article to a much, much shorter page by removing lots of trivial achievements. Try to think of this as being a summary encyclopaedia entry, rather than a detailed CV, and you'll probably have more luck when you submit it again for review. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I found this article in an Irish newspaper, which I think is valuable for showing international reporting of his stance on calling for Putin to face war crime charges. I would certainly put that in, whilst cutting out so much other, less important stuff. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, i recently submitted an article of noted media personality in Nepal, which was deleted.
Deleted with the message:
10:21, 18 June 2023 Jimfbleak talk contribs deleted page Draft:Sareeta Shri Gyawali (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: see WP:COI, WP:RS, [[WP:Notability (people}]]) (thank)
I was wondering why the article was deleted? while similar article are already there. Also there were reliable references too.
I am newbie and still confused, there are very reliable sources in the article, mostly of the news portal. Is it the tone of the writing? Yes i have also referenced her own website, is that the reason?
The exact reason is because the tone of the draft wasn’t neutral, it was very bias and only served to promote an individual or product. We also like to use reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject when writing articles, but that isn’t the reason the page was deleted. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I have been sanctioned and would like to avoid any further sanctions (see User_talk:Abecedare#Topic ban), so I feel it is good to ask here before I do anything. For the Rape_in_Afghanistan article, under the section Afghan law, I want to add, "According to Islamic law, rape by the husband (marital rape) is not recognised as an offence.[1] The same is accepted in Afghan law. Prosecution of rape under the category of zina makes rape extremely difficult to prove and exposes the victims to jail sentences for reporting that illicit intercourse was forced upon them.[2] Due to a number of high-profile instances, the risk of being prosecuted for zina creates a strong disincentive for women to report rape in some Muslim countries today.[3]" The last two sentences were copied from the Rape in Islamic law article as they were and the first sentence is altered a bit. In the same section, "Afghan law", there is a sentence, "With the support of the conservative and political elite, Afghan courts have taken and continue to take action in efforts to remove, lessen, or limit women's rights" which uses a pre-Taliban takeover source; what can be done about that (remove, edit or replace with a source that says that it is no longer so)?-1Firang (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I also want to add, "The Taliban have also abducted and locked up in a house at least twenty to twenty-five young Hazara females who were raped every night, after taking over Afghanistan.[4]". Is this sentence a good paraphrased sentence of what the source says?-1Firang (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I would not make the first edit you suggest. The article on "Islamic Perspective on Marital Rape" does not discuss Afghanistan but Indonesia, and "according to Islamic law, rape by the husband (marital rape) is not recognised as an offence" does not strike me as a fair interpretation of what the source says. "The same is accepted in Afghan law" is unsourced. Finally, "Due to a number of high-profile instances, the risk of being prosecuted for zina creates a strong disincentive for women to report rape in some Muslim countries today" is likely to be considered a violation of your topic ban, as the "some Muslim countries" in the source include Pakistan. (And, again, the source does not discuss Afghanistan!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
As for your second proposed edit, I do not think that the HRW report is sufficient to report in Wikipedia's voice that this happened; the claim about the twenty to twenty-five women is a report by an unnamed witness, and HRW's own comment is The difficulties inherent in documenting such attacks on women are many [...] We thus underscore the need for an investigation that is prepared to examine the full range of reported violations, including sexual violence. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
How about adding, "Human rights watch has asked for an investigation that is "prepared to examine the full range of reported violations, including sexual violence", after the Taliban took over Afghanistan in 2021."-1Firang (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The report was written in 1998 about "a massacre of civilians and other serious breaches of international humanitarian law committed in Afghanistan in August 1998", and cannot possibly support any claims about what happened "after the Taliban took over Afghanistan in 2021". Given that you already have one topic ban in the WP:ARBIPA topic area, and Afghanistan is part of this contentious topic, I would strongly advise you to steer well clear – editing in a contentious topic like this requires you to be scrupulously careful, and asking about using a report written about the Taliban in 1998 to support claims about their activities in 2021 suggests to me that you are not being careful enough. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Neither the about-us page (complete with a gmail contact address) nor the image credit of Images from web // Public Demain (what you find on the web, most of the time, is not public domain) fills me with much confidence. I would say it is shaky.
I'm currently updating an awards type article, by a well respected national charity organisation, which gives out funding. Coincidentally a news story about these awards popped up in my newsfeed not long ago.
I was searching for some simpler information about a different funding project, by the same organisation, when I noticed it would be better in a table, as there seems to be a lot of extra information added, which isn't listed by the organisation themselves.
On their website, they say the number of awards there currently are, along with a date (which is obviously when it was written, as the number then matches the date).
For example: 175 awards, on the 1st of January 2018.
Yet the file containing a list of the awards next to the description, shows that there's actually more.
For example: 200 awards.
Therefore they clearly haven't updated their website in 5 years, and have only updated the list itself, so now all the news stories are also mentioning the 5 year out of date number.
Should I ignore the number mentioned in news stories and in the dated description on the website, and write the actual number of awards?
Or should I still use the number mentioned in news stories and in the dated description on the website, even though it's 5 years out of date and incorrect, as the updated table will show? Danstarr69 (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
You can rename an article by clicking Move located in the More box (located between a star icon and the search box. There, you can type the new article name and a reason why. For further information, please see WP:MOVE.
Note: Before renaming, it is probably better to start a discussion on the article's talk page if other editors agree to the article rename (In order to not have an edit war breaking out.)
I'm drafting a page about a tech company in my sandbox and wonder if I should reference (in any mode) companies that the reader is probably not going to recognize? Thanks for any insights.. I'm a beginner but understand the COI requirements. Crystallake69 (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Crystallake69: The ability of readers to recognize a company is irrelevant. What matters is whether the source is reliable, independent of the subject of your article, and provides significant coverage of the subject of your article. See WP:Golden Rule for guidance.
The draft you mistakenly put in your user page about Tagos was rather promotional and the sources cited failed those requirements.
To start a draft article properly, follow the directions at WP:AFC.
But first, see the paid editing notice on your talk page. You are required to disclose your relationship with the company. This is a legally binding requirement that you agreed to abide by when you created an account here. If you continue editing without disclosure, your account will be blocked. See WP:PAID for guidance. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
My edits were reverted because I used a more accurate and updated source? I messaged two moderators and they never answer. I added new state titles and new sections in the athletics area but they were considered “disruptive.” I would like clarification on why they were removed and how I should format my next edit as for it to not get taken down. CM12312 (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
CM12312 We're not interested in helping you fight your school board.("This is me trying to prove a point. Valley High School will not let me speak at school board meetings so now they (along with the rest of the world) can look at this when they wonder why the school is falling apart.") You are tagging your edits as "minor", which should only be done if the meaning of the article is not changed. It's doubtful that the source you use to support state titles is considered a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I have moved the redirect Alpeh-omega to Aleph-omega due to a spelling mistake (the redirect with the correct spelling didn't exist before), but I'm having trouble figuring out what to do in this situation. Firstly, Alpeh-omega was a double redirect, which I promptly fixed. Secondly, the redirect shouldn't be nominated for deletion as per WP:CSD R3, partly because the original was created more than 10 years ago. Thirdly, I made sure to fix the anchors of both redirects and remove the notice on the original talk page. But now, a bot decided that this redirect's talk page, which was previously pointing to the moved redirect's talk page, should redirect to the talk page of its target. I'm thinking of deleting the talk page's redirect, but I'm unsure. What should I do in this case? Should I have just made a new redirect with the fixed spelling instead of moving it?
Additional note: I have noticed that a search for "Alpeh" does not bring results for Aleph, but instead uses a "Did you mean:" prompt to search for "Aleph", but that still means one additional click before reaching Aleph from a search for "Alpeh". Is this enough of a reason to make a redirect on Alpeh pointing to Aleph? -- Alpha514 (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The move you made was appropriate (and it would also have been appropriate to simply create a new redirect as you mention). The talk page redirect is also fine - talk pages of redirects are not typically monitored, so the redirect helps to consolidate discussion in a location more likely to be seen. A redirect from Alpeh is only appropriate if it is a common misspelling, there's no need for redirects from every misspelling of every word. It looks to me like there's nothing more you need to do with this set of pages - you've done everything correctly as far as I can tell. Tollens (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Yaseen safi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a wholesale account - is that an autocorrect from Wikipedia perhaps? You already have an account - that's why you have a username. Role accounts (those for a position like 'manager of XYZ company') are not permitted. If you're looking to create an article for your company, please note that writing articles about the company you work for is very strongly discouraged - please see the conflict of interest guideline for more information. Tollens (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Fkojadinovic Hello and welcome. Please don't ask for help in multiple locations, this duplicates effort. Wikipedia does not have profiles, not a single one. Wikipedia has articles. Wikipedia is not a place to upload a resume or CV; existence is not the criteria for inclusion, please see our definition of a notable person. If you are interested in writing an article about this person that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about them,(not merely a list of accomplishments) please see Articles for Creation.
I am just looking at this page ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/ConsumerLab.com ) and, as far as I can see, it contains plenty of citations, and has a similar style & tone to other wiki articles I have read. Hence I think I can delete the 'may require cleanup' tag at the top of the page. Is this correct? How do I know when to delete tags like this? BennBluee (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Publishing a Biography page about a movie producer
I have tried publishing the page about the movie producer, yet, it got declined saying that iMDB is not a valid resource. I am not sure which resources I should get, as the iMDB is the industry standard - and all information about the person can be found there.
Hello, Mili Radumilo, and welcome to the Teahouse! IMDB is user-generated and therefore not considered reliable. It seems like you may have written your draft backward, writing the article first, then looking for sources afterward. It is highly recommended to write the article the other way - look for sources first, then write the article using only content from those sources. This ensures that the resulting draft is fully supported by reliable sources, and that you can be certain of the subject's notability. For information on what constitutes a reliable source, have a look at the reliable sources policy. If it is not possible to find reliable, independent sources with in-depth coverage of the subject of the article, the subject is not considered to be notable. Tollens (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I did the research, but I truly considered iMDB to be more reliable than media articles. :D
I updated the draft with the articles I was using. Also, I did an interview with a person. Is that something that Wikipedia would approve? Many thanks for your help! Mili Radumilo (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Great! If you have reliable sources you simply didn't include, go ahead and add them (with inline citations as well) and it will greatly improve your chances of having the draft accepted. Just a couple tips, phrases like 'acclaimed', 'lifelong passion', and 'considerable expertise' will likely be seen by reviewers as not adhering to a neutral point of view unless those exact phrases are very well sourced, and you have several external links in the body of the text (this isn't looked upon very well, use wikilinks instead, even if they will be red). As Nick Moyes points out, interviews you have done yourself are not accepted as sources, because they are considered original research, which is not permitted, as Wikipedia aims only to compile information already published in reliable sources. This unfortunately also goes for anything you simply know personally - it has to be published somewhere to be included (this may go for information like their passion for Formula One, the football clubs they support, etc., unless these things have been published somewhere already. Tollens (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much guys @Tollens @Nick Moyes, great comments, I will be working on making the article stronger! :D
Another question (maybe a bit dumb - but I can't tell you how many times I deleted everything by accident). Is there any chance to save edits in the article without submitting it for approval? I am sure if I submit it now it will rejected again, and maybe even deleted.
You can absolutely save edits without submitting them - just click the resubmit button on the top banner when you're ready. Don't worry about deleting and losing anything, every version of every page (with very few exceptions) is permanently saved and accessible in the page history. Tollens (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
As a side note, since it seems you know this person, please have a look at the conflict of interest guidelines - it's strongly discouraged to write about anything you have an external relationship to, whether that's yourself, your family, your company, your friends, etc., since it's extremely difficult to represent the topic neutrally. In addition, if you do have a COI please note you are expected to disclose that relationship. (If you are being paid, and I'm not asserting that you are, this disclosure is required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use.) Tollens (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
To make it clear; using interviews that have not been published is original research and not acceptable. The essay Cordless Larry points to is an interesting discussion of the use of published interviews. Gab4gab (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Mili Radumilo. Just like Wikipedia, IMdB is user-edited, with no overall journalistic/editing oversight. That makes it liable to wrong information being inserted. We do not regard either Wikipedia itself, or IMdB suitable as sources to support factual statements in other Wikipedia articles. Put simply, if the person in question hasn't had coverage in mainstream media articles, they will not meet our notability criteria until they eventually do receive it. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Even I have provided proper reliable sources..the user Sneha996 keep removing my edits and making her wish kind of fan based edits, multiple times, which makes me so disappointed and sad.
Reading that article is a jarring experience, Jyomon. The lead section as currently written implies that it is a terrible movie, saying Upon release it received poor reviews due to unimpressive content, and calls it a "disaster" and a "Flop", with incorrect capitalization. On the other hand, the "Reception" section says The film mostly received positive reviews from critics and quotations from mostly positive reviews follow that summary. There is a really serious disconnect in the article. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and compliance with it is mandatory. You cannot call a film a "disaster" or a "flop" unless you cite reliable sources using that type of terminology. You cannot say a film received poor reviews when the reviews from reliable sources cited in the article are mostly positive. Cullen328 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, the Times of India is a very dubious source for this type of assessment, especially pertaining to entertainment. See Paid news in India for a description of how this newspaper gives positive coverage ti entertainment enterprises that pay them off, and by implication, much less positive assessments of those that do not pay them. That is a fundamentally corrupt business model, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Searching for a light and imaging wikipedia expert
Hello everyone,
I'm currently looking for a moderator that is acquainted with the light and imaging science (or with scientific reviews reading in general).
I'm trying to create a wikipage for the company currently employing me that has a very unique technology. Here is the link to the review of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 June 7#:~:text=12-,:37,,-7 June 2023 review of submission by Pierre Boltoukhine[|my submission]]. Also, here is the link to my latest exchange with other moderators who advised me to seek help here. On the latest link you can find the studies that I submitted to the other wiki moderators. Pierre Boltoukhine (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
That first link is this. Pierre Boltoukhine, Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. It has a very few "arbitrators", but these only get involved in extraordinary situations. It has many "administrators", but I don't see why you need one of these, either. If the technology truly is unique (let alone very unique), perhaps an article about it would be a better idea than one about the (your) company. -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy to Teahouse Hosts: Draft in question is Draft:Nüvü Camēras Inc. Pierre has declared PAID on User page. Status is submitted once, declined once. P.S. Nüvü Camēras Inc is not the author of any sci journal articles. David notMD (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Pierre Boltoukhine Ten of the 27 refs are to sci journal articles which have OD - a founder of Nüvü Camēras Inc - as a co-author. These cannot be considered as independent refs toward contributing to Wikipedia notability. Furthermore, the refs are about the technology, but not about the company. User:Hoary's suggestion that an article about the technology rather than the company may hold merit. David notMD (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Question about non-free image
Greetings, I am new to editing and uploading to wikipedia. Recently, I have been editing Toro Inoue. I uploaded an image taken from Sony, however it was removed due to it not being free content. I still wanted to use the image in order to display the character onto the page, I would like suggestion on what to do, thank you. Ohwelpwelp (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The simple suggestion, Ohwelpwelp, is "Forget it", because the page already has an image that displays the character. But if you are sure that the image would be more informative and helpful than the one currently shown, please read and study Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Cherielechat1.0 To be clear: Use WP:AFC to create a draft about Mori. All content in the draft must be supported by references. What you think and what you know is useless. Unless there are valid refs, don't bother. If you do decide to create a draft, do so by cutting all the content you have placed on your User page and pasting that into the draft.
IF (big if) you succeed in having your draft rviewed and accepted by a reviewer (a process that can take months), more time will pass before it is seen via a Google search. David notMD (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Cog-san. I'm not aware of such a filter on page content. Some characters are blacklisted in page names but a page can still be created by an administrator and edited by others. Are you trying to do something which doesn't work? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
i just noticed it was the one type of vandalism that never popped up in the edit histories, and found one edit with them filtered on an ip's log
The draft is nowhere near ready for yet another resubmission for review. The edited lead still reads way too much like an advert: Heatherlie House Hotel situated in Selkirk, Scottish Borders, is a notable establishment with a rich historical background. The hotel is recognized for its captivating natural surroundings. The architectural design of the hotel harmoniously combines traditional charm with modern sophistication, resulting in an aesthetically pleasing and captivating structure. The interior of Heatherlie House Hotel is meticulously crafted, featuring opulent decor, Scottish textures, and tasteful furnishings that create an ambiance of both grandeur and comfort.Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs10:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
@Q-conner Not only that, but :"The interior spaces would be adorned with rich materials, such as dark wood paneling, intricate plasterwork, and decorative moldings." What's with the future tense? Did it not happen? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I haven't viewed the draft, and here merely respond to Nick Moyes' question "What's with the future tense?" First, English lacks a future tense, as is carefully explained in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL). This of course doesn't mean that it lacks ways of talking about the future. Here, would is the preterite of will. It has various uses; but here, "Would is [...] used to express futurity in the past, futurity relative to the time referred to by the preterite". As for whether it happened, "the actualisation is virtually required to have already taken place" (CGEL, p.198). It's a common device in standard English. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Q-conner, you need to start by deciding whether you want an article about the existing hotel, or about the building (which I assume was originally a laird's mansion, though your draft nowhere mentions this). Then:
Delete the entire current pile of unreferenced promotional guff.
Find several reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of your chosen subject. Books will do fine.
If you can't find at least three such sources, give up. Your chosen subject does not warrant a Wikipedia article.
If you can find such sources, write a draft that is based entirely on what they say, citing them as you go. Maproom (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Does it comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view?
Hello. Can someone help me confirm whether this article am trying to edit complies with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view? I have edited some parts that seems to be biased. Dorian Rhea DebussyMaxPG88 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
If you feel that you have addressed the concern raised by the maintenance template(and you aren't the one with the COI), you may remove it. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi there - I was told that the person I'm writing an article on doesn't seem to have enough notoriety. I'm not really understanding the descriptions provided for that. We've provided lots of reliable, secondary sources (like Essence, PBS, etc.) - and she even has a presidential appointment from US President Biden. So...I'm not really certain how much more notoriety they're looking for or why the many sources I've provided still don't seem to measure up? Many of her peers in the same field who have less publicity than she does have made it onto Wikipedia, so I'm not really understanding what the difference is. AndreaTheoJohn (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, AndreaTheoJohn, and welcome to the Teahouse! I haven't looked at the article in any depth yet, but I notice you use 'we' In your question. I see your username previously represented that of a company - if you are editing on someone's behalf or being paid to edit in any way, please see the conflict of interest guideline, the policy on paid editing if applicable, and please disclose that relationship if one exists. Tollens (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have time to go through all the references, but I did find three early on in the article that don't appear to give significant coverage of the subject (and that's one of the criteria to establish notability). See Golden Rule. Correct me if I'm wrong; otherwise recheck the coverage in the references you're providing:
"She attended A.J. Moore Academy." She's not mentioned in the source about the reunion.
"Rhodes’ career in historic preservation began with her 2008 involvement in a project". She's not mentioned in the source.
"She played a critical role in identifying and engaging eight historic Black churches". She's not mentioned in the source.
You can still use such references to back-up facts in the article, but these won't add to her notability. It's also a matter of significant facts being verifiable by what is actually written or spoken in the sources, not just notability.
I just went through the first half - that seems to be the case with a large majority of the sources. 'Significant coverage' is defined in WP:GNG by the following: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Almost all of the references provided discuss the HOPE program Rhodes is the director of, not Rhodes - while these do establish the notability of that program, there is only a passing mention of Rhodes, or no mention at all. Tollens (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The impression I get is that the editor has got hold of a detailed resumé and has looked for references to back that up, rather than finding sources and then writing to reflect what the sources actually say. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs18:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, AndreaTheoJohn, and welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to the points that others have made, I'm afraid that your draft is hopelessly promotional in its language: it's full of phrases which are chosen to enhance the subject (eg "high-profile awards", "prestigious Loeb fellowship", "well-established publication", "recognized as a leading expert in"), as well as vapid marketing speak such as "continues to gain recognition through initiatives to leverage both public and private sector tools, emerging technologies, and unprecedented levels of community engagement to modernize the preservation space"). That is not what a Wikipedia article does: it summarizes, neutrally, what indepedent commentators have said about the subject. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
If, as I suspect, you are associated with Rhodes, then you are likely to find it hard to write sufficiently neutrally about her - that is why we discourage editing with a conflict of interest. What you will need to do, having found those independent sources which contain significant coverage of her, is to forget everything you know or think about her, and write an encyclopaedia article based solely on what those sources say. (And if some of the reliable sources say things about her that you really don't like, you should put those things in, too).
Many people have completely wrong idea that "having a page" on Wikipedia is a good thing, something to aspire to, something to help their internet presence. That is not what Wikipedia is for, and promotion of any kind is forbidden. And there is no question of "deserving" or not deserving an article, because nobody in the universe, not even Jimmy Wales "has" an article.
An article about Rhodes, if one is accepted, will not belong to her, will not be controlled by her, will not necessarily say what she wants it to say, and will not be for her benefit, except incidentally.
As for the question of notability (not "notoriety"!): the criterion is about ensuring that there is enough independent reliably published material about the subject to base an article on. It may be that the other articles you are referring to do have adequate independent reliably published sourcing; or it may be that they don't, and should be improved or deleted. We have thousands and thouseands of articles, mostly old ones, that wouldn't be accepted if they were submitted now. See other stuff existsColinFine (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouose. The first article was deleted on 2022-03-23 as "unambiguous advertising and promotion". Advertising is not permitted on Wikipedia.
The second was deleted on 2022-04-12 for multiple reasons: unambiguous advertising and promotion; copyright infringement; and creation by a blocked or banned user. The copyright infringement means that it will not be restored.
Both the article and the draft are locked against creation because of the long history of promotional time-wasting by a series of sockpuppets. If you are truly not part of that promotional cabal, I suggest that you present, here, at least three reliably published sources, each of which is completely independent of VPD - not written or published by him or his associates, and not based on interviews or press releases - and each of which contains significant coverage of him.
If you can do that, then that will indicate that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and an article is possible - provide those and you may be able to persuade an admin to allow you to create a draft. If you cannot find three such sources, then don't waste any more time on it. ColinFine (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Varun Pradip Dave (Born 7 October 2001) is a powerlifter, actor and ted talks (tedx) speaker from India.
Every one of those links gives me error 404, because you have included part of the citation code not just the URL. But judging from their titles and origins, the only one that even might meet the tripartite condition I mentioned above (see WP:42) is the Brut media one. Until you provide some sources whose origin and title suggest that they actually might be independent and reliable, I'm not going to waste my time trying to read them. ColinFine (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Correction - looking at the URL and the title, I expect that the Brut media one is based on an interview, and not independent.
Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
To repeat a point made by ColinFine, you will need to ask an Administrator permission to start a draft about VPD. I suggest you go to the Talk page of one of the Admins who had deleted the article or draft, make your case showing 3-4 best references, and declare that you are not one of the previously blocked editors. Honestly, given the long, bad history, it is unlikely you will get permission to proceed. David notMD (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hamish Harding article - Circular sources
The Hamish Harding article is about a person presently missing on the mini-sub at the Titanic site. Most of the sources are very poor (e.g. mid-east websites and new sheets of little/no provenance). However, the mainstream media is now using the Wikipedia article verbatim. I think it's not good form to link at a discussion page to an outside source so I'll put an example website here in full (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/19/hamish-harding-the-british-explorer-missing-at-sea-near-the-titanic). The words and phrases are literally lifted from the wikipedia article (I edited a couple last night which no longer appear and they are quoted verbatim in the Guardian article). My question is this: Does the fact that the poorly sourced info has now been used by the mainstream media mean that those latter articles now amount to non-deprecated sources? One thing which has struck me here is now little is known about the subject (i.e. nothing in any MSM sources - for a billionaire, that seems v odd. Nothing in Forbes, Sunday Times Rich List. Nothing anywhere. No link to a big earning business. Nothing at all about business deals, etc, notably nothing in business publications. For the main part, no non-mid east sources to details about degrees, qualifications, etc. I don't doubt the guy is real (!) but the quality of the sources and info seems way too low to be used in a Wikipedia article. I can't see what part of WP:RS applies to cases of non-deprecated sources simply recycling deprecated ones. Any thoughts, anyone? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
@Emmentalist: Earwig's copyvio detector is a Wikimedia Toolforge tool which is usually used to determine if a Wikipedia editor copied material verbatim from an outside source. But it is agnostic about who's-copying-whom, so it will also evaluate possible copying in the other direction. In this case, Earwig tags the likelihood of The Guardian copying from the Wikipedia article as "Unlikely (27%)". Note that a certain amount of common expressions being the same is not necessarily unusual; any article on him will list his various roles or professions, and so on. As the length of common strings gets longer, and the number of them goes up, it gets more suspicious. You can check Earwig's analysis yourself, and see what you think. Oh, and by the way, it's perfectly okay to add these links or have this conversation at the article Talk page, which at a minimum, should probably post a link to this discussion. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
When is a family tree a family tree?
Hello. I included the following diagram in article Bird, Savage & Bird to help readers understand a complex business and family relationship. It was during the embryonic years of America when merchants Bird Savage & Bird were banking agents for the American Government (before Barings took over). It was a relationship that even I was confused about before I drew out the chart. A fellow editor has removed it on justification that: " Wikipedia is not a genealogy reference - family trees should be included only when relevant to understanding a notable topic, and there's no indication why that would be the case here." I do not think this chart should be classed as a "Family Tree" and for the benefit of readers should remain in the article. Any thoughts folks?
Bird, Savage & Bird - Family connections
Thomas Bird (1694–1746) m Elizabeth Martyn (1695–1758)
John Manning (1703–1738/9) m Sarah Coventry (1711–?)
Robert Bird (1723–1788) m Mary Merttins[1][2] (1722–1804)
It doesn't look at all necessary to me either, and I agree with Theroadislong's suggestion; but my own tip is that to make it look more important (and perhaps even necessary), you might find some way of inserting simplified information about who among them had a position in the company Bird Savage & Bird, and when. This could be as simple as emboldening these particular people's names and adding the years within [ ]. -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
THANKS. I should have included the paragraph that accompanied this chart:
The Bird brothers were fortunate in their family connections: one of their uncles was Abel Smith (1717–1788), a prominent figure in the development of the Smith, Payne & Smiths bank. William Coventry Manning's son William married Abel Smith's daughter Elizabeth in 1786. Two of Manning's daughters also married into influential families: Sarah Manning married Benjamin Vaughan (1751–1835), and Martha Weatherell Manning married John Laurens, who was the son of wealthy South Carolina plantation owner and trader Henry Laurens.
However, I will let it go. I tried not to make it too complex. Picture is worth a thousand words, etc. John Laurens (killed in American War of Independence) was a close friend of Alexander Hamilton and his father Henry Laurens was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States plus a signatory of the Treaty of Paris. Benjamin Vaughan acted as a go between for the British during these negotiations. Bird Savage & Bird corresponded with George Washington and Alexander Hamilton during their years of business and the paragraph and chart should have shown the close ties they had with the influencers in America. Hey-Ho, move on. The Bird brothers were also cousins of William Wilberforce his mother (Elizabeth Bird) being their aunt. I have not found any reference to slavery in connection to Bird Savage & Bird but the people such as growers they dealt with in South Carolina most certainly were. Sidpickle (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sidpickle When most or all of them are famous as far as I know.
Wikipedia doesn't like it when non-famous relatives of famous people are added to the articles of those famous people, whether they're immediate family or not, as I've found out in the past when adding mothers, fathers, siblings, children etc.
There's lots of famous families I know of (however only a few I can think of off the top of my head), however the biggest is probably one I stumbled across a few months ago when updating IMDB, and realised that a family of 20 or 30+ people are all involved in filmmaking (it seems to be at least 1 of them in each department), and have made some massive record-breaking films for their country, yet for some reason, only 2 of them have Wikipedia articles.
Now that family definitely needs a family tree, something I've not tried before, but I might get around to it one day. Danstarr69 (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I am trying to revamp my userpage, and I added some CSS to make the text white (color: #fff), but headings are still black (at least in the Vector 2022 skin).
It isn't inheriting the style from the div because all headings are explicitly set to black (for some reason), so that's overriding the inherited style (you also can't just throw in a !important, since as an inherited style it will still be overridden). You could just use an h2 element instead of the wikitext header, and override its style as "color:inherit;" so that you only have to edit it in one place (<h2 style="color:inherit">About me</h2> instead of ==About me==). Tollens (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
If the text is going to be white, are you going to try to make the background a different color like black? ― Levi_OPTalk20:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I somehow missed the link to the page in the first message. As far as I know, you cannot change the css of the headers and other non-html elements of the source. The only thing you could do is create another header that looks the same and put it over the other one. ― Levi_OPTalk20:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
You can change the CSS of headers - just use the actual HTML header elements rather than the usual wikitext ones - the wikitext gets converted anyway. Tollens (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Ahh, you're right. I either didn't know that or had forgotten as I don't use Wikipedia much anymore 😅. Thanks for the info! ― Levi_OPTalk20:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Missed your edit - do you mean the ones in the top header part, or a wikilink somewhere in the lorem ipsum text? Tollens (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
To switch to the old Wikipedia, go to the Preferences, located at the top of the page. Then, go to Appearance. You can change to the old version there.
I have been sanctioned and would like to avoid any further sanctions (see User_talk:Abecedare#Topic ban), so I feel it is good to ask here before I do anything. For the Rape_in_Afghanistan article, under the section Afghan Taliban, I want to add, "According to Amnesty International, since the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in August 2021, they have violated the rights of females and destroyed the system of protection and support for those fleeing violence.[1]" Will it be acceptable?-1Firang (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @1Firang: since your proposed addition and the linked article never mention Pakistan (the object of your T-ban) once, you are probably safe adding it. But that's just my opinion, and if I'm wrong you could be affected, and to quote the admin, "Skating at the edges of the topic-ban is treacherous." Why not pick out something completely different? Then you wouldn't have to pose the question. Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I have been editing Afghanistan related articles and nobody has objected, probably because it is not covered by my Topic ban. Now please let me know if that sentence needs to be paraphrased any more (especially the last bit, "the system of protection and support for those fleeing violence").-1Firang (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I know I was warned against canvassing at some point, but until someone refers to me of another convenient and ideal way of doing this, I'm just going to have to leave this here, in case for some reason, simply leaving the note on the talk page isn't effective. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Despite a theory that humans evolved from frugivores, humans are not frugivores now. You edited to claim that at Human and Human nutrition and have correctly been reverted at both. At the Talk page for Human, your position has been refuted at length. David notMD (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Moved from the Administrators' Noticeboard
Courtesy link: User:Windrushnation/sandbox ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
. Doug butler (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: WONKAKlD
. You can go back to the Vector legacy skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Enable limited width mode, which forces whitespace around article text. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}