Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1159

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1155←Archive 1157Archive 1158Archive 1159Archive 1160Archive 1161→Archive 1165

Help

Hello I would like to hire someone to help me with my page. Is there someone I can contact if yes can you please give me their name info. I am disabled and need some help. Thank you my name is Tina Bagon Thanks Little Piggie Shoehorns (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Little Piggie Shoehorns This is not a place to hire Wikipedian to create your page.  DIVINE  16:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Little Piggie Shoehorns, welcome to the Teahouse. Most people who offer to write Wikipedia articles in exchange for money are scam artists; they will take your money without bothering to verify whether the article subject meets our standards for inclusion (called "notability"), so the article never gets made, or is deleted if they try to push it through.
I highly recommend changing your user name, since it appears to violate our username policy - you should not use the name of a product or a business. You can request a change here, or simply abandon this account and create another one with a different name. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Paid editing creates a conflict of interest and is generally frowned upon. There are many volunteer editors who are happy to help for free. However, and as mentioned above, Wikipedia has a notability standard which must be passed before a topic merits an article on Wikipedia. Speaking from my own experience, I do not see "Tina Bagon", "Little Piggies Shoehorn Co" or "Bright Kids LLC" meeting these standards at the present time. Sorry, SVTCobra 16:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Please note that promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. If at some time we have an article about you or your business, whoever writes it, the article will not belong to you or be controlled by you, it will not necessarily contain what you want it to contain, and it should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with your have chosen to publish about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Making a Wikipedia page for a PR client

Hi, I'd like to create a Wikipedia page for a PR client of mine. How can I do this? 2603:7000:5000:5D02:25C9:C7A3:3AAC:7A1D (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

First, read WP:PAID and disclose. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you've also asked at the Help Desk (though you didn't mention them being a client) - please only ask in one place or the other, to avoid duplication of volunteer effort. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Note that if you succeed, it will WP:s article about your client, not your clients page on WP, more at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
Your first (not only) hurdle is WP:GNG. Per that link, what's the 3-5 best sources you've got? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Please help

Hey, can someone help me understand why did my article get declined? Because the guy who declined it says that (person from the article) doesn't meet notability criteria, but without specifying how should criteria be set.


Thanks.

Draft:Miran Kujundžić Narmerae (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @Narmerae! Welcome to the Teahouse! You can learn more about the criteria by clicking on the blue links in the decline reason. In particular, you may find WP:NBIO and WP:N useful. Happy editing! Bsoyka (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Status - Declined in March. Creating editor has since doubled the length and resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

How to improve this article?

Dears,

I am trying to publish an article about a non-profit organization, Cinelimite. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cinelimite. I was inspired by the non-profit Cinema Tropical article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_Tropical. However, I am having trouble making the article polished enough to be published.

Can someone give me an opinion so that I can go ahead and do it right?

Best wishes to all. Matmpestana (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Matmpestana, you have created a draft at Draft:Cinelimite. "Polish" is not the issue. Three reviewers have declined it because it did not cite sources to establish that the subject is notable. If you can find such sources, you can go ahead an add them to the draft (and maybe remove some of the worthless ones already here). But maybe such sources don't exist, and nothing can be done to make the draft acceptable. Maproom (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

What should I do if I spot plagiarism?

Good day Teahouse hosts. What is the recommended action that an editor should take if they see a case of blatant plagiarism in Wikipedia? Or, perhaps more accurately, a case in which a large chunk of text has been copied and pasted from another source without citation or acknowledgement?

A case in point is the section "Musical score" in the article on The Court Jester. This entire section (three paragraphs) has been copied from this review of the film. (Actually, there are a couple of minor changes in the wording, but I did those myself before I realised that the text had been copied.)

I know I could paraphrase the original text in my own words. But that would take some time. In the meantime, I was wondering if there was a template that can be inserted that flags the text as having been copied? Or is there some other appropriate action? (I have read WP:COPYPASTE and WP:PLAGIARISM, but they only deal with reasons to avoid copying rather than what to do in existing cases.)

As always, any advice would be appreciated.

Mike Marchmont (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is a reverse copyvio in that the website (which did not exist until 2018) copied from Wikipedia - the content that is hitting as copyvio has been there since 2011. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. The content also appears in Vic Schoen#1950s, dating back to 2010, and added by the same editor, with a strong interest in Schoen. The review is dated May 2021. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Marchmont: TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: and ::@Praxidicae:, thank you both for your replies. Most helpful. Based on what you said, my best approach might be to find a reliable source for the information about Schoen, and to rewrite the section based on that source. I don't know if I'll manage to do that, but at least I understand the situation better now. Mike Marchmont (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

If something in Wikipedia has been plagiarized from a source you recognize, why not just put it in quotation marks and cite the source?Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Never mind. I hadn't read carefully and didn't realize that the source was Wikipedia.Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Strange blank area

Why do Wikipedia articles leave a large blank and textless area on the right side of the table of contents? I think it's stylistically weak. If it is a programmatic problem, then it could be solved in several ways: 1) possible local variables in the table of contents could be changed to global ones; 2) the width of the inner edge of the text frame on the right may be larger at the beginning; 3) the width of the text frame can be constant, so that the text of long lines continues to the next one, at the same time we would get rid of some very narrow tables of contents. 4) Lastly, the article text could flow free on the right side of the text frame like they flow beside other boxes. Please answer this question and not start changing the subject to vector 2022. Please do not redirect to the programmers' page. The last time I asked there, why does Wikidata give an error message if Finland uses the Finnish hyphens for ISBN numbers and not the American practice. I had 3 references for the hyphens. The answer was one word: "Invalid". Maybe not a war invalid. Jari Rauma (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Jari Rauma. Not addressing your main concerns, but in case your last sentence expresses genuine perplexity: there are two English words with the same spelling but different meanings – "in'valid" (emphasis on the first syllable) means "someone confined to bed while suffering or recovering from illness or injury", while "inval'id" means, "not valid, or "wrong format" etc. Doubtless the latter was meant, and would have been a completely automated response; I'm sure no human was trying to be brusque. {The poster formerly known as 87.18,230.195} 90.193.130.14 (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jari Rauma The blank area is there because it's always been there, it's just the way the table of contents was implemented a decade ago when the vector skin was designed. I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to "local and global variables" or why that would have anything to do with the display of the page, The display of the page is set using CSS. The look of the vector skin has been constant for over a decade and changing fundamentals with the display of the skin at this point would be extremely controversial, so it is extremely unlikely (in my opinion) that the developers would change the way the table of contents is displayed at this point. The new skin that is being worked on, vector 2022, does not embed the table of contents in the article at all, so that it doesn't interrupt the display of the text. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, sir.

You wrote: " I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to "local and global variables" or why that would have anything to do with the display of the page,". – These variables are basic stuff in programming languages. If the dimension is defined as a local variable and after that static, the variable can only be changed locally. Or the text flow -function doesn't work with the context frame, because the context frame -function has forbidden it by placing a signal: we're are busy, don't write stuff on the right side. So the text flow -function has to wait for a global signal: now the text frame is ready and now the text flow -function can start.

I know that the error has continued for over 10 years. Here is one clarification to my question about the large empty area on the right side of the table of contents (if you didn't understand) and one example. The text: " The last time I asked there, why does Wikidata give an error message if Finland uses the Finnish hyphens for ISBN numbers and not the American practice." should be "The last time I asked there, why does Wikidata give an error message if Finland uses the Finnish practice of placing hyphens between ISBN numbers and not the American practice". Here is one example of a strangely large white area. How stupid! but maybe it's nice for some high-class people who never take notice of their mistakes. And what's your opinion or is it illegal, because in Wikipedia you must ask others what you see: Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Look it carefully and honestly.

So, You still changed the subject although I forbade. You want to change the subject to Vector 2022. I have a question about that, too. Why does Vector 2022 shows always the index? It's cumbersome. I don't want always to see a book's index when I'm reading a book. But that's the primitive way to narrow the article text column. Maybe you began to understand that narrower columns are easier to read. I have always thought that 1-column articles are from the Stone age. Newspapers got rid of them a few hundred years ago. Jari Rauma (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Jari Rauma I've moved your comment to here- please edit this existing section for follow up comments, instead of creating a new section. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jari Rauma I still don't understand what you are talking about with "global or local variables"? I know what a global or local variable is, but I don't see how concepts from programming languages are relevant to a mark up language, where you think these variables are located or what relevance they have to how the page is displayed. Do you know how websites work, because a lot of the stuff you're saying about "text flow fuctions" and "context frame functions" and "signals" don't make any sense. Wikipedia is, for the most part, a relatively plain HTML document with a bit of CSS to make it look pretty.
Problems with ISBNs on wikidata and their integration with Finnish standards should be directed to the wikidata help forum, this help page is for issues with the English wikipedia and most people here will not have the knowledge to be able to help you with that problem.
I know exactly what you are talking about when you mention the white space next to the table of contents - the point is that it isn't a bug - it was intentionally designed to look that way. The current skin is essentially now being preserved for the sake of people who like the existing skin and who don't want to update - making huge changes to the appearance of pages doesn't make any sense at this point. The efforts to improve the table of content and make it less obstructive to the have gone into the new vector 2022 skin, if you don't want to use it that's fine, but if you're going to stick to a skin that was made a decade ago you aren't going to get new features and are going to be presented with a website that looks exactly like it did 10 years ago.
You might be able to hack something together with some custom CSS or JavaScript to do what you want but I'm not aware of any existing user scripts that do wat you describe. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
2022Sir, you can ask more questions about programming from Wikidata. I hope you get a better answer than "invalid". Wikidata shows a bug in two places. In the Finnish Wikipedia articles, the ISBN numbers are hyphenated the same way as book stores do in Finland. And one of the sources said: "The use of hyphens or spaces has no lexical significance and is purely to enhance readability." (ISBN manual, 2017 p. 11) [1]. So this is perhaps also "invalid" according the guys in Wikidata.
Sir, I prefer professional Wikiwanda to Vector 2022. New Vector has copied a little from modern Wikiwanda-style, but Vector 2022 comes far behind. The main problem is that Vector 2022 still has a big program bug with graphics. It has inherited it from vector 2010. But I write about it later here, because I'm not invalid. By the way, do you notice the big mistake? Perhaps you can figure it out by comparing Wikiwanda and Vector 2022. Jari Rauma (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jari Rauma: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're referring to the wide margins around the main content, that is intentional (though not necessarily well-received). See mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Features/Limiting content width for more details. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses one column of text because it (like many digital works) follows the paradigm of the vertical scroll rather than the codex. Printed newspapers, like almost all modern printed books, are codices, in which columns are useful because the textual content is broken into individual chunks by pagination at the time of publishing. Each page is seen in its entirety at any given point in a work; therefore, columns are useful because the start of the next column is always immediately accessible simply by moving one's eyes or turning the page.
With a vertical scroll, however, the textual content is not broken up by the publisher; the whole scroll itself acts like a long page, successive sections of which are revealed and hidden when reading (in a way, the reader acts as the paginator, dynamically creating individual quasi-pages when moving along the scroll). If the text were broken into columns, in all likelihood the start of the next column would not always be easily accessible: a reader would probably have to inefficiently scroll back through already-read text to find it. This is why, for example, no major online news publisher (that I know of) breaks its text content into columns, even if it publishes a paper version which is columnated.
In this sense, though codices are admittedly newer than scrolls, the use of single-column text is in fact a rather new development, based on the modern adoption of an ancient method of text display. Shells-shells (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@Shells-shells Interesting info about "codex"! Thanks. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jari Rauma: There is already a way {{TOC left}} to do this in individual pages and we could also do it sitewide if we wanted but I don't expect support for either. You can do it for yourself with code like this in your CSS:
#toc {
  float: left;
  clear: left;
  width: auto;
  margin: 0 1em 0.5em 0;
}
PrimeHunter (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

my article got speedy deletion

my first article got the speedy deletion although I have not promoted or advertised any company. Please review it PatrickSmith07 (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

PatrickSmith07 At the moment, Draft:Learnbay still exists, but is tagged for Speedy deletion. You responded on your Talk page, which will have no effect. You also replied properly on the Talk page of the article, which is the right place. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 Courtesy link: Draft:Learnbay
@PatrickSmith07 The article hasn't been deleted yet, but it will meet the criteria for deletion as advertising or promotion (WP:G11). The entire thing is full of puffery, "inspirational"/promotional language and seems to exist purely to promote the company, text like Going out of the box, he dreamt of such a business that will shape the future of professionals. or Mrs. Nisha Kumari was already holding an outstanding level of people management skills, but her passion was searching for such a role, where she could drive job seekers to their best level of career growth and security. are completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, avoiding promotion, and should summarise what independent, reliable sources say about the subject. Huge chunks of this draft are completely unsourced and it would need a 100% rewrite to stand any chance at all of being accepted. Start by finding a few pieces of independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage of this company, then base your draft around what those sources say.
Finally, if you are editing here as part of your job or you expect to receive compensation for your edits please follow the instructions at WP:PAID to make the required disclosures. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I am going to rewrite the article with more neutral PatrickSmith07 (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
If you are an employee or paid, declare that on your User page. If not paid or compensated or have a personal connection to the company, declare that on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not paid writer or employee of this compnay PatrickSmith07 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a personal connection to the founders? Or unpaid connection to the company - for example, as a student? See WP:COI for how to declare. David notMD (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@PatrickSmith07 David notMD said " If not paid or compensated or have a personal connection to the company, declare that on your Talk page". This page is not your Talk page. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I am editing the draft content. I start research about this company after read the new on financial express https://www.financialexpress.com/education-2/learnbay-goes-offline-with-brick-and-mortar-centres-ends-fy22-with-a-net-profit-of-rs-3-2-crore/2590829/ PatrickSmith07 (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
The draft has been Speedy deleted, meaning all public record of creation and edits are no longer visible at your account. If you wish to recover content, you can ask the deleting administrator. Be aware that a draft on Learnbay had been created and deleted in June as promotional and copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I was the nominator of the CSD G11, and absolutely don't agree that a draft should be started again (Thanks for your help. I am going to rewrite the article with more neutral would be hard if you have a conflict of interest). Like what said before, some of the article is a blatant ad: see Mrs. Nisha Kumari was already holding an outstanding level of people management skills, but her passion was searching for such a role, where she could drive job seekers to their best level of career growth and security. Also, please declare a COI if possible. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@VickKiang I do not have any conflict of interest and I am not any paid writer. How many times I need to clarify this. If I am saying that I am doing more research on this and will write again with more neutral. but your this statement (I was the nominator of the CSD G11, and absolutely don't agree that a draft should be started again ) is showing that Wikipedia is not public encyclopedia any more. You are taking decisions like a private owned website. you want to stop public information. there are many pages for same kind of companies. PatrickSmith07 (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@PatrickSmith07: Wikipedia operates on editor consensus and policy, one of the latter being Wikipedia not being used as a means of promotion. The encyclopedia doesn't have an issue with information that isn't written promotionally and is reliably sourced. The excerpts given above are something I'd expect to see in ad copy or bio writeups, and not in an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello Editors, I am writing the Draft:Learnbay again please review and help me to make it more neural.. PatrickSmith07 (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@PatrickSmith07 You were urged not to, but good luck. I don't see anything there yet. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@PatrickSmith07 I now see an article, not a draft, at Learnbay. That article is tagged for speedy deletion. Among other things, the history section is written in the present tense, then says "They ceased their offline platforms due to the Covid-19 pandemic". 71.228.112.175 (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Page still in draft mode : any steps missing ?

Hi, I created a new Wiki page: Draft: Harinarayan Rajeev ,last month and its still in draft mode. Since I haven’t created a wiki page before, It would have been really helpful, if you could please let me know if there are any steps I am missing inorder to have the page published ? or I just need to wait for a reviewer to review and publish the same ? thanks a lot in advance :) 2604:3D08:527B:D500:845D:890E:7B56:6421 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Harinarayan Rajeev 174.21.19.94 (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome. Your draft lacked the information needed to formally submit it. I have now added it. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
No inlne citations. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Borrowed material from another Wiki

I noticed that a person article exists in another Wiki for a musical artist. His musical partner has an article here. As there is no such article for him, is it appropriate (kosher, cool) to copy and paste that material here? It is set up exactly as a Wikipedia person article, same format, etc. The artist is JD Beck. PaulThePony (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@PaulThePony: Welcome to the Teahouse! What wiki is this? In particular, does it use a compatible license on its content that would legally allow us to reuse its content? Bsoyka (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bsoyka, I tried to include the link but it was identified as banned. However, it is en dot everybodywiki dot com slash JD underscore Beck. He and DOMi have their own website. There are two paragraphs with twelve references at the everybodywiki article and the content appears factual and cited about his entry into the music world and his career thus far, with no content other than that. It appears that everybodywiki is the site for people to write articles that may be identified here as unacceptable. Please offer guidance if this is off, but it seems like I could borrow what's there as long as the content follows Wikipedia guidelines and rules? The artist is young (19) but I'm assuming that alone wouldn't preclude an article here. Addressing your other question, I see this: "Content is available under License CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted." PaulThePony (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
PaulThePony, everybody Wiki scrapes draft articles from Wikipedia. There is no original content there to attribute as there notice at the bottom leads to Wikipedia. The draft of the article in question is at Draft:JD Beck. Slywriter (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for determining that, Slywriter. That is most helpful.PaulThePony (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Attribution of sources

How does WP feel about using sources that are found in other WP articles. Is it okay just to highlight them to link? 2603:8000:D300:D0F:A5A7:174C:24A7:2431 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You can add sources from other articles, if it's actually referencing the information you're sourcing. You can't use an actual Wikipedia article to source another Wikipedia article, though; that's an academic sin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I dream of horses (talk • contribs) 04:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone Made A Biased Page

Dear fellow wiki users,

A page I was going to edit has some very biased language. Do I request to get it taken down or do I completely re format it myself? If some people would like to band together with me to re-write it id love that! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharat_Singh_Naruka&gesuggestededit=1

Thanks! From Chicken256 Chicken256 (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The page appears to be at Draft:Bharat Singh Naruka. --Bduke (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I moved it to draft it clearly wasn't ready for main space. Theroadislong (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Indeed and it says "This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review. There are no deadlines as long as you are actively improving the submission. Drafts not being improved may be deleted after six months.", so let us leave it and see whether it is improved. --Bduke (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Picture

How do I load a picture Murillo5oh (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Murillo5oh Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Information on uploading images can be found at WP:UPIMAGE. It is much, much easier if you took the image you wish to upload yourself with your own camera. You must be autoconfirmed to upload images yourself, if not, you may work with someone to upload an image at Files For Upload. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Nova Scotia, dispute resolution, & lack of internet access

A recent dispute has been brought to the DRN about the Nova Scotia page. It has since been closed due to my inability to access a computer with working internet for days at a time, a situation still occurring. There have been attempts to discuss this on the Talk page, but the discussion is not progressing any further as it is the same three people stuck on the same arguments. Thus, the goal of bringing it to the DRN. I guess the question is: Help! How can this proceed?

How can additional voices and perspectives be garnered? How can the dispute be resolved when the primary person has intermittent internet access?

There have been two other users who have indicated that they support my perspective, and I truly believe I am sourcing, citing, and writing properly according to Wikipedia standards.. it is just simply too few (active) voices / users / perspectives to truly judge the dispute fairly. Especially those with knowledge of the issue; especially those less burdened by cultural biases about the topic (aka difficulties between Canadian topics, Indigenous histories, and US American perspectives on both). Danachos (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Danachos, you took this to DRN. That was concluded with "So if there are content issues, discuss them on the article talk page, Talk:Nova Scotia. That's what article talk pages are for." You thereupon took it there. If you're frustrated by the failure of any fourth person to join the discussion, you might advertise the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nova Scotia (as the more specific of the two Wikiprojects advertised on Talk:Nova Scotia). But don't attempt to move the discussion elsewhere, to start a parallel discussion elsewhere, or to advertise the discussion to any person or group you know is likely to have this or that opinion on the matter. As for the lack of internet access, this problem isn't a rare one. Just say that such problems are likely to prevent you from responding as quickly as you'd like to. -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:El_Hitta

Draft:El Hitta Mrwriterman11 (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mrwriterman11 What's your question? I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
My apologies, I originally assumed that posting the topic would initiate the live-chatroom sequence. I was asking for someone to review this publication as I'm trying to get into writing and updating relevant information about musical artists I am a fan an supporter of :) Mrwriterman11 (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
For Draft:El Hitta, it is currently an unsubmitted draft. After you submit it, it will go into the backlog of submitted drafts. The system is not a queue, so could be days, weeks, or sadly, months before a reviewer decides to review and then accept or decline. If declined, you can improve the draft and submit again. David notMD (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Mrwriterman11, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks to me as if you have only one independent source - The Chicago Reader review. Without more such. your draft will not meet the criteria of notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
P.S. Teahouse is not live-chat. Volunteer hosts log in when they feel like it. David notMD (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Did I create a Wikipedia or a Wiki page? Is there a difference?

MOVED
Duplicate question; see Wikipedia:Help desk#New article.

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

I wanted to create a Wikipedia page for Andrew Freese. Now it says I created a draft for Andrew Freese WIKI. Is that the same thing, or did I create something that is not a Wikipedia page? Here is the link relevant to my question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrew_Freese_WIKI Dougie80 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Already asked at the Help desk - please do not ask questions in multiple places - Arjayay (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a draft at Draft:Andrew Freese. Declined for want of good references. Wikipedia prefers "articles." David notMD (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Help desk § New article
Mathglot (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minneapolis Aquatennial

"Minneapolis celebrated its centennial in 1956 in conjunction with the Aquatennial. The city's sesquicentennial was July 18–27, 2008, the year Minnesota celebrated 150 years of statehood." The above sentence excerpted from the above page has an error in one of the dates mentioned. If the centennial occurred in 1956, then the sesquicentennial could not have occurred in 2008; else if 2008 is the correct year of the sesquicentennial, then the centennial appears to have been celebrated two years too early in 1956. Obviously one of the two dates is wrong. Could this error be corrected? 2601:446:C301:BE40:38E2:487E:D6C5:13CE (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your concern to correct errors. It would be appropriate for you to post your concerns directly at the article's talk page (see Talk:Minneapolis Aquatennial), rather than here. And, if you wish, to absolutely ensure you draw attention of editors interested in fixing these things (to what might otherwise be a not-very-well-visited article), you could make your post into an 'edit request' by following instructions at WP:EDITREQUEST. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
According to History of Minneapolis "The Minnesota Territorial Legislature recognized Saint Anthony as a town in 1855 and Minneapolis in 1856. Boundaries were changed and Minneapolis was incorporated as a city in 1867. That would confirm 1956 as the centennial year. David notMD (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Strange template creation glitch

It appears when I created Template:Ford Mustang Generations, copying from Template:IPad models. look how It came out. I copy and pasted the bottom and switched a little. TERGY 15:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

TERGY I fixed the issues, check my edit. You forgot to add closing double curly brackets ("}}") and a pipe after the flatlist ("|"). I think it works now. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 15:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TERGY 16:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Trying to print

Trying to print something off wlkpedia but it says save instead of print how do I return it to print 2601:6C4:C180:1310:A00A:AF0C:1078:9FC8 (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP user. First off make sure that you are asking a question in a new section (To do this click "New Section") at the top of the page. I'd recommend first clicking the "Save as PDF" button at the sidebar and then print it off with your computer's print software, instead of using Wikipedia's or your web browser's. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 16:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:code2God

I would like feedback on a stub article prior to submission a review by peers. Deanna Coakley (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Assuming the article is this one in your sandbox, I think that its chances of being accepted are close to zero. It seems to be based entirely on press releases and other WP:PRIMARY sources, which don't establish the notability of the organisation. A minor point is that the reference titles should use sentence case, not the SHOUTY all-caps. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Please note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Updating my organisation's page

My organisation is looking to update our page to reflect operations and research, but we understand that this may be conflict of interest for us to do so. Is there best practice available to help with this, or should we use the request an edit function? JackHRUSI (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, JackHRUSI. On Talk:Royal United Services Institute, please make specific suggestions/requests for the article. After a week, if you've still got no response, go to the talk page of any one of the "WikiProjects" advertised at the top of that talk page and invite readers to go to Talk:Royal United Services Institute and consider those suggestions/requests of yours. -- Hoary (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, JackHRUSI. I see that you have declared your COI on your user page: thank you. As Media Manager, I suspect that you have more than a conflict of interest, but that you count as a paid editor: if so, it is mandatory to declare that.
To add to what Hoary said, if you tag your requests as edit requests, they'll be put on a list that some editors keep an eye on.
Please see the links I have included, for more details on both points. ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you all, ColinFine and Hoary. This is extremely helpful. JackHRUSI (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Oops: Submitted Article by copy/paste

In my Sandbox, I've been working on an article on English writer Lettice D'Oyly Walters for over a week now and was extremely confused about how to put it into the main space for editing. I read somewhere that you should click on a link from a space that listed the article needing creation; that gave me a blank page. I copied and pasted the article from my sandbox onto that blank page and then worked out that I had to do "move." Worried that the article will be rejected because there's no edit history, which is apparently all in my sandbox?? I'm a new editor, so sorry about the mistakes--any advice welcome!! @Treesiati Treesiati (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Treesiati It looks as though others have sorted this out and the article now appears in Mainspace, as your link above points to. So well done for creating a nice piece of work! Why not try submitting it for a WP:DYK next (see that link) and get something on the Main Page in due course? Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt (as lawyers say) it is possible that the new pages patrol could check the article and conclude it should not have been placed directly in Mainspace but in my opinion it is perfectly fine and has already been edited there by experienced editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Treesiati. The best method would have been to move your sandbox directly into an encyclopedia article. The intermediate step was not necessary, but no harm has been done. Your article is better than what the vast majority of new editors come up with, so thank you. I have done some minor edits to it. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
It desperately needs some categories. SVTCobra 17:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328 Saw the edits--thanks much. Treesiati (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you for your advice. Treesiati (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Zopherus jourdani redirect

The page for Zopherus jourdani currently redirects to the page for its genus, Zopherus. That page contains no information about the species except in a list of species in the genus. Can I change the Zopherus jourdani page into an article on the topic now, or should I follow the instructions at the page: "If the redirected subtopic could potentially have its own article in the future, then also tag the redirect with {{R with possibilities}} and {{R printworthy}}"?

Thank-you,

." Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow: You should probably tag the redirect for now, and consider coming back to write the article when you're more familiar with Wikipedia. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Alright, Thank-you. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

G. Adani and the Groups

The pages on Wikipedia show Adani as a billionaire philanthropist. What about the fact that he and his companies are trampling on peoples rights, green washing and adding to peoples' misery in Bangladesh and India and that his companies have made billions contributing to climate change? Cattail7318 (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cattail7318 If you can find reliable sources to back that up (that is, not tweets, blogs, interviews or opinion pieces, but sources that have had an editor go through them), you can add the information yourself. If no reliable sources exist, you can't, particularly since I assume Adani is alive. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy: Gautam Adani, Adani Group and Adani Enterprises are the articles. David notMD (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I get a WikiTable's Caption Text to appear in the page's Contents list?

Hi

Help:Table

In this page, using the first image of a table as an example, I'd like the 'Caption text' of two tables to act as a section (sub?) headers so that they appear in the page's content list.

In the page I'm creating I'd like to have a section header (==Section Header==) with the tables directly beneath & listed as X.1 Caption Text One, X.2 Caption Text Two in the contents.

Is this possible? Dave F63 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dave F63 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a really interesting question, but not one that I think is possible to achieve. TBH: it might not even be desirable. A table probably ought to be introduced in some way by at least a single sentence. And a table heading might often need to be a little longer than a section heading should ever be. But there's nothing to stop you using what would have been the table header text as the section header text, and repeating it as the table header. I don't think that is at all ideal, so maybe a slightly different table text would be appropriate. But providing it works and doesn't confuse the reader it might be acceptable. It would depend upon circumstances and you've not given us a real example of what you were thinking for us to look at. It certainly wouldn't work for the example you've provided, and I hope you can see why. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I would be providing an introduction under the section header, just above the first table. I want to provide a link to the second table for those returning to the page who just wish to reference the second tables contents. Unsure how to provide an example when I'm unable to create one. Dave F63 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Dave F63 You could perhaps explain the type of article and type of content going in each table. We might then be able to link to some existing articles - or you could provide a link to something you would like to emulate. As you don't appear to have anything drafted in your sandbox, it's very hard to comment further or spend time creating demos for you. (You could always offer the 'hide' option to collapse a table after it has initially displayed.) I used that approach at Mont Blanc massif with contains long lists of summits and glaciers, and also here.
But, to be honest, this kind of thing comes way down the list of priorities if you're working on a new article, where WP:N and WP:RS are of greatest importance. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Dave F63: In case you don't know, you can make subsections like ===Subsection A=== and ===Subsection B===. Then "Subsection A" and "Subsection B" will appear in the table of contents. See more at Help:Section. You can also use Template:Anchor#Use in tables to make it possible to link directly to a table, but it will not be in the table of contents. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Silly question

I have a gift from my young nephew, an old iPad of his but I am embarrassed that I can’t thank him for it on line because I can find my email on this iPad. How can I get to it easily? All I seem to get is the camera platform. 2601:640:8300:F140:B973:B0AB:53AB:A62B (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

In case you don't know, you need to already have an email account with an email address. If you can use a browser to access your email then look for the Safari icon . Safari (web browser) is the browser on an iPad. If you only use a non-browser email program then your email service probably also has a browser interface. Try entering the part after @ in your email address as a website in a browser. It's harder to set up email on an iPad without using the browser (but may be easier to use when it works) . PrimeHunter (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Walkway Over the Hudson article, New additions section

Hello. Having a problem here. Go to Walkway Over the Hudson, New additions section, last paragraph about the East Gate Plaza opening. I cant get the source to go to its proper url, the Walkway over the Hudson website article about the opening of the facility. Please note and correct. Thank you.Theairportman33531 (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Theairportman33531 (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Theairportman33531 I tried the link and it goes to the correct URL but the error message says the website is currently down for maintenance. You could check if this is still the case in a few days (and/or hope that the Wayback Machine has a capture). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
That was the elevator, not the website itself. I cant figure out what the problem is here. Theairportman33531 (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Theairportman33531, my bad! I found a link that works by browsing around the working website. Try this link instead. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Found a link to the article. Thank you for your help today. Theairportman33531 (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Help on American Football draft

I would like to ask y'all if you can help me on my draft's introduction, as well as the logo for the championship, the logos for the teams, the trophy, and the tournament bracket picture. Here are the links for all the aforementioned items:

Sportsfangnome (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Also on a unrelated note, I noticed that for some reason in categories, it says 21st-century Nigerian actresses. Is that supposed to happen? Sportsfangnome (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
On a second unrelated note, for the Barnstars, the American football Barnstar is titled as, "The Badminton Barnstar." Sportsfangnome (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Sportsfangnome: Not sure how that happened, I've fixed it. RudolfRed (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Sportsfangnome (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
For the article:Wikipedia:Barnstars, not when you give it to someone. Sportsfangnome (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
On the first related note, it got deleted, so ignore that. Sportsfangnome (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

How To Access The Rules

As a not so confident editor I would like to read through the rules of editing so I can avoid sanctions. I also would like to know how to get recommendations for edits.

thanks guys! GeekyDave (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

GeekyDave, they're linked from Template:Policy list. (You may notice "Ignore all rules" among their "principles". Ignoring all rules is something that only very rarely is carried out successfully; don't think of doing it.) Incidentally, you don't have to be "geeky" to edit the "source", but as somebody calling himself "geeky" you'll surely want to do this. So skip the "visual editor". -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Please draftify my accidental mainspace creation Picrolite

Greetings, I have accidentally created the article Picrolite in mainspace that was supposed to be a draft (too little sleep, didn't notice until afterwards -.-). Could someone kindly move it to draft space? And, ideally, tell me how to do it myself in the future? I've tried to look around but can't find the instructions atm... Cheers, -- LordPeterII (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I moved it for you, but you can also do it yourself by selection move -> draft:name from the drop down menu. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: Ah right! I see it now. Thanks, next time I'll be able to do it myself :) --LordPeterII (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

My edit got reverted

Sodom and Gomorrah

It was the >Religious Views> Christianity section of this article. It mentions that Lot offered his daughters for 'rape' which is wrong and and against the topic that the crime of people of Lot was sexual assault, so why would Lot himself offer his daughters for rape. The biblical context too is that he offered his daughters for marriage or just heterosexual sex. I couldn't find a better word for it than 'marriage' (which I edited it to) as I am not a native English speaker, but what I want to correct here is that is he didn't offer his daughters for rape as that is just clearly the wrong word for it. I edited the word from 'rape' to 'marriage' but that was reverted. If marriage is not the right word for it please use your better English to write a different word because at least offering for 'rape' is just completely wrong in this context. Abc148371 (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Abc148371. The teahouse is not really the best venue for this debate about content of the article, which would be better raised at Talk:Sodom and Gomorrah, where you and other interested editors such as Adakiko, who reverted your change, can discuss this, as per the normal WP:BRD cycle. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Signature

I want to change my current signature at my preferences, but I dont get the instructions there. Goodvibes500 (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Goodvibes500, does WP:FANCYSIG help? Kpddg (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Follow this one[2] It might help you.  DIVINE  12:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability clarity requested

I don't get the notability requirements. I read the page, and it states a standard with the caveat that those standards may or may not be followed. Moreover, Wikipedias idea of notability or "interesting" is subjective at best, and an appeal to popularity fallacy at worst.

Within my first few edits I was on pages that were highly promotional, with blog posts as sources. Now, I'm not about to claim those pages aren't "notable". But it's contradictory to what the guidelines say. How do these pages get by, yet I've read about other similar pages that got deleted? Look, I'm not trying to deploy cold logic here, but after an hour of trying to be an editor I've seen contradictions, double standards and appeals to XXX fallacies.

The lack of clarity seems to only add problems, and it doesn't seem very efficient. Also, I don't even know where to begin about the idea of "reliable sources". The whole experience I've had screams of powerusers trying to gatekeep an "open" encyclepedia and using doublespeak to obfuscate that reality. I've always liked Wikipedia, but how is it beneficial to decline unique content that isn't found anywhere else? In other words, if we are relying heavily on outside sources, people can just go read those outside sources. They don't need to read it on wikipedia.

TL;DR. Is original thought acceptable on wikipedia, yes or no?

Philo39 (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Philo39: Original thought is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
I think you have read Wikipedia's idiosyncratic definition of notability. It does not depend on "interesting" or "popularity". You have found some articles which do not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability; certainly, such articles exist. If this bothers you, you can try to find and add better sources to them so as to make them acceptable; and if this appears impossible, you can propose them for deletion. Wikipedia does not accept "unique content that isn't found anywhere else". If you want to publish such content, you should use some other web site. Maproom (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply.
Arbitrary processes don't bother me, perhaps I had some preconceived notions about what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. In my mind, if an entry is educational, well written, and has a source, that would be good enough. Expecting more than what I described isn't promoting accessibility. Philo39 (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Philo39, what Maproom says, yes. No reason for me to repeat it. [I]f we are relying heavily on outside sources, people can just go read those outside sources. They don't need to read it on wikipedia. There's no "heavily" about it. Entirely. If this were true, Wikipedia would indeed be superfluous. However, many people find it rather useful. It is, of course, very flawed; but where it works well it depends on sources that may not be at all easy to find via Google, that may be in languages that neither you nor I happen to be able to read, or that [warning: shocking notion coming up] are nowhere on the web but instead are from codices that are stocked in libraries (but not in any libraries near where you or I happen to live). Incidentally, fallacies, yes, probably; but you have me stumped with "XXX fallacies". (Fingers crossed that these aren't "triple-X-rated" phalluses.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Lol, I mean't XXX as in random appeals that aren't logical. Like appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, appeal to celebrity. I've been taught to critique an argument, or in this case, an article based on the merits of itself, not where it came from. I see now that Wikipedia does things differently. Thanks for clearing that up. Philo39 (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
From your edits, this is your first day. The learning curve is steep, but not impossible to master. English Wikipedia has >6,500,000 articles. Tens of thousands of those do not meet the current standards for referencing, and so should be fixed or deleted. Some have 'tags' at the top identifying weaknesses. Others are low on the quality rating, shown at top of Talk page. You have been dabbling at improving existing articles, which is a better approach than starting by trying to create a new article. David notMD (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
That's good advice, thanks! Philo39 (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
@Philo39 on existing non-notable or lack of sourcing articles, you might have encountered articles written before the notability guidelines are at their current iterations. Many of these articles are typically grandfathered at that iteration of the guidelines when they were written until an interested editor swings by to update the articles to the current standards or file for deletion. There's no double standards here, rather, the application of the standards are done one an article by article basis. For new articles, if you see such content, feel free to improve on them, AfD them, or simply nothing and move on to another interesting article to work on. – robertsky (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I only have so much time, so I'll probably focus on updating pages that are poorly written. Applying a consesus-based model to each article is way too time-consuming. I appreciate the reply. Have a good one. Philo39 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

My page was cited for speedy deletion. How do you post a company page on Wikipedia? I've seen it done before - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versasec

I'm not sure the best way to go about this. Onspring No Code (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Onspring
@Onspring No Code: What is your connexion to Onspring? (Note that we don't accept usernames as disclosure.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not a member of the company, but consult for them. Onspring No Code (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
A distinction without a difference. You are obligated to formally disclose this; see WP:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I wasn't sure, so will do so now. Onspring No Code (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no such thing as "a company page on Wikipedia" in the sense that you mean it. There are articles about notable companies. These do not belong to their subject, are not controlled by their subject, are ideally not created by their's subject's employees or representatives, and in general should be based almost entirely on what independent commentators have published about their subject (good and bad) and not on what the subject says or wants to say. ColinFine (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

About Template:Infobox gene

I was reading lactoferrin page, and found something is wrong. At gene ontology of template:Infobox gene, some items are written like "GO:0070122 peptidase activity", "GO:0001948, GO:0016582 protein binding", not like others. What makes this? Hope anyone good at template fix this. --LR0725 (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be pulling the lower rank IDs from Wikidata (e.g. D:Q14645703). Give me a bit to look at the template. WelpThatWorked (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! LR0725 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I posted a fix at Module talk:Infobox gene#Template-protected edit request on 21 July 2022. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I cannot understand what is changed, but I really appreciate for your help. LR0725 (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

dark web,how do i get there?

how do i get on dark web? Casinoman65 (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Casinoman65. The Teahouse is a place to ask for help in editing Wikipedia, not for getting answers to general questions. Nevertheless, you could read our article on the dark web and the Tor browser to get some ideas. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Get in the dark room and open your Web. Dark+Web=Darkweb.  DIVINE  12:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
...on a more serious note, using The Onion Router helps you get there. But please don't ask questions not about Wikipedia here. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 16:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Page View Tracking

Hello, I am wondering how to correctly track page views for pages of individuals with the same name. I noticed when pulling the data for “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ryan_(American_football)” that there was a chunk of mostly missing data from 7/1/2015 to 5/26/2016. After doing some investigating I noticed that his page was moved on 5/27/2016 and that another page “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Ryan” had the missing page view data. I am wondering how to determine what data to combine for other individuals with the same names. Is this only an issue if a page move is noted or is there another way to tell when I will need to combine data? I initially thought I could use massviews to get a breakdown of views across all the pages on the disambiguation page. However when I run massviews for “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Ryan”, the numbers do not add up compared to when I export "Matt Ryan" from the Pageviews analysis. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you Pccj1983 (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Babel Boxes

How to add babel boxes as I in our you can do it in wikemedia commons.

thabks GeekyDave (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @GeekyDave, welcome to the Teahouse. Does Wikipedia:Babel help? Justiyaya 18:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Citation formatting (wikipedia specific)

How is it that some users create citations with this format   <ref name="xyz">[https://www.theurl.com whatever the title is]. ''[[the website]]''. 20 April 2022.</ref>  ?

I use a mix of source editor and visual editor but my citations always come out like this   <ref name-"xyz">{{Cite web |last=schmoe |first=Joe |date=2022-04-19 |title=the article's title |url=https://www.blahblah.com/help |access-date=2022-04-20 |website=Blah blah |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220420185212/https://www.blahblah.com/help |archive-date=2022-04-20 |language=en-US}}</ref>

I'm curious because I've gone to add archived urls or author information to these citations and ended up rewriting the citation in the format I know because with the first example, I just don't know where I should insert the author name or archive url or other stuff like that. I looked around at the guides on citation tools and couldn't find anything. Didn't look like it's a result of any of the gadgets I could find either (though I think I'm really starting to like ProveIt). Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jasonkwe: It's just two different ways of citing sources. You can read about the shorter format at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Links and ID numbers. I prefer the full citations myself, like Template:Cite web. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Timtempleton Ahhh, I did not see that. Thanks! Is there some kind of editor that does use this format? I wondered if others still use this format because it's the default used in some gadgets...? It just seemed strange because I never saw any instruction on how to use that format (until now) and don't know how else you could implement it other than remembering the exact syntax to use (which would be tedious to say the least).
But I agree, I do prefer full citations as well. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jasonkwe: I keep a file with helpful links, and I include a dummy filled out cite web citation that I just cut and paste when I need it. I usually keep it simple with just title, url, website, accessdate and date. Others include the first and last name of the writer(s) and other fields. The goal for filling out sources well is twofold - to allow others to confirm the source says what the person adding it says it does, and if the link is ever broken because a web site reorganizes, there should be enough info to allow others to find the new link to prevent link rot. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Jasonkwe! The first format you're referencing is an older format. The {{Cite web}} format (WP:CS1) is preferred by most modern editors and tools because it keeps track of the metadata better, but you'll come across the older one in articles/tools that haven't been updated in a while. Because of WP:CITEVAR, the first format isn't wrong per se, but in practical terms you can generally convert it to CS1. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Sdkb Got it, thanks! Yeah, I got the impression it was an older system but I was surprised when I saw it still being used recently to add sources that are from the past two years. *shrug But we're all creatures of habit. Because of citevar and the general "follow the existing format in use" guideline, I don't go changing those citations willy nilly just for the heck of it. But when I want to add an archive link or the author or other info, I'm not 100% sure how to format within the older system so I often end up converting to the CS1 style. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jasonkwe:, here are a couple of other tips:
  • If you happen to be citing a source available at a google books url, then click 'Generate citation' in the left sidebar and paste the url into the top box.
  • Use the Wikipedia:reFill tool to convert a bare url to a full citation.
Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
@Mathglot Thank you! For books I was generally using ISBN but I had to try to make sure I used the same version of the text if the previous editor had specified pages. I did not know about reFill, though, and will check it out! Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jasonkwe: You have good instincts about double-checking if they used |pages=, but actually you'd have to check anyway even if they didn't: a new edition generally means changed content (it's just a "reprint" otherwise), and a different edition might not have the text that the other editor found to attributed their content. So either way, you should check. By the way, for finding multiple editions, WorldCat (which sits behind the |oclc= values) is tops; they're also the go-to solution for finding the nearest library to you that has a certain book: worldcat.org. (My "closest" library was once 12,000 km away for some really rare item, but at least I knew who had it!) Best, Mathglot (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Damn....that's a good point. Now I see why everyone uses worldcat lol. I'm double checking my edits now to make sure I didn't accidentally specify the wrong version. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Changing dead name

I am trying to change the web address for my Wikipedia entry. My dead name is Adam Fitzgerald, and since my transition my legal name is The Friend. I use they/them pronouns. Someone was able to change the opening page entry but I’m confused how to do more! Thanks!

Adam Fitzgerald 68.132.152.247 (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, there would need to be a reliable source reporting on the name change. Wikipedia cannot simply accept the word of an anonymous IP. Is it safe to assume the edits made by 2601:6C0:8001:F550:0:0:0:F798 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was also you? It is obviously technically possible to rename the article, but without sources it should not be done.
You have understand, Wikipedia needs to consider the possibility that this is a trolling attempt.
If you are indeed the subject of the article, perhaps a good place to start would be to get your employer to change their biography page for you. While it would be a primary source it might be good enough to get the article title changed.
Lastly, I hope you don't expect your dead name to completely disappear from the article as you became notable as Adam Fitzgerald and there are published works with that name. See MOS:DEADNAME for more information.
I hope that helps. Cheers, SVTCobra 21:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, The Friend, and welcome to the Teahouse. If Adam Fitzgerald is about you, then you should not be editing it, but should only be making edit requests on the article's talk page. We require a reliable published source to the fact that you have changed your name - and if the bulk of independent sources still refer to you as Adam Fitzgerald, then that's what the article should do, according to our policy of WP:COMMONNAME.
However, I am dubious whether you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - certainly the article at present does not establish that you do - so unless somebody finds the necessary independent sources about you, the article will is liable to be deleted. ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse. Is there a reference to an independent reliable source documenting the transition and/or the name change? We of course want to be respectful of pronouns and all else surrounding the transition, but we also want to be careful that all information in the article is properly sourced. (In my editing career, I've run into an issue where the subject of an article was very notable under their deadname and had received some coverage under their current name, but where the reliable sourcing for connecting the two was lacking until quite a few months after the fact.) We want to get it right both factually and procedurally if we can, so a third-party source for the change would be ideal. Let me know if you have further questions. Thanks. --Finngall talk 21:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Googling "Adam Fitzgerald" "The Friend" brings up nothing that seems to mention this. valereee (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Can someone look at this possible edit war?

Hello, I know there is a place to file formal reports of edit wars, but I am not super familiar with the source editor and am a little pressed for time. So if someone could look at this history you can see two users are having a pretty difficult argument and doing opposing reverts. ForksForks (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@ForksForks Looks like there's an edit war between Realfakebezalbob and Elmidae. However, it would appear the former editor is adding unsourced content about how to care for fish, and the latter one is reverting it, so I'm not sure if the traditional rules of edit warring apply. People are allowed to remove unsourced content. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 22:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:International Beauty Industry Awards

Hi lovely Teahouse people!

I'm confused about Draft:International Beauty Industry Awards, which was draftified after being live in mainspace for a bit. There are dozens of other similar awards, many of which are a lot less notable with far fewer references in Category:Makeup awards. I was given a template on my talk page without any explanations. The current draft looks like it's in publishable form with 17 reliable sources as citations. The draftifier deleted some references which were likely not reliable sources, which is fair enough. I believe it's possible to re-publish this if possible? Geodudegolem (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Geodudegolem, it's not the number of references; it's the quality of the best of those references. I clicked on what now happens to be the last-listed reference. It's about the awards, rather than about any one person winning any one of the awards. So far so good. However, it's by the/a company that supplies the shiny things that are handed out to winners. So the company behind the website is, effectively, advertising its own client, presumably in the hope of appealing to potential clients. This is hardly a "reliable" source. Yet what it says isn't devoid of interest. Consider: "There are 50 categories ranging from avant-garde to everyday – celebrating an industry as multifaceted as it’s [sic] Artisans." Fifty categories: I can't see how these could not be mere vanity awards. -- Hoary (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding informative content to Wikipedia

Hi everyone, I've recently added a reference on this page Clambake, someone attacked me rather harshly, threatening of blocking me from editing. Claiming that I've created an ad. However this was not my intention at all. I've only noticed that the references on that clambake page were irrelevant to the topic. Especially the first one it doesn't have any content related to clambakes. How's that relevant?

So since the page that I've posted has articles on the traditional New England Clambake including history and locations, I felt this is what a reader would like to see on the Clambake page, something relevant and informative. Please let me know what you guys think, looking forward to hear your thoughts. Tancredileone (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that the link you added was blatant advertising, and was properly removed. The reference you complain of was no better; I have removed that too. Maproom (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Your attempt to add a link to a business is not allowed, and it was appropriate that you were warned on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the comments above. Your disparaging tone in talk page discussions is unwelcome, and insulting other longtime and trusted contributors gets new editors like yourself off to poor start. Gaining the negative attention of three administrators with only one mainspace edit is quite impressive, but not for any good reason. BusterD (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Tancredileone: you have several recent messages at your User talk page. If you plan to continue editing at Wikipedia, and I hope you do, then you should consider responding to some of them. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Splitting page with redirect

Hi. I'm in the process of splitting the Earl article by moving some of it to Jarl (title), which currently redirects to Earl. Do I just copy and paste the text to the redirect or is there more I need to do? I have read Wikipedia:Splitting and understand the steps. My question relates more to whether I can simply copy and paste the new article onto the redirect without having to do anything else to the article history that is already at the redirect? I hope this makes sense. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess what I'm really trying to ask is whether the prohibition on cut and past moves also applies to article splitting? Just trying to dot all my i's. Ltwin (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Look at the top of Talk:Earl. There you will find a list of WikiProjects who follow this topic. The Teahouse is no place to ask for permission for such a massive change. You need to interact with editors of this period in history. SVTCobra 04:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I already opened a discussion. The consensus was overwhelming to split. What I want to know is it proper procedure to copy and paste the relevant sections onto the current redirect or is there some other way I should do it? Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Most splits are done via copy-and-paste of the relevant section(s), but there are some important steps along the way that are needed to satisfy attribution requirements. WP:PROPERSPLIT is a helpful step-by-step guide on how to properly split an article. DanCherek (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. This answered my question. Ltwin (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
You just overwrite the redirect in that case. And make sure the new article (former redirect) makes sense as a freestanding article. Copy-paste may be a good way to start, but it may need a new introduction. But I am getting the feeling you are fairly experienced already. SVTCobra 05:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not a new editor. I'm just not the best when it comes to the technical side of things. Ltwin (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sport kits

How do you draw sports kits on football clubs/season articles? I've seen a few people on WP:FOOTY talking about "drawing" kits, but I'm not quite sure how it works. If there's a page explaining how to do it, then just send the link and I'll learn it. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Crystalpalace6810, welcome to the Teahouse. It can be tricky to get right but see Template:Football kit. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I will experiment with it in my sandbox.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible content/article dispute

I and Lockejava are having a content/article dispute over whether to disambiguate a currently-bloated article which has a section compliant with WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:OR needs to spin-out to a separate standalone article. What is the dispute, you may ask!

There was this page move by Bianca Anne Martins from "Barbie (film series)" to "Barbie (franchise)" and this page move by TheFallenPower from "Barbie (franchise)" to "Barbie (film franchise)". I invoked a successful requested single-page move back to the second title since this article link already covers the topic's main history and this article link talks about the non-media components related to the topic. I guess I will have to move fast before confusion becomes an edit war because the general "Barbie" topic remained dispute-free before 2017.

I have started an RFC so this will soon enough, I've remedied half of this confusion and I'm requesting assistance for a total wipeout of this dispute because I want this topic not to require any page protection. Thanks. Intrisit (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Intrisit, with very few exceptions, you should not attempt to correct other folks' talk page posts. I've reverted your changes above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Intrisit, I assume no one else has replied because you didn't ask any obvious question. You haven't actually started an RfC anywhere; you requested a move, and the request was subsequently closed. More discussion is taking place further down the talk page, but you haven't participated. I recommend posting in that new discussion and outlining your arguments there if you disagree with the current article title. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I was afraid of even starting any RfC at all anywhere because you or any other Wikipedian will request blocking of my account all in the name of the love I have for that topic. I wasn't expecting any answer to a question I'm unsure now whether I did pose or not. My dispute is with the treatment of the content of that topic. Intrisit (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Born 06 October 1982

This page lists any applications that can use your account. For any such application, the scope of its access is limited by the permissions that you granted to the application when you authorized it to act on your behalf. If you separately authorized an application to access different sister projects on your behalf, then you will see separate configuration for each such project below.

Connected applications access your account by using the OAuth protocol. (Learn more about connected applications)

There are no applications connected to your account. Dharmendra Maurya Mitwa (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Dharmendra Maurya Mitwa, hello! Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? — 3PPYB6 (public) (talk • contribs • owner's talk page) — 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
yes Dharmendra Maurya Mitwa (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Dharmendra Maurya Mitwa, alright--so, what is your question? — 3PPYB6 (public) (talk • contribs • owner's talk page) — 15:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

reviving

How do I revive an old discussion? When I went to respond, the discussion was already archived. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You can create a new thread, provide a link to the archived discussion, and discuss. Kpddg (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Submission declined because of lack of reliable sources

Draft:Nü Hanzi

Attached above is my draft. The reviewer commented that more reliable sources are needed and declined the article. I may need more pointers than that to fix the article. I have drawn most of the sources from famous mainstream sources in China. It is a popular online slogan. Because of the censorship and the nature of Chinese culture that tends to avoid the feminist topic, it is hard to find scholarly articles, and I have done lengthy searches and multiple edits. I am ready to improve the article with more explicit feedback. Wuajp (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Music

Who are/were the Comptones? 142.196.40.131 (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any questions related to editing Wikipedia? For factual questions, you might get help at the Reference Desk. Kpddg (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Or just use a web search engine, which gives several hits. Wikipedia has no article on them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to Birthday, Marriage, Congratulations Source

Hi , Are sources such as birthdays, weddings, love affairs and congratulations accepted as reliable? PravinGanechari (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @PravinGanechari, welcome back to the Teahouse. Your question is a bit unclear - none of those things are sources. They are things that might be written or written about in sources, which in turn might be reliable or unreliable. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi , See Showing some sources example [3] [4] [5] PravinGanechari (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@PravinGanechari, based on this list and this list, those sources are not of the best reliability - they might be okay for information on films, but not for celebrity gossip. I'd suggest consulting one or both of those lists if you have questions about reliability in the future, or using the search function here to find past discussions. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I am aware of both the lists you have given. I just want to know about the above four things (birthdays, weddings, love affairs and congratulations). Importantly, these news are very much in Times of India and Pinkvilla. I am asking because these sources are appearing in many pages. PravinGanechari (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@PravinGanechari, those would probably fall under the category of "celebrity gossip". Sourcing for such things should be very good, especially when living persons are involved. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you PravinGanechari (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

DRV

Let's say an article is deleted at AFD. Someone opens a DRV, which is closed as endorse. Two years later, someone finds sources, some of which were not mentioned in the past discussions, which he believes pushes the topic over the GNG bar. Is that user allowed to open a second DRV or is he supposed to do something else? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: if you’re sure the sourcing changes the notability, you could rewrite the article and ping the participants in the deletion discussion on the talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11: If the main deletion arguments for the AfD were want of reliable sources, they could try drafting a new article entirely, no DRV required. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft Article

I have created a draft page when will it be added to main space? Rejoy2003 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: unsubmitted draft Draft:Savio D'Silva. David notMD (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Rejoy2003 (Edit conflict) I'm assuming that your draft is Draft:Savio D'Silva. In its current state there is no chance of its being accepted into Mainspace, since it does not demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability of a politician, since he doesn't seem to have won the seat which he contested and (based on what you have written) won't meet the more general alternative notability requirements. As to the mechanics of submitting a draft, please see WP:AFC and H:YFA. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable IP addresses

Hi, where would be the best place to report an unreliable IP address? I have significant reason to believe that there is one user behind multiple IP addresses editing pages related to zoos and other animal-themed establishments, based on consistent edit summaries and specific editing patterns. I say "unreliable," because I don't know if I can go far enough to call it vandalism. More than likely it is an enthusiastic editor editing in multiple places, assuming good faith. However, the edits always entail unsourced future plans for zoo expansions, and random replacement of featured species with others with no explanation. It's a weird situation, but there are dozens of IP addresses with their respective edits that I am trying to sort through. If someone could just point me in the right direction, that would be great. Until then, I'll be going through their edits and gathering a list of addresses for whom it may concern. TNstingray (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @TNstingray. I assume you've at least tried to communicate with this user - I know it can be hard with folks using shifting IPs, but an attempt should be made. After that, if it's not a matter of vandalism, edit warring or sockpuppetry, the next stop is WP:ANI to see if you can get support for a range block. Do provide behavioral evidence and a list of IPs used. You're supposed to notify someone when you bring them up at ANI; it may be tough in this case, but give it your best shot. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your speedy response, and for providing the link. In my edit summaries for my reverts, I am going to direct them to the respective talk pages for the articles in question. But that's about all I have been able to do, since there is no user talk page, and no option to "Email this user." I'll probably spend the rest of the day compiling a list and browsing their edits to have a comprehensive case of behavioral evidence as you suggested. Thanks again! TNstingray (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@TNstingray, all IPs have a user talk page, just like accounts do. It may not have been created yet if no one else has left them a message, though. If you can't catch them while they're active and leave a message on the talk page of that particular IP address while you know they're using it, you may just have to pick the most recently active one from your list. And if they're on mobile, they may not even get an alert that a message has been left for them, and carry on in blithe ignorance. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I didn't see that until just now! Thank you for pointing that out. TNstingray (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@TNstingray You didn't say whether this was an IPv4 or an IPv6 address. If the latter (and I assume it is), then many IPv6 addresses change very dynamically between sessions. So, looking at say, just the contributions of User:2601:846:C200:3558:A17D:223E:4AF2:AAE2 only gives you this single edit. What you need to do is display all the contributions across the entire range of IPv6 addresses that one individual user is likely to have had allocated to them and to have used.
We call this the /64 range. So, just add '/64/ to the url when displaying contributions. Now, their contributions look like THIS. We can see all the edits they have made, whatever their IP address, and I can see that within that set of one person's edits, the IP address for User:2601:846:C200:3558:74CE:CC9B:BB2F:417B was blocked for a month by User:Sergecross73 for block evasion. It seems that they have continued editing and should be fully blocked across the entire /64 range.
However, before I do that, could you check and confirm that these are indeed the troublesome edits you were attempting to follow? Meanwhile I'll check a few out myself and may well extend the block if they're up to no good. Hope this all makes sense. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes. That is very helpful, and I'm glad I know to do that for the future. I can confirm that these are mostly the troublesome edits I have been following (I ended up with 11 unique addresses following the 2601:846:C200:3558:- combination). I'm unfamiliar with the specific terminology, but I also have reason to believe that the edits made by User:73.121.73.122 and User:74.93.246.194 are also made by the same User:2601 person (would these be examples of IPv4 addresses?). At this point, I have sent messages to these two as well as to three of the IPv6 addresses, but if one has already been banned for block evasion, I'll probably hold off on the rest for now and save my time. TNstingray (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@TNstingray Although I'm an admin able to block specific addresses, when justified, what I don't have the skills or authority to do is do checkuser investigations. (Something I'd like to get in to later, perhaps). However if you look at each IPv4 address' contributions, you'll see a link to 'Geolocate' at the bottom. These show us that the IP addresses are all roughly in the same area, and could be the same person. Then you look at their style of editing behaviour and the evidence stacks up. Yes - I think they look the same. So an admin doesn't need to get a CU instigated - they may block on the probability that it it looks, swims and honks like a duck, it's a duck. You can report suspected sockpuppets of blocked users (i.e. of User:Meena Boggs) at WP:SPI and they can be investigated. However, on this occasion, I will act to enforce Sergecross73's block on the other addresses, and they are welcome to unblock any address if they believe I might have interpreted the evidence incorrectly or made a mistake. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes Your comments have been incredibly helpful, as I have been pretty unfamiliar with this area in my short time as an established Wikipedia editor. I wasn't aware of the Geolocate link either, but I'm compiling this information on my user page so I can use it in future situations. Thanks for getting to the bottom of the case by finding the original account at User:Meena Boggs. I really appreciate this conversation! TNstingray (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@TNstingray You're most welcome. If you check out my own userpage you'll see that I have used mine for precisely the same purpose as you. I do tend to forget stuff I don't use often, so my 'Tools' section is really my personal reference library. Go check it out and look for the link to the 'Editor Interaction Utility' - a good way to see which users and IP addresses have edited what pages, and the time between them. A good detective tool in the hunt for block evaders and socks. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ned Bittinger

Hello, I am wondering how I can make my article have more of a neutral point of view. It was recently drafted for sounding promotional and not sounding from a neutral point of view. I have read it over and over and to me, it sounds like it is coming from a neutral point of view. Would you please give me your opinions and tell me what I could change.Draft:Ned Bittinger - Wikipedia thanks Spiggotr6 (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Spiggotr6 What's your connection to Ned Bittinger? I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 22:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC) (added words at 22:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC))
that is the thing. I don't have any. I don't know why he put that tag there. Everything in the article is cited. Spiggotr6 (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I quote:
Between the years 1995 and 2002 Ned's books won the following awards: “Rocking Horse Christmas" written by Mary Pope Osborne was chosen by The American Booksellers as their “Pick of the List"; "The Blue and the Gray" written by Eve Bunting was selected by the international Readers Association as their "Teacher's Choice" and by the children of Indiana for their “Hoosiers Young Readers Award"; “The Matzah that Papa Brought Home" by Fran Manushkin, was awarded the Notable Children's Book award by the American Library Association.
All sourced to (i) this page at "Fine Art and You", and (ii) "SHELDON HOSTS WORKSHOP BY AWARD-WINNING ARTIST". Shelton Chronicle. 1998-06-01. pp. 1–2. He's not "Ned", he's "Bittinger". I don't see how their his books, if they're written by others. (Did he perhaps illustrate them throughout? Or just do their covers?) One source shamelessly offers to promote those who want promotion and is multiply cited in this draft. Having been published as early as 1998, the other predates some of these claims. (And is it about Sheldon, or Shelton?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for my laziness. "Shelton". Meanwhile, that other, multiply-cited source says of itself: What you need to do? You need to send us the pictures of your art works and your biography, preferably which should be near about 500 words or more, so that you get a very good response from visitors. We will feature you and your art work once your art work gets approved and ITS ABSOLUTELY FREE OF CHARGE. So what are you waiting for?? Looks like this draft is heavily dependent on blurb Bittinger wrote in response to If You are an Artist/Photographer/Gallery and want to get featured or Advertise and want to get global recognition then you are at right place. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh thanks! I had overlooked that. So, does that mean I should remove all info I got from that cite? Spiggotr6 (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Remove all references to that website. For every assertion that's now unreferenced, decide if it's worth the effort of referencing. If it isn't, delete it. If it is worth referencing, find a good reference for it. If you try to find a good reference for an assertion but fail, delete the assertion. And check the quality of the other references too. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
alright I am working on that now, and thanks so much for your help. Spiggotr6 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Was there anything else that you would have considered to not be in a neutral point of view. Spiggotr6 (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Frankly, Spiggotr6, I didn't bother to look, and I don't intend to look: I've already devoted enough time to this draft. Other editors are of course most welcome to add comments. Meanwhile, all the best with your reworking of the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Spiggotr6 - You created the draft in April 2022 and moved it to article space in May 2022. It was moved back to draft space by User:DoubleGrazing, but then you moved it to back to article space. It was then moved back to draft space again by User:MrsSnoozyTurtle. Did you ask either of the reviewers why they thought it was not ready for article space? MrsSnoozyTurtle tagged it as {{fanpov}} and as {{COI}}. Reviewers often flag a page as having a likely COI if it is blatantly non-neutral, and this was probably such a case. You say that you have no connection with Ned Bittinger. Then you should write as if you are not writing for Ned Bittinger. Sometimes good-faith non-COI writing gets flagged for probably COI simply because inexperienced editors think that they should be enthusiastic about the subject, just like the promotional writing that they have read on commercial web sites. Ask the reviewers why they thought it was not ready for article space, but the issue may have been tone, especially since one of the tags is (correctly) about tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
alright thanks so much for the info, I will be sure to ask them for pointers. Spiggotr6 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a problem of language, Spiggotr6, but of verifiability. Consider for example the nugget:

Bittinger has been influenced by artists such as John Singer Sargent, Valentin Serov and N.C. Wyeth. Bittinger's former teachers include Daniel Greene and William Woodward.

which is attributed to:

Directory of American portrait artists. Huntington Harbour : The American Portrait Society. 1985. pp. 683–684.

Yes, this backs up what's said about Greene and Woodward. It says "His paintings are marked by a fluid style reminiscent of John Singer Sargent": this isn't the same as saying that JSS had an influence, but let's not nitpick. It doesn't even mention Serov or Wyeth. Not all of the book is visible at archive.org; but, with its pricing info, the piece about Bittinger looks very much like an entry in a trade directory. It's unsigned, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were written by Bittinger himself. (Googling "american portrait society" brings americanportraitsociety.com, but this smells like a later usurping of the name by a single, unscrupulous practitioner: I wouldn't infer anything about the society from it, other than that if there ever was such a society -- if it wasn't merely a device to sell the directory -- then this no longer exists. It's not obvious that there've been any other editions, earlier or later, of the Directory of American Portrait Artists.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

oh yes, I forgot to remove that after I removed the source that we deemed unreliable. Spiggotr6 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I am also going to go ahead and remove the directory from my sources and add a more reliable source I found through a newspaper. Spiggotr6 (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

https://wiki.alquds.edu/ - what is this? May be a silly question but wish to know from the veterans.

Hi All, I came across https://wiki.alquds.edu/, and don't have the slightest idea what is this. Looks like Wikipedia, but the URL says alquds.edu? This may be a silly question but I am asking as I could not understand it. Jainsh (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I got it. It was really a silly question. The website seems to have added a subdomain wiki which is linking to Wikipedia. Jainsh (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
It appears to just be a redirect by Al-Quds University to their Wikipedia entry by way of a link from their official site. I have not seen such before, but I don't think it is a problem. SVTCobra 00:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jainsh This looks to be a WP:MIRROR copy of Wikipedia. They can be reported and added to the log of which sites take and repeat Wikipedia content. Just follow the link given. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
What are you talking about? This is nothing of the sort. Why are you giving out disinformation? SVTCobra 22:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@SVTCobra Well, to be honest, I know very little about Mirrors, and have never looked at them. But it looked like one to me, wherein all the wikilinks were modified on mouseover to remain within the wiki.alquds.edu domain. I am happy to be disabused of any misunderstanding and to apologise for any misinformation given out in good faith. Feel free to educate me whenever you wish. Nobody knows everything. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, since you are so kind and neither of us wants to look into a mirror, this is just a story of #REDIRECT
"Mirrors" if this tale has gotten an audience is simply a site that is a copy of Wikipedia. The info is copyright free so anybody can duplicate it. Bye! SVTCobra 23:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
They do attribute the content at the bottom: "The source of this content is Wikipedia and is displayed by Al-Quds University website". Schazjmd (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I need to apologize. I swear that yesterday, the link simply redirected back to Wikipedia. However, when I click on it today, it is clearly a full-on mirror site. I personally apologize to Nick Moyes as my response to him was disrespectful. My only saving grace is if someone else remembers that it was different yesterday. SVTCobra 23:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra No worries - thanks though. We're all learning - and that includes me. This is not any area many of us have much experience of. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a live mirror and could be reported at meta:Live mirrors. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Dispute in presidential election template

Hi, I am @Ku423winz1‬. Recently I tried to edit a presidential election page and was trying to add the election logo in the template. The parameter was there (not undocumented parameters), but after filling it it shows that the parameter is undocumented. How can I resolve this?? Ku423winz1 (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ku423winz1, welcome to the Teahouse. There was disagreement at Template talk:Infobox election#Should an election's official logo be included in the infobox? Election logo parameters were only supported for a few hours on 17 April. I will remove them from the documentation. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
PrimeHunter I think I was not able to make you realise what I was trying to say, actually I am not talking about reducing the parameter, I was requesting you to make the parameter effective, there are elections which have their own official election logo which are essential to describe and especially represent the election. If any election doesn't have it, then it would remain vacant. Its very simple.Ku423winz1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@Ku423winz1, you'll need to attempt to gain consensus for the change at the talk page - where I see you've already posted - and then make an edit request if consensus says the parameters should be readded. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@199.208.172.35 ok thanks.Ku423winz1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding photos to wikipedia pages

Your caption about the Royal Rumble match can go in here.

Please how can I add pictures to wikipedia that it would just appear at the top right corner. Mine appears very big

Samstringz (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Samstringz. If you view this image on Commons, you can get the text you need to paste into an article by clicking the "Use this File" button next to the 'W' iconi, just as I've done here. They key thing is to ensure you have the command 'thumb' in it, which controls the size. IMages normally go on the right side, though it is possible to add a |left| command if there are other conflicting images in the article. Any user can still click on the thumbnail to then view the larger image. You can control the caption that appears - you don't have to use the default filename.
If you're editing with the Source editor, the text that you insert would be like this:
[[File:Royal Rumble match.jpg|thumb|Royal Rumble match]]. or:
[[File:Royal Rumble match.jpg|thumb|Your caption about the Royal Rumble match can go in here.]].
Alternatively, in our Visual Editor, there's an insert picture button and you simply type the name of the commons image you want to insert.
Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much I am very grateful. Samstringz (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding film cast.

Hi, how can I add a member of cast to a film if I can't use IMDB as a source? I'm trying to add "Jase Rivers" as the character John in Winnie-The-Pooh: Blood and Honey. I am Jase Rivers, what am I meant to do? There are a number of other cast members also missing on the page. Having worked on the production, I know the cast list on IMDB is accurate. Thanks.

Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey Madulagone (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Madulagone, IMDB is not conisdered reliable by Wikipedia as it is user-generated content. A reliable source will be needed to verify the information. See MOS:FILMCAST. Also, you will need to disclose your conflict of interest as per the shared message on your talk page. Kpddg (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The cast list on a Wikipedia article for a film isn't meant to be exhaustive. "Jase Rivers" isn't listed in the cast reveal at We Got This Covered, while the likes of Coming Soon and Collider list you down in the "hey these people are in it too" section. IMO, you're not high enough on the cast list to justify a listing here. ValarianB (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your concise response. The reason the other cast members are not on We Got This Covered, is because additional scenes were filmed, which also brings up the other error on the page, that it was filmed over 12 days, not 10 as stated. Do you know how I can delete my account? There seems little point having it if I can't update inaccurate information.
"IMO, you're not high enough on the cast list to justify a listing here" - Cast listings are listed in order of StarMeter rating or alphabetically, not being "high enough" is irrelevant. Madulagone (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Madulgone Accounts cannot be deleted (its a copyright thing), but you can abandon editing. If you are adamant about it, you can put the word Retired inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top of your User page, and also delete all content on your User page and Talk page. David notMD (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Madulagone, firstly, there is a difference between "incomplete information" and "incorrect information." We certainly don't want the latter, but all included information should be cited to a published Reliable source independent of the subject. IMDb is never regarded as a reliable source (though it can be a handy aid to research) because, like Wikipedia itself (also not a Reliable source) anyone can edit it and insert incorrect information.
Secondly, very few account holders have articles about, or mentioning, themselves: that's not the point. If your only interest in a global encyclopedia with over 6.5 million entries is to tweak articles related to yourself, then abandonment is probably the best idea, since you're not supposed to directly edit such articles anyway. You can, however, suggest edits on articles' Talk pages for other disinterested editors to implement, and you don't need an account to do that. In fact, you don't need an account to do most routine things on Wikipedia – I've been working on it for approaching 20 years without (deliberately) ever having one. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.73.20 (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Assistance in sourcing a biography Wikipedia page

Who can assist in sourcing a biographical wikipedia page for Nelly Sfeir Gonzalez? Xavier Serif (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Xavier Serif, welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to find people would probably be at the WikiProject called Women in Red - it's dedicated to improving the representation of women on Wikipedia. If you make a post on the talk page, you might find folks willing to help you dig up sources. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey, @Xavier Serif. So I googled her, and I'm seeing a typical obit for an accomplished professional woman. In general this will not support a Wikipedia article. valereee (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
And copying and pasting that obituary as you did here Draft:Nelly Esther Sfeir de Gonzalez will lead to deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The awards she won might mean she meets the requirements of WP:NACADEMIC. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Teahouse editors are here to advise, but not to be co-authors or reference researchers. The Speedy deletion was a consequence of copying content from the obiturary. You can try again via guidelines at WP:YFA. What is essential is finding and then citing published content about her. Listing her books and awards is useful, but does not contribute to what Wikipedia calls notability. David notMD (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
David notMD, there is no policy, guideline or behavioral norm that prevents Teahouse hosts from acting as "co-authors or reference researchers" if they find the topic interesting. I do it all the time. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Cullen328 I confess to doing the same, but in this instance I wanted to convey to the new editor that that level of collaboration was not the norm for Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it depends on the award (I haven't checked) but WP:NACADEMIC is met if The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with template

I "adopted" this WP:TOOSOON draft the day before its subject released. How do you get the episode table to work (because I'm stupid) and should the premise be in blockquotes as it is from promotional material? Thanks, — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: promotional material now removed. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 11:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Also, could you help with the bloated reception section? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 12:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

creating articls

ho do i make a article 76.122.120.234 (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You have to register an account, otherwise you can do it through WP:AFC. Editorkamran (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. You don't have to create an account (though there are advantages in doing so), as long as you use the articles for creation process, as Editorkamran suggests.
Please note that creating a new article from scratch is extremely hard for a new editor. I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to some of our six million existing articles before trying it. We delete hundreds of attempts every day, by people who have plunged in without taking the time to properly understand what Wikipedia is.
When people come new to Wikipedia and want to create an article immediately, it is often because they want to use Wikipedia to tell the world about themselves or their ectivities, but have not understood that promotion of any kind (including for non-commercial activities) is forbidden on Wikipedia.
Please read your first article for more information. ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to SPI case

When an SPI case is filed, if the case fails, does it affect the user filing the case? PravinGanechari (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Normally, no. But I imagine that if the filing were vexatious, error-ridden or unusually lazy, the perpetrator would be warned. If disruptive behaviour of any kind continues despite warnings to stop, there can be penalties. Incidentally, I have no idea why you link to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1158#Follow-up_to_Page_Review. -- Hoary (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Hoary , Ohh, That means it affects the person filing the case. Is there any user from whom I can get this advice for SPI case. So that I will have some practice in the way the evidence should be. Because if there is solid evidence, it will be easy to register the case. (As for the link you are talking about ignore it. it is my mistake) PravinGanechari (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@PravinGanechari: If you're looking to file an SPI case, I recommend reading User:Blablubbs/How to file a good SPI. And yes, Hoary is right. As an SPI clerk, I sometimes warn people for filings totally lacking in evidence, or filings that are made to intimidate someone in a dispute, but I definitely wouldn't take action against someone just because a filing doesn't lead to a block. (In fact I had one of my own filings turn out unrelated just a few weeks ago.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Tamzin, SPI will not make a case to harass or target anyone. I will try to make the SPI case based on a little evidence. And sir I will definitely take "Blablubbs" sir's advice sir. Thank you sir for your reply PravinGanechari (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@PravinGanechari: I'm not a sir, but I'm glad you'll take the advice. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Add new book

How can I add a new book to an author’s list of previously published books? Sportshippo (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The same way that you'd add any other information, Sportshippo. Click on "Edit", observe the markup used for the same purpose (here, adding a list item, italicizing, etc), and increment this for the new book. Click "Show preview", and, if you like what you see, then "Publish". If there's some other problem, do please ask. -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary but the ‘books’ section is not visible when I enter ‘edit’ mode Sportshippo (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Sportshippo You have been editing Tony Jacklin, which is where I assume you wish to add the information. However, you have a conflict of interest regarding the book (as evident from your edit summaries). It would be better to propose additions on the Talk page of the article, using the {{edit request}} template. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@Sportshippo: Tony Jacklin has no Books section. In [6] you said "the list of books at the top of his page". There is no such list. If you aren't talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Jacklin (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Jacklin in case something changes the link for you) then please link the page you refer to. If it is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Jacklin then something at your end, maybe advertising software, may be inserting a book list. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Do editors have a right to delete messages from their talk page?

I sometimes see editors delete critical messages from their talk page in Special:RecentChanges, and was wondering whether this was allowed. Thanks, — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 13:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Vortex3427. Yes, editors can freely delete many (but not all) things from their own talk page - see here. 174.21.19.94 (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@Vortex3427, see WP:REMOVED. Kpddg (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I talk to someone who has read Oliver Heaviside's electromagnetic theory??

It says on the article on Vector Calculus that Heaviside and Gibs invented it. However upon reading electromagnetic theory it is clear that Vectors are derived from Maxwell's equations (and that Heaviside is the sole inventor). Gibs is not known for vector calculus, his major feat is in Thermodynamics. Has anyone read Heaviside and come to the same conclusion? How do I site my sources, when most sources are bias against Heaviside in this regard?

Thanks K00la1dx (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @K00la1dx, welcome to the Teahouse. If you can't find a reliable source that backs up your conclusion about the derivation of vectors, then that conclusion cannot be included in the article. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say - if they are all biased against Heaviside, then unfortunately, our article will also be biased. See WP:TRUTH. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
If these reliable sources are bias, it means that they are not reliable. That is the definition of primary and ssecondary sources. If a primary source contradicts a secondary source, the primary source wins. I was hoping I could talk to someone who has read Oliver Heaviside's original Electromagnetic Theory. K00la1dx (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
K00la1dx, your understanding of "primary source" and "secondary source" differs from Wikipedia's. If you're not going to accept Wikipedia's definitions and premises, you're wasting your time in Wikipedia. You are of course fully entitled to disagree with all of this, and to publish your disagreement elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Teahouse hosts are generalists who advise on Wikipedia editing, not areas of expertise. David notMD (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
A suggestion: Vector calculus and Oliver Heaviside have had editors (see View history) who claim a math interest on their User pages. Perhaps try starting a discussion with those on their Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
If these reliable sources are bias [sic], it means that they are not reliable. That is the definition of primary and ssecondary [sic] sources.
@K00la1dx: That isn't what primary and secondary sources mean. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@K00la1dx But it's your opinion that those sources are biased -- others may disagree. Unless there is consensus that a published source is biased, an individual editor should not unilaterally declare that. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@K00la1dx:, just an explanation on primary and secondary sources: primary sources are the basic information on which everything is founded, but we cannot rely on them directly. A good example from mathematics is the debate about who got there first on calculus, Leibniz or Newton. Of course both wrote stuff, but we can't find a letter from Newton and decide for ourselves he was first. Instead we have to trust later historians of science to sift the various primary sources and sort out what happened, and we reflect them. We don't, on controversial matters, even reflect just one secondary source, because different historians looking at the same data will come to slightly different conclusions. We therefore try to reflect a general consensus view, or if the worst comes to the worst, summarise the main disagreements. The same situation relates to your concerns with Heaviside. If you don't think he got enough credit, the place to go to is the historians, not Heaviside himself. If you can't find someone who backs up your point of view, then you need to become a science historian and write the paper, and get it published somewhere reputable; then we can cite it. Wikipedia is not the place to change views, it's the place to reflect existing ones (even if they're wrong). Elemimele (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Anyone who has read Leibniz Discourse on Metaphysics knows he is the inventor of calculus. You cannot fake the catenary curve curve. That is to say that calculus is not a limit, it is an infinitesimal. Liebniz is right, and Newton is wrong. Electromagnetic theory is even more interesting to me. This one also show the catenary curve generated along electric transmission lines. It is very clear that Gibbs is not the creator of vector calculus. He is known for his work in Thermodynamics not Electromagnetism.
If I could just make a rule, to cite primary sources, like Heaviside's book, all these Wikipedia historians will fall flat on their face. That is the source of the hostility. K00la1dx (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@K00la1dx, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources, per WP:PST. We use primary sources only rarely and with extreme caution. I know that may seem counterintuitive, but it's policy here: we actively avoid primary sources. valereee (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@K00la1dx:, there are many things that Wikipedia is not, and one of the things that it is not, is a place to right great wrongs. There are no Wikipedia historians, there are only editors reflecting what historians write, outside Wikipedia. Every time an original piece of research by a Wikipedia editor is found, it is deleted. If you want to change the world view on Heaviside, go out and do it (but not here). It's important that people like you go and research such things; otherwise what could we write about? And how would mistakes get corrected? But I think you're going to get very frustrated doing it here, because we only repeat reliable secondary sources. That is both a strength and a weakness. Elemimele (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Help editing bio

Hi, I'm a novice at this and could use some reasonable help editing my draft bio. Anyone interested, please contact me with rates. Bobpurvey1 (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bobpurvey1 : Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Some recommended reading: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. People who try to make WP-articles about themselves (I'm assuming) almost always fail, because they do it wrong, and because most people are not WP:NOTABLE. If WP has an article about you, you will not have control of it's contents. If approved, it will be a summary of what WP:RS independent of you has said about you. Your first (not only) hurdle is WP:GNG.
So: what are the 3-5 best sources you know that are at the same time reliably published, independent of you and about you in some detail? This excludes your websites, blogs, wikis, online bookstores etc etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Bobpurvey1, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that the fact that you are even contemplating paying somebody to work on an article indicates that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and what it is for.
Almost all Wikipedia editors are volunteers, who work on what they choose, either because it interests them, or because they want to continue to improve Wikipedia, or both. Paid editors are tolerated but not encouraged, and are required to make a formal disclosure. If somebody takes your money and assures you that they can get an article about you into Wikipedia, they are either ill-informed or lying.
If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there can be an article about you - if you are like most of us then there cannot. An article about you, whoevr writes it, will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with you have published about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Colin, Thanks for sharing your insight. Seems to me taht what I need is to find someone who finds my background and events in my life interesting enough to help me conform my bio so that it meets Wikipedia's standards and practices, which to me seem daunting to figure out. How do I go about appealing to someone who can help me here? bp 2603:8001:9BF0:430:202B:16AF:D20E:F124 (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Bobpurvey1 You might find that Everybodywiki (I am not allowed to link to it) is more suited to your purpose. Shantavira|feed me 17:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am a beginner here, what is the reason for declining my draft...? and any solution here for publishing my article..

Hi, I am a beginner here, what is the reason for declining my draft...? and any solution here for publishing my article.. Mr appooss (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mr appooss, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that most editors who attempt to create a new article before they have spent a considerable time learning how Wikipedia works have their drafts declined, if not rejected. I would advise you to put aside that project for a few months, and learn about Wikipedia by making small improvements to some of our six million existing articles.
Specifically about your draft: it you read about notability, you will see that in order to have an article about something, that something must have written about in several independent reliable sources. Your draft has only one source. and that is based on an interview or press release, so is not independent. (You have given two URLs, but they are to two copies of the same article, so including the second one serves no purpose).
Please read your first article and then go searching for suitable sources. Writing an article without having found reliable, independent, substantial sources is like building a house without surveying the land or building foundations: it will probably fall down. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, creating an article is hard. I joined in November, and submitted an article for review in April. It barely passed, and was marked as a stub (a really small article that needs improvement). And that was after five months of editing. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 17:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Your draft at User:Mr appooss/sandbox declined for no references. See Help:Referencing for beginners on how to do that properly. David notMD (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Image Adding

Good day, Please I just discovered that the images that I tried adding shows this [[ thumb ]] after publishing. How do I get it out. It has made me get 4 reverts today. Thanks Samstringz (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You seemed to have added the image correctly. That image is still there. I don't see a problem with it, at least on my end. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 21:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
If the thumbnail is different to the image and the image has been changed or swapped for another one then you may need to clear your cache to get it to display correctly on your end. What you're seeing may not be the same as others if you have uploaded an image to replace it. MycoMutant (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done, I removed the extra text with image so it should be good now. Cmr08 (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Contributions missing

I made several edits to one page, a biographical one, over the last week. All of those edits were incorporated, as of last night. This morning, none of them are present (they are listed on my contributions page, however). What is going on? Mctaguer (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mctaguer: If you look at your contributions page, or the edit history of the article Lene Rachel Andersen you will see that the contributions were WP:REVERTed as being unsourced. Biographies of living people must follow the guidance at WP:BLP. If you wish to take this further, do so on the Talk Page of the article at Talk:Lene Rachel Andersen. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Michael. Here's the thing I don't understand-- I updated her entry with two books she's subsequently published. No, there are no in-line citations--they were added to the bilbiography. If those are REQUIREMENTS then why are they not present for her earlier books that are already in the page? I made the additions exactly the same as the earlier entries. Also, I don't where on the Talk: Lene Rachel Andersen link I can actually get help/this directly addressed--I went to it, it's a list, and when I clicked on it and got a standard page. Mctaguer (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Mctaguer You did the right thing by going to the Talk Page but the trick is that you need to create a new subsection (a bit like this one in the Teahouse) by clicking on the "New Section" tab at the top. You can write your comments and {{ping}} the editor who reverted you to get a discussion started. This is our standard WP:BRD process, so don't be put off by the revert. Incidentally, you may not be aware as a new editor that your now-deleted contribution is present in the edit history of the article, so is easily retrieved if you can agree by WP:CONSENSUS that it should be included (perhaps with more obvious sourcing). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for all of that. I wasn't so much put off as confused--one of the reverts was a punctuation correction; another was a bibliography entry--neither would seem to require "citation." Mctaguer (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
You added two huge blocks of text without references and two minor grammar entries. Tacyarg reverted all for edits as a batch. And here is a problem - there are large blocks of unreferenced text describing her earlier books, so I image it seemed appropriate for you to do the same. A small example of what you added "The first chapter is a concise-but-thorough big history course..." Is that from you, or from a reliable source published review of the book? Only the latter is valid. Tacyard has continued to deleted unreferenced content from the descriptions of the earlier books. David notMD (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, understand. Are the original entries still available so that I can make edits and add the necessary citations or do I have to start over?
Also, while I can certainly take out what seem to be evaluative statements ("concise-but-thorough," I need a "reliable source" license to write such things?), I think it's pretty obvious the entries are not reviews but summaries--the things I have my 6th grade students do. I'd like to think that if I put in-line citations, this will be sufficient. Please advise. Mctaguer (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@Mctaguer: With few exceptions, every revision of every page on Wikipedia is recorded and available to view. Here is a permanent link to the revision of Lene Rachel Andersen immediately prior to your contributions being reverted by User:Tacyarg. The history of any page may be seen with the (aptly named) "View History" button in the top right corner.
Regarding your question about the need for reliable sources to write a mere summary: Although I am unfamiliar with the particular guidelines on this subject, a very good general rule about editing Wikipedia is that any substantive addition to an article must provide a reliable source to support it, per WP:Verifiability (even for things that might seem self-evident). This rule is doubly enforced within biographies of living persons. If reviews of Andersen's work exist which draw attention to specific ideas of hers, they might be proper to add. However, this article is already severely lacking in sources, considering that the sections 'The Nordic Secret', 'Metamodernity', and 'Bildung' are completely devoid of citations. It might be more profitable to source statements already present in the article. Shells-shells (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Mctaguer, one of the core content policies of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV, a neutral point of view. Only looking at the sources can we decide what level of detail about any single book is warranted in the article about an author. If one were to take writing Salinger's biography as a summarisation exercise, for example, one would write roughly equal summaries of all works. But I would imagine that a more NPOV take on the author, once one looks at the literature, would be a paragraph or more about Catcher In the Rye followed by "and he also wrote a bunch of other works nobody cares about." Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Rescuing sources

Sometimes when reviewing a page's edit history, I see someone describing their edit as "rescued # sources" where # is a number. What does rescuing sources mean? Thanks in advance EditMaker Me (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi EditMaker Me Usually these edits will have been made by a bot (often triggered by a human editor) and involve, for example, finding a copy at the Wayback Machine for a URL that's suffered WP:LINKROT. Then # is the actual number of instances found during the check. Note that there can be a wider meaning: see WP:RESCUE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you EditMaker Me (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

How do you request deletion of duplicate drafts

Specifically this and this. There's another one with way more substantial content. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Vortex3427, thanks for posting a question here. If it is one that you created and the only substantial content is written by you (like Draft:Iron Lung (video game)), use WP:G7 to tag it for deletion, otherwise I believe the only way is to wait for it to expire, drafts that haven't been edited in 6 months can be deleted under WP:G13 Justiyaya 11:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Problem with an article

In the article for the punk band Sham 69, there's an orphan [7] under the Singles box, and I can't find it on the Edit page. Can a code jockey help clean that up? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Pete Best Beatles, pop right up for me as last line when I try and edit singles from mobile. Where should it go? As I am assuming its supporting some/all of that section. Slywriter (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Pete Best Beatles. The code is right where "[7]" is displayed after the table at Sham 69#Singles: <ref name="The Great Rock Discography">{{cite book|first=Martin C.|last=Strong|year=2000|title=The Great Rock Discography|edition=5th|publisher=Mojo Books|location=Edinburgh|page=869|isbn=1-84195-017-3}}</ref> This is sometimes an indication that it's a reference for the whole table but I don't know whether that's the case here. If it is then we often say "Source: [ref code]" PrimeHunter (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
So you're saying it may or may not be an error, but there's no way to know? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Google book search and this not reliable source confirm Sham69 is mentioned in the book. Slywriter (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
It was added by Derek R Bullamore in 2009.[7] That's long ago but he is still active and may be able to say it. It looks like a competent edit so I guess it is a general reference for the table. It should probably say "Source: " to clarify that. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Forgive me for not really recalling adding the reference source you are referring to, but it was a long time ago ! However, I still own a copy of Martin C. Strong's publication, and can confirm that it does support all the singles listed in the article's table, at least from "I Don't Wanna" (1977) to "Action Time & Vision" (1993). Does that adequately answer your query ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@Derek R Bullamore: Thanks. That sounds good. Somebody has added "Source:". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Categories

Are categories sometimes used to connect topics even if the article isn't strictly a member of the set defined by the category? i.e., Mouthpiece (woodwind) used to be in the category Woodwind instruments, and someone just removed that, with the logic that a woodwind mouthpiece is not a type of woodwind instrument. I thought that categories were sometimes used to group topics even if the article's topic didn't strictly belong to the set defined by the category. - Special-T (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Special-T Good question! You're getting at the distinction between topic categories, where it would be okay to include mouthpiece in your example, and set categories, where it would not. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe the solution in this case is to create a Woodwind Parts & Accessories category & make it a subcat of Musical Instrument Parts&c (as a set category) and also a subcat of Woodwind Instruments (as a topic cat). There's a setup like that for Brass Instruments. - Special-T (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not enough of a category expert to say, but I'd suggest pinging the editor who removed the category to discuss. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks - I've done that. - Special-T (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Special-T: A large part of Category:Woodwind instruments is not instruments but articles related to the topic, and that seems completely appropriate. Othwerwise we would either get a lot of impractical tiny categories, or many relevant articles wouldn't be findable via categories. "Topics related to woodwind instruments" and so on would be clumsy category names. "related to" is generally implied when there aren't other suitable categories to connect relevant articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Right - that's exactly what I was thinking (topic categories). Thanks for all the help, folks! - Special-T (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is there a place Wikipedians can post and view examples of hilarious or outrageous vandalism? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a list of hoaxes, not sure if a vandal one is maintained nor sure if it should be shared on such a visible page if there is. Slywriter (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Silly Things and Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Tangentially related might be Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding Categories

I am ready to resubmit the draft on George Ockner.  How can I add categories to the page so it may be seen by editors familiar with the subjects in the article?Draft:George Ockner

Thank you in advance.

Ajo47 (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ajo47 See WP:DRAFTCAT. Categorisation is not required on drafts and until they are accepted should be disabled (see link for the way to do this). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, but when I click on "Edit" at the top of the draft page to try to insert a colon before "Categories", the Categories box disappears, so I cannot disable the categories. Perhaps they are already disabled? Please advise. Ajo47 (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Try clicking on the "Edit Source" tab instead of the "Edit" tab. In the source editor, you will be able to manually type in these categories like this [[:Category:Example]] StartOkayStop (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Ajo47 It may be a bit confusing but drafts receive categorisation (e.g. this one has "Category:AfC submissions by date/11 February 2022") that can be seen currently but will not appear when the article is accepted and "disappears" when in edit mode as it is not a cateory describing the subject of the article but one describing the draft itself! Similarly, drafts can already appear in hidden categories, (e.g. this one has "Category:Declined AfC submissions" from its earlier decline). Once accepted as an article, I'd expect the biography to appear in "Category:1916 births" and it is this type where (assuming you wished to add it now) would be done by adding the colon before that standard category, which refers to the subject of the article, placed at the very bottom of the source code. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. So your last sentence means that I can right now add ":Category:1916 births"? I don't understand how to do that since I don't seem to have the capability of editing the Category box. And If it is accepted, may I then add other subject categories after acceptance, such as American classical violinists, 20th century classical violinists, 20th century American musicians, United States Army soldiers (I have seen all of these categories in biographies of his colleagues)? Ajo47 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I've added a couple into the draft, so if you edit it now and go right to the bottom of the source code, you'll see how it is done. The other categories you suggest will be absolutely fine, either now or after acceptance. I note in looking again at the draft that rateyourmusic.com is a deprecated source and discogs is generally unreliable, so you might like to remove them, Ajo47. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads-up! Ajo47 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking for some content/page-structure advice

I've been making some edits to the history of the Minnesota Historical Society and I'm wondering if there are any guidelines on whether history sections should be organized chronologically or topically. I still have a lot of work to do, but I'm curious if I should keep all of the information about constructing the Minnesota Historical Society Building as one section, or if I should split that across multiple sections that are listed chronologically.

I tried to find essays/guidelines on how history sections should be structured, but I haven't had any luck. Is this just an editor's choice type of scenario? Thank you!  Ryan Vesey 19:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any specific guidelines for this, but Comparing to similar articles, the usual format is events listed in chronological order, and broken up into sections covering distinct periods in the history. Looking at the article, I don't think any of the events listed are distinct enough from each other to justify their own sub-section, and the current paragraph breaks are sufficient. WelpThatWorked (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. There's a lot of information I'm still planning on adding. I was just looking for feedback that could help me plan out how I do the rest of the additions. Ryan Vesey 21:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

BLP article changed to redirect?

I am a bit confused here. A page that I worked on and promoted to main space (Samantha Gorman was just changed into a redirect. The reason given was that the idea to change the page to redirect came up during an AfD discussion on Tender Claws, a video game she worked on (deletion discussion here: [8]). I am confused on two accounts. 1. The AfD about Tender Claws is still open, so why was the related page of Samantha Gorman changed to a redirect? 2. Is it legit to just change the Samantha Gorman page to a redirect without a discussion at Articles for Deletion? DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean Yes, it is completely legitimate for another editor to convert an article into a redirect as an alternative to deletion. If you disagree with the redirect then you are free to revert it, if the editor who performed the redirect disagrees with your reversal they should open a discussion (WP:BRD). There is no requirement at all to have any kind of consensus before performing a bold redirect. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I just opened a deletion review for this page, as Samantha Gorman is clearly notable. I hadn't realised I could simply revoke the redirect. Does Czar have a specific reason for the redirect? Lijil (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Lijil, yes, my edit summary explained my rationale and without further discovery of sources, it would remain the same. The "deletion review" for Tender Claws is unlikely to result in a change because the consensus was unanimous, no new/missed sources have been presented, and the deletion review doesn't meet the forum's requirements for review. The sourcing was more about The Under Presents than about Tender Claws, hence the direction of the redirect. Gorman's article is unrelated to that "deletion review", since it wasn't the subject of that deletion discussion. To justify a separate article on Gorman, there would need to be significant coverage across multiple reliable, independent sources (?) about Gorman's life and career. That is not currently present in the article. czar 21:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

add main picture

How to add main picture? Wikitrueupdate (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wikitrueupdate, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question isn't very clear, but assuming you mean that you want to add an image to an article, then this is in two stages: uploading the image, and then using it in the article. If an image you want to use it already available in Wikimedia Commons, then it's easy: if you go to its information page in Commons, it will give you the string you have to add to a Wikipedia article. (I think it's even easier in the visual editor, but I don't use that).
If the image you want isn't already in Commons, then you have to upload it, and that is often more difficult: not the uploading itself, but determining the copyright. Most images you find on the internet are not licensed suitably for Commons, and cannot be used in Wikipedia. Please see WP:Uploading images for more information. ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The article I wrote was rejected

I wrote an article about a jewellery company, which produces very unusual jewelry. It was rejected as it was a kind of advertisement. I tried to write as much as possible adhering to the style of Wikipedia. Maybe the problem was in links added... I'm not enough experienced user, it was my first try. Please advise me what is better to delete or to add? Dumenpro (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the issue is that the article is written like either an advertizement or investor-fishing press release. What is your connexion to BUUNT? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Also, government documents (such as trademark registrations), paid press, and interviews with company principals are absolutely worthless as sources. We don't care about what the company says or pays others to say about itself, nor anything that merely documents existence. We're looking for evidence it's been written about by unrelated outlets and people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Dumenpro: Welcome to the Teahouse. Phrases like united the best jewelers of the country and of the world, giving them the opportunity to realize the most incredible and complicated professional fantasies and [t]he mission of the company is to give its customers the opportunity to surprise not only those around them, but also the most knowledgeable connoisseurs of jewelry art are inappropriate for an encyclopedia (it's something I'd expect to see in ad copy).
Please also cite your sources in-line within the prose. See Easy referencing for beginners if you need help in that respect. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I'm changing it. Dumenpro (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Several of these elements present in the draft can make it appear like an advertisement:
- Use of opinion adjectives: words like "best", "unique" or "cheap and homogeneous". Unless you phase it as a reliable source giving the opinion, it reads as an advertisement.
- Sentences like "The name of the brand is a combination of two German words that reveal its philosophy." provide no real information by themselves, and only serve to lead on the reader, something more appropriate to advertising than an encyclopedia.
- Lack of in text citations: While not advertising by itself, clumping all the citations at the end makes it hard to verify any individual statement. WelpThatWorked (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I need help to write a correct article.

I wrote an article and it was deleted because of advertisement reasons. It was about a jewelry company which is about 10 years old, uses an ancient japanese technology in its production. Can I ask someone experienced to check the article before to publish it again? Or to help me with publishing it in a right way. Thank you in advance. Dumenpro (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

In your most version of the justly deleted Draft:BUUNT, there appeared this:
The company's products have been repeatedly published in the most famous world magazines, such as English Tatler, Professional Jeweler, European Touch, L’Officiel, ML Magazine and many others.
If these were really "the most famous world magazines", then readers would not have to be told that they were famous. And I don't know how one can publish a product. If you mean that intelligent, signed articles (not mere advertorials) in these magazines have provided substantive information about Buunt's products, then somebody might base a draft about Buunt on what's said in these articles. A skim-read of your user talk page suggests to me that the creator of the draft should be somebody other than you. -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing disputes on Sandy Marton

As many of you know, last year Marton's single Camel by Camel saw a massive boost in popularity after 25 years of obscurity. However, seeing as the reason behind its sudden resurgence is...controversial, this has lead to some editing disputes.

A vast majority of these disputes are brought on by a group of IPs that fit within a similar range (often only differing by the last few digits), and often use the same language (assuming bad faith, saying users are out to damage Marton's image, threatening to block users, etc). Because of this, I presume that these edits are made by a single user who hops IPs.

Recently, I made my own edit to the page in which I attempted to add this info in a civilized, neutral manner. I also made it a point to reference reliable sources to back up my claims. However, this still wasn't enough to keep this user from reverting my edit. Shortly afterwards, I made a case on the talk page as to why its inclusion was warranted, clarifying that my edit was not an attempt at vandalism, and providing counterpoints to their some of their arguments. I urged them to visit the talk page and discuss the matter, but they refuse to do so.

I'm hoping that by discussing this properly, we can possibly reach a consensus. However, this user seems unwilling to discuss it via the article's talk page, and I can't reach out to their talk page because they hop IP's, and as such are unlikely to see any comments left there. What should I do? GBURA (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Sandy Marton#Is_the_viral_dance_video_libelous?, showing a relevant discussion in mid October 2021, by editors who had all signed in. It's not clear to me why the discussion needs to be resumed. If it does need to be resumed and people are refusing to discuss, then the matter doesn't belong here but on WP:BLPN. -- Hoary (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

edit request

I submitted an edit request: [9]. How come there are sources in my edit request? Is my edit request clear enough that someone can follow what I am asking? Thank you! 161.77.227.47 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, IP user! As for those references at the bottom, they're not really part of your edit request; they're just at the bottom of the page by default since they were used somewhere above on the page. Hope that explains that bit for you! Bsoyka (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The references were there because they'd been called for in the section immediately above your own, a section that lacked a "dump references" tag. I've now added this, so the references are now out of your way. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Great, thanks again! 161.77.227.47 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The refusal to use the material submitted was based on the fact that there was copyright infringement (copy and pasted copyright material), but there is no copyright on any of that material that was used ... and what was copied was footnoted regardless. The material used came from the author and it was verified that it was not copyrighted. Can you help direct me? DPMGregg (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

DPMGregg, you don't identify the material submitted, the refusal, or the article. Call me lazy, but I can't be bothered to work out what it is that you're talking about. In the meantime, assume that anything is copyrighted (conventionally so, "all rights reserved") unless the person who'd normally possess the copyright publicly, explicitly waives copyright. Who verified that this material was not copyrighted, and where can this verification be seen? -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Steve Gregg - American Radio Broadcaster & Bible Teacher contains lengthy quotes which are too long to be in a Wikipedia article, DPMGregg. See: copyright violations.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am totally unfamiliar with this process. I even find the help sites somewhat daunting to understand what is being said or directed. The material comes from an internet webiste and the owner of the website gave permission to use the material,etc. As I said, the copied material is footnoted. So .... ordinarily one can use footnote quotes, yes? Hmmmm? Do I just post another footnote that the material is not copyrighted AND I have permissin from the website owner to copy the material? Question 2 - is there someone who can be hired that knows what is necessary for this? I would be eager to pay. DPMGregg (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@DPMGregg, the vast majority of this draft is taken directly from thenarrowpath.com/biography, and at the bottom of that page is the following statement: "© 2012 - 2022 The Narrow Path. All Rights Reserved." All of the material on that page is therefore copyrighted. Adding footnotes does not uncopyright copyrighted text. Only short quotations of copyrighted text can be used if properly attributed or cited (per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). Either the copyright statement on the website needs to be changed to release the material for free use, or the copyright holder needs to donate the material via this process. 174.21.19.94 (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
DPMGregg, this draft needs a fundamental rethink. As an example of one pervasive problem:
Gregg receives no salary from any source for his various services to the body of Christ. He has chosen to live his life with no predictable income, and without any form of fund-raising, trusting God to provide as needs arise. He takes no remuneration, nor perks, from The Narrow Path ministry. Though he does receive some income from book royalties, they are minimal and 90% of them are given to charitable causes and vetted ministries. He also refuses to sell his own books (though he allows venders to do so). According to his ability, he distributes them for free. He does accept unsolicited stipends or “love offerings” from host churches or organizations where he speaks, living largely on personal and unpredictable gifts from individuals—mostly strangers to him. His wife is a retired college professor and has a pension. They own their own home, two cars, and no pets.
How do you know? Which disinterested source can the reader check in order to verify this?
Additionally, the draft is extraordinarily wordy (even temporarily putting aside the important questions of whose the words are, and their copyright status). Even its title is ponderous: This can instead be "Draft:Steve Gregg (XYZ)", in which XYZ is any one word, e.g. "broadcaster" or "pastor". -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Before we get on to your first question, DPMGregg, let's look at Question 2 - is there someone who can be hired that knows what is necessary for this? I would be eager to pay. There are plenty of people who claim to know, and who would be at least as eager to take your money as you are to part with it. Perhaps not all of them are incompetent, fraudsters, or both.
Please comment on the similarity of "DPMGregg" and "Steve Gregg". -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Some of us try to do things beyond our competence level, with hope of rising to a reasonable standard and learning something in the process. One never knows unless one tries-yes? The "disinterested party" would exclude info from his own biography and book flaps, family members, etc., and would have to come from sources such as printed matter wherein he is discussed? Perhaps finding something from his publisher about him? All so daunting. Thanks for you time and input. DPMGregg (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@DPMGregg, his publisher would not be an independent source. An independent source is one with no connection to him whatsoever - either business or personal. 174.21.19.94 (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
What 174.21.19.94 says. And more specifically, The "disinterested party" would exclude info from his own biography and book flaps, family members, etc., and would have to come from sources such as printed matter wherein he is discussed? Yes. And not just any old printed matter; please see WP:RS. As an example of a televangelist done well, see the article Jim Bakker. DPMGregg, all your contributions to Wikipedia so far appear to have been related to Steve Gregg. No comment on this, or on your username? -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what you are asking, but I sure do appreciate the help you all are giving. I just was hoping to off-set the occassional mistakes that are made (at other websites, etc.) by putting up correct information, but I am stuck without anyway to document very much that is not a quote or too close an association as the source. Though notable publishers, organizations, educational institutions, and magazines have used his expertise and material, I am gathering that they cannot really attest to very much. Is there any point to cutting almost all of it out (everything personal) and simply listing his publishers, radio stations, and the seminary he teaches for (as catalog info maybe considered documentation), and simply reference the TheNarrowPath website? Again, thanks all. DPMGregg (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I guess that means you have no clue who would be both competent and not fraudster!? DPMGregg (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Having signaled your willingness to spend, DPMGregg, you may start to receive email from persons offering their services. I'd disregard these. (Or you could repost them here, for the bemusement of all.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the word of caution. DPMGregg (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, thanks so much. DPMGregg (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Could efn should be used on subpages?

I don't have much information but if efn should be used on subpages? TheresDifferentTime (Talk) 00:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
If there are similarly confused page watchers here, I’m assuming this has something to do with template:Efn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Interlinear glossing

Um... help. Can somebody who knows what interlinear glossing actually is please check my most recent edit at Tokelauan language and see what I've done wrong? I tried to restore a sentence and a half which seems to have accidentally been deleted a while back and it seems something must have changed in the coding, because a warning was shown (but didn't prevent me from saving the edit) saying there was an error in the 'interlinear glossing', about which I know nothing. Thank you in advance. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This has something to do with the template {{interlinear}} which is used in language articles. I've no idea how it is used but maybe if you read the documentation you'll be able to work it out and fix it yourself, Daveosaurus. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Daveosaurus. Don't worry about it: the error was there before your edit. The text in section "Complements" is glossed with parts of speech, but one of them uses an abbreviation that the glossing template doesn't know. ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Specifically, it uses the abbreviation 'DIR' which is not in the list in the Interlinear module, so it needs to be specified locally, and {{interlinear}} lists ways of doing that. The problem is that I don't know what it does represent: I guess it's a "directional" element, but would need to consult the source (or a source for the Tokelauan language) to verify that. I'll put a note on the Talk page. ColinFine (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I know so little about what it is, that I thought I'd made a coding error - or that there was one in the reference I salvaged from the last good version of that paragraph. As it's a linguistics thing (which I know next to nothing about) I'll leave it - I don't want to guess what it is and guess wrong and REALLY break something. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Contributing images

How do I submit photo images for existing articles 166.205.209.28 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Uploading photos is very complicated. I will try to simplify. If you took the photo yourself and it is of a subject that is not copyrighted, and if you are willing to freely license your photo for reuse by anyone anywhere for any purpose without restrictions other than attribution, then upload your photo to Wikimedia Commons. If the photo is 100% copyright free according to evidence that you will provide, or if the copyright has expired, usually because it is over 95 years old, upload it to Wikimedia Commons. If the photo meets the very stringent standards described in Non free content/Images, then upload it here to English Wikipedia, following the instructions scrupulously. If it is some random photo that you found online, forget about it. The vast majority of such photos are restricted by copyright and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I was a photographer at the Formula One race in Dallas TX in 1984. I have many images that would enhance the page at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Dallas_Grand_Prix
. These are my personal photos with no copyright restrictions. I can upload images to Wikipedia commons but I have no account or permissions to add images/links to the wiki page for the race.
 166.205.209.28 (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@166.205.209.28: Please read WP:IMAGERELEVANCE; Wikimedia Commons is a repository for images and other media where anyone can find and use images that are donated (I used one on Facebook recently, with appropriate acknowledgement to the uploader). English-language Wikipedia articles such as 1984 Dallas Grand Prix are not intended to be used as a repository of images. Any displayed should (theoretically) only be present to give the reader a better understanding of the context. I am involved in the motorcycle side of Wikipedia, and with the advent of inbuilt zoom lenses, would-be contributors make the mistake of thinking crisp close-ups of bodywork with text, logos and corporate colour schemes (basically advertising) are useful, whereas wider-angle GVs - general views, establishing shots, are often what would be better to understand the context of the race track. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)(I am not a Teahouser)
Understood, and thanks. One of the unique (and unfortunate) aspects of the race was the deteriorating pavement on the track. I was working the corner where this deterioration occurred. I'm including links to two of my images (currently on imgur) that I feel would contribute to the context of this track condition issue:
.
https://imgur.com/UQxr8ON
.
https://imgur.com/Ga2ptc7
. 166.205.209.28 (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
That looks good and would be relevant - looks to me to be tyre degradation? They call the black pieces marbles - chunks of rubber. Maybe they combined with the road surface. One thing that is imperative is the images must not have been hosted (uploaded, published) anywhere else publicly unless annotated with a specific release. Normally this would be in the form of a recognised licence, such as those which Wikipemedia uses (Creative Commons, Creative Commons license). We've had this before now and I am not familiar with Imgur and I can't see any licencing and can't scroll to the bottom as it keeps loading more images, so I would recommend deletion if you intend to proceed to upload to Commons. As the magnificent Arnie would say...I'll be back (sleep needed).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm familiar with marbles from rubber tires but in these images the marbles are the disintegrated asphalt - you can see the ruts in the track where the asphalt has been dislodged.
The images on imgur are linked in a thread I started years ago on a scale modeling website, here:
http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/276054-formula-1-dallas-grand-prix-1984/
and nowhere else (to my knowledge). I'll have to do some digging to find the scrollable image page on imgur, give me a day or so. Thanks again. 166.205.209.28 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
IP editor, you say "but I have no account or permissions to add images/links to the wiki page for the race". You don't need to create an account to add an image (or to otherwise edit) an article. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering that the images are hosted at one venue since 2014 and another since 2019 (additionally with Photobucket at an unknown date) and per my comment above that images should not have been previously published without a release licence, I strongly suspect that this will prevent uploading to Wikimedia Commons for free re-use by anyone. I have opened an enquiry there and will update after response. Commons is entirely separate to En-language Wikipedia. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Help for reviewing my draft

Hello, I am wondering if someone could review my draft Draft:Ingrasys Technology to see if it is good to go for acceptance? I have added some reliable sources, and am not sure if the article is written like from a neutral point of view? Thank you. Sharonabc19 (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sharonabc19 Hello and welcome. You have submitted it for a review and it is pending- as noted, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,463 pending submissions waiting for review." If it is declined, you will be given feedback on it. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

POV and accuracy templates

Is the placement of the {{POV}} and {{accuracy}} templates on Template:Twin towns justified? It is just a template and the question about the method of division was answered in the discussion. The placement of these tags seems to me to be unreasonable and only a disproportionate way to lure into the discussion. Some user already removed it and then me, but a user keeps returning it and I don't know how to behave now. FromCzech (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As a temporary measure, I've wrapped the two templates in a <noinclude> tag, so that they don't show up wherever {{Twin towns}} is transcluded. —Wasell(T) 🌻 08:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
FWIW the documentation for those templates clearly states they should only be used in articles. Shantavira|feed me 10:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@FromCzech: I went and removed it, as these templates aren't applied to other templates. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. FromCzech (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Article Incorrectly Deleted Due to Copyright Issue

Dear Someone Helpful,

My son was recently asked by his geology professor to help him create a Wikipedia article about armored mud balls, which he just learned was deleted. His professor, Dr. Richard Little, had had his own entry on the subject deleted previously due to alleged "copyright violations" for citing his own work! So, my son, who is 18, tried to write an article for Dr. Little citing his work.

As a note on the topic, *armored mud balls* are a unique type of sedimentary structure of interest to anyone interested in geology and other earth sciences. Dr. Little, of Easthampton, Massachusetts, has discovered the most well-preserved armored mud balls in the world, located in Western Massachusetts. This scientific, geological information is worthy of its own article, and an expert on it has tried unsuccessfully to create the article. We need some help to remedy this situation and get the article accepted.

Not only is the subject of general educational value, but there is a need to educate the public about the campaign to preserve these high quality geological features due to their getting wrecked by parking lots and other types of construction. Please advise us as to how to get this article established in Wikipedia. It was clearly an error to think that Dr. Richard Little had infringed on his own copyright. Thank you so much in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.165.51 (talk • contribs) 17:57, July 23, 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Please be aware that even if an editor owns the copyright on an external resource, they must freely license it to be able to post it on Wikipedia. An easy way to do this is to add a statement like The contents of this site are licensed under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>. Or you can donate it using these instructions. I cannot view the article but maybe somebody suspected that the person who pasted the text was not the copyright owner.
Generally using a username similar to the author should be enough to reduce suspicion - we normally trust people unless there's a reason to believe they are lying. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 18:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Note that Wikipedia text should be neutral and verifiable, so please note that just because the copyright status is compatible doesn't mean it has to be included, although if it is neutral and verifiable, it can be included. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 18:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses a copyright licence that is completely incompatible with standard copyright (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike). If content has been published anywhere else and its copyright licence isn't explicitly declared (or it was declared and it isn't compatible) then we cannot use it even if the original author wrote the material on both sites because of this incompatibility. In addition, most of your post does your argument a disservice. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


Hello. The basis of creating a WP-article that "sticks" is to gather a few WP:Reliable sources, then to summarize what they say in your own words. Don't WP:COPYPASTE, that is forbidden. You must also learn how to add references correctly, this is essential, see WP:TUTORIAL on how.
That said, per my quick googling, a WP-article on this subject can ABSOLUTELY be written (I can't find an existing one, anyway), there's university press and similar good sources. My advice is start it as a draft via Wikipedia:Drafts#Creating_and_editing_drafts, work on it at your own pace until it's ready for article-space, and then submit it for review. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello IP. Woah! This looks exciting, and definitely deserving of an article. I'd be happy to kick something off for you. I see we already have some of Prof Little's images on Commons, one of which I've just added here. I can't find any previously deleted articles, so if anyone can help me locate that, I'd be grateful. I've downloaded the original article from JSTO and will take a look through it later when I have a free moment. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, so I've unearthed the deleted draft at Draft:Armored mud balls. This was a terrible violation of our copyright policies as it was purely a copy/paste job from https://armoredmudballs.rocks/ (which currently has a clear copyright statement on it). There is a clear explanation as to why the draft was deleted, and you can find this at User talk:RDLittle. I would be concerned if your son had taken the name of his professor and used it as his own account name - that is not helpful. (User:RDLittle2000 is the person who uploaded these rather nice pictures to Wikimedia Commons, but they have never registered to edit here on English Wikipedia, so I am left a bit confused as to who is actually who). Anyway, the fact that the website creator would like to see a page here is irrelevant; they simply need to change their content licencing to a CC-BY-SA licence, permitting commercial reuse. Until that happens, their own words cannot be allowed on Wikipedia in that form. All it requires is someone competent to write a draft in their own words, based on Reliable Sources, and there seems to be enough journal papers and articles out there to justify it. However, we don't name articles in the plural, so Armored mud ball would seem the right title to use. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
That image, and perhaps more of the ones at commons, are from that website. It's possible they are correctly marked as "own work", but that is unclear, some Commons:Volunteer Response Team bureaucracy may be necessary if they are to be kept. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes Ok, did you see the "8. Wikipedia Text (proposed)" section at https://armoredmudballs.rocks/? If they published it there first, we can't use it per rulez, unless they license it like you said. However, if it was on WP first, it would be (partly) a Template:Backwards copy. Bit of a mess.
I note that the website states "This project is being organized by Richard D. Little, Prof. Emeritus, Greenfield Community College, the discoverer of these rare features in the 1970's", but this source [10] may disagree with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Armoured Mud Ball and US dime coin.
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks. I didn’t see that section, but I’ve no intention of using any text directly from that site. See my sandbox (1st section) for my very early draft. Looks like 1940 (Bell) or someone in 1927 actually observed and named these structures. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Just noted your earlier post about imagery. From what I saw, the uploads were of far greater resolution than the images on the Prof’s website. So to me they’re clearly donated by the copyright owner. So I’m not sure which gung-ho person deleted it on Commons. I fear the Prof, in pushing their subject has made things really messy for us, and I’m not sure know whether I’ve enough free time to push this through. I might drop the prof a direct email and get some answers if I have a spare moment. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The gung-ho person seems to have been @Jimfbleak. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I've managed to get the image reinstated on Commons under the rationale that it was of far higher resolution than the public-facing website used, so clearly could not have been taken from there (see here).
@Nick Moyes I looked at User:Nick Moyes/sandbox and the sources clearly says ok for mainspace. On the armoredmudballs campaign website, it makes a good EL, but IMO can probably be avoided as ref since better published ones are available, though it seems usable per WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Any article should be based upon the research papers, keeping the campaign website just as an External Link, rather than using it as a source for referencing. I'm just drafting an emailed the prof to ask if he wants some help from me, so we'll see how that goes. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Nick Moyes:, speaking as gung-ho man, I'm familiar with users deliberately uploading a low res version, and retaining the copyright on higher res versions. What you seem to be saying here is that an inexperienced user has done the opposite, freely releasing the hi-res version while the low res remains copyright. Apart from anything else, it's fair bet that someone who has copied the mudball web page text here verbatim doesn't understand our copyright rules or the implications of releasing their intellectual property, and I'd guess that no one has checked with them. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak I'm in the middle of drafting a comment on your own user page. I'll post there shortly. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

list of bands and singers from scotland

i notice an old band i like is not on the list.they have had hits in the past. called DEAD END KIDS.can they be added? 88.110.125.65 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

also ENDGAMES AND BOURGIE BOURGIE 88.110.125.65 (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have a List of bands and singers from Scotland. If it did, or whichever list you mean, it would list only Wikipedia articles about such bands and singers, not every band or singer, which would be impossible. Shantavira|feed me 10:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Why this page is not acceptable

This page is about an Educator, Draft:Hussein_M._Abdelfatah as it appears from Google knowledge panel: https://g.co/kgs/dFu5qd Resources from trusted national journals and international scientific databases were used/cited!

Please help to get it published Thanks Marof2022 (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The link is Draft:Hussein_M._Abdelfatah. --Bduke (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Marof2022, what have other academics written about Hussein M. Abdelfatah or his work? -- Hoary (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
At first glance, does not appear to achieve Wikipedia:Notability (academics). David notMD (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Marof2022 The main problem appears to me to be that many of the citations, to ORCHID, researchgate and Google scholar merely list what he has published and others like mathgenealogy merely confirm he exists, without any WP:INDEPENDENT significant coverage. Any of us who have published in scientific fields could use that sort of citation to try to claim notability: but that's not enough to be included in Wikipedia. By long-term consensus here, academics must meet one of the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. So, can you show that any of these publications been highly cited by others in their field and hence made a major impact? Note that crunchbase is a deprecated source and detracts from the biography and that there is no citation for Abdelfatah's personal life section, which there needs to be to meet WP:BLP. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Submitting new town information

The town where I live is not included in the list of Towns of Costa del Sol. How do I do it EunisR (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello EunisR and welcome to the Teahouse. If you look at Towns of the Costa del Sol you'll notice that all the towns listed are bluelinks, which means that articles about them exist in Wikipedia. Does your town have such an article? If not, your first task could be to create the article and then it would indeed merit inclusion in the list. However, since you have only just joined the editing community here, I suggest you get started by trying to improve our existing articles on topics that interest you, for example some of the articles on towns near you. Many of these would benefit from having more photographs of local landmarks which you could take and upload to Wikipedia Commons, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding an image to Wiki page

Hi - So I know there are two ways to add a picture - either finding one from Wikimedia or using a free image online. However, if one can't find the image through either way, what is the process for using a copyright image? Or if there is a policy/ content guidelines page on this, please do share! Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Whitestar12 There are very limited circumstances described at WP:NONFREE which set out the policy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

draft rejected

Hi there,

I just started writting my first draft today but it has been rejected.

Most of the thing i say in this article comes from personal knowledge and the article has been rejected du to lack of reference (which is understandable).

Do you have any ideas how can i publish such an article with personal knowledge ?

All the best,

Vincent-vst

Vincent-vst (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Vincent-vst Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that you cannot summarize your personal knowledge here, as that is impossible to verify. Wikipedia articles only summarize what published, independent reliable sources say. Those sources do not need to be online, but they must be published and available to the public for verification purposes. If what you are writing is only based on personal knowledge, it cannot be on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the reply ! Vincent-vst (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Vincent-vst We have an extensive article on dubstep. Maybe some of your material could be placed in a subsection there, provided you could find reliable sourcies for what you add, of course. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Need a reviewer suggestions

Hi house, need a reviewer suggestions on this newly created page Tolani Baj, I'm open to learn more and make wikipedia a great place. Thanks! Celeboyz (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Celeboyz, we read in the lead that she's "a Nigerian reality TV star, actor, content creator, media personality and entrepreneur". But I see no sign of any notability whatever other than reality TV star. As for the latter, I'm not sure about notability there either. This is all that we're told: Tolani entered the Big Brother Naija house on 19 July 2020 for the season 5 of the reality TV show. She was evicted on 30 August 2020 alongside BrightO and Wathoni, after spending 42 days on the show. During her stay in the house, she shared a close relationship with Erica, Kiddwaya and Prince. What was said about her performance on the show? (If "nothing much", then I doubt that she qualifies for an article.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Celeboyz, please do not remove talk page posts that other editors have already replied to. The topic will be archived after a few days. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Confirmation of authorization for Image/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/%28Tom_mcGrath%29.jpg/440px-%28Tom_mcGrath%29.jpg

The owner of the photo duly completed authorization form and we have been requested to submit a copy of the above URL to assist the Volunteer Resonse Team in finding it. Baile Atha Cliathach (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, this was a file used in the article Tom McGrath (producer). The details of the filename need to be supplied to the Volunteer Response Team at Wikimedia Commons by email, I think, so they can verify that the correct permission has been given and mark the file's page at Commons with this as having been done. So, please Baile Atha Cliathach do all that by email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, not by posting on the Teahouse or other pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Baile Atha Cliathach, welcome to the Teahouse. Who requested that you submit the above URL? Are you having trouble contacting them? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Not Porn

There is a listing on Wikipedia for a woman named "Nadya Suleman." When her name is Googled the Wikipedia response shows her as a "pornographic actor" but she has never done porn, indeed she refused to do it. I can't find said text string for that headline and would appreciate help in changing it to "actress." Robert Bruner (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Robert Bruner Wikipedia's article Nadya Suleman makes no mention of her being such an actor. This is an example of Google's knowledge panel being a combination of information from many sources and making incorrect statements as a result — a common problem. Wikipedia editors have no control over Google but you can provide feedback to them if you wish, using the link to the lower right of that panel. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The "Jobs" section of the article indicates that she appeared in an adult movie in 2012.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I missed that. It appears that Google is arguably correct! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
(e/c) Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. Shantavira|feed me 14:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Octomom Home Alone. Fram (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

American Outdoors Footwear Company to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shoe_brands

I'd like to submit an American Outdoors Footwear Company to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shoe_brands , is there a community of editors who handle this page in which I can recommend and submit Footwear Brands?

VIVID Footwear https://vividfootwear.com/ 144.129.192.22 (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

144.129.192.22, there are countless websites that will allow you to advertise or otherwise publish articles about anything, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Consider whether the footwear companies are notable, which is required to put anything on here. Not to mention, it has to be neutral and well-cited, so it will take a lot of effort. To request an article, see WP:RA. Sungodtemple (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
(A bit more explanation) Categories are collections of Wikipedia articles. When an article is created, editors assign appropriate categories to the article and then it appears when that category is viewed. There would have to be an article on American Outdoors Footwear Company for it to appear in Category:Shoe brands. If you have any independent references, you can suggest the subject for an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. Schazjmd (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Paywall source/citation

Hello, This is me first time posting here, so please let me know if this is the correct place to ask this question. (Before deleting)

Recently someone added some information about a living person's political views and all but one statement from the edit is based on a single source. I tried to open the citation link but the article can only be read by those who are subscribers with an active membership.

How can I verify the information? I tried to search on Google but couldn't find any other articles supporting that edit or making similar claims. I asked for another source from the person who edited wiki article, which can be read by anyone even without membership but the person who added that couldn't provide it. Should I ask again or simply ignore it by believing the person who made the edit? They may or may not have the subscription and the article may or may not have proofs regarding the living person's political position?

Thanks! FofS&E (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome FofS&E It is indeed vital that sources can be verifed but it is also acceptable that some are behind WP:PAYWALLs or only accessible to those editors who have access to The Wikipedia Library or similar resources. We assume good faith for additions but if you are in doubt about a source, you could raise the issue at the Talk Page of the article to see if another editor can confirm the facts, or even give the information here for experienced Teahouse hosts to consider. Incidentally, questions answered here are not deleted thereafter, since they can be helpful to other readers and will be part of the archive later. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)



Thank you for replying, since the person who edited the WP article has over 40k edits to his name, I'm willing to believe his edit assuming good faith. But, the edit attributed 5 things to the living person's political view/position and only 1/5 of the views have perfect citation and the remaining 4 views have no citation or are dependent on paywall article from a generally reliable source. Afaik, teahouse is for general queries, I didn't want to insult the contributor by naming the article or the contributor's name. But since you've said that I can "give the information here for experienced Teahouse hosts to consider", I'm sharing the WP page :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droupadi_Murmu The edit of Political Position was made by Mr. Venkat.

The edits made by me are:- 3:49 25th July, 3:52 25th July, 15:55 25th July.

The edits made by Venkat are:- 8:39 25th July and 16:28 25th July.

Another user named Juxlos edited on 5:21 25th July, where they removed these edits made by Venkat as they couldn't find any backup source to believe primary paywall source.


Thanks again!!

1987 packers replacement team roster

How can I give information to the page? 2600:4040:106B:9700:448:3C28:D12D:3658 (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You successfully added Leonard H. to the list of strike-replacement players. As there is no article about him, I removed the double brackets [[ ]]. What else do you want to add? Do you have references? David notMD (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft article for Ion District

Hello! I'm Katrina, here on behalf of the Ion to suggest some improvements to the Wikipedia article about the innovation district. I'm submitting requests at Talk:Ion District instead of editing the article myself, in order to comply with conflict of interest rules.

There are many problems with the current Wikipedia article. The text relies heavily on press releases, company websites, government documents, and Rice University's student newspaper over secondary journalistic sources. The article also seems skewed, focusing on the community benefits agreement and funding more than the campus and facilities. There is also some incorrect text and outdated information. For these reasons, I've worked to draft a much improved article, which I've saved here for editors to review: User:KB Ion/Ion District.

My first request to replace the "Campus" section with the proposed "Description" section was fulfilled rather quickly, and I've also been successful at getting the page moved, but I'm struggling to get feedback on my proposed replacement for the History section. Can someone please confirm if I've submitted the request correctly, or are any editors here willing to review what I've proposed and update the article appropriately?

Thanks! KB Ion (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@KB Ion: You formatted the request correctly, but there's a backlog, and these types of requests aren't handled very quickly. You may have more luck if you put your suggested text on the talk page rather than requiring volunteers to click to another page. You can use Template:Collapse to suppress large blocks of text, but the longer the request, the less likely it will be implemented. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

how to revert?

If an article mistakenly submitted the draft for review! Neu84321(talk) 20:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Neu84321: You can click on the "history" tab, find the edit that was just before submitting for review, edit and save it.
Or you can do nothing. It typically takes several weeks for an article to wait in the queue before getting reviewed, so you can just continue working on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
A little more precision for Anachronist's first option, Neu84321. Click on the "history" tab, find the version just before the submission for review, opt to edit this version (ignoring the warning that you're editing an old version), and don't edit it but instead simply save it (of course with an edit summary that explains what you are doing and why you're doing it). -- Hoary (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Creating an account

How can someone in the US request to have a Wikipedia account created for them if the only Internet connection they have is a LTE cellular one that is usually unfairly blocked due to it's IPs constantly changing? Hgh1985 (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hgh1985 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:ACC. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Publishing a biography for one of our local prominent entrepreneur.

Wiki experts, I am working on proposing one of our local entrepreneurs and authors to be have a wiki page. Hovewer, I want to ask your opining on if information we have on him is sufficient for creating a page. Do you mind looking at what we have? I can either put content here or give a link for google drive. Dolgank (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Dolgank, is this person Konstantin Dolgan (previous version)? If not, then simply post here the URLs of the three most informative sources you'd use for a draft about him. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore @Dolgank: Your username suggests that you are Konstantin Dolgan. If so, read Wikipedia:Autobiography. As a general rule, don't write about yourself on Wikipedia. If you really think you must, then follow the directions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead of misusing your user page for the purpose. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, his name is Konstantin Dolgan.
1) https://www.forbes.com/profile/konstantin-dolgan
2) https://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/money/business/2021/01/28/shreveport-couple-business-enjoys-huge-growth/4219589001/    
3) https://www.ktbs.com/community/tech-to-market-is-in-town-to-help-your-entrepreneurial-spirit/article_d097906a-f5a2-11e9-a60b-a3b282b4c377.html
4) http://voyageatl.com/interview/meet-konstantin-dolgan-la-new-product-development-team-na/
Just a few examples of what I have found so far Dolgank (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
In order:
  • The Forbes link is completely worthless (too sparse). This is a profile, not an actual article on him.
  • Shreveport Times seems fine, but it's less about Dolgan himself and more about he and Ulanova as a unit, making it dodgy for notability on him specifically.
  • KTBS is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Anything a subject says, writes, films, commissions, pantomimes, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is completely worthless for notability as Wikipedia defines it.
  • We can't use VoyageATL (unknown providence, connexion to subject). Interview with a role byline.
Of the four you found, only Shreveport Times is any good, and even then only just since the article is about him and his business partner as a single entity. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Biography

I have content ready for a biography of a close friend but unsure how to proceed. I have based the content on a similar page but unsure how to achieve same look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Harvey Is there a template for biography's? Semico1 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Semico1, once you have content which is suitable for a Wikipedia article, other editors will be glad to help you format it into a standard Wikipedia "look".
However, as a close friend of Harvey, you have a conflict of interest which needs to be declared before you edit further.
Also (and most important), your article has been based on Harvey's autobiography, which is not a reliable source. You must find reliable, independent, published sources which discuss him in depth. Two or three such sources are required to establish your subject's notability as a musician.
Please also read how to cite your sources as footnotes, so that they will count as the requisite reliable sources. Good luck.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Semico1 I believe Quisqualis misunderstood your initial statement. Is your mention of Richard Harvey meant as an model for your intended new draft? So yes, the sections in that article and other articles about performers are often used. Q's mention of a need to declare your conflict of interest on your Use page is correct. This does not preclude you creating a draft via the guidelines in WP:YFA and then submitting it to Articles for Creation for review. Verify what you know about your friend with references. Keep in mind the need to maintain a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Good luck. Ask here is you get stuck.
When looking to how to format your draft, go to any article - such as Richard Harvey - and click on Edit at the top. As you scan down, you will see how section titles are made, and how references are embedded in the text. Those refs are then automatically numbered and out in the References section. David notMD (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi David, this is what I'm working on and not sure if it's being published.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Richard_Harvey_(Drummer) Semico1 (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@Semico1 There is an article about Richard Harvey, a musician. You wrote a draft about a different musician named Richard Harvey? Ok. I can tell you that writing "at the tender age of 12" and "big acts of the time" and "the likes of" and "kept up his passion for drumming" are not phrases you would find in an encyclopedia. (Why do so many people want to use "the likes of"?)
The draft needs inline citations for every assertion (or every assertion that could possibly be challenged) so that any reader can verify the contents. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@Semico1, the other major problem with your draft is that it has zero independent, secondary, reliable sources with significant coverage of drummer Richard Harvey, so it does not demonstrate that he meets WP:NMUSIC. You have one article that's mostly about the Divinyls (with no significant coverage of Harvey), his autobiography (not independent), and a couple of database sites (not significant coverage, and note that discogs is considered generally unreliable because its content is user generated). Unless you can find better sources, your draft will not be accepted. 174.21.19.94 (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you mind on looking what I have so far? Working on a content for a page for one of our local entrepreneurs. How do you usually share drafts? just don't want to waste time if what I have so far is not sufficient... :( Dolgank (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Semico1, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Please bear in mind that the layout and appearance of an article, while important, is a superficial matter that can relatively easily be corrected. It is the more-or-less hidden framework underneath - the reliable independent sources - that are the important bit, in the sense that if they are not there, the article will not be accepted. It's a bit like saying "I'm building a house. I've modelled it on that one over there" without surveying the site or building any foundations. ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I moved my finished draft from Draft to Wikipidea - where do I find it now?

I moved my finished draft about the Danish-American architect Knud Lonberg-Holm, from Draft to Wikipidea - where do I find it now? Täckman (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Täckman. You moved your draft to Wikipedia:Knud Lönberg-Holm. That is an error because the Wikipedia namespace is for pages about running the encyclopedia, not for articles. Cullen328 (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I have moved it back to draft space Draft:Knud Lönberg-Holm, perhaps you could add more sources before submitting for review? Theroadislong (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Theroadislong! This is my first Wikipedia and I try to organize a lot of information. The Lönberg-Holm family asked me to make this Wikipedia, and a much of the information comes from the family's Knud Lönberg-Holm Archive in Kingston, New York. I agree that the passport is not a reliable source, I have sources on everything and a complete bibliography and all publications. But it seems that I am not sure of what needs to be sourced and how to cite it. Would you mind give me an example, kind regards Adrian Täckman Täckman (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Every fact requires an independent, reliable source, please also disclose your conflict of interest on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Täckman You said "much of the information comes from the family's Knud Lönberg-Holm Archive in Kingston, New York". Is that information published anywhere, or accessible to the public? If a reader wanted to go to the archive in Kingston, NY, would they be able to access the material to cross-check against what is stated in the article? If so, great; if not, then that info cannot be used as a source unfortunately. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks – where do I find my draft now - and how do I get it live on Wikipidea - kind regards Adrian Täckman (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Täckman It is to be found at the link Theroadislong just supplied above. You can submit the draft for review (there is a blue box/link at the top of the draft allowing you to do that). Note however that Theroadislong is an experienced new-article reviewer, so his comment that the draft needs more in-line citations to sources should be taken seriously, or the draft is likely to be formally declined. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you I found it (this is my first Wiki) – what is in-line citations? I will reply Theroadislong too - Adrian Täckman (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Inline citations are just those of the type you have already been using, which appear in the text as superscript numbers near the information they verify. See WP:CITE for more details. We prefer these to alternatives where editors list their sources as a list, say, of books at the bottom of the article, without specifying which book/page supports which assertion in the body of text. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining in-line citations, appreciate your help, kind regards Adrian Täckman Täckman (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Best way to search for template transclusions, then filter the results

Is it possible to, for example, search for articles that link to Template:Quote box, then filter the results to only those articles with a certain word in the article body (e.g. "film")? I'm trying to see if there's a way the transclusion of that template at Nope (film) can be made consistent with other appearances (if any). sporeball (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sporeball: If you don't enter anything in the search bar & click on search, you'll be taken to Special:Search. On that page, under the search bar, you've got "Advanced search". If you click on it, there's options to search within page text, as well as an option to only return results that also use a certain template. Search defaults to looking in mainspace/article-space, so no need to change that, but if you ever want to do something similar for talkpages or such, you can additionally specify what namespace to look in in the option "Search in" below Advanced Search. The result will also return things that have "film" not in the body of the article but in its title, infobox, or its reference titles, or similar, so it's not a perfect match for what you're asking, but it's pretty close. AddWittyNameHere 00:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
You can enter hastemplate:"Quote box" in the search box and combine it with other search terms. See Help:Searching#hastemplate:. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both! sporeball (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Sporeball, you may be interested in mw:Help:CirrusSearch as well. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Link still red after moving draft to article space

Hello,

I have just finished moving a draft "Angela Jacobs" to artcle space but the link from "Deaths in 2022 (July 19) to the artcle is red. However when I click the link, it does bring up the article Angela Jacobs. What has gone wrong? Thank you. Andymcteddybear (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello,
Please ignore. The link seens ok now. Andymcteddybear (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@Andymcteddybear, sometimes things like this don't update immediately (but typically they eventually do). Next time, you can try to WP:PURGE the page where the red link wrongly appears, or make a WP:NULL edit. Usually that fixes the problem right away, and if it doesn't, you can ask at WP:VPT whether something is seriously wrong. —Kusma (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I have made a note of your suggestions and will definitely try them next time. Andymcteddybear (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Need advice from experienced guys

Hello! I'm sorry for the trouble. 53 days ago i created an article about the musicican: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Otnicka Previously someone had already tried to create it, i found it in the deleted ones (due to the statute of limitations) and completely rewrote it. Can i kindly ask someone more experienced to rate this article? Thank you so much! JimmyTudessky (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, JimmyTudessky, and welcome to the Teahouse! Looks like the draft has been submitted, so it will eventually be reviewed. Meanwhile, reviewer Theroadislong left a comment on the draft – you should double-check the notability guide for musicians and make sure the subject meets that guideline and the draft makes it clear how the guideline is met. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your help!
Yes, I can already see that the draft was rejected.
Tell me, please, one of his famous songs accompanied the FIFA Arab Cup 2022 award ceremony. All 30 minutes of the ceremony. Is it worth mentioning?
However, this is confirmed only by the video broadcast on the official Fifa YouTube channel.
Thank you! JimmyTudessky (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, JimmyTudessky, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but asking if you should mention the use of one of his songs is a bit like a house-owner being told "your house is going to fall down unless you underpin it", and replying "Do you think it is worth painting the windows?". It is not (and in fact never was) worth writing a single word of the article until you've found the reliable independent sources to establish notability. If you can find an independent reliable journalistic source that talks about his song being used, then that would help to establish notability; otherwise, forget it for the moment, and concentrate on what is important.
The draft has been declined, not rejected: that means that the reviewer thinks that Otnicka might meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you can continue to work on it. But doing anything other than finding the required sources is a waste of your time, (and others' time as well, if you submit it again). ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@ColinFine That's the answer I needed. Thank you and have a good evening!) JimmyTudessky (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Page Requeste

Hi , If any user has requested to create a page, should the request be accepted or not? Currently I have received a request but I should not have any problem for SPI Case so I am asking this question.[11] PravinGanechari (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

PravinGanechari I note from your Talk Page that you have successfully created several articles on films, so it seems reasonable that a well-established editor should request that you do another (and that editor has suggested some sources you could use). You are, of course, under no obligation to draft the article: we are mainly volunteers here! I don't know what this has to do with any SPI case you are involved in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Michael D. Turnbull Sir , I am asking this question in advance. Because if I create this page now then I should not face any problem in future due to this page. ( I am asking this as it has been my experience that just by mentioning the name "sir" , an SPI case was filed against me on that basis.) PravinGanechari (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why using the word "Sir" would lead to allegations of being a sockpuppet. I'm aware that many editors from India (and we have lots of these) use the title "Sir" as a courtesy towards other males that they interact with on Talk Pages. This sometimes makes English editors like myself feel uncomfortable as in the UK that title is reserved for people who have received a knighthood, which of course we don't have. Also, I've seen instances where the word "Sir" has been used on Talk Pages to address women, who may reasonably feel insulted to be called that specifically male title. So I would recommend not using it! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing to be insulted. When you go to school, you address the teacher as Sir or Madam. From the age of six till now (age 33) this is the habit to speak respectfully to the other person. However, I will try not to say this word PravinGanechari (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@PravinGanechari: That's Indian culture. Not everyone here is going to be familiar with it, and may see "sir" as disrespectful, condescending, or unjustified, doubly so if they're a woman. Just refer to a user by their username (or a reasonable portion of it) rather than using gendered, formal terms of address. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source

Hey there,

I hope you all are having a wonderful day. I was wondering if anyone knows if this: https://www.whalingmuseum.org/old-dartmouth-historical-society-sketches/ counts as a reliable source. I'm considering creating a page for Old Dartmouth and was looking around for sources.

Thanks so so much, AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem likely. They are apparently "papers presented to the society", but there's no indication that anybody edited them. They likely range from works by acknowledged experts to off-the-wall speculation. If you can show that the author of a piece you're interested in was an acknowledged expert, then it might be acceptable (see WP:SPS).
Generally, WP:RSN is a better place to ask about reliability of sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A linked page does not include the word it is supposed to expand or clarify

The page "Common scold" states at the top of the article: "For the act of scolding, see punishment."  But the Punishment page does not include the words scold or scolding. Hunzu (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hunzu: I think I fixed the issue. ––FormalDude talk 14:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
An effective way to deal with the absence of "scolding" in the Punishment page. Now somebody will have to write a page for scolding... or not. Why deleting the link was not sufficient? Hunzu (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

article not published

i wrote an article about Ethiopian Islamic Affairs Supreme Council long time ago but it's still not published Abdrezak Muhdin (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Abdrezak Muhdin Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to formally submit the draft for review, the information to do that was just placed on your draft. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thank you Abdrezak Muhdin (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The draft, submitted and declined, is three sentences long and has no references. David notMD (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability

Hello, I am in the process of improving this article: Angela Jacobs. Does winning several awards as a TV reporter and anchor count towards notability? Thank you in advance. Andymcteddybear (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Andymcteddybear, generally these regional Emmies do not support a claim of notability. Valereee (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

NSX-K580

I have the NSX-K580 unit it will not turn on 2601:983:301:ECA0:80F:3CC3:BF6C:B30A (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a help forum for editing Wikipedia, not a repair shop. Please use Google to help you try to find your answers. (Problems with things not turning on are usually faulty power cables and power supplies, dead fuses, or broken switches. Do check each of them out). Nick Moyes (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
You could try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Elizium23 (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Wot? You mean get someone else to do a Google search because they can't be bothered to? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure why you'd discourage someone from offering a resource which is within this project.
The reference desks are patrolled by volunteer editors who do it as a labor of love and public service.
It seems utterly rude, in fact, to tell off a new anonymous editor, coming to us for help in a non-confrontational forum, to be told to get lost and get off our website. Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia article: biography

Draft:Ed Gerrard

A Visual Editor reply would be best, thanks.


Hi - I am very new here so please forgive any silly questions. The subject of my Wikipedia bio is well established in the music and film industries. The musicians he has managed are well-known to music fans worldwide, and several of them have won Grammys. He has served as music supervisor for movies that have been seen by millions of people. But he is something of a behind-the-scenes guy, so there isn't a heck of a lot about him in the press, as opposed to plenty about his clients. I am confused: Does someone qualify for a Wikipedia article because of their accomplishments, or because of press coverage of those accomplishments? I am obviously taking the wrong approach on writing this bio because I received this message regarding the rejection of my article: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."


I would welcome any and all guidance on this topic and THANK YOU for the opportunity to ask a question in this forum. It's very helpful. Thank you! Commodore1980 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to find reliable sources that discuss the subject himself. The Poughkeepsie Journal is start, but on its own is not enough, as it is just a local paper. ValarianB (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Just curious as to why the means of editing replies makes a difference. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Commodore1980, in addition to the problem of notability that ValarianB, points out, this has a lot of gushy PR-speak. Just from the lead:
-- (written with geany by) Hoary (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hoary You didn't use Visual Editor to compose your reply? Shame... 71.228.112.175 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Guilty as charged. (I also wasn't using Emacs and eww.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Commodore1980. The non-neutral language as discussed above is unacceptable and must be removed. Your draft calls this person "Grammy winning" right out of the box, instead of first describing why he won a Grammy award. That's the structure of a promotional brochure, not an encyclopedia article. Much of your content consists of namedropping, which is based on the false assumption that if a person in the entertainment industry has collaborated with several notable entertainment industry figures, then they must also be notable. Experienced Wikipedia editors reject this argument. Vast swathes of your content are unreferenced. Take a look at every sentence. Provide a reference to a reliable source that verifies every sentence or closely related group of a few sentences, or remove the content from the draft. Your draft has several of the most common problems of promotional drafts. Clean it up thoroughly before resubmitting. Cullen328 (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Mathew katz

The summary of music manager Mathew Katz is incorrect. He was described as the major influence of the San Francisco’s music scene of the 1960s. Mathew Katz ‘managed’ Jefferson Airplane and Moby Grape. He applied for an artist managers license which was denied by the California labor department in 1965. 2601:282:8080:60C0:741C:3C3F:A684:D4D1 (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP 2601:282:8080:60C0:741C:3C3F:A684:D4D1. If you feel there are problems that you can fix, then feel free to fix them. Howevever, be aware that the WP:ONUS will be upon you to make sure that the changes you make are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're bold and another user subsequently comes along and undos the changes you made for some policy or guideline based reason, you should then follow WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION and use the article's talk page to try and sort things out. If you're unsure about the changes you want to make or are unable to make them for some reason (a technical reason perhaps), you can always start a discussion about them on the article's talk page and try and get others to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia, but we can't just take your word. Do you have reliable sources that provide that information?--Shantavira|feed me 08:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist - button to mark an entry read, without having to open it first

Often in my watchlist I want to just mark a single item "read". Do we have a tool that allows this? Currently I have to open the page (that I don't intend to read), then close it, then refresh my watchlist. That's a pain. Is there an easier way? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I discovered you can click on the link then immediately stop the new page from loading (Esc usually does the trick). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks I'll try that. But its astonishing that such a basic function does not already exist. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: - alternatively there should be a "mark all changes as read" button at the top (I am reasonably sure this is standard and not something that a user has to install, although I may be wrong). So what I usually do is open the articles I actually want/need to look at, then just click to mark everything as read.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I do to. But when I've been away for awhile getting through that process would be heaps easier if I could mark the one's I do NOT want to look as "read". That's the idea behind my query here. Since it apparently does not exist I'll float it at the VPump Idea LabNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

pieter feith

the external links under this subject gives wrong sites (china) 2A02:A46A:EF54:1:2D8F:F47:6C65:BB04 (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP 2A02:A46A:EF54:1:2D8F:F47:6C65:BB04. If you feel that some of the external links for that article don't comply with WP:EL (e.g. they are WP:ELNO type of links), then you can remove them. Just leave an edit summary explaining why. If the problem with the links, however, is fixable, then you can fix them yourself if you want. If you're not sure how to do that, you can always point out the problem on the article's talk page and ask for help from others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 Done I've deleted it now. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Unable to move a page

I've tried to move (or rename) the present article entitled 'Conchita Wurst' to a new title - 'Tom Neuwirth'. The reason for the move is that the article is essentially about the performer Tom Neuwirth and not his 'Conchita Wurst' stage personna. I have explained the article talk page that although personnas can have articles (e.g. 'Alan Partridge'), this page is not simply about that personna but is much more widely about Neuwirth, who also performs as himself. I've received a response saying that the page cannot be moved because name I have chosen is not valid (Tom Neuwirth is not otherwise the title of an article). Could someone more experienced possibly explain why i can't move the article? All the best, and thanks in advance. Emmentalist (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Emmentalist (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I have left a comment at Talk:Conchita Wurst. Lectonar (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:RM is the way to go, but I doibt whether this will be accepted as the WP:COMMONNAME policy will apply. Shantavira|feed me 12:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Footnote

I just added a sentence with a footnote to Paul Engelmann. The entry has no other footnotes, and the new one seems to be in an odd place. Would someone please take a look at it and fix it if possible? Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed What was missing was the term reflist inside double curly brackets {{ }} immediately below the References section title. This does not resolve addressing the two bulleted items that are under References. David notMD (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@David notMD Thanks. I dealt with the two bulleted items. Is it satisfactory? Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Maurice Magnus Creating a section titled Bibliography does not help. If those are valid as references, then they need to be embedded in the text in reference format. I also find it unsatisfactory that this article about Paul is primarily about one building completed in 1928. Did he do nothing noteworthy the rest of his career? David notMD (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
David notMD ::@David notMD (I don't know which of these formats sends you my reply, so I'll include both.) Although creating a section titled Bibliography may not be the best solution, I think that it is an improvement over having both a footnote and the bulleted items under References. The editor who put the two bulleted items under References might have meant Bibliography or Further reading; editors use these terms loosely. I chose Bibiography rather than Further reading because I think that Bibliography comes closer to implying that the items were used as sources. But let's not make too much of this. The important thing is that the bulleted items are there and are not in the same section as the footnote.

You raise a good question about Engelmann, but I don't know the answer. I know of his existence solely through his connection with Wittgenstein.Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC) When you say "they need to be embedded in the text in reference format," do you mean as footnotes?Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus, yes. See HELP:References. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 12:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with fixing draft

Hi! I made a mess on this draft page, while I was trying to reorganize it and I don't know how to fix the discography section and separate the following sections from each other. Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone else seems to have fixed it for you. Shantavira|feed me 10:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Hi Bloomingbyungchan, there was just a small mistake in the closing brackets for one of the sections. Since it wasn't closed, all the sections after it appeared together. Is this the error you wanted help with? Cmr08 (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you so much! Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Submit button is missing from draft

Hey, somehow by mistake I removed submit button from my draft. How to get it back Useless3078 (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Useless3078 I've re-added it for you Nosebagbear (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding artist to the site

Hello,

My team has worked to get an jazz artist added to wikipedia to no avail. Is there someone directly that can help me add this artist? 129.137.96.7 (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Who is the artist? PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Jazz Saxophonist Craig Bailey Baileydt (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Answered below. Need more information first. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Need reviewers

Hi Teahouse, I need reviewers who are willing to review my revised versions of these two newly drafted pages Draft:Eureka_Scientific and Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation. I have added some reliable references. Thanks! Ad65718 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I just reviewed Draft:Eureka Scientific and declined it because it reads like an advertisement, you have disruptively, instantly re-submitted with zero change, please don't expect a different outcome. Theroadislong (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Theroadislong The next time you review an artcile, try to provide detailed feedback, not a general comment. I just posted on Teahouse 5 seconds ago, how quickly you read it in just 5 seconds?! First read, then provide feedback, then make a decision! Not in just 5 second! Ad65718 (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
You posted on The Teahouse at 20.08pm I declined your draft at 21.19 I had quite enough time to decide that the draft was plainly advertising. Please address the issue of undisclosed paid editing before editing further. Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Theroadislong It is now 20:49. How could be 21:19! If it was 20:19, then 10 minutes. You did not read it. Prove you read it by providing detailed feedback. You did not provide any since you did not read it. Ad65718 (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
My mistake clearly I reviewed at 20.19, I have added more feedback, your draft includes mission statements and other content with primary sources, Wikipedia articles are based on independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Response to your undisclosed paid tag. I did not get any payments for any of my contributions to Wikipedia. I do not spend my time here anymore. I already made substantial improvements and revisions to this draft. Ad65718 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for responding I have removed the undisclosed paid editing tag for you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not interested in spending my time on these pages anymore (Draft:Eureka_Scientific and Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation). In Draft:Eureka_Scientific, I already included several reliable, independent sources, which cover the subject, such as references from Science Magazine [1], Nature Journal [2], and Nature Index [3], which (1) are not self-published, (2) are independent and third-party, (3) may be primary. In Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation, I already included some reliable, independent sources, which cover the subject, such as references from MIT Technology Review[4] and American Astronomical Society (AAS) Newsletter.[5] Ad65718 (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
MIT is an ad. AAS newsletter is a one line passing mention. They are not independent, reliable, in-depth coverage of the company. Slywriter (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
MIT Technology Review is not an advert! There is a page about it: "MIT Technology Review is a bimonthly magazine wholly owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and editorially independent of the university...." If it was an advert, there was no critique such as "constituted unauthorized use of copyright material". It was written by Emerging Technology from the arXiv (KentuckyFC@arxivblog.com) https://www.technologyreview.com/author/emerging-technology-from-the-arxiv/ Ad65718 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Then why no by-line and it tells me to buy a star at the end? Slywriter (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Regardless, not independent "Today, Travis Metcalfe, an astronomer at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colorado, tells of the many adventures he has had in setting up and running the White Dwarf Research Corporation. His story is an entertaining read." Slywriter (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Those folks at Emerging Technology from the arXiv are bloggers, and they randomly wrote some articles about any post in arXiv. They wrote it for this arXiv post https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.07393. I do not think they get any money from Travis Metcalfe for writing it, since they wrote other things: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/04/131018/why-the-quantum-internet-should-be-built-in-space/ Moreover, MIT Technology Review has a subscription fee of 80$ per year for Digital and 120$ per year for Digital+Print. After a few pages, it now asks for the subscribe fee, and I cannot read it anymore. Ad65718 (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe the people who might get money were writers at Emerging Technology, but from MIT Technology Review for articles and reports, since MIT Technology Review has a subscription fee. Ad65718 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Ingenuity Ingenuity.talk(); For your information, Theroadislong finished his/her talk with 112.206.242.198 (User_talk:112.206.242.198) on 20:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC), then finished his/her review of Draft:Eureka_Scientific on 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC), which means just 3 minutes, which is the time he/she took to write her/his comments. You can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Theroadislong&offset=20220726071241&target=Theroadislong

For your information, Slywriter finished his/her talk with Benjamin Chiles (Talk:Benjamin Chiles) on 20:32, 25 July 2022‎, and start making comment in Draft:Eureka_Scientific on 20:49, 25 July 2022, which means 17 minutes, but she/he finished on 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC), then finished Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation on 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC), just 2 minutes between Draft:Eureka_Scientific and Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation, which is the time he/she took to write her/his comments. You can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Slywriter&offset=20220725225033&target=Slywriter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad65718 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

information Note: Ad65718 has been indefinitely blocked and had talk page access revoked for disruptive editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Moffat, Anne S. (1994). "Grant Limits Irk Young Scientists". Science. 265 (5180): 1916. Bibcode:1994Sci...265.1916M. doi:10.1126/science.265.5180.1916.
  2. ^ Bjorn, Genevive (2007). "Freedom of the skies". Nature. 449: 750–751. doi:10.1038/nj7163-750a.
  3. ^ "Eureka Scientific Inc., Nature Index". natureindex.com.
  4. ^ "The Curious Adventures of an Astronomer-Turned-Crowdfunder, MIT Technology Review, March 2, 2015". technologyreview.com.
  5. ^ "AAS Small Research Grants 2003, American Astronomical Society (AAS) Newsletter, August 2003, Issue 116" (PDF). aas.org.

Recreation of deleted article after AfD

Articles that were deleted after AfD and recreated again, will it nominate again for deletion or not? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi SeanJ 2007. The WP:AFD process isn't an automated process in the sense that previously deleted articles are somehow automatically re-nominated for deletion. Whether an article which was previously deleted via AfD can be recreated depends largely upon why it was deleted and whether the reasons for its deletion have been addressed. If basically nothing has changed and the article is pretty the same as it was when first deleted, then it probably falls under speedy deletion criterion WP:G4. If, however, the recreated version is a major improvement one and no longer has the same issues as before, then it might be OK and not need to be deleted again. When things aren't so clear, the article may need to go to AfD once again to see whether the consensus that led to its previous deletion has changed. There's no one answer that neatly covers applies to all possibilities with respect to something such as this, except perhaps that often things need to be resolved on an article-by-article basis. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: About that, last year, HotWiki nominated List of current Star Magic artists for deletion via AfD and others voted to delete it as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Explicit closed the discussion as delete. But a days later, it became redirect targeting Star Magic that there is no information or reason why. Should be re-nominate for deletion via RfD? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to politely explain the situation to the administrator who closed the AfD and see what they have to say. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@SeanJ 2007: You can ask the deleting admin as User:Marchjuly suggested, but speaking as an admin myself, I'll say that the article wasn't recreated. A redirect was simply put in its place, that's all. No harm in that. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Renaming articles

For the first time, I want to request that articles (2) be renamed. (I've seen this discussed many times, but didn't take notes because it didn't apply to me at the time.) Can someone please provide links to the page(s) that describe this process? Also, it's called "moving", not "renaming", right? Thanks in advance. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles: See WP:MOVE. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Being logged out unintentionally

I don't know if it is a glitch or something, but today for at least 3-4 times in the last half hour I have been logged out of my Wikipedia account despite never pressing the "log out" button. It has happened 3 of those times after I had finished making an edit. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: It's a bug. It just happened to me. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Raynard Jackson

Hi- I have a friend, Raynard Jackson, who has a page here- which he doesn't know who started, and has been edited down to just a handul of link. He asked me to help him figure out- who wrote the page, who edited the page and if we can restore the content that was once there. I am a journalist, but I am not familiar with how this site works, or where to start to help him.

I am newbie- can anyone help me out. KariDonovan@Protonmail.com Thank you! Kari Donovan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raynard_Jackson 76.216.17.96 (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The article has been edited by multiple editors since its creation, and you can access the history at Special:History/Raynard Jackson. That being said, both you and Jackson would have conflicts of interest if either of you were to edit the article directly. You may try leaving an edit request at Talk:Raynard Jackson, but I strongly suggest you find independent reliable sources, as the article has been tagged for being promotional in nature, which goes against Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Protonmail.com: According to the edit history, the subject created the article 12 years ago. See Special:Contributions/Gop1223. And it's not advised to leave your email address in the comments. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Submission being declined

Hey everyone, I keep on updating my submission but it has been betting declined, it would be great if I could get a hand with the submission. Thank you in advance! Zia SAD (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Zia SAD, you are relying too much on self sourced and connected content. Wikipedia cares very little what the subject, his friends and associates have to say about him. Need to be independent. To that end, the only useable source for notability purposes is Saturday paper. See this guide for some tips. Slywriter (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I may be completely clueless here, but I notice that nearly all the cited sources are from Back To Back Theatre. You need to include citations that are from sources with which he's not directly associated. I think those will go a long, long way towards demonstrating notability. You've got major newspapers as well as publications that cover theater, etc. Including several of those citations should demonstrate notability and thereby cause your submission to be approved. Fabrickator (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki page for Joel Isyaq

Hello I am trying to create a wikipedia page for Joel Isyaq EaglesFocus (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

information Note: This is being handled via IRC, and all indications are that there are no usable sources that can support an article at present. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding artist to site

Hello,

My team has tried to add an artist to wikipedia but have not been successful. Can someone assist me on next steps to get this artist added. Thank you! Baileydt (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Baileydt: First, are you referring to the deleted draft Draft:Craig Bailey, Saxophonist? That can be easily restored so you can continue working on it.
Second, who is "my team"? Are you representing this artist, or associated in any way with the artist? If so you absolutely must disclose your conflict of interest, preferably on your user page.
Third, does your team have access to the Baileydt user account?
Finally, if you are the subject of that draft article, please read Wikipedia:Autobiography. Generally, one doesn't write about oneself on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
We hired an website specialist that was working on getting Craig added wikipedia. I am his wife so since we not able to move forward. I stared this log in to see if I could obtain assistance to get him added. I am only acting as his team because I add content to his webpage. Baileydt (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Baileydt The person you hired needs to (if they haven't) make a formal paid editing disclosure. Wikipedia is not a directory of people where mere existence warrants a mention. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability. Your husband would need to be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that he meets the special definition of a notable musician. You (or the other person) can request that the draft be restored at WP:REFUND/G13. I would suggest both of you review Your First Article as well. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Baileydt, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. If we have an article about your husband, it will not belong to you or him, will not be controlled by you or him, and may end up containing content that you don't like. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Baileydt: It is fine to be a Wikipedia editor with a conflict of interest as long as you disclose it. Also, draft space (where your draft was initially created) is the only venue we have in which you can write an article about a subject with which you have a conflict of interest. If the person you hired contributes to the draft (and it must be a draft submitted via Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review), then that person absolutely needs to disclose the paid editing relationship per WP:PAID because that is a mandatory legal obligation that must be fulfilled as a condition of having an account here. You should know that an undisclosed paid editor is like poison. If an undisclosed editor attempts to create an article, that editor is blocked, the article is deleted, and any subsequent re-creation is viewed with suspicion and likely doesn't survive. Don't go down that road. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Baileydt Make sure that the "website specialist" is using his or her own Wikipedia login, and not sharing the Baileydt login with you. Each Wikipedia account is for use by one person, and the password should be known by only that person. Thanks. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Edits needed. How do I make revisions.

My band Black Tie Dynasty has a wikipedia page and it states that we are no longer an active band. I would like to correct that and provide additional context into what the group is doing currently and a change in lineup with respect to our new drummer. Is this something I can do myself? Cwat1980 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cwat1980, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question is that you can, but not directly. You should not directly edit an article where you have a conflict of interest, but should instead make Edit requests on the article's talk page (see that link for details): make them as specific as possible, and make sure to cite a reliable source for any information you wish to add - preferably a source wholly independent of you and your
associates.
You should first declare your conflict of interest on your user page; and if it is "your band", it is possible that Wikipedia would regard you as being a paid editor in respect of it: if so, it is mandatory to make the declaration.
I'm afraid that now that you have drawn people's attention to that article, it has been noticed that it is one of Wikipedias thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles, and it is likely to get deleted unless somebody finds enough independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the band to demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notabililty. The first two sources cited are not reliable, and while I am unable to look at the other two, I strongly suspect that they were based on a press release, and so were not independent. ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@ColinFine: I wouldn't be concerned. It's a substandard article but the band clearly meets WP:BAND criterion #5. It's more likely to be improved than deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I hope someone does improve it; an article needs to demonstrate notability by its citations. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Letter from Mathilde Lefebvre

Hello,

I have written an article upon a French hoax named La lettre de Mathilde Lefebvre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Letter_from_Mathilde_Lefebvre). I have already submitted my draft and my draft has been declined one time, because This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. I tried to change several phrases in the article, but I don't know if it's enough. I have put new sources.

Please, can you tell me if my draft is right ?

Thanks, Jeanne Angerie Jeanne Angerie (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne Angerie. First, it should all be written in the past tense, so "takes the decision" should read "decided", "will be found" = "were found" etc. Scrap all the editorializing words such as "unfortunately" and "indeed". Scrap nonsensical phrases such as "before dying in the sinking and found in a bottle" and "the only way to prevent a sinking was to be seen by another ship". Scrap rhetorical questions like "Would it not have made more sense..." Avoid addressing the reader directly in phrases such as "If we assume" and "One may wonder". Shantavira|feed me 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I have tried to do what you asked me to do.
Can you tell if it is good ?
Tank you for you advices,
Jeanne Angerie https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettre_de_Mathilde_Lefebvre (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The draft is a translation of the French Wikipedia article, less well done than the Google Chrome machine translation. Jeanne Angerie, please read Wikipedia:Translation for information on the procedure. Note that standards of notability and article quality may vary from one language's Wikipedia to another. Also note that, as a person who lacks English fluency, you really should not be attempting articles in English on your own; see: Wikipedia:Translators available--Quisqualis (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jeanne Angerie "The letter from Mathilde Lefebvre (French: lettre de Mathilde Lefebvre) is a document find in a bottle, purportedly written by Mathilde Lefebvre, a young girl from Liévin, France who died in the sinking, but in fact forged by an anonymous forger."
What sinking? The lead does not tell us. There's good advice from Quisqualis here. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Contact graham87

@graham 87 compiled four articles citing my book "A Dog Called Blue" (2003). My recently released book "A Dog for the Job" (2022) shows much of "A Dog Called Blue" to be incorrect. The Wiki articles are therefore incorrect. Graham 87 may wish to correct his articles - blocked until 2025. Too complicate an exercise for me or suggest someone who will. I can write the revisions but not upload to Wiki. Australian Cattle Dog Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog Nrc999 (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any user registered under that name, and the nearest existing user has no edits to either linked article. If you think your more recent book is more accurate, I'd advise starting a new section on the talk pages of the affected articled. Including a few key points of difference between the two books might help speed things up as well. WelpThatWorked (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I can't find any edits by Graham87 to any of the four articles which cite the book (the others are Halls Heeler and Robert Kaleski). I'm also not sure what you mean by "blocked until 2025", @Nrc999 - your account is not currently blocked. Perhaps you saw a block on your IP before you logged in? 174.21.19.94 (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I have no idea about any of this ... except I might've blocked the original poster's underlying IP. Graham87 07:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment on or question about an article's content

The Wikipedia:Questions page guides wikipedia users about commenting on or asking a question about an article's content. I quote from the page (punctuation errors are not my own):


"Each article has its own talk page to ask questions or make constructive comments regarding its content, when you're viewing the article, just click on the Talk tab at the top of the page. Bear in mind, however, that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion about the topics of articles – comments should be limited to the article's content."


First of all, if you're signed in to your Wikipedia account and are reading an article there are 2 "Talk" options, 1 Talk tab for the article (upper left) and 1 Talk link for your personal Talk page (upper right). The above instructions would be a lot more clear if they pointed this out and guided users to the correct Talk option (the tab I think).

Secondly, when I click on the correct Talk tab for the article I see no way to ask a question. I see 3 main sections:

1. This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

2. Contents list (not the contents of the article itself but the contents of the Talk page, which are related to but do not align directly with the content of the article.)

3. Individual Contents, each of which has an Edit Source option.

I don't see an option to ask a question. It's probably pretty obvious but I can't seem to find it. I apologize if my inquiry seems trivial or elementary or both.

Thank you for your help, time, and patience.

BiquidLoy Biquidloy (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Biquidloy, welcome to the Teahouse. Suggestions for improvements to the wording on that page should be placed on the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Questions. The way to start a new discussion is to click either the "Edit" or "New Section" button at the top of the page, between "Read" and "View history". There's a new discussion feature which adds a button in the middle of the page to start a discussion, but only when there are no other discussions on the page already. There's also an add-on to the reply function which allows you to start a new topic.
BUT - that particular talk page is semi-protected due to misuse. Your account doesn't currently have enough edits to able to edit through semi-protection (needs at least 10 edits, you have six). You can either make a few more edits and get auto-confirmed or submit an edit request here. 174.21.19.94 (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Biquidloy. I am not an official Teahouse host, so don't take what I say as definitive. You asked for "an option to ask a question". The easy answer is that, as far as a Talk page is concerned, a question is no different from a comment or any other contribution to the page. You just need to click on New Section at the top of the page, then type the question in the Subject box. You can then type more details of the question in the Description box. After you submit the question, it will appear as a sub-heading within the page. I hope this helps, and that I am not treading on anyone's toes by invading the Teahouse in this way. Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to Draft help

Hi, I got no reply and it got archived, can someone please help? the editor asked 3 sourced and I supplied but no reply since then... I assume I need to resubmit the draft but would love an answer so it will work and approve. Thanks! --Polysaccharides (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Polysaccharides (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Polysaccharides, you replied to the post after it had already been archived, so no one saw your reply. Here is a link to the diff, for others' use: 1. 174.21.19.94 (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I've had a look at the three sources you listed there. None of them includes the extensive discussion of the subject, that would be needed to establish his notability.   Maproom (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Small but annoying problem

Every time I try to leave a reply in AfD discussions a colon appears in the code. Even if I switch to code view and make sure it is not there, it still appears when I leave my reply, and it causes my reply to be out of line with all the other replies.

I would just edit the whole document manually in the Wikicode, but this is tedious as it would require manually entering my user name and the time and date.

What am I doing wrong? Currently I am just clicking "reply" on the original proposal to delete. Where am I supposed to click to leave a reply that doesn't look like I am replying to one of the other repliers?

Thanks. Chagropango (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I infer that you're not editing "source", Chagropango, and that your reason for not doing so (or one of these) is that doing so "would require manually entering [your] user name and the time and date". No it would not. It would merely require four consecutive "~". -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, good to know. Is that what everyone else is doing? Chagropango (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
It's what many people are doing, Chagropango. In Preferences|Editing, check "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta". -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll give it a try Chagropango (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
PS, Chagropango, there's a syntax highlighting option. I'm using it and I recommend it. Unfortunately I've now forgotten both what it's called and where/how I turned it on. Perhaps somebody reading this will tell us. -- Hoary (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

How do i get this article Draft:Jeriq published?

How do I get this article Draft:Jeriq published. Please i need your help. Fabregado (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Fabregado Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You wait for it to be reviewed by a reviewer. There is no way to speed this up, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Fabregado You are being given good advice and help from a New Pages patroller here on his Talk Page I suggest you follow that advice and the improved article draft may well be accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Palmer Report

The wikipedia page for The Palmer Report is linked to other wiki pages. None of the links I click on mention the facts in the main article. Is this kosher? LizLI2 (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The Palmer Report and Palmer Report both work correctly and haven't been changed recently EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
LizLI2, the facts in the main article should be supported, not by the links to other Wikipedia articles, but by the references cited. These are indicated by superscript numbers in square brackets, and listed in the "References" section near the foot of the article. Maproom (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The footnotes don't support the facts presented in the page. When I click on the footnote the info in the footnote does not have the info in it. For instances the first footnote references the word "liberal" and it is the original Palmer Report home page but the word "liberal" does not appear at all.
This continues for all of the three or four footnotes I followed through with.
I don't know how to change the page and make it better and that is why I am asking in this section how to do that. LizLI2 (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi LizLI2. I think you have just looked at the wrong footnotes. The very first (the Palmer Report homepage) is there to support information in the information box at the top right of the article. The citation to the word "liberal" in the first sentence of the main article is actually the second reference in the footnotes, the one that says "Sources describing the Palmer Report as a liberal website include:" and giving 5 bulleted links that describe the website as being liberal. If you find any problems with the article but don't want to edit it yourself, please make your comments on its Talk Page at Talk:Palmer Report. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Templates

How do i start new template 2600:1700:6180:6290:9513:4BFE:DEB0:3626 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Only autoconfirmed users can create pages. But you can request for the creation of a template here. See this guide as well. Kpddg (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

What is the point and/or name of these block quotations?

When inserting a space in front of a paragraph a quotation template gets used that doesn't get listed under the list of "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page:" when editing, what's the name of this template? I cant find any mention of it in WP:Manual of Style. The what I think is a deliberate use of them in this article Recall (memory) is making me question whether these aren't just typing errors. NinuKinuski (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@NinuKinuski Welcome to the Teahouse. I actually think they are accidental artifacts introduced in a recent edit. When you 'edit source' of this earlier version, it's evident hat someone tried to indent paragraphs with lots of hard spaces. Most (but not all were recently removed0. As we see in your own post here, just adding one single space to the first line in a new paragraph causes the text to appear incorrectly. Please feel free to edit the article and remove those spaces. Don't forget that you can preview your edits to check that your version has resolved all the issues before finally saving and publishing it.
TBH: I'm not sure I fully understood the first part of your question, so I've not addressed it- sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the first part of the question means that a leading space emulates Template:Blockquote. However, that template doesn't impose a monospaced font in the way that a leading space does. AFAIK a leading space should never be used in an article unless you're trying to do something weird like ASCII art.--Shantavira|feed me 14:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
They look like typos to me. - X201 (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Obituary source?

Hi there, working on Draft:Peter Kapschutschenko. Is an obituary from the Philadelphia inquirer an acceptable source? I have several other sources with the same info but the obit has a concise list of accomplishments. Many thanks! Djarmacost (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Djarmacost: Obituaries are acceptable if they were written by a journalist on the newspaper staff. They wouldn't be acceptable if written by family members or close associates. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Djarmacost, this specific obituary has all the signs of being a paid obituary submitted by family or friends. It lists a charity to donate to, the funeral home and the schedule of a service. It does not appear to be independent, reliable coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Cullen328Anachronist Thanks for the response, I am going to remove this citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djarmacost (talk • contribs)
Cullen328 Anachronist Do I need a citation for birth and death dates? I cant seem to find the exact dates anywhere EXCEPT in the obituary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djarmacost (talk • contribs) 15:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Djarmacost: Pings don't work unless you sign your post at the time of posting it. Please see WP:DOB, Wikipedia generally doesn't include birth/death dates unless it's been widely reported by independent, reliable sources or a source connected to the subject in such a way it's evident the subject doesn't care if its public, so the exact birth/death days probably shouldn't be included in this case. Cullen328 Anachronist fix botched ping Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt mobil: Many thanks I've changed Draft:Peter Kapschutschenko Djarmacost (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

editing page

I am trying to make some Wikipedia pages for our national champions can someone assist me, as I already have done the draft but would like some feedback NMUGOGRECO (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

NMUGOGRECO Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I've added the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft for review. It is provided if you create a draft via WP:AFC. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Please also read the information I place on your user page regarding conflict of interest. You may have some formal disclosures to make. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I have submitted the draft for review can you take a look at it? NMUGOGRECO (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
NMUGOGRECO The Draft:George Sikes IV as it now appears will be Declined. ALL references need to be embedded in the text. In this draft, most are entered in References, meaninng there is no connection between the content in the refs and the content in the draft. Also, most of the misplaced refs are bare URLs. Standard ref format is preferred. David notMD (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Query about source

Hello, fellow Wikipedians. I have a question regarding source/citation. Can a Wikipedia article be used as a source for an edit on another related article?

Thanks for the responder in advance, Bye. FofS&E (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@FofS&E: Unfortunately no, because it is user generated. Wikipedia has really strict standards of what is considered a reliable source. However, if the statement you want to cite has citations (like these little numbers: [1][2]), then you might want to re-use those citations (but I would give attribution just to be safe.) weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 17:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Test citation
  2. ^ Another test citation. Citations look like this, but with actual material to be cited.

Draft:Marcia Griffin

Greetings. I'm attempting to understand a draft rejection for an individual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marcia_Griffin) who clearly meets this criteria: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field."

Griffin is a nationally recognized minority housing expert who has been invited to testify in front of Congress multiple times during national crises (2008 housing collapse and COVID, notably). Her testimony can be viewed directly via citations in the draft. These are not interviews or entertainment segments, they are sworn testimony in front of Congressional housing committees. Does this not meet "enduring historical record" criteria? Surely, housing crises, particularly involving underserved communities, is a substantial part of American history. Can anyone please explain how this is not so?? Thanks in advance. Danceswithedits (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Danceswithedits: It does not. Both government sources and anything the subject says/writes/commissions/films/etc. are useless for this claim; we're looking for third-party coverage from news outlets or scholarly sources that discusses her efforts. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. C-Span is decidedly not a government source, but instead a nonprofit public service owned by National Cable Satellite Corporation, as noted in Wikipedia. This subject appeared for Congressional testimony on several occasions as a "widely recognized" contributor in a very specific, and very vital field (minority housing) and is now a part of that governing body's, and America's "enduring historical record." That simply a fact. I respectfully disagree that this is "useless" and have seen many accepted Wikipedia bio entries with far less viable notability. Testifying before congress, as we've seen consistently over the last month and years, does indeed generate notability, as very few citizens are afforded this opportunity/honor. . Danceswithedits (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid that testifying before congress, and anything else a subject may say or do, does not of itself generate notability as Wikipedia uses the word. What does that is independent people publishing about what they say or do. C-SPAN may be totally reliable, but when what they publish is footage of her speaking, that is not an independent source and is, as Jeske says, useless for establishing that she meets Wikipedia's criteria. You say that she "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring record in a specific field". Which of your independent sources asserts that?
As for other articles with far less viable notability: unfortunately, that is true. We have thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles, which should be improved or deleted - mostly created before our standards were raised as high as they are now. That is not a good reason to accept another inadequate draft: see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Note that the draft has not been rejected (which would mean that the reviewer thought it was unsalvageable, usually becuase they do not believe the subject meets the criteria for notability) but declined. ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Need advice from a reviewer

Hello, my article Draft:Ingrasys Technology just got declined because it read as an advertisement. The reviewer asked me to disclose paid editing, but I actually do not get paid for that. I wanna rewrite the article, but I am not sure which part of the article goes wrong. Is it the sources I used or something else...I am really not sure. I would be really appreciated if any reviewer could give me some suggestions. Thank you. Sharonabc19 (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you in any way paid or compensated by Ingrasys Technology? That would qualify as "Paid" even if you are not being paid for an attempt to create the article. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
It reads like an advertisement because, as one reviewer said, it is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

First refusal, secondary sources

Hi Tea-timers, I think I will be unable to complete my Wiki page until there is further references available to create links to. Some years ago, I completed a novel, the inspiration behind it is Loftus Hall Choosing to include a link that any interested parties might follow on this page, I thought to create a Wiki page that gives a brief overview of the book, linking characters and locations to various other wiki pages. However, the page was declined as it did not contain secondary sources. This is something I may not be able to add, which is fine. But if there is a method I could employ, I'd be very happy to know it. Be well. Stephen Sforaw (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Stephen, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that what you are doing is something that is prohibited anywhere in Wikipedia, called promotion. If at some time Wikipedia has an article about your novel, the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, will not be for your benefit except incidentally, will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with you have chosen to publish about the novel in reliable sources, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. You are discouraged from writing such an article yourself, but not forbidden. But until there are such independent published sources about the novel, there is literally nothing which can be put into an article about it. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Unweaseling

I wish to unweasel this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep_Adaptation&type=revision&diff=1097164731&oldid=1092327105. With respect to The Legend of Miyamoto, I believe that the use of "several scientists" is not weasel since several news articles are cited and five scientists are named in the same paragraph. I would like to undo "weasel" as the cleanest and most expedient remedy but don't want to offend. Your suggestions? Artemisia-californica (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Artemisia-californica, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Legend of Miyamoto gave a reason for the claim, which you may or may not agree with. According to the policy of WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss, you may revert their edit; but it seems likely that if you do so, they will start a discussion on the article's talk page; so I suggest you do not revert but start the discussion yourself. Remember that the goal of a discussion is not to "win" or to "be right" but to achieve consensus among the different parties if possible. ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Information I've added to the Schneider Kreuznach article has disappeared

Hello -

I recently joined Wikipedia after reading interesting information on the Schneider Kreuznach camera lens reference pages. I have several Schneider Kreuznach lenses and noted that there were some types not listed on Wikipedia. I used the editor to add new information and one image which I obtained permission from the owner to use on Wikipedia. Immediately after adding the additional lens information and the image, this information was visible on the Wikipedia Schneider Kreuznach page. I just now made a minor edit and when I submitted it, I found that all of the information and image I had added over the past 3 days was gone. Did I do something wrong? I did not receive an email from Wikipedia indicating there was a problem.

Thanks very much,

Mike Dr Michael Ray Murphy (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like your edits were reverted because in the last edit, where you added the "Curtagon" section, you wrote in a narrative style, rather than the Encyclopedic Style. I think your other edits were alright, so I've reinstated them. Feel free to re-write the section and continue writing, just try to follow the encyclopedic style. If you have any questions or confusion about style guidelines, post them here. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Dr Michael Ray Murphy, welcome to the Teahouse. Unless the image copyright holder sends a messsage to Commons releasing the image for use, or unless it is posted elsewhere under a compatible free license, uploading it is a copyright violation. The image will likely be deleted unless this problem is addressed. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for explaining why the text and image were removed - and I appreciate that you reinstated the image and part of the text. I also appreciate your explanation of the Encyclopedic Style - I will read through this link and will try to rewrite the material on the different Curtagon designs. I do think this information is important since these lenses have not been manufactured for over 60 years, yet there is a resurgence of interest in vintage lenses, though specifics about the design differences between the different Curtagon types is dispersed across many different sources. I think this will help those who reference the Schneider Kreuznach Wikipedia page to better understand the change in Curtagon lens designs and mount types over time which is related to the current value of these lenses. This information will also help prevent less knowledgeable individuals from purchasing a Curtagon lens which in fact cannot be adapted to a modern digital camera - such as the German Kodak, Retina Curtagon or Edixa Curtagon for the Exakta Electronica - which are only partial lenses with no aperture ring. However, there is a Retina Curtagon also in DKL mount that is a complete lens and can be adapted to digital - the name on the lens is the same, the design of these two types is quite different.
I realize I'm giving too much information explaining why I wrote the paragraph that was deleted --- I am a Research Engineer and am very interested in lens repeatability and reproducibility which starts with understanding the number of lens elements and lens grouping.
Thanks again,
Mike Dr Michael Ray Murphy (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Mike, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. Please make sure that everything you add can be cited to a reliable published source: information only from your own knowledge - even if you have the actual lenses in front of you - is not acceptable: see verifiability. I'm also concerned that you may be straying into areas which are not Wikipedia's purpose: see WP:NOTHOWTO. (I haven't looked at your additions, I'm just working from what you said above, so I may be way off-beam). ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

stand alone offline text editors

Are there any text editors that understand wiki code and allow one to draft, save, and preview, a new wiki article off wiki? How about offline ? I've tried to read through Help:Text editor support, and being a nontechie my head is swimming. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, which of these editors do you have (or would you consider installing), and what about its/their description(s) there is obscure? Incidentally, when I want to make a complex edit (such as this one) I'll often do so within Wikipedia, viewing it here -- but not saving it here until I'm happy with it; instead copying it from here, and pasting it to a text file on my hard disc that I've opened with Geany. Of course if I'm ever offline I just do all the editing within Geany. -- Hoary (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The list appears to be written with the assumption that I know more about what is intended by the lead and other prose that I do. It would help to club me over the head with idiot proof language like "These following editors allow you to draft preview and save wikipedia text, with wiki formatting and templates, without even being online." Are any of them capable of that? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
So, I'm afraid that's a "NO" then, NewsAndEventsGuy. The software behind Wikipedia's infobox templates, for example, is extensive and not readily implemented off-wiki. What I recommend is that you use a simple text editor (I use Microsoft Wordpad) which is as "dumb" as possible and doesn't attempt to convert things like two consecutive single quotes (the ' character) into a double quote (the " character) so that when used to indicate italics in the source code things are not messed up. Then use your sandbox at User:NewsAndEventsGuy/sandbox to copy/paste the offline text and "Show preview" it. This allows all the special Wiki-stuff to work and you can see what your draft looks like if published. BUT there is no need to actually save/publish it! You could make a few more additions in the sandbox before copy/pasting back the new version into the offline editor (or into the article where you intend the edit to go). I do this all the time to ensure my part-works are not publically available until I'm ready to release them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, I recommend that you use personal sandbox pages. You can have an unlimited number of them, as long as you use them to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

thanks all, that's about what thought. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is the sockpuppet block template different?

Exactly what it says on the tin, Of course I'm not complaining, I've always been a big fan of logos/symbols/warnings/bans so another symbol is great to have. (And of course, I didn't get banned to see it, i just went on the template index, I love Wikipedia and would never try to hurt or harm it.) 68.41.231.207 (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way, if you go to my contributions you might see vandalism, that's just because somebody had my IP before me, I'm guessing they changed it and i got it. 68.41.231.207 (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Why is it different from what? -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The other ban templates. The other ones are an X or a clock. And the sockpuppet one is different. 68.41.231.207 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe this has historical as well as implementation reasons. {{SockBlock}} traces back to 2004 and has always been a standalone template, while {{blocked}} serves as the "master" template for most other blocking templates and uses the X-/clock image by default. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
As shown on Wikipedia:Template index/User namespace, the template that goes on the user page of a blocked sockpuppet shows two figures and thus resembles other templates that go on the user pages of other alternative accounts. The template that a blocked sockpuppet gets on their user talk page includes an image combining a clock and an octagonal sign that I suppose is meant to indicate prohibition: the same image that's included within, for example, the template that a blocked spammer gets. -- Hoary (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editors from Yemen

Dear Editors, I have been trying to create a page for prominent yemeni journalist Naseh Shaker but since I am not a confirmed editor, I have not been able to create a page.

I have all sources and links for him if you can help. Abdullah Ahmed Shakir (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Abdullah Ahmed Shakir, you've created a draft at User:Abdullah Ahmed Shakir/sandbox. Before this has a chance of becoming an article, it needs the addition of well-sourced material about Naseh Shaker. (A small point: "Shaker, Miller, Curtis, Naseh, Phil, Mark" is a very odd list of authors. Use "last1=ABC | first1=DEF | last2=GHI | first2=JKL", etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Abdullah Ahmed Shakir, you will need to find independent, published, reliable sources which discuss Mr. Shakir in depth, in order to demonstrate the "notability" of your subject.
Given your last name, you will also want to declare whether or not you have a conflict of interest with respect to the subject of your draft.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


Here is an in-depth article about Naseh Shaker from International Journalists' Network: https://ijnet.org/fr/node/7183 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah Ahmed Shakir (talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's an in-depth article about Shaker, but it seems to be mostly based on an interview, i.e. what Shaker says about himself, and so it contributes little towards establishing that he meets the criteria for notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Tools

Are there tools to check how many times a word has been used by a user? PravinGanechari (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Not that I know of. The Wikipedia database is freely available. You can use it to develop your own word-frequency analysis by user. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi sir, How many times has the word been used by another user? I wanted to find out. ( Because it is useful for SPI case) PravinGanechari (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
What? You ask if there is a tool to answer that question, and Anachronist replies that as far as they know there isn't, but there is a way you could create one if you wish. Then you come back and ask somebody to tell you the answer to the question? Why do you think you are likely to get an answer? ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

FLAX new study that indicates it can cause drug reactions similar to grapefruit

FLAX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flax

A research paper found Flax may cause liver enzyme changes that can affect certain drug levels due to increased CYP2C9 and CYP3A4 expression. 70.30.41.148 (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be in reference to the short article Defries D, Shariati S, Blewett H, Aliani M. Expression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes Is Induced by Flaxseed Enterolignans. Curr Dev Nutr. 2021 Jun 7;5(Suppl 2):312. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzab037_022. PMCID: PMC8181327.. This in vitro study does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for medical research (see WP:MEDRS). Therefor, it is premature to add its findings and as a ref to the articles Flax or Flaxseed oil. David notMD (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@David notMD: not to confuse the issue, but there is no prohibition in mentioning such results on Wikipedia if the article makes it clear that it's an in vitro study and not applicable to humans. See WP:MEDINVITRO. I am not sure about this case, but some in vitro or in vivo studies do get cited in multiple other places and are therefore encyclopedically relevant and worthy of note. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd still be very cautious about adding it. The problem is that enormous numbers of papers appear every year saying that this or that plant affects this or that enzyme, and these things are like the dots in a pointillist painting. Each individual dot is so tiny it's irrelevant, and possibly even misleading, but overall, if an effect is big enough, sooner or later a pattern will become clear, and a review paper will discuss the whole thing (or a genuine application will turn up, and create secondary sources). People get dreadfully excited about single papers like this (especially, but not exclusively, the authors of the papers) but they're rarely significant enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. In fact, inclusion tends to lead to a weak and confusing article, containing very narrow specific claims, rather than showing the bigger picture. You see this often in articles about near-universal phytochemicals, where there will suddenly be a sentence saying that the chemical is found in Outer Hebridean Dwarf Bananas, where in fact it's found in 50% of the plant kingdom, but someone happens to have latched onto a single research paper. Primary literature should be used with extreme caution. Elemimele (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Elemimele That is a fascinating description (the pointillist painting part). I know that all writings here are under some permissive license or other, but I'll ask anyway -- can I copy this and show it to people who latch on to these kinds of results and get all excited? I can attribute it to your username if you want. Thanks. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I may take what you wrote and reword it a bit for my use, if that's OK (so it's not encyclopedia-specific). Thanks. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
You are most welcome! It's just my point of view, of course; but if it were too far wrong probably someone else would have chipped-in with extra comments. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! 71.228.112.175 (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have found that in this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiveWire_(motorcycle) the 1st link leads to an empty page. I don't have any other supporting pages for the data sourced from this perhaps once working site.

My question is - can I somehow mark this as a faulty link so other editors could see it? Aha? OK! Hmm? Mh! Ee? Aaa! (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Mutterings, the first thing to do is to look for the page at the Wayback Machine. And yes, this has several versions. You can replace the dead link with a usable Wayback link. But the address of the page suggests that it's mere PR stuff (as is much of this Wikipedia article, with "Harley-Davidson announced [blah blah]", etc). -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 Courtesy permalink: Note 1 at LiveWire (motorcycle); (in the Infobox, after '2019'). Mathglot (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Mutterings, welcome down the rabbit-hole, because the article uses citation templates. Once you've decided which Wayback scrape you want to use, and have its date and its URL, see Template:Cite web for what to do with these. Additionally, most of Help:Using the Wayback Machine is for problems that you won't face, but parts of it might be helpful. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Page Link

Apologies for bothering by asking questions. There are three different links just tell me are there different users creating this page or same.

Hi, PravinGanechari. I assume you're asking if the authors of the drafts are the same? It looks like each draft/article was created by a different editor. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Right sir you solved my question. Thank you
Now my second question sir I am still giving you some links. It has different dates but is the person who created the page the same or different?
(B) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=119319018
(B) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=133938251
(C) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=134203709 PravinGanechari (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The logs show quite clearly that they were created respectively by users Akshaywiki1, Yash Prasad9, and Devjit1234. They are evidently different accounts. We have no way of knowing whether or not they are different people. ColinFine (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi ColinFine , You are right .. these three users have contributed in this draft.[12] I suspect two of these three users may be the same. So I did the SPI case.[13] I made a mistake when doing the SPI case by not writing the information completely. I am asking here because of his doubt. PravinGanechari (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@PravinGanechari you've just called a woman sir. Twice, in fact. Again, this is one of the main problems with using that term to address people: people on the internet tend to assume that anyone who is answering questions is male, and it's insulting to women to have someone assume that we couldn't possibly be answering questions if we weren't male. This is one of the reasons you have been advised by multiple editors not to do this. Valereee (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Valereee, Sorry, I will try not to say those words from next time. PravinGanechari (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Mistaking someone's gender, whether assigned or identified with, does not rise to the level of an insult. It is regrettable, though, that cultural mores lead to assuming that only men can answer questions. We should make an effort to understand that other cultures have social drawbacks, like our own culture also has, and relentlessly educate. I sympathize with your effort. Hunzu (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what your point is, here, @Hunzu, but I'll take it to your talk. Valereee (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Hunzu , I was wrong, I apologize. You have no right to speak. This "controversy" affects me as you are a new user even more than me.
Hi Valereee , Do not discuss this matter with the person. Sorry once again. PravinGanechari (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

PravinGanechari don't worry, your questions are welcome here. Feel free to follow up on previous discussion above, or ask further, if you still need information. Mathglot (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Recreating a Deleted Article Not Seen as Notable at Time of Deletion

Hi all, I am newer to Wikipedia in the sense that my edits to pages tend to be rather basic and brief. I am wanting to follow WP:BOLD and create an article on something I personally believe would be notable.

However, the page has been created and deleted multiple times, the last delete happening in 2008 with the protections having expired in 2011. I am of the belief that at the time of deletion the subject in question lacked notability, but over time has gained that notability.

The page in question is SheezyArt. The things I believe make the subject notable since the time of article deletion is the fact that it spawned the YouTube Poop format (article created 2013), has been cited as the reason Fur Affinity was created (another site I'd argue as being notable despite the current page being a redirect to the Furry Fandom page), has had multiple notable creators within its community such as the Eddsworld team, Arin Hanson, Zach Hadel, Kira Buckland, and more, and spawned a short-lived revival project last year seeing that the original site has been on permanent hiatus since 2013.

Assuming the fact that I am able to get reliable, verifiable, and independent sources, would my reasoning above be enough for the article subject to at least be WP:SIGNIF if not WP:N? I have read the notability guidelines and am aware I need to be cautious of the idea of "inherited notability", and am fighting with myself as to whether or not that would apply here with my point on notable users.

Thanks in advance, appreciate the idea of a Teahouse space as a whole. Binzy Boi (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Binzy Boi, none of these names means anything to me. Perhaps other people here would say the same. Here's a suggestion. Give us links to three reliable sources that discuss "SheezyArt" in depth. One or more people here will then use these sources to evaluate the notability (as defined by en:Wikipedia) of "SheezyArt". -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@Binzy Boi: this may help you find some sources:
SheezyArt: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Try following some of those links (the last three may not work for you as a new user) and consult the guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources to get an idea of what we consider "reliable". Then post a few sources that you believe are reliable and that speak directly about SheezyArt in a way that is substantive, that is, not just a brief, passing mention, but something a bit more in depth. My first impression is that the majority of attention to SheezyArt is from social media, which is generally not acceptable as a reliable reference, but keep digging deeper, maybe you'll find something. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Translation of Latin in justice department seal

I would like to see a Translation of Latin to English in justice department seal. Can anyone translate it? 69.121.155.231 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm going to assume you're referring to the seal in United States Department of Justice? The Headquarters section contains information on the seal's motto translation (according to the article, it looks like no one knows for sure). Perfect4th (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Google translate to the rescue! Mathglot (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Automatic highlighting

I would like to automatically highlight text while editing, such that I can input one (or more) search terms and it will automatically search every single page I edit. Does anyone know of a Google Chrome or Wikipedia extension that will do this? (Note, I already tried "Highlight This", and it does not let me search in the editing field—which is what I need—even when I select "Highlight in editable fields.") TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't CTRL+F do that for you? Shantavira|feed me 08:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Presumably Chrome (which I don't have) works similarly to Chromium (which I have but seldom use for editing Wikipedia). With Chromium, I can use Ctrl-f for an incremental search, which highlights every hit on the page, whether or not this is within the editing field. It doesn't search in every tab I have open, in the tab of every page of every Wikipedia page I'm concurrently editing, least of all in every Wikipedia page I've ever edited. (I don't understand what it is that you want, TheGEICOgecko.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hoary: I'm aware of Ctrl + F, and use it regularly. I was just wondering if there was an automatic way to do this, considering how extensively I use it, and also cause there are some things I generally wouldn't take the time to search, but would be nice to be able to see if it's a more systemic occurence in a page. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@TheGEICOgecko: I’m not familiar with Chrome and am a Firefox user. Firefox has (a number of) plugins that support find/replace (keystroke sequence to invoke) and a native facility to perform string change, configured as string pairs, which you can think of as ‘global replace’. You say ‘highlight’ however generally there is a purpose in mind. If you wish to search for a term that just offers you ‘edification’ then a tool such as AWB is probably required. AWB has a find function that offers highlighting (selectable option) and also supports regex use which therefore provides the capability of an ‘or’ function or anything possible in regex. If you just want a basic search then the wiki search functions are quite useful, just turning your request on its head (find before edit). For instance, a wiki search informs me that there are 78 instances of ‘revert back’ found in articles and with minor search modification informs me that there are 136 instances including these two words separated by another word so ‘revert it back’ is presented. Anything is possible, it's just that Chrome, by itself, may be a limiting environment to achieve what you want. With a little more explanation as to your purpose then perhaps I, and others, can assist further. Neils51 (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Neils51: I would like to have a list of things I can search. There are certain things with systemic errors across the WikiProject I work in, and being able to plug in these things to automatically search would make things much smoother, and it would make it easier to not forget to check for those things in the first place (e.g., searching for "[[United States]]", since that goes against MOS:OL). Highlighting would also help signify whether a certain field in an infobox exists I guess (i.e., if I don't see the infobox field highlighted, the field isn't there, and I should insert it).
I would also like a way to search templates with different spellings. For example, "Color box" has six different spellings. It would be easier to have an automatic search, as opposed to having to type all three spellings in order to get a thorough result, especially considering it is not rare for multiple spellings to appear in the same article.
Another usage, perhaps more rare and trivial, is just to remove consecutive spaces when there's way too many in a row (searching for two consecutive spaces would probably achieve this), not really important, but a bonus thing that would be nice to run in the background. If there is not any tool that lets me input a list of search items, but rather only one item, this would probably be the thing I would automatically search, since this is the only interest I have that is only searching one item.
I currently use regex Wikipedia searches, and do not use any form of global replace, although now that you mention it that might solve other issues I wasn't even thinking of. Also, what is AWB? I am not familiar with the term. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@TheGEICOgecko:, Ok, you will be familiar with sliced bread, AWB is even better and the items you have mentioned are AWB’s bread & butter. You are in for a treat if you can get to grips with the following pages; WP:AWB/MAN, WP:AWB/Typos, WP:REGEX. Neils51 (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Search bar desktop

Why has the search bar on desktop mode gone really small. I don’t like it. Change it back please. Katie Richardsonn (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Katie, and welcome to the Teahouse. It hasn't changed for me. What skin are you using?
However - people who inhabit this page are usually editors, and have little to do with how the software works or is displayed. Technical questions about those areas are more likely to get a useful answer if you ask at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Katie, I agree with Colin, but when you write again, please include additional information if you can, like what device you are on (desktop, tablet, cell), what operating system (Android, iOS, Windows, Linux, etc.), and OS version, if you know it. Finally, if you can take a screenshot (even a snapshot of your device's screen taken with a cellphone camera will do) and upload it to a free hosting site like Imgur and link the screenshot, that would be ideal. Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Katie Richardsonn. I too edit in the desktop mode, using Android smartphones running Chrome. There has been no change in the appearance of my search bar. This appears not be a general Wikipedia issue, but rather something to do with your specific device or some skin that you are using. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This sounds like the issue being discussed here on VPT. It seems to affect some browsers/environments differently than others. I just noticed it today, as apparently other people did, so it's probably a WP:THURSDAY thing. CodeTalker (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Problem to login in wikimedia common account

Kindly help and rectify this issue 117.251.22.81 (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is separate from Wikipedia; therefore please ask there. When you do so, please specify the "problem" (or "issue"). -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Assistance

 Courtesy link: Norman Fenton

I am a lawyer who is editing the page of Professor Norman fenton because claims on it by Wikipedia user: Alexbrn on that page are incorrect and defamatory.

Specifically Alexbrn has made claims that Fenton was an author on a document by the HART group. this is not correct and Alexbrn has NOT provided links to the document, I believe, because he knows it does NOT list Fenton as an author or contributor or editor.

I have correctly provided links to the document and to the updated mainstream journalist article by Tom Whipple where my firm made the Times retract and revise Whipple's article to remove the claim that Fenton was an author (the original false claim being presumably why Alexbrn made the change on wikipedia in the first place).

Can someone please assist to ensure that my corrected statement (with its citations) is retained and that Alexbrn cannot continue to falsely claim Fenton is an author on the HART document

Thanks Holomatrix (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you read WP:COI and WP:NLT before editing any further, @Holomatrix. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I have no conflict of interest
Perhaps you do?
I would suggest that Alexbrn and the other three trolls who seem to insist that Tom Whipple's now retracted lie stand on here are the ones with some conflict Holomatrix (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I have also not made a legal threat. What I have done is point out that the text Alexbrn placed on the page is defamatous - the text imputes that Fenton did something that I have demonstrated with citations is incorrect and potentially damaging to Fenton's reputation. It is for this reason Whipple had to retract the claim in his Times article. Holomatrix (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Holomatrix: You are a lawyer and you express yourself in terms like that???? Didn’t they teach you at law school that doing so would be a virtually certain way of getting any case you ever bring to court thrown out? Or is there some other possible reason why someone claiming to be a lawyer might behave in a way that no trained lawyer could possibly think would be in the interests of their client? Some word beginning with "l"? Unfortunately the word escapes me just now, but maybe you can think of it... JBW (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Holomatrix Wikipedia requires that discussions on disputed content take place on the Talk page of articles rather than in the body of the articles. Second, dispute content without attacking other editors. Third, yes, you do have a conflict of interest (WP:COI), because you state that your law firm was connected to the Whipple retraction. No one else has a COI. Fourth, blogs are not reliable source references. Hence, your content reverted by three editors, all of whom have a long history of contributing to Wikipedia content. David notMD (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: Holomatrix indef blocked for being pain in the ass (technical term). The content that Holomatrix contested has been removed while the facts are being checked. An article in The Times was initially cited, but Holomatrix argued that mention of Fenton being associated with a report was in error and had subsequently retracted by The Times. David notMD (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing Pages

Hi,

I am trying to make an addition on this page. I am trying to add another appearance at "Coke Studio" for Rahat Fateh Ali Khan under the section of Musical Shows, Coke Studio. At first, the edit was reverted because I added an external link in my edit which went against the wikipedia copyright policy. However, later I removed that link and yet the edit still got reverted, this time because I had not provided a reliable source.

What I want to know is what exactly would qualify as a reliable source. Also, not every fact on the page has been backed up by a source. Why does my edit need a source when the links I provide satisfy the authenticity requirements?

I would like a reply specific to the VisualEditor. COLABSPK (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

COLABSPK Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can say that you can read more about what reliable sources are at Reliable Sources, but in short, a reliable source is one with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control; basically, they don't have a reputation of making stuff up or not checking information. This disqualifies most blogs or social media postings(which are usually from the topic itself).
It is possible that other unsourced information is present in an article- this does not mean more can be added, only that the prior unsourced information has not been addressed yet(through either removal or locating a source). 331dot (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

X fox

I want to request a page move can some help i tryed doing it but it was reverted by a bot the page is List of unproduced X-Men film series projects and I think the page should be called List of unproduced 20th Century Fox marvel projects for reasons I will explain on that page 92.236.253.249 (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The place to request a page move is at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Shantavira|feed me 11:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

How do we handle unattributed but referenced close-paraphrasing from open-access primary sources

At Digoxin#Digoxin_and_cancer there is a section "in vitro anti-proliferate effects of digoxin" which contains a very close paraphrase of the abstract of a source it cites. For example, our text says "In summary, data of this cohort study for digoxin treatment for HF patients was combined with a cell-based strategy that addresses the translation issue, which revealed the complexity of personalized medicine" while the cited source says "In summary, we combined a cohort study for digoxin treatment for HF patients with a cell-based strategy that addresses the translation issue, which revealed the complexity of personalized medicine". This isn't just one isolated sentence, half the paragraph is similarly close. In fact, it was preceded by a near-identical paragraph citing the same source, which I've removed.

The source is CC-by-3.0, so it's actually okay to copy the text like this, provided the source is acknowledged. Is a Wikipedia citation sufficient to acknowledge that the source has been copied so closely? Personally, I don't think it's enough; our citations mean the facts are verified by the source, not that the source-author actually wrote the text we use (otherwise we couldn't cite copyrighted publications). I'm sure we ought to be doing something else to indicate that this text was (nearly) lifted from the original author's writing. What should be done in cases like this?

(I'm interested in the general answer of what should be done; in this particular case I am not convinced that inclusion of this much detail from one primary source is appropriate for an encyclopaedia; our role ought to be to summarise the overall picture, reflecting secondary sources. If we're going to make articles that are just glue-togethers of the abstracts of primary literature we're attempting the job of secondary review literature, but doing it badly, because we're not able to comment and guide the reader as a secondary review should. The problem is very clear in this example: what on earth is our reader supposed to get from being told that this study reveals the complexity of personalized medicine?? That's got nothing to do with digoxin, and is probably scientist-speak for "the results are a bit contradictory and hard to interpret, so instead of interpreting them, we're going to persuade you that it's really exciting that they cannot be interpreted...") Elemimele (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Elemimele, I've long believed that it's common practice/etiquette when coming across material that one wants to incorporate within one's own material to decide which chunks of it (if any) must be preserved exactly as they are, to put these chunks between quotation marks, to summarize (i.e. substantially reword and distil) what else is necessary, and, via one or other of the various options available (footnotes, in-text referencing, etc), to indicate that it all came from such-and-such a source. Sometimes there's a clear need to quote, but the unadjusted quotation would be ambiguous, wordy, etc; and here one uses clarifications and rewordings in square brackets [ ] and ellipses; all of course within the quotation marks. A belief common among the dimmer-witted of first-year undergraduates is that if you fiddle with a quotation here and there it's no longer a quotation, and therefore doesn't need quotation marks, and therefore will impress whoever reads and marks it with the student's own intelligence and perceptiveness. But this is a variety of plagiarism. Another belief common among the dimmer-witted of first-year undergraduates is that three- or four-word (or possibly even longer) strings taken from a source can, again without quotation marks, be legitimately joined up via student-written sludge to produce an impressive word salad that will delight its readers. It won't, and this too involves plagiarism. (Since you've digressed, I will too. Judge the standards of a university department by how common these practices are among third-year undergraduates. If they are common, then teachers have lazily tolerated them or haven't cared, or teachers haven't set assignments that required any reading, or perhaps students are remarkably dim-witted.) So, your question: "Is a Wikipedia citation sufficient to acknowledge that the source has been copied so closely?" No it is not. Avoidance of copyright violation doesn't entail avoidance of plagiarism. All of this ought to be found within Wikipedia:Plagiarism, though I confess that I haven't read this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hoary: Thank you for your reply. That makes sense. So basically this chunk needs to be attributed if it remains in the article. In this particular instance I felt that the whole section gave drastically too much weight to the subject of digoxin and cancer. It looked like a literature review written by someone doing a PhD on antiproliferative effects of digoxin, a practice-run for the introduction of their thesis. I've boldly pruned to bare essentials, retaining the references, and keeping as much of the flavour as I could of the first paragraph (which I suspect was someone's - pretty decent - original attempt at summarising the whole kaboodle). I've been rather heavy-handed, so we'll see if anyone objects. I've put a note on the talk page of why I did it. Thanks for the link to Plagiarism, which makes two important points: (1) breach of copyright isn't the same as plagiarism; we can be okay for copyright but still plagiarising, and (2) if we copy or closely paraphrase text, we need to attribute it at the text itself, immediately, not buried in some footnote. This is something about which I feel strongly: we have other articles with little footnotes saying "this article contains text taken from this reference under cc-by-3.0 licence", but without saying where the text is. I hate that. Elemimele (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Elemimele, certainly copy-and-paste with no quotation marks is common in en:Wikipedia. For a humdrum example, see the comment I left just today in this. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

TGR ZA class locomotive

Good Evening, id like to update the article on the TGR ZA class locomotive. I have all the correct stats and info from builders numbers to engine stats. I am the sole member who preserved ZA 1 mentioned on the page Muff558 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Tasmanian Government Railways Za class (courtesy link) - X201 (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse Muff558. You are welcome to add that information to the article as long as you can supply a reliable source. Shantavira|feed me 11:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I can yes, through original documents for the ZA's, magazine publications & historic facts Muff558 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Original documents cannot be used as references. Same for "historic facts" (if you mean what you know to be true). David notMD (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Mutt558, and welcome to the Tahouse. There is a wealth of information held in archives and private collections, but none of it can be used in Wikipedia until has been published by a reliable source, and preferably been the subject of secondary publication. Please read about our core policy of verifiability to understand why this is. ColinFine (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Help in editing a living persons biography etc

Hi Teahouse, I am new to wikipedia and I began with editing a living person's biography Ram Sewak Sharma. I do not know the person personally but could research and identify some missing information. However, my changes were reversed. While I am trying to address the issue, I am happy to learn more about how to edit wikipedia articles. I hope to contribute to wikipedia by making value additions and improving articles. Pr1311 (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pr1311. Welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. Thank you for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. What you are involved in is referred to as the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and is a normal part of how Wikipedia develops. You made a change; Naushervan partly reverted your change. Rather than simply reapplying your change (which can lead to edit warring, which is regarded as disruptive), you would be better to start a discussion with Naushervan on the article's talk page, and aim to reach consensus. ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I have replied to Naushervan and looking forward to reach a consensus and improve that page. 14.97.156.10 (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The Times Group

It has taken me a 24 days to check the list of reliable sources. I think the page review editor still doesn't know anything about the source, so tell them the list below is from the The Times Group.

  • The Times Of India
  • The Economic Times
  • Ahmedabad Mirror
  • Bangalore Mirror
  • Mumbai Mirror
  • Pune Mirror
  • Maharashtra Times
  • Ahmedabad times
  • Bangalore times
  • Bhopal times
  • Chandigarh times
  • Chennai times
  • Delhi times
  • Goa times
  • Hyderabad times
  • Jaipur Times
  • Kochi times
  • Kolkata times
  • Lucknow times
  • Mumbai times
  • Pune times
  • Navbharat Times
  • Ei Samay Sangbadpatra
  • Vijaya Karnataka


  • TV Channels
  • Times Now
  • ET Now
  • Movies Now
  • Romedy Now
  • MN+
  • Movies Now 2
  • Mirror Now
  • Times Now Navbharat

ET Now SwadeshPravinGanechari (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:TOI says that The Times of India The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. Even if it were regarded as generally reliable, that would say very little about the reliability of other papers which happen to have the same ownership. In any case, presenting us with a bald list of newspapers here on the Teahouse serves no purpose whatever - even if you had bothered to tell us which article this is in relation to - because reliability is of a source is determined not in the abstract, but in relation to specific information which is to be attributed to it. IN any case, WP:RSN is the place to discuss reliability of specific sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi ColinFine , What is the purpose of adding the name of Times Group to this list? Guidelines on sources [14] PravinGanechari (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are taking about. You posted a long list of newspapers without much hint of why, or what response you were looking for, or what this is in relation to, and I attempted to answer. Now you're asking me for the purpose of something on a page I've never even seen before. I suggest you ask the members of that project, at WT:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. I also suggest that you clarify here why you are posting this at the Teahouse, and what kind of response you are looking for, because I'm sure I'm not the only one who is baffled.
By the way, please use Wikilinks rather than URLs, as they will take me to the page in a format compatible with the device I am looking at, whereas the URL you used takes me specifically to the mobile view. You can Wikilink to a section by [[WP:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources]], which displays as WP:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources, and links straight to the section rather than leaving me trying to guess where on the page I should be looking. ColinFine (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the right link you have shown. Look, there is a name in it. Sorry to bother you with the question PravinGanechari (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Anusha Rai

After this new film Khadak, actor Has lead roles in two notable films and hence actor becomes notable as per WP:ACTOR. Request you to re review the draft Ntkn766 (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This draft was rejected by a now blocked user in December 2021. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Ntkn766: The user who rejected it was considered an editor in good standing, and the fact that he's block isn't relevant to the rejection. I would resubmit it for review. The rejection banner has a button to ask for help, which takes you to the AFC help desk (not Teahouse). Did you use that?
I also must ask how many accounts you have. The draft history shows contributions from Ntkn766 and Ntkn769, suggesting two accounts operated by one person. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I used AFC in help desk they said If you wish to take it further, you will need to consult with the reviewer who rejected it. I checked with the blocked user Hatchens he said to visit visit WP:TEA for the help.
coming to contributions both are my accounts only i have lost password of Ntkn769 so created new account that is Ntkn766. Ntkn766 (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, it should not have been rejected, only declined, and I have changed the rejection to a decline without a decline reason. This means that you can resubmit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia commons category link?

I've added links to Wikipedia commons content before but couldn't find an answer about a few things:

First one is about which one to link, the wikimedia commons category and/or the gallery page alone in commons. I dislike linking only to the gallery page (if there even is one) but I've seen where the page can be helpful. So i found that I liked using the template that displays both the page and its category the best. But I've seen some revert those changes back to commons page only or commons category only with the edit summary just saying something like "unnecessary". I couldn't find anything on the template pages that addressed a preference for one vs the other so I wanted to ask here. Though my gut says that if it exists and doesn't have a note about it being deprecated. you can use it, right?


About defining the commons link, I get the feeling that it's better to define the links (if they're different from the page name) over on the wikidata page rather than locally on its wikipedia page?


On the wikidata side, I see that you can define its gallery page on commons as well as its category page on commons in the statements area. But there's also the sidebar that let's you link pages from various wiki projects (including commons). Is the sidebar link's purpose to specify which page from another wiki can use the wikidata infobox (which links to the wikidata page), since that relationship has to be one-to-one? Does it have any other purpose?


Finally, there's no guideline recommending in line commons link over the box commons link, correct? I only ask because I've seen people also just switch from box to inline and their only summary is something like "fixed formatting" Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jasonkwe, could you link the templates you're referring to and provide an example or two?
Overall, pages for Commons topics exist in a bunch of areas, but my sense is that they're often extremely dated and that Commons might have been better off if it'd never had them and just stuck to categories. But, as with many things on Wikimedia, it's hard to kill them off after so many years. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Sdkb yep. I'm mainly referring to these three templates Template:Commons, Template:Category, and Template:Commons and category. I prefer the third one but have seen people revert to the first or second type, like this. I didn't really mind since their cleanup of dead links was good and I'm glad the category link was kept over the gallery link but just curious why having both there was not good.


About defining the commons target on the wiki page itself vs just letting it check what the target is on wikidata, I think I understand at least part of the logic: you don't have to worry as much if something's page name gets changed down the road (since you're relying on wikidata to direct you correctly and the wikidata links are all in one place, not spread out over multiple wiki pages like if you had manually defined the commons target in the wiki page). I hope that kinda made sense.


I'm not sure how to specify the third question about the sidebar links on a wikidata page since I'm on mobile right now.


The last question about inline vs not is illustrated here. The edit's sole purpose seemed to be about preference as to whether the commons link is inline vs non-inline.


I agree about the commons gallery page. For some very well curated pages, it can be helpful so that good images of the item are easiest to see and don't get buried in thousands of other images. But most of gallery pages aren't so lucky to have good upkeep so they just languish. But, it's hard to delete something once it exists on Wikipedia so *shrug*. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Created new page

I just created a new page War crimes in the Iraq War. What happens when you publish it and how do I change the title? Fijipedia (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fijipedia, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your proposed article was one sentence, and had no references. An article with no references is never acceptable as a Wikipedia article. What might have happened is that somebody moved your article to be a draft; but instead Mhawk10 changed it to be a redirect to Iraq War#War crimes, the relevant section of an existing article.
If you think there is more to add, I encourage you to edit that section, rather than creating a new article.
If you believe it is worth creating a separate article, I suggest that you start discussing the matter at Talk:Iraq War and get consensus on your suggestion. You could use the articles for creation process and create a draft which you then work on; but generally, starting a new article which covers the same ground as an existing section of an article shouldn't be done without discussion to reach consensus first.
To see more about the process of creating a new article generally, see your first article. ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Edit clash. ColinFine wrote what I wrote, but far more politely. -- Hoary (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Whose name should replace the first-person pronouns (highlighted red) in the paragraph below?

In the Phone conversation between Barack Obama and Hassan Rouhani article, I've noticed that the first paragraph in the Rouhani and Obama's remarks section is misusing first-person pronouns:

Regarding the issues raised in this telephone conversation, the President of Iran said that the discussion I had with Obama was mainly the nuclear issue. I said that "this issue is not only the right of the Iranian people but also a part of the national pride of the Iranian". He continued: Regarding the P5 + 1, I said that "with the opportunity created by the Iranian nation, this opportunity should be used and expedited in this matter", so the President of the United States said: "I instruct the Secretary of State to expedite this matter;" Our main focus was to move faster on the nuclear issue. After the call, Barack Obama said on a television program: "Just now, I spoke on the phone with President Rouhani. Our conversation was about the current actions and efforts to reach an agreement on Iran's nuclear program.

I already brought it up on the article's talk page, but I couldn't wait for it to be fixed. I could fix it myself, but I'm not sure who exactly that paragraph is referring to in the first person. It could be narrowed down to Rouhani himself, but I'm afraid I might be wrong. If I replace those pronouns with the wrong name, the factual error I would've introduced might remain there for a while before an observant, more knowledgeable editor comes across that article one day. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@MrPersonHumanGuy, that article as a whole is in dire need of a copy edit, assuming that it's notable at all given WP:NOTNEWS. You could either research to confirm where these quotes are coming from and change it yourself (in which case I'd encourage being bold), or you could tag them all with {{Clarify}}, in which case another editor sometime in the future may resolve the issue. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

MrPersonHumanGuy Good catch. I assume this was likely due to some hiccups while translating from persian to English. I agree that it likely should refer to rouhani but, not being able to read the source that is in Persian only, I can't say for sure.

I'm not sure if there's a list of wiki editors with foreign language skills but you could try to find someone. Except for that, finding a different source on your own that does clarify it, and asking here for help, that's about all you can do for now. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

MrPersonHumanGuy, there are indeed lists of editors (whether active, desultory, or retired) who (whether knowledgably, incompetently, or fraudulently) rate themselves as having a native, proficient or tolerably good ability in Persian. Alternatively, and perhaps better, you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran. -- Hoary (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia! Submitted an article, had it declined, resubmitted, declined again—how do I fix this?!

Hello!

My original submission was deemed unencyclopedic and marketing-like. I modeled the article on one already published, but given the feedback, I read the section on peacock terms and thought I pulled them all before resubmitting. Should I strip it down even further? Not sure what my next steps should be.

Definitely trying to get this right and would appreciate any and all suggestions!

Thank you, Leslie Leslie Love Stone (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Leslie Love Stone, as a discussion is already taking place at Draft talk:DAOU Family Estates, let's keep it there rather than spreading it here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Will do. One of the editors directed me here—just trying to follow instructions. Leslie Love Stone (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Decline in macOS, Linux, and Microsoft Windows pageviews on March 3, 2022

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=1&range=latest-365&pages=Linux%7CMacOS%7CMicrosoft_Windows

I'm not sure where to ask so I decided to ask here, but I'm curious why the pageviews of Linux, macOS, and Microsoft Windows declined on March 3, 2022. What happened on that day that reduced the pageviews so much? A diehard editor (talk | edits) 19:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a software glitch. Ignore it. The apparent dip in views on that date applies to other articles too. Shantavira|feed me 09:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I just created an account, how can I get started here? Can I use templates freely of my user page? Cdmxm8807i8x (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Cdmxm8807i8x, and welcome to the Teahouse! Your homepage guides you through making edits. You might later be interested in the Task Center, which lists some things you can help out with sorted by difficulty, and you can also see if there are any WikiProjects about subject you're interested in; Wikiprojects often include some things that need doing on their main pages. As for your userpage, you can put userboxes and other stuff on there as long as you follow these guidelines. Hope this helps! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I did a bit wrong, I didn't know about making external links, so can you explain it to me? Cdmxm8807i8x (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Some reading for you, WP:EXT. Start with something simple. Here are some spelling errors to have a go at. Neils51 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
OK. I did [sony.com Sony's site] . Is that right? Cdmxm8807i8x (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

What is the code for making an external link? Please let me know and explain what it is. Thanks! Cdmxm8807i8x (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

[(link) (pothole)] - Not everything requires a CliffsNotes explanation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Cdmxm8807i8x, see Wikipedia:External links#How to link. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, I know. Cdmxm8807i8x (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This says that User:Cdmxm8807i8x was previously User:Vegrar81uyiA80 and User:Gldgenga471834gldben. Vegrar81uyiA80 is blocked indefinitely; I've therefore blocked the other two indefinitely for block evasion. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

That went south quite fast. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Editor was also using IP 100.11.93.56 (blocked) to make entries on Talk pages on its other accounts. David notMD (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Morefar article

The “Morefar article” is disinformation made a company called “Starr conspiracy”

it’s intent is to lure children to a cemetery.

This entire article is misinformation and the articles attached to it Jadeyone (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this about Morefar Back O'Beyond? That article mentions no cemetery. Maproom (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, it does say "His ashes are interned [sic] on the fifteenth tee." I doubt any child would be lured by that. Maproom (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Maproom et al... Well, there's no reason to leave "interned", so I changed it. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Jadeyone, your edits to articles -- such as this one (oddly, in triple parentheses) -- make no sense to me. You have said that "I don’t ever use this website"; perhaps it's just not a good fit for you. -- Hoary (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
You made two unreferenced additions to the article, both reverted. All content requires references. If you persist, you will receive more severe warnings, and then be indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jadeyone "Starr conspiracy" is the name of a company? That is odd. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Content creation

The person (KN Shashikiran), on whom I'm making this page is internationally acclaimed exceptional musical artiste, but not much about him is actually on internet, therefore I couldn't find much references, though I tried to link up as much as possible. Kindly consider accepting this article, it would help a lot. Nonetheless, I shall definitely try and refer more content. Sreeja Addala (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Articles require citations in order to meet Wikipedia's Verifiability Standards. However, sources for articles don't have to be from online. If you have a book, magazine, or other physical, reliable source, you can use that. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Sreeja Addala, you're asking about Draft:K. N. Shashikiran. Above, you describe Shashikiran as "internationally acclaimed exceptional musical artiste". Oh dear. Having read that sales talk, I'm not surprised to see that the draft too is crudely promotional. Example: K. N. Shashikiran stormed into the world of music as a child prodigy at a tender age of two years by identifying ragas, demonstrating complicated talas and answering other technical questions in Carnatic music. He is the grandson of the legendary Gottuvadyam player Narayan Iyengar and the son of Chitravina Narasimhan, a musician with a vision and mission. Et cetera et cetera. Wikipedia describes musicians; it doesn't market them. -- Hoary (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Sreeja Addala "Accepting the article would help a lot". Help who? Or help what? Helping the artist is promotion, and the language Hoary points out is spot on. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox from "Prussia" page

I am looking for information regarding a specific type of infobox that can be found on Prussia. I have seen it before, however I could never locate its source. https://imgur.com/a/dxBOfhZ 2A01:110F:C3B:6000:F9A7:681E:7D94:2FAB (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the template {{History of Brandenburg and Prussia}}. —Kusma (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The full infobox is {{Infobox former country}}, as can be seen if you open the "edit source" tab of the article and look for the first line that contains the word "infobox" but as Kusma said, the smaller portion at your imgur link is a different template whose name is in the source code at the point where it is used in the text (just below the section header "Symbols"). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Help! Fazil Iskander International Literary Award

Greetings, friends! I have made a description for the International Literature Prize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fazil_Iskander_International_Literary_Award The Fazil Iskander prize is good and has been under the auspices of the Russian part of International PEN centres for several years now. The writers to whom it is awarded are also famous. Unfortunately, its founders write a lot in Russian on their website and it was difficult to find English-language sources, And the my article has already been rejected a couple of times, how do you think the article should be changed or add? To get the article approved? Likewriter2 (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Likewriter2: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your article has only been declined (not rejected) once. A cursory glance at the draft brings some promotional-sounding text to the front: it would be inappropriate for phrases like [t]he aim of the prize is to perpetuate the memory of the outstanding Russian writer Fazil Iskander with Abkhazian roots to be used as it doesn't come from a neutral point of view. I think the reviewer is having trouble seeing how the sources being used provide notability as Wikipedia defines it to the subject, but it may be better to communicate with them on their talk page to get more detailed feedback. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi . You might like to read WP:NAWARDS, which although only an essay does have important points. One of these is that notability is not inherited (i.e. if a notable person gets an award, that doesn't make the award itself notable). Looking at your draft, you cover the facts about the award and its trustees, participants and winners: more-or-less what I'd expect on a website for the award to cover. What we need for a Wikipedia article is coverage from WP:SECONDARY reliable sources that describe the award and why it is considered "good". These sources don't need to be in English but to assist readers and reviewers, it would be useful to provide short translations of the key points made in the citations as part of each footnote. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1159&oldid=1109723835"