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.
Hello everyone- So I am pretty frustrated and unsure what to do at this point. A little back story here; I was born Andrea Jenkins. Thats my legal name. There is another Andrea Jenkins, a transgender politician that over powers me completely. I have been in the news, in competitions, won awards. I have famous friends, in podcasts, on the radio etc etc etc. I started as a youtuber in 2014. Then continued expanding my modeling. I have worked with a few large brands. I started making music, to which my first song Royaltea is a metaphor for this entire situation. Newsbreak actually posted my picture on the other Andrea Jenkins bio, talk about an odd rumor to have circulating about you?! To say that me. A mom of 5. That is 37. To tell the world I am 61 with a pecker?!
So I have been in the industry for a long time. And I am not getting anywhere near the top of a search page unless people type in exact key words. Because this other Andrea Jenkins over powers me. How do I get my Wikipedia page up? It shouldn't be this difficult. Any suggestions or tips please? I am begging at this point so I can keep my birth name and not have to go by some silly name like the wheez cheez for people to find me! 2600:6C4A:757F:6A64:B032:14FF:FEA5:8D8E (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Someone will create a Wikipedia article about you once it seems you are notable enough. It is generally not recommended to create a Wikipedia article about yourself; such efforts usually waste your time and volunteers' time. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Andrea. I'm sorry you're having this problem. But it has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia. Unfortunately, many people have the idea that Wikipedia is like other sites where you can "set up a page" about yourself or an organisation: it's not. It is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutrally written articles about notable subjects - with Wikipedia's own meaning of "notable", which is roughly that enough material has been independently published about the subject to base an article on.
Dear Teahouse Community, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek guidance and address a concern regarding the rejection of my Wikipedia article on Farouk Drums. The rejection was based on the use of Facebook references, and I understand the need for reliable sources on the platform. However, I am seeking advice on alternative sources to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's reliability standards. Firstly, could you suggest credible sources outside of social media references that would be suitable for Farouk Drums' Wikipedia article? I am committed to providing verifiable information that aligns with Wikipedia's standards. Additionally, I came across a potential reference from https://melomm.com/album/eb1d6181-effc-4ebb-97ff-a48032de730d. Before I include it, could you clarify whether this source is acceptable according to Wikipedia's standards? I appreciate your time and assistance in helping me navigate these challenges and ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented in Farouk Drums' Wikipedia article. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, [Khant] KhantExploreWiki (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi User:KhantExploreWiki – generally news articles are the most common type of reference in a biography, though I can't find any in my own search. Unfortunately, sometimes the required sourcing for an article subject just doesn't exist – in these cases the article can't be published. The link you provide doesn't actually appear to mention a "Farouk Drums", but rather someone named Farouk credited with playing the drums in the track 'King TutanKhmun Zaw Latt'. If this is indeed the correct person, while the source is likely reliable, it doesn't contain significant coverage of Farouk Drums – in order to establish notability a source must go beyond a passing mention of the subject. I'm sorry this almost certainly isn't what you're hoping to hear, but it doesn't look like this topic is suitable for Wikipedia, at least for now. Wikipedia's purpose is only to summarize what reliable sources have already said about a topic – if they haven't said anything yet there isn't a strong basis for the article to be written from. Tollens (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your prompt response. Given that the information pertains to the correct individual, I'm curious about your recommendation for its suitability on Wikipedia. Would creating a dedicated website for Farouk Drums be a viable option to serve as a reliable source, or would utilizing LinkedIn be more advisable in this context? I value your guidance in navigating the best course of action.KhantExploreWiki (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm having trouble citing reliable sources. I'm trying to create a page, but my sources were not accepted or properly cited and the page was rejected.
Please help :) Dpn427 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Bobbo Byrnes. It doesn't look like your article has any references. I would find articles that report on his band, The Fallen Stars, or on him in particular (not interviews), and use them to support the information you've written. In this case you might have an easier time writing about the band he formed rather than the singer/songwriter himself, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject to say for sure.
Also, you might want to take out the link to the "The Fallen Stars" website and include it in a section titled "External links" at the end of the article, if you are to include it at all. Reconrabbit19:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Dpn427, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.
I'm afraid your experience is common for editors who try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works. Would you book a public concert when you have been learning a musical instrument for two days? Or enter a major tournament in a sport you've only just taken up?
I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million articles before they even try to create an article: in particular, learning about verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and [[WP:notability|].
Your draft cites no sources at all, let alone reliable ones. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Dpn427 Declined is less severe than Rejected, but contrary to what you wrote above, there is no evidence that you provided any references. Please do not resubmit until all facts are referenced. David notMD (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello peoples. I was wondering where I could put in a request to have some pages from my userspace be deleted. I feel like a lot of the pages there aren't really necessary, and so I would like them gone. List of pages I want deleted will be provided upon you asking for it. That's all. Thanks so much! Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 19:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Frostyibex Whilst you can just WP:BEBOLD and make a change, now that you've posted a suggestion and sought feedback/consensus, you should wait about seven days for others to reply before changing it if you don't get any responses. The article you have posted on has 150+watches, so I would either expect some comments, or assume disinterest in any change you propose. Does that help? Obviously, anything you change should be based on reliable sources and not infringe WP:BLP. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
In past 2 or 3 weeks, I've spotted two needed corrections
[There's] an obvious misprint in the article "Napoleon And The Jews" where the date of Irish revolutionary Thomas Corbet's letter to France's Directorate should be 1799. A less clear mistake appears to be in the article on David Petraeus where he apparently worked on a field manual with James Mattis but another James M. is what's printed.
I created College Park City Hall a while ago and it was reviewed on Jan 4. It still does not seem to indexed by Google, so I was wondering whether there is any additional step that needs to be taken so that it is indexed or it's just Google being silly. Thank you. Blacktupelo (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
It's showing up for me on the first page of Google search results for "College Park City Hall". (And the article is the top result for a Bing search.) Deor (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I swear I googled it several times before posting this and it was not showing... but it does show now indeed. Thanks whoever/whatever it was! Blacktupelo (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
In the lead paragraph, I am trying to improve text for neutrality. Could you please tell me if this will be a good way to improve the context in the lead section?
Currently, the text is
It has been criticised for its core business model, which detractors believe to threaten the fight against cross-border corruption and crime.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Guarascio|first=Francesco|date=2019-01-23|title=EU warns of crime risks from governments' sales of passports, visas|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-passports-idUKKCN1PH14N|access-date=2021-03-28}}</ref> Henley's immigrant investor programs in Malta and in St. Kitts and Nevis have stirred controversy.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Conflicts of Interest and Controversial Clients: Henley & Partners' Caribbean Business |url=https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/conflicts-of-interest-and-controversial-clients-henley-and-partners-caribbean-business |access-date=2022-03-19 |website=OCCRP}}</ref><ref name="GuardianLeaks" />
But there are reliable WP:RS sources like GQ that also show the other side of the picture. I feel adding this line shows both the sides of the picture and makes it neutral.
According to a report by the International Monetary Fund, the program has helped St. Kitts and Nevis come out of a four-year recession.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bullough |first1=Oliver |title=Is St Kitts And Nevis’ passport scheme lucrative for all involved? |url=https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/st-kitts-and-nevis-citizenship |access-date=27 December 2023 |work=British GQ |date=21 July 2018 |quote=The report described how selling passports had pulled St Kitts And Nevis out of a four-year recession}}</ref>
@ANLgrad:, hello! On Wikipedia, neutral point of view does not mean "no point of view". The weight given to the viewpoints reflected in an article should reflect the existing body of sources on the subject. To me, your edit does not balance viewpoints, but rather replaces a negative perspective with a positive one. Also, I am not certain, but while both sources are likely viable, Reuters is likely more reliable than GQ for representing claims in this context. I would recommend posting on the article's talk page to start a discussion about what may or may not be due weight within an article. I also recommend reading the two pages I've linked, they will likely explain a lot. Cheers! Remsense诉22:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense:, hello Remsense诉! thanks for checking this. I think I didn't put out my point clearly. My bad! I didn't mean to say that the criticism part should be removed. What I was meaning to say was that the line from GQ about the economic impact should be added after the line about criticism. Something like this
It has been criticised for its core business model, which detractors believe to threaten the fight against cross-border corruption and crime.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Guarascio|first=Francesco|date=2019-01-23|title=EU warns of crime risks from governments' sales of passports, visas|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-passports-idUKKCN1PH14N|access-date=2021-03-28}}</ref> Henley's immigrant investor programs in Malta and in St. Kitts and Nevis have stirred controversy.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Conflicts of Interest and Controversial Clients: Henley & Partners' Caribbean Business |url=https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/conflicts-of-interest-and-controversial-clients-henley-and-partners-caribbean-business |access-date=2022-03-19 |website=OCCRP}}</ref><ref name="GuardianLeaks" /> According to a report by the International Monetary Fund, the program has helped St. Kitts and Nevis come out of a four-year recession.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bullough |first1=Oliver |title=Is St Kitts And Nevis’ passport scheme lucrative for all involved? |url=https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/st-kitts-and-nevis-citizenship |access-date=27 December 2023 |work=British GQ |date=21 July 2018 |quote=The report described how selling passports had pulled St Kitts And Nevis out of a four-year recession}}</ref>
In my opinion, text about the criticism should definitely remain, but the line about how it positively impacted the country's economy could be added after the criticism line. Do you think this is a fair addition? Cheers!
ANLgrad (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Where exactly in the WikiProject Television should I ask this question, if no-one here knows
A film was commissioned for TV.
A TV boss wasn't happy with it, and wanted the producers to change some stuff, before they would broadcast the film they commissioned on TV.
So after around 2 years of arguing and waiting, the producers decided to get it screened at the Edinburgh International Television Festival to TV executives, without the permission of the TV company who commissioned it.
Is a screening at the Edinburgh TV Festival classed as a public release?
GoingBatty the reliable sources say it was shown to TV executives at that festival. But is that festival classed as public or not? Or is it classed as private, like when filmmakers show cast, crew, friends, family etc a film before they release it properly? Danstarr69 (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
My user name is carptrash and I have been an editor for more than 15 years. Tonight, after being logged on earlier today, suddenly, I can't log in. I get the following message. "There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please resubmit the form. You may receive this message if you are blocking cookies." I have resubmitted the form several times, no luck and have no idea how to block cookies on my computer, and I have not made any changes in any thing in any case. Any suggestions? carptrash 2600:8800:590F:8600:F081:3B73:A055:36D9 (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Where would I ask for others to review the entry? Is that allowed? I'm not sure commenting on the talk page itself would do much is the concern I have. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, as someone who is new to Wikipedia I am working on the English translation version for Hypergryph (known for Arknights) but the problem is that I couldn't find enough resources. I translated the Hypergryph wiki page from the original translation into different languages a few times, but I need help trying to find some sources for the English version. Here is the link to what the english translation currently looks like:
Draft:HypergryphTriFusion (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
TriFusion, while English-language sources are preferred when they provide equivalent information, sources for an article may be in any language. However, you will want to ensure they are reliable according to the English Wikipedia's policies, which may be different from those on Chinese Wikipedia. This is all assuming that you are fluent enough in Chinese to read the sources and assess your translation, as editors should not translate articles from languages they do not speak. — Remsense诉23:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok, Thank you so much for your help! I'm currently working on adding more to the draft while also looking for more sources as soon as possible. TriFusion (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense: Just as a point of interest, I wrote the article Paul Trappen by translating the German version even though I don't speak German. I have only a passing familiarity with German, and made heavy use of Google Translate in both directions - which wouldn't be as reliable for Chinese. Even so, it was a long, hard job that I wouldn't care to repeat, but I believe I created a better article than the original. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I generally strongly advise against doing this regardless of the source language. I would regularly consult with a fluent speaker during translation at bare minimum. Remsense诉03:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense Whilst your advice may seem sensible in many situations, I would comment that it is quite possible to create a quality Wikipedia article using sources in languages that you cannot speak. I created a far better article in English on Joseph Vallot than currently exists on French Wikipedia by using various translation tools, plus my incredibly limited schoolboy French and an interest in the subject. The key thing about using translation tools is to ensure you actually understand the subject you're writing about, and not solely the language! But extra care is obviously needed in such situations. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
We agree that it is possible as such—in the context of the Teahouse, all I mean to say is that I would strongly advise any given person not to, all else being equal. I would say the prospect is treacherous at a fundamental level, but I couldn't claim to know how many waypoints any individual editor has to guide them. — Remsense诉10:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I doubt it, Dentsinhere43. But why worry? Articles don't need infoboxes. (Arguably they benefit from them. But I haven't yet encountered any convincing argument that they must have them.) What articles must have are reliable sources. Do you have reliable sources that deal with this curious-sounding project in some depth? -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
J'aimerais rajouter une référence à une modification que j'ai apportée, pourtant je ne sais comment le faire. Pouvez vous s'il vous plait m'aider Moignon Kaeloo (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Moignon Kaeloo: Welcome to the Teahouse on the English Wikipedia. Please use English to talk with other editors here. Google Translate says you posted "I would like to add a reference to a modification I made, but I don't know how to do it. Can you please help me". I suggest watching the video at WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Reviving WikiProject and how to obtain the template assessment box
WP:3TOPE is the WikiProject Polyhedra, focusing on the topic of polyhedra. Is there a possible way to revive this WikiProject, as it is inactive for a long time? No response ever since I asked in WP:WPM. Also, I see that this WikiProject do not have the template box for assessing the article. Is there a way to create new one? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Dedhert.Jr I think it would have been better far better to have posted on the talk page of the WikiProject itself, and then simply linked to that discussion on the Maths WikiProject talk page. Your original post at WP:WikiProject Mathematics has now been archived, so won't be answered.
If you have suggestions for reviving that Project, do list them there, and ping some of the active editors who work on related articles. Adding an article assessment template is a good idea, as is one to show recent changes to relevant pages. If you look at the wikimarkup for other WikiProjects, you should be able to work out how to create one. I find assessment tables incredibly helpful, as they let you list and re-assess quality tags, as well as focus on the important, short stub articles that merit easy improvement.
Some of that work you could do on your own, include ensuring that relevant articles are categorised and labelled on their talk pages. However, there are very, very few watchers of that Project Page, and it has received very few daily views for the last 10 years or so. You're unlikely to receive much interest in your proposal unless you invest some effort yourself to improve that page, as suggested above.
Oh dear - one final note, which is not good news. I've just checked, and it seems that there are no articles at all linking to that WikiProject title. (see here), so it looks like only the WikiProject Mathematics label has ever been added to Talk pages. It would probably be an uphill battle to address that now, so you would probably be better focussing your interests on relevant articles by ensuring they are all correctly and suitably Categorised instead (which is an alternative way of linking related specialist subjects together). Improving the the Polyhedra Project page to help others find relevant articles via categories would, I'd suggest, be a relatively useful exercise to do. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Dedhert.Jr I fear you may have misunderstood me and rather "jumped the gun". I am not convinced that it's at all appropriate to create a Project banner as you and @Remsense now seem intent on doing. Having commented that not only is there no banner in use on any articles, and that the WikiProject Polyhedra is deemed inactive, I don't feel a one-man attempt to revive and apply banners is the way to go. Without collaboration from other interested editors, it just takes you to get disillusioned and walk away to leave a mess of partly flagged articles. Hence, once I realised there were no article talk pages linking to that project at all, I suggested you switch your focus to ensuring good categorisation of all relevant articles, and then to individually assess them once that task was completed. Listing those categories on the Project page would, I'd suggest, be quite a useful thing to do, but not to unilaterally attempt to revive an inactive Project and to start labelling articles with new project template as a one-man band without further consensus.
My object is to access the 1850 U.S. census each town/city in Connecticut to find all of the people who were born in Ireland in each town. 32.220.116.184 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Thesiss political Science research essay. m trying to get it on the bookshelf sellers as was published 1980 Ottawa Ontario Carleton university and contributed by Carleton University as a matter of fact im ready with the preview so iam kindly indeed of about 5copies of my book and also trying to claim my royalty but procedure is unclear. Mzitoe (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Mzitoe, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? We can't help you with off-site problems, unfortunately. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Savannahlevinn12, welcome to the Teahouse. Is this celebrity a living person? If yes, then you need to either take your own photo or find one which has been released under a free license; you can then upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and then place it in the article. Most photos on the internet are copyrighted and cannot be used here on Wikipedia unless the person is no longer living, in which case you can upload a photo here, to English Wikipedia, under the non-free content criteria. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
How do I revert my user sandbox back from a redirect
I used my sandbox to create my first article a couple years back, but when my draft was approved it became a redirect. I was put off from doing anything due to the tag saying: "This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." Has I was a new user at the time, I was worried that if I deleted it it would cause some problems, and as a result I never looked back at it since.
Now that I've gained more experience as an editor, and know that that will unlikely happen, I wanted to bring my sandbock back from a redirect. How do I go about doing this. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Earle Bartibus Huxley: you can edit the sandbox as usual, either just delete the existing redirect and leave it blank for now, or create new content in it. The redirect is there mainly for your benefit. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@Babysharkboss2 Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't believe there is such a way, but you could go very easily go back to look at all your user contributions just to article talk pages or to user talk pages to view old signatures that you used, and the wikicode that created them. You could easily copy the code to one of your own userpages for future reference. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been working on fulfilling Wikipedia's requests to convert one type of image file into another type. I've found that many of them don't convert well because of the way color is used in the original file type. The resulting image is very blurred. Are these files chosen by bots? What should be done? There's a backlog of thousands of images and most of them have this problem. (Because others before me processed the convertible images and left the bow-wows that no one wants to touch, lol.) Can I just remove the tag asking for a vector? How do I prevent it from being picked up by a bot again?
If you need more detail, I'm converting raster images to vector images. Rasters use vastly more colors than vectors so the software gets a little confused and ends up blurring the image. A raster might look like it only has a few colors but you get shades along edges and that's what causes problems. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Oona Wikiwalker, "conversion into SVG" does not necessarily mean automated conversion. A huge chunk, if not most images that aren't photographic on Wikipedia should probably be vectorized one way or another. Fundamentally, the SVG format is stored as text—specifically XML, similar to HTML in web pages—and it is intentional and common that people write SVGs by hand in a text editor. The use of autotrace etc. should usually be only one step in the process, to ensure the fidelity of the vector representation. If this weren't so, images could be converted automatically on the server en masse. Simply because the specific source is not amenable to autotrace or other automatic conversion does not mean the image shouldn't be replaced with a vector version. — Remsense诉04:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I didn't know that. Thank you for teaching me something new! How on earth does anyone code this in xml?
@Oona Wikiwalker: I'd say not worth the effort. It isn't a matter of saving memory, it's more about reducing unnecessary network traffic. That matters more for images on high-traffic pages. An SVG image conversion for page that gets 50 views per day, like Miami Palmetto Senior High School, would not have the savings of an SVG conversion on a page that gets 5000 views per day. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Anachronist, this is not my understanding. Nowhere on the relevant pages I've seen does it say that the primary point is to reduce bandwidth use. Moreover, it's not my job to save the WMF money. The point, as articulated by the relevant pages and myself, is to benefit the end users by enabling images to be displayed at arbitrary scales, to benefit maintainers by making editing images as flexible as possible, and potentially include valuable semantic information when applicable, such as selectable text. It's so much closer to directly representing what an image is, rather than just what it looks like. — Remsense诉12:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense: We don't need a "relevant page" to explain the well known benefit of transmitting smaller files, especially when they are to be displayed on a variety of devices with different screen resolutions, owned by recipients who may be paying for their internet connection, who may be paying needlessly to download excessive and unnecessary bytes associated with a bitmap image that is larger than needed for their display. It has nothing to do with saving the WMF money. A single bitmap image can exceed the byte size of the article itself. That typically isn't the case with SVG files. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Oona Wikiwalker, these are less complicated than you'd think! While I said files are often written in a text editor, it is equally possible (and likely best here) to mix the use of graphical and text tools, to make use of the convenience of being able to draw those Bézier curves with the pen tool, and then open the file in a text editor to tweak fine details. I sometimes use this (third-party) tool to mess around with editing the text of paths quickly. — Remsense诉12:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Is that more useful than Inkscape? And thank you for being so encouraging to a newbie! Now, I'm interested in learning more of a subject I've been terribly ignorant about... I've used GIMP heavily as a hobby since 2010 and never needed to get into vectors. And other things kept pulling me away. But learning new things makes me more useful and I love that. Looks like it's time! Hugs for you! Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
But I can't find the button for submission also display english as a language but it is in Spanish, I didn't know how to add the artist picture or other pictures from his work.
Finding experienced Wikipedians for complex COI case
Hello Experts! I am interested in monitoring WP:COI in my academic discipline of linguistics. I am currently looking at the page Ghil'ad Zuckermann and several related pages which link to it. All these pages seem to have been created by the same set users, or types of users, over the years. There is quite a lot to look into and keep track of here, which I don't mind; I mainly want to make sure I am following proper procedures and doing things correctly. Where is the best place to find some interested Wikipedians who might be willing to assist me? Thanks :) Sunjaifriþas (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Sunjaifriþas, I am not an expert, especially not in language contact, language revival, etc. And I venture to guess that most people who keep an eye on the "teahouse" aren't either. But what I'd do is look for seemingly fair, balanced, and generally good articles in he same subject area, look in their histories for fairly recent contributors to the articles of substantial amounts of good material, look in those editors' contributions histories to see if they are still active, and if they are then write on the talk pages of the most promising three or so such editors. (In practice this can be difficult, as one tends to find excellent editors who were active for a brief period in 2009, conscientious editors who correct but contribute no additions, contributors of good stuff that, uh, turns out to be plagiarized, highly intelligent and fluent editors who rather clearly have their own agenda ... etc. Good luck!) -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Repairing a red flagged page
Hello Experts!
Someone got a little over zealous with this Wikipedia page and I'm trying to help clean it up.
I just want to get the bare minimum up on the page and strip everything else out. I'm wondering if I post these five citations, if it will get approved or if they need more.
I am not sure what you are asking. Please could you help me better understand? Do you just need help formatting these citations? Do they have information which is relevant to the article? It looks like the current page has a minimal amount of informative content. It looks like a previous version of the page was cleaned up because it featured a lot of promotional material and was using an improper citation style. Sunjaifriþas (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Sunjaifriþas, I think that the question is something like "Could a viable article be based on these five sources?" (This would require a "yes" to each of the two questions: (i) Are these five sources "reliable"? (ii) Is what the five sources say sufficient for the purpose?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I wrote an essay. Can I put it in the Wikipedia namespace?
Hello Teahouse. I wrote an WP:essay and published it in my userspace. I am thinking about moving it to the Wikipedia namespace, but I thought that only essays that represent community consensus exist in the WP namespace. Is that true? Or am I able to just ... move my essay into the WP namespace?
Hi @TheLonelyPather! There's nothing rule-rise that prevents publishing an essay into the Wikipedia namespace. The difference between them is that essays in userspace are generally seen as the view of only that user and generally aren't edited by others unless there's some compelling need, whereas essays in the Wikipedia namespace are seen as the property of the community and are editable by anyone who thinks they can improve them. I often publish my essays directly to the Wikipedia namespace because I don't mind others improving them, and find that being in the Wikipedia namespace gives them a bit more visibility.
All that said, we have a big problem with redundant essays. Looking at what you wrote, it seems like you've put together some helpful advice, but I'm not sure why it's a separate page from Wikipedia:Translation, where we already give guidance to editors looking to do translations. So something to consider might be merging what you wrote into that page rather than starting a new one. That'd also give your contributions more visibility, as WP:Translation is an established page that gets more than 4,000 views a month, which is a lot more than most essays.
Yep. Which is technically an essay, in the sense of a catchall term for pages in the Wikipedia namespace that are not policies or guidelines (which are always tagged). Yes, you're free to edit it boldly just as you would any other page. The guiding principles are a bit different than for articles — WP:CREEP is one notable one — but as with anywhere, if others have concerns about the changes you make, they'll discuss and/or revert them and you'll be able to converse to help get the page to a better state. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The redundancy between the Help and Wikipedia namespaces is another problem. From a quick glance, it seems like the intended scope of these pages is the same, and I would be inclined to support a proposal to merge them. {{u|Sdkb}}talk15:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that it's only in American English. In early April I'm planning to make a few dozen copies so that it's available in every variety of English.[FBDB]{{u|Sdkb}}talk01:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikinews
Hello, Teahouse. Today I was going to contribute to Wikinews, but wanted to first poke around about it. Firsty- is the project pretty much dead? The most recent news is from last month, and most help pages seem largely dormant. Secondly- is it even worth the time to contribute there? I doubt it gets a lot of traffic due to its nearly unnavigable state. Cheers! UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: There are at least three stories on the front page from January, so only a couple weeks old at most. The impression I get is that it is not dead, just not very active if you compare it to Wikipedia (although the Russian version has very large number of articles). RudolfRed (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Can someone fix this
Can someone please fix the article India at the 2022 Asian Games. There is a dropdown issue in the page. The sections are collapsed/open by default. There is no option to close the sections. If someone can't understand me please see the discussions that have taken place at the article's talk page. To clarify I just like many others is facing this on mobile (Android), don't know about Laptop/Computers and other devices.
@Shaan Sengupta: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1213. I can replicate your problem on a mobile browser, but viewing it through the Wikipedia app collapses them by default; viewing the article in desktop mode on mobile browsers gives the ability to show and hide them. You're probably going to have to bring this up at a venue like Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Phabricator, because from what I can tell the code for the tables is sound. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Tenryuu Just to tell you I am using Google Chrome as the browser. And not the desktop version. Even in the desktop version this looks the same. Anyways as per your advice I am going to Village Pump. Thanks. ShaanSenguptaTalk02:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I was editing this page (Davide Besso) and I noticed that a lot of the material under the "Biography" section on the page is translated then copy and pasted from the first source. Originally, the second paragraph under this section was directly copied, but I made a few edits before I realized. I'm pretty sure this is not allowed. How should I proceed? Standard Illusionist (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@Standard Illusionist: Because if the content was removed there would be no material left worth saving, I've tagged the page for speedy deletion and notified the original author. In cases where there would still be an article left, you can remove the copyrighted material, tag the page with {{copyvio-revdel}}, and alert the editor who added that material. Tollens (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Twenty-year editor here with a question that I cannot seem to answer on my own
I'm searching and can't seem to find a guideline or policy that is fuzzy in my memory. I seem to recall some rule about not making edits (and particularly large masses of edits) that do nothing to actually change a page's function or look. E.g. removing double spaces after periods and replacing them with single spaces or taking a list in the form "* Item 1" and replacing it with "*Item 1": these are changes that make no difference at all and I could have sworn there was a local admonition against this. I know that the guy on sr.wp who made millions of edits just inserting and reverting his own insertion of whitespace was banned for that nonsense. Am I remembering correctly? Can anyone direct me to this policy or guideline if it exists? If not, can someone direct me to an appropriate talk page where I can have an RfC about this? Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯07:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Our admonishment for humans is contained within our general prohibition for bots at WP:COSMETICBOT. Thus, large masses of edits are considered disruptive (also in WP:MEATBOT), although there is nothing explicit against small one-off cosmetic edits. CMD (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
But it would be against policy if someone were explicitly making it a point to make hundreds or thousands of cosmetic edits like this as his sole purpose in editing (or his sole purpose in making those edits, i.e. he is not also doing something constructive at the same time, but only shuffling around whitespace that makes no visible change), correct? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯08:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The policy states only that it "may" be considered disruptive; however in practice it works as you say, the community disapproves of such editing and has taken preventative action in the past. CMD (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Good point. I don't think that's what's happening in the case I'm thinking of, but I hadn't considered it. Thanks to you both.
Attention: The “section resolved” template needs a valid date. The section will not be archived otherwise. Please use {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} instead.
I use an iPad mini and much prefer desktop view (even though it's small). But I often land on a mobile view, from links outside Wikipedia. It's not very convenient to scroll all the way to bottom to change the view. Would it be possible (or desirable) to add a desktop/mobile link at the top of the page? Perhaps in the page menu for mobile>desktop view (and for symmetry, as a button for desktop>mobile). RogerAus (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
hi @RogerAus and welcome to the teahouse! if you'd rather always use the desktop view (as I personally prefer), there's a script you may use: User:Þjarkur/NeverUseMobileVersion which would automatically redirect you to desktop view when landing on the mobile version. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 03:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks for that suggestion (and the welcoming words). It would solve my little problem, but a menu item or button would be much easier for the general non-technical user. Is there some page relevant to Wikipedia’s interface design where I could make the suggestion? RogerAus (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you using the Safari app as your browser? See if one if the top icons (of Safari itself, near the URL/title-bar; not part of the Wikipedia page display) gives a menu that includes "request desktop site". DMacks (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Brilliant, thank you! One lives and learns. For others reading this, the relevant Safari menu icon is the aA symbol to the left of the URL. You may need to toggle the menu entry (request desktop/mobile) a couple of times for the menu entry to match up with the actual page version being displayed, but then it does the job. (I still think an explicit Wikipedia link would be useful for some readers but happy to leave it). RogerAus (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse. By clicking on your username above you can create a user page. You can use this to supply basic information about yourself or your Wikimedia-related activities. See Wikipedia:User pages for more information. Shantavira|feed me09:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Captcha verification not working
Both when I am trying to post on sandbox and edit a Wikipedia article I am having to fill out many Captcha boxes and it never works! It just gets to the point that I have exceeded my rate limit and I have to wait 15 minutes just to repeat the whole process again, can someone help? Lottierutherford (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Also I have looked through the previous help sections of people struggling with the same problem and nothing appears to be working. I am definitely pressing the save changes button and not the refresh button and I have tried closing and reopening the edit page. Please help! Lottierutherford (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Lottierutherford Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure how much I can help you, but are you saying this happens after you are logged on with this account name? If so, there's a tiny bit of information here, but not much. Could you tell us what browser you're using, or whether there's a VPN involved, or whether you've ever seen any 'blocked' messages whilst trying to edit Wikipedia? I presume there was no problem making your edits to the Teahouse, or when making subsequent edits? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I totally forgot to update after I sorted the issue. Yes I was logged on with this account and had no issue adding to talk pages or the Teahouse, it was only when I was making a substantial edit to a Wikipedia page that I cam across an issue. I managed to solve it though by making 10+ minor edits to other pages (I had seen this be suggested briefly as a fix) and then Captcha didn’t bother me again!
I hope you are good. Firstly the date mentioned in page about battle of karnal as mentioned 13 Feb is wrong . The Exact date is 24 Feb as written in the book "Annals of Karnal" written by CH Buck. After this battle Nadir Shah personally acknowledged about Rao Bal Kishan to Mughal King Md Shah Rangila and asked to Mughal King to erect a Royal Chhatri(Kiosk) at Karnal, which still you can find in Karnal. So war actually fought on 24 Feb 1739 .
Hello, Hinduculture, and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have added material to Karnal successfully, and Battle of Karnal says 24th and not 13th, so I'm not sure what you are asking.
But in general, if you have improvements to make to an article, in most cases you can simply edit the article; but if you think your changes may be controversial, or you're not sure exactly what to change, it's a good idea to open a discussion on the article's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Getting: You've exceeded your rate limit
Hi there, I am trying to re-submit one of my draft article, but getting the error of: "An error occurred (ratelimited: You've exceeded your rate limit. Please wait some time and try again.). Please try again or refer to the help desk.", always. Can anyone please help me with this?
@Yeasir Ali: I'm sorry that you're receiving this error message. However, your draft in its current state is not ready for resubmission. As stated at the top of your draft, "the draft needs multiple published sources that are
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
just out of curiosity, are hidden categories placed automatically when a given page has a specific template, category, or whatever else (like my talk page having the "really not in the mood for ace messages" hidden category), or are they the same thing, just shown in different formats (like garlic having the "articles with norman language sources" hidden category)? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)14:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The following edit describes an image deletion explained essentially by not being able to establish copyright status of the deleted file.
Today I am establishing this image is public domain as released in multiple formats of the mishap/accident investigations published by the Air Force and released to the media. I am hereby requesting it be undeleted given this documentation.
Below I will post a web page that includes a photo collage that the 5th from left I believe includes one such formation-impact-scar image credited to the Air Force by The Las Vegas Review Journal. I would have pasted that photo with credit here for direct consideration but no means of pasting an image exists on this template.
I also believe the deleted photo appears on page 126 of the External Link to the 1982 Thunderbirds Diamond Crash Wikipedia page. This document is a use work product of the USAF released under FOIA as described in a cover page attached to this attachment:
You should contact the admin who deleted the image. Since USA Air Force's images are in public domain, I'm sure they will be happy to restore the image with the added copyright information. Catalk to me!16:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Single Pair Ethernet
Hi,
since years I am writing some arcticles in German Wikipedia.
Now I am starting some technical articles here.
I would like to translate these article into en.wikipedia: Draft:Single Pair Ethernet
I would appreciate any further suggestions to improve and publish this article, and I am grateful for any help and support. Thank you. Best regards, Ralf. Ralf Moses (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ralf Moses: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you haven't done so already, please check out Wikipedia:Translation. You have lots of information in your draft that do not have any footnotes. Please add more footnotes for every section and resubmit. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks GoingBatty for your help. I have added the footnotes now.
I would appreciate any further suggestions to improve and publish this article.
The draft, and the sources it cites, are entirely about the technical specifications of Single Pair Ethernet. I don't see that as making an acceptable article. Does anyone use it? What for? WHat are its advantages and disadvantages? Maproom (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
red flagged/ tagged articles
I am wondering ...I see lots of articles with maintenance tags on them. I see they are dated. Sometimes I see in the histories people do work to repair them. My questions is...does anybody patrol the tagged pages to see if they are improved and possibly remove the tags? WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
WikiTikiTavi63, the editors making the improvements will often remove tags. Also, specific tags about certain issues (such as {{POV}}) that are not paired with any specific talk page discussion are often removed as WP:DRIVEBYs. However, tags may certainly linger longer than strictly necessary. Cheers! — Remsense诉00:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thanks. I actually have been working on the Mater Matuta page. You made some suggestions the other day which I followed through on. Hopefully someday somebody will remove the tags. thanks again, WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@WikiTikiTavi63 In theory yes. Finding a stale article, slapping a tag and moving in is imho lazy. If you notice a problem, try to fix it. Tags are incredibly useful when the articles are being actively worked on by other editors. But if a tree falls/article is tagged, and no one hears/sees it, does it really count? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@WikiTikiTavi63 Anyone can remove a tag if they believe that the related issue has been fixed. On visual editor it is often as easy as clicking on a template like {citation needed} and pressing delete. There are some people who spend all of their time trying to fix these maintenance tasks, and some who spend their time identifying problems so that those people can find and fix them. I looked at Mater Matuta and did some small edits. It is not quite ready to have the notices at the top removed but it is getting closer. Reconrabbit18:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I see the same reference being used over and over inside the same paragraph. It is usually preferred to put it at the end of the paragraph, and to only put a citation after a sentence if it is relevant to that statement or if it is specific about a stated fact. I may take another look at the article later, but there is some writing that makes it look like an essay, describing a series of events or not describing some things that may not be obvious (matera matutae?) But this is better discussed on the article's talk page.Reconrabbit19:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the time zone data comes from on {{Infobox settlement}}?
For example, if you type in "Pacific" for the time zone parameter, it automatically links to Pacific Time Zone and the UTC offsets, and the daylight saving time. I tried to do the same with "Hawaii–Aleutian" but it's not working. Kk.urban (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the data comes from anywhere, you manually add it when you add the template. The examples in the template and in article's using it I see that it is just a Wikilink. What error are you seeing when you do |timezone = [[Hawaii–Aleutian Time Zone|Hawaii–Aleutian]]? RudolfRed (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I need help in creating a new article for an organisation that doesn't exist. I know someone who is a part of that organisation and can tell me everything about that article. I am just confused on how to do it. I found that the article is missing because I found a red link on a related organisation's page. Ultima1108 (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't exist, but you know someone who's part of it. The article is missing, but someone can tell you everything about it. Please sort out your thoughts before you type here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe you meant that the organization exists but an article on it does not. If so, then Help:YFA. (Incidentally, since you have a user ID, please do make sure that you're always logged in under that user ID.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Ultima1108: You may not attribute material to what somebody told you (whether in conversation, in email, in Whatsapp messages, or wherever). Everything must be based on published sources. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Ultima1108. Please note that the very first, and absolutely necessary, step in creating any article is finding several places where people who have no connection with the subject of the article have chosen to write at some length about it, and been published in reliable places. If you cannot find such sources, then there is no point in spending any time at all in trying to write the article. ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Ethiopian Manifesto was flagged for copyright violation. I have rewritten the section in question. Please note that what I have newly written does not show up unless you enter edit mode. I'd like to know if the rewriting I did has solved the problem. deisenbe (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Imagine yourself in this scenario: you come across a heavily tagged, ill-maintained article. And let's imagine you add a few new details, rectify some grammar errors without significantly altering the original content, fulfil the CN tags, and then discover that someone has added several copyright infringement that has gone undetected for over 10 years. What would you do? 20 upper (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@20 upper: Recently Mathglot reminded me: "If it really was copied from a copyrighted source, that is one of the most serious violations at Wikipedia, as it violates both our WP:Terms of use as well as copyright law, and as such, it is one of a very small number of violations with legal implications (others include libel, legal threats, and there are a couple others) that require immediate attention and that are not subject to amendment by policy, consensus, ArbCom, or WP:IAR. Content in violation of copyright cannot be left in the article, and not only that, it must be expunged from the page history by an admin, so that no trace of it is left in Wikipedia. As far as what to advise a user, probably the simplest and best response is to tell the user to place a {{Copyvio}} template on the article page itself; this will both immediately hide the suspected offending material, as well as signal an admin to have a look at it and assess the situation for further action. Users should not be told to simply remove the content themselves, or to rewrite or summarize copied content, because that masks the continuing problem of copyrighted content which remains accessible in the page history; it's best just to flag it for admin action with the template." GoingBatty (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@Babysharkboss2 and GoingBatty: The issue is that the article is a "vital article." I attempted to rephrase a few sentences, but a large portion of the article is directly copied from one source and it uses citations utilized by this particular source. 20 upper (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Being a vital article doesn't offer any kind of protection, unfortunately. If the source is incompatibly licensed, the material copied over needs to be removed. I've occasionally seen revdel requests declined because the violation is so old it would require deleting an unholy number of intermediate revisions, but you can just leave that up to the reviewing admin. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@Mathglot, I've not kept any track of them, but I think there have been several discussions at WP:AN - you might turn up some if you search the archives. I've had a few such requests turned down myself over the years, all involving small amounts of text which were added decades earlier, with many, many revisions since; I can't remember, now, which specific articles were involved. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
IP 57, thanks, that is indeed a very interesting discussion. There is an inherent tension between the legal requirement to remove copyright violations and the licensing requirement in ToU § 7 to preserve attribution, and it seems to me that most of the comments there were trying to square that circle. The response Moneytrees got back from WMF as I understood it resolved that in favor of the long-revdels-are-ok side, especially since contributors' names are still visible in history (through the strikeout font) which is the attribution requirement, and diffability is not. Struck revisions are non-diffable for non-admins, so traceability takes a hit for us peons, but that's short of the requirement (though sometimes irksome to me, personally). Flatscan's contribution towards the end and their § "Attribution" in RD1 section at WP:Revdel and follow-up Rfc were helpful. I'm sorry I missed those, as § 7 is clear about the fact that just a list of names is sufficient therefore diffability is not required, and WP:CWW#List of authors does mention it.
I have an idea about how full traceability for everyone might be kept as well (hint: think Earth Prime with articles having a parallel history only through the revdel era, but where the copyvio never happened at the beginning of it) and I can picture how to do it, I just don't know if it's worth it. But this is getting well afield of the OP question, and if we take this up, it should probably be at WP:VPI. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I confess that my eyes glaze over quickly when copyright issues arise - when my requests were declined, I just shrugged and moved on. I think all my requests pre-date that discussion, though, so maybe admins nowadays are handling things differently. Might be an interesting discussion indeed for the Pump, @Mathglot. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
No fair!!
I wanted to make a page called: "Republic Of Kit Kat!" on Wikipedia, (a micronation I made up.) but, when clicking on a red link, it did not even let me even create it. Even when I clicked on: "Create a draft and submit it for review." That will not make me create a page!! Even MicroWiki allows you to do this. Please tell me the proper way.
I am SO sorry, but that was not my actual problem. (I did that by complete accident.) My actual question is what I stated at the very end: "How do you properly create a page?" I tried clicking on a red link, no luck. I tried creating a draft, did not work. I am even 100% logged in, so this makes no sense to me. I am just stuck here, not able to find the correct way. So please, if you can, reply to this question telling me how to create a page PROPERLY. I am SO sorry to Wikipedia, @Tollens, and @Blaze Wolf for being so harsh. My apologies.
@PolskiSlaskiego!: Well assuming you aren't wanting to create an article (Not a page, tho all articles are technically pages but not all pages are articles) on your made up micronation, I suggest you follow WP:YFA. What are you seeing when you click on a red link? ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf20:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
When clicking on a red link, it reads: "The article that you're looking for doesn't exist." And then, it says: "......create it as a draft." and when clicked on, it sends to, indeed a draft, but that is not what I want. But, are you supposed to start with a draft? Because I want an already official article when I hit done, or whatever the finish button is. I think I might have solved the problem, but if there are any alternative ways, then please let me know.
New accounts cannot directly create articles, you may use the Article Wizard to do so- though creating a new article is challenging, it's best to get some editing experience first. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I forgot about the fact that new accounts can't directly create articles. PolskiSlaskiego! I would recommend following 331dot's advice and get some editing experience in first before creating a new article. If you really think you can't wait and want to create an article now, then you may use the Article Wizard to do so. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf21:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, PolskiSlaskiego, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. To echo what DavidMD says: would you build a car as your first ever engineering project? Or enter a tournament the first day you started a new sport? Please get some experience editing - and learn about Wikipedia's policies, such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability, before you try to create a new article. You will save yourself and other people a lot of frustration and effort if you do this. ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Baby steps: Think of a topic. Check to see if an article already exists. If not, find reliable source published references about the topic. See WP:42 to learn what that is about. If no existing article, and references do exist, use Article Wizard to create and then submit a draft, with properly formatted references. Only include in the draft the facts that are provided by the references. Once submitted, an experienced reviewer can Accept, Decline, Reject or Speedy delete your draft. P.S. "Publish changes" means save, it does not mean publish in Wikipedia's mainspace. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Relevance to school articles of non-school activity by students
Is there an essay or guidance on Wikipedia that discusses the relevance of non-school activity to articles on schools, when it is a current or former student that's involved? The cases I've come across are crimes reported in reliable sources, where the crimes are not school related, yet some think it's relevant to put that in the school's article because the indicted attend(ed) the school. Thanks. signed, Willondon (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Many colleges/universities have a section for Notable alumni, meaning that those people are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Notability can be for criminal activity. However, if a person is not Wikipedia-notable, I see no reason to mention that person (and their crime(s)) in a school article. David notMD (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Willondon, a former student can be notable for good things, like winning a Pulitzer Prize or starring in a hit movie. Or, they can be notable for something bad, like being a convicted serial killer, or getting fired from a high profile job. If a Wikipedia biography exists for a person, no matter why they are notable, and their connection with the school is well referenced, then they should be listed in the "Notable alumni" section. It is not the "Alumni who make this school look good" section. Cullen328 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Certainly, I'm on board with that. In the current case [1], these are hitherto unnotable people, indicted for murder; they just happen to attend that school, and the assault took place in a park area beside the school. (BTW Thanks for all the input here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willondon (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Without a Wikipedia article to link to, it's tough (not always impossible) to have alumni in the school article (WP:ALUMNI has a bit of info about some guidelines). However as you've pointed out on the talk page, the reference doesn't say anything about the school. With references comes some indication whether the two are related or not, and then there can be a debate about whether it's of significance in the school article. Without any reliable source making the connection it's a non-starter. I note there's a murder victim already in the article, with a linked Wikipedia article. Comparisons will be drawn. -- zzuuzz(talk)00:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Disabling military time
Hullo friends. I would like to disable military time in signatures and the like such that it says something like "Example (talk) 3:00 PM, 19 January 2024 (UTC)" rather than "Example (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)". I was wondering where I would find a setting, gadget, or other such thing to do that. That's all. Thanks! Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 23:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@Antrotherkus Click "Preferences" (which you can get to by looking at the top of your display or clicking what I just linked there.) Then, click the "Appearance" tab there. There should be some options for you to adjust the time display there. Cheers Relativity 00:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
When I go to the "Appearance" tab, there are only two time-related options: "Date format" and "Time offset". Neither of them seem to be related to 24-hour time. If you're curious, I use the Vector 2010 skin. Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 01:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Socialstviper, and welcome! I’m afraid it’s not possible to assign IP contributions to your account, although if you wish you can indicate on your userpage that you edited previously under an IP and can specify there. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
CanonNi, it appears that {{Babel}} is the issue. I think it's because it's literally just a raw module and the module may be conflicting with {{Infobox Wikipedia user}}. There is a languages parameter for {{Infobox Wikipedia user}} you can make use of, or you could use the various specific language templates (example: {{User en}}). Perhaps someone with more technical knowledge may be able to assist you in getting it to work if those solutions aren't what you are looking for. Cheers! —Sirdog(talk) 08:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@SirdogThank you! Used the specific language templates in |languages instead of Babel and that fixed the issue.
Badly coded? I'm certainly not qualified to make that assessment! I just mean that if you look at the source for Template:Babel all it does is invoke a module, rather than having wikitext with perhaps modules invoked inside of that. —Sirdog(talk) 08:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
hi ip user! 331dot has already answered your question in the Help Desk. for next time, please don't post your question to both the Teahouse and Help Desk to help keep responses to your question in one central place (and besides, most people answering questions in one probably also answer questions in the other as well). happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 09:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Contents of an article
Hi Teahouse! How do you find the article "Contents" section with in-article hyperlinks? If Contents is the right name for it, it's right after the lead and lists the main parts of the article, you click on the part of the article like example "Early life" and now you're at that part. It makes finding parts easier. Do you rember this? Does wikipedia still have this? Thank you Teahouse. 63.248.183.70 (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. A recent change of the 'default skin' which determines your screen's layout was made a year or so ago. The in-article Contents table was moved in the upgrade to outside of the article, on the upper left hand side of the page viewing in when desktop view. You can toggle it's position so that it either expands fully as a column on the upper left of the scren, or collapses into a pancake menu icon of three horizontal lines on the upper left of the screen.
If you find it annoying, you can revert to using the old screen layout (=skin), but you would need to have a free, registered account and change that in your personal account preferences. I'm pretty sure an IP user cannot do that. I hope this all makes sense! Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Some alternatives for IP editors are explained here and here. They work reasonably well (though I've reconciled myself to the new skin and have stopped using them). 57.140.16.1 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank yoy Nick Moyes and 57.140! The explanations and the links are fantastic! Due to browser glitches on my browser, there arent the links or icons to click on in upper left corner mentioned by NM, if and when I find another device I'll try your instructions! which are descriptive and thorough. Much thanks! 57.140, I tried "here" link #1 and the directions worked and I can see the Contents again! With practice I'll start to memirize the stuff to type at end of URL. "here" link 2 isgoing to require more practice but then i'll be able to click each time to use 2010 Contents again with my device and browser! Thank you! You guys are great! Best, 63.248.183.70 (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Edit warring ongoing! The contending editors (including Just want...) are also heatedly debating their disagreements on the article's Talk page. If they cannot solve it there, then advice needed on how to get third parties involved. David notMD (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
What's the best way to proceed once I have a draft I like?
I have a draft of a page of a surrealist artist that I have been heavily researching and gathering links on. It looks and feels like a real page, but I don't want to put it out too early and have it deleted, etc. Who should I send it to (and HOW) I have never attempted a page before. BillE.Vader1963 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@BillE.Vader1963: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest using the Articles for creation process for your draft, and have added a template to your draft for you. When you're ready to have your draft reviewed, click the blue "Submit the draft for review" button. Good luck with the draft! GoingBatty (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Once submitted to AfC there is a waiting period than can be as short as hours and as long as weeks - even months if the draft backlog gets huge. You can continue to work on a submitted draft. The reviewer will either accept, decline with reasons given, reject if opinion is no potential, or speedy delete (hopefully not!!) for major transgressions. David notMD (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Am I doing anything wrong?
I have recently being accused of being biased for reverting the unsourced ccontent additions. I am trying to be very gentle and let the other person uderstand why I reverted their information. But since now I lack the Wikipedia norms handy I started doubting myself. Should I mend my ways or what all I am doing is right? Should I be referring any extra guideliness or am I lacking any Wikipedia rules? I am unsure and please help me out in assessing my activity if it's going fine or not. Thank you
Althought people who accused the same later clarified that they misundertood but still I need a through check on what I am lacking. Can I get more educated before I continue editing here? 456legendtalk09:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, 456legend! I'm not seeing anything egregious. I see an innocent interaction at the 1st link and a good ole' civil content dispute at the 2nd (at time of writing). Noting that I have not checked any page history, just read the talk pages. My one comment would be that "First thing you must understand that any content addition that is contested shall be removed at the first place and will be discussed whether to add it or not" is not strictly true. Aside from fairly obvious exceptions, such as enforcing WP:BLP/WP:V policies, removing WP:COPYVIO, or fighting WP:VANDALISM, there is no policy I'm aware of that demands an article be kept at a certain version until discussed. Regardless of the article state, it's better that once 2 or more editors are aware others disagree that no one continues editing that part until a discussion happens. What you said tends to occur in practice, however, as a reversion of an edit tends to be the way editors learn there is disagreement (see: WP:BRD). Cheers! —Sirdog(talk) 10:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@Sirdog I get that. I should have refrained from removing the addition at the first and it was my fault that I assumed it to be that way and informed the same. Other than that I think I am fine with the rest of the discussion involving the content discussion. Meanwhile, I found the same user to add such similar addition on a different article and I assumed it to be a affliation to a organisation on his part and safely requested him to disclose any such if true. The user got offended and accused me of stalking and challenging my behaviour, thus I decided to recuse myself from the article. I don't intend to complaint anything against the user now but would like to know if looking upon other user contributions here on wikipedia not acceptable and is assuming someone to be paid for editing and asking the same to them to diclose not accepted? here And since I have recused from the article, do I need to bother about anything else on that particular talk page and do I need to further get involved in the discussion there if the other users show up? Please guide about this too. 456legendtalk10:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for editors who see what may be a flaw in an editor's edit in one article - for example updating a fact on a place or person without providing a reference - to see if the same flaw was committed at other articles. This may also happen when an editor posts a question here at Teahouse. To the recipient, can it feel like stalking? Yes. Edit summaries at the articles should be about correcting the errors. Separately, advice can be posted to the editor's Talk page. And absolutely, asking an editor if a COI or PAID situation exists is valid, and very common if there is reason to suspect such. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi I'd appreciate someone's help please in showing me how to fix the issues a reviewer outlined in my article submission.
I don't feel they're fair considering The News Letter (oldest newspaper in English speaking world) and The Irish News are both well-respected news papers. Second, this organisation's opponent (Ireland's Future) has a wiki page, so it's unbalanced if TUKF does not also have one. TheHandsomeHistorian (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, TheHandsomeHistorial, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are three separate requirements on a source in order to count towards notability: reliability is the most obvious one, but independence, and significant coverage, are also important: see golden rule.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Looking over your reference list, almost all of them are clearly not independent; the Irish News might be, but does it contain significant coverage of the Foundation? (It might do, but I haven't looked). If it does, it will be one acceptable source, but we need more than one.
As for Ireland's Future: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is possible that the article Ireland's Future (which is not their article, by the way), is inadequately sourced: I haven't looked at it closely. If you think it is, you are welcome to improve it, or propose it for deletion if you think the organisation does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages allowed if no article?
Idk how to put the title, but I will try my best to explain it.
Basically, can disambiguation (or dab) pages display something if no article exists. For example if you look at the dab page for Cross country, there is a section that does not have an article.
Copied from the article above
Cross Country (film), a 1983 drama film starring Nina Axelrod
I've removed a couple of items from Cross country, including that one.
Basically it is unclear whether to include something in a dab page if it does not have an article, like the example above. Even the WP:DAB article is unclear or I just couldnt find it, although it does have a 'what not to include' section but not the inverse?
And so that explains why GWR does and does not have the dab suffix? I mean we also have CrossCountry, a UK railway company without any additional suffixes, although the only difference is that it is spelt as one word. Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Edit 16:53 UTC - see also and copies from: MOS:DABMENTION. Idk how to use green text below so im using quotes instead
"If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader". Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
If there is a primary topic for the name, then that article gets the bare title, and a DAB page is labelled as such in its title. If there is no primary topic, then the DAB page gets the bare title. ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I am having trouble correctly citing a book that has numerous references. I have tried giving the book a refrence name and then using code {{r|Beacon1997|p=50}}. But the article I am editing uses a template ref list and I don't understand how to edit that as the references are only visible in visual editing. I end up with an error code that sends me to the same page repeatedly and nothing I try seems to work. Appreciate any help. LauraONagel (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I recommend using one reference per </ref> code, I’m still new to Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, if it keeps sending you to the page you are editing, I’ll try to research why the problems occur. Cometkeiko16:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
This way, you can add the citations intuitively in VisualEditor, and simply tack on the RP template to indicate the page number. Catalk to me!17:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi all - happy new year! I've re-edited a draft wiki page for a musical band and would be grateful if an editor could let me know if it now qualifies for publication. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Say_She_She_(band)
@Georges1K: Welcome to the Teahouse! I made some tweaks and restored the {{AFC submission}} templates (the ones with comments stating "Do not remove this line!") I see you added some references since the last review. When you're ready for the draft to be reviewed again, click the blue "Resubmit" button. Good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Asked and answered on the Help desk. Please don't ask the same question on more than one desk: it can lead to confusion and potentially wastes the limited time of the volunteers who respond on the desks. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.47.60 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Do redirects from one user talk page to another work?
Hi! I operate two accounts - this one, and a mobile account, User:Phönedinger's jellyfish. I checked the list of reasons to make a redirect, but didn't see anything about talk pages on there. Is it possible to redirect the mobile account's talk page to my main one? If not, I'll watchlist the mobile talk page on both accounts. Would rather be safe than sorry. Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish✉19:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
How can I restore edits that were deleted by Wikipedia?
I wrote neutral and accurate information about the services provided by the Arizona Department of Transportation, a government agency. The current information is outdated so major editing is needed. Most of the content was taken from the Arizona Department of Transportation's website, azdot.gov.
I disclosed that I am an employee of the Arizona Department of Transportation and I received a message saying that I have a conflict of interest and the content I provided was rejected.
Loribaker2757, you do have a conflict of interest. Thank you for disclosing it. An acceptable Wikipedia article primarily summarizes what reliable sources independent of the topic say about the topic. Accordingly, use of azdot.gov should be limited. The policy language at WP:ABOUTSELF makes it clear that the article should not be based primarily on sources like azdot.gov. Any reader who wants more information from your employer's website can simply visit that website. The best practice for you as a paid editor is to make well-referenced formal Edit requests at Talk: Arizona Department of Transportation, where you must gain consensus for your proposed changes. Cullen328 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
So I want to edit something but I need a citation, thing is, I don't know if you can do so on mobile, and I don't want to damage the article. Please help. RoboDoggo9123 (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, RoboDoggo9123. My suggestion is to use the fully functional desktop site, which works just fine on mobile devices. I edit using a smartphone 99% of the time, and have added thousands of references to Wikipedia that way. Just scroll to the bottom of any mobile Wikipedia page, and there is a "Desktop" link and if you click it, you can edit using the desktop site. Cullen328 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The Teahouse is not really the place for questions about locating relevant content, that would be more suited to WP:Reference Desk. Then again, you could just do a simple search, though in this case, it seems that there's an existing article on the content you have requested. Sigh. Fabrickator (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this would be considered a list. According to the criteria on WP:CLASSES, a list needs organized links to other Wikipedia articles. C++23 is mostly a changelog. If you think the article should be classified differently, you can request a assessment here. CanonNi (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, TrademarkedTWOrantula! I'd probably say the best fit for a bookstore is {{Infobox company}} as I don't see any other infobox that'd be more specific. You can see if another infobox suites your purposes by scrolling to the bottom of the documentation and looking at the table. Cheers! —Sirdog(talk) 05:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
If it's a draft titled, say, "Aave protocol", then you look for "Draft:Aave protocol". If on the other hand you're wondering how to use a search engine such as Google to find a draft about, say, the "Aave protocol", then the answer is that you cannot. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I found my draft, and it has been rejected for unreliable sources. I have 18 sources, including LA Times, YouTube video, Track and Field News publication, and major college athletic websites. I dont know what to do to improve this? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
S0091 suggested you review this guide for how to cite sources. Did you have specific questions about that? Maybe you'd prefer the video at WP:EASYREFBEGIN.
I am working with Eric on this project, and he is the one that posted the article. Victor Schmidt and S0091 only sent me educational materials and guides, which I have gone thoroughly over hours and can see nothing wrong with our sources.
We are citing publications like the LA Times, Track and Field News, YouTube interview videos, major college Athletic Dept websites, and other independent articles online. What more do we need to do? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@OLYMPICHAMMER: They expressed concerns with the formatting of the references, so I added an inline citation for reference #1 for you as an example. They also noted that the draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. For example, where is the source for all the information in the "Art Venegas coaching tree"? If you are Venegas or are working with Venegas, then you and Eric-Dieter have a conflict of interest that you each need to disclose on your respective user page. GoingBatty (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@OLYMPICHAMMER: Also note that interviews are not independent, so those won't help with notability. Plus, the tone needs to be changed from promotional (e.g. "legendary", "Venegas is regarded to have few peers", "cemented his coaching preeminence") to neutral and encyclopedic. GoingBatty (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
GoingBatty, I have cleaned up the Draft: Art Venegas article using the input of you and four other editors. Can you review, I want to submit it again? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Sample: Venegas coached UCLA throwers to some of the greatest performances in NCAA history, and his athletes include some of the most notable collegiate competitors ever. To which is appended "[6]". "[6]" turns out to be a web page published by UCLA. This is not a disinterested source, and thus it is not a reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hoary, I have cleaned up the Draft: Art Venegas article using the input of you and four other editors. Can you review, I want to submit it again? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Note discussion about this draft are currently in a lot of places (here, WP:HD, on the draft itself, at my talk page, and at Ad Orientem's user talk).
OLYMPICHAMMER, please note that on Wikipedia, declined and rejected mean different things. Draft:Art Venegas was declined. When reviewers decline a draft, this means sorry, this cannot be promoted to an article at this time. Please improve it further, whereas rejected means Sorry, there is no potential this becomes an article any time soon. Please stop trying.Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
You have done a lot of work after Draft:Art Venegas was declined, but the referencing method you use is not acceptable. See Help:Referencing for beginners and examples of articles of the athlete articles you Wikilinked to see proper referencing. When refs are done right, the software inserts a superscript number and adds the ref under References. As noted above, refs need to be independent. Continue to fix stuff and submit again. David notMD (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
David, I have cleaned up the Draft: Art Venegas article using the input of you and four other editors. Can you review, I want to submit it again? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I just want to say thanks to the team running the Tea House. I have told my professor how prompt your responses are and how generous too. I was running into some editors who were…. not so much, and it was becoming discouraging to try to manage the steep learning curve. Sometimes I come here just to read. Thanks again, WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
i am a seasoned digital marketer of global repute, written many articles on LinkedIn etc, i dont want to promote myself on Wikipedia, but want to articles written already on linked by me only. It will definitely benefit users as these are related to field of Digital Marketing and SEO and solves many issues of users. Anoopsrivastava784 (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
If what you have posted at LinkedIn is copyright protected (I am not familiar with LI policy), then you cannot use that content in an existing or new Wikipedia article. And, as noted above, you may not use your LI articles as references. David notMD (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Nazism is incorrectly labeled as being far-right, when it should be labeled as far-left. The politics that the party represented (fascism), as well as the National Socialism they represented, are all facets found within the far-left leaning ideologue. Yes, they despised liberals, but Hitler HATED capitalism and also utilized racial ideologues not found in either far-right or far-left of his era. It wasn't until now that the far-left have embraced racial ideologues to replace the class ideologues found within their Marxism (another facet of the Nazi's, by the way). Neo-Nazi's are the current label for any new KKK member and since it WAS the Democrat party (the same that exists today, there was no "flip") that created the KKK, Neo-Nazi's are far-left as well, so you might as well correct that article as well. History is important in the fact that you can't change it, so why are you trying to hide the left's dark history? They have so much more than any group from the right.... 70.122.110.127 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The Teahouse is not the place for this, I suggest you post on the relevant article talk pages, don't expect a kind reaction though. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The OPs remarks are fringe views that are complete and utter baloney, and these views are rejected by all competent political scientists of the last 90 years. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Can I delete everything, then rewrite the whole article?
Article: Tumblestone
So here's the thing... I want to improve this article, but I'm kind of cringing how bad I was writing it back when I had less experience. I was thinking to rewrite it from scratch. When is it okay to blow everything up? TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 22:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
TrademarkedTWOrantula, although you wrote most of that article, several other editors contributed significantly as well. Suddenly eliminating their work seems harsh to me. Instead, I recommend a series of smaller, incremental edits to gradually improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Cullen328 - copy a section into your Sandbox, improve it there, then paste back - would be preferred to blanking content and starting over. David notMD (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Agree with David notMD and Cullen328. Flip the situation around: an article created by someone else, inexperienced, which you subsequently improved in numerous edits back in the day. Original user pops back up, decides to throw everything out, and start over. How does that make you feel about all the contributions you made, now dumped in the trash? See also WP:OWN. Not saying that WP:TNT is never a valid option, but you should always consider the contributions of other users. Mathglot (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Your user talk page, User talk:GabrielPenn4223, suggests that you have little or no idea of what you are doing. For a start, two points: (i) Do not nominate any article unless you have done a large amount of work on the article. (ii) Do not review any article that you have worked on more than trivially, let alone any article that you have nominated. -- Hoary (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
What debate controversy? Just stop nominating articles for GA and walk away from any discussions that might be happening there. Find something else to do instead, here is a good place to find things to do: Wikipedia:Task Center. Polyamorph (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@GabrielPenn4223 There is no controversy. You';ve simply been told that you do not know what you're doing, and you have only just come to realise people are right. Any 'controversy,'as you perceive it, will stop when you start to appreciate that you don't yet know enough about how Wikipedia works, especially in relation to Good Article status and reviews. You've only made 60 contributions to articles, yet you seem to have caused quite some disruption and chaos by thinking you can storm in and randomly nominate articles, then seek talk page protection on those nomination or review pages just because you don't like being told to stop what you're doing and gain some understanding first.
You may be editing in good faith, but disruption is disruption. Adminstrators have the ability to put partial blocks on areas where good faith editors are nevertheless causing undue disruption and time-wastage. If you continue as you have done, I fear that could happen to your account. So, simply keep away from article assessments, and work in other areas which will improve your article-editing skills and understanding.
If you've recently made other inappropriate nominations, please go back and undo them all to avoid wasting other editors' time. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Wherever you're asked, just promise that you'll stop nominating and reviewing GAs until you've gained more experience or that you've already stopped, then follow-through. Whenever someone comes to you about a mess you've made, tell them you're sorry, and tell them to help you fix it if you need to be the one to fix it, or fix it themselves if they can. If you've made a big mess, you could post to WT:GAN apologising, and asking them to fix it or help you fix it. Best, Usedtobecool☎️11:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@GabrielPenn4223, that's it then. You don't need to run; it's better to hang around in case other people show up with questions. As the mess clears up, it will be forgotten. Meanwhile, you can do other things, as was suggested above. You are not in any trouble, as long as you stop and engage with others politely. Just take it slow, whatever you do next. Usedtobecool☎️13:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Dr.AhmedAlSulaiti – while I cannot view the deleted draft, the reason given for deletion indicates that your draft was promotional. Using Wikipedia to promote yourself, your business, or anything else is not permitted; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles also must demonstrate that reliable sources not connected to the subject have chosen to write about them already, and may not include any information not already in other sources. Writing autobiographies in particular is also strongly discouraged for a variety of reasons, which I see has already been mentioned on your user talk page. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion someone else will likely write an article about you eventually. Tollens (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Dear Team
we create article for Dr.AhmedAlSulaiti related achievement and occupation ,company we are mentioned in the Articles . In the Infobox we mention he name ,occupation of company website only . kindly share guides create page Dr.AhmedAlSulaiti (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Dr.AhmedAlSulaiti, let me quote: Al Sulaiti Holdings was founded and is chaired by Dr. Ahmed Al Sulaiti, a visionary businessman from Qatar. He has built a diversified business portfolio that is well-known both locally and internationally. (And the deleted "Dr Ahmed Mohammed Hassan Al Hayya Al Sulaiti" continued in the same vein.) If it is well-known both locally and internationally, then those who know it are sure to find disinterested, reliable sources about it and to want to create an article purely based on those sources. Incidentally, the articles I've seen on companies that are well-known both locally and internationally don't bother to say that these companies are well-known both locally and internationally, and one reason for not saying this is that readers will already know it. That matter aside, I note that your user name is the same as the name of your subject. -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
More than one version of an article by you, about you, has been Speedy deleted. Unless you can create a draft in which all content is verified by references written by people with no connection to you, stop trying. David notMD (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Any good sites for finding record chart placements for all/many countries?
Are there any quality, reliable websites that have chart information pertaining to multiple countries (not just the US and UK), particularly one where I can look up a certain artist and find the corresponding album and song chart placements by country for said artist? Thanks - Elephantranges (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Can I join any Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process?
Hi! I know I'm not a Wikipedia expert, but after having created several Wikipedia pages in the past few weeks, I have gained a better understanding of the rules, particularly regarding the Notability Guidelines. While I enjoy creating biographies of random notable people, I am interested in participating in the deletion process and casting my vote. Is there a specific rule for this? Do I need to be an expert to do so? Additionally, where can I find a list of articles that have been tagged for deletion? I hope you can answer my questions. If not, I guess I will stick to editing or creating pages.Aona1212 (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Aona1212. Any editor in good standing can participate in AfD debates. Just be sure that your recommendation is based on our policies and guidelines. As for finding deletion debates, WP:AFDT is the shortcut to today's deletion debates. "Today" is based on UTC, so depending on where you live, the day may not end at midnight. That page has a back arrow, allowing you to see a list of yesterday's debates, and so on. Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@Aona1212 Just to mention that deletion discussions are not based on votes. Editors express their views about the compliance of the article according to policy/guidelines and an administrator (usually) who is technically equipped to make the deletion will do so (or not) based on the arguments made. Most often, it comes down to deciding whether the subject of the article is wikinotable, which can be a judgement call. See also WP:DEL for a full discussion of the policy and process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Can I copy a Simple English Wikipedia page into English Wikipedia?
Hello. I noticed there are some Simple English Wikipedia articles that do not exist on English Wikipedia. Would it be okay to copy them to here, in a similar manner to how copying from other Wikipedias works on Simple English Wikipedia? I couldn’t find any guidelines that say whether this is alright, so I thought I should defer to here.
I’d also like to say that, if this is alright to do, I would of course disclose that it was copied over in the talk page, as WP:CWW recommends.
As an aside, editors who are blocked on English Wikipedia are sometimes advised to edit on Simple English Wikipedia to show their ability to edit Wikimedia projects productively. So, keep that in mind when assessing articles that you find there. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Slamforeman, Yes, as others have said, but note that copy attribution is required, per Wikipedia's Terms of Use. You may use a modified copy of the model attribution statement near the top of WP:CWW, modified to fit your situation. I.e., this:
Copied content from [[:simple:<Exact page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution.
Hello, Enlightened Southerner, if the killer was convicted in a court of law, then it is OK to mention the name. If the killer died without being tried, but reliable sources and investigative bodies agree that they were responsible, it is probably OK to mention. We say, of course, that John Wilkes Booth murdered Abraham Lincoln, although Booth was killed when he was a fugitive, and was never tried or convicted. On another point, was the victim notable before the crime in this case? Otherwise, per WP:BIO1E, the article should be about the notable crime rather than a biography of the victim. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The article is Juraj Vankulič who was a Slovak drag performer who was murdered in the 2022 Bratislava shooting and the murderer was Juraj Krajčik. I reworded the article in ways and in the death section I wrote “ On October 12, 2022 at around 6 p.m., Vankulič was murdered when shot by a 19-year old teenager, [NAME REDACTED by an administrator]…” however my edit was reverted with the edit summary: “No mention of the murderer, please”, I was unsure if this is just an opinion or a policy regarding murder people, would you say it is appropriate to mention the name? Enlightened Southerner (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, how would I go about making a book reference where a page and the back of the book back up 2 separate claims on an article? Should I make 2 different references with one specifying a page, and then the other specifying the back of the book? Goldclock (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Goldclock Welcome to the Teahouse. Two separate references are not necessary. Both of our editing tools allow for one reference to be named and used again and again. See WP:REFNAME if using Source Editor. Personally, I would use the {{rp}} template after each of the citation, such as [citation]: 9 and [same citation]: rear cover Hopefully this helps. But do bear in mind that if you're basing a factual statement about, say, the author of a book by what they have written about themselves on the back cover, then that source is not deemed as 'reliable' as it's written by the subject. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, I use visual editor. If I use the {{rp}} template after the inline citations should I remove the "page cited/pages cited/at" field from the reference since its specified by the {{rp}} template? If not, then how do I add both the back cover and page number to the reference, because if I try to use both the "page cited" and "at" fields then it rejects it. Goldclock (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Goldclock Yes, I would remove the specific page number from within the original reference so that it simply points to the book as a whole, then I would add the respective page number/frontispiece/back cover mention to the rp template for each specific use. (Note: I have seen others here recommending the {{sfn}} template, but I find {{rp}} works fine for my needs, so I've never investigated any alternatives.) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Using Chrome browser after a system update, I noticed my Chromebook's not displaying Tex (math formulas, etc.) and hyperlinks have to be double clicked. I don't normally log in. Any suggestions? 73.192.182.36 (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The Amir Tsarfati article has not been published although he is a famous author and speaker. Can anyone shed some light on this? Aiinceku (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I created a userpage yesterday and and watching tutorials on how to edit and build a page. My goal is to create a page for a notable musician. I understand that I need to have an account 4 days and do at least 10 edits before a page I create is considered for approval.
@Holyhootenany: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you created User:Holyhootenany/sandbox, which was declined because it did not contain multiple published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction, and then spend a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independentreliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, declines, and rewrites before an article is accepted. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Adding "Democratic School" and editing "Democratic Education" accordingly
Hi Everyone,
I'd like to improve the article democratic education and have read in the Talk article discussion that the article should be split into Democratic School and Democratic Education, with a new definition for the latter. I wrote a draft for the new "Democratic School" article here in my Sandbox ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Altiflash/sandbox ) and also recommended a few changes for Democratic Education. However, I wouldn't want to delete the parts from "Democratic Education" that I adopted into the Democratic School article until the "Democratic School" article has been reviewed and approved. If I publish "Democratic School" now, though, there may be criticism that the topic is already covered by "Democratic Education". What do you recommend I do?
Hello... what do you do when a page is so badly written, with lots of mis-information and few proper references, that it would be much easier to start again than try and correct / edit it? Is it Ok to do that?! In this case I'm talking specifically about Antony Gibbs & Sons - I have read the key texts about the company and his family recently, so am aware of all the mistakes in the Wiki page. It's ages since I've edited anything, so can't remember the etiquett about signing off... I'm @Ruthhenrietta ;-) Ruthhenrietta (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Ruthhenrietta. Welcome to the Teahouse. Nowadays, your signature is automatically added to your post, or to any response if you click 'reply'. But if you respond the old way by clicking 'edit source' then you still need to use four tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) to insert your signature.
Now, regarding a 100% rewrite: personally I would strongly advise against it. It would only take one error in your version for someone to completely revert what changes you'd made and take you back to square one. A better way would be to first add a note to the article's talk page to explain your concerns and highlighting major flaws, and saying what you'd like to do, and inviting any feedback or cooperation on the project. Taking all the sources and starting from the beginning, I might work on rewriting each section, one at a time. Making clear edit summaries when you save changes means others can see what you've done, and relatively small edits are easier to understand and less soul-destroying to have reverted and to re-fix than massive edits and massive reverts.
If you insisted on doing a complete rewrite, you should prepare an alternative version in your sandbox and then link to that on the article talk page along with your concerns and seek comments and feedback. But there are probably less than 10 people 'watching' that article, which gets about ten views a day, so the likelihood of many people seeing your 'call to arms' is quite low.
So, whilst I would encourage you to WP:BEBOLD, I'd also recommend you make changes in a piecemeal fashion, rather than one quantum jump. Does that help at all? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes - it really helps - thank you... I'll take your advice... I realise it's a very niche subject! But it bugs me when information is so poor, so I think it's worth doing Ruthhenrietta (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ruthhenrietta Yes, I've just looked at it a bit closer and it does rather cover a broad range of topics in one article, so it could well be that a rewrite in your sandbox is a good way forward. Feel free to bring anything back to the Teahouse if you want further input.
George Van Driem's Source for Maghrebi Mint Tea History
Hi there! I'm here because my edit on Maghrebi mint tea got undone. The reason given by the user was that the source's author, George Van Driem, is a linguist, not a historian. However, considering George's specialization in historical linguistics and his book "The Tale of Tea: A Comprehensive History of Tea from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day" delving into tea's history from prehistoric times, should his source still be excluded from the history section? Thanks! MoroccanTeaEnjoyer (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Using PGP signed messages from the person the article is about as a source
Hello, I am currently considering making changes to the Cicada 3301 wikipedia article. I was planning on using direct statements made by 3301 as a source, however I have run into an issue. Every step of the puzzle and other miscellaneous statements made by 3301 have been clearsigned using PGP in some way or another. tl;dr, its a way to mathematically prove that the content can only be from 3301 themselves, and the signed message content is unmodified. Due to the complex math involved in generating the RSA keypairs and signatures, it is considered practically impossible to bruteforce/forge within our lifetime, and many lifetimes after that. Upon a signature being verified in a program like GPG, you also get all sorts of information about the message such as the author, date, and time the message was created. Because of this I believe their PGP signed messages would fall in the category of direct quotations, with 3301 themselves being the source.
The issue I have ran into though, is that due to the formatting of PGP signed messages(example of one here) it is often easiest to upload them to pastebin for people to download and verify themselves using GPG software. 3301 did this for a few of their signed messages. I have been informed by the wonderful folks in the help IRC channel that pastebin is still not considered a reliable source regardless of document contents and verifiability, due to lack of editorial oversight etc. I was wondering if there would be a way to still cite/precedent for citing a PGP signed message confirmed to be authored by the subject of the wikipedia article, without the issues associated with using pastebin. This is may be an uncommon issue without a clear answer, but if there's one thing I've learned in the past several years it's that 3301 is really good at creating unique problems for solvers. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration responding to this post. Ctvrty (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Ctvrty! Taking a step back, I would be wary of WP:Original research here. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so the idea is that we summarize information that secondary sources (like newspapers and books) have found notable to write about. Using info directly from Cicada 3301 (a primary source) would be more appropriate for a secondary source than for us. If no newspaper has found the info sufficiently important to write about, then I question whether it's important enough for us to cover in the article.
There are some exceptions where using primary sources is OK. For instance, we like to have birth dates for all biographies, so if the only source for 3301's birthday is a statement they made themselves over PGP, we'd want to find a way to cite the PGP message. I'm afraid I'm not techy enough to be able to give you advice on that. But that's downstream of the original research issue, which should be worked through first. Hope that's helpful! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I was afraid that would be an issue. Thank you for the thorough reply.
Re:secondary sources, one of our community members suggested that recordings of talks at DEFCON conferences/presentation slides from the talks when a/v recording isn't available(the files are usually hosted by DEFCON or DEFCON Villages, so you know for sure that the slides are legit) that cover the history of 3301 could be an acceptable secondary source. There are currently 3 separate talks that were either approved by DEFCON as a main track talk, or by the Crypto & Privacy Village at DEFCON in previous years that cover the history of 3301 and cultural impact to varying degrees. DEFCON is a world-renowned hacking and cybersecurity conference hosted every year(except when its cancelled), with both the DEFCON main track and Crypto & Privacy Village talks being subject to review and revision before being accepted. Would these be acceptable as reliable, secondary sources? Ctvrty (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd say conference proceedings can be acceptable sources, but it depends on who gave the talk, the extent to which the proceedings were published, and other factors. Editors more familiar with the subject area would be better positioned to answer than me. Feel free to try using them as sources and see how others watching the article react to it. If you're confident that the information belongs in the article, then including it with some source is always better than doing so with no source. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I recently tried to make an edit on the page Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom, giving more info on the Kingdom of Hungary. I made my edits, hit publish, got the little pop-up saying "Your edits have been published," scrolled down, and they weren't there? I then went back in to the edit page to see if something went wrong, and maybe re-do my edits, but my edits did show up on the editing page - they just wouldn't show up on the article page. Does anyone know what's going on? Thanks, Rj1255 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
hi @Rj1255 and welcome to the Teahouse! are you referring to the Kingdom of Hungary entry? it didn't display due to some errors with the table. in a table, |- denotes a split in the row of a table, and since your entry was after a |-, the code parser thought it was just a row break instead of a full entry which meant it did not display. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 01:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see, thank you. Yes, that was the one. I am new to this and was trying to imitate the layout of other entries. It worked for a couple entries but I guess I made a mistake on that one. Thanks a lot! Rj1255 (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Article name for YouTube channels
Hi. If I'm creating an article for a YouTube channel operated by one person, should the name of the article be that of the channel or person? Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@CanonNi: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking through Category:YouTube channels and , it depends under which name they are more known. Articles about YouTuber who are mostly known under their channel name use the channel name, if they are mostly known under a different name (real name or not) use that, and in Edge cases use editorial judgement to decide on one. A redirect or disambiguation entry can be considered from the other one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Samchristie05: Welcome to the Teahouse! I believe you're asking us whether the number of references in the article You Were Only Fooling (an album by Vic Damone) is greater than those in other articles you have created. According to this report you have created 42 articles - congratulations! You can use the report to compare number of references in each article.
In the future, providing a link to the article you're asking about will help other editors understand your question and provide a quicker answer. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Is there any place in Wikipedia where we can discuss media bias of popular newspapers and news channels, where many experienced editors can discuss and come to a conclusion? Nightingagleyt (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I know about reliable sources. My doubt is about bias among reliable sources. CNN, BBC are reliable sources. Example-In any Argentina political issue they are supporting one party while locals who read Argentina newspaper know that politicians from both parties are corrupt and violent. Nightingagleyt (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
While the linked articles do discuss bias a bit, it doesn't go in to too much depth about bias. To my knowledge (I could be totally wrong), there is no dedicated noticeboard for bias only. ❤HistoryTheorist❤05:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
user 98Tigerius imposes his will
user 98Tigerius imposes his will.. user 98Tigerius imposes his will.. all the changes I made were based on credible sources AGB Nielsen website on Korean drama page but he changed my changes after that he made changes as he pleased Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
i added a "distinguish" notice near the top of this page, I can't quite figure out the formatting around the brackets "[[]]" that allow for the wikilink of No control (2015 film) but also permit the added annotated text that I included. please help me fix this please. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
With the distinguish template, you don't need to add the wikilink brackets. The template does that itself, so you should remove the wikilink brackets you added. Hope that helps! ❤HistoryTheorist❤05:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
no that doesn't fix it. please look at this page and see what i mean. it breaks the annotated subsequent text if i remove the brackets as you advised. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Iljhgtn: To resolve the issue, I replaced {{Distinguish}} with {{for}}. You could have also used {{Distinguish}} with |text= to do something like this:
{{Distinguish|text=[[No Control (2015 film)]], a film made in 2015 by Jessica Solce about gun policy in the United States}}
which would generate:
Not to be confused with No Control (2015 film), a film made in 2015 by Jessica Solce about gun policy in the United States.
Hi,I have made 3 pages that already exist in the Turkish Wiki so these are translations but they are quite different from the original (Draft:Erenköy, Kadıköy, Draft:Göztepe Park, Draft:Caddebostan, Kadıköy). I am slowly improving them and the best one out of the three is the Caddebostan article with over 20 sources. Is it possible for experienced editors to give me advice on these drafts and how can I improve them? It would be an honor for me to get an article published. Thank you. Youprayteas (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)youprayteas
@Youprayteas, I went through the drafts and made various cleanups. I'd suggest looking in the revision history to see what I've done. The biggest issue is establishing the notability of the neighborhoods (WP:POPULATED), which needs to be done through in-depth sourcing. The quality of sources is what matters, not the quantity. It's okay if these sources are not in English, but we're looking for media coverage (or, even better, scholarly books). The other thing I'd pay attention to is WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. We don't want a Wikivoyage travel guide, but rather an encyclopedia article, and things like a destination list or overly detailed description of which bus lines run through a neighborhood are questionable. Hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I established the notability of Caddebostan and Erenköy through the sources. I added the bus lines because it was also on the Turkish version. Youprayteas (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Youprayteas, editorial standards differ between different language editions of Wikipedia. The fact that the neighborhoods are considered notable for Turkish Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean they will be here. Likewise, the bus lines being appropriate to add there doesn't mean they necessarily will be here. I would look to high-quality examples of articles about places to see what we're aiming toward. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I just read the changes and thank you for your help. I would like to ask you, do you think my Caddebostan article is ready for being an article? I have multiple sources declaring Caddebostan is a neighborhood. The other ones are work in progresses. Youprayteas (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Youprayteas, that's for the reviewer to say, not me. Looking at the 20 or so sources in the article, which three do you consider to be the strongest? Are any of them from media outlets/publishers that have an article? {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The first source is used in literally every neighborhood article in Turkey so I would definetly include that. The second source is for the km2. The third source is for the population and the list of neighborhoods in Kadıköy. The 8th and 9th sources are for the history. The 12nd source is for the Barlar Street which isn't mentioned on the other sources. The 14th article is probably the most inclusive for destinations in Caddebostan. 19th source is needed for the mansion being sold. The 21st (last, for now) article is for the Göztepe Park. So in summary these 9 sources are enough. I wanted there to be as much references as possible because I really want this article to get published, since Caddebostan is a very notable neighborhood. Youprayteas (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Youprayteas, you say "I wanted there to be as much references as possible"; but Sdkb has already commented on this: "The quality of sources is what matters, not the quantity." Sdkb asked you "Looking at the 20 or so sources in the article, which three do you consider to be the strongest? Are any of them from media outlets/publishers that have an article?" Please answer these questions. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
We're not asking you to remove the other sources from the article. But establishing notability is separate from ensuring information in the article is sourced. We want sources that establish notability. {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
to reply to your second comment. I added five sources legally recognizing Caddebostan's neighborhood-ity. The first source is used in literally all subdivisions of Turkey and it is a database where you can search for legal divisions. I thought it as enough. but everyone kept saying we have no proof this is a real neighborhood even though it is and you can see from the references so I added 5 references just to prove that Caddebostan exists. I think it is unnecesarry too but eh. Youprayteas (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Caddebostan and Erenköy are notable enough for Wikipedia. They are redlinked in some places too, as I checked. I listed many attractions about the neighborhood and overall it is notable because there are plenty of sources about it too. Youprayteas (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
To further add to your second comment, the population of Caddebostan is over 21 thousand. There are many countries below this population, for example. I am not mentioning Erenköy because it is a work in progress, but it has over 30k which is incredibly a lot. Youprayteas (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@YouprayteasVis a vis notability of "legally declared neighborhoods", WP:Notability (geographic features) addresses this. (Well, I"m not even sure that we generally have "legally declared neighborhoods" in the U.S. Typically, we have plat books which may name subdivisions and the like, but I'm doubtful that meets this criterion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrickator (talk • contribs) 19:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
User made information
I have read through all the guidelines(I could find) of Wikipedia and as user made information becomes more prevalent I imagine there must be some way user made information(e.g Youtube) may be used if confirmed by numerous sources. I will accept a simple yes or no. Sputnik274 (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Sputnik274: If confirmed by numerous reliable sources, just use those sources instead. User-generated sources are nearly always not suitable for use in any article. If all of the numerous sources you're referring to are also user-generated, the material should not be used. See WP:USERGENERATED. Tollens (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Sputnik274, there is no simple yes or no answer. Sorry. The vast majority of YouTube videos are of no value as references because they do not comply with our policies in a variety of ways. On the other hand, the small percentage of YouTube videos on the official channels of established reliable sources are also reliable sources. It is your obligation to personally verify the reliability of any source you plan to use on Wikipedia, whether it is a video or anything else. Cullen328 (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
For the curious: Happy Tree Friends mentions Toothy (a cartoon beaver) voiced by Warren Graff. The History section does mention Banjo Frenzy as in effect a pilot episode in which Toothy and two others are killed by being hit with a banjo. Characters are maimed/killed in every episode, but appear unharmed in subsequent episodes (to again be maimed/killed). Dean MacDonald is not named as a voice provider for any other character. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not a mobile user, but it's possible the Wikimedia Foundation is adding features, trying things, hoping to attract more people, encourage them to become editors. As for the website, the quality of your edits will become clear to you through feedback from others. People will revert you and warn you if you do things wrong, you may get no feedback if you're doing well. People may occassionally show up to thank you and encourage you if you keep on with good work. Best, Usedtobecool☎️13:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Tusharhero, I also see this statistic. If I tap and hold on the indicator, an explanation pops up saying, "Based on how many times one of your contriburions was reverted (undone by another editor). Reverted edits: 0."
I think it must be only looking at your most recent edits for the count. The Wikipedia app is FLOSS, so you could look at the source code to confirm. --Habst (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
How to add books in someone's Wikipedia biography authored by the person in the biography? I want to know so that, I can fix the bibliography section of biography pages! TheProEditor11 (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheProEditor11 It depends on how many entries you want to cover. For example, J. K. Rowling has a large table, where other authors have a simple bulleted list (e.g. Coral Bell). There is no reason to include absolutely everything someone published: a "selected publications" list is fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheProEditor11, there are citation templates you can use. I believe the relevant one here would be a template like {{Cite book}} which you can use to format these references. a general and in-depth guide to referencing can also be viewed at Citing sources. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 13:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Note that in this case you would put the {{cite book}} directly after a bullet (*), without any <ref> tages around it, so it will be part of the main text and not included in the footnotes/references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
...just to add that it may be OK to add a name of an alumnus if there isn't an article about them, but only if one or more citations are added after their entry. This is both to prove that they did indeed attend that school or college and to demonstrate that they do meet our Notability Criteria. In that case, it is OK to add them as a REDLINK in the expectation that there will be an article about them in due course. However, no suitable citations; no entry on the list! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Gnidwod, it is always optimal to mention the specific article that you are talking about, since we have 6,773,292 of them, and no human can possibly remember all of them. After searching around, I am guessing that you are talking about List of Old St. Beghians. Please let us know if it is another article. Briefly, if the Wikipedia biography of a notable person verifies that they attended St Bees School, then add them to that list article. If the person is not the subject of a Wikipedia article, then either write an acceptable Wikipedia biography first, or add references verifying their notability, or don't add them to that list at all. After all, the school has been around for 440 years, and it would be inappropriate and of no value to try to list everyone who ever attended. We list only notable alumni, which in effect means that they are the subject of a Wikipedia biography in most cases. While you are at it, you could alphabetize that list. That would be useful. Cullen328 (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Since the list has an existing order (note the parenthetical "by order of birth date" in the heading), rearranging it alphabetically could be a controversial move, requiring prior discussion on the talk page. Deor (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an environment that is intended to be welcoming for all types of people. If you are only here to post slurs, you will quickly be blocked. This is a project to write an encyclopedia not to fool around. Basic common sense and decency should tell you it is inappropriate to post slurs, you shouldn't need a specific rule. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I have a question, my imagination is way too wide, but is it possible to create another sandbox? I promise I totally won’t make an entire whole different universe.
To be blunt: if you ever post offensive slurs anywhere on Wikipedia again, your IP address will be blocked from editing. This is an adult project; try not to act like a stupid kid. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@CanonNi: When you visit the user pages of other users and like their layout, you can click "Edit source" to see how they formatted their page. I've copied code from other users, pasted it on my user page, and then played around with it until it was something I liked. GoingBatty (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Tumrabert: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see the article has been moved to Draft:Gnoppix. As stated at the top of the draft, all the sources are primary sources, and Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources. If you haven't done so already, I suggest reading Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Notability (software). Then, gather multiple sources that meet the four criteria listed at the top of your draft: "(1) reliable (2) secondary (3) independent of the subject (4) talk about the subject in some depth." (Click the links at the top of the draft for more information about each criteria.) Then rewrite your draft based on what the independent sources have written. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I can not seem to figure out how to publish this article. I moved it out of my sandbox - by hitting "Move" (article). Lisahickey (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
hi @Lisahickey and welcome to the Teahouse! are you referring to Lisahickey/sandbox? firstly, that article is currently named that instead of EBTRON, which you can edit by moving the page again to a different title. however, instead of that I recommend you to go through the Articles for creation process (instead of publishing the page immediately) by moving the article back to User and following the steps in that page, since they could provide you with more advice to improve your article. editing! 💜 melecietalk - 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Lisahickey According to your contribution history you have moved things around a bit an ended up with Lisahickey/sandbox in article space. As a new user and one that is a declared paid editor (thanks for the declaration) you should not move drafts into the main encyclopaedia but should use the WP:AfC process: see that link for the details. A brief look tells me that there are all sorts of problems with your draft and it is likely to be speedily deleted if you don't follow our accepted process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. This is all a bit foreign to me. I had seen that other companies are listed in Wikipedia and wanted to get EBTRON listed. I did read the article links. I thought I removed the company promotion copy. Not sure what you mean by paid editor? Lisahickey (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Tone accents in Chinese pinyin: The idea I propose is to add the tonal accents in the Latin alphabet (pinyin) used to transcribe Chinese. There are 4 tonal accents. Please consider making it a rule when using pinyin Chinese so as to convey that Chinese is a tonal language. 2603:7000:4300:DBE:7C7D:9C01:EA30:A2C4 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The policy is stated at MOS:CHINA#Romanization: English Wikipedia uses Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks as the default method of romanising Chinese characters, and at WP:NC-CHINA#Orthography: The titles of Chinese entries should follow current academic conventions, which generally means Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks.
These policies are established by consensus, and you are welcome to try and argue to change the consensus, but I don't think you'll have much success. The place to discuss this is the talk page of one of those, probably WT:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles. Please search this and its archives first, to see if there are any previous discussions on the question. ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Making an article "Aziz Alili" in Bosnian
Hello, I started making the article "Aziz Alili" in my Bosnian language, after seeing no such article in Bosnian or English. Only just now have I found that the article does indeed exist in the sq.wiki domain (don't know the language). It is a fairly small article while I wanted to do a medium sized article about it. Now I'm wondering if I should translate that article or just make it anew in Bosnian like I have already started. Thanks a lot in advance. A flurry of stars (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, A flurry of stars. That is Albanian Wikipedia and the article is sourced to a single database entry which does not exist. It would be unwise simply to translate it into English. We have pretty tough criteria for notability (see WP:NBIO), and require good, reliable sources as the basis from which you should write any content (not vice versa).
Because this is English Wikipedia, it is not the right place to start drafting any article in another language. You should do that on the relevant language Wikipedia. Again, base what you write on published sources, not a translation of (potentially) nonsense that you might read on any Wikipedia page.
Hi, I'm working on an article and I don't seem to understand how that the reference isn't indepth as it was stated, I'd appreciate you help me figure it out Starheroine (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Can someone look up at my recent assessments made on the article talk pages. I would like to know if I am placing the class and importance parameters at the right place or not. And ensure that I am not missing anything to add. Thank you in advance. (Please ping when replying) 456legendtalk23:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Asilvering, Thank you for the insights. This looks good but I need some time to understand the coding I believe. I will better do it manually for now. Thank you 456legendtalk00:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@456legend Of course, feel free to do it manually, but I do want to point out that there's no coding (not even wikicode) involved with rater. All you need to do is copy this exact text:
Ruth Ashton Taylor was my grandmother-in-law. Am I allowed to edit her page? I did so before realizing I should ask first. Sorry. Thanks, Nirva20 Nirva20 (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Others may disagree, but my interpretation of WP:CoI is that you probably do have a "conflict of interest" (given that she was a relative by marriage whom presumably you knew personally).
That doesn't mean you must not edit the article, but you should declare this COI on your User page (which you haven't created yet, but that is trivially easy – just click on your red signature name and type something to start it).
You also must ensure that anything you add to the article is cited to publishedReliable sources that are independent of her or her friends/family/associates. Doubtless you know a great deal about her, but unless the information has been published, and you cite its published source, you must not add it.
If there's something in the article you know to be false that is not cited, you may remove it: but if it's false and cited (maybe the published source made a mistake), you should discuss its removal on the article's Talk page, be prepared to have your removal reverted, and then discuss the matter with the reverter – this is called the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and is a normal part of Wikipedia editing. It may be that we end up presenting information from two sources that disagree ("A says this, but B says this.") allowing readers to make up their own minds.
If you have an edit and citable source for something but are hesitant about editing the article with it, present it as a proposal on the Talk page and add an Edit request template so another more experienced editor can evaluate it and make it if they think it's appropriate.
Please click through all of the blue links I've included above and at least skim the material they lead to. Hope this helps, and happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.47.60 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nirva20: As an editor with a conflict of interest, your best approach is to propose any substantive changes on the article talk page. You can preface your proposal with the tag {{Edit COI}} to cause your request to be listed on a category page that is monitored by some editors.
Generally, you can edit the article yourself to make minor corrections to spelling, grammar, names, dates, and numbers. You can add citations to reliable sources that are independent of the article topic. You can revert obvious vandalism. But anything more substantive, you should propose on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Editing a co workers page
Hi! I work at a music studio and a couple people that I work with want me to edit their Wikipedia's but when I tried in the past it either didn't save it or told me that if I tried doing it again it would delete their page. How can I edit it without any of those things happening? 38.142.212.186 (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for asking.
Please note that, as a colleague, you have a conflict of interest, and as you are employed there, you almost certainly count as a paid editor, even if you are not specifically employed to edit Wikipedia.
You must make a formal declaration of your status, and then you may make edit requests for changes to articles where you have a conflict of interest.
Please remember that Wikipedia's articles about your colleagues do not belong to them, are not controlled by them, and will not necessarily say what they want them to say. If you provide independent, reliably published sources| for any information you want to add, then it is likely that whichever volunteer editor deals with your edit request will carry it out. But if the material you want to add is at all promotional, or is not adequately sourced, then it will not be inserted into the article. ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
You cannot edit your coworkers page because you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia takes combating promotional editing very seriously and if you persist, you will likely be blocked. Ishitomo (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Professor Mary Mellor
Mary Mellor – UK sociologist who moved to ecofeminist ideas from an interest in cooperatives. Her books Breaking the Boundaries and Feminism and Ecology are grounded in a materialist analysis.[citation needed]
Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction, and then spend a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independentreliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, declines, and rewrites before an article is accepted. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
You should create an account, make ten edits, and wait four days. After that, you will be able to create articles without going through the review process. Note that your article will still be reviewed by patrollers gunning for adminship, hoping to boost their AfD and CSD stats. To give your article a better chance of surviving this process, make sure it has a lot of sources to make the subject appear notable. Ishitomo (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Template removal question
Hello, Teahouse. Today my question is: If an expansion template on an article is there, but upon research there is no reliable sources for citation/ expansion on the topic, how should one proceed in regards to the template? Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
That's another thing- I'm sure that there's no perfect solution to this problem, but I've found that talk page visibility has been low- I don't believe that I've gotten any responses from questions there yet. I know that this is what project pages are for, but I've only gotten a reply once there in the 5-7ish times I've tried that. Should I come here in that scenario? Anyways, thanks Batty. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Templates can be added to articles to notify readers of any problems the article has or any maintenance it may need. There are many different kinds of templates, which have different appearances depending on how you are accessing Wikipedia. If you want to change the appearance of templates, try adjusting your settings and reconfiguring your browser firewall. Ishitomo (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Adding contributions to top navigation bar?
Currently the buttons at the top of the screen (when scrolled all the way up) are alerts, notifications, watchlist, then a dropdown with more options. I'd like to add contributions to the list so I don't have to navigate through the dropdown each time. I know it's something to do with css but I have no experience with it, and I'd like someone to provide me with the code to do so, if it is possible. Redoct87 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The top navigation bar can be customized to include a number of user specific interface options that account for run time variability in nested virtual algorithms. Simply reset your data input formatting to synchronize processing speed. Ishitomo (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Shenaall: you can fix it by uploading a smaller version, like 320 pixels wide. My understanding, however, is that a bot comes along and does this eventually for large non-free images. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Shenaall, it is best that you downsize the file yourelf. That will show that you understand the standards imposed on non-free images. If an image is freely licensed or in the public domain, we want the most accurate and highest resolution version available. On the other hand, if the image is non-free, we quite deliberately want a low resolution version, as part of our ongoing efforts to comply with copyright laws. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Is an official transit map fair-use?
Hi! I'm working on this article on the REM de l'Est, a cancelled public transport project in Montreal, and I'm wondering if the official route map of the system could be considered fair use and usable in the article. Right now I've included a simple outline of the map that I made myself and it's obviously not great. I've noticed the New York City Subway page and other similar articles have maps but I'm a bit confused as to whether or not they're the official one or just really good recreations. Thanks for any help! WikiFouf (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, WikiFouf. Wikipedia's policy on using copyrighted images is much more restrictive than fair use. Please read the requirements at Non-free images. In most cases, we do not use copyrighted maps, because it is a relatively easy matter to create a freely licensed version. Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, my original answer was based on the assumption that the specific transit map in question is copyright protected. If it can be established through specific evidence that the map is in the public domain or is freely licensed, then what I said above about this specicic image does not apply. But it applies more broadly to images that are legitimately protected by copyright, which is a very low bar for anything published in recent decades. The bottom line is that we must assume that anything published in the last 95 years is copyright protected, unless we have solid evidence to the contrary. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Image preview on hover
When I hover over link to some articles, infobox image is shown along with lede text. But in some article hovers image is not shown, even when infobox has an image (this and this). Why? How to make sure that image is visible in preview. Also, what should be ratios of infobox image which make sure that images are not cutoff in preview (cut from top like this). -- Parnaval (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you PrimeHunter. I prefer that when I hover over links, then image is visible. So I would try to add portraits with min 210 x 250px. One more question. Why on hovering over Manushi Chhillar show her signature, and not the portrait image? Portrait is the first image in infobox, and clearly larger than min required size -- Parnaval (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey everybody,
I found an online PDF of some lecture slides presented at Johnson Spaceflight Center back in 2017, and I want to use it as a resource for the STS-41-B article. I'm not sure how I would cite it though, specifically with the CS1 Style Templates. Would it fall under {cite web} or is there a more specific template for lectures/presentations? Also, since this presentation was made and presented by and for NASA employees, would the images inside, which were presumably prepared by NASA employees, be in the public domain? SpacePod9 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, SpacePod9. Perhaps Template:Cite conference might work for you. You are correct that text and images created by employees of the US federal government as part of their job duties are in the public domain. This does not apply to all state and local governments. Cullen328 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@SpacePod9: cool, we're below quota for good NASA sources :) NASA has a nicely structured reports server, which you could reference instead of the raw pdf. [3]– SJ +06:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@3MRB1: And your point is? I note that the article was created over a dozen years ago, back in 2011. Do you feel the topic isn't sufficiently notable to merit an article here? Do you see any evidence of non-neutral prose? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
needs OR & COI hatnotes. everything is unsubstantiated puffery. the only verifiable cites found occurred recently. isn't sufficiently notable to merit an article here the content should be merged with pub quiz. I use the wiki app and this cannot be done with it. 3MRB1 (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Where to put commas and dots
If I have a reference in the end of the sentence or phrase, should I put it after comma/dot or before?
For example: ...was established on October 30, 1923[1], to the 32nd Government...
or
...was established on October 30, 1923,[1] to the 32nd Government...
Thanks. Aredoros87 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Cometkeiko: You may see some articles where editors have incorrectly added references before commas and periods. Feel free to fix them when you see them. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I've seen this specific typo/guideline get fixed by bots before. Is it possible to make a direct request for a bot to make this fix on a specific page? Do you know which bots can do it? Reconrabbit18:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
So the first example is wrong and the second is correct?
"ISTQB CTFL Syllabus 2018"(PDF). ISTQB - International Software Testing Qualifications Board. Archived(PDF) from the original on 2022-03-24. Retrieved 2022-04-11.
Happen to have very different formats. One puts the original first, and the second puts the archived first. When i'm clicking on links, this forces me to think a vital few seconds before each link, which can slow me down a lot when i need to quickly review, say, 40 sources, of which 20 are "need further investigation", and 10 are "Relevant to what i'm doing". I generally trust archived links over the original, so i prefer to link to those when it's easy.
Is there any reason for this disparity? It could be something to do with dead links, but as we all know, a lot of links haven't been checked in a while and are dead, despite having the primary, presumed "alive" link first. 56independent (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@56independent: It is indeed because of dead links. The first citation you've provided puts the original second, because it has been marked as dead, whereas the second puts the original first because it is still live. In both cases there isn't usually a need to visit anything but the first link. In theory WP:IABOT will automatically find dead links and tag them, but yes, not all of them are always tagged as dead immediately. No matter what the ordering is, there's extra work involved for somebody: if they are always in the same order, if someone is trying to read the most up-to-date version of the source they always have to check the first link (which may or may not be dead), but if they are reordered, that person can usually just click the first link. There's not really a perfect solution, and as far as I'm aware there's unfortunately no way to always display archived links first for a particular account. Tollens (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Tollens With the archive web UI, it's simple to go forwards in time or visit the original site. Going to an archived version is a more involved process, especially if you don't have the broser extension with the "visit archived version" button. As such, it may be a better idea to always put the archived version first.
As for different display, i have an intresting idea. Using client-side JS scripting (which might be a bad idea), remove the HTML content of the citation and replace it with the user-preferred version. This is rather trivial given that this JS's niche. 56independent (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
A user reverted all my comments on a talk page
I tried to appeal here but someone removed my comments here as well without telling me why.
You seem to have violated WP:ECR. This is not the place to raise grievances with another user, that is WP:ANI, but I urge you to consider what you are being told carefully first. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@CollationoftheWilling, jumping into contentious topic areas as a new user is an extremely bad idea. Please slow down and carefully review what you are being told. If you want to make a request for a specific edit - no commentary, nothing else added - that is allowed, you can go ahead and do that. If you keep trying to do anything else, you're going to keep landing in hot water. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Good morning, I'd wrote an article above Brunsviga (brand of calculating machines), translating the page I made in French (with the help of translators). But I might have made some mistake, therefore the page is redirectd toward another page Odhner arithmometer : would it be possible, please, to make the page independent, I fear to make a mistake.
Hello all, I am working on creating a draft about a online casino, Gamdom. I notice that there are a lot of independant, popular sources in both the news and casino news space that report on it, though I just have a bad feeling it's not notable enough (although it is promoted quite a lot on user-created content websites such as YouTube, and several sponsorships are/were active with them). Could I get some advice on that all? OnlyNano20:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, OnlyNano. I would have major doubts about the reliability and independence of sources in the casino news space. As WP:NCORP says, Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.Cullen328 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey there, would you mind checking on the draft's sources and letting me know if I need additional ones? Yahoo Finance reported on their partnership with Usain Bolt, which I would say is pretty big for information. The others are either primary sources (about their legalization, etc), and independent sources (such as HLTV, a CS:GO news source) reported on a tournament they sponsored. It's seeming to be a bit more notable as I go, though I'd love other editor's input on this. Thanks! (Draft) OnlyNano22:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, OnlyNano. Just answering one point: no, their partnership with Usain Bolt is not, of itself, of any great significance. If the article about the partnership talks in some depth about the company (and is not just regurgitating a press release) then it might be useful. ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the article does talk about what Gamdom is. I have found some other interesting sources which describe it, and the founder is an editor of CoinTelegraph, which provides some background information on the company's foundings. I believe the sources should be good, but I'm going to find a bunch more to beef up the information and notability, as I do believe the company is quite notable. We'll see how it goes, though. OnlyNano22:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
OnlyNano, Liquipedia is user generated content so not a reliable source. Yahoo Finance is a reprint of a press release so not an independent source. You need references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the company. So far, you don't have any. Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Yahoo Finance is a content aggregator. In most cases what you find there will be a repost of content from elsewhere. In the case of the cite you are using, it is a reposted press release. Press releases about Gamdom will be written by Gamdon's PR staff. They are not independent, so they cannot be used to build the case for notability. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
You are strongly encouraged to disclose any potential conflict of interest you may have with the company article you intend to edit. Failure to do so may result in a COI investigation. Ishitomo (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Please help me with any suggestions.(rewrite,appeal etc.)
Wikipedia shown that
This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic.However, the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is a page's subject does not, on its own, qualify that page for deletion under this criterion. This criterion also does not apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material as deletion is not cleanup; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the {{advert}} tag to alert others to do so. See CSD G11.
If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this article may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
Note to page author: you have not edited the article talk page yet. If you wish to contest this speedy deletion, clicking the button above will allow you to leave a talk page message explaining why you think this article should not be deleted.
If you have already posted to the talk page but this message is still showing up, try purging the page cache.
As the notice says, you can context the speedy deletion by picking the button. But reading the article, the first paragraph is entirely promotional.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
An article should be based almost entirely on what those independent sources say, but not one of the sources you've cited is independent. Please read about notability, and your first article.
A more general suggestion: If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft. I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. ColinFine (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Tumrabert: I have moved your article to draft space (Draft:Gnoppix) to give you time to improve it before submitting it for review. In draft space, you don't need to worry about someone coming along and deleting it. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Anachronist I think the history of the numerous attempts to create this article has gone beyond a joke. Content was not only highly promotional, but also only sourced to Gnoppix-related sites. I have therefore WP:SALTed the article, meaning it will require administrator approval should anyone wish to create it in the future. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Articles can be speedily deleted for a variety of different reasons, including the ones you mentioned. It is customary to place a notice on pages that have been nominated for speedily deletion while also notifying the creator of a nominated page. Speedy deletion is used to bypass the longer process of voting on whether or not to delete an article. Ishitomo (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@David notMD: This seems wrong. User:Gnoppix is a very old account with no edits in 11 years (it created the mainspace article Gnoppix then) and there was no need to block it. The article was created in mainspace even before then, and prod-deleted and restored. For some reason Tumrabert, a fairly new account created last October, moved it all over the place between draft, main space, and User:Gnoppix for some reason. I attempted to clean up the mess, deleting the user page, moving the main space version back to draft.
While it was in main space, it was tagged for G11 speedy deletion and administrator User:Sj declined it, so it was ineligible for G11 speedy deletion again, but User:Theroadislong, who shouldn't have reversed Sj's administrative decision without prior discussion, deleted it.
And Tumrabert was deleted as an advertising-only account by User:HJ Mitchell when it seems to me like overkill given the history here.
Minor Linux distros are generally a mess. (Gnoppix these days is built on Kali Linux, a significantly more notable distro, which article is nevertheless only slightly more contentful.) Salting seems fine here, I didn't see the history of title-dancing (+ on closer look there really are no modern sources to be found). – SJ +05:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@IonlyPlayz2 You could use {{cite web}} for that URL, with other parameters as suggested on the template page. However, assuming it is the picture you are interested in using, you can copy that to Wikimedia Commons as the date it was taken (1902) puts it firmly in the public domain. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Draft articles being taken and placed elsewhere without permission
I was upset that my first draft article, which I was asked to revise and resubmit (and which I am now working on), appeared on Wikitia. I am guessing that when I resubmit my article, it may appear again on Wikitia or elsewhere. Why this is this allowed or possible? I thought drafts for submission went to an internal safe space? IonaFyne (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
IonaFyne, when you make any edit, including creating a draft, you agree to "irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL." This is shown in the edit window. Sites like Wikitia can copy text from Wikipedia (with attribution), since it is released under this Creative Commons license. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @IonaFyne, welcome to the Teahouse. There are no internal safe spaces on Wikipedia, though some pages are harder to find than others. Assume that anything you publish here, anywhere, is going to be seen by others (and potentially taken for use elsewhere, as noted above). 57.140.16.1 (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I understand your frustration. It would be very nice if Wikipedia did have a safe space somewhere because it seems to me that some mirrors, and Wikitia is one of the worst, specialise in taking material that specifically hasn't been accepted as ready-for-use here, and passing it off as though it were written by a "verified editor", and is therefore somehow guaranteed good. What's particularly wrong is that the CC-by-SA-4.0 license does require Wikitia to attribute the text, but so far as I can see they almost never do, and specialise in taking drafts that are then deleted here, which means there is no way to back-track and find that their text is not compliant to the license (unless you're a Wikipedia admin able to see deleted drafts). It's wrong, but it's not going to change. Elemimele (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@IonaFyne What I do to avoid this situation is to use my sandbox to create drafts (with the source editor) but I never save/publish them there. Instead, I just "Preview" them to check that the markup is OK. I then copy/paste out all the wikitext into a local text editor on my PC. By working with the only saved copy offline, I can ensure that no draft is available for others to see until I think it is ready. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
That's a function of your own device's browser recording websites/pages/links that you have visited. While some websites have links which won't (generally) be illuminated as having been previously visited, Wikipedia's links will turn from blue to purple if your browser is configured to retain your web browsing history. If you want to have every link turn blue again, you could clear your cookies or history in the browser, but understand that this removes other data about your browsing from said browser on your device. I recommend you do a google search about this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Moving a draft to a redirect that has history
Hi, I was starting to work on a draft for an article that would be placed at Sonic Robo Blast 2, so I was going to create it as a draft and then request a move over the redirect. However, the redirect already has history showing that a lot of content was added at some point, but later it was deleted and turned back into a redirect. How should I go about turning it into an article again? So far I am the only contributor to the draft, but I'm worried about attribution if other people were to edit it and then it gets moved on top of the redirect. Reconrabbit17:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Reconrabbit: I would recommend that you simply copy the content of the draft into the redirect. This has the unfortunate effect of making the history of your work on the draft not immediately accessible to editors who may wish to review your article creation process but retains the redirect's history. When you copy the content of the draft into the redirect, you could (and should) link to your draft in the edit summary. Consider first moving the draft to your userspace so that it can be retained rather than automatically deleted in six months. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Wait, assuming you're referring to User:Reconrabbit/SRB2 when you mention the draft, then it's already in your userspace. I say just keep it there and follow the first couple of steps I mentioned above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've created two pages that I though had enough third party references to meet the criteria for a page on wikipedia. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:DFJ_Growth and https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Randy_Glein. I'm not being paid, but doing to help DFJ (I have done some paid work for some of the companies in their portfolio) and to learn more about the Wikipedia ecosystem. How much more third party validity to these pages need or is there something else? they are both factually accurate, Randy Glein is a well known and important person in the venture community and DFJ has evolved into DFJ Growth and Threshhold Ventures (you can see this on DFJ.com). thank you! Scottfasser (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Scottfasser The issue is not factual accuracy (that's at WP:V), it's notability (WP:N). You need to show that these are notable people/things in the way that Wikipedia defines notability ("he is well known in the venture community" is a good indicator that someone might be notable, but that's all). You need to show that your topics have significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
What decides the article name for a building? Fame, Longevity, Newest Name and/or Common Name?
I've just been watching a documentary where Batley Variety Club as the Frontier makes a brief appearance, and it made me ask this question.
The building was known as Batley Variety Club from 1967-1978, so less than 11 years in total.
It then became the Frontier nightclub from some time in the early 80s, until it closed in 2016, so at least 30 years.
In 2017 it became a JD Gym, so around 7 years so far.
In my opinion, the article should be named Frontier Nightclub, Batley but how would I change that?
If more references calling it Frontier were added, would that be enough for a name change?
Or would Batley Variety Club name remain because it's apparently more famous, and attracted celebrities when it had that name? Danstarr69 (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
My apologies: you're right. I kept going back and forth trying to find the page I hadn't already got up to date with, and saw Batley Variety Club at the bottom of both, and got frustrated. ColinFine (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't an article be about the "usage" of the building, rather than the building itself? If a building changes usage over time, then each usage can have its own article (if sufficiently noteworthy). It doesn't make sense to cram numerous unrelated usages of a building into a single article simply because they physically occupied the same shell of bricks and mortar at different times. By all means mention that a particular usage has ended and if existing then link to an appropriately-name article about what followed it. Long story short, the present name is fine, but feel free to create articles about the Frontier Nightclub or the gym! 31.125.6.108 (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
31.125.6.108 I can name many articles about buildings, which have been used for many things, all of which are notable, and are all "crammed into the same article" because there's not enough information on them to have separate articles.
There's one in my head right now, which will soon have it's fourth name over the last 86 years, but still I expect people will carry on calling it by its old name, even when the new venue opens.
Another one in my head was much bigger than it is now 10+ years ago. However the new owner of the building, decided to wipe out most of its history from Wikipedia, and he was allowed to do so because hardly any references had been added. It's where a lot of famous people started their careers, but there's no mention of them anymore. It's also had many names, although they're mainly just minor name differences.
Wikipedia is partly for blame for things like that, keeping historical names on articles for things which don't exist anymore, just like Royal Mail.
For example, just the other day I noticed someone rename an article for something which has been correctly named for 16 years.
What did they rename it to?
Its old name from 16 years ago, because "people still call it by that name" apparently, even though that's clearly not true, as it would be impossible to talk about it without mentioning part of its old name.
Still, the talk page discussion agreed with him to keep the 16 year out of date name, with just 1 person disagreeing saying its current name should be used. Danstarr69 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the poster is correct. The original says "Caption ...Donna deVarona, left, individual medley, and Cathy Ellis, freestyle, pose prettily." But the displayed photo is mirrored, for example seen by a mirrored "EXIT" in the right side. I guess the caption was made for the correct orientation. Compare also to other photos of Donna deVarona and Kathy Ellis. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, the tool server seems to be down, so I can't redo the Kathy Ellis pic via CropTool, but I'll get it when it's available again. —holly {chat}17:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Amber, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia, as such, does not have an email address; some account holders do link an email address to their account in their profiles, but it's not required. Do you have questions about using or editing Wikipedia? 57.140.16.1 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Website on Blacklist
I am working on a draft for an article and today a put a significant amount of work into it, but when I was going to publish my changes, I realized a website I used for multiple references is on the blacklist. I do believe that the website should be on the blacklist but the specific article I used seems good, is there anything I can do?
Hello! I am a very new editor, and I wanted to try my hand at making a new wiki page. Some context: a wikipedia page about my grandfather (a hebrew scholar) is written in Spanish, I cannot fluently write wikipedia-worthy articles in Spanish however. I want to write the conjoining page for my grandmother, also a hebrew professor and author, but I am unsure if I am allowed to write her page in english. Thanks! Dryforester (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
hi @Dryforester and welcome to the Teahouse! an article doesn't need to be related to existing articles in English or non-English languages to be eligible for a page, however what it does require is that it falls under the notability criteria (with reliable sources to back up these claims), whether or not it is related to existing articles. however do note that since you are their grandchild, you also need to take note of the conflict of interest policy here (as you are related to them) before writing the article. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 01:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
awesome! I will keep the conflict of interest policy in mind as I write :) They are both notable hebrew scholars with multiple published works and awards, I would not have thought wikipedia worthy, but I was doing a bit of googling for fun and found that a complete stranger had already made a page for one of them. My grandmother was just as accoladed and published as her husband, so I do not think notability will be a problem if his page has been kept up! Dryforester (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Dryforester I didn't notice anybody providing a link to the COI page, so here it is: WP:COI. In very short summary, for existing articles, you should generally make a request on the article talk page for any edits to be made. For new articles, you should use the articles for creation process. Fabrickator (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Sheesh, I now see that there was already a link to the COI page, though there's certainly no harm in mentioning it twice. ;-) Fabrickator (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Dryforester. Please note that "notability" as Wikipedia uses the word is not quite the same as its usual meaning. Wikipedia is almost entirely concerned with what has been published about them (because that is what an article needs to be based on); what the person has done, said, written, created, are not of themselves relevant, unless they have been written about by independent commentators. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I've been editing far too long for this to not be embarrassing, but how do I go about requesting the addition of a new template parameter? Specifically, Template:Infobox church currently lacks the parameter sui_iuris_church, a very helpful parameter already extant in Template:Infobox diocese. I would like the church infoboxes to have an identical parameter. Since BOLD doesn't really apply to template editor-exclusive articles, is it best to make appeals directly to individual TEs or at a project page? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Given the number of transclusions involved, I figured there'd be a different approach than on articles. I guess not! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Pbritti You might try notifying related wikiprojects about the template talk page discussion while you're at it, in case that turns up a few more people. -- asilvering (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, UnexprectedSmoreINquisition, and welcome to the Teahouse. Just looking at the leads of the two articles, they look to be different things: the first is any of a large class of things, most of which we can have little knowledge of, but which undoubtedly existed; the second is a single example of the first, which may or may not have existed. ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: While I only took a couple linguistics-adjacent courses in undergrad, I can pretty firmly say these are distinct topics that should be covered separately. Proto-language refers to a hypothesized language from which a group of languages descend; Proto-Indo-European language is considered by many academics to have been the proto-language of Indo-European languages. Proto-human language is the thesis that a single progenitor language preceded all human language, like an Adam and Eve of sorts; this theory is generally discounted in modern academia. They are related but distinct concepts, with one describing a variety of reconstructed or hypothesized languages and the other describing a particular theory. A merge is probably unwise. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I noticed a particular user who is abusingly editing many articles relating to contentious topics. He claims to be editing with reasoning of "Duplicate information" or "Too long", but is in fact trying to delete established information, significantly change the context of some sentences and other potentially malevolent actions, all under false pretenses attributing irrelevant reasoning to justify his edit.
This user has been engaging in this systematic faux-editing behavior extensively, often times getting "caught", warned and his edit reverted.
Is there any system within Wikipedia to handle this situation, look in to it, anything? I couldn't find anything relevant on my own, and this user is very disruptive.
Thewildshoe (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Thewildshoe, RudolfRed has directed you to the right place, but before you go there, you will need to try to sort out the dispute yourself. When you say "warned", are there warnings on the user's talk page? Or is the user just being reverted? Some attempt at actual dialogue needs to happen first. -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I am talking about multiple edits across many articles (above 10 and I haven't even dug into it yet) systematically doing the same type of misleading editing reasoning, all on a specific contentious topic. On his talk page there are multiple conversations about his reverted edits, some explaining his mistake believing he is acting in good faith, some already suggesting that he might be acting in bad faith.
I ran into him since he just did that to my suggested edit falsely citing "duplicate information" but seeing as it's a repeating, consistent pattern, what sort of dialogue or actions should I take before a report? There was some dialogue between me and him on the talk page of the article, but ultimately he's sticking to his false reasoning and won't engage in discussion of the merit of his reasoning.
@Thewildshoe, I can only find you engaging with a single person on their talk page. I don't see other warnings on their Talk page at a quick skim, except from one user who appears to have been taken to arbitration enforcement, so I assume this is not the editor you're talking about. You'll first have to engage with whoever it is. -- asilvering (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Communication on the talk page of an article is fine. What's important is that you try to resolve whatever dispute exists, or that you have really, really clear evidence of disruption. If your issue can be described as a "content issue" rather than a "behaviour issue" it is unlikely that you will get far at WP:ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Inserting Photos
I'm trying to upload a photo to put on a page I creating. I drag it to the area and it seems to be working but it never stops and I have to go back to the previous page without the photo. I let it work for 20 minutes but still nothing. Any ideas on what's happening? Thanks! TomGreensmith (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
TomGreensmith, are you attempting to upload it to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons? Or do you mean that you're trying to add to an article an image that's already at Wikimedia Commons? What is "the area"? By "the previous page", do you mean the previous page in the uploading process, or an article in its previous form? -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for answering. I went through the Wikipedia "how to publish a page" site. I wrote a few paragraphs, then attempted to insert a JPEG photo of my subject. I tried to upload the file by dropping it into the area indicated. The little circle turned, indicating it was processing, then stopped. Nothing had changed; the file was not inserted. I had to click the "Back" icon to get out of the window. TomGreensmith (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Here's Walter HustonTomGreensmith, you have to do two things. If the image is not already at Wikimedia Commons, then (its copyright status permitting) you have to upload it from your hard drive (or whatever) to Wikimedia Commons. It thereupon has a filename. Thus https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Walter_Huston_-_1950.jpg is a picture already at Commons of Walter Huston. Its filename for Wikipedia purposes is what follows the final slash, in this example File:Walter_Huston_-_1950.jpg. Stage two: In an article or draft, you add it in various ways, e.g. [[File:Walter_Huston_-_1950.jpg|thumb|right|Here's Walter Huston]] ; no dragging or dropping is necessary. Is your problem at the uploading-to-Commons stage, or the using-what's-already-at-Commons stage? -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Whether a file has been uploaded to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons, it can be used in exactly the same way. If you want to upload a file that satisfies Wikimedia Commons' copyright requirements, please upload it to Wikimedia Commons. If it doesn't meet Wikimedia Commons' copyright requirements, it might qualify for Wikipedia but please don't upload it until you have a specific purpose for it and have got your head around the concept and details of "fair use" as understood by and for English-language Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
This page you say you're creating, TomGreensmith: As "TomGreensmith", you don't seem to have made any steps towards creating any page. Your only edits are those in this message thread. (And no edit you've made has been deleted.) If you're working on a draft, in order to achieve anything you have to click on "Publish changes" (which, in the context of drafts, means not "Publish to the world as a Wikipedia article" but instead "Publish to people who know where to look for this"). -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
How do I protect an article?
There is an article I need to protect. It is Bloomington ECHL team. Apparently, some unknown user keeps adding info which cannot be confirmed via sources, references or press release. What do I have to do to protect this? Roberto221 (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
i am working on this Draft at the moment. i found what i thought are some good sources but apparantly aren't good enough to pass. Anybody able to help me improve this? Deondernemers (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Deondernemers Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@Deondernemers, I see you got a pretty helpful comment on the draft, do you have any questions about that? Basically, you're looking for as many good sources as possible that are about your topic, rather than just mentioning him offhand. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, i will remove the awards and put it under general information.'
The doctor is a known personality in my community. As the youngest member of legislative assembly i would like to contribute his article on Wikipedia. Nishikanthprabhu (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Nishikanthprabhu Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would ask you what your connection is with this doctor, as you took his picture and he posed for you.
Any article about him must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. None of the sources you have do that. The award does not contribute to notability as the awards itself does not merit an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, i will remove the awards and put it under general information.'
The doctor is a known personality in my community. As the youngest member of legislative assembly i would like to contribute his article on Wikipedia. Nishikanthprabhu (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Ishitomo, i used reliable resources such as established news institutions articles, public websites, and some wikipedia internally sourced. could you be more speific? Nishikanthprabhu (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Draft name wont change
I am working on a draft and the name won't change is this because it's a draft? (I know I cant change the Draft: part) Cyprus76 (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@Cyprus76, to change the title of a draft, you have to "move" it to the correct location. It's under Page-->Move in the upper right-hand corner of the screen if you're on Vector2010 (the old UI). I think it's still somewhere around there on Vector2022 (the new UI). -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
But I suggest not worrying about the name while it is in draft. If a reviewer accepts it, they will move it to an appropriate name.
Of far more concern are your sources. Knowyourmeme, and almost all wikis, are user generated sources, and so not regarded as reliable. The only one of your sources which might be reliable is Nexus mods - I haven't looked at whether it has a strong editorial team. But even if it is, only one reliable source is not enough. The only thing that is worth your spending any time on with regard to this draft, is finding more reliable sources.
I'm afraid that writing an article without first finding several places where independent people have discussed the subject in depth, and been published in reliable places, is usually a waste of your and everybody else's time. ColinFine (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
How to avoid article deletion? How neutral that you should be?
I am writing an article about the real estate company, I understand that it might need improvement, but how do I improve if the article keeps getting deleted?
I saw the deleted version: there is nothing even remotely neutral or encyclopedic about it; it's pure spam. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Unsteadyflyingfish, here is a sample of the sort of language you used: In 2020, Vasanta Group welcomed Nicholas Hum and Denny Asalim, experienced real estate professionals, to the team. The founders united their strengths and expertise during the acquisition of Shila at Sawangan, marking a milestone in the company's journey. This style of writing is the exact opposite of what is required in a neutrally written encyclopedia article about a company. Cullen328 (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Unsteadyflyingfish, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best way of being neutral is to remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
An article should be a neutral summary of those independent sources. If the bulk of them are positive, or the bulk of them are negative, about the subject, then the article should reflect that; but it should not go beyond what those independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Renaming a page: Islamic Educational Trust to The Islamic Education Trust (IET)
Hello so I am a staff at The Islamic Education Trust (IET) in charge of our online presence. I have been tasked with editing our wikipedia page. I am trying to change the page name to The Islamic Education Trust (IET) unfortunately I can't see the option to do that. Info ietonline (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@Info ietonline First of all, it is mandatory under Wikipedia's terms and conditions that you disclose your status as a WP:PAID editor (click that link for details). The title of Wikipedia's articles are decided by our manual of style and by various other considerations such as WP:COMMONNAME. In particular, I don't think that either the word "The" or the acronym IET needs to be included. Howeever, if you want to make suggestions for changes to the article (including its title) please do so on its Talk Page at Talk:Islamic Educational Trust AFTER making the paid editing disclosure. If you use the {{edit COI}} template, your request should be considered quite quickly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Info ietonline, and welcome to the Teahouse.
I'm afraid there are some things you need to do before you get to what you have been tasked to do.
The first is that you must make the mandatory declaration of your status as a paid editor - see that link for how to do so.
Secondly, you must change your username. All user accounts are individual, used by only one person, and may not have names that suggest that they are used by multiple people or an organisation. Please see WP:CHU.
As for your specific request: articles are retitled by moving them, but new accounts such as yours do not have that facility. But in any case, I don't see why you want to make this change. Most such article do not have "The" (see WP:THE), and your own website does not use it. ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@Info ietonline: The organisation's web site includes a logo with the wording "Islamic Education Trust", in large letters "Islamic Education Trust (IET)building [sic] bridges", and a photograph of a meeting with a banner saying "Isamlic Education Trust welcomes you" and "IET@50". You will need to provide good evidence of a name change to move the page as you have indicated. Bazza (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
To get an info
My question : " is all celebrity's article created on their permission ? Do they tell us what informations about them to be inputed in their Wikipedia & what not ?? Plss reply to this AL Creation (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@AL Creation: Direct answers to both your questsion: No. No.
Information about any living person can be reported in an article only if that information is available in reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, actually. Certain types of information in published interviews can be used, but there is still a need for independent published articles to confirm notability. David notMD (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Wait...
Can anyone edit this stuff? I always assumed it was only professional verified accounts, but I just clicked the button today and it let me make an account. Dr. Skyttlz (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Dr. Skyttlz: Yes – Wikipedia is written entirely by volunteers, and anyone can edit (even without creating an account first). Wikipedia:About has a larger introduction. As for the 'lack of security': in some cases, such as extremely controversial topics, direct edit access to some pages can be restricted to more experienced editors (though typically the bar is very low), and this usually prevents most disruption. Don't worry, you certainly haven't done anything wrong by asking here! Tollens (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Dr. Skyttlz, Welcome to the Teahouse. Most of Wikipedia is open for editing by anyone with an internet connection. We trust you, up to a point. There are rules, and the philosophy is that if you stick around, you will start picking them up. WP:TUTORIAL can be a good start. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Dr. Skyttlz If you're curious about how some of the "security" bits work, you might be interested in reading WP:VANDAL, WP:RCP, WP:SOCK, and WP:AFC. There are loads of other things that volunteer Wikipedia editors and administrators do to keep the place from being deluged in horrors, but I think these get to most of the most obvious questions. Welcome! -- asilvering (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Also WP:MEDRS if your intention is to edit articles in the medical/health arena. And WP:COI and WP:PAID if you intend to edit about games design. And general advice is to put in time improving existing articles as a learning experience before attempting to create and then submit a draft of a new article. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Possible Warring-Editors Situation
Hi, I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue to bring this issue to, but a while back I removed what I considered a gratuitous reference to an obit in a white-supremacist website in the article on historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. You can see the exchange here, it's at the bottom: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Nicholas_Goodrick-Clarke
Someone obviously objects to my removal of the reference, and keeps reverting my edit. Who do I turn to in a situation like this? Thanks in advance for your help. Mpaniello (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Mpaniello, in this kind of a situation, when you aren't sure where to go, Teahouse is a reasonable place to seek help. Since G-C has been dead for over a decade, you can't simply keep reverting and claim an exception to WP:3RR, but I agree with you that this represented problematic content being added to a biography. The IP made it clear the reason they were adding this was explicitly in order to tarnish the subject's reputation, so in this case you could also seek help at WP:NPOVN. Valereee (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you all so much for your help and guidance here, and my apologies for any confusion or inconvenience. I'm not very Wiki-savvy (as I'm sure you've all gathered lol), and I saw I had a notification when I was reading an article, saying that my edit had been reverted, though it was from late December. I then undid that reversion, or so I thought. Anyway, just wanted to avoid warring edits, sorry for any false alarms. Mpaniello (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Help with formatting page
Hello,
I am currently drafting a Wikipedia page in the sandbox, but it has been denied twice and some of the comments state that it is not written in a formal tone and does not qualify as a Wikipedia page. Are there any suggestions on how to improve the page?
@Burroughs safehouse, please refer to the links in the decline messages for more information. If you have any specific questions or are confused about something in particular, do go ahead and ask us here, we're happy to help. But there are almost no references on this article, so it seems to me that you have not read the information that has already been given to you. -- asilvering (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Burroughs, you need to first find reliable independent sources, at least three and preferably two that are outside the local area, and write the article from those sources. If the source doesn't say something, the article can't.
It also looks like you may have a conflict of interest in this subject. If you are an employee of the museum, or a volunteer working on their behalf, you must disclose that. I see someone has left instructions on your user talk at User_talk:Burroughs_safehouse. Valereee (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Burroughs safehouse Appears that User:Valereee not only created the above-mentioned draft but then moved it to mainspace without a review (a priviledge accorded to experienced editors. If you are an employee of the museum, you can propose more information on the Talk page of the article or else put info and references on Valereee's Talk page for that person to consider. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is no way to see a source is blacklisted, other than if it seems false. Which is not good for one's own time nor effort. It would help greatly to see a source is blacklisted immediately. I also find no guideline for this myself despite my searches through the pages. Thank you. Sputnik274 (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Sputnik274, one of the most important skills of a Wikipedia editor is the ability to assess the reliability of a potential source on your own without asking. Who is the publisher and what is the publisher's reputation? Who are the members of their editorial team and what is their editorial policy? What is the reputation of the specific source, and have they won major journalistic awards or have they been consistently criticized for false reporting? These are only a handful of the questions that should run through your mind when evaluating the reliability of a source. You cannot ask about every single source. You must make judgments on your own most of the time. Cullen328 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I have had this page rejected twice for not having the right encyclopedic style. I was wondering if there are specific phrases that stand out to you that are problematic.
Also, I tried to make sure there were sources for all claims - are there any specific sections that need more?
I removed some sentences. Look through your text for positive descriptions of her or her work that are not attributed to references. The awards are all minor in nature, so OK to mention, but do not contribute to confirming her notability. David notMD (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@Reni Rogacheva Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm afarid your article at Draft:Nord Collection fails to offer enough citations for us it to meet Wikipedia's definition of Notability. See WP:NCORP for details of how we assess this. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it deserves an article about it here. We need evidence that a company or thing has drawn the attention of independent bodies. In other words, show us links to news articles about that company, or detailed mentions in books - but not paid advertising by the company, or trade magazines. You can find further explanation of why your draft has been rejected, both at the top of that article, and on your talk page.
Regarding name changes: what page did you want to rename, and what name did you want to change it to, please?
Finally, I have left a warning notice on your talk page as you have a clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST in promoting this article. As an employee of Nord Collection, you have an obligation to declare who is paying you to write this article. See WP:PAID for details how to declare that on your userpage. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much , Nick. I am pretty new to that. I don´t have experience with writing Wikipedia page. I make a lot of mistakes. We will consider to outsource this to a company working with writing wikipedia pages. But not Nord Collection page is deleted, right? I don't need to do anything else? Reni Rogacheva (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok, we are going to do it ourselves and follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It will take time but we really want to have a page on Wikipedia. I will write back to you during the process. But thank you very much for the assistance. Reni Rogacheva (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@Reni Rogacheva Whether or not you want a Wikipedia page about your company is completely irrelevant. There can only be an article about it if the company has been mentioned in detail and in depth by at least three independent sources, excluding trade magazines, paid advertising, press releases, interviews and social media posts and personal blogs. See WP:NCORP for how this works. If you can't find RELIABLE SOURCES you will simply be wasting your time trying. You are welcome to ask here again, and to provide three links to such sources, and we can advise you further. Please understand that Wikipedia has no interest in helping you PROMOTE your hotel business. If it can be shown to be NOTABLE, then we are happy to assist you. If it can't, we will tell you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The first step is to have an appropriate topic. Without that, everything else is a waste of time and effort. Who/what do you want to write about? DS (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, DalliBug, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.
The first question I would ask is, why do you want to create an article (we prefer to call them that, rather than "pages")? There are many other ways you can help to improve Wikipedia, than the very very challenging one of creating a new article. (I'm in my nineteenth year editing, and have made nearly 24 000 edits, but I've only ever created a handful of articles).
If you have come here in order to create an article because you think the world should be told about something, then please consider what Wikipedia is not. A Wikipedia article should summarise what independent commentators have published about a subject, that's all: unless several such people have published material about the subject (i.e., people have already taken note of it), an article is not possible.
I suggest you start with Help:Introduction. Then I would seriously advise you to put aside the idea of creating a new article for a few months, while you learn how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles: in particular, learning about verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability.
I am writing an article which I have a COI of (I have interest and avocation for crypto gambling websites, although I am not personally connected to them, except to playing on their websites), but I can't really tell if my draft is too biased or not. I have pure intentions, and would like to write the article, but I just want some help along the way to make sure I'm staying neutral, and can get the article approved. Any advice on what I have so far, how I can improve the article's neutrality, and other related comments? (Draft:Duelbits)OnlyNano18:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@OnlyNano Looks fine to me. Someone more familiar with the topic might be able to tell if something is off (eg, if you're not reporting negative news), but the language isn't promotional. -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! There is typically negative reviews for crypto casinos on websites such as BitcoinTalk (a forum for Bitcoin users with sections for gambling). Though, they are user-generated content, so not reliable sources. Though, there are no negative news sources that report badly. Should I make a section with the controversy, mentioning that users on that forum have bad experiences, maybe going into that a bit, so it's balanced neutrality-wise? OnlyNano20:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
OnlyNano, your draft combines two topic areas where Wikipedia has chronic problems with promotionalism and references to unreliable sources. Those are cryptocurrencies and online gambling. Your draft over-relies on the gambling company's own website. An acceptable Wikipedia article about a business summarizes what reliable sources that are entirely independent of the company say about the company, and the reliable, independent sources must devote significant coverage to the company. We take reliability seriously, and to be frank, I would assume that every website that promotes cryptocurrencies and online gambling is unreliable unless presented with solid evidence to the contrary. At least one of your references is a press release. I recommend that you remove it because it is not independent and is promotional. Also, most of your references are bare URLs. These should be expanded to complete references with full bibliographic details. This will make things easier on reviewers and readers. And please keep in mind that promotional content is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
OnlyNano, I have checked out all the references in your draft. They are all highly promotional and obviously generated by the online gambling company's public relations efforts. I do not see a single reliable independent source that devotes significant coverage to this company. Cullen328 (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I used the above website to correct an obviously incorrect Cite comic citation. The URL was removed from my edit as non-RS (love those acronyms). Maybe it should have been tagged as {{unreliable source?}}. User-duck (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@User-duck: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1213. There isn't an exhaustive list of unreliable sources, though some of the commonly-asked about ones can be found at Wikipedia:Perennial sources. Any others you're not sure about can be inquired over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and it's possible someone may have asked about it before. Fandom wikis are not suitable to be considered reliable sources because they are built off of user-generated content; it's better to see if they use any sources, and evaluate those instead to see if they meet Wikipedia's criteria of a reliable source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@User-duck: I often consult WP:RSP, which lists a large number of sources in half a dozen categories, including "Generally unreliable", "No consensus", "Generally unreliable" and others. I'm not sure to what extent it is an "official" list, but I've often found it good starting point. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Since the website is not listed, wouldn't adding the {{unreliable source?}} been more appropriate? Since I changed issue info in the exisiting cite (I do not have access to a library of comic books), I figured I should cite my source. User-duck (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
So, I have linked Engine of a Million Plots to and from Westboro Baptist Church. In the section in which it says Christian rock band Five Iron Frenzy recorded a song titled "God Hates Flags" condemning the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and similar organizations, including such lyrics as "If God is love you got it wrong waving all your placards and flags". But the God Hates Flags song doesn't have an article. So, would I link The part of the EoaMP article where God Hates Flags is mentioned, and its connection to the church, or do I link to the track listing? Sorry if this is confusing. Babysharkboss2!!(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))14:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Yesterday We submited to google play a new social network app "Spirlal Social" - beta version.The main Idea behind Spiral is to give users the 360° understanding of their interests. This idea was realized by turning Wikipedia's articles into topics around which users can form communities. I made a draft for the app in Wikipedia but I dont have any refrencess yet. Is it possible to publish it nevertheless?
It appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. Until reliable sources mention your app, you have no possibility of this draft being published. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Yaronbe, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with Esolo, but I'll go rather further. Until independent sources discuss your app at length, you have noj possibility of this draft being published. Mere mentions are not enough, and nor is anything based on an interview or press release from you. ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Where is the appropriate place to seek English proofreading?
Hello. I am a non-native English speaking Wikipedian. I have some contributions on Wikipedia in my native language and I want to publish articles written in my native language translated into English.
I have already finished the drafts and they probably generally meet the qualifies for a Wikipedia article, but I suspect that the English is probably unnatural and needs to be proofread by a native English speaker.
Where should I seek help in such a case? ask for help on the WikiProject, ask for help from a specific editor, ask for help with a translation request, Are there any other good place? Can these be done at the same time?
Or, can I just submit it casually and someone will correct it?
I would be very grateful if someone could explain which choice is preferable, along with the reasons for it. 狄の用務員 (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Thank you very much for the information. There it is probably the closest place to what I was looking for. It amazes me that the English version of Wikipedia has everything.
According to Elemimele, the article I wrote in my English seems to be fine to publish as is, and with the help of the Guild of Copy Editors, I thought it could be made even better. I will surely use this place. Thank you very much.
One slight problem is that the Guild does not seem to accept proofreading of drafts.
I'm actually ambitious and wish to meet DYK's criteria, i.e., "nominate within 7 days of article creation" to get the article on the toppage To meet this criterion, the article must be complete at the time of draft or within 7 days of publication.
Assuming the draft is not proofread, the article must be proofread within 7 days, and although the guild appears active, there is no turning back and uncertainty once the draft is published.
The guild's announcement says "Requests may be declined if the article is:draft" and says "may be", are there any exceptions to this may be?
@狄の用務員: What's the draft? I can try to take a look when I get a break.
I agree with the below that your conversational English is basically indistinguishable from a native speaker. Obviously that may be different in a highly technical subject, but you seem to speak English a lot better than a lot of people who speak it as a native language. GMGtalk14:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Thank you very much. The article I would like to eventually publish is Draft:Chua Vietnam (Japan). If you kindly proofread it, I would be very grateful.
However, I would still like to have a way to get proofreading for my draft, as I am currently only working on this one article, but would like to aim for a series of DYKs in the near future. 狄の用務員 (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@狄の用務員: At first look, I would say my main critique is that you veer off into other subjects that are related, but not directly the subject of the article. Wikipedia articles don't really look up and out to give the bigger picture. If someone wants to know more about religion in Vietnam, then they can visit the main article for Religion in Vietnam. GMGtalk15:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Thank you very much. I understand this point, and I think that while there is a lot of peripheral information and images, there is not enough information on the main topic of the article (for example, the position of this temple's sect in Vietnam, and its uniqueness not found in other Vietnamese temples). I believe that this area will have to be improved .狄の用務員 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@狄の用務員: Yeah, Wikipedia is a little bit different writing format. For something like a book, you might have an entire chapter that does nothing but orient the reader to the subject. In this format, we're supposed to be pretty keenly focused and readers who want to look up and out have all those other articles to read if they wish. Some topics do require a background, but that's normally the first section and is intentionally brief. GMGtalk15:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@狄の用務員: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1213. As someone who's with the GOCE, I'm just going to let you know that if you submit a request for the Guild to copyedit your draft, there's a chance that the request may be declined by virtue of it being a draft. We prefer to work with articles that have been accepted into mainspace (without the Draft prefix). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
If you create a translation with the same quality of English as you used to ask the question, then you will be fine! Other editors who come across the article can copy-edit if they find any issues; your English was clear and easy to understand. Just remember that you will need to attribute your translation even though you wrote the original, and that the requirements for notability vary between different Wikipedias, so you will have to check that the subject is considered notable here, as well as in your native wikipedia. Check WP:TRANSLATETOHERE for further details. Elemimele (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@Elemimele: Thank you very much. I was very relieved, because I was worried about my objective English ability, not knowing my own. Thanks to you, I can edit with confidence from now on.
I probably understand about attribute and notability. I will also refer to WP:TRANSLATETOHERE, thank so much. 狄の用務員 (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Finding low-importance articles marked with advert template
Hello! I saw a page recently that read like an article and had little encyclopedic value, in my opinion. I've marked that one for deletion, but I think there are likely a lot of articles like it. Mainly low-importance articles, or articles not part of a wikiproject. I figured out how to use deepcats to search for low importance articles with the advert template, but the search errored because there were too many categories. Is there a way to look through a subset of the results at a time to avoid that error?
My goal right now is to mark pages for deletion that have little to no encyclopedic value or relevance at present, not to revise larger, more relevant articles that happen to have some content that reads as an advert. From my experience using Wikipedia just as a reader, I've seen quite a few that don't seem to have much use for Wikipedia, and seem to exist only as an attempt to say "we have a Wikipedia article!". Written either by the subject of the article or by a fan or PR person.
So I want to look for articles that are more likely to be spam/adverts in their entirety so that I can mark them for deletion, without having to sort through as many articles that are more appropriate for a rewrite or revision. Dvallin (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but unless you download the database yourself and devise your own search to combine Category:Articles with a promotional tone with low-importance assessments, there isn't really a good way to search for what you want.
The difficulty in finding those articles that exist solely as advertisements that haven't been deleted already is that they probably are out there with little to no maintenance tags on them. Anachronist has pointed out the most straightforward way of finding what you're looking for. It may do some good to limit your search to articles that are start-class, stub-class, or unassessed. Reconrabbit18:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
There are many ways to do this on Wikipedia, mainly by searching through projects where these things are curated. Your best bet is to post your question at WP:ANI or another noticeboard such as WT:ACN. Ishitomo (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Before you attempt to create articles, Utahkuzaki39, practise reading reliable sources and by summarizing what you read and carefully crediting it -- not by plagiarizing or violating copyright -- make incremental improvements to existing articles. NB we don't create fantasies here in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Firearm production number to include or not to include variants.
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Type_38_rifle
Should the production number of variants be included in the total production number? The page says
3,579,200 Type 38s were built. The source I'm using says 3,519,000 Type 38 rifles and carbines were produced. The Type 38 has many variants, such as the Mexican Model 1913, Type 97 sniper rifle, and the Chinese 6/5 Infantry rifle copy. The Mexican Model 1913 was made in Japan for Mexico, the Type 97 is a Type 38 with a scope and a few other small modifications, and the Chinese 6/5 is a copy. Should I include copies? Should I just include firearms made for Japan by Japan, or include made by Japan for another country? Should I only include firearms designated Type 38? There's the Type 44 carbine too, which is basically a Type 38 carbine with a new stock and folding bayonet. If all the variants were included, the total production number would be approximately 3,922,000.
Thanks Rebel1945 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
How can w change a redirect to proper definition of word?
The word ubiquitous redirects automatically to omnipresent.
I created the article ubiquitous (adverb or adjective) to solve the problem.
I can't use ubiquitous because it is presently used for the redirect.
How can change to redirect to link to the correct defi
Once that is the redirect is fixed, the title Ubiquitous can be the new title for [[ubiquitous (adverb or adjective)]. Starlighsky (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Starlighsky, I read that "Ubiquitous is an adverb or adjective for that which seems to exist everywhere at the same time." This surprises me, because I'd never realized that ubiquitous is ever an adverb. I kept reading and saw no evidence, or claim, for the existence of such an adverb. (There does exist the adverb ubiquitously.) For "a simple dictionary definition", this seems curiously confused. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Starlighsky, that's an example of how the adverb ubiquitously can be used. (Suggestion: there is no adverb ubiquitous in Standard English.) Tips: (i) You're trying to distinguish ubiquitous from omnipresence, but it would be better to distinguish it from omnipresent (or possibly to distinguish omnipresence from ubiquity); (ii) the article still looks like a (discursive) dictionary definition rather than an encyclopedia entry, and you'll have to work on changing this. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I understand. I am trying to fix the redirect to omnipresence from ubiquitous.
Is there a way to save edits before publishing? I accidentally closed my browser window and seem to have lost all my edits. Can I recover them somehow?
@Boat Scherzo: Welcome to the Teahouse! On Wikipedia, there isn't a way to save without publishing. You might be able to restore your browser window to recover your text. Some people like saving their text on their computer (e.g. a word processing file). Hope your next editing session is better! GoingBatty (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Does this apply to inline citations as well as main text. The manner in which the inline citations self-format and populate suggest that they are in the system somewhere, Boat Scherzo (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I haven't edited Wikipedia in a while, but I was using the Special:Random link to look at random articles. I have spotted an article How Geirald the Coward was Punished witch was created in 2006 and not edited much since. The article only has one citation and one 'External links' and at least to me seams not that notable. I was thinking about proposing it for deletion my self but decided that was a bad idea given my inexperience and instead to post here for help and advice. CoderThomasB (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
CoderThomasB, almost no articles are notable, and those that are notable are usually notable for the wrong reasons. The question is of whether the subject is notable. The article fails to show it; but of course failure to show XYZ is not evidence of lack of XYZ. Whether the subject is notable is a question you can't answer till you've looked for evidence. And if you can't find evidence in English, look for evidence in Icelandic, German, or both. If after searching in three languages you still can't find evidence, the subject may well not be notable, and you can consider proposing its deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Would this article qualify for speedy deletion?
Hi! In looking at new pages, I came across Serik Tolbassy. The article has multiple issues (mostly lack of neutral point of view, quite a bit of promotional language, and a general lack of sources in English (though I understand this is allowed, all sources are in Kazakh and I cannot translate them reliably).
I've done some copyediting & tagging, but it's in desperate need of work. Would the page need to fundamentally rewritten, as per WP:G11, to be encyclopedic? I'm not all too familiar with notability requirements, so a second (or third) pair of eyes would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a ton! Schrödinger's jellyfish✉05:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
ISBNs highlighting issue
Hello, after inputting the missing ISBNs for the Parliamentary representation from the Isle of Wight page, I found that the numbers I inputted do not hyperlink to the book sources page. This issue persists through different tabs and windows on my laptop as well as on my mobile browser *but* does not occur on the mobile app. Is there something specific I may have done wrong? Cicadalovemail (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am working on addressing the advertisement notice on this page and have some questions.
In the Carriages section, there are details which seem to be like an advert and almost like a brochure.
Lines such as these could either be removed totally or shortened -
The train also has a lounge called the Rajah Club with a private bar, two dining cars, and a dedicated bar car. The train is also equipped with a water filtration plant. An on-board souvenir boutique offers that for passengers.
And some text is not referenced. Such as - The Safari lounge and bar have a multilingual library.
Hello, Kiera McNamee1, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, let my point out that Wikipedia does not have profiles - not a one. What it has is encyclopaedia articles, which are summaries of what independent published sources have said about a subject.
I'm guessing that you tried to create an article about yourself, without understanding this, and it got deleted (though I haven't found it). If you look at your user talk page, you can see a message from Jimfbleak explaining that writing about yourself is a thoroughly bad idea. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please advise on the correct template to add to a redirect page, to request deletion of it? I had to move an article that was in draft space, into my user sandbox- to try and solve an ongoing issue with google having indexed the talk page of the draft- which obviously should not have happened, but it's been appearing in google search results for possibly a long time now. Apologies I can't link to the teahouse discussion when I previously raised this (as it's been archived now), but another editor kindly submitted a 'refresh search results' request to google, in the hopes this would help them realise they shouldn't have indexed that page. It's still showing in their search results, so we had also discussed me moving the draft elsewhere to see if that helped- so I've done this now, but feel it makes sense for the re-direct to just be deleted, so people don't keep getting directed to the draft talk content as if it's mainspace content.
Hopefully this makes sense? It's a really confusing issue that we haven't been able to get to the bottom of. I didn't want to request a deletion of the whole draft either, as this way the history is preserved.
Sorry- am sure you're busy so please feel free to ignore this, but I had another thought/question- I assume this page at some point had the 'noindex' tage removed from it which is why it was indexed in the first place, although I still don't understand why that would be the case for the talk page of a draft. Is another possible solution to get the noindex tag added back to the page? It's listed at RfD now anyway, but obviously it's fairly low priority so I'm not expecting a ton of contributions to that discussion. Editing84 (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Joe Coan (new article)
Hi all
I submitted a new article about Joe Coan, and it wasn't accepted, and was wondering how I can improve it so it can be accepted, if at all.
What to do if there is not a lot of good sources beyond the subject of the article itself?
Hey there! I was wondering what to do if there is not a lot of good sources on a topic besides the topic itself, in this case a musical artist. They are small enough that they dont have a lot of press coverage but they have a sizeable following online. A lot of the sources i use only mention things briefly, and the one interview I managed to find has been deleted. LunaSparks (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The availability of sources, not the size of online following, is what we mainly use to assess notability. Glad you found one good source, but you'll probably need two to establish notability, or another argument per WP:ARTIST. Overall, if the only good information on a subject comes from the subject themselves, we generally should not have an article on them. {{u|Sdkb}}talk15:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you referring to the wikitext/source editor or a new version of the visual editor? If the "new editing style" is the source editor, there should be a button you can click to switch to the visual editor. If it's with a new version of the visual editor, then I can't help you. TypoEater (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
How to request a review of a draft page?
Newbie here: I accidentally created two draft pages of a new article for artists Kristin Simmons. One is saved as a draft here; having not heard anything about that for a few months, I made another in my sandbox and submitted that for review, but a Wikipedia editor told me that my submission was a duplicate. I was wondering if I missed a step in pushing the draft (linked above) into a queue for being reviewed and edited. Thanks. Fraibalinho (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Dear @Fraibalinho- You might be seeing some kind of mirror page. I believe you can submit your draft for review here (there is a blue button near the top you can click- be sure to add relevant Wikiprojects to speed up the process!). Also, do not fret as the drafting process takes time. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh strange that it didn't appear for me before. Yeah, I knew it typically took weeks / months - that's why I didn't bother for a while... appreciate the help! Fraibalinho (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Quick question! I have created a few pages now and again. One is for "Peter Marsden" (ex Dean of social sciences at Harvard). How can we get his page up and running? Thanks! Idanoyes (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi @Idanoyes! You have a much easier task than most editors writing new articles, since the subject you're covering holds an endowed chair, which means that to pass the notability requirement for academics (#5) all you need to do is provide a citation for the fact that they hold that chair. FatalFit seems to have been alluding to this when they added the citation needed tag after the first sentence, and Devonian Wombat seems to have declined the draft submission on narrow technical grounds because this citation needed tag was not addressed.
I've been wrong before, so I don't want to go through the effort of writing an article only to find it's non-notable. I did a fairly thorough Internet search to find information on a game released in 2022 and found four reliable sources, of which the subject of the article is the main focus in only one and only discussed briefly in the other three. Is this enough? I'm finding this to be the case with several subjects I'm interested in. Reconrabbit18:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I have verified that all of the above is true, comparing to WP:VG/RS, but the breadth of coverage is not very wide. I wouldn't call the coverage trivial, but it could go more in depth. Reconrabbit19:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
@RR: Note that notability standards are stronger for creating a new article than for adding new information to existing articles. If there is already an article about the publisher or creator, you can start by adding condensed information about new works there. – SJ +21:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! I was wondering if my article meets the reference requirements. I've revised it a lot since it was last reviewed, and I wanna know if it is ready for round 2
Hi there, I've took a glance at the draft. Sorry to say this, but I don't think it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for drafts yet. Please add more secondary sources that are independent of the subject and cover the subject in detail and reduce the amount of primary sources - significant coverage in secondary sources is necessary to assert a subject's notability. If you have any other questions about editing or creating an article, feel free to ask anytime. Thanks. Prodraxis(talk)20:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
A year after a first album, for an anonymous artist w/ limited public output, is probably too soon to meet notability reqs. Persevere until there are multiple national outlets, or multiple albums w/ reviews by established reviewers. – SJ +21:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm working on a summary of the contents in a non-fiction book. In accordance with policies like WP:NOR, do I need to cite more than the book the article is about in that section? I have probably about a dozen commentary sources for a separate section on its reception and such, but do those sources need to be in the summation of its contents? Thanks in advance. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I figured it would be, but since that situation explicitly mentioned fiction, I figured I should double-check. Thanks for the assist! ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
If it's useful to do so, you might consider using footnotes to give readers page number references. But it's not required. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Where to cite a Quotation
Hello!
I am working on adding citations to an uncited section of an article that includes quotes. Does the citation for these quotes go right after the quote in the middle of the paragraph, or do they still go at the end of the paragraph like normal citations? BajaChikn (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I am slowly adding in citations to the Eddie James Memorial Trophy article. I have been citing a few winners of the award from the same source, but different pages. Should I still include the page numbers and is there a better way to cite that than I did in the article?
BajaChikn, good question! This always stumped me when I started editing. It looks like you're using Template:Rp, and that's a good way to do it. The other option would be to a shortened footnote template like Template:Sfn or Template:Harvnb, but that would require some reformatting of the sources. It's really down to personal preference which you use, just try to use the same one throughout the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I'm creating an article for 蔡洪平, an Chinese/Hong Kong investor and former chairman of multiple investment banks. He is known both by his Chinese name, Cai Hongping, and his English name, Henry Cai. Which name should I use for the article? Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a user I keep seeing whose attitude consistently sucks. He doesn't interact with anyone in a pleasant manner. I'd like to bring this to more Admin's attention, because the current one's overseeing the page don't seem to care. I'd also like to not see his responses to any of my comments on this website. Is there a way to do that? Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
@Cmsmith93 You can't hide someone's responses like that on wikipedia, but if they're really egregious an admin may remove them from the page history entirely. You can report problem users at WP:ANI. Normally I would say that you should try to solve the problem yourself first, but if the problem is "user is always an asshole, to everyone", well. -- asilvering (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm working with some students to update pages about people involved in eugenics, and was wondering if there was a policy about how long a 'Publications' area of a page should be before it gets a page of its own. I'm specifically referencing Karl Pearson#Publications here - he published a lot, often vague reprints of his own work, and we have identified even more titles that need adding to that list. Would it be a better idea to create a new page for this and link, or keep adding to the current list even if it gets very long? Thank you! Octavosaurus (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Octavosaurus! For any material that becomes super long, spinning it out into a new article is generally wise. But that's only the case when the material is justified in the first place, rather than indiscriminate. For this person, I question whether we ought to be listing every article he ever published, rather than only the longer works. One way to judge it is, since Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we only want the articles if they were discussed by secondary sources, i.e. if each of his articles was reviewed or discussed by other sources (which we could cite). The notability guideline for lists, while not precisely relevant, also provides some guidance about whether a standalone bibliography page would be likely to survive a deletion nomination.
Also, this is a sidenote, but I notice that most of the publications listed aren't in the normal citation format. It might be better if they were, using |author-mask=0 to avoid repeating his name over and over.
Octavosaurus, I do not know what you mean when you write even more titles that need adding to that list. There is no need for a comprehensive list of every single one of his publications, either in his biography or in a standalone list article. Instead, you and your students should list his most influential publications that have been widely cited by other academics. The relevant policy is What Wikipedia is not, which says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Teahouse! I stumbled across the contribs of a user who managed to insert a number of links to their own site masquerading as citations and/or Wikilinks. Obviously these need to be removed, but my question is whether I should be leaving a warning on the user's page. Their last edit was in mid-December last year so it feels a bit belated, and I'm not sure whether we leave warnings regardless of how long it's been or whether they should only really be used when the editor appears active. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi StartGrammarTime, It's a bit late, but you can remove their links and leave a single warning such as {{uw-spam1}} with a link to the article would be appropriate, in my opinion. 06:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
@StartGrammarTime: I think in this case {{subst:uw-spam2}} ~~~~ would be more appropriate, because it gives more specific information and the editor has already spammed multiple times, clearly intentionally. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Because it was advertising? Because it was junk? Because it violated copyright? Unless you divulge its title, you won't get a particularly helpful response. -- Hoary (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I have a separate question, although sufficiently supplemental to post it here, which is: is editing frozen while a draft article awaits review? Or can its author - or indeed any other Wikipedian - make improvements while waiting? AndyJones (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Everyone can edit drafts, even those awaiting review. But it's probably bad manners to overhaul someone else's draft over their objection. I would only do it if the draft is too problematic to leave it as is but not bad enough to merit immediate deletion of the whole draft. Usedtobecool☎️14:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
User Page
I have read the "Younger Editor" rules for Wikipedia, and I'm confused. What can or can't I put in my user page? Hobbies? Summary about myself? (not personal, just basis), please reply when able. Vershze (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@VershzeWP:YOUNG is an essay written to guide young editors, mainly advising them not to disclose too much personal information. A more detailed and more generally applicable guidance is at WP:UPYES: that applies to all editors, not just young ones. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
CiaPan (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Note: Further discussion should take place at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Can this article get fixed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
Done. It will be interesting to see if there will be discussion to change SAMPLE to redirect to Sample instead. GoingBatty (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: WP:Help desk § link on my name; and referring to So You Think You Can Dance
_Promotional_Poster.webp){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Courtesy link: Islamic Educational Trust (Bazza (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC))