Wikipedia:Teahouse

Bonadea, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

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.

Help Wikipedia

Redirect

Sorry, if I'm not being bold. However, can I make a redirect to the Communist Action Organization in Iraq page? Rager7 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rager7: Yes – since your account is autoconfirmed, you can make redirects. Did you have a particular redirect title in mind, such as CAOI? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of titling the redirect to "Iraq Communist Organization", but CAOI is also good title for redirect. Rager7 (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Rager7, don't make redirects that are merely descriptive; your example would work better as a {{short description}} than as a redirect. Feel free to make a redirect whenever some reliable sources use that name for it, or when it is a frequent search term that will help users find it. Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Rager7 (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

How to prevent accidental article/category creation

hello, i accidentally made a category and i would like to sincerely apologize for doing so. i would like to be a serious editor but if i keep making mistakes like this and the times where mobile edits remove content how will i become an editor rather than just a fool on this website? how do i fix this and prevent further problems on the site? Avienby (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Avienby. Proofread your work and think very carefully before clicking the "Publish changes" button. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Avoid editing when sleepy, when distracted, or after having ingested alcohol, a narcotic, a hallucinogen, etc. If you realize that, moments previously, you accidentally created something (an article, a category, whatever), simply blank it. It will then be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Avienby: Always use the Show preview button before you publish! Mathglot (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Avienby: another workaround is to enable "prompt for edit summary" in preferences. I enter edit summary after proofreading, and seeing preview. So in case I accidentally click "publish", a page is not saved without the edit summary. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding [citation needed] to my own article

I am wondering whether to add {{Citation needed}} to an article I submitted for review, or just remove the material needing a citation.

This is for an article on a living person Draft:Gary Stockdale

Some material is poorly sourced and so needs to cite a more objective source. The material is NOT controversial. I am hoping that I or someone else will find a better source at some point. I see 3 options here:

1. Add {{Citation needed}} after the poor source citation.
2. Replace the poor source citation with {{Citation needed}}.
3. Remove the poorly sourced material.

Which option is best, or another option? Dr.bobbs (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dr.bobbs The policy for biographies of living people says that all material that could be challenged must have an inline citation, or should be removed. While you are tidying up, please remove all the external links within the main text. There can be an external links section at the foot of the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

However, I am confused by your mention of external links within the main text that need to be removed. I'm pretty certain that I didn't put in any, and I don't see any now. I believe there are external links only within the "External links" and "Video clips" sections, and in the Website entry in the Infobox. I assume these would all be proper places to have external links, since I don't see any alternatives to that for these locations. Dr.bobbs (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dr.bobbs: I believe Michael D. Turnbull might've been refering to the embedded links to Wikipedia articles found in the Gary Stockdale#Video clips. You can convert those to WP:WIKILINKS. He could also been referring to the links to YouTube videos in the same section. Those aren't really needed from an encyclopedic standpoint, particularly since a link to the main YouTube channel found in the "External links" section. Finally, the section probably should be renamed to "Filmography", "TV appearances" or something similar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dr.bobbs As you say, there are still external links to YouTube videos in the "video clips" section. These are somewhat hidden, since you have just a full stop associated with the URL, giving as the final example (backup vocals). In my opinion, you should either be upfront and have the link associated with the name of the video or, more in line with the first paragraph of the guidance at WP:EL External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article, not include them there at all, relying on the proper external links and/or infobox sections of the article to provide readers with them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

I don't understand what you mean by "just a full stop associated with the URL". I don't know what a full stop is, or what the alternative is, or how to achieve that alternative.

I also don't understand what you mean by "have the link associated with the name of the video". How does that differ from what I did?

By "more in line with the first paragraph of the guidance at WP:EL", I guess you mean that the former "Video clips" section (now named "TV appearances") is considered to be in the body of the article (I had thought that this section was not in the body of the article), and that it should all be moved into the "External links" section? Maybe I could use "TV appearances" as a subheading under "External links", and move all of those YouTube links, with all the bulleted descriptions, there? Dr.bobbs (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

A full stop or period is a punctuation mark at the end of a sentence. If you look closely at my above reply and the section Gary Stockdale#TV appearances you'll see that you have managed to create external links by placing URL into brackets [ and ], where the syntax is [URL .] The reader sees a small . symbol that, when clicked, takes them to a website outside Wikipedia: that's the definition of an external link rather than a wikilink. I was suggesting that this is against the guidance, summarised at WP:ELPOINTS and that if you want to break the guidance (which I don't encourage) you should use an entry like "You Don't Know" by Gary Stockdale.... and so on. Your suggestion to move all the TV appearances into the External links section would be fine, especially if linked as I've illustrated here so the links are obvious. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dr.bobbs Apologies, forgot to ping you to my reply you might otherwise miss. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Dr.bobbs (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

I don't understand what you mean by "the embedded links to Wikipedia articles found in the Gary Stockdale#Video clips. You can convert those to WP:WIKILINKS". Those "embedded links" are already WP:WIKILINKS, aren't they, so how could I convert them to what they already are?

I don't see how including a link to Stockdale's YouTube channel takes the place of specifically listing his few most noteworthy YouTube videos. The reader is left to wade through many dozens of videos on his YouTube channel, the great majority of which are really not noteworthy, which is not very helpful.

I changed the "Video clips" section title to "TV appearances" as you suggested. Dr.bobbs (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dr.bobbs: I'll respond to your comments, but first please take a look at WP:LOGGEDOUT for reference; hopefully, you'll read that and understand why I suggested you do so.

Regarding the links, I somewhat misread that particular section, and mistook some Wikilinks for external links. My apologies for the confusion; you're correct the links to existing Wikipedia articles are already Wikilinks.

As for the YouTube videos, whether something is "noteworthy" is a bit subjective and could run into problems with WP:OR. Appearances nominated for major awards certainly should be mentioned and appearances which can be supported by citations to reliable sources are also probably OK, but links to these works aren't really encyclopedically necessary in-body; they might, however, be OK in the WP:EL section. Another issue with YouTube links has to do with WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK. Being posted on YouTube doesn't automatically mean it's OK to link to from a Wikipedia article. For example, the copyright on Penn & Teller's Sin City Spectacular is most like owned/held by its production company, the FX network, and perhaps it writers; those who appeared in the show most likely don't have any claim of copyright to it. If they want to post clips from the show on their YouTube channel then that's their choice, but that doesn't mean there's a need for Wikipedia to link to them. Even when copyright isn't a real concern, if all of the links are to the content are found on Stockdale's official website or social meadia pages, there's no real need to have specific links to them per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL because a single link to main page itself works fine for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot that I wasn't logged in for that one change!

Thanks so much for all the explanation on using YouTube videos. I think I'll try to work the content in the "TV appearances" section into the previous sections in the body of the article, avoiding external links and avoiding citing YouTube as a source, and instead just mention that the video clips can be found on Stockdale's YouTube channel (I guess it's not that big a deal for an interested reader to find the clips there), and then just eliminate the "TV appearances" section. Dr.bobbs (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Petter Næss article editing

Hey guys! I am new to editing and am trying to get a good grasp on things so I started working on one of the articles under suggested edits and Petter Næss was the one I decided to start working on. The multiple issues template stated that "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (April 2020)" and "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (April 2020)."

I made multiple edits, fixing particular dates, re-formatting the layout of the article to define his roles in theater vs. film, and adding more citations for the information already on there. I also changed some wording to better clarify what his film Elling was adapted from.

My question is mostly just if I did all of this correctly? Does it look okay? Did I follow what the issues template was asking to be fixed?

I'm sorry if this is more info (or not enough), like I said, I am a complete novice at this.

Thank you for your time!! Rylieb leelib (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rylieb leelib Welcome to the Teahouse. We encourage editors to be bold and hope they will learn from any mistakes if others revert contributions. Like many articles, that one has already been edited since you contributed to it and no-one seems to have objected to what you did. My own view is that there was no need to delete the external link to IMDb. Thousands of articles have such links and we have special templates for them. You are correct that is not considered a reliable source as a citation but it is fine as an external link, just as external links to a subject's website are. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Website citations, to two different items on a scroll-down

I'm working on a draft article. Citations, referring to two named items, are being tagged as a cite error. I need to make citations to two items presented in a single reference. As it is now, there is one reference to which I've given a ref name shared in both citations. But I need to refer to two separate items (in this case, info about two specific publications) which are there to be found by scrolling down the web page.

The cite error notes that the reference is being "defined multiple times with with different content" due to the items mentioned in the two citations. What should I do? Of course, I could just make two separate citations, without putting a ref name in the reference template.

Thanks.Joel Russ (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the system allows a double citation,just split it into 2 UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Joel Russ (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Joel Russ, for this case, I'd recommend removing the refnames and appending the section anchor to the URL, so one points to https://wholeearth.info/#whole-earth-review and the other points to https://wholeearth.info/#whole-earth-catalogs

Named references cannot be defined with non-matching parameter values. Folly Mox (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Folly Mox. Would it be possible to direct me to an instance where a "section anchor" has been utilized this way? If so, with such an article example, I could click edit and see how that was done.Joel Russ (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Joel Russ, perhaps this template will help? It's designed for referencing multiple chapters in a single publication, which sounds like what you're trying to do. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Joel Russ I see you currently have two references pointing to essentially the same URL. The template {{rp}} is very versatile since it takes any text as the "page": see its |at=in-source-location parameter. That would allow you to return to using a single named reference. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate Content on the Main Page

As a parent, I would like the editors to avoid presenting topics as seen in Did You Know ... on the 2024-11-13 Main Page. Specifically this ... "... that The Cock Destroyers (pictured) released a trans-inclusive sex education video for Netflix before hosting Slag Wars: The Next Destroyer?"

I am not advocating deletion of the articles, only removal from the Main Page. Blanthor (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Blanthor See our policy on censorship. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The user said they don't advocate its removal from Wikipedia. It isn't censorship to curate the content that appears on the Main Page(where at least some land when they arrive here and can't control what is seen), perhaps to present the least shock value. I don't advocate removing it from the MP, just saying that's the other side. It's for the community to decide- Blanthor, you are free to participate in the processes that decide what appears on the Main Page. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

how about inventing a category like "unfit for main page"? 176.4.186.61 (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Blanthor You make an interesting point. The discussion which led to that DYK appearing didn't take any account of such concerns, and our DYK process doesn't mention this. User:Launchballer, who made that nomination and has extensive experience of the DYK process, may like to comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I created the article because the GA reviewer enquired about a red link at Megan Barton-Hanson and I brought it to DYK because I thought it made a good hook (and judging by Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders/2024/November, it did). This was discussed on multiple places at WT:DYK, which found consensus that this came under NOTCENSORED. I don't watchlist this page so ping me if anything else requires my attention.--Launchballer 18:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Adopt a User

What is Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a helpful page that will explain it to you. It's at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Do feel free to ask here again,once you have read it, if you have a more specific question that is not answered there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@TheSmartWikiOne Adopt-a-user has been largely superseded by a mentorship scheme which is now offered to all new accounts. The linked page gives details. You are a new user, so should already have this: a tab called the "Homepage" visible when you look at your own UserPage. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Want to answer questions

Hello Teahousers! I often lurk around the Teahouse, and sometimes I feel like answering other users' questions, but I do not have the confidence to do so. How can I gain confidence? ❀BrandenburgBlue❀_Talk! 15:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If you are sure your answer will be correct and useful, do it! Worst that can happen is that a more experienced Teahouse Host will comment/elaborate on your answer. David notMD (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @David notMD! Since I'm still a little inexperienced, I think I should only answer a question if I know how to and understand what it's asking, right? Just double-checking :D ❀BrandenburgBlue❀_Talk! 16:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, start there. David notMD (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

BrandenburgBlue, you're aware that "understanding what it's asking" can be a problem. That is perceptive, and encourages me to think that you'll make a good Teahouse host. Maproom (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Maproom I think I should wait until I have extended confirmed status until I even think of becoming a host, but I'll try to answer questions I understand whenever I have enough time, I'm usually busy ❀BrandenburgBlue❀_Talk! 20:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! How about you start with answers you are sure of and you know are correct?

One of main skill you need on English Wikipedia generally is WP:BOLD. You can also make researches about prospective answers and also observe the manner these questions are answered by more experienced user. I know while it may be rough here, most experienced editors and administrators don't bite. Tesleemah (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@BrandenburgBlue I wanted to add that when I first started contributing on Wikipedia:Teahouse , I was corrected a couple of time. I was told to slow down and not mince words too and I understand this especially for a Non-Native English Speaker like me, That time I used verifiable and notable the same way because I thought they meant the same thing, Now, I'm much better now (I can't say I'm doing it perfectly yet). So, you can start as well. Tesleemah (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Reference site

I'm wondering how I could cite this source: https://xula.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16948coll16/id/318/ as it has no date and the site is a university. WikiPhil012 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

WikiPhil012, you can use the Cite web template. Omit the date and publisher parameters, since they're unknown, but include as much other info as you can (e.g., author, title, URL, website, access date). If you're using the visual editor instead of the source editor, click on the citation button and choose "Manual," then "Website," then fill in the info, leaving items blank if you don't have that info. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@WikiPhil012 You can get an initial version of the citation from the URL using citer at toolforge.org. With the URL you supplied, this gives {{cite web | title="City Seal Has Interesting Background" by Richard R. Dixon | website=CONTENTdm | date=2019-10-30 | url=https://xula.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16948coll16/id/318/ | access-date=2024-11-16}} which is pretty easy to tweak into a good citation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Can I use this as a source?

https://alamedamuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Imelda_smallpics_4printing.pdf Oholiba (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Oholiba, the guideline at Wikipedia:Reliable sources says, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I won't use it. That's too bad, because it provides a lot of information about Alameda, California. Oholiba (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Oholiba, Rjjiii has pretty much answered your question; but this is the kind of question you should ask not here but instead at WP:RSN. If you do so, be sure to describe for what you want to use such-and-such (e.g. this masters thesis) as a source. -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Will it be a problem if I use many references to the city's newspaper (Alameda Post) for information about the history? Oholiba (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Oholiba not a problem at all. The policy there is WP:PRIMARY. It's formatted in a kind of intimidating way but says that primary sources are accepted on Wikipedia for hard facts like dates and so on. If you have specific questions about a newspaper citation, I'd take Hoary's advice above. Also, feel free to add the master's thesis to the external links section. Wikipedia's citation norms are a bit strict/odd because they're pulling double duty for both verification and for accountability (there's no editorial oversight here and most editors are anonymous or pseudonymous). Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Oholiba, I realized later that I was reading your question about the city's newspaper as meaning articles from the city's history (which would be a primary source). If you mean newspaper articles about the city's history, those are secondary sources and also totally acceptable, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Templates

I can’t find the template saying the article is too long. Could someone tell me please? The article in question is Wind power in Australia. K.O.518 (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@K.O.518 is {{very long}} what you're looking for? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

CanonNi beat me to it. The template can be reached from Wikipedia:Template index (bookmark it!) (via Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup). -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you 👍 K.O.518 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Being hushed

I have been involved on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, saying that I think North Korea should, given the abundance of sources supporting this, be considered a co-belligerent in the infobox. Though discussion was progressing, an ECP editor who disagrees with me decided to move the discussion to an RfC, serving to squelch me per WP:GSRUSUKR because I'm not ECP. The justification they gave for the move was to consolidate different threads, which I think is not an accurate justification because all recent discussion was happening on the same thread. I'm not sure how to progress from here— is this an ANI thing? Placeholderer (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Placeholderer. Until you are Extended confirmed, you are not permitted to substantively discuss or edit content about the war between Russia and Ukraine in any way, anywhere on Wikipedia, including here at the Teahouse. So, my sincere advice to you is to cease all editing in this topic area until you reach the extended confirmed level. If you do not stop, you are at a very high risk of being blocked. So stop please. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at your user talk page, Placeholderer, I see that you were properly informed of the editing restriction at 18:04, 11 November 2024 UTC. You cannot claim that you were not formally advised, and your compliance with that editing restriction is mandatory and not negotiable. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that WP:GSRUSUKR explicitly allows constructive comments to talk pages apart from internal project discussions. If the Teahouse is considered an internal project discussion for this purpose then I'd say that's insane and WP:IAR. What I find offensive is an editor (who has been no role model on the page) skipping discussion to go to an RfC. Per WP:RFC "Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC"; also, "If you are not sure if an RfC is necessary, or about how best to frame it, ask on the talk page of this project". An RfC was started unilaterally mid-discussion for what I see as no valid reason, and in this context that means banning me from the discussion. I'm not sure how I'd "appeal" what I think is inappropriate use of RfC, so I'm asking here Placeholderer (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll also clarify that I'm absolutely not looking to delete an already-started RfC because that wouldn't help anyone. I'm mostly just looking for moral support because I'm frustrated by what I think is abuse of wikicraft Placeholderer (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Article name change

Hi, I was working on the Quinte Health Care article. The Quinte Healthcare Corporation has changed their name officially Quinte Health. Should the article name be changed to reflect it or a redirect added. CF-501 Falcon (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CF-501 Falcon:! When an organization changes its name, our policy is to wait and see if independent sources begin referring to it by the new name, and to update the article title if they do. (WP:NAMECHANGES discusses the topic in more detail, if you're interested.) If you've found sources that have begun using Quinte Health to refer to the corporation, you can start a requested move discussion to ask for the name change. If the most recent sources are still referring to it by the old name, your best bet is just to add a redirect instead. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:TWRFC - How did the consensus be achieved?

The conclusion of the RfC says "As far as strength of arguments go, the arguments were extremely varied and challenging to weigh" and "Taking all of that into account, I don't see the strength of argument in favor of "state" being strong enough to overcome the numeric consensus". It is just like the consensus was achieved by just having "a numeric consensus" when nothing else overcoming it.

I don't see that the consensus can be achieved this way in WP:CONACHIEVE and I see that there is a explanatory essay "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" and it indicates that this achievement process might be unsuitable.

I'm newcomer here and I may not know the rules. Can consensus be achieved this way? 36.230.24.108 (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That consensus isn't determined strictly by polling results doesn't mean that the number of votes is not a strong initial indication of the proportion of support. The closer concluded that there was no policy-based argument for "state" strong enough to counter that proportion. "In favor" refers to the arguments made by those in favor of "state" not a conclusion that the arguments for "state" were stronger. The best way to learn how consensus in an RFC works is to read a lot of RFCs and the closer arguments. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The editors who discussed the topic weighed this option against various others, and based on the strong numeric indication came to the consensus that it was the appropriate option. I think they mostly understood there was not an option that was going to please 100% of people. Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Criteria for open proxy editing when logged in

Hello! I'm a frequent user of an open proxy (Mullvad) that, as far as I know, does not support creating exceptions for certain websites. Because I'm privacy-conscious, I would prefer to not have to disconnect from this proxy to be able to edit Wikipedia. However, I do have easy and uncensored access to Wikipedia editing without an open proxy. I understand that I'm nowhere close to the level of trust required for an editor to be granted access to an open proxy exemption, but even if I were would I be eligible to have this access given that using an open proxy is unnecessary for me to edit Wikipedia? Thanks, /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 17:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@GracenC: See (if you haven't already) WP:PROXY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I've already read it (as well as WP:IPBE), but thanks anyways! In retrospect I probably should have been more straightforward with my question. WP:IPECPROXY says that editors who may reasonably request an exemption include users who show they can contribute to the encyclopedia, and existing users with a history of valid non-disruptive contribution. Is there any precedent for granting this exemption to trusted users who would use it solely for convenience? /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 19:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, as someone with less than 100 edits I do not consider myself a trusted user. I'm just asking for once I become one. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 19:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

For convenience or philosophy, it is unlikely to be granted. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That was the response I expected, but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks anyways! /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 14:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for third party feedback

Is there anyone who'd like to help look over the talk page and article edits recently on several relatively low traffic Roman era history articles? My objections, concerns, and advice triggered by recent major edits of Botteville on Sicambri and Genobaud (3rd century) have unfortunately led to unnecessarily (I think) defensive discussion. It might be better to have more perspectives. BTW I have never tried using this forum, but I notice old history project pages look rather dead. Thought I would try it but if this is not the right type of question, I'd be happy to get advice on better alternatives. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if it's within their scope, but I've notified the Classical Greece and Rome WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Given further development at the article talks, I've notified the military history WikiProject also. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If it's outside their scope, I think you may have to follow the usual steps on the dispute resolution page. Other questions may be better at the help desk; the Teahouse will answer most questions, but it's intended for new editors. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: You could try WP:Third opinion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that project seems active and some feedback has already been posted on one of the two articles. For the time being I hope this is not yet a dispute. But while both of us, the two editors, claim to be experienced a lot of the talk pages posts show that we both think that the other is misunderstanding Wikipedia norms. So potentially this can be calmed down by getting more feedback about what is normally acceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

First page

I have a classic experiment that I would like to appear on Wikipedia because it shows the relationship of Vrms from an ac supply and the equivalent dc potential differnece. A draft can be found at Draft:AC-DC light experiment - Wikipedia. I would be very happy if a current editor could help me improve it so that it is acceptable for publication. Many thanks, Iain Iain sci (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Iain sci, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks to me, I'm afraid, as if you have made the classic beginner's mistake of writing the draft BACKWARDS: writing what you know.

A Wikipedia page is not based on what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows): it is based on reliable published sources: nothing else.

If there are several sources describing and discussing the experiment - each of which satisfies all the criteria of WP:42 - then you can create a draft by summarising what those sources say. If not, then the subject is not notable, and so it suitable for a Wikipedia article.

I can't see your first source - it is giving me a 404, so probably you have an error in the URL - but if that is an article about specifically this experiment, that may be enough to add it to an existing article. ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Help with grouping sources template

I am working on getting The Americans to GA status, as seen here. One of the last things to do is group some of the sources together in the Reception section. I attempted but fear I can not understand how it works. Could someone assist me with this? Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Try Template:Multiref2, as it renders with white space between references (better than Template:Unbulleted_list_citebundle).

Example in my sandbox if you can read it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alegh/sandbox Alegh (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I understand it better with the help of this example. Thanks so much! Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on "Heian period"

I've noticed two unrelated incidents of disruptive editing on "Heian period" and its talk page. While they're clearly disruptive, I'm not sure whether they're severe enough to warrant special attention.

The first incident is a series of six edits from IPs from Djibouti, presumably all from the same person, inserting unrelated paragraphs in French into the article. Every time somebody reverts the edit, they usually come back within a few days and add more unrelated text. They've been notified a few times on their talk pages, but only one of those went as far as saying that their edit "did not appear constructive". That's why I decided to leave a clearer warning just now calling attention to the whole series of edits. Is there more that should be done?

The second incident was a topic in the talk page that was just a single, obvious racial slur from a one-edit account, added in 2018. Since it was clearly disruptive, I just deleted it, but is it even worth taking further action since it's so old and the account has no other activity? Angegane (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Vandalism, disruptive editing, original research, non-neutral, and other problem edits happen all the time. We try to clean them up as soon as we see them, but some slip by, especially if they are subtle. Some editors spend a lot of their time on Wikipedia patrolling changes to catch such edits. We even have automatic processes (bots and filters) that catch and revert the more obvious problem edits, but we always welcome help dealing with such edits. If you are interested in helping fight vandalism, please read the policy at Wikipedia:Vandalism to understand what vandalism is and how we deal with it. Donald Albury 00:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Angegane, I see that there's been intermittent disruption on that page over the last 2 months. Re: your first question, I know of two other potential actions (but I'm still not that experienced an editor, so I'm going to ask Donald Albury whether either of these is merited here):

• You can ask for semi-protection of the page. There's general info about page protection here, and requests can be made here.
• You can ask that an IP range be blocked here.

In both cases, a more experienced editor will assess whether to take any action.

Re: your second question, no, there's no reason to take any other action since that edit was made so long ago and the account hasn't edited since. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: The problem edits to that page have not yet risen to a frequency where I would protect it. Another admin might do so. Page protection locks out good faith editors below the protection level. Blocks to IP ranges often cause collateral damage (blocking good faith editors). I haven't done many range blocks, and I will continue to be slow to do so. Again, another admin who is more used to assessing the gains and losses of a range block might do so. My personal opinion, though, is that the disruption to that page has not yet risen to a level that it cannot be handled by edit revisions, and a notice to WP:AIV if an account or IP repeatedly vandalises. Donald Albury 19:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald Albury, thank you for taking the time to answer my question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Donald Albury. I'll keep monitoring the page, and if the disruptions continue after a few more warnings, I'll notify WP:AIV. Angegane (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Username Policy

Just a hypothetical, if a notable/famous person made a wikipedia account using their real name would they have to verify their identity? 153.90.19.67 (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:REALNAME. Names that appear to be same as notable people may be blocked until and unless we receive proof they are who they say they are. Donald Albury 01:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I am an administrator who frequently works on username issues. In cases like these, I look at plausibility. If an account claiming to be a very famous person such as Meryl Streep or Donald Trump pops up, I immediately softblock the account under the assumption that these people are unlikely to be editing Wikipedia themselves, and impersonation is highly likely. On the other hand, there is a universe of clearly notable but far less famous people who might be motivated to edit Wikipedia. An actor who had three significant film roles in the 1980s. A musician who had one big smash hit in the 1980s. A politician who served two terms in a state or provincial legislature in the 1980s. I am using the 1980s examples only to indicate that not every username that matches that of a notable person is necessarily an immediate and blockable problem. The content and context of the edits also needs to be taken into account. If the actor account changes a movie release date from 1983 to 1984 and explains why, I am far less likely to block than if the account amplifies a poorly referenced rumor that the actor is guilty of sexual abuse. Hypothetical cases like these are good illustrations of situations where administrators need to use the well-informed discretion that the community has entrusted them with, combined with good old fashioned editorial judgment, which is a precious commodity. Cullen328 (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a long term editor who uses his real name. A few years ago, a person by that name suddenly became notable, and an article was created. I politely asked this editor to either confirm, or deny being that person explicitly. eg: "I'm the real Elvis Presley, despite the rumours, still alive." The editor added "I'm not Elvis Presley, the same name is a coincidence." On another note, I'm friends with James Bond, Harry Potter, George Bush, and many other people, but unfortunately none of them have articles on Wikipedia about them. We have David Brooks, and User:DavidBrooks, both different. We also have a notable computer scientist who edits with his real name. See also: Wikipedia:Notable people who have edited Wikipedia. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Deletion

Hello,

I just want to know how to delete a Wikipedia page or article that is already accepted and published on Wikipedia. See the linked page that I want to delete below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hmong_customs_and_culture#Hmong_New_Year_Festival

Why I want to delete it? The problem is that I don't want it to be merged with another page which is "Hmong custom and culture page". As I said, Hmong New Year should be independent. It has nothing to do with Hmong custom and culture. A New Year is a new year, not a custom and culture. Custom is something that happens frequently in a day, week or month, New Year is not. I don't know why they merged my article with the other one. From there, I don't agree. I want it to be independent and have its own page. If not, I want to delete it. But I don't know how to do it. Would you please help me?

Thanks. 76.156.95.30 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You cannot unpublish something. When you published the material you granted Wikipedia the right to use it. You cannot retract that permission, even if you don't agree with the consensus to merge that content into another article. Meters (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It can also be customary to do things once a year (or even less often), and the things done in this context are customs, just as much as more frequent practices. In Britain, for example, people often talk about New Year customs, and the lede of that linked article includes the sentence "Other cultures observe their traditional or religious New Year's Day according to their own customs." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

error on infobox map

Why am I getting "##Location within" on Elmdon Heath, I can't see any field for map caption? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Metal Brain: Could you please provide more details? I don't see "##Location within" anywhere. What are you trying to do? Donald Albury 14:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It was the caption beneath the map in the infobox. I'm not exactly sure why, but this edit appears to have fixed it. Deor (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Username using various fonts and colors

How to make fancy username using various fonts and colors . Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SasuraBAdaPAisawala (talk • contribs) 05:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved from top and added heading. SasuraBAdaPAisawala, a custom signature will be more helpful if you sign your posts regularly; there should be a button near the top with a signature icon no matter which kind of editor you're using. That said, my personal opinion (not standard advice) is to stick with your usual signature until you've participated a bit more and know how fancy to make it without affecting readability (for colorblind people, for example). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 09:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I myself coloblind thats why i asked. Please help if you could? SasuraBAdaPAisawala (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Go to preferences, scroll down to Signature, tick the box which says Treat the above as wiki markup and use the markup specified here: Help:Using colours.

For example: <span style="color:#2F2F2F">SasuraBAdaPAisawala</span> will make your name blue.

Look up colour hex codes and add the hex code after the # 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Listen to Conrad Baden-Music

I have tried to publish this article days ago, but it does not appear.

Please publish it. It is the fruit of 4 years digitalization of the 90 compositions.

Greetings from Norway

Torkil B Torkilbaden (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a well-intentioned but improper use of your user page. You should move it to "Draft:Works by Conrad Baden" and work on it there. 27.134.47.136 (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It's an odd mishmash of compositions and recordings, devoid of even one reference. It won't be published till a lot of work is done to it. 27.134.47.136 (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Anyone else answering this question should see OP's userpsge and user talk on no-wiki first; this request specifically seems to come from a discussion where a VRT member posted response to an email on OP's no-wiki user talk. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Works by Conrad Baden. Separately, there is the article Conrad Baden, parts edited by the Torkilbaden account, that includes lists of his compositions. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Torkilbaden: I have done some formatting on the draft, but it needs sources, which you are best placed to add. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

my opinion is that this has no potential to becoming an article. See Chopin for links to list articles of his compositions. Perhaps those can be models for your effort. David notMD (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Upgrading and deciding content assessment class

Unexploded ordnance is currently rated Start class (at least it says so on the talk page), I cannot find the relevant list where it is listed as such, where would I find this? How do I weigh whether it meets the criteria to be upgraded to C, and if it is then how do I upgrade it? To be clear, I do not know whether it constitutes being C class, but I just want to know how the process works more than anything

Many thanks! 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Terrainman. You can find out some more about this kind of thing at WP:ASSESSMENT. It's important to understand, though, that even though there are criteria provided for assessing article quality, such assessments tend to be informal in the sense that they're more self-assessments than anything else. These aren't formal assessments like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and Wikipedia:Good article nominations where there's an actual review process and discussion involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Terrainman, WP:RATER is what I use. It's very convenient. You can also just edit the talk page of the article yourself and change the bit that says "start" to say "C". -- asilvering (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

One advantage of Rater is that it is more consistent in ratings given than those given by various editors who may have different standards for a given rating. Donald Albury 15:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? You're still setting the rating as you please when you use Rater. It just automates the template editing. -- asilvering (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Rater suggests a rating. I usually accept that suggestion. Donald Albury 00:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

While it's fair to do that, I'd hardly say it's "more consistent". Those ratings are just a machine learning algorithm's best guess. There are a lot of things that fool it into thinking an article is much better than it is. -- asilvering (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Rater occasionally suggests a lower rating, and I usually accept those as well. I sometimes ignore a suggestion of B when an article is fairly short. When I changed ratings before (which I seldom did), I never rated anything above Start because I did not feel confident in my understanding of the ratings. In any case, if Rater is trained on existing ratings, then I don't think the ratings suggested by Rater will be any worse, on average, than the ratings applied by humans. So far, I have used Rater almost exclusively on articles I have worked on (about 200, so far), and I am generally satisfied with the relative ranking of those articles based on Rater's suggestions. Donald Albury 16:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding Photos to Article

Hi there!

I've been trying to add a photo to the Efim Yarchuk page because there is a known photo of him. However, I don't know how to actually do it. If you guys could point out what I should do, that would be great! Mr. Anarchyle (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Anarchyle. There's some general information about this in Wikipedia:Image use policy and also Wikipedia:Uploading images. There are two sites images can be uploaded to which allow the image to be used in a Wikipedia article; Wikipedia itself and Wikimedia Commons. You can find out some more about uploading images to Wikimedia Commons at c:Commons:Licensing. If after looking at the pages I've mentioned you still have questions, feel free to come back and ask them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Anarchyle. The copyright status of photos of a Russian revolutionary who lived from 1882 to 1937 can be difficult to determine. As a general rule (with exceptions) a photo published in the United States and many other countries over 95 years ago is now free of copyright restrictions. So such well documented pre-1929 photos can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and re-used by anyone for any purpose. If no such copyright free photo exists because all known photos are post 1929, then there is a specific but stringent and narrow non-free photo exception for notable people who have died. Please read WP:NFCI #10 very carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

My answer is a deliberate but I believe useful simplification of the copyright status issues. There are highly paid lawyers who spend their entire careers debating and litigating such copyright issues. Listen to the experts. Cullen328 (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

TIME TO REMEMBER Suggestion for new article.

Good morning, I have just bucket-watched the five episodes of 'Time to Remember' currently (16/11/24) showing on 'TALKINGPICTURES' a free-view channel UK. It is in my opinion a masterwork of British social history and deserves a Wikipedia page?

I am happy to research the series and lay some poorly foundations if someone can start the bare bones so that I can use the visual editor or idiots/visual/whatever it's called, page creator (I'm an old git).

The narrators include Sir Basil Rathbone, amongst others.

By the way, I have had a week of dealing with rude folk not showing for appointments, waited in a cold unit last night until five-to midnight for someone to collect a vehicle (wasn't even mine) who finally contacts me at 7:00 am today "I needed your WhatsApp details..." so, the first hint of needless animosity and I will walk away. Not that this will be anyone's loss. Just my new rules. Be kind in your daily life, it will make you a bit more happy.

We now live in a world which is wholly different from the one we knew ten days ago. I have lived my 70 years of always trying to be polite.

I hope anyone who reads this will give the series a couple minutes of their time? It is a gemstone.

I suggest trying 'Turn of the Century' in which Rathbone's narrative is clever, satirical, darkly humorous and way ahead of its time in style & content: "WHAT CAN BE MORE MODERN THAN TODAY? THINK OF IT" which in text, isn't too funny, but imagine Tom Baker voicing it in his 'Little Britain' voice... This is the relentless style of the filmed in B&W Time to Remember'. As left wing as Che - the other one - and weirdly very very funny and poignant. The WW1 episodes are as anti-war as All Quiet, and anything else from the decade following 'Time to Remember' - no 'A' - was made: 1958. Thank you, have a happy day. Tobytronicstereophonic (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! If you're looking to start an article I would absolutely recommend using the Articles for Creation process, which is a user-friendly way to start and work on a draft, which you can then later publish once it's ready. I'd also recommend reading this page which is a simple essay on how to write an article for absolute beginners. If you have any issues then just let me know here! CoconutOctopus talk 12:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If you do attempt a draft (VERY DIFFICULT to succeed without first becoming familiar with Wikipedia practices by putting in time improving existing articles) be aware that your own opinions ("clever, satirical, darkly humorous...") have no place in the draft/artcle. David notMD (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tobytronicstereophonic A quick look suggests that there are very few reliable web sources available now: only this and this I could find, so you would probably have to look in newspaper archives for published articles made at the time the original series was broadcast and that's made more difficult because of the film of the same name. Your main hope will be to wait a bit to see if the re-broadcasts currently going on prompt TV reviews in reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

... you might like to add what information you do find to the article Pathé News, which mentions Time to Remember but is currently in need of better sourcing and expansion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Help writing an article

i want to write my article with my name but wikipedia remove my article and say for spam Ahmadii5911 (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ahmadii5911! What was the name of the article and what was it about? Did you create it under this account or were you logged out? CoconutOctopus talk 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

My name is Muhammad Ahmad Raza

Can you create my article i will be thankful to you Ahmadii5911 (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ahmadii5911 If you're looking to create an article about yourself, then unless you are very notable by Wikipedia's standards it will not get accepted. Wikipedia has very strict standards when it comes to who is notable enough to have an article about them. If you're otherwise wanting to learn how to edit on Wikipedia then can I recommend checking out this guide on contributing to the Wiki? It's best to start small until you're confident in what you're doing here. CoconutOctopus talk 12:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I will add that Teahouse Hosts are here to advise, but not to author or co-author articles. I am guessing you attempted to create content about yourself and it was quickly Speedy deleted. Wikipedia is not social media. It does not host people's pages about themselves. Only if you are so famous that people with no connection to you publish about you could those publications become references in an article about you. David notMD (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I need an editor to fix the problem in this draft.

Can anyone help me? Thanks! Draft:Beobachter-Philosophie. 213.23.111.86 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

A quick search for "Beobachter-Philosophie" furkan demirsoy suggests that this will be difficult to source. Sam Sailor 15:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you help me with this article? This philosophy, for example, disgraced the scandalous concept of the Übermensch used by the Nazis. Friedrich Nietzsche described the Übermensch as merely an illusion, according to this philosophical movement.

https://www.amazon.de/Beobachter-Philosophie-So-sprach-Zarathustra/dp/B0CZ454YSB/ref=sr_1_5?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.HttzV59Ik0ycAK1bqT2UDRM30IThHOQwfSmRBddpg6CLicfxaX-BN0sMtNRweFN066s2UPMuJgB8fGjAAWjB--L_8FIZ8W7G52DNVhST1gw.PZpQID_7nnjlh_Kr8Vlt7X2u8xUbX-_YE9qVzvSwA8k&dib_tag=se&nsdOptOutParam=true&qid=1731772729&refinements=p_27%3AFurkan+Demirsoy&s=books&sr=1-5&text=Furkan+Demirsoy 213.23.111.86 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has been declined because it didn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. This was because the sources that you provided did not prove that the subject requires an article. You need to make sure that you provide enough sources that are reliable and independent, which basically means that they have a high reputation and are not related to the topic (See WP:GNG). I have done a quick google search and have found only the link you mentioned as a source. However, Amazon is not a reliable source as it usually contains promotional content. Try to find other sources. If you don't find any sources, then that topic is usually not suitable for Wikipedia. Try to get these issues addressed first before resubmitting. If you need more help or have any other questions, feel free to ask! TNM101 (chat) 16:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding references

Hello all, Is there a Wikipedia policy regarding the use of excerpts from podcasts as references? Currently, I can only provide a link to the entire podcast as a source. I have ensured that this specific information cannot be found elsewhere. The content in question pertains to a personal life experience shared by an individual and does not involve anyone else apart from themself, and I am uncertain about the appropriateness of citing a podcast as a source. Thank you! Fenharrow (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It depends. I would expect that most podcasts are self-published, and they are not usable for anything other some limited statements about the podcast itself or whoever is presenting the podcast. I can imagine some circumstances in which the presenter or the organization producing the podcast has a strong enough reputation for reliability to accept the podcast as a source, but that would have to be established on a case-by-case basis. The scenario you describe does not sound like it would qualify as a reliable source. If (and only if) the podcast is deemed acceptable as a source, then you would link to the podcast and specify the approximate point in time the segment you are citing begins. Donald Albury 17:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Fenharrow, if a living person has published material about themselves, it's possible to use that self-published material as a source, but there are a few other issues to consider, such as whether the material is unduly self-serving; see WP:BLPSELFPUB for more info. You'll also want to consider the usual issues, such as whether the information is trivia or not. As for citing a podcast, there's a template for citing podcasts that allows you to specify the timestamp. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Colors for Template:Navbox on English Wikipedia vs. Japanese Wikipedia

I have noticed on the Japanese Wikipedia that many templates are colored specially, but the English Wikipedia usually does not color them specially unless it is an artist or sports-related. Examples include the Ultra Super Pictures template, the Sunrise template, the Bandai Namco Group template, the regions and administrative divisions of Japan template, the Pennsylvania template, and the New York State template, among many others. Their English equivalents do not have this formatting. Does the English Wikipedia have a process that templates must have the basic Navbox colors unless there is a compelling and convincing reason to not use the standard colors? If so, what is the objective of this procedure? Templates on the English Wikipedia appear to be more standardized than are templates on the Japanese Wikipedia. Z. Patterson (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Z. Patterson: Yes, MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR and WP:NAVCOLOR could be accurately summarized as recommending the basic Navbox colors unless there is a compelling and convincing reason to not use the standard colors. The reasons for this recommendation are explained at those links, but in a nutshell: excessive color variation can be less appealing, less readable, and less accessible. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Author masks: Did I do it right?

Hello!

I just did a little re-work of the bibliography section on Alastair Campbell. I tried to use the "author mask" feature but I don't think I did it right...all of the notes about it I could find were either very vague or very technical, and I frankly wasn't too sure of what I was doing. There's a few outstanding problems with the bibliography, but as for the author masks, how did I do? Please advise. Thank you! SSR07 (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, here's the link to the specific section: Alastair Campbell#Published books SSR07 (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@SSR07: There was nothing wrong with what you did, but I set all the values to |author-mask=0, which is better for single-author lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)u

How do make a good article

Nongentioctolillion Googolpie (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Article creation, along with their related pages. Z. Patterson (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Googolpie: Given that there are no Google results for Nongentioctolillion, it's likely that the subject does not meet the bar set in WP:N. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

A related reading is WP:CRYSTAL for this specific article suggestion. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI - "Good article" has a specific meaning within English Wikipedia. If you mean how to make a draft good enough to be accepted as an article - references, references, references. David notMD (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Around the world and across the globe

I was about to edit The Peasant's Wise Daughter where it says ”Scholars Johannes Bolte and Jiří Polívka listed several variants from across the globe in their seminal work on the Brothers Grimm fairy tale collection” to say ”...around the world...” but my only reason was that it sounded more natural to me. That’s not a good reason.

2024 Formula One World Championship says: ”The championship is contested over a record twenty-four Grands Prix held around the world” but I suspect “across the globe” is more common unless describing an actual circumnavigation. I think my questions are:

• Is there any guidance anywhere on this?
• Is there an appropriate place to discuss this? (It may possibly be a UK/US difference but I don’t know.)

Thanks --Northernhenge (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

To the undersigned Brit, "around the world" sounds normal and "across the globe" sounds absurd. How can you cross something that's spherical? Maproom (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Searching wikipedia for “across the globe” brings up a great many hits where it seems to mean “everywhere”. I agree that it’s not common in UK spoken English. “Around the world” is also widely used on wp, but maybe more often as the name of something or, as I mentioned above, as a literal circumnavigation. I doubt if this is the correct place to debate the point but it’s probably worth discussing somewhere. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You're overthinking it. Just make the edit you want to make, and worry about it if someone objects. -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

True --Northernhenge (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Question about a question

in Talk:Iron Lung (film) there's a question and I don't know the answer to it. Mrmorson (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mrmorson Welcome to the Teahouse. The question was asked earlier today and already has an answer. Please keep the dicussion on that page. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to change a username?

As said in the title, Is it possible to change my username? Rafplays (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Rafplays! Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, it is possible. You need to perform a Global user account rename request. You can also see WP:CHU for more information. TNM101 (chat) 07:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@TNM101: if a username is changed, does the new username appear with a tag line to connect it to the previous one … like X, previously known as Twitter? Augnablik (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No. If you wish to indicate a prior username, you may on your user page. Past posts you made are also not changed(like past signatures). 331dot (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Submitted an old untouched draft

Hi, I just submitted Draft:Miss AI which had not been updated, that was the main reason for the article being moved from article space to draft space. however, as per the suggestion, I updated the draft and resubmitted it for review. Is there anything else need to do to improve this draft.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Perfectodefecto It won't influence the acceptance or not of your draft but it would help to expand your web citations into full {{cite web}} entries. This is much easier to do than you might expect, using citer at toolforge. For example, your Guardian citation (which is a good one for establishing the notability of your topic) converts to {{cite web | last=Mahdawi | first=Arwa | title=‘Miss AI’ is billed as a leap forward – but feels like a monumental step backwards | website=The Guardian | date=2024-04-23 | url=https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/23/miss-ai-artificial-intelligence-models-gendered-beauty-norms | access-date=2024-11-17}} In this way, we give credit to the person who wrote the Guardian article, as well as citing its date. You can also wikilink The Guardian part to show that it is a reliable source with its own article here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

... I've placed that into the draft as a {{cite news}}. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Another comment is that your citations #1 - #3 are mentioned in the WP:LEAD but not used elsewhere. I always find that odd, since the lead is supposed to summarise the main text, so I would expect a named reference used at least twice. The Guardian citation, for example, could easily be used to expand your draft, particularly as it seems mildly critical of the whole venture. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull, Got it. Once I made those necessary changes, I'll inform you here. If anything else left then.. guide me then. Thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 16:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull, I just fixed those citations... now what should I do.? or it's ok.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 17:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Perfectodefecto You could still incorporate the Guardian's critique into the body text. I would use the quote (properly cited) "AI models take every toxic gendered beauty norm and bundle them up into completely unrealistic package." You'll get further feedback from the reviewer, of course. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

alright. I'll try to insert these info there... many thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 01:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

List of Canadian television channels available in Canada

please create :

List of Canadian television channels available in Canada

members:

Documentary Channel (Canadian TV channel)

Category:Canadian community channels

Category:Tamil-language television channels in Canada

Category:Cable television channels in Canada

Bravo (Canada)

Much (TV channel)

YTV (Canadian TV channel)

(more)

... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

If this is a worthwhile subject, why don't you create a draft for it? 110.2.106.47 (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Is Sahara Reporters considered reliable?

So while reading this article Sadiya Umar Farouq I noticed the entire "Controversy" section is from one one news website Sahara Reporters, I looked it up in the reliable sources page and found no consensus regarding it. I think since this is a living person and this section can amount to defamation, it is an important matter that should be examined.

I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing so I don't know if this is the best place to bring it to attention. If someone can tell me where to bring up similar issues in the future I'd appreciate it. Tashmetu (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The best place to ask is WP:RSN. 110.2.106.47 (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Tashmetu (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

creating a page about a courtcase

I want to create a page about a small courtcase but different pages about courtcases are so inconsistant so i have no idea how to format it. for a page about a courtcase what subheadings should i have? and what reliable websites should i use? YisroelB501 (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your use of the phrase "small court case" makes me wonder if this case receives the significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed to merit an article- but assuming it does- I would suggest looking at some articles about some high profile court cases(Roe v. Wade, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Marbury v. Madison) to get an idea of what is being looked for. As articles are written by a variety of volunteers, there will be some variation in structure, but the high profile cases should be roughly the same.

There aren't particular reliable sources you need to use- as long as the sources have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control(i.e. they don't just print stuff without checking for accuracy) it should be fine to use. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

by small i mean its not like a huge supremem court case. but i am talking about a civil court case that is covered by the new york times with 2 articles and many other websites. @331dot YisroelB501 (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times is generally considered reliable. Websites can range from quite reliable to extreme point-of-view pushers or pure fantasy. Reliability will have to be assessed individually for every website you want to use. Even if you present several independent, reliable sources for the proposed article, notability must still be established. Donald Albury 15:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@YisroelB501: Just use the headings which seem appropriate for what you're writing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett that does not answer my question. YisroelB501 (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I answered the question "what subheadings should i have?”. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

u just saids "use headings which seem apropriate" I want to know exactly what headings i should use, if you dont know the answer to the question, then dont answer it and dont pretend u answered it. @Andy Mabbett YisroelB501 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@YisroelB501: Please remember to be civil. There are no prescribed sets of sub-headings to use in articles. That is not how Wikipedia works. You can look at similar articles to see what sub-headings they use, and use those as suggestions, but you cannot insist that someone else tell you what sub-headings to use. Donald Albury 00:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

flagicon parameter problem

The flagicon template can use the name of the country as its parameter or else a three letter abbreviation.

Thus {{flagicon|United States}} or {{flagicon|USA}}

Thus or

But what if you don't know the abbreviation and are forced to guess?

Such as {{flagicon|Northern Territory}} or {{flagicon|NTY}}

Such as or {{flagicon|NTY}}

How does one find the three letter code for say Northern Terrritory?

MountVic127 (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello MountVic127! I think what you're looking for is here. TNM101 (chat) 10:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

What about regions that aren't a country (such as the Northern Territory)? I've drawn a blank when it comes to finding shortcuts for it. BTF Flotsam (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The link does contain flags from regions that aren't a country as evident from the first entry which is the flag of Alberta, a province of Canada. However, I did not seem to find the flag of the Northern Territory. It does not seem to have an entry in the list. TNM101 (chat) 12:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@MountVic127: (edit conflict) I don't think there is an abbreviation alias for the Northern Territory. At least, that's what I conclude from comparing Template:Country data Northern Territory with Template:Country data New South Wales, which does specify NSW as an alias. (NT is the alias for the Northwest Territories in Canada, by the way. New South Wales appears to be the only Australian state with an abbreviation alias.) Deor (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answers. Solving this problem is above my skill level; what is needed is a search function that given a string such as "Northern Territory" it goes through all the aliases to find a match. ----MountVic127 (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@MountVic127: What exactly do you want this for? Whether an alias exists for a region seems to depend on whether anyone bothered to create an abbreviation redirect (presumably with the abbreviation chosen ad hoc) to the region's "country data" template. For instance, the country-data templates for the U.S. states I checked don't seem to have abbreviation aliases. Is it so hard to just type in the full name of the flag-bearing region? Deor (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Sensei Louis Ho

Hi,

Can we please add Sensei Louis Ho as 'notable students' in the 10th Planet Jiujitsu page? And Canada to the countries mentionned? Canada is not "a shit-hole communist country" (Sir Joe Rogan), I promise. We're cool enough to be added to the mix.

Thank u and love u all,

STARID Starid (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources supporting the edit, you should propose it on the article talk page. Donald Albury 15:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Starid i have just reverted an IP edit that added Kevin Cherry to the list at 10th Planet Jiu Jitsu. You'll see that this name is a redlink, as is Sensei Louis Ho. The standard for inclusion in lists like these is that the person already have an article about them in Wikipedia (hence is a bluelink) or has citations to verify both that they were indeed students and that they would meet Wikipedia's notability standards (which are described at that final link). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Master Eddie Bravo calls him Louis "Street" Ho. Look it up on the 10th Planet website in the videos. Starid (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

One groove

ok i was just wondering why nobody has written an article about on groove(official website: https://www.onegroove.world/). also if its made since the creator is the daughter of johhny dyani should those articles be linked? also im pretty sure i cant write it. im inexperienced have bad grammar and have a hard time following all rules(theres a lot) -- XYZJJJ (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

One Groove can be the topic for an article only if people with no connection to the company? organization? publish about it. Thru a quickie search I did not see any of that. What One Groove says about itself on its own website does not establish notability. David notMD (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @XYZJJJ. The answer to a question like "Why isn't there an article about XX" is generally one or both of:

• because nobody has decided to do so, or
• because the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - generally, that several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to write about it at some length and been published in reliable places.

{{find sources|onegroove.world}} does not seem to get any relevant hits, so, like David notMD, I doubt if it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

If you think that it does (remember, we are talking about Wikipedia's meaning for the word, not a more general meaning) then you could look for such sources - remember, each source that you find should meet all three parts of the criteria in WP:42. If you can find such sources, you could post a request at requested articles - generally, requests there are rarely taken up, but if you could cite three solid sources, there is perhaps more chance of somebody picking up your suggestion. ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

thx!

How do I find reliable secondary sources?

I've been mostly doing copyediting but I want to find sources for articles too. But every time I try to do it, I can't find any sources because I don't know where to look. BadEditor93 (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

For an overview on finding sources, see Help:Find_sources, though you'll still need to evaluate whether a given source is reliable and secondary. A few sources have been identified as generally reliable in the Perennial sources list. There may not be a reliable source for some WP statements, in which case you can remove the text as unsourced. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@BadEditor93: When you have been here a while, you can use the Wikipedia Library, which has its own search engine, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll definitely need more practice on citing the correct sources but I'll be bold. BadEditor93 (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

music rating

hi where is V, L, or U ratings stands for https://starlingdb.org/music/new/Ricky_Nelson.pdf thanks Samchristie05 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Samchristie05, and welcome to Wikipedia! This page is primarily for help specifically relating to using and contributing to Wikipedia; you might have more luck over on the reference desk or on an external forum such as Reddit. Best, CoconutOctopus talk 17:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Table issues (again)

Hi, I need more tornado table help. The “Greensburg” section of the table on List of United States tornado emergencies isn’t aligned, and I’m not sure how to fix it. Thanks! E_F⁵ 18:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, issue has been fixed. E_F⁵ 00:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Enhance reflist

Can we enhance the arrangement of references placed within the reflist, like by categorising the relevant sources together? (even if they are used as inline citations in different parts of the article?), thanks, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 20:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You can use several different reflists in one article. Ruslik_Zero 20:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

PrivatePedia

I like Wikipedia for all sorts of reasons; it is powerful after all. How can one get a private version of Wikipedia? How much would it cost? Where would it be based? MountVic127 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MountVic127. The software that Wikipedia runs on is called MediaWiki. MediaWiki is free and open source, and you can host it on your own server. qcne (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

If you seeking to download Wikipedia, there WP:dumps from which you can download Wikipedia for offline use. Platforms like Kiwix also allow for offline reading. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

What citation style to use if no consistent one

This page uses an inconsistent citation style; some citations are sfn, while others are reference page. I’d rather use sfn as it is more convenient for me, but what should I do? Thank you. Dantus21 (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You can choose. It is against the Wikipedia's manual of style to mix citation styles. (WP:CITEVAR) Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dantus21. The basic principle is to defer to the citation style chosen by the article's creator or its primary contributors whenever possible. Given that an article can be edited by many different people over time, one of the things that often gets lost in that is citation style consistency. People adding citations might not be too concerned as to whether the citations they're adding match up stylistically with the existing citation style. So, absent a really good reason to make a change, you might want to propose it first on the article's talk page to see what others think. There's nothing wrong with using "sfn" as a citation style, but it can be bit tricky to figure out if you're not familiar with it; so, even though it might be personally more convenient for you, it might not be as convenient for others. If that's the style that the article's creator used, then perhaps cleaning things up without discussion won't be contentious. If, however, it was introduced by someone else over the years, perhaps discussion is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Unpermitted redirects?

I'm here. I would like to ask if this was against my user standards on WP and Wikimedia. I have redirected this category to a new one. I did it without administrator's consent beforehand. I'm worried this would go into administrative action against me. Am I wrong for this and should I have it reverted back to its original form? Thanks if any responses. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 03:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi DBrown SPS. WP:BOLD mistakes are, for the most part, are OK as long as you make them in good faith; mistakes only become a problem when you repeat them over and over again, particularly when being advised not to do so. Users don't need administrator consent to make an edit in most cases, and you can probably assume WP:SILENCE until someone reverts the change you made. If that happens, you should try and sort things out through discussion instead of just reverting back to what you think is best, unless there's a really good policy-based reason which makes your version better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

revdeled edit history?

is there any way i could have my entire edit history revdeled without contacting the oversight team (i already did—they said they wouldn’t under any circumstance)? im frankly embarrassed about my unhinged behavior back in october. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:5CCE:2A16:511B:6BB2 (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:5CCE:2A16:511B:6BB2. I'm not an admin but I don't think that's possible. There are two types of revision deletion (WP:REVDEL and WP:SUPPRESSION) and I believe you need to be at least an administrator to do either. So, if you're concerned about your past editing history somehow reflecting poorly on you as you try to move forward, I think you have two options: (1) clearly take ownership of the behavior and acknowledge it was a mistake, or (2) try WP:CLEANSTART if you meet its conditions. As long as you don't repeat the same behavior and stay away from whichever articles or pages you made the previous edits, nobody will probably make any connection between your clean start account and your former account (unless you tell them yourself). If, on the other hand, you go back to doing whatever you did before wherever you did it before, people will likely connect the dots fairly quickly and make their concerns known. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t edited using an account, I’m worried about the /64 of my IP address. At a glance no one can see I was blocked in the past or my past edits, but they can as soon as they look at the /64. I used Wikipedia to relieve stress about triggering topics for me by editing articles to the way I wanted them to be. I won’t do that anymore. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:5CCE:2A16:511B:6BB2 (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If you register for an WP:ACCOUNT, your IP address will no longer be publicly visible and most likely nobody would know or care enough to try to connect any new edits you make with the registered account to whatever IP account you previously used. They'll only make such a connection if you make it easy for them to do so by repeating the same behavior in the same places. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: one needs to be in the Special:ListUsers/suppress group to suppress. admins can only revdel, not suppress/oversight. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for pointing that out, but I knew that. I was just trying to keep things simple for the OP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

if I was denied by the oversight team, is getting all of my history revdeled an option? 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:5CCE:2A16:511B:6BB2 (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m admittedly hesitant to create an account. I don’t really see a need if I’m not gonna be very active, but I’m not completely disregarding the idea if it’ll hide my previous edits. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:5CCE:2A16:511B:6BB2 (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:5CCE:2A16:511B:6BB2: as pointed out by usernamekiran, there's a difference between suppression and revision deletion, and oversighters tend to mainly deal with the later. Of course, an oversighter can revdelete something too, but they tend to only suppress the really bad stuff. Since oversight didn't do anything at all, they probably felt the edits aren't bad enough to even warrant revdeletion. Whether a different administrator might be more sympathetic and decide to do just a regular revdeletion, I can't say. I guess you could ask at WP:AN or perhaps via WP:IRC/WP:DISCORD (if you're worried about posting anything publicly viewable), but you may at some point just have to live with the edits you made, find a different IP to use that can't be traced back to them, or create an account to put some distance between you and your past. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

They refused to suppress my edits because I was blocked for disruptive editing and they said they need that logged so people can understand why I was blocked. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a policy surrounding the use of revdel. WP:REVDEL. While you may request for revdel to be done, most, if not all, admins will follow the policy as stated as deviating from it may bring on unwanted scrutiny on their admin actions or even Streisand effect on your edits.

If you are editing unregistered, changing your IP address will should suffice. – robertsky (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no clue how I can change the /64 range but the ipv6 changes by itself 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Hi IP. There are strict rules about rev-deleting edits. I've reviewed most of your recent contributions and unfortunately they don't meet the criteria. However I don't think you need to worry too much about someone associating these past edits with you as an individual. You remain anonymous, the edits are spread across a /64 and are therefore mildly difficult to locate, and you have the option of creating an account which will obscure your IP address from most people's view. I also note the block for disruptive editing: if the block has expired you can simply start afresh, but do please recall the issues that led to it and make sure these are avoided in future. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand. I feel slightly reassured by people telling me I shouldn’t really be worried about it. I just don’t want my edits and behavior to be prowled as my mental instability is known (if you look in the /64).

The issue was me being stressed. I’m still stressed—I’m almost never not stressed. It’s hard for me to put the phone down when I’m stressed and causing “drama” (like ANI is known for) gives me a sense of catharsis.

But that’s really the point. I’ll try my best not to edit articles when I’m upset. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2 (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. :) I notice you've raised exactly this same query on several noticeboards: no need to do that as the answer is the same on them all. If your block has expired then welcome back to editing and perhaps aim to get into content work rather than noticeboard posts. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Help:How to move a page and template protection

The image I wanted to replace the previous image with.

The help article Help:How to move an article currently uses an outdated image (pre-2022 vector) for it's page. I attempted to fix the problem of the outdated image by creating my own (see image) and switching the old one out in order to conform to the 2022 vectoring. However, since this page uses a template to protect it, I can't make any edits.

I'm not sure who to contact in this scenario, whether it be a template editor or administrator to make a request. If you have any information, please let me know.

Sparkle & Fade (Talk|Contributions) 05:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sparkle & Fade. You should be able to make a {{Edit template-protected}} request on the template's talk page. I think clicking "Edit" or "Add new section" on the talk page of a protected template does, in most cases, open a window where you can make your request. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly,

I submitted an edit-template protected request on the talk page of the article (where the template redirects to.) Thanks for your help, I appreciate it.

Sparkle & Fade (Talk|Contributions) 15:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sparkle & Fade: I misunderstood your post and thought you were asking how to edit a protected template. {{Edit template-protected}} is, I believe, intended to be used on the talk pages of protected templates that you want to edit. I don't think you to use such a template to request that an a edit be made on the protected page in the "Help" namespace. You should be able just to post a request on the talk page of the "Help" page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I think the issue they are having is that the image (and the content in general) at Help:How to move a page, comes from a different page and is just transcluded there.

@Sparkle & Fade: The page you have to edit to change the image is Wikipedia:Moving a page, specifically the #How to move a page section. It's not template protected, nor a template at all, it's just a choice to display part of the Wikipedia: page in the Help: page instead of duplicating things. – 143.208.238.50 (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @143.208.238.50, I was able to fix the vector description/image problem myself, and the image has been resolved. I appreciate your help on this problem.

Regards, Sparkle & Fade (Talk|Contributions) 23:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Stub and Start class articles

Is it possible for stub and start class articles to be considered "Good articles" with formal GA article review? If so, I would like to learn about that process. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Iljhgtn. You can find specific examples of "Good articles" in WP:GA and information on how an article can become a "Good article" in Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Good article nomination. I'm not too familiar with the process, but it doesn't seem like a WP:STUB or a "Start" class article would likely be able to become GA without some significant improvement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If you mean an article for which "stub" or "start" seems appropriate, no. If you mean an article deserving to be "B" but classed (appropriately or otherwise) as "stub" or "start", yes. "Good", "featured" and "A" are noteworthy classes of articles (though "A" is pretty moribund); few people care about the other classes. -- Hoary (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Describing subject neutrally

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ntibabaza Nigene

I would like to describe the subject neutrally. Can you help me with this? NTIBABAZANIGENE (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@NTIBABAZANIGENE Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to report only what is said in reliable sources, and remove expressions such as pivotal role, innovative, challenging, dedication, marking the beginning of a new chapter. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and come back here if you have a more specific question. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, for a living person all content must be verified by references. David notMD (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@NTIBABAZANIGENE: Please see also WP:Autobiography. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Template usage possible in Visual Editor?

I don't easily work in the Source Editor except when making edits on existing articles, which is what I have to do if I'm using my mobile phone. So I'm having difficulty using templates like Thank and Barnstar, the directions for which all seem to indicate I'd have to use the Source rather than the Visual Editor. I could be wrong about this, but I've read and re-read the associated directions several times and still that seems true. And I'm confused, even after being a Wiki editor several years now.

— Is there no way to apply templates except in the Source Editor?

— If not, are there videos or case narratives breaking down the steps for these and other templates, where we can watch someone actually doing the needful? Augnablik (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I edit a lot with my mobile phone and I understand what you are driving at here. To access templates, you will need to change to desktop setting and it works fine for me in both visual and source editing. Tesleemah (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to the "desktop view" tab for the Wikipedia site Tesleemah (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I should mention that I seem to have succeeded once long ago in thanking someone, but whatever I did then I can't replicate now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augnablik (talk • contribs) 11:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Some questions about making my first article

I want to make an article about the 2022 video game Redout 2 but I've ran into some issues regarding copyright, sources, notability, and a few other things. I'll just list them for convenience's sake.

1. It already sort of has a mention in the article for the first Redout game. If I were to make a good article for the second game, do I delete the mention of it in the article for the first game, and add my article to the "see also" section?
2. Sources. As with every weird niche game I get interested in, I am having trouble finding good sources for the article. The publishers did a sponsorship blitz when the game first released, but they didn't specifically say "be nice to our game", they said "raise awareness about the release of Redout 2" so can I use the sponsored YouTube reviews as sources for a reception section? Additionally, can I use the actual Steam page for the game as a source for the basic information like the platforms it is available on and when it released?
3. Sources, part 2. I can't find many good articles that talk about the gameplay specifically, so can I still write a gameplay section going off my hundreds of hours of personal experience, or will that fall under Conflict of Interest? I'm not sponsored by 34BigThings or Saber Interactive, I just really like Redout 2 and want to give it a good article on Wikipedia. I was already told that it is fine to make a lore section if your source is the game itself, but I'm not sure if that applies to the gameplay section.
4. Copyright. I couldn't find any sort of press kit or anything, so can I use screenshots I took from a copy of the game that I legally bought? Some other video game articles have an in-game screenshot in the Gameplay section and I wanted to add one of my own.

Sorry for all the questions, I understand that Redout 2 is a very niche game with a small fan base, but I feel like there are much weirder things that have their own articles (such as that thing some people do where they will visit a NASA catalogue and make a dozen stubs on a bunch of unnamed asteroids so they can inflate their created articles count) than Redout 2 so I hope that if I write a good article then it will get approved. Thank you. ApteryxRainWing (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @ApteryxRainWing, Welcome to the Teahouse, you asked a really pretty long questions and I will answer the ones I can while other experienced editors will provide a more detailed answer. For No. 1, you don't need to delete the mention of the 2nd game rather you'd link the 1st game to the new article you will be creating and this is known as De-orphaning, for the copyright as regards the question. If you are in possession of this game then you can take pictures of them and upload on wikicommon however I'm looking at the COI like you discussed, if you were asked to actually create this article by the owner of the game then you might need to look at WP:COI however even thou you are enthusiastic about creating article around it then you need to consider the Verifiability of available sources, if sources are not available to back up this game then you might need to pick up another article to create. Also, you will need to write in a neutral and encyclopedic way, see help:Editing, WP:Notability. In summary, Creating article around this subject goes beyond passion, what matter more is how notable and verifiable this game is. Tesleemah (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

For Question 3, you can't write solely based on your experience. You have to look for sources to back up this game. Otherwise you might need to leave it till it gain more sources.

Also, I forgot to add that for you first article, you might need to use sandbox to practise and move to draft for review until you have more experienced creating articles on your own. Tesleemah (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

(e/c) @ApteryxRainWing Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer to all your questions is no. You will find writing such an article very difficult because you will need to forget all you know about the game and start by determining what reliable sources say about it, ignoring sponsorship and awareness raising issues, and put only that in your own words. You might benefit from reading WP:BACKWARDS. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @ApteryxRainWing, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have only a couple of things to add to what Shantavira said.

First, one thing that @Tesleemah has told you is very bad advice indeed. You may not (in most cases) take pictures of a game and upload them to Wikimedia Commons or use them on Wikipedia: You may hold copyright in the photo itself, but you do not hold the copyright in the image you have photographed, and you do not have the legal power to release it in the way that Wikimedia requires. If other articles about games have screenshots from the games, either the copyright holder has explicitly released the images under a suitable licence, or they are copyright infringements, and should be deleted. See WP:Image use policy.

Secondly, writing about the gameplay from your own experience would not be COI, but would be original research, which is never acceptable in a Wikipedia article.

Thirdly, if you cannot find several independent, reliably published sources that discuss the game at length (see WP:42) then the game is simply not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and no article is possible. Sponsored reviews are not accepted as independent, even if they happen to be less than enthusiastic. Futhermore, unless reviews are published by a publisher regarded as reliable, then they are not acceptable anyway. ColinFine (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing my attention to that @ColinFine Tesleemah (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library login not working

Hello everyone, I understand that this may not exactly be the scope of this forum, but I am having some trouble accessing the Wikipedia Library project. When I go to that site and click log in with Wikipedia, it shows the error "You tried to log in but presented an invalid access token." I have tried this on multiple devices, using a VPN (which made it worse), and on incognito mode. If I'm not already logged in on Wikipedia or the meta wiki, it prompts me to log in, after which it gives the same error (You tried to log in but presented an invalid access token.) Can anyone help with this? I don't understand what's going on, since I meet all of the requirements to access the library and it was working up until today. Vamsi20 (ask me questions) (see what I've edited) 16:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vamsi20 There is a specific help forum for TWL at WT:TWL and WT:The_Wikipedia_Library#Failure_to_authenticate suggests others have had the same experience recently. You could post there or maybe at WP:VPT, where more technical questions tend to get answered. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliable tools for LaTeX conversion

Hi, I'm looking forward to write an article based on Mathematics. I've checked Help:Displaying a formula#Formatting using LaTeX however, it looks much time taking to write a lengthy or complex equation. May I know which advance tool can be used to write/get these expressions much faster.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 17:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Practice for undoing Vandalism

I have recently taken to watching the Recent Changes page with the filter set to Likely has problems, a couple times so far I've found vandalism (i.e whole article deleted, et cetera). Where I have made a reversion I've just written 'Vandalism' in the changes field. Is this the correct practice? Am I supposed to also report the user at all? If so how is that done? 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Terrainman Ok, quick rundown on the process. When you're reverting obvious vandalism and stuff of that ilk, you're right to be reverting it and putting some notice in the edit summary, but you should be applying warnings to those users as well. This is so that other users (and potentially admins if the issue is repeated/serious enough) can take the correct response (either piling on warnings or kicking it up the chain to somewhere like WP:AIV).

What you, I think, should be able to do is get Twinkle, which will make the entire process of anti-vandal work go by far quicker than reverting and manually finding the correct warning template. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Request to Rename Draft Page to Correct Title

I need assistance in renaming the draft Shirin Akther to Shirin Shila.

I kindly request your help in correcting the title to accurately reflect the subject's name.

Thank you for your guidance! Jabiyan (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you're referring to a draft. The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. Once it is accepted as part of the encyclopedia, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. I would suggest you leave a note on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Can i link the word "coastline" in the kazakhstan page?

i just wanna ask so that i don't get banned off of this website Nail123Real (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You won't get banned. We all have questions while learning to edit.

Since "coastline" is a universally understood term used in an ordinary sense, it should not be linked unless the article is very closely related to the article linked to, like Sea for example. Remsense ‥ 论 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

oh okay Nail123Real (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding inline citations

Hello, Teahouse! I have a question about the usage of citations. Namely, should citations be used inline to support individual facts in a sentence, or should they all be appended at the end of the sentence? I'm asking because I was considering doing rounds of copyediting on the article 2024 Israeli protests, and the first sentence of the article (as of the posting of this question) uses three citations directly after the examples they support in the middle of the sentence. Is there a guideline that dictates where citations should be placed in a sentence? Thanks! ✶Antrotherkus✶^✶talk✶ 18:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Normally, inline citations are at the end of paragraphs or sentences. The guideline you're searching for is WP:CITEFOOT. Synonimany (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Antrotherkus, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Keeping citations close. Citations can also go at the end of clauses within a sentence if the next part of the sentence comes from a different source. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Template: other uses

This template sometimes has an additional argument of the form |A, where the pipe is generated by the magic word. For example, see ML (programming language). What is the purpose of this? It doesn't seem to add anything, and it is apparently not equivalent to

For other uses, see A and B.

, which is generated by an actual additional pipe. Johsebb (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Johsebb, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The code in that article is {{Other uses|ML (disambiguation){{!}}ML}}.

The pipe sets how the link is displayed in this article. Without it it would appear as

For other uses, see ML (disambiguation).

ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Johsebb: {{other uses|X}} places link brackets [[X]] around the first unnamed parameter. If you want to make a piped link [[X|A]] then you cannot write {{other uses|X|A}} because A would be a second unnamed parameter. If you instead write {{other uses|X{{!}}A}} then X{{!}}A is treated as a single parameter so you get [[X{{!}}A]]. This gives the same piped link A as [[X|A]]. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages says to route intentional links to disambiguation pages through a title with "(disambiguation)". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Johsebb (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Johsebb (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Helping new users better formulate their challenges

Hi all, on the Donald Trump page, when a comment is left on the talk page asserting that the page or a part of the content is biased, the user is diverted to the page Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. This page advises users reformulate their objections to be specific and reference reliable sources and policies and guidelines. I think this is a lot to handle for a new editor, and it appears that no one redirected to the page in several years has taken these next steps. The page says If you have any questions, visit the Wikipedia:Teahouse and experienced editors will do their best to answer and I was thinking of emphasising this. Before I do, I wanted to ask: is helping users reformulate objections in this way within the scope of the teahouse? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: My opinion is that "helping users reformulate objections" is definitely not within the Teahouse's scope. Also, many drive-by accusations of bias on Trump's talk page are probably made by MAGA devotees who are unwilling to go to the trouble of "[being] specific and [referencing] reliable sources and policies and guidelines", so having vented their (probably second-hand) opinion, they leave without following up. Deor (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Deor, I'll emphasise accordingly. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

regarding the publication of my wikipedia page

Hello, I have created my wikipedia page and I want to publicly publish it. I have created it yesterday. Can you kindly let me know when will it be available for public view? here is the link to my page: User:Sayandey1989/sandbox Sayandey1989 (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sayandey1989 I've moved it to Draft:Sayan Dey and submitted it for you. It is now pending review. In the meantime, consider reading WP:NBIO and WP:AUTO. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much and this is very helpful. I deeply appreciate your kind help. Sayandey1989 (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Draftified, submitted, Declined, revised, resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Presidential succession wiki

According to the 22nd amendment a president may not serve more than two terms (except for some VP stuff) however the order of succession also depends on Presidential eligibility, if a president had completed two full terms and then became vice president, would they be skipped in the line of succession and should the 22nd amendment be mentioned under the “Constitutional provisions” tab in the link above? 155.31.167.234 (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP 155.31.167.234. That's an interesting question perhaps but it's something that's probably better off discussed/proposed at Talk:United States presidential line of succession. My guess it that there are probably lots of opinions on this, but what matters more in the case of Wikipedia is how these opinions are being reported on in reliable sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If you aren't able to move the page yourself, you can ask another editor to do it for you?

Hello everyone, I don’t know any editors or wizzards, how can I publish a new article from my sandbox?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HISO/sandbox

Thanks for the advice!!! HISO (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I moved it for you into Draft Space as Draft:Radka Bodzewicz, now you can submit it or you can work on it there. Good Luck. Synonimany (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Proliferation of passwords, passkeys, FIDO2. 2FA and apparent non-conformity of such

The Problem: I am locked out of one of my accounts. As to why I really don't know. I have at least two sites that both offer "solutions," but each only in their proprietary systems. but I have gotten to the conclusion that both are more imnterested in making money than providing me a usuable service. What I would like to see in an article: 1. A straightforward explanation of all the abbreviations in a human language (in my case that would be American English) rather than convoluted jargon of people who work in industry. 2. An article on all the jargon. It can be written by an industry insider, but it needs to have one lay person on the editorial team asking questions when things don't make sense. eg I have been asked to supply a password, but there is no indication as to which password thay want me to use (my computer password, my password for their site, or a so-called master password.) I came to Wikipedia to learn about things and all I found was insider argot. I realize some of this is not in Wikipedia's wheelhouse, but maybe a flow sheet that explains how to get through this labyrinthine, kafkaesque security maze and the simple English (or other language) explanations so the internet is not distanced from the people it is supposely meant to serve. I'm tired of crooks and internet behemoths (which are not necessarily different things) being able to access my acounts while I am locked out. (Please excuse the side rants, but it is early in the morning and I am very angry.) Budnbess (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Budnbess this is the Teahouse, for Wikipedia-related questions only, so we can't help much; consider asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, which has people way more familiar with computing and technology. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Budnbess, your question is long and unclear. "I am locked out of one of my accounts" – is this about Wikipedia accounts? If it is, how many accounts do you have? What is the username of the one you're locked out of? Maproom (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Issues with people in bunq

Hello,

I have had weird behavior for the editors and discussion in bunq. I've never had a conflict before, I've informed the user many times that his behavior seems out of line. In my opinion, he seems to actively remove a controversies section with reliable sources and also reverting my changes I did to remove puffery. He's mentioning WP:ATTACK. What I also find even more confusing is that a new account joined that is always there when he is:

Partlyx edits at 9:11 Pridemanty reverts at 9:11

The combination of that new user really looks like a mix between a user called Partydoos, who introduced the controversies section, and me, who re-introduced it after removal. My friend is telling me it looks like sockpuppeting/astroturfing.

I warned them multiple times to properly discuss this in the talk page before doing more edits, but they just kept coming.

I have no clue how to report this to the admins and have the article locked and handed to more experienced editors that will be neutral, since I cannot be trusted as a new user and those guys seem to have some vested interest imo. What do I do here? Snarkyalyx (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk You seem to have done some proper edits on bunq and seem to be a recognized user. I would kindly ask for your input as I'm a newbie :) Snarkyalyx (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Snarkyalyx, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Disagreement between editors is a normal and healthy part of creating Wikipedia: see WP:BRD.

I haven't looked at the discussion (so I'm absolutely not going to say anthign at all about whether you or another editor are right or wrong), but it sounds as if you and @Partydoos are edit warring, which is regarded as disruptive irrespective of whether you are right or wrong.

Your business here is to do your best to achieve consensus about how the article should be, following the steps in dispute resolution as necessary. A position of "I am right and you are wrong" is rarely conducive to achieving consensus.

If you are convinced that the other user is showing behaviour which is potentially damaging to Wikipedia, then you should report it at WP:ANI - but please make sure you read the material at the top of the page carefully, and note that your behaviour will be examined as well as any other editor's. ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I followed all steps on dispute resolution. The other parties ignored warnings and did not really engage in discussion. Others have also now stated that there are sockpuppets involved too, and that paid writers may be involved. I have contacted an admin directly via WP:ANI Snarkyalyx (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I have extendend-confirmed protected for a week, see my explanation at requests for page protection. Lectonar (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy permalink to the comment: [1] — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

how to create a page for people with the same name but not the same people?

I would like to create a page for a people called 陈思齐, but there is already a page named 陈思齐, and they are not the same people. Treeandflowers (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello. To create an article about a subject that may be different from the subject of an existing article of the same title, you would need to provide what is called a disambiguation in the title. This is usually first done by profession; a example I can give is Robert Nutting(an article about an owner of a baseball team) and Robert Nutting (politician)(an article about a politician). If you're using the draft process to create an article, don't worry about this, as when accepted the reviewer will place the draft at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Treeandflowers, unsurprisingly (as this is English-language Wikipedia) there is no article here that's titled 陈思齐. If you're asking about Chinese-language Wikipedia and avoidance of a clash with zh:陈思齐, then Chinese-language Wikipedia is where you should ask. -- Hoary (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding An Article About An Non-Notable School

St. Joseph's Boys' School, Jalandhar ('article')

This school's article fails to meet Wikipedia:GNG, Wikipedia:NSCHOOL because it does not have Wikipedia:SIGCOV. There are only two citations (from same news agency: Tribune) to the article. Wikipedia:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Should this article be deleted?

I considered reaching out to the author, but they only contributed to this article and have not been active since. (They may be affiliated to the school) VeritasVanguard "Seeking truth in every edit" 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @VeritasVanguard, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best thing for you to do would be to make the checks in BEFORE, and either add suitable sources if you have found some, or else nominate the article for deletion.

I appreciate that this takes significant time and effort, and you may be unwilling to put that in. Second best would be to mark the article with suitable maintenance tags such as {{moresources}} and {{notability}}. (The tool twinkle makes it much easier to apply these tags, and also to nominate for deletion.) ColinFine (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@ColinFine I have already tagged the page. I tried adding the sources but no independent reliable sources exist in regard to this school that meet Wikipedia's Wikipedia:RS. Should I tag with PROD? VeritasVanguard "Seeking truth in every edit" 13:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If you have looked for sources, I'd say go ahead and PROD it. The worst that can happen is that somebody removes the PROD. --ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to addon and ask a query here about this topic which has been on my mind since a long time. I have seen many such schools on the main article space which fails to meet Wikipedia:GNG, Wikipedia:NSCHOOL and Wikipedia:SIGCOV but they are still on the Article space. In this school page atleast 2 sources are provided but I have also seen such schools which don't have any sources only obviously with the {{moresources}} and {{notability}} tags. As they were created a long time back. So, should all such articles for school or institutions be nominated for deletion? There is one more question I would like to ask when I was very new on Wikipedia. I too wanted to create a article for a school and when I used to see such article I used to think that if we do the same way our articles will be published on wiki. But, it always use to get declined as expected. Obviously when I got to know about Wikipedia's policies on Article creation I stopped that project on started working on other project. But if in case in future I want to create a article for any school or institution how many independent reliable sources will I have to provide to get it accepted on the main article space? These are the two questions which were on my mind since a very long time and I thought this will be the best time and opportunity to ask these 2 questions. Hope Someone will take a moment to answer to these questions. Thank You Regards AstuteFlicker (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@AstuteFlicker: It may not help much with the "How many sources?" question, but note that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says, "Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." There are still a lot of older articles that met the pre-2017 standard of mere existence but probably don't meet the current standard, and which no one has gotten around to nominating for deletion. Of course, primary schools are still assumed to be nonnotable unless there are multiple independent, in-depth sources showing that they are architecturally or otherwise notable. Deor (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

As a measure of the level of inclusion, there are over 1.5 million schools in India, but only 430 in List of schools in India, albeit that there are others in the "main articles" sections. - Arjayay (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Article Collapse

Hi, I observed that.. the article ICC Awards gets opened with its expanded form everytime and, unable to collapse it unlike other articles. Is there any page issue or am I missing any setting.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 12:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Perfectodefecto! Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you please elaborate what exactly you are trying to collapse? I opened the article and found nothing collapsable. TNM101 (chat) 15:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@TNM101, I wanted to make that article more readable. for now, it's in its expanded form which distracts the readers from what they have been looking for at first. If it will be collapsible... it would be easier for them..

Is there any option to resolve this issue.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 15:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Perfectodefecto. When I open ICC awards on the app on my phone, the tables are collapsed as usual; when I open it on my laptop they are in full, as usual; and they are in separate sections, so the contents list is down the side. Why do you want something different? ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I was just trying to fix these things, if it's alright. then no problem. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 15:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Perfectodefecto The relevant style guide is at MOS:COLLAPSE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Notability, Conflict of Interest, and Politicians

Would all politicians be considered notable enough for their own articles, since they were chosen by their constituents to lead and represent them? Additionally, would it count as Conflict of Interest if I wrote an article about a politician that represents the area I live in? I want to get working on some articles of my own, and I wanted to start by making and improving some articles about my local leaders such as my city's mayor and my county commissioners. I see three problems with this, though. Biographies are held to a much higher standard than other articles, so I'm worried that a biography might not be a good first article to write. Secondly, there are a LOT of elected officials so articles about each one of them would flood Wikipedia with articles about people who only have control over relatively small portions of the country. Finally, I don't want to contribute to the biography gender gap on Wikipedia (wasn't it something like 20% of all biographies were about women while the other 80% were about men?). I'm kinda stuck here. I want to contribute something big to this place, but I want to do it right. Should I go ahead and make some articles about my local politicians? ApteryxRainWing (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @ApteryxRainWing, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Politicians elected to national or state/province office are assumed to be notable; others are not, and would need to be notable under the general notability guidelines: see WP:NPOLITICIAN.

Merely living in the constituency would not constitute a COI. Personally knowing the politician (and even more, campaigning or working for them) would.

More generally, please please please let go of the idea that the only way to "contribute something big to this place" is by creating new articles. We have approaching seven million articles, and hundreds of thousands of them - maybe millions - are really, really awful. I'm not asking you to spend all your time rescuing or deleting dire articles, but getting an existing article up to Good article status adds much more value to Wikipedia than creating a new article that just barely scrapes through review as notable - and arguably, deleting an unsalvageable article also adds more value. ColinFine (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @ApteryxRainWing,welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:POLITICIAN

As copied from the page:

"The following are presumed to be notable:

Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Tesleemah (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not think that writing about politicians in an area where you live would count as you having a conflict of interest. As for politicians, we have some guidance WP:Politician mentions the ones which are considered generally notable, whereas Wikipedia:Notability (people)/Subnational politicians gives guidance about differences in different countries. Lectonar (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent Submission Help

Hello Wikipedia! I recently submitted a draft titled "Fair Catch", and it was declined, which is no issue. However, I wanted to know if anyone is able to give me some tips on how to improve my article for re submission. Thanks! BlazeTheSkeleton (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, BlazeTheSkeleton, what good sources exist for fair catch? -- Hoary (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Today I found two extra sources I used for my fair catch article, I will list all of the references I used below.

1)https://www.refrsports.com/blog/understanding-the-fair-catch-rule-in-football#:~:text=Definition%20of%20a%20Fair%20Catch,one%20arm%20above%20their%20head.

2)https://talkoffametwo.com/shows/kickoff-punt-rules-changes

3)https://www.footballzebras.com/2018/05/chronology-of-kickoff-rules-changes/

4)https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-owners-pass-rule-to-place-ball-25-yard-line-fair-catch-kickoff BlazeTheSkeleton (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

BlazeTheSkeleton, your (1) and (2) look good to me; your (3) and (4) look usable but don't say much. But I am not a good judge, because I know very little about sports. I hope that somebody who does know looks at these four and comments. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@BlazeTheSkeleton: Hi! I noticed that you're writing an article about something that already has an article on it. Please see Fair catch for the article. The issue here is that you used a capital letter when creating your article; article names are case-sensitive (sort of—it gets complicated rather quickly). If you have any outstanding (or even mediocre) questions, please ping me at my talk page. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Active vs Passive voice

Hello everyone. I am a new editor and I was wondering whether I should use active voice or passive voice when I write or edit articles in general. Jak-2456 (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! Wikipedia does not have the preference for active voice that is common elsewhere, though it's important not to make vaguely attributed claims like, "It is believed that..." (MOS:WEASEL). Feel free to use whichever seems best to you on a case-by-case basis. Perception312 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Although Wiki may have no preference for active voice, @Jak-2456, most readers feel it’s clearer than passive voice — and definitely more natural.

Even in academic writing, where the passive voice has long held sway, there’s far less use of it today. After all, clarity is the main goal of writing (at least when ego is left out of the rationale for writing lengthy and convoluted sentences).

You might find it of interest to do some online searching about active vs. passive voice. Type your questions worded almost any way you like, and watch all the results fly in. They did for me when I tried it just now before posting my reply to you! Augnablik (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Jak-2456, you might find it mildly depressing to do some online searching about active vs. passive voice, given how much of what you'll encounter will demonstrate that the writers don't even understand what the passive voice is. Inoculate yourself against the junk; enlighten yourself on grammatical voice: try Geoffrey K. Pullum's "Fear and Loathing of the English Passive". -- Hoary (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, Hoary, the sites that came up for me in the search results were pretty good, by my estimate, and I’ve taught grammar. Interesting. You just never know … Augnablik (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Help

I want to update the article on Punjab Roadways, Which I believe is poorly written. And want to replace it with my User:VeritasVanguard/sandbox. Please review my proposal to update the article which is in my sandbox. VeritasVanguard "Seeking truth in every edit" 14:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello VeritasVanguard! Welcome to the Teahouse. I have seen your draft; however, you have used Wikipedia as a reference in two cases. This is not allowed, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source due to consisting of mostly user generated content according to WP: RSPWP, a policy of Wikipedia. Your draft also needs to show that it is notable enough for inclusion, which can be done by adding reliable sources to the article. As of now, adding the content of your sandbox will surely be an improvement over the current article, but it can be done better. TNM101 (chat) 15:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

what is a teapot

WHAT IS A TEAPOT 129.67.68.237 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello! This is the Teahouse, a place where you can ask questions about Wikipedia. If you want to know more about teapots, click here or visit the Reference Desk. TNM101 (chat) 15:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding published article under the reference section

Hello,

I need help adding published articles about me in the references section. While the news itself was published, I am not able to retrieve the link to the archives. How can I achieve this Thulasiram.g87 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It's unwise for you to write about yourself at all, please see the autobiography policy. While it is not absolutely forbidden, it is discouraged, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. You need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about you and what makes you a notable person as Wikipedia defines one. Most people have great difficulty doing that about themselves, it is very, very rare for someone to succeed at writing about themselves here. Are you one of the rare people that can do it? Maybe, but the odds are against it.

Did you personally create the image in the draft? 331dot (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Thulasiram.g87, if you still wish to continue after reading 331dot's excellent advice, can you give an example of the article you want to link and where you want it to appear in the draft? StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Should I create RfC?

I created a topic Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Politico status update. Should I RfC this? Or how such things should be discussed? Отец Никифор (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello! What exactly is your concern here? Is it about the source that you have put on the noticeboard or is it Polygnotus' comments? TNM101 (chat) 18:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

About source. Отец Никифор (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Opening RFC at RSN without prior justification is actively discouraged. Per the RSN header RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed, and the edit notice when you add a new section RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions (bolding in the original). An RFC should only be opened if there is still a need to do so after a discussion has taken place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft Review Request

Hello, I had created a page on the Draft:2024 Mumbai stampede but unfortunately it was moved to the Draft asking for more sources. I took out quite a long time and again worked on it, after that I submitted it for review but It has not been reviewed since almost 3 days. I would really appreciate if someone could take out their valuable time and review the draft. Thank You, Regards AstuteFlicker (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @AstuteFlicker. The message at the top of the draft says "This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order". Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Even though it can take weeks (and months) for a draft to be reviewed, I feel this now passes our notability criteria for events and so have accepted it. qcne (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on Draft

Hi there. I'm looking for someone to review my current work on Draft:Very Important People (2023 TV series). I had previously attempted to solicit feedback by submitting the draft for review, only for the draft to get promoted to article and then immediately submitted for AfD minutes later, getting sent back to Draft shortly thereafter. It was honestly a pretty harsh ordeal all told, one that I'm not eager to repeat, so I was hoping to get some feedback and make sure it's ready for primetime before giving it another go. (My current concern is that, while it has coverage on reliable news sites, it's almost all interviews, which are technically primary sources, so they arguably wouldn't count towards establishing WP:SIGCOV.) Any assistance, or at least pointing me towards a better place to reach out for feedback if not this one, would be much appreciated. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Cyberlink420, AfC reviewer here. That sounds frustrating, and I'll note that the AfD nominator has since been indeffed.

I would accept it in it's current state, using the test that I do believe it would pass an AfD discussion. The first Variety, Observer, CBC sources all meet sigcov in my view. qcne (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize they'd since been indeffed. Appreciate the vote of confidence; I'll resubmit and cross my fingers. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Cyberlink420! I'm surprised that the article didn't exist yet! I've gotten the ball rolling on your draft getting moved into the mainspace. Unfortunately, we have to twiddle our thumbs for a bit while the redirect occupying the relevant space gets deleted. The admin responsible for doing a lot of that work recently retired (Godspeed, Fastily) so this might be a bit! Thanks for your contributions and patience! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks so much for fast-tracking things! Yeah, I definitely would've liked to get the article pushed live sooner were it not for that false start, but it ended up working out anyway since Season 2 led to more interviews that helped flesh things out more, so it all worked out in the end. Here's hoping that redirect gets moved quickly! -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cyberlink420: no problem! Great job on putting together a tidy article on a subject that could've been difficult to properly source. If you continue producing similarly high-quality articles going forward, I'd encourage you to consider seeking the AfC permission! We're always looking for more volunteers and I'm certainly not doing enough to help the backlog. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Co-editor

How would I find someone to assist in the creation of a new article about a world-respected osteopathic doctor who made advances in his field? Is there a way to search for "Wikipedia editors interested in the history of osteopathy"? PaulThePony (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@PaulThePony: The closest thing to the latter would be WP:WikiProject Medicine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, kindly. PaulThePony (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editing Survey

Hello, I'm Jaboyflamed, a student at UTK and I've been tasked with creating a survey to gain insights on how editors feel about editing for Wikipedia. If whoever reads this would be willing to take a quick survey I would greatly appreciate it. Here is a link to it.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScB-CUzRsX5SYAA9oxqJfS6-4eCEq1zQmE55AL6WZ89wAQjvQ/viewform?usp=sf_link Jaboyflamed (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia Teahouse. Welcome, please note that this help desk is for building the encyclopedia. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jaboyflamed I suggest you read the WP article on survey methodology first. Adding a link to a page like this and hoping for a useful outcome is unlikely to be successful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

How to properly formulate an RFC

I am new to this, and just created an RFC ( 09:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC) ) on the on the Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. A user replied “Note as well this RFC is improperly formulated.” Can somebody lend me a hand to see how I erred? Thanks!

Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I'll be pinging the og commentor if they wanna say anything here or at the original thread. @Slatersteven TheWikiToby (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the relevant discussion page it looks like you tried to directly apply the RFC template, but also managed to wrap it in <nowiki> tags. The directions for properly opening a RFC are available at Wikipedia:RFCOPEN. The correct formatting would be something like: {{rfc|sci}} at the top of your new section. Amstrad00 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw that but is there any way for me to edit my replies once I’ve published them? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lardlegwarmers, you shouldn't make significant changes to an RFC question after people have started responding, but:

• You can post additional comments, including comments that say "I don't think my question was clear, but what I really mean is..." or "Perhaps a better way to ask this is...".
• If you start another RFC in the future, you can ask for help in writing it at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

To actually edit your reply you can click the [edit source] option next to the header of the section your reply is in and then edit it like you would any other page on the wiki. Amstrad00 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

New Page (FTS)

Hi there! I am making a new page on the company Figure Technology Solutions. My initial draft was denied. I updated sources but believe that it still needs work. I would love some advice on how to improve this! KnowledgeNomad415 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm a relatively new editor myself, but at a glance I found a couple easy improvements you can make. Under the section "Growth," you can reduce the citations in the first line to one at the end of the sentence since they're all from the same resource. A thorough read through checking for extra spaces and promotional language wouldn't hurt. The article is also a little short. The denial message mentions it's questionable notability. It's ok to take your time to do more research to strengthen your article.

Best of luck! TXstockman5 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @KnowledgeNomad415, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is probably not 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.

Turning to your draft, it looks to me as if all the sources are routine business announcements, and added together they do nothing to indicate why the company is NCORP notable - without which, an article on it is not possible.

I also observe that the draft is written in vapid PR-speak (see SOLUTIONS), and would also point out that there are restrictions on editing articles relating to blockchain (see WP:GS/CRYPTO) - this may not affect you in creating the article, but you should be aware of the restrictions. ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

someone is adding bad intended articles about our website because they lost money gambling .

 Courtesy link: Wagerweb

Please help with the person editing an article. the informotions is wrong and missleading Jamie Maynard (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You're removing cited information from an article. Please discuss your concerns on the article talk page; also see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

the information in this article is harmful in many ways, it's not even validated by a reputable source Jamie Maynard (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Jamie Maynard, I removed some unreferenced and likely false content from that article. I also discussed some basic problems with the article at Talk: Wagerweb. Cullen328 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You can't possibly think that edits such as [2] are appropriate. While unsourced things should be removed, nobody here needs WagerWeb's permission to discuss WagerWeb and you're certainly not allowed to attack other editors. And as Cullen328 noted, there are definitely some notability concerns here; outside of gambling churnalism and SEO sites, I'm seeing nothing reliable outside a passing mention in an NBC News piece about betting on hurricanes. Looks like a good AFD candidate to me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

And... it has been nominated for deletion, David notMD (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Have a citation, using it on Malay page, but it’s from Wikipedia

I am editing the Wikipedia page for the Malay language, and I want to introduce a new fact. I have a cite to prove it, but it is from Wikipedia as well. Can I use it?

Here is the cite: Comparison of Indonesian and Standard Malay#:~:text=Both varieties are generally mutually,having a closer familial resemblance. ( Wikipedia article)

Fact: Malay is similar to Indonesian

Article: Malay language

OneTrueKingLives (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, OneTrueKingLives. No, you can't use one Wikipedia article as a source for another because of the risk of circular referencing. Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source. If the material in the "source" article is supported by reliable sources and you can verify that it supports it, then the solution is to cite those sources directly. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, use available reliable references from one article. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Question

Hi! I was wondering if there was a WikiProject for finishing incomplete tables. I really enjoy doing it and was trying to find a WikiProject for it.

Thanks! Midpour (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

How do I add a photo to a page m

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ron Kurimsky Jr.

how do i add a phot to a page im trying to create you keep rejecting them all and we took them KLK41 (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@KLK41: A cursory look at the draft you're working on suggests that you're trying to add an image you took of the subject. Please be sure that it is, in fact, an image you took and that you are uploading it to the WikiMedia Commons with the appropriate information attached. However, there's another snag here: your draft looks like a possible promotional article. One thing that stands out is the end of the draft that says Contact: Ron@O-D.com. While the subject may or may not be notable enough for their own article, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in as unbiased a way as possible. If you need any help, please ping me at my talk page! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

KLK41, who wrote what's in the draft? (I ask because the prose, which reeks of PR effusion, is so different from your prose here.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this statue copyrighted?

(Copied from WT:CP) I am currently writing an article on the Lord Botetourt statues (my userspace draft) that stand on the campus of the College of William & Mary. The original is from 1772 and obviously public domain. However, the 1993 replica (pictured here) may not be. While William & Mary calls it a "replica" in some places, they call it an "artist's interpretation" elsewhere. The artist behind the 1993 work understandably contended that it was not a replica despite relying extensively on the 1772 work and other public domain works to reconstruct it. I heavily lean towards this being a replica: that was the intended purpose of the design and it effectively mirrors the original in all ways but the medium it is made from. However, at least one other editor was concerned enough about potential issues that they uploaded a blurred image of the statue on the Commons. Any input or guidance here is deeply appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Guidance, Pbritti: The place to ask this kind of question with the greatest probability of well-informed responses is Commons' copyright "pump". -- Hoary (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary: I'll head over there! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Pbritti, in my opinion, a 20th century bronze replica of an 18th century marble statue that was intended to "fill in the blanks" due to losses in the original statue is almost certainly a new creative work entitled to full copyright protection. If you include sufficient critical commentary specifically about the newer statue (not the older one), then once your draft is in main space, you could include a low resolution image under the stringent terms of WP:NFCI #7 which requires well referenced critical commentary of the 20th century work of art. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What button to make a new article

Trolling
Just show me the button bruh Youwasatdaclub1 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC) @Youwasatdaclub1 sure: Alt+F4. Seriously though, you need to create a draft via Articles for Creation - see Help:Your first article for detailed instructions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Alphabetical subheadings on Category pages don't seem to work

How does the alphabetical listing on the Category:Lists of songs recorded by Indian singers page happen? It has a section titled Pages in category "Lists of songs recorded by Indian singers", but the subheadings in it as A, B, C, D, etc. do not really help. Waonderer (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Waonderer: Those articles are using sort keys to control how they're ordered in that category. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to have a userpage

i wrote a draft and submitted but wikipedia rejected it i want the people know me as a wikipedia editor please helpp CameronSmith007 (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

All you need to do is click on your red Username above and then type anything at all. If for example you were to type 'x', you would then have a User page with the letter 'x' as its sole content (and your Username will turn blue).

Of course you will not want to do merely that. You can add to your user page whatever you choose (within the rules, see links below), but the purpose of a User page is to tell other Wikipedians something about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. Typically you might mention your personal interests (and therefore the sort of subjects you might want to edit articles about), state your your aims as an editor, add links to useful instructional or other pages for your own convenience, etc., etc.: see Wikipedia:User pages. Remember, this will not be a Wikipedia article, and your User page is not the place to draft one.

What you should not do is include any material contrary to Wikipedia's (many) policies (although it's your user page, it's still visible to the public) or any material irrelevant to Wikipedia's purpose, such as pieces of your own fiction: see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a Web hosting service.

I hope this gets you started. Don't worry (but do comply) if someone comes along to tell you to stop doing something on your Userpage (or Talk page) – there's a lot of Wikipedia rules to learn and we all make mistakes at first; that's how we learn. I think you have already learned that writing about yourself as a Wikipedia editor should not be done in the form of a new article! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Question on why this happened

I don't really feel comfortable to go on the users talk page to discuss why but I just want to let anybody here at the Teahouse know that this happened when Ahecht restored all the old requests (including mine), I'm currently having a second attempt on requesting for the pending changes reviewers rights. Now I don't really care if it is declined but restoring an old request from September 2024 seems weird to me. Does anybody know why this happened by any chance? PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 06:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, PEPSI697. If you are applying for advanced permissions, then you should know that the very first person you should discuss this issue with is Ahecht. Saying that you don't really feel comfortable to go on the users talk page to discuss is not an appropriate thing to say at all. This is a collaborative project, and the first thing to do when there is a disagreement among two editors, is always for those two editors to discuss the issue among themselves. If the two editors are unable to resolve their disagreement, then there are several other forms of Dispute resolution available to the two of you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm currently severely ill IRL and didn't mean to say something inappropriate, that is why I wasn't active that much yesterday because I was resting up to feel better. I'm sorry if I said that, I didn't intend to say something inappropriate. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 20:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know why they did it, but I believe Ahecht tried to restore a previous version(1 October 2024 - which you have also linked on your PCR request) of the perms page. This removed your and NXcrypto’s requests for PCR and replaced them with the version from 1 October 2024. Ahecht is a new admin, so I guess it might have been an unintentional mistake caused by their rights management tool. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328, Jeraxmoira, PEPSI697, HJ Mitchell: Sorry, I have no idea what happened there. I must've somehow ended up editing at an old revision of the page and not realized it, but again, no idea how that happened nor how I would've missed the warning message. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That's ok. I accept your mistake. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 20:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I went and had a look at Ahecht's talk page and knew they were a new admin. Just wanted to make sure if this was intentional or not. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 20:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Article creation

Please can someone assist me to make this article better Draft:Chidiebere Emmanuel Okechukwu according to Wikipedia's standard ok notability and formatting. Thanks Scientistcore (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Scientistcore, Remsense has explained the problem very well, I think. Is there any part of the explanation that you don't understand? If you and I both understand it well, you'll understand that so far you have failed to demonstrate what Wikipedia regards as notability. This requires searching for, identifying, and intelligently using reliable sources that are independent of Chidiebere Emmanuel Okechukwu (and of course are not by him). This is hard work, to be done by you, the person who created the draft and hopes to turn it into an article. It's possible that adequate sources simply don't exist; if they don't, then no article can be created. -- Hoary (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Scientistcore (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Scientistcore. I recommend that you read and study, and then read and study again all of the comments made on your draft. Here is my own assessment: If you think that the first sentence benefits from ten references and the second sentence benefits from 14 references and the third sentence benefits from four more references, then you simply do not understand how Wikipedia works. Please read Wikipedia:Citation overkill because your draft definitely suffers from that problem. The quality of your sources is vastly more important than their quantity, especially for an exceptionally brief draft like yours. Instead of cramming 30 references into a four sentence draft, select only the very best of the references, get rid of the rest, and write significantly more actual content informative to readers. How can you properly summarize a person's life and career in only four sentences of prose? Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328 Scientistcore (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to make my previous point a bit clearer here. There's a reason we require coverage that are all three of reliable, independent, and significant. You've cited works the subject has authored (i.e. not independent), brief or indirect mentions in publications, as well as pretty low quality news outlets, so I understand it seems frustrating that all three at once are required for a source to be useful to establish notability, but it's for good reason. Remsense ‥ 论 09:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Scientistcore, and welcome to the Teahouse. 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) 11:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Scientistcore I think you are very new on wikipedia and therefore, should avoid creating new articles and focus on expanding and improving the existing articles. Sticking to a subject and forcefully trying to create it, disregarding the AfC reviewers advice is something which you shouldn't do when you are just 10 days old. AstuteFlicker (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Scientistcore: If this article is about you, please read WP:Autobiography. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The revised version - correctly removing as references sci journal articles he is a co-author on - does not contain any references supporting his Wikipedia-notability. Have people published about him? The 'Medium' External link mentions that he is author on approx 100 articles, but does not describe his academic positions. David notMD (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"Promotional Material in Mission Swaraj"

User:Sarim Wani/Mission Swaraj (where I am currently editing the article you all are open to edit it :) ) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 19 (Where the deletion review is taking place) I would like to ask 1 question where is the promotional material? (I am new here joined september 1 2024) Any nudging in the right direction is greatly appreciated Sarim Wani (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sarim Wani: You could have added this information to Dhruv Rathee’s article instead of creating a stand-alone article, as it lacks in-depth coverage. Additionally, the section titled “Objectives and Challenges” appears promotional. GrabUp - Talk 08:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

ok I changed it to "Objectives of the Mission" is that good? Sarim Wani (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

is it good to go for bring not "Promotional" anymore? Sarim Wani (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sarim Wani. Your draft says The campaign aims to tackle pressing socio-economic and environmental issues by presenting seven key challenges to political leaders. Who says that the campaign "aims to tackle" these things? Who says that these issues are "pressing"? Who says that there are "seven key challenges" as opposed to six or eight or another number entirely? It seems to me that you are engaged in political advocacy writing instead of rigorously neutral encyclopedia writing. Cullen328 (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

got it doing it right now! Sarim Wani (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

fixed! if there any other "Promotional" things please let me know Sarim Wani (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Clarify @Cullen328 @GrabUp you're problems are fixed! if there any other "Promotional" things please let me know (anyone is also free to edit the page :) ) or is it good to go for not being "Promotional" anymore? Sarim Wani (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Clarify So can I upload it on the main mission Sawraj since I don't see any opposition?

Sarim Wani (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Technically, you can upload it to mainspace; but it's then very likely to be deleted, as failing to establish that its subject is notable. (This statement counts as opposition.} Maproom (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

ok I can prove that pretty easily man tea house is a very good thing I will keep coming back here! Sarim Wani (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The Dearne Valley Bypass South Yorkshire England

THE Dearne Valley Bypass in South South Yorkshire, England is it permissible to copy the construction of it for a research i am doing. 2A00:23C6:FAA9:2F00:E4C7:5E5:9E4C:DCC9 (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for more information. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Help with formatting and content editing on a Draft

Hello! I'm working on a draft but am struggling a bit with the formatting. I thought I had formatted this properly based on WikiMarkup but it looks like I might be a bit off. Could I get some help with Draft:John Rotellini. I think I have most of the information I should have for this, unless media is helpful. I didn't want to add anything unnecessary, especially since this is my first foray into scratch writing vs just providing helpful edits to an existing article.

I'd like to get this to look appropriate and would appreciate some guidance there, especially if adding additional elements (like media) is helpful.

Additionally, I have tried to ensure that everything mentioned is able to be linked to reputable citing. If there's any corrections that should be made, I'd love to get feedback.

Thank you so much for your time! Jojohot1 (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Jojohot1, start by removing every instance of two or more consecutive "#", and ditto for two or more consecutive "*". When that's done you'll have made a significant start towards fixing the format, which currently is most bizarre. -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I figured out why that may have occurred. I was doing some editing and inadvertently formatted some of the text in an editor, which carried over into Wikipedia in such a weird way. Thanks for helping me get back on the right track. With that said, I have supplied the appropriate citing but, for some reason, it is showing up in the READ version as inline links instead of inline citations. Would anyone be willing to look at this to see what I'm doing wrong? I really appreciate the advice! Jojohot1 (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You will need to

• Convert all the section headers to sentence case
• Remove all the direct external links
• Remove the excessive boldface
• Cite some sources! This is much the biggest issue. Not a single statement is attributed to a cited source. To learn how to cite sources, you'll need to read Referencing for beginners.   Maproom (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You need to convert the references into inline citations. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

this is not all of course Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

See for examples of how to format and reference articles about magicians: Okito, David Devant, Harry Blackstone Sr., Harry Blackstone Jr., Howard Thurston, Theodore Annemann, Cardini, Joseph Dunninger, Dai Vernon, Fred Culpitt, Tommy Wonder, Siegfried & Roy, and Doug Henning. Popular 20th- and 21st-century magicians include David Copperfield, Lance Burton, James Randi, Penn and Teller, David Blaine, Criss Angel, Derren Brown, Dynamo, Shin Lim, Jay & Joss, Hans Klok. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Orphan tag

It would be really helpful if someone could explain in Detail that how can we link other articles and Remove the orphan tag from any page. As it says, Please introduce links to this page from related articles. I am not being able to understand exactly what do we have to do and how do we have to do. AstuteFlicker (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@AstuteFlicker. You will find plenty of details (probably too much) about linking at H:WIKILINK and MOS:BUILD. Do come back here if you need more help. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Shantavira Thanks for the advice but tbh I didn't get any of these. Could you please do me a favour of removing the orphan tag from this article of mine here. It will be a great help and also help me learn and get a practical knowledge of removing the tag as there are more such articles of mine with the tag. AstuteFlicker (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

An Orphan Article on wikipedia simply means that no articles link to it- Basically, in my understanding, you just need something linking to it from related articles. I will look to see if there are related articles where I can link this. It is basically saying that you should try to link your article in texts related to it, such as in the see also section. I will try to do this if possible for an example that you can use Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You can de-orphan your article by linking it with a related article, the best option is to link it under ''see also'' section of an already created article. Tesleemah (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@AstuteFlicker Your article 2024 Mumbai stampede has two valid templates at the bottom, namely {{Human crushes}} and {{Disasters in India in 2024}}. The guidance at WP:BIDI suggests you should add your article's title to these templates. Doing so immediately would create two valid links (actually many more since each article with the template would get them) and hence de-orphan yours. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I already added one link, to deorphan but more are still needed. Can I remove the orphan template? Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Firstly, I have added the article's title name in both the templates. Could you please check and de-orphan it.

Secondly, For this article it was sorted up but even now I haven't understood how this works like here in this article there were the templates I added the name to both the template and it got sorted. But, what if there is no template on an article as the previous participants have wrote above that if we add the related topics in the See Also section then it would work up. But in my case the See Also section was already there with some related articles But, despite that it was given the orphan tag. So if neither See Also, section in other articles and nor if we have template on other articles then how to address it and remove the tag. As I have mentioned earlier I have more such articles so I need to know this.. AstuteFlicker (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Another editor has removed the tag which is easy to do: the template is near the top of the source code and determining an article is an orphan or not can be done by using the "What links here" tool (ignoring links from Talk Pages etc). The suggestion was that you de-orphaned by adding to the "See also" section, or indeed any section, of other related articles, with wikilinks to your article, not that you expanded the "See also" section you already had, which doesn't count. Specifically, you could have gone to List of fatal crowd crushes, placed a link back to your article there and that would have de-orphaned yours. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not remove the tag as I saw it already was removed, however now when I look it is linked to 133 articles because of Template:Disasters in India in 2024 Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@AstuteFlicker I added the link to your article to one of the 'see also' section 2024 in India . You can check it out and see how you can De-orphan next time Tesleemah (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If I have free time I can verify it too. Please read the message In your talk page as well please! Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I will de-orphan it as I also added some links to see also as well. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding An Article About Village(s)

I noticed that several articles for villages/settlements are missing in Category:Villages in Jalandhar district & in several other of Punjab. Are those 'villages' presumed notable? Or Do I need to show enough reliable independent Significant Coverage to show otherwise. VeritasVanguard "Seeking truth in every edit" 14:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard If the villages have articles, then they are already wikinotable. However, to add them into the category, you don't edit the category page directly. Instead, you put the category name at the foot of the article. Check one of the village articles that is already a member of the category to see how to do that (or use WP:HotCat) Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Help at Animal (2023 Indian film)

I am new here and needed help on Animal (2023 Indian film). How can I change something under "Cast"? When I tried, it has opened some template. NicoR8 (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@NicoR8 Yes, that's how the visual editor works. Click "edit" alongside the section where the cast is listed, then proceed by clicking on the "Edit" link top right and you'll be taken into the cast list itself, which has a not-very-easy-to-see window with arrows, which can be clicked on so it can be edited. All much easier in the "source" editor. See Help:Introduction for more about using the two editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. How can I undo something that I already added on the sample page it created for me? Do I edit again or is there a better way to undo? NicoR8 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @NicoR8. If you look at the "History" of the page you edited, you will see a list of the edits made. If the one you want to undo is the latest, you can simply pick "Undo". If there are later edits, you may or may not be able to undo in this way. ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there any way to stop this looping?

Is there a way for readers to pause the looping .gif in 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack? and if not, why not? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

By their nature Animated GIF files loop endlessly. As far as I'm aware Wikipedia doesn't have any provisions to pause them. Amstrad00 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Amstrad, I dont think there is a way for that to be fixed at the moment Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Metal Brain: such an action would probably need to be done through a browser extension or by using your Wikipedia account's CSS settings to hide that specific image altogether. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

PD-USGov

I currently don't have access to Commons, so I'll ask here since I'll be uploading them locally. Are images produced by military airmen while they are active and on base under PD-USGov? This is why I'm asking, if they are then there are a plethora of free images of this event, and if not then oh well. More specifically, this video of the tornado, produced by an airman. Thanks! :) E_F⁵ 16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, the particular page you linked to says "IMAGE IS PUBLIC DOMAIN" in large friendly letters, @EF5. ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a bad example, I've already uploaded that one. I meant in general, mainly where there isn't a PD notice but the content is still produced by a member of the US Air Force or other branch under the government. :) E_F⁵ 16:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@EF5: You're not blocked on Commons and have edited there today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but due to internet restrictions I am not able to get on at the moment. I should be able to be there later today, but eh. E_F⁵ 17:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Works created by employees of the US federal government as part of their official duties are considered to be within the public domain; works federal employees create in their free time or which aren't part of their official duties aren't necessarily public domain unless they want to license them as such. Member of the US Armed Forces are considered to be federal employees so any photos they take as part of their official duties are probably going to be considered to be within the public domain; personal photos or the like that's not part of their job so to speak most likely aren't. Sorting out which is which can sometimes be tricky so you need to try and clarify the provenance of the photo as much as you can before uploading it. When in doubt, you can probably ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or c:Commons:Village pump/copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

How to not replace an existing page?

So i've been trying to make a translation of the Natangia page from polish to english, but I've run into a problem.

In polish, there's an article about Natangia (The historical area) and in english there's an article about Natangians (The ethnic group from that area). It says that publishing the english translation of the article about the historical area will replace the article about the ethnic group. I feel like the article about the historical area should not replace that other one since these are 2 different things. Natangian Rockman (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Natangian Rockman, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your problem is that there is an existing redirect Natangia which points to Natangians.

In principle, you can edit that redirect to make it into a separate example. But since you are a new editor in English Wikipedia, I very strongly advise that you don't do that, but use the articles for creation process to create a draft Draft:Natangia, and when it is ready, you submit it for review. Then the accepting reviewer will handle the issue of the existing redirect.

You may be thinking, as new editors often do, that the fact that an article exists in another Wikipedia means you just have to translate it, and it will be acceptable, and you don't need to go through the Draft process. That is not usually the case, because English Wikipedia has stricter standards for such things as notability and neutral point of view than many other language versions. It may be that pl:Natangia is adequate that a direct translation will be acceptable (in which case, the review will probably go quickly, those this is never guaranteed).

But more likely there will need to be some improvements. I observe that while pl:Natangia lists a number of books, it has only one inline citation, and so most of it is uncited: that is not usually acceptable in a new article in English Wikipedia.

Have you read translation? ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Finding a photo I can upload

The page for the incumbent mayor of my city doesn't have a photo, and I am having trouble finding a photo. I don't want to accidentally upload something that isn't allowed. I've found some good photos and the photographer who took them. Does anyone have any tips that could help me out? Greening5 (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Greening5: WP:A picture of you is addressed to article subjects; but covers the basics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Signature

After realizing that my old signature could be disruptive if it appeared too many times (My old signature was split into two parts: "❀Brandenburg" in navy blue text on a mint cream background, and "Blue❀" in snow text on a navy blue background), I simplified it to being just "❀BrandenburgBlue❀" in snow text on a navy blue background.

I read Wikipedia:Signatures and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. Then, I found a contrast checker (WebAIM), and I entered the hex codes of my signature's colors into it. WebAIM said that the contrast ratio of my new signature is 15.48:1. The recommended contrast is at least 4.5:1 for text (according to WCAG) and 7:1 where feasible (according to AAA)

I'm wondering if the contrast ratio of my signature is too high, and if it could still be disruptive. ❀BrandenburgBlue❀_Talk! 17:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

A too high contrast ratio isn't really a thing. Plain black on white text apparently has a ratio of 21:1, so that's as high as you can go, and no one has a problem with that. --rchard2scout (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

How bold is too bold

To be honest, the article for Wings of Fire is - to be frank and quite harsh - total garbage and I would love to rewrite most if not all of it myself. I am a fan who knows what they're talking about, so I feel that I am qualified enough. Is it considered too bold to rewrite most of an article then dispute any objections to my changes on the talk page?

For anyone who is wondering, I feel that the article is way too detailed and simultaneously not detailed enough, nevermind the fact that some of the arc summaries read like advertisements. It focuses on some unimportant details while ignoring some other important details. I can get sources for all this, so don't worry about verifiability. ApteryxRainWing (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion you're already failing on the principles set out in WP:BOLD. Just go ahead and make the changes you think should be made. If someone feels those changes are wrong or bad they are free to correct or revert them and you can hash out the problem in the talk page like you suggest. As another redirect to WP:Bold suggests, WP:JUSTDOIT. Amstrad00 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that you are already making changes and have opened at least one discussion on the Talk page of the article. The article gets hundreds of views a day and has about 100 watchers, so you may find yourseld in active debate. David notMD (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Welp, I've done my part. Now it's time to sit back and relax and see if and when I'll get any response. I think my edits were good, and everything is justified in editing summaries so we'll see what happens. On a slightly related note, does anyone do anything about hidden comments? I left one on a piece of information that was incorrect due to a technicality only Wings of Fire fans like myself would care about, which is why I didn't outright correct it. Would someone unfamiliar with the series even care that the perspective changed locations one single time? I think I'm overthinking this and wanting to be a perfectionist. ApteryxRainWing (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Any new articles?

I want to review and edit some new articles so I gain experience at editing, any articles for me to potentionally edit an contribute? IsaqueCar (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If you visit your homepage (which you can reach by clicking you name at the top of the site) you will see some Suggested edits you could make. You can also visit Wikipedia:Task Center for some additional ideas. Amstrad00 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

None of the suggested edits are useful since mostly they are old articles that don't have anything to add extra and have no grammar errors. Isaque Cardoso (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That's why I suggested the Task Center as an alternative. Personally I engage in Wikipedia:Random page patrol activities and contribute by doing Wikipedia:Basic copyediting wherever I find it's needed. Amstrad00 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking for grammatical errors to fix, check out Category:All articles needing copy edit, or join the Guild of Copy Editors. I would suggest checking out the Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style, though, to know how we usually do things grammar-wise around here. Thx56 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Isaque Cardoso ⌬❦ (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You can go to Special:RecentChanges and filter the list by page creations only in the "(Article)" name space only. You'll see a lot of redirects being created as well as actual articles.

You can also go to WP:AFC and scroll down to the section "Recently created articles". These are articles that have passed through a review process and have just been published in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Leeds (disambiguation)

Hello. I need a logged in user to edit the disambiguation page for Leeds. This article says Leeds is a major town in West Yorkshire. It is actually a city. It is true because of the sources provided on the main page, and its local government district is the City of Leeds. Please help. Thank you in advance. 94.10.105.239 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion at Talk:Leeds (disambiguation)#Town. You're welcome to reopen the discussion. Nthep (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. I've viewed it. They say Leeds does not hold city status, yet there are sources and articles that say that. Even the district has City in the name. Is it city or town? 94.10.105.239 (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, reopen the discussion and ask the people who took part in it, to explain further. Nthep (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to create an article, but it's already featured in a list. Should I do so?

I was planning to create an article of a recipe, but the recipe has been shown in a list. Some entries in the list have a main article linked to them. Is there any requirements to create a "main article" for the list? What are the notability requirements for a recipe being on a list versus an a recipe having its own page? Baudshaw (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:N. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Baudshaw, and welcome to the Teahouse. As Ahn Boy has indicated, the overriding question for "shall I create an article" is always "Is the subject notable in Wikipedia's sense?" If the answer is "No", then you should not create an article, and any time you spend trying to (beyond determining that it does not meet the criteria for notability) will be time wasted.

If the answer is "Yes", then it is possible to create an article. That does not in all cases mean that a separate article should be made: sometimes it makes more sense to add information to an existing article. But if the existing article is a stand-alone list, detail shouldn't be added to it.

One more thing I'll add: if the recipe does not meet the criteria for notability, then it possibly shouldn't be in the list in the first place: most stand-alone lists are only of notable items (items which have, or could have, an article). However, some lists have a different criterion, so it would depend on how the list in question is defined. See WP:LISTCRITERIA. ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

How do I start a reassessment of a good article? We are the Great (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The process is dependent on reviewer integrity. Reviewers may not review articles that they have edited significantly, and they should focus on determining whether the article meets the Good article criteria. The review should not be influenced by beliefs about how the article could be made "perfect", by how the reviewer would have written the article, or by personal feelings about the article topic. Reviewers should aim to advise on content and form rather than to impose their preferences. A reviewer involved in a contentious discussion should consider withdrawing, so that a less-involved editor can make the final assessment and decision on the Good article criteria. Therealjacksonstephen (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Please excuse my bluntness, but that's a whole lot of words that say very little. Considering #Good article below (What would you describe a "Good Article" as? How should I go about making one?), perhaps someone more experienced in Good Article Reassessments should answer. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Until then, I've responded at Talk:Temper (film)#Good article reassessment for Temper (film). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Good Article

What would you describe a "Good Article" as? How should I go about making one? Therealjacksonstephen (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Therealjacksonstephen: Welcome to the Teahouse! Usually on Wikipedia, Good Articles are a content class and require a reviewer to review an article to see if it meets the Good Article criteria. E_F⁵ 20:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Therealjacksonstephen (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

HTML

Does HTML format work with Wikipedia? Therealjacksonstephen (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Therealjacksonstephen. A subset of HTML is allowed but some of it has a preferred wikitext alternative. See more at Help:HTML in wikitext. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Therealjacksonstephen (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

a weird question to ask

hello! If you're reading this, I couldn't stop singing the part in mighty machines where it went "I roll up, I roll down" and I can't find the entire lyrics, it would be nice if someone can tell me the rest. thanks! Jude Marrero [=D (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, the Teahouse is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. You might find Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment a better venue for your question, though I personally feel like Google or a similar search engine would be the more appropriate way to look up lyrics. Amstrad00 (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliable Sources?

I'm trying to document the discovery of tantalum as a surgical implant material in the late 1930s, pioneered by a team of researchers at the Los Angeles Orthopaedic Hospital and the California Institute of Technology led by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gerald_L_Burke. My question concerns independent scientific assessments of research in the WW1-WW2 era, say 1900-1940. The process of vetting and validating research 75 years ago required that a research project by a research group be submitted to an independent review panel for validation and, if validated, the project would be published by the relevant journal. This process could be considered an open-source equivalent of the patent process. This was (and still is) a very thorough process that established the "notability" and credibility of the project. However, Wikipedia reviewers now see this process as "insignificant" and "not notable". It is even suggested that this process amounts to "self-publishing".

It appears to me that Wikipedia's interpretation of the scientific review and publication process is not correct, and somewhat astonishing. Can someone offer any suggestions how to sort this out? Henrilebec (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think some related concepts may have been confused here, but I'm not super sure? Going back to Draft:Gerald L Burke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), it needs to cite sources about Burke, not by him. Some other criteria also apply, but the explanation can get a bit long, so let's start there first.

Please feel free to peruse the Notes and References sections of Jessie Murray and Howard Florey, which are also biographies of doctors. They have gone through a review process called WP:FA, so the sourcing should be at least decent. The articles rely mostly on writings by other people (biographers or scholars) studying the lives and accomplishments of the subject.

Hope that gives you a better starting point, at least? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see some of the questions are responses to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#09:13, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Henrilebec. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It appears the basis of the misunderstanding here is that the reviewers of the article are assuming that the CMAJ is simply publishing a personal article by Burke, when in fact the CMAJ board of independent medical scientists is actually reviewing the work of Burke's research team and assessing its scientific importance. This is not about Burke or Burke's life, but about the science behind the team's discoveries. There is not a single word about Burke in Burke's article. Scientific articles in journals are not about the author(s), they're about the science in the project. Somebody has to write up the research and it's usually the research leader. It's quite apparent in the CMAJ article, so I'm surprised that the Wikipedia reviewer didn't understand what was being described. FWIW, Burke's work has been mentioned in other scientific journals such as in the National Library of Medicine (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7154344/), The Semantic Scholar (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/THE-CORROSION-OF-METALS-IN-TISSUES%3B-AND-AN-TO-Burke/1c97c6bb83b6619a2b047d0de13de0fd793ba445), Europe PMC (https://europepmc.org/article/MED/20321780), Frontiers in Bioengineering (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2022.983695/full), and by Harvard Medical School (ORVILLE T. BAILEY M.D., FRANC D. INGRAI-IAM, M.D., PRESTON S. WEADON, M.D. AND ANTHONY F. SUSEN, M.D. Departmentsof Pathologyand Surgery,Harvard Medical School,and the Neurosurgical Service of The Children's Medical Center,Boston,Massachusetts (August18, 1951). Perhaps I should have included these (and other sources)? but I thought that one or two would be enough. I'm not a Wikipedia expert and not skilled at the Wikipedia way! Do I need to completely rewrite the article including all the sources (there's dozens more!) What do you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrilebec (talk • contribs) 07:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Henrilebec, I see no misunderstanding. If this is about Draft:Gerald L Burke, you'll need to find and cite sources that establish that Burke is notable – such sources will need to be about Burke, not by him. If you're asking about some other article or draft (maybe Tantalum#Surgical uses?), please let us know which. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Is removing one of those WikiProject tags from the draft possible?

I'm stuck on those because I have added WikiProject Southeast Asia tag onto the Draft:Saving Grace (Philippine TV series) without realizing that there's a WikiProject Tambayan Philippines tag there. So, is it possible to remove one of those WikiProject tags from the draft? JRGuevarra (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course! Ahri Boy (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ahri Boy Thanks. That really solves the issue easily. JRGuevarra (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Cypher System article?

Dear Friends.

I see we have no article about Cypher System (ttRPG from Monte Cook Games). I have read the Corebook and a few supplementary books. I would like to write an article for that system, but I kinda do not know where to begin, I think? Any help/advice or other words of wisdom? ;-)

Best wishes

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The only thing is to build a draft article. See WP:DRAFT. Make sure that your submission meets WP:NOTABILITY. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

How to edit page and add citations?

I’ve been trying to add new information on the Wikipedia article regarding Illinois’s Protect Illinois Communities Act, though I don’t know how to edit via the simple and direct way (without the brackets and other characters used for Wikipedia functions). If someone could help me out with adding this information or do it for me, that would be great. LordOfWalruses (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If you use VisualEditor on the Protect Illinois Communities Act article, does that allow you to edit it? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That helped with adding the information, though I don’t know how to cite the source.

(This is the source in case you’re wondering: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/chicago/news/illinois-assault-weapons-ban-ruled-unconstitutional/ ) LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, LordOfWalruses. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, then you need to learn how to create references to reliable sources. It is not that difficult. Please read and study Referencing for beginners, and if you have any specific questions, ask then here at the Teahouse. Cullen328 (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing; I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion I caused amongst other users. If you could send that link to my talk page so that I can always know how to access it (even when this conversation is removed), that would be great. LordOfWalruses (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Submit a new article draft

Hello,

can you help me please? I don't know what is wrong there with my new article draft, but I cannot submit it to review. Below is what I get done, but submit it to review does not go throughout. So, I don't know how to fix it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Submitting&withJS=MediaWiki:AFC-submit-wizard.js&page=User:73.37.225.229/sandbox/Luang_prabang_Night_Market

Thank you. NruasPaoYPP (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@NruasPaoYPP: User:73.37.225.229/sandbox/Luang prabang Night Market does not exist. Could you give a link to the draft that you want to submit? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This administrator/or guy has deleted my draft without telling me what was wrong. See below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:73.37.225.229/sandbox/Luang_prabang_Night_Market

Do you see what I dis and is vandalism? NruasPaoYPP (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so I cannot see deleted pages. Bbb23 deleted those pages because they appeared to be vandalism. If you don't think they were vandalism, you can ask him about it at User talk:Bbb23. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirects and Sources

A while ago I was looking at the page for Xylocopa aerata when I noticed one of the plants it is described feeding at, Pultenaea elliptica, was at the time a redlink. Thinking it would be an interesting project as my first real page, I did some research and discovered it is actually the previous name for Pultenaea tuberculata. I've already made Pultenaea elliptica a redirect to the correct page. I know this is probably a stupid question, but do I change the link in Xylocopa aerata from the redirect to the correct name, even though that was probably the name used in the source? PineappleWizard123 (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, PineappleWizard123. In my opinion, the best solution is to display the name used in the cited source. If that name redirects to a more current name for the same species, there is nothing wrong with that. Cullen328 (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war

A few weeks ago I was on the page for Iamgold, and noticed that it was clearly written by someone from within the company, as it used nearly no references and used corporate language to advertise the company. I reverted the edit, but I have since seen that my reversion has been undone by the same author who made the original bad edit, and the page is back in the state that I found it in. What should I do? I don't want to get into an edit war, and I'm not sure what to do next. Krill Bill (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

While the edit introduced promotional content, it also updated some facts, albeit without sourcing. You did the correct thing by not edit warring. You should enter into discussion with the user, pointing to the guideline on providing sources, promotional language, and possible conflict of interest (WP:V, WP:PROMO, and WP:COI). If the user continues to revert with no discsusion, you will have to report them to the Admin's noticeboard. Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Belarusian userboxes

A moment ago I created a userbox that for users who support Belarus but opposed Lukashenko at the Belarusian Wikipedia. But a user marked it as deletion thinking it that "Wikipedia is not a forum". I was then reported just because I remove the deletion marker as I believe that that beliefs means you can express anything from political to religious. The report was a result of my misunderstanding to the rules there. This is really sad because that Wikipedia does not have userbox galleries where you can express your beliefs or interests there. I do wish the Belarusian Wikipedia allows anyone to create Userboxes for anyone to express their political and religious beliefs. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! As the page as been deleted, I can't see what kind of deletion it was tagged for - but, regardless - the way to respond to a deletion request is not to remove the deletion tag.

In future:

If it has a WP:CSD request (with the text "This page has been nominated for speedy deletion") - you need to click the big blue button that says "Contest this speedy deletion" and state why you disagree with it. If it is deleted even despite this and you still disagree, you should bring it to deletion review.

If it has a WP:TFD request (with the text "This template has been nominated for deletion") - you need to click onto the discussion page linked in the box and add your comment there, prefixed by Keep: and ending with a signature (~~~~).

Also a note that if by "Belarusian Wikipedia" you mean Belarusian Language Wikipedia ([3]), please note that this is the help centre for the English wikipedia and we aren't familiar with the norms there so won't be able to help. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 08:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)