Wikipedia:Teahouse

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Most recent archives
1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236

"Identifies as nonbinary" vs "Is nonbinary"

I stumbled across an IP who had edited the articles of several nonbinary individuals, changing the sentence "x is nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns." to "x identifies as nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns." This phrasing makes me uncomfortable as a nonbinary person(I don't "identify" as anything, I am nonbinary) but I wasn't able to find anything in WP:LGBT or the MOS to find justification to change it back. I'd rather not make an edit for my own comfort if it's ultimately pointless, so is there a WP page I might be able to look to about this? LaffyTaffer (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm specifically bothered by the deliberate and pointless change to "identifies as". The word "is" worked just fine, and is possibly preferred by some of the people whose articles were edited. LaffyTaffer (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaffyTaffer. You don't need to find your justification in some WP: or MOS: page. If a revert improves the article, go for it. That said, you might find your reason in the spirit of WP:VOICE, part of WP:NPOV, which says "Avoid stating facts as opinions." Also MOS:DOUBT. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you very much :) LaffyTaffer (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Portal:Transgender, near the beginning of the second major paragraph, the phrase "identify as" is used, non-disapprovingly and in the author's voice. However, it's being used in a somewhat different context there. If its appearance in that paragraph "proves" anything, it would be "A person exists who doesn't mind this phrase, and there has apparently not been a long-term agreement to avoid it".

But ... I consider myself near enough to being binary, and the context of where and how those additions to articles were made is making ME uncomfortable. I hope this is resolved without any worse stuff. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a nonbinary person who identifies as a lot of things, including nonbinary. I'd probably prefer that use of language generally because it comes from the person's own voice, and it's the easiest way I've found to explain what it feels like to cis people; I do/don't identify with certain genders. Without any more information, if someone told me they don't identify as anything in the context of gender, I'd take that to mean they're agender. For Wikipedia's purposes, it's probably best to just go with what the sources say, unless there is a guideline that advises otherwise. Do the sources explicitly say they "identify" as anything or do they just describe the subject as such? HerrWaus (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally dislike the term since it can come with an implication that we're just "playing pretend", but I acknowledge that the phrasing still has its uses and that some prefer it. I've been sure not to touch articles where the main source on the subject's gender identity explicitly uses the phrase. If I've been over-eager in making those changes though, I recognize that this can boil down to a personal gripe, and I have no issue with the edits being reverted. LaffyTaffer (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @LaffyTaffer, TooManyFingers, and HerrWaus: – this is a worthy topic, and you can see the multiplicity of views here about it already. At this point, it has, imho, exceeded the purpose for which the Teahouse was designed, as it is getting into nuanced areas of guidelines, and opinions by different editors. If you would like to say more about this topic, that would be welcome, and I think a continuation at WT:LGBT would be the right venue for an extended discussion about it. You may also get additional responses there from other interested parties not aware of this discussion. If you wish to go that route, just open a new discussion there, starting off with template {{Discussion moved from}}, and add a {{Discussion moved to}} template below. If you feel this has about run it's course here already, that's fine, too, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Adding Firefangledfeathers. Mathglot (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I prefer "Identifies as" on the basis that it implies it's the individual rather than a third party assigning the identity to that individual.

I'm not sure if it's really that large of a problem of people assigning identities to say historical figures, but it does imply that the individual has at some point declared that as how they see/feel/exist as themself.

In the end, either is accurate with proper citation, and the individual has the ability to change the semantics from/to "identifies as" to suit their own preference to how others refer to them.

136.26.125.98 (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An admittedly politics - adjacent question

Hello Wikipedians. Ok, how much of the Wikipedia staff and editors have a left bias? This ratio might say something about the factuality of certain articles. - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stay far away from editing any articles that are political or controversial in any way. On the articles I do work on I may occasionally give a short quote from a written opinion, and state that one reviewer had this to say on the topic (giving a good reference for the quote) but I strive to not let the world know my opinion on any given subject. (I don’t need added drama in my life.) All that is written is done by volunteers, so there isn’t any Wikipedia staff. I believe all the paid employees work to keep the website up and running. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slaythe: Wikipedia editors (who, as Karen has noted, are volunteers) are not required to declare our political positions or lack thereof, so there cannot be a meaningful measure of how many editors have a particular "bias". If you are concerned about the neutrality or verifiability of Wikipedia as a whole, it's worth rereading the core principles. You may also find that your concerns have been raised by many others and summarised and addressed at Ideological bias on Wikipedia. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know, as a side note, there are propaganda tools that left-biased journo's use to the left's advantage. One of those being "lying by omission", which bluntly means presenting infos you prefer over others, resulting in overreporting and underreporting on the respective infos. There also other techniques they use that are more subtle and powerful. - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea of how many editors there are at Wikipedia? That will give you an answer.

I don't have the actual numbers myself (and cba to dig them out), and related to that is the question as to exactly how many are 'active' editors as opposed to somebody who just chipped in with one obscure article two decades ago. Either way it will be a VERY LARGE NUMBER.

Consequently, from a pure maths perspective, Wikipedia editors are a sub-set of the world, and I would argue that any 'bias' at Wikipedia is going to be a simple reflection of the bias that exists across the entire population of the planet. Does that help?

Having said all that, the factuality of 'certain articles' may well be dependant on the subject in question. Articles with a political angle may well attract biased editors like moths to a flame, whereas editors like myself remember that fire is a dangerous thing, and stay as far away as possible. But bias creeps in to the most surprising places, such as an article about a military unit I am currently editing, where a deficiency in equipment levels was blamed on budget cutbacks during the Carter administration, for chrissake!.

LOL, I've just checked Carter's page to see if he's still with us, and if he survives the next three days, he will be exactly 100 years old. I wonder if he has ever considered standing again?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

How do I get people to thank me for my helpful contributions? I feel like my service not on anyone's radar and I don't really feel appreciated. Wasabi-The-LoreMaster (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've only made 39 edits, including several to your user page and talk page. Don't worry about getting accolades, just focus on improving the encyclopedia. RudolfRed (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasabi-The-LoreMaster, I just thanked you for this Teahouse question. See how it works? Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Wasabi-The-LoreMaster (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft!

When you have made close to a thousand contributions, mostly substantial edits to actual articles (as opposed to fluff & nonsense like this Teahouse comment), and you're still waiting, then you should worry! On the other hand, maybe I'm just a really bad person? <laughs><cries><sobs uncontrollably>

WendlingCrusader (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed by another editor for being contentious and biased even though based on real events

Hi! I am talking about the recent edit I made on the Bhavish Aggarwal page about the comments that they made publicly based on reliable news sources (according to me, I think). But it was removed by another editor. What can I do to make it less biased when the comments made are as real as they get. Without getting into the fight.

Thanks! NerdboiIndia (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NerdboiIndia: See WP:BRD. You made an edit, another editor reverted. Next step is to discuss it on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: hi! Thanks for your reply. I have tried to engage the same editor on the same page (by chance) previously too, but they didn't reply. I undid the revision last time and they left it as it is. So, I repeated I the same thing and undid their revision. I am not sure if that was a good idea. What do you think? NerdboiIndia (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NerdboiIndia: I don't see any discussion at Talk:Bhavish_Aggarwal. Edit summaries are not discussion. Don't engage in an edit war RudolfRed (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed You are right. I added it to the talk page of the editor this time and previously too. User talk:Ilikeyoutoo yay - Wikipedia when I add it to the talk page of the subject instead, is it a good idea to tag the editor there? Also, which way is preferred. Thanks. NerdboiIndia (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of article content is best discussed at the article talk page, so that other interested editors can contribute. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantavira thanks for your suggestion. I have added this to the talk page of the subject. Please feel free to weigh in. Thanks! NerdboiIndia (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with someone who seems to remove relatively negative coverage of Indian business owners

Hi! I have made some recent edits on Bhavish Aggarwal and an editor removed them for being sensationalized even when inline citations support all claims. The same editor also seemed to have removed well-cited edits (not done by me) from Ritesh Agarwal which were negative in some sense. I have seen edits by the same editor that have toned down the negative headings on Bombay Stock Exchange and there can be more if searched extensively. How do I deal with this? Is there a way to report for suspecting paid edits or a way to involve the administrators? NerdboiIndia (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were advised on this above. If discussion with the other editor has failed to resolve the dispute, you should use dispute resolution channels to work through this dispute. If you suspect a conflict of interest, that should be discussed at WP:COIN. If you have evidence of undisclosed paid editing, see WP:PAID for how you can present that evidence(especially if the evidence is off-wiki evidence, as you cannot out users on wiki). 331dot (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to mass assess articles for a WikiProject?

On many WikiProjects there's a section that has a listing of articles ranked based on their quality and importance. I'm hoping to request assessments for articles that fall into the category of my particular project, but I don't know how to start doing so. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Surayeproject3 (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Surayeproject3 and welcome to the Teahouse. I have a reasonable amount of experience doing this for WP:WikiProject Alps and WP:WikiProject Derbyshire, and have reassessed hundreds and hundreds of articles displayed in their Quality Assessment table. It does takes time, but is well worth doing.

Before going into details, it would help if you could answer three things:

What WikiProject do you want to work on?
Are you already familiar with making individual quality assessments, and are now simply seeking advice in completing the process as rapidly as possible for an entire project, or
Are you seeking advice on how the Quality Assessment process actually works for a single article?

You might find this essay on Quality Assessment worth reading through before you respond: Wikipedia:Assessing articles. I'll then be happy to help answer any further questions.

(Please make sure you Ping me so that I can respond as quickly as possible to you) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes Thank you for your response! I primarily work on WikiProject Assyria, which although is inactive besides myself and a few other users, I'm hoping to use the quality assessments as a marker for future work on Assyrian-related articles. I've never been involved in the Quality Assessment process for any articles, but I am seeking advice on completing the process for many articles for the WikiProject. When I get the chance, I'll read over the individual page on Assessing articles, but I am hoping to know where is the best place to start from. Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Surayeproject3 OK. It sounds as though you're bringing the WikiProject back into activity, which is very laudable.

Using article Quality Assessment to focus attention on the easy things to fix, and identifying priorities for work is an excellent idea,too. I suggest you add a post to the Project's talk page to explain your plans, and seek ideas and input from others. By keeping on posting updates to that talk page you show to others that there is activity going on, and it can help stimulate further interest. Doing nothing, means the Project will appear, and probably stay, moribund. I advise you work carefully through that Project, page by page, as much of its key information is outdated (though I see you've already started on that process).

I do think it's important first to understand the principles behind Quality Assessment before delving into the process of reviewing them. Apart from Good Articles and Featured Articles, it is all very subjective. So you shouldn't have too much difficulty. But failing to understand the basics of the process isn't much help if you intend to use those quality assessments for focussing your or other people's attention. So, don't rush into assessing articles without reading what our grading system actually is, and how it works!

Personally, I'm very happy to allocate a grade for Stub, Start and C - grade articles. All these mean that the article is pretty incomplete in one or more ways, and the differences between them are very easy to spot.

Topics that appear to give a fairly reasonable coverage of all aspects of that topic would then be eligible to be assessed as maybe B or A grade. Once we get higher than that (WP:GA and WP:FA - FA beig the very highest quality in all respects) we are into the realms of submitting an article for review by a group of critical editors who give feedback and eventually decide whether or not a given article is correctly formatted, well-structured and properly cited, without any significant errors or omissions in style and content. They then allocate the GA or FA grade - it's not something for a single editor to decide.

I have now decided to continued my reply directly on your Talk Page HERE, as I think you'll find it helpful to discuss issues in detail without clogging up the Teahouse or losing the thread when it gets archived. So, regards from the UK, and see you over there! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia awards

Is there a Wiki award for keeping a long daily editing streak? If yes, how long should it be to get awarded? Benzekre (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benzekre, I don't think that kind of award exists here. The closest thing is maybe WP:EDITS, where it shows a list of editors who have contributed to the encyclopedia the most. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 07:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benzekre You might be interested to look at Wikipedia:Service awards. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benzekre Just in case you are not aware of it, you can use Special:Impact/Benzekre to automatically show your longest editing streak within your last 1,000 edits: which in your case as a newcomer means all edits so far. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:TyphoonAmpil

Why declined request. i'be revert vandalism again? is least a month of experience patrolling Special:RecentChanges. my experience is High 170 reverts. Thanks. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 12:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TyphoonAmpil You were informed as to why it was declined yesterday, "I asked you to spend a month gaining experience. It's been ~2 weeks since I declined your previous request. Sorry, but that's just not enough experience for me to determine whether you'll be able to use the tool appropriately." CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CommissarDoggo why ping me? can spend next month again.

Courtesy ping: Fastily make ~1 month? almost least 160 reverts. Thanks. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 12:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I do not think you are ready for advanced permissions like rollback. You have had this account for just over a month which is nowhere near long enough for other editors to evaluate you (as Fastily said). When your first request was declined, you were advised to spend at least another month gaining experience and demonstrating your understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, yet you made another request just two weeks later with no explanation. At the very least, the community would want to see whether an editor of one month's standing is able to understand and follow the clear guidance given to you by an experienced administrator. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

WP:PERM/R †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 04:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello I'm revert vandalism, August 28, 2024. I'be use WP:AntiVandal. I'm spend last month. give me Fastily. Thanks. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 04:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TyphoonAmpil: This is not the place to request permissions, go to WP:PERM/R to request Rollback request. GrabUp - Talk 04:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp Thanks. I'm go to WP:PERM/R. no reply. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 04:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already requested and denied twice and previously asked here. TyphoonAmpil: I really do appreciate your anti-vandalism efforts but if you can't follow the clear instructions you are not likely to get more permissions. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

All the images are blocked

My school has blocked Wikimedia Commons for as long as I can remember, but up until yesterday I could still view images on Commons on enwiki. Yesterday, that changed, and literally every single image on Wikipedia is replaced by a green avoid sign on a dark gray background. Is there any way I could get around the block? I already submitted a tech ticket to the school's IT department, but haven't got a response. BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 14:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BombCraft8: The school likely blocked upload.wikimedia.org. You'll need to contact your school's IT dept, this isn't on the Wikipedia or WMF end. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 21:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did.

"The Wikimedia domain has always been blocked due to "controversial content". Wikipedia has a group of moderators who have to approve content before it gets posted publicly. Wikimedia allows anyone to post content without moderation."

-The IT guy BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 12:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important to note:

Wikimedia Commons has been blocked for as long as I can remember, while metawiki and upload.wikimedia.org were recently blocked BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 12:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BombCraft8 Interesting comment from your IT department. It isn't true to say that moderators have to approve content here: very little would get updated if every edit was moderated. Perhaps best not to mention that to them, though! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 14:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IT Guy is an idiot; Wikipedia has no such policy. Wikimedia Commons content is - exactly like Wikipedia's - retroactively moderated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a place in tanzania

to do editing and add ons 181.188.1.5 (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not quite sure what you are asking us. You are, however, welcome to make constructive contributions to the article in English on Tanzania without having to register for a free account (though there are many benefits in doing so). You can make edits at Swahili Wikipedia HERE. I will leave a helpful welcome message on your user talk page to help you understand how to start editing and to make useful contributions here. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quality or timeliness

I've seen many BLP articles where there is an older photograph used, while there become a more recent one but is often of lower quality. In such situations should the older but more quality image be used, or the newer but lower quality? Zinderboff(talk) 19:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zinderboff, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. In general, we prefer to use a high quality photo of the person when they were at the top of their game at the beginning of the article. Other photos can be used elsewhere in the body of the article. Very low quality photos should not be used if better photos are available. This is a matter of good editorial judgment and consensus among the editors interested in the specific article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you'll see a talk page with the lead image discussed, and eventually a consensus is reached about which is best. As Cullen328 said, sometimes it's a high-quality photo of the person at their peak of fame. Often, however, I see the lead image being a photo of how the person looks now. The community errs on the side of quality, I think. Between an older and newer photo, generally the highest quality one is chosen. If they're the same quality, the new one is chosen. If the subject of the article has a preferred photograph and donates it, we tend to use that. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Additions: English Translations by Andrei Malaev-Babel and Demidov Association

Hello everyone,

I am kimon fioretos and I would like to propose some additions to the Nikolai Vasilievich Demidov article. I am affiliated with the Demidov Association, which is dedicated to preserving and promoting Demidov's acting school. I believe these additions will enhance the article by providing valuable information about the availability of Demidov's work in English and the ongoing efforts to sustain his legacy.

References:

Demidov, Nikolai; Malaev-Babel, Andrei; Laskina, Natalia. Nikolai Demidov: Becoming an Actor-Creator. Routledge, 2021. ISBN 978-0367737009.
"About the Demidov Association." Demidov Association official website. Accessed September 26, 2024.

Rationale and Disclosure:

Due to my affiliation with the Demidov Association, I'm proposing these changes here for transparency and to comply with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.I am also proposing for someone esle to do this additions if they are approved. I believe these additions (especially the publication of the book in the English language) provide valuable context and information for readers interested in Demidov's work and its impact on modern acting techniques globaly.

Why These Additions Are Important:

Significant Contributions: Andrei Malaev-Babel's translations have been instrumental in introducing Demidov's methodologies to a global audience, filling a gap in theatre education. More over Andrei Malaev Babel is the only person in the world that collaborated with Laskina herself on this work
Educational Impact: These works are used in academic settings and professional actor training programs, highlighting their influence.
Relevance to the Article: Including this information provides a more comprehensive understanding of Demidov's legacy and ongoing relevance.

I welcome any feedback or suggestions and hope that another editor can review and consider adding this information to the article.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Kimon Fioretos Kimon fioretos (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kimon fioretos Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your understanding of our policies about Conflict of Interest. The Hosts here are always happy to help and advise on the best ways to edit Wikipedia though, to be frank, we don't usually get involved directly in making specific edits on behalf of editors (unless one of us is suddenly so -motivated).

It would be best if you would get these and any future changes via the article Talk Page, made by following the instructions at WP:EDITREQUEST to draw the attention of an editor willing to make these changes. As one addition seems most appropriate for the 'Published works' section, and the second is really an 'External link', I doubt there will be any worries adding these - especially as you have provided (and will no doubt repeat) such a clear rationale. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to get started

Is there a quick-start guide to help edit or refine content in our area of expertise? Sarakmo (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a quick summary on participating, see contributing to Wikipedia, and for a friendly tutorial, see our introduction. For a listing of introductions and tutorials by topic, see getting started.Moxy🍁 21:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarakmo, if you are interested in editing a perticular topic, you might be interested in WikiProjects. These are groups of editors contributing to a specific area, and might find one that interests you. win8x (talking | spying) 14:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

write article

Hello

is there anyone who can write a page about my website to get approved? Cfcplay (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the place to request authors to write for you. If the sources do not exist, there can't be an article about your website, no matter who writes it. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cfcplay. The short answer is, No.

If several somebodies who have no connection with you, and who have not been prompted or fed information on your behalf, choose to write in some depth about your website in places with a reputation for editorial control (such as major newspapers or magazines, or books from reputable publishers), then there could be a Wikipedia article about your website, based on what those sources say (and not at all on what you say or want to say).

If sources of that description do not exist, then no article is possible, and anybody who spends any time trying to will be wasting their time. ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you for the info i will contact some newspapers and tv channels for interview and reviews Cfcplay (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cfcplay, reports of interviews won't help, as they won't be independent sources. Reviews could help. Maproom (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok how many reviews is required? Cfcplay (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cfcplay, when @TyphoonAmpilsays "won't help you", they mean "will help you", as I and Maproom have already said.

As for the reviews: it isn't really the number (though a mininum of three indepedent sources is usually required): it's about the depth of coverage. The question is, "is there enough material in the reviews to base an encyclopaedia article on?" Some reviews of things talk in depth about the subject. Others are superficial, and simply describe it, and maybe give their own opinions about it. Only in-depth reviews will be useful as sources for an article. See significant coverage. ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cfcplay To write article create article. Verifiability, Reliable sources, and independent sources. won't help you. Thanks. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 04:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Physalia utriculus

So Wikipedia redirects Physalia utriculus Physalis physalis for some odd reason, even though they’re definitely different species. Please help. Atlas Þə Biologist (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Atlas Þə Biologist, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The article Portuguese man o' war says, under "Taxonomy":

The bluebottle, Pacific man o' war or Indo-Pacific Portuguese man o' war, distinguished by a smaller float and a single long fishing tentacle, was originally considered a separate species in the same genus (P. utriculus). The name was synonymized with P. physalis in 2007, and it is now considered a regional form of the same species.

So it sounds as if you may be relying on an older reference (there are two sources cited for that paragraph, though I haven't looked at them).

If you think that further discussion is required, Talk:Portuguese man o' war is the best place to start it. ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So P.utriculus is a subspecies? Atlas Þə Biologist (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you don't understand the explanation above, I'm not sure how you expect to work on taxonomic article. It's a synonym, not a subspecies. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to make sure an article meets English Wikipedia standard

Hello All,

I have submitted this draft article: Draft:Urban Diary (Hong Kong)

which is actually a translation of the following article in Wikipedia Chinese: 城市日記

I wanted to just make a translated version of the page (translation is my specialty in Wikipedia Chinese) but Wikipedia English won't allow me to do so, and therefore I have to make a new stand alone page.

The content is basically a translation from Wikipedia Chinese. How do I make it meet the standard in Wikipedia English and what are the differences? This is the first time I foray into Wikipedia English so I am grateful for your advice!

Regards Arutoria Arutoria (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arutoria, in order to describe the differences between the standards for en:WP and zh:WP, I'd need to have a good knowledge of the latter. I don't have this, and lack the time and effort to investigate. This, I imagine, makes me rather normal here. (There will, of course, also be some fortunately en+zh bilingual editors who'll be familiar with zh:WP.) Let's forget zh:WP for now. Are there reliable sources that -- in any language -- describe or comment on Urban Diary in some detail? These sources must be independent of Urban Diary (so that they must not be largely based on interviews with people in Urban Diary) and of each other. If so, please (here, in this thread) specify three of them. -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove a page

Hello

There is a wiki page for my old boss which is half fake - he is around 80 years old so does not use a computer.

I have edited it for him, to remove the lie part but someone keeps putting it back. Its malicious. He does not want the page anyway so please can some one help me remove his profile.

Thankyou Wells Report (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wells Report, what you have twice removed from the article Alan Holyoake is referenced. Perhaps it's referenced inadequately. Perhaps the references were good but the paragraph you removed misrepresented them. Perhaps the references, or at least one or two of them, say things which, citing reliable sources, you can demonstrate are disputed or plain wrong. Whichever, in order to get rid of the paragraph (let alone the whole article), you're going to have to give a reason that's a lot clearer than "it" is "fake", or a "lie". The best place to post this would be not here but instead WP:BLPN. Specify the article -- again, Alan Holyoake -- and don't call it an article "for" him; rather, an article about him. -- Hoary (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your help.

I can do as you suggest but means I need to take the time to research and disprove what someone it writing.

Is there no method just to remove him completely from wiki. Wells Report (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wells Report, no, there is no method to remove him completely from Wikipedia. You or him don't own the page, see WP:Ownership of content. win8x (talking | spying) 14:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a method, which is deletion, as explained at WP:BLPDELETE. However, Holyoake appears to meet Wikipedia's inclusion ("notability") criteria, Wells Report, so I doubt that a deletion nomination would succeed. Improving the article based on reliable sources is probably the best approach, and you can make suggestions for how that can be done by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that the sourcing looks rather insufficient for the claims being made in this article. We have claims such as "His own research published in The London Philatelist failed to substantiate his claims" that aren't referenced to anything other than the primary source. This looks to be a WP:BLP violation and a WP:NOR one too. Pinging Maproom and Indigobeam, who've recently reverted content removal. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the paragraph concerned, pending further discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any topic groups on Wikipedia?

Hi, I just signed up. I am interested in art and want to get involved in editing articles related to it. But the offers I receive are not exactly what I want to do. Please recommend if there are any art-related Wikipedia groups that I could edit. Thanks! Vtchjhn (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vtchjhn: WikiProjects might be what you want – perhaps the visual arts project? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the recommendation! This is just what I was looking for. Vtchjhn (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts (that other link redirects to the vital articles project). ObserveOwl (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ObserveOwl: argh, thanks, I got my shortcuts mixed up. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to do a sandbox

My name is RAPGOD500, and i'm a Wikipedia editor specialized on hip hop music, and how can i do a progressive sandbox? RAPGOD500 (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RAPGOD500 You have a personal sandbox in your user account, access is via your User or your User Talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RAPGOD500, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I see that in User:RAPGOD500/sandbox, you have created an infobox and nothing else. Assuming this is intended to become an article, you have started totally BACKWARDS. This is like painting the windows of your house before you have built the walls, or the foundations, or even surveyed the site to check it is fit to build on: it will likely lead to frustration and disappointment, and probably a lot of wasted effort.

Absolutely the first thing to do in creating an article is to look for suitable reliable independent sources to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. This is first because if you cannot find the sources you will know that no article is possible, and any further effort you spend on it will be effort wasted. (It is extremely unlikely that an album to be released in 2025 will meet those criteria).

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

One more thing: are you connected with this album? If you are, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's recommendations on editing with a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Organizations

There are several organizations without a page on Wiki. Can I write articles or create profiles for organizations? Effie92 (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Effie92 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Are there particular organizations that you want to write about? Your use of the word "profile" suggests to me that you want to use Wikipedia to tell the world about certain organizations- Wikipedia articles do more than that, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own(not based on materials from the organization like its website, staff interviews, or announcements of its routine activities) to say about the organiazation, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.

Writing a new article is challenging, and it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge as to how Wikipedia operates by first editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for the process. Using the new user tutorial is a good idea as well. If you really want to start writing a new article now, you may use the article wizard.

If you are associated with the organizations you want to write about, please see conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Effie92 There was an interesting recent discussion about how the German-language version of Wikipedia differs from the English one regarding the notability of organisations. Please read WP:Teahouse#How to match WP:ENCORP for my article? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of pickles

Are pickels actually good for you or not 210.84.6.89 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This board is to ask questions about using Wikipedia, and is not a general help desk. You can learn more about pickles by reading the article about pickles. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

plagiarism and unsubstantiated claims...

I found this article and it seems largely unsubstantiated without citations, fails a plagiarism test, and has a lot of 'opinions rather than fact. How are these kind of articles reported? Geraldine Aino (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraldine Aino Probably best to use the Talk Page at Talk:Haris Alexiou. Please read our policy on biographies of living people, which says you can immediately delete any statement not backed up by an inline citation to a reliable source. The article only has 31 page watchers, so you might want to alert one of the Projects that are interested in it to your concerns, via the relevant Project's Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need a advice how to deal with an unreasonable deletionist

Please see our conversation here:

I made a minor change to this article: Inflection. More specifically, I added Russian language as an example of s highly inflectional language: I specifically wanted to add Russian there, because this list is missing Slavic languages completely, and because Russian is mostly widely spoken of the Slavic languages:

Languages that have some degree of inflection are synthetic languages. These can be highly inflected (such as Latin, Greek, Russian, Biblical Hebrew, and Sanskrit), or slightly inflected (such as English, Dutch, Persian). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflection&oldid=prev&diff=1248062111&markasread=327526085&markasreadwiki=enwiki

User "Remsense" reverted my one-word edit in violation of 2 rules:

Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary
he did not cite a specific reason for his deletion as the wiki-rules require.

I said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Remsense&oldid=1248061064
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflection&oldid=1248038200
please read these rules : Besides violating the General Rules about Reverting, you did not cite a specific wiki-rule, that any revert requires. Walter Tau (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

He replied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inflection&oldid=prev&diff=1248062439 @Walter Tau, please stop adding clutter to the article. I'm not required to give a reason specifically rooted in policy just as you don't. But I did give a clear reason why I thought it should be removed, and you've made no case whatsoever for why it should be there. Stop re-adding contested material to the article, as that is an actual violation of actual site policy. Remsense ‥ 论 12:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What do I do in this case. I feel that "Remsense" is unreasonable, violates wiki-rules, and he does it often with other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 15:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Walter Tau, I'm not going to get into the details here but suggest this is something to be taken up on the Talk Page of the article. It seems to me a) that the sentence you are adding to has no source(s), so it might be better to focus on that and 2) this is the WP:LEAD section of the article, so should be a summary of what appears later. Although "Russian" is mentioned later in the article, I don't see why it should be in the lead. That, however, is debatable if you wish, on the Talk Page, where Remsense has already commented. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to follow the OP around, but it is frustrating when I have mentioned that the document they are citing clearly states it is not "the rules of Wikipedia" several times, but they would rather keep pointing to it and calling it as such to support their indignation at getting reverted. I'm sorry, but that attitude is hard to work with: one's additions are not entitled to remain in the encyclopedia simply because they are additions. Remsense ‥ 论 14:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>>Dear colleagues: thank you for your responses. Unfortunately, neither of you addressed any of the TWO questions, that I raised: User "Remsense" reverted my one-word edit in violation of 2 rules:

Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary
he did not cite a specific reason for his deletion as the wiki-rules require.

I would appreciate, if you provide a response to each of the two issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs)

Walter Tau We don't really deal with user conduct issues here. If you have discussed this with the other user and that fails to resolve your concerns, go to WP:ANI- but be advised that your behavior will be examined as well. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have to be impartial in your advice here, but for goodness's sake I don't feel like fielding two simultaneous, specious ANI threads right now. Remsense ‥ 论 15:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Tau I will note that "revert only when necessary" is not a rule or policy, but an essay. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Tau, the paragraph you edited gives a few examples of highly inflected languages. Four is enough. We don't want it become an ever-increasing list of such languages. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Walter Tau may be following would help you in updating the understanding the way Wikipedia works. You seem to be on Wikipedia since 2007(? Xtool) but with less number of edits. If you are looking for policy change in respect of WP:ONUS then discuss at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability but until any change takes place in the policy one is expected to follow the policies as they stand today.

1) Reverting is not best answer to somebody else is reverting so avoid any further reverting.

2) When contested/ reverted first and foremost you need to provide independent WP:RS. One Wikipedia article can not be considered as reliable source in another Wikipedia article. One can make their case stronger by providing as many academic -written by professors- sources from reliable publications as possible.

3) Generally WP:ONUS to achieve WP:Consensus is on the user who wish to add or retain certain content. (and not who is deleting. This where you need to update yourself the way Wikipedia works)

4) Further you need to join on article talk page discussion. If unresolved opt for WP:3O, still unresolved WP:DRN, still unresolved then WP:RFC

Bookku (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I blocked?

Because a user has blocked me,because he/she suspects that I use webhost,vpn or proxy when I dont. Please unblock,I can't edit for 2 yrs 2.49.60.209 (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to not be blocked. You can check your block log. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 20:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you were using a different IP address to the one you used to post here, and that was blocked? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia:Open proxies may be helpful. Cullen328 (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a B-class checklist to a WikiProject banner?

I want to add a B-class checklist to a WP:MED banner at Talk:Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. I could not find instructions for adding a B-class checklist to a WP banner at WP:MED. (It's probably there somewhere ...)

In my experience, WP:MIL has some of the best documentation on Wikipedia, so I tried "adding the specified code to the template call" as shown at Template:WikiProject Military history/doc. I tried adding the code below to WP:MED within the WikiProject banner shell, and taking WP:MED out of the banner shell, but neither worked. This is what I tried:

{{WikiProject Medicine | class=C | importance=Mid  | b1  = <yes/no> | b2  = <yes/no> | b3  = <yes/no> | b4  = <yes/no> | b5  = <yes/no>}}

But when I previewed the page with my edits, I received five error messages, one for each of the checklist lines, like this:

Preview warning: Page using Template:WikiProject Medicine with unexpected parameter "b1"

I tried changing " = <yes/no> " to every variation I could think of, e.g., "=no", " = n ", " = yes", " = y ", etc., but no luck.

What am I doing wrong?

Thank you! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 01:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark D Worthen PsyD. There are only a few WikiProject templates which support a B-class checklist. {{WikiProject Medicine}} isn't one of them. The template source has no mention of b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, unlike {{WikiProject Military history}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between revisions

I made an edit to "Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad" and then I see that another entity did something. I went to the site to see what was done but the previous and present look identical. I did this to other situations and see the same. At some point previously I recall seeing previous and present [maybe called current] clearly shown. How do I see "Difference between revisions" ? I want to be able to see what my edit was and then what the subsequent edit was. MarkWHowe (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MarkWHowe, while looking at Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, click "View history". Two little circles will be colored in. If you wish, click alternatives to one or both of these as "before" (left) and "after" (right) states respectively. Then click "Compare selected revisions". -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkWHowe: For a single edit it's easier to click "prev" at the edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried both ways and see what you mean. The 'line 76' edit must be so trivial I can't see it in the text. Thanks! MarkWHowe (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MarkWHowe, and welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming you're looking at the edit by @Central Corridor, they didn't actually change line 76 at all; : they inserted the line

after it. It's an artifact of the comparison software that it reports line 76 as changed. ColinFine (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkWHowe: {{main|Rock Island District}} produces this line at the top of Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad#Chicago commuter service:

It's annoying that a diff doesn't have a link from a change to the corresponding place in the rendered article. In this case [1] it was a section edit so the section heading "Chicago commuter service" is shown in grey in the edit summary and clicking it jumps to the top of the section. I often copy-paste some text from a diff and use a browser search (Ctrl+f in Windows browsers) to find the location in the page. It only works if the copied text is rendered so avoid things like template names and syntax. "Rock Island District" works here but it also occurs elsewhere on the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some handholding support

Hello Wikipedia contributors, I would like to write an article on Wikipedia. Can you please help me draft and submit the article with handholding support? I can donate a cup of coffee to you. Vinsa (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vinsa. I’m not very good at giving handholding help but, if you haven’t already done so, I’d recommend you studying Help:Your first article Best wishes on your writing project. Be sure to take all the time you need and, if things begin to feel a little overwhelming, just take a break from the work and come back after you’ve rested. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinsa24 Read Help:Your first article to submit the draft. the draft named Draft:Varun Porwal. Thanks. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 04:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vinsa, and welcome to the Teahouse. This may not be what you want to hear, but: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOSHARE and DID

Regarding WP:NOSHARE, how does wikipedia treat people with dissociative identity disorder, given that they may act like multiple people sharing one account? I feel like a change at least to the wording of the policy might be in order but I don't know how to initiate that or know if it's needed. Just`Existing 03:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just`Existing, people with various types of mental disorders are welcome to edit Wikipedia as long as their problems do not prevent them from complying with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. If Editor A gets criticized and then says, "That was actually Editor B who was editing at that time, who happens to be a different persona in my brain", I would not expect that excuse to gain much traction. I do not think that there would be much support for a special carve out for this condition. The general principle is that anyone can edit when they are in control, but nobody should edit when they are out of control. Cullen328 (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just`Existing: you might be interested in reading User:Tamzin/Plurality and multiplicity FAQ. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with Recent Activity Views on Edits/Recent Activity being inconsistent?

(This isn't a "how to" question, feel free to direct me to another place that's better to ask about it.)

I'm still relatively new and I like seeing the impact views on recent activity on my home page (and on the special:impact page). It's great to see that what I'm doing is helping, but also to direct me to edit more important/likely to be viewed articles - espeically as I'm starting to seek out WikiProjects and choose pages on my own to work on.

The weird thing is it's very inconsistent. As of writing, it says ~26,000 views, but pages that definitely have views seem to randomly disappear and reappear from the totals. Earlier today it showed me ~100 views, due to more viewed pages just not being listed. (But my user contributions are always correct, so not due to reverted edits or anything.)

Searching to see if this is a known thing has been fruitless for me so far. Is this a known issue and maybe not a priority to fix? I'm mostly just curious what's going on with it. Cyanochic (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been here sixth months myself, so I am still learning (every single day), but here is my two cents.

The numbers of views list bounces around like a kangaroo on speed, possibly so that you get some variety in terms of feedback, otherwise it would (over time) revert to just listing the same nine articles, in order of views. In my case, the #1 most viewed article is something to do with football, one of my first edits. Unfortunately my edit was promptly reverted by the article's main author most likely because he didn't like a new editor messing with his 'baby'. It's not even a subject I give two hoots about, and my net contribution to the article is effectively zilch, but it will always be listed at #1 because thousands of people view it every day. That's just how the cookie crumbles sometimes. Although, like you say, there are days when the list drops these monsters and focusses on different aspects.

Have you investigated the list deeper? Hold your cursor on the numbers and it will offer you detailed page views. This takes you to a separate site that I have no specific explanation for, but it may answer some questions for you.

For example, [this link] is the detail you would get for Bacillaria_paxillifer

And this article will probably tell you a whole lot more.

That's me, I'm done here. Hopefully a real expert will chip in before too long.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyanochic Disclaimer: not an expert. The Special:Impact page should be seen as a bit of fun intended to encourage new editors to stay. It is clearly wrong in detail. So, in my case as a long-time editor, it gives different results every time I look at it. It often seems to focus on articles where I made a couple of minor edits but it is ignoring a major article I created on 4 August and which had a WP:DYK on the Main Page on 29 August when it achieved over 6,000 pageviews! I think that there are a few considerations. 1) It only considers the latest 60 days of your editing (for newcomers, this is in effect all their edits), 2) It doesn't account for the size of your edit, so ignores real "impact" on an article and 3) any edits you make to a well-trafficked article dominate: it seems to choose articles where the average recent readership is high. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete an article?

Hello, today I created an article for the first time and published it. Now I want to delete it for some reasons Ruthen Pagan (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthen Pagan I assume you mean User:Ruthen Pagan/sandbox. That's in your own personal area and although "published" is not part of the main encyclopaedia. You can simply WP:BLANK it or overwrite it with new content when you are ready: that area is entirely within your control. Technically, admins will deleted pages marked with the template {{Db-author}} if, for example, you had created a draft article as sole author but that would be a waste of their time in this case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ruthen Pagan. Since you were the only author of that page, you are allowed to simply delete it, as Mike Turnbull says. But note that every time any of us posts to Wikipedia we are agreeing to "irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL" (I've copied that text from the message that is currently on my screen under the editing window).

This means that in general, while anybody may delete any text as part of editing, any other editor may disagree and restore it. The text you added is effectively no longer yours, and you cannot insist it be deleted (or insist it be kept). ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Writing Help While Researching Dimitrios Papacharalambous

Hello everyone,

I hope you're all doing well! I’m currently working on a new page and could really use your help. I’m in the process of gathering more sources and additional details about Dimitrios Papacharalambous.

While I'm focusing on research, I want to ensure that the page adheres to Wikipedia’s writing style and guidelines, particularly regarding neutrality, tone, and structure. I could really use some assistance in refining the content to meet these standards. If anyone with experience in crafting Wikipedia pages could lend a hand, I’d greatly appreciate it! IlEssere (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @IlEssere. Another editor has added an information box at the top of the page highlighting several problems, with links to more information. Phrases such as His business acumen turned that small basement into one of the largest flower shops in America are not only non-neutral but unreferenced. In addition, the article is full of trivia such as At the time, it was customary for Americans to buy a bouquet for their wives on their way home from work. The "philanthropy" section is pure WP:PEACOCK and needs to be toned down. You also need to find more WP:Reliable sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the aforementioned details are referenced in "Δημήτριος Παπαχαραλάμπους: Ο μεγάλος ευεργέτης της Ναυπάκτου". www.npress.gr. Retrieved 2024-09-25.

I will work on addressing these in the article. IlEssere (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these people are banning me are European

This is not really a question but a suggestion. Hello, I am a Kikuyu and you have to tell Kenyans about their history. You don’t use western media, I asked other Kenyans if we won the rebellion they said yes. So if I keep editing Kenyan victory please hear me out!! Infowritere (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mau Mau Rebillion Infowritere (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You guys need to fix this asap because other people will look for the wrong information!! Infowritere (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All things need to be reliably sourced to sources that the community has come to a consensus on for having a reputation for reliability, independence, fact-checking, and accuracy. Your edit was reverted as you did not provide reliable sources that indicate a different outcome in the the Mau Mau rebellion sufficient to form a consensus that it is what the article should say. Your opinion is not a reliable source, nor is the general public opinion of Kenyan citizens or British citizens. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to make changes to these pages, you're going to have to take a drastically different approach. Since your previous block for adding unsourced information last month, you've had more than two dozen unsourced edits reverted by different editors, and a warning message about unsourced edits. You need to follow WP:RS because if you continue down this road, you are likely find yourself blocked for increasingly longer durations. And being blocked would prevent you from having any say in the content that appears on articles that are important to you. Constructing editing is crucial to keeping Wikipedia a useful project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that the leader of the rebellion, Dedan Kimathi, was captured by the British colonial government and hung. Over 1000 rebels were executed. It is true that many Kenyans today consider these rebels from the 1950s to be national heroes, but in practical terms, the rebellion failed. Cullen328 (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLs that become dead links

I'm trying to go through the backlog of wikis with bare URLs, and a lot of them have become dead links already, although they're still tagged as bare URLs. Should I change the tag on them, and if so, is there any other info I need to add other than just changing the tag? ChainmailSweater (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChainmailSweater. You can find practical advice at Wikipedia:Link rot. The handy shortcut is WP:LINKROT. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Font size reduction in Publish Changes

Lately, when you enter the Publish Changes dialog the font size is much reduced from the viewing size in the page you're editing. This makes it hard for me to read and I'd like an option to get back the old behaviour. Is such an option already there? I can't find it. -- Dough34 (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find sources for a citation

On List of Latter Day Saints#Sports figures, quite a few names on the list need citations, but I'm having a lot of difficulty finding sources outside of a couple of blogs or at all, and I'm not sure what my next course of action should be. Do I remove the names from the list, leave it as is, or is there something else I should be doing? RustyDigitalis (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RustyDigitalis. Either remove the information, or mark it with {{citation needed}}. Some would say that tagging it and not removing it is cowardly, but I certainly do that sometimes, especially if I believe the information is correct. ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content assessment question

Hi everyone. I've had a few articles accepted via AfC and seem to be hitting a C-Grade wall. I did a good bit of drafting/editing before the page Johnny Crowder was accepted and it's left me curious, what would I theoretically need to do to get that article in particular to a B-Grade? Reading the content assessment cheat sheet is giving me some concepts of this, but I think I need to hear some outside thoughts. In this instance, I was able to flesh out the article decently, so would better sourcing fix the issue? Do I need to improve my writing style? This is a request for some constructive criticism where the new found knowledge will go into the next article I attempt to write. Thanks! 30Four (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

30Four, keep in mind that almost nobody cares about the minor and subjective distinctions between a C-grade and a B-grade article. These ratings are the individual opinion of a single editor. The only ones of significance are Good article and Featured article. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen. While that alone is a fair assessment, I figured I should set my sights a bit lower than GA/FA when creating new articles. If I can create a better base for an article, it'd be a simpler (not easy!) task for the community at large to potentially edit it into a GA/FA later on. Besides, why not look at the next higher grade as a goal for improvement? Asking for criticism on an article is intended to help myself understand the nuances of higher-tier Wikipedia articles & how I can take steps to get to that point. 30Four (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About knowing if a topic is relevant to Wikipedia or not

So, i live in a small city in Brazil, with probably 200k people living on it, and there is a well known order over here that focus on teaching people, mostly young adults, about scientific and religious matters. It's big around here and the order has a amazing story that is only written in old books, everyone knows about it over here, but it's a small city after all, i would like to know if this qualifies for a new Wikipedia article. Anderson Von (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anderson Von Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you clarify: are you asking if the city with 200k people is Notable, or whether the religious 'order' is WP:Notable? If the former - it's highly likely that a city of that size is, indeed, notable. If the latter: it depends upon the quality of the sources. We can accept independently published books that aren't in English, and it doesn't matter how old they are, of whether or not they're available online. They might well support an article being written about that Order. But we cannot advise further without more information. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

humor project

Is there a WikiProject specifically for humor? I know there are several categories such as Category:Humorous Wikipedia essays. Is there a list of editors who are interested in collaborating on funny articles? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]