Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1176

Archive 1170

←

Archive 1174

Archive 1175

Archive 1176

Archive 1177

Archive 1178

→

Archive 1180

Incorrect article title

Thomas Fagan Wallace - the article is actually about Thomas Wallace Fagan. I cannot find any guidance as to what to do when an article title is incorrect. Jimnick8 (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Jimnick8, I've moved the article as you request. I note that it cites only two sources, one of which gives a 404 message. A couple more sources are needed to establish that Fagan is notable.   Maproom (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with rejected article

Hi Teahouse! I drafted an article that was rejected and I'm hoping you all might be able to help me get it over the line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pauline_Sherman). The Prof Sherman was a pioneer in hypersonic flow research and the first woman to be appointed to the engineering faculty at the University of Michigan, and she deserves to have a more public profile. However, given that she was a woman in academia in the 1960s, she did not receive a great deal of media attention at the time and the reviewer rejected the article on the grounds of insufficient evidence of notability. There are records of Prof Sherman in the University of Michigan libraries, but these are not available to the larger internet, which I think might be one of the reasons the article was rejected because I can't link to them.

I believe I have provided the same level evidence for notability as some of the other articles on Wikipedia (see a comparison of a similar individual here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Drela), but apparently that wasn't enough. I certainly can add more information from the UMich archives (and was intending to after the article was posted), but I'm concerned I won't be able to meet the reviewer's request for more linkable references to prove notability. Any help would be most appreciated! Aeronautilus12 (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Aeronautilus12 Declined (not Rejected) means that the reviewer thought there was potential. Are there any significant honors, awards or memberships in prestigious science organizations that can be added and referenced? David notMD (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aeronautilus12 According to Google scholar (not always entirely reliable) her most cited work was doi:10.2514/3.3386, with 414 listed. You may be able to show that criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC is met by chasing up those citations, especially if you have access to scopus for more accurate stats. Note that your sources can be WP:OFFLINE but they do have to be published. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Phil Bridger and David Eppstein are my favorite people to ask about NPROF questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to decide whether you are aiming for WP:GNG- or WP:PROF-based notability. Both are possible but the requirements are different. For GNG, you need the sources of the article to be reliably published, independent of the subject or her employers, and in-depth about her. A "report of faculty retirement" in the proceedings of the university regents is reliable, but neither independent nor in-depth, for instance. The "Martins named Pauline M. Sherman Collegiate Professor of Aerospace Engineering" source actually is in-depth about Sherman (despite its main topic being someone else), and reliable, but not independent. So none of the present sources appear to count for GNG, and these sources would be seen as a net negative by draft reviewers. On the other hand, for PROF, you need to meet certain specific criteria: having highly cited publications (often satisfied by having an external link to a Google Scholar profile showing high citations to the author's work), being named as a fellow by a major academic society, holding a named professorship, etc. In Sherman's case, the hunt for citations is complicated by the fact that she published as "P. M. Sherman" and those initials are widely used by others. The Sherman professorship is a named professorship but not one she held. So to me so far the case is not clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if 1) the consensus is that she does not meet notability criteria or 2) I have not successfully laid out her notability in the draft article. Pretty much every piece of recorded information I have found on her has been from the UMich archive, so I think I would have to go for PROF not GNG. I'm not as confident I can meet the PROF criteria given the aforementioned challenges in the published record, but given the exclusion of the UMich material, I think this is the only option. Aeronautilus12 (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I would think that if a given named professorship grants WP:NPROF#5 notability, surely the namesake of the professorship is considered notable. That’s not in NPROF, but come on. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sandbox article

Hi Everyone! This article for Maurice Novoa was deleted on AFD and I have been writing in again with further references more still to come. I think it should pass as is, what are your thoughts please. Don't forget to look at the talk page for details about the sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Australianblackbelt/sandbox Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Australianblackbelt, my thought is that you should ask Daniel, because it was Daniel who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Novoa. -- Hoary (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

COURTESY: draft is at User:Australianblackbelt/sandbox. Somewhere, deep in a Talk, you mentioned that you were a student of Novoa. Given that, you should mention the connection of your User page as a conflict of interest. David notMD (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Where can I get a rewrite of a page reviewed?

Hi, I've been trying to address the issues of the Agenda Europe page on my sandbox, and I'd like to get feedback on my revisions since I've added a bit. I know there's a page for requesting critique on already published pages, as well as pages in the draft namespace, but where do I go for feedback on an article I've written in my sandbox? Should I make my edits and post it to peer review? Can I create drafts for articles that have already been made? 🎜Oktavia Miki🎝_talk 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello OktaviaMiki, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing I would do is post a thread at Talk:Agenda Europe, explaining your concerns about this article and why you are attempting to rewrite it (rather than simply edit it, as one normally might). Then provide a link for people to look at the version in your sandbox, and invite people to leave comments or concerns on the article's talk page (not in your sandbox). Explain your intention to replace the article content if there are no objections. Then leave it for a week or two for people to have a chance to comment.

The article doesn't have many watchers, so you could benefit greatly by posting a short note at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe which invites people to visit Talk:Agenda Europe and read your post about the article. (Don't do it in a way that ends up with discussions being held on three separate talk pages - instead, ensure that it's clear where you want discussion to be held.

If, after a couple of weeks, you get no response, you could WP:BEBOLD and simply replace it with what you believe to be a fairer and better article (ensuring your edit summary makes it clear this is a rewrite from your sandbox. Now, I don't know whether the rewrite was all your own work. But if it was based on a copy/paste of the original article which you then worked on, it's best to include an acknowledgement in that edit summary to the contributions other past editors may have made. You can do that simply by crediting back to all the past editors which are findable at 'View History of the original article).

Please note that my reply just outlines the general approach you should take, irrespective of the topic; I have not taken any but the briefest of glimpses at the content of the two versions under discussion. The one concerning thing I did notice was that you have moved (hidden?) an original sentence with four supporting citations from the lead (which states the organisation "..has been described as anti-feminist, ultra-conservative, far-right, and religious extremist.", and simply left this within the article without any mention in the lead. If there are that many sources supporting that opinion, then the lead should at least make some mention of it. Or are the sources not-reliable? Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll do just that. I decided a rewrite because I thought that would be the better action with a page with issues on neutrality and close paraphrasing, but I have included bits of the original article as well. I'll be sure to credit past contributors if/when I do move the page over, since I was working with the material and (majority) citations they established.

There were a few aspects that I was having difficulty with finding places for, and the passage you mentioned was one of them. I'll amend what I have with your suggestion.

Thank you! 🎜Oktavia Miki🎝_talk 00:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Without more sources, less is best?

I'm trying to create a page for an educational charity Professors Without Borders. It has been declined because it isn't adequately supported by reliable sources. OK, I can definitely see why. However, when there aren't numerous secondary sources, should I try to cover less material to cut down on citing primary sources?

I'm not looking for something exact but I'd appreciate a rule of thumb or rough % of what sources can be primary vs secondary. For instance this page Victorian Military Society 3 of the 4 citations on this page are primary.

Thanks! Twischr (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for asking the question Twischr. The most pithy way to explain it is contained at the page WP:42, which is to say that a topic may be considered suitable for a stand-alone article if there is enough independent, reliable sources of information to build a reasonable-length article around. The terms "secondary" and "primary" sources aren't the right ones to use here, as you are using them, they are "independent" and "non-independent" (or self-published) sources. Secondary and primary refers to something different. It's not that you need to remove all of the self-published sources; that is irrelevant here. It's that the self-published sources cannot be used as an indicator of notability. What there needs to be is that there is enough independently-written text about the subject to demonstrate notability. The article draft is declined because of that lack of independently-written source text. There's not much you can do if the source text doesn't exist. If it does, use it to expand the article and cite it. If it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. That's not a fixable problem. --Jayron32 13:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Questions missing

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § Questions missing

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I just typed some questions and clicked publish but I don't see them. I don't know if I messed up something or everything is just fine Kelmaa (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I will retype the two questions:

1. I created a draft of the tallest man in Ghana but the one editor moved it to Draft:Sulemana Abdul Samed. Does that mean my article was wrong and what would I need to do? Also, is it possible to add a tag requesting for interested editors to help make improvements of the article while it is still a draft or once it's live?
2. Late last year, I submitted a Draft:Panto sunglasses that was reviewed and declined by User:Storchy. I made some improvements then requested the user to review and may be tell me where I need to improve. I realized the user was blocked. I am here wondering if another editor would review my draft of since Storchy was blocked, it will remain as a draft.

Thank you. Kelmaa (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kelmaa Your contribution history shows no relevant prior content, so I guess you did mess up. You've made it a bit worse, I'm afraid, by posting here on the Talk Page for the Teahouse (which is for discussion about how the Teahouse operates) rather than on the correct page WP:TEAHOUSE. Your question (2) is easily answered: it is in the queue for re-review and someone will get to it in due course: please just be patient. It is irrelevant that an earlier reviewer is now blocked. For (1), the move was done because we name biographies after the person, not their achievements. Again, you need to wait until it is reviewed to see what WP:AFC reviewers think. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, Draft:Sulemana Abdul Samed is likely to be accepted since there has been lots of publicity about him recently: I even saw some on the BBC website. However, you need to remove the part about him being mentioned in Wikipedia's list as that's a WP:CIRCULAR reference. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kelmaa About Samed, I would leave in the part about his being born in 1984, but leave out his being 29 years old. First, unless he was born in the first six days of 1984, it's not correct; he's not 29 yet. And if he is 29 now, it will not be true in a year.

Yes, I also saw his story on BBC's Facebook page and when I googled his name, I realized there's no much about him on Wikipedia. By creating a short article, I think it will give a platform for other editors to contribute more about him, with time. I will remove the part as you suggested. Thank you for answering. Kelmaa (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kelmaa: This is the talk page for the Teahouse and is not the appropriate venue to ask your questions. I will move this to the actual project page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Nick Grant article creation

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.

---

Hi! My name is Gujesta and I'm new on here and was trying to create an article about a notable musician with good sources and references. He is established in the music business since 2010s going by the name Nick Grant. When I was trying to create this article in the draft a notice was shown. In November 2022, NinjaRobotPirate deleted the page (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block) Can you help with this? Gujesta (commons) (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gujesta (commons): Hello Gujesta! Could you possibly be a bit more specific with what it says when you attempt to create the draft? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf:: It was deleted in November through G5. Gujesta (commons) (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gujesta (commons): Since you're unable to create it that might mean the page was WP:SALTed, or creation protected. @NinjaRobotPirate: pinging the deleting administrator so they could possibly explain why it was creation protected (they don't have to share who the sock was per WP:DENY tho) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gujesta (commons) The deletion discussion seems to be WP:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Grant back in 2008. There may well be better sources now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh! Not your Nick Grant, as the 2008 one was an athlete/boxer not a musician.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This page was deleted through G5: Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block. Gujesta (commons) (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be creation protected. @Gujesta (commons), what help are you looking for? Do you want a copy of the deleted draft? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

OP blocked as a sockpuppet by the aforesaid ninja robot pirate admin. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2023 (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.

Page Akinlolu Jekins disappeared without a trace

Hi, thanks for this. I wrote a page on Akinlolu Jekins which suddenly disappeared. I do not find it in my history, neither do I see a notification it was marked for deletion or moved. When I initially created it, someone deleted it, and upon review, it was restored because the article met all notability criteria and had other editors working on it. How do I find the article, and I'd like to know what happened to it. Pshegs (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Pshegs Hello and welcome. Akinlolu Jekins was deleted per the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akinlolu Jekins. You can see what happened to an article even if it doesn't exist by clicking a link to it(such as the one I placed here). The Deletion log can also be searched. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can also ask the deleting Admin for an undelete to draft if you believe ( and show evidence) that the article can be improved. David notMD (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

How to suppress an infobox

In Fort Mitchell, Florida, created today, there is an infobox another editor put in. As you will see, it contributes nothing, and rather than deleting their work I tried putting < ! - - and - - > around it, but that produced garbage. Suggestions? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) deisenbe (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Fort Mitchell, Florida.   deisenbe, there are html comments inside that infobox. So your start-of-comment will have been matched with the first end-of-comment in the infobox, leaving the rest of the infobox as apparent garbage. Maproom (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Since the infobox has no useful information and is probably slightly wrong since it has unit_pref = metric, one could just delete the entire infobox template on that page. It's easy enough to re-insert the template and populate if in the future it's desired. Skynxnex (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Get notice of edits being undone

Hello, how do I make sure that I get a notice in case an edit of mine has been revoked/undone? Thanks in advance. Bernhard.rulla (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Bernhard.rulla: in your notification preferences (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo) you can tick a box to say you want to be notified if an edit of yours is reverted by either undo or rollback. (If your edit is simply edited out manually, you won't get a notification.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thanks! Bernhard.rulla (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bernhard.rulla Are you also aware that you can add any article that you are particularly interested in (whether you have edited it or not) by adding it to your WATCHLIST, either temporarily or permanently? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong species

Commons file File:Paježura attenboroughova.jpg that I've just removed from Sir David's long-beaked echidna is not that species, per that article's talk. Now that I've removed it from that article, I think it should be deleted from Commons, so that it gets pulled from the other language sites. How do I go about doing that? UtherSRG (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG I'm not sure it should be deleted entirely, since it might be of use somewhere but there is a tag commons:Template:Fact_disputed they use on Commons to point out you believe something is wrong with the description. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: I agree with Mike. Instead of deleting, a "Fact_disputed" template, and then renaming the photo to actual species would be the best option here. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Faboo! Thanks to you both! UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG I've changed the image at Wikidata to the one now used in the article, which had the effect of placing the correct image at most other-language Wikipedias. I've also alerted the original uploader that the file is disputed, so they may engage with you on the Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! UtherSRG (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Please help me improve an edit that was reverted

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabbath&diff=1131914432&oldid=1131847954

I included many direct quotes to the Quran(and direct links). Please help me improve my edit. 70.186.178.108 (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you NicholasPaulIoannisXenakis? Please remember to log in.

It looks to me as if your edit contained a lot of material which was not relevant to the article, and the "English" of the translations was nothing like English. If you think that the material should be inserted, please open a discussion on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I created a page

I created my first page. If there is an error, will I have to start all over again? Can I edit it while I wait to see if it's approved? When I add a link after a statement, can I 3-4 that show coverage of the author's book?

Thanks! 2600:8802:3A12:E700:B59F:BC11:173E:F234 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Nolan Davis

No, you don't need to start over. You can improve it. You can improve it even if it hasn't been reviewed yet. For example, all of your citations are nondescript links, please see WP:CITE to learn how to flesh them out. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I heard someone complaining that they spent a lot of time and it was removed. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:B59F:BC11:173E:F234 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

RE:For example, all of your citations are nondescript links, please see WP:CITE to learn how to flesh them out.

I don't understand. I asked if the links were acceptable before I created the page. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:B59F:BC11:173E:F234 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible for somebody to spend a lot of time on an article, get it to an informative and polished state, and then see it deleted. But deletion requires a reason; it isn't done on a mere whim. On "nondescript links": Each of your references merely specifies the website. Please also specify the author(s) (if known), the title of the particular page, the date of publication (if known), and the date you accessed the page. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks 2600:8802:3A12:E700:B59F:BC11:173E:F234 (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The content and references about Spotts add nothing to establishing notability for Davis. Also, the Works section is a mess. David notMD (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Davis and his doc, "Passing Through" are referenced in many news articles with respect to Spotts' travel. It's his last project, released after his death. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:B59F:BC11:173E:F234 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you suggest a template to improve the Work section? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:B59F:BC11:173E:F234 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you suggest a template to improve the Work section? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:B59F:BC11:173E:F234 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Is the works section better? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:C190:502B:DC4E:7585 (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, "The documentary was one of Nolan Davis’ final projects. It ended with 165 countries being visited, short of the goal. Between 2014 and 2018, Woni Spotts, the host of “Passing Through” visited the remaining countries, fulfilling Davis' vision and making history.[5][6][7][8]" is not about Davis, and shoud be deleted. David notMD (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

What about the bullet point list of his works? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:C190:502B:DC4E:7585 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi I need to upload a biography of someone in Science, can you please help me?

We can't upload our own biography since it's discourages by wikipedia. Someone else has to do it. Scarbajo (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Scarbajo. When you write We can't upload our own biography, you seem to be saying that this is an autobiography of several people or that your account is controlled by several people. This is potentially a major problem. Each Wikipedia account is for one person and one person only. Please clarify. Added by Cullen328 at 06:41, 3 January 2023

Alternatively, Scarbajo, perhaps you meant to say "We individuals who want to upload our respective autobiographies". You can write a draft, if you really want to. If, for example, you're a physicist named Jo Bloggs, you can do it at Draft:Jo Bloggs (physicist). Make sure that everything in is backed up by specific reliable sources. But my advice is not to bother. If, unlike the huge majority of people, you're genuinely notable, then skilled and experienced Wikipedia editors will want to create an article about you, without any need of nudging by you. While they slave away at your article, you can devote your valuable time to the pursuit of whatever it is that makes you notable. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to provide advice, but not to be authors or co-authors of articles. The guideline WP:YFA explains how to create and submit a draft. The guideline Wikipedia:Notability (academics) explains how to determine if an academic scientist could be considered notable. The careers of the great majority of scientists do not qualify. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted Draft:Jo Bloggs (physicist), which was actually about Sergio Carbajo, as a pure copyright violation. @Scarbajo: pleaes think carefully about the advice you were given, and how what you did not go along with it. Are you actually writing about someone named "Jo Bloggs"? Now please go read our your first article guidance and our specific information about creating articles about yourself. DMacks (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@DMacks - I notice that that page was apparently started by an IP editor - For whatever reason my "something is wrong here" gut feeling needs to know - can you confirm that there weren't any revisions of that page that were about anyone called Jo Bloggs / not a copyvio? (Could there be a draft hijack here?) casualdejekyll 05:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

There had not been any content at that draft-space about Bloggs, and there was no non-copvio version about Carbajo there. DMacks (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Im very sorry, when I did the article I didnt noticed the name Jo bLoggs. wont happen again 2800:B20:111A:ED8:7542:FDBD:C4DF:C737 (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Revert the photograph

Hello, I ask you to help revert the photograph "Igreja Matriz de Coari" (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Igreja_da_Matriz_de_Coari.jpg), from the article of the municipality of Coari, Amazonas in Brazil (http:// pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coari). The entire authorization request process was carried out, already authorized by the author of the work and a copy was sent to permission-commons-pt@wikipedia, by the author Bernados Reis bernardocinegrafista@ on December 11, 2022. Williamferreiraam (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Williamferreiraam, welcome to the Teahouse on English Wikipedia. For issues on pt Wikipedia, you will need to contact someone on that project; they seem to have an equivalent to the Teahouse at this link. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please revert all edits by User:WestHamFC91 on these articles

Hey team, can you please revert all edits by User:WestHamFC91 on these articles (ABC TV Plus and ABC News (Australian TV channel)), because of vandalism (ABC channels aren't available in Malaysia). I have since edited the ABC TV Plus article to include time changes, and 6 people have since edited the ABC News (Australian TV channel) article. From Bas. Bassie f (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:TheRubyP already did the ABC TV part of this discussion for us. Bassie f (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

WestHamFC91 has been an editor for months, hundreds of edits, most about Malaysia topics, a low revert percentage. My opinion has been editing in good faith. Errors can be corrected without accusing someone of vandalism. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I did remove his edits from ABC TV Plus 2mins ago because that Australian channel doesn’t even broadcast to Malaysia. Bassie f (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

How to avoid a plagiarism challenge

Article: Kingsley Plantation The paragraph beginning "Two clubs were constructed" was taken verbatim from the reference cited there. I have plagiarized a public domain source, but would like to know what to do so that I don't get caught by an automated checker. deisenbe (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

nowiki removed to fix the wikilink – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I have placed a {{Source-attribution}} template inside the <ref> tag, after the citation. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raylaur15/sandbox

Could someone please tell me exactly where I can find a template fora banner/box for the music I am writing about at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raylaur15/sandbox thanks, raylaur15 2603:7000:8106:B298:B1BD:E509:62B7:23A9 (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whether a single artist or a group, the most useful template would probably be {{Infobox musical artist}}. You don't need to use every field in the template, and the page includes documentation and examples to help you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Raylaur15, don't forget to log in as you edit the article or your contribution history will become muddled.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I figured out the Infobox and am now logged on.

Raylaur15 Raylaur15 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, My boss is a scientist working for Stanford, I need to upload his biography could you help me with that please

I can provide the Biography and the links of the awards that he has Irenegutie (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Irenegutie: You have a conflict of interest with your boss and are strongly discouraged from writing an article about him. Additionally, you are required to disclose your employer on your user page using {{paid}}. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Irenegutie, welcome to the Teahouse. After reviewing WP:PAID and making the appropriate disclosures, you will want to take a look at Help:Your first article to start learning about Wikipedia's requirements when it comes to creating articles. 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. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, Teahouse Hosts are here to advise on how to create and edit Wikipedia content, but not to serve as authors or co-authors. See List of Stanford University people for examples of existing articles about Stanford faculty. David notMD (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps related: #Hi I need to upload a biography of someone in Science, can you please help me? casualdejekyll 21:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Irenegutie. Your boss may want to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. I would not want an article about myself on an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

i would like to become an administrator

i would like to become an administrator Prettycurefan75 (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Prettycurefan75, I'd point to WP:NOTNOW. The warning on your talk page and 36 mainspace edits are questionable. Thanks. Silikonz (alt)💬 21:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You may wish to nominate yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate, but I'm afraid that you only have 41 edits, which points to what Silikonz-alt linked to: WP:NOTNOW. Sarrail (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Prettycurefan75 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will need to say that your chances of becoming an admin at this time are probably close to zero. Your edit history is very brief and doesn't show that you participate in areas where giving you the admin tools would help Wikipedia. Note that you can do probably 95% of tasks here without the administrator tools- which don't give you any more authority than any other editor. I would suggest that you participate in areas like Articles for Deletion discussions or other areas where giving you the admin tools could help any work you do there; if you do that for a substantial time(likely at least a year, if not longer) members of the community will notice your work and nominate you. I suggest you read over all the information at WP:RFA as well as the advice page for users interested in being an admin- but it's going to be awhile before you would have a chance at convincing the community you should have the tools. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Becoming an administrator is usually a job for experienced users -- many on Wikipedia are still able to operate without admin tools. Being an admin is a lot of hard work, too. I myself stick to regular editing. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, successful applicants on average have a history of more than 10,000 edits over years of productive services (AfCs, AfD, NPP, etc.) David notMD (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Prettycurefan75:, if you are interested in the mop, you should thoroughly read Wikipedia guidelines first and as other contributors have mentioned, participate in discussions such as Articles for Deletion. Receiving administrative tools is not just asking for it and expecting to receive it; instead the community decides if you are worthy of tools and will use the tools responsibly based on your contributions to Wikipedia. In my opinion, WP:TASKS is a great way to start. Besides, getting these tools is no big deal. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 23:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Vietnam Army Page

Hey, if anyone is up to the task, there is next to nothing about Vietnam's Ground Forces. Could someone more skilled than me pls correct this? Faithful15 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey faithful15, and welcome to the Teahouse! I say that an editor, regardless of skill, has the ability to make an article! If you really don't want to make the article , you cn request it at WP:AFC, although that is severely backlogged. Best, Justyouraveragelechuga ^{talk contribs} 00:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, I only have access to certain websites, none of them on Vietnam. Faithful15 (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The Vietnam War article is extremely long, with Wikilinks (words in blue) to related Wikipedia articles. When you ask about "Vietnam Army Page", do you mean then, or at present? If the latter, Vietnam People's Armed Forces exists but needs references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs)

January 2023

how to make ip address page of info. 37.231.219.93 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking. Please explain more clearly. ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe they mean, ⁣"How To Make A User-Page with My IP address (37.231.219.93)" I'm Following The Username Policy (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP, you cannot make a User page without an account. IP users do have talk pages, but that's it. Please consider WP:Registering an account. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed

How do I become autoconfirmed? CoolWikipedianDude (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

CoolWikipedianDude Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are autoconfirmed when your account is four days old and has 10 edits or more. If there is an article you wish to edit but cannot because you are not autoconfirmed, you may make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing the edit you want to make. If you want to create a new article, you may write a draft at WP:AFC, but I would highly recommend that you first edit existing articles, as well as use the new user tutorial to first learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you so much!

CoolWikipedianDude (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This user has been blocked indefinitely. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Repair and fix the reference for Opening Ceremony Athens 2004 dignitaries

TheManInTheBlackHat scolded me. Because I'm scared. I was doing for adding the references and dignitaries to attend the Opening Ceremony Athens 2004 Olympics. I didn't do anything wrong. I want to make an updates and make corrections with the permission. I apologize. I didn't mean no harm. I'm sorry. TheManInTheBlackHat is blaming wrongfully and TheManInTheBlackHat is making mistake. TheManInTheBlackHat should owe me an apology. I didn't know nothing about spam. I don't want to be block please. I was watching it on YouTube. I don't want to cause any trouble. This is the truth. Please believe me. Please don't report me for what I did. It wasn't my fault. Margarita Saxe-Coburg-Gotha the wife of Prime Minister of Bulgaria Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was there at the Opening Ceremony Athens 2004 Olympics. Simeon and Margarita was met by Her Majesty Queen Sofía of Spain. I saw it in the photo. Please forgive me. I try to keep looking for it. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/spains-queen-sofia-checks-her-digital-photos-with-former-news-photo/51166538?phrase=queen%20margarita%20of%20bulgaria I was at Getty images. 100.2.114.167 (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

In discussion with you on User talk:TheManInTheBlackHat, TheManInTheBlackHat is polite and reasonable. Meanwhile, I don't understand the rationale for your response, in part: "You owe me an apology for what you accusing me. [...] Just apologize to me." People who make mistakes (whether you, me, or anyone else) can expect to have those mistakes reverted or criticized. If you disagree that your edit was mistaken, explain this coolly and persuasively, without demanding an apology. If this is unacceptable to you, editing this website is not for you. -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't demand an apology from editors as you did on TheManInTheBlackHat's talk page; this editor had warned you because you did not provide a reliable source. You mentioned how they had scolded [you] and is blaming [you] wrongfully, but from what I'm seeing, it does not seem that way. Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 04:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

...I'm assuming all this fear is coming from the level 4 warning in their talk page, which the ip wants them to apologize for and retract, at the very least so that they no longer have the threat of a block hanging over them. I haven't checked the source yet, but

however, in general, explicitly asking someone to apologize to you makes it less likely they'll apologize to you. 💜  melecie  talk - 05:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Publishing my article

Hello, I am publishing my first article but I am not getting any further. It is either not visible to contributor or it is lacking something. please guide. Pavithranmkrv (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pavithranmkrv: I presume this is about User:Pavithranmkrv/sandbox. See Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I have published it Pavithranmkrv (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pavithranmkrv:, your creation User:Pavithranmkrv/sandbox hardly starts to resemble an encyclopedia article. We can give you advice for this. But first: Do you have some relationship with Anexas? -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

How can you place images here in like the legal way?

Hello! I'm like a new editor who's recently finished her draft on Draft:Jolyne Cujoh and pretty much submit it to be reviewed. Except that Jolyne doesn't have an image yet. I've been reading some laws of fair use and quite frankly, I don't know if I actually understand it especially since I'm not from the U.S. I'm planning to use the cover art of Stone Ocean Volume 14 as her image on the page, but since I don't quite know myself if it's under fair-use, I haven't upload it yet. Is there any advice all of you could give me on this matter? Thank you for taking the time to read and answer this question. Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

obligatory funny jojo reference. i don't even watch jojo

hi @Lovelyquirks1 and welcome to the Teahouse! you don't have to worry yourself about the image for now. fair use images can only be uploaded on full articles and not drafts, so this means Jolyne isn't eligible for one until her article passes AfC. ones it does however, you may request it be uploaded through Files for Upload, where others will upload the file for you and help you go through the process. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 06:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay! Thank you so much! Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Lovelyquirks1, inclusion of an image won't help your draft be accepted as an article. An image isn't (and isn't "under") fair use; rather, a claim can be made that use of a conventionally copyright image is fair for a particular purpose within a particular article. No claim of "fair use" is ever acceptable for inclusion of a conventionally copyright image within a draft. -- Hoary (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I understand! Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

How do i delete an image in wikimedia commons?

I would like to delete an image in Wikimedia commons but how do I do that? Fishmen123 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fishmen123: Hello Fishmen! Your answer depends on the image. Would you mind providing a link to it? You can do so by adding a colon before "File:" in the link which will prevent the image from displaying and instead produce a clickable link. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dani_Profile_picture.jpg Fishmen123 (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Fishmen123 Done. In the future, you can use the Commons gadget 'AjaxQuickDelete' (commons:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets), which should be enabled by default, to display a 'nominate for deletion' button on the sidebar. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fishmen123, @Sungodtemple I have never installed or heard of that gadget, but when I look at an image at Commons, (after I click More Info maybe) I see a "Nominate for Deletion" button. By saying "enabled by default", do you mean that everyone should see the button? David10244 (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

David10244 yes everyone should see that upon registering. However, they may have turned it off in preferences, thus why I said 'enabled by default'. It is not enabled for everyone. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks @Sungodtemple. David10244 (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Changing an Article to Reflect a Change of Name

Hello, I am the person named in this article [[1]]. I made the decision to remove Amy from my name and going forward will only be known as Dean Hoff. I have undergone a legal name change to reflect this fact. I am still active as an author, actor and director and moving forward all credits will be under Dean Hoff. It appears that a new page was generated in the correct name but any edits to reflect that fact were not accepted in the body of the article. From what I understand, I cannot edit an article about myself but I wanted to know if someone could make the change in the body of the article but without mentioning the name change in the text. 213.205.241.64 (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are welcome to make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page(Talk:Dean Hoff), requesting that your name be updated to match the change in the article title. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone here might even do it after they see this- but the article talk page is the place for you to propose any changes to the article about you. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I had already made a formal edit request via the talk page a few days ago but had not received any response so I decided to ask here. Do you know how long it usually takes to receive an answer to a formal edit request? 213.205.241.64 (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You did post on the talk page, but it isn't marked as an edit request; please see WP:ER for how to do that- but I will also add it this time so it is seen. Marking it as an edit request will draw the attention of editors that may not be following that article, increasing the chances it will be seen. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, I really appreciate it. 213.205.241.64 (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

PROD Patrollers

How do I join the PROD Patrol? CoolWikipedianDude (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling. There is a list you can add your name to if you wish, but you may simply begin patrolling. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling#Participants. You may add your name to the list. Sarrail (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't even know that was a thing until now. I'm a bit confused as to what it's for though... ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Section creator has been blocked as a sock. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-expert review guild?

Hi Teahouse! I'm discovering that I enjoy working with experts on refining articles so they are more readable for non-experts (i.e., asking all the dumb questions until things are phrased as accessibly as possible without loss of nuance for expert readers). I'm wondering whether there is a guild or project that works on this that I could join. Wikipedia:WikiProject Expert Request Sorting (defunct) appears to have been geared towards sorting existing unspecified requests for expert attention. I want to flip the request around. For example, if an expert writes an article and wants it to be more readable to the layperson, they could take it to this guild, perhaps the "ELI5 guild" or the "anti-WP:UNIVERSE guild". My reasoning for wanting to flip the request is that since we guild-members would be non-experts, it's easier to find one of us. So the collaboration can happen when the expert is ready which seems more efficient. Does this already exist? I'm also aware of the Simple English Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem too popular? Since my main interest is in clarification without loss of nuance, I'm wondering if my efforts are better spent here. Thank you for any tips you may have, and I wish you all a happy day. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 05:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@GuineaPigC77 I believe you are looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dodger67: While we will try and make things easier to read, the guild's primary objective is to make sure articles conform to the Manual of Style as closely as possible and fix up grammar, spelling, and flow. Simplifying concepts goes beyond the scope of GOCE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tenryuu Or "clarifying concepts" rather than simplifying them? Or both?  :-) David10244 (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I believe what I seek is something similar to GOCE, except that the emphasis is on WP:UNIVERSE language issues in technical articles (not limited to STEM related topics), as opposed to GOCE's focus on MOS as Tenryuu said. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 12:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@GuineaPigC77: That's an interesting approach to getting our articles understandable by those who aren't already experts on the topic! While some topics actually are on really advanced or essoteric topics beyond lay-readers who don't have sufficient backround, many of our articles that should be accessible to general readers probably have a lot of work needed. I'd start by thinking about what topics are of interest. Maybe there's an active WP:WikiProject related to it. Some of those have lists of articles that need various sorts of attention, or lists of 'key articles'. Maybe you could find some "really important, but not high quality" articles in that field, or else be the new set of eyes looking at the really important articles to help highlight where it's not clear. DMacks (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've had really good luck with the approach you describe. Pick a topic area, then on the project page I've used the importance/quality table to browse, for example, high-importance start-class articles. That's been great for finding things to work on. But in that approach, supposing I find something tantalizing to work on, I (non-expert) may seek an expert, such as by using a template for a request in the normal way. I'm thinking it could be possibly more efficient if it were set up the other way around: the expert could reach out to a simplifier in the same way one might reach out to GOCE. (Also I'm still new here, forgive me if I've got the terminology all wrong.) GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 12:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Now I see the difference, and agree it sounds like it could be useful. I know some wikiprojects actually do care about this sort of thing, and could use the help. And the featured-articles process could benefit as well if there were a pool of editors or notice-board where help could be requested. We already do have a Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable guideline that could be the basis. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I checked out the guideline and it looks great, that could be a good base I agree. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 15:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Notability clarification

If a person wrote the soundtrack for a heavily covered movie, and his name appears in the newspaper every time the movie is reviewed and advertised is that considered notability or adequate coverage? The musician was not the subject of articles or interviewed. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:4C13:46B3:DBE9:77D6 (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP User, if the subject is just a trivial mention to the point that original research is required to extract information, then Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject. Additionally, sources provided must be from reliable sources (given that the reliable source has covered the subject significantly). A good way to find out which source is reliable and which one isn’t is through WP:RSP. Multiple sources does not always mean that it’s notable. Do you know which draft you are referring to? —Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 12:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I have not created a draft for the musician yet. I'm aware of that Wikipedia list. It's not very helpful because I've seen articles from deadline.uk, Der Spiegel, and Pulse used as references. I've seen "guild memberships" for writers, composers, etc. accepted as references for one person and denied for another person. Is there another way to determine a site's credibility? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:4C13:46B3:DBE9:77D6 (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not all sources are mentioned on RSP; you may ask about any other source on RSN (and search the archives for whether it has been discussed previously).

Non-independent and/or non-substantial sources may be cited to support uncontroversial factual data like dates and places, but they do not contribute to notability. So, yes, "Guild membership" may sometimes be cited, though independent sources are preferred.

I'm not sure what your point is about deadline.uk, Der Spiegel, and Pulse: only the second of those is listed in WP:RSP, and marked as "generally reliable". But it may be relevant that there are thousands and thousands and thousands of articles in Wikipedia which are inadequately sourced and would not be accepted if they were submitted today. Ideally, somebody would go through them improving or deleting them. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 2600:8802:3A12:E700:4C13:46B3:DBE9:77D6 (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Contributions tags changed?

Is it just me, or have contributions tags been changed to include the text link "other edits" for each one? When I click the link, it takes me to Recent Changes, which doesn't seem correct? This extra bit on every single tag is taking up a lot of screen space for me. I feel like this is a recent thing?

Stepping back also, for future reference, where exactly can I find out more info about UI and feature changes like this? (Pointing me in the right direction also means I bother you less, Teahouse hosts! Appreciate you!) — LumonRedacts 04:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@LumonRedacts, this change was rolled out across English Wikipedia yesterday. You can see a discussion here at VPT, among other places. It was a wishlist item which the devs implemented. Unfortunately I don't think there's a centralized place on English Wikipedia to get announcements of such changes. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@LumonRedacts These sorts of change are usually pre-announced on Tech News, which you can sign up to on meta. Oddly, I don't see that particular change mentioned in recent editions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see this is more complicated then I had hoped. Thank you, both! — LumonRedacts 17:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia almost every source is not credible (including wikipedia). What is this leading to?

Roger Spottiswood has a Wikipedia page with no credible references (by current Wiki standards.) I know he's worthy of recognition but wikipedia editors would claim this man, because he was not covered heavily by the media is not notable. Behind the scenes people (screenwriters, music directors, etc.) are NOT interviewed or covered heavily in most cases. You reject IMDB and all of the sites where people like this are recognized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Spottiswoode 2600:8802:3A12:E700:4C13:46B3:DBE9:77D6 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

IMDB is not an acceptable source per WP:IMDB; the title of this section infers that you used Wikipedia as a reliable source — Wikipedia is not a reliable source in articles. If someone thinks that the article is not notable enough, then someone will nominate it for deletion. —Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 12:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It's true that some subject areas are hard to write about due to Wikipedia's policies and requirements, but these are necessary for several reasons, especially verifiability. I would think that a director and staff of the James Bond franchise(like Roger S) would have the requisite sourcing needed, due to heavy press coverage. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that the resources here are acceptable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Spottiswoode

He has a director's guild listing, and interview (I was told interviews don't count),and a mention.

Spottiswoode, John Roger. "Directors Guild of Canada". dgc.ca.

"All Aboard...If You Dare!: An Interview with Roger Spottiswoode".

Vagg, Stephen (14 July 2020). ""John Wick with spurs" – A look at Walter Hill's Unmade The Last Gun". Diabolique.

External links

Roger Spottiswoode at IMDb

Roger Spottiswoode at the TCM Movie Database

Roger Spottiswoode at Northernstars.ca 2600:8802:3A12:E700:4C13:46B3:DBE9:77D6 (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

IP Editor: To address your post title directly: We do not ever state that Wikipedia is reliable because it is edited by individuals like me and you who have either added stuff without supporting reliable sources, or have interpreted reliable sources which they have cited. It's potentially possible that those individuals have made mistakes in our interpretations or that we've added uncited 'factual statements'. Although done in good faith, occasionally a few people have intentionally made stuff up to fool everyone. For anyone wanting to rely upon factual statements in a Wikipedia article, we would advise them to check the sources cited, and view Wikipedia itself as a very helpful collation of sourced statements. Sometimes journalists write content in newspapers by simply looking at Wikipedia and embarass themselves when they fail to spot that someone had added wrong information prior to their visit.

Because of that inherent risk, we do not accept one Wikipedia article as a citation to support content in another article. Nor do we accept information that IMdB has presented. We becasue it, too, is created by individual editors like you and me, with no overall editorial control ask therefore for sources whicto be used h have had a fair degree of editorial control (books, journals, newspapers etc), and we don't accept interviews with the subject as the main sources of content, nor one-man websites and blogs.

What all this 'fussiness' is intended to lead to is Wikipedia being trusted as containing as much accurately interpreted information as possible, with everything checkable by anyone, anywhere in the world, via the references given. This is a laudable ambition indeed.

So as not to clog up the encyclopaedia with unsupported articles, we have established 'Notability Criteria' which set out what we need by way of good sources for different groups of subject. If those criteria cannot be met, then for now, at least, we would not accept an article about someone, or something, or someplace, or some concept. That is not the same as dismissing the work someone has done, or suggesting that something doesn't exist. But we've all of us created stuff in our working lives, yet we can't all have articles about us here. Until the independent sources are available that show the wider world has taken note of that person and have written about them, our guidelines tell us that that person or thing is not notable. Many old, badly referenced or promotional articles get raised for discussion at this page, where editors can have their say and have a chance to look for better sources to support Notability of that person or thing. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It's really frustrating when encyclopedia.com and Brittanica are considered unreliable. CNN (supposedly reliable) has a lot of retractions and is known to PR companies for selling articles. I saw a list of platforms that allow people to buy articles for 1800.00 to 10,000. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:4C13:46B3:DBE9:77D6 (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is a genuine dilemma. For example, almost every bit of information we have about people, at all, is ultimately derived from interviews, and what people write about themselves. We may pretend it isn't, but when the Times or the Guardian write about someone, or the person's work, they send a journalist to talk to the person. Or they talk to the person's close friends and colleagues. How else are they going to find things out? It's a convenient fantasy that somehow an interview becomes Guaranteed Fact by passing through the mind of a newspaper journalist. But the motivation behind this is genuine and good. At the very least, we want evidence that someone, apart from the subject themselves, thinks they're worth knowing about. Otherwise we'd just have a heap of PR. And a source that has retractions is better than a source that doesn't, because it means they're prepared to correct their errors, and our editors can spot the corrections and correct Wikipedia. Elemimele (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks 2600:8802:3A12:E700:1487:DE05:C24B:FD5A (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Image uploading

Hello, I wrote the Rora Blue article and was thinking about an image of the artist to their infobox. However, I don't know the content license or anything like that of any of the pictures of them. How would one go about getting an image like this added?

Furthermore, if I would took a picture of a book's cover, then uploaded it to Wikipedia, would that be some form of policy violation?

TIA. Jmaxx37 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jmaxx27, and welcome to the Teahouse. Images (and especially licensing) are tricky.

If you take a picture of the artist yourself, then it is your image to license as you wish, and you may upload it to Commons, licensing it as you go, and use it in the article. An image that you do not own the copyright of, you may not use unless you can show that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable license such as CC-BY-SA. Most images on the internet are not so licensed, and cannot be used.

If you take a picture of a book's cover, you add your copyright (in the photo) to the existing copyright, and so you cannot use the photo unless the original copyright owner and you both agree to license it suitably.

There are certain circumstances where a non-free image can be uploaded to Wikipedia (not to Commons) and used in an article; but the limitations, listed in WP:NFCC, are quite stringent. In particular:

• pictures of living people are almost never allowed, because it is almost always possible at least in theory that a free alternative could be made
• Covers of books and albums are often used to in articles about the particular book or album, as criterion 8: "contextual significance" is interpreted as allowing that. But that argument is not usually accepted in an article that is not about the book (eg about its author or subject).

See Help:Upload for more information. ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Are "Postcode Areas" redundant in infobox's now, as they always seem to be invisible?

I've added quite a few place infobox's in the last month, and I usually just add the:

• Post Towns
• Postcode Areas
• Postcode Districts

And occasionally

• Counties

As those can easily be found out by outsiders like me. I leave all the other stuff like Area Size, Populations, Districts, Emergency Services, Parliaments etc to locals of the area. However I've noticed that Postcode Areas never appear. Why are they not appearing? Danstarr69 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 Welcome to Teahouse! Which Templates are you using? It might be deprecated (no longer used), as postcal codes vary quite a bit country to country. Longitude/latitude remains the most reliable way to display a location on map. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, DanStarr. By hunting through your contributions, finding an article that looked as if it might be relevant, and editing it to find the name of the infobox, I believe that I have identified it as Template:infobox UK place. Please identify it next time.

To your question: If you look at the template, you will see that the template does not display a field labelled "Postcode area", but instead uses postcode_area to generate the field labelled "Postcode district" - if postcode_area is given, then it displays that, otherwise it uses postcode_district.

Whether this is a sensible logic or not I can't be bothered to think through. But if you have a concern, I suggest you raise it at Template Talk:Infobox UK place. (You might like to look through the history and see who set it up that way, and ping them, if they're still active.) ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Are Crime Statistics Demographics?

I feel like I'm going crazy. A significant number of US city articles have crime statistics in the Demographics sections. Demography is the study of populations, not a catch-all term for statistics. Does anyone else find it strange? Or am I the one misunderstanding what Demographics are? some examples Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sativa Inflorescence, demographics is "the statistical study of populations, especially human beings". It's human beings that do crimes, so it's reasonable to regard crime statistics as a field of demographics. Maproom (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Statistical study of populations not crime. Populations are not represented in crime statistics. Crimes are. You could extrapolate populations from crime stats, but that would be circular logic when the statistics are already reliant on accurate demographic data.

Compare the religious demographic data to the crime stats. With religious demographic data, you have percentages of the population, or just the number of people within the population. eg 75% of a city belongs to religion X. With crime statistics you have the numbers and rates of reported criminal acts. From that data, you can estimate populations like the percentage of the population that has been a victim of assault within the last 5 years. But that's not what any of these statistics do. Instead, it's things like Assaults/robberies/rapes per year. And of course murders per year, which I suppose you can count the deceased as a population if you'd like. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sativa Inflorescence If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you look at WP:USCITIES, which is the guideline for content on US cities agreed by the relevant Project: as far as I can see it doesn't specifically mention where crime stats should be placed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's because I removed it from the Demographics section in that guide. Its legacy clearly remains. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider crime statistics to be demographic data either, for what it's worth. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"in process" in source

The source page for Nona Willis Aronowitz starts off  In progress (that is, "in process" enclosed within two curly braces). What does this mean, and how would I find out without asking you? Tagus (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC) --Tagus (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tagus, the information is on the template page, Template:In progress. For any template enclosed in pairs of curly braces go Template:<name> to find information. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tagus Welcome to Teahouse! If you check the Article history you will see the Article has not been edited since 25 December 2022, so it is safe to say it's outdated/unhelpful. A better template to use when you are actively editing is {{Under construction}}. But make sure to remove it, once you are done, which this user didn't! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The tag was added back in August by someone who probably meant {{in use}} instead. I have removed it. "In use" is meant to be used for only a short time. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, StarryGrandma and Shushugah. (Yes, I just learned about inline icon templates.) Now I know. Tagus (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tagus: I removed the instances of {{In progress}} and {{Completed}} from the remaining few articles. GoingBatty (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Saving

I see the message "This is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved! → Go to editing area" but I cannot see any way of saving. A button marked "Save" would help. fred (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Otter Man Hello and welcome. "Publish Changes" should be interpreted to mean "Save". It used to say save, but was changed to emphasize that all edits are visible to the public. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Otter Man: Welcome to the Teahouse! To learn how to edit Wikipedia articles, I suggest reading Help:Introduction. Thanks and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Citation

I am working in Draft:N. C. Samantsinhar and I found Samantsinhar's mention in here but I can't see full sentence that what is written in that citation so can anyone help me by investigating the full sentence that what is written in that citation.

​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728: Welcome to the Teahouse! At the bottom of the Google page you provided is a button marked "Search WorldCat". Clicking on this button can help you look for the source in your local library. If that doesn't work, you might want to try asking at the Wikipedia:Reference Desk. If that doesn't work, then maybe ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfair accusation on County Durham

@Murgatroyd49: has made a false accusation against me with no evidence, I'm not allowed to call them out or remove their accusation and was unfairly treated on my own talk page by another editor who threatened to block me from editing when all my edits have been helpful. I'm upset about this and feel WP:Hounded by these two editors and in the case of Murgatroyd49, WP: Passive aggressive towards me. I'd appreciate advice from other editors in how to deal with false claims made against me DragonofBatley (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I reject and resent the accusations of this editor. I particularly resent him spreading his annoyance here as well as my talk page and on the talk page of the article in question. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: As this is an issue of user conduct, please bring this to WP:ANI and gather all the evidence you have before making your case there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The Teahouse is a forum where editors new or old can ask questions about Wikipedia, and not an appropriate place for this. Discuss this on WP:ANI. Professor Penguino (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hms Aster

HMS Aster (K188) Hello, I have a warships of WWII book by H.T. Lenton and J.J. Colledge and It contains a few facts about it. There is also a good website, [2] which contains some good information about it. I know this is a trustworthy source through [3]. Just read his blog. This is a big article not yet made and needs to be on wikipeida. Bobfeller54 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Bobfeller54, since you are the one with best knowledge of the subject, you are best equipped to create the article. Create a draft and write an encyclopedic article using information from the book. Guidance to create your first article can be found at WP:YFA. uboat.net is commonly used in warship-related articles and should suffice. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Bobfeller54,you arent allowed to use information you find on books in real life, unless they are online That would be Wikipedia:No original research.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to read this, HelpingWorld. Please point me to a policy, guideline, MoS or other page here that says I can't use information I find in books unless they are online. (Using books that aren't online is something that I routinely do.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean original research pretty much means research that you would find in a book or on a newspaper right? Im not too sure so correct me if im wrong. Wouldnt original research be something you research thats not on a device like a book or a conversation? I checked the original research wikipedia page and just assumed that books count.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Original research is if a Wikipedia editor is out running experiments, synthesizing ideas from primary texts, coming to their own conclusions about a topic. Using WP:OFFLINE sources is 100% fine on Wikipedia, (provided they’re reliable, independent, and otherwise fine sources). Umimmak (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought that original research was an editor doing research on their own. I thought that if you found a book that was reliable, you could make it into a citation. I might have to re-read the policy again... Professor Penguino (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, another editor has already clarified this. Professor Penguino (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

In this edit of 06:59, 6 January, HelpingWorld removed their own text you arent allowed to use information you find on books in real life, unless they are online, thereby making my comment on it incomprehensible. HelpingWorld, people (myself certainly included) can and do get things wrong in talk page comments, and they're encouraged to correct themselves; but when they realize that they have misspoken and that what's wrong has been responded to in some way, they should not delete the mistaken text. Striking it through (like this) is OK. (Please see "Editing own comments".) -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bobfeller54 The advice from Sungodtemple is excellent, and also note that a blog is not a reliable source that you can use as a reference for information that you put in your draft. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary, my apologizes. I'm not too familiar with original research but thanks for informing me.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 20:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Revert PROD

I have just prodded an article for the first time and noticed it was wrong. Then I reverted to a former version and the PROD seemed also reverted. Is this possible? If not I'd like to stop the PROD. The article is Rang Shawkat. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Simply delete the PROD notice, which I think is what you are saying happened. One can "decline" a PROD simply by deleting it. Definitelynotthatotherguy (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Wondering who thatotherguy is...who doesn't know how to create an article but how to revert a PROD. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I know how to create them, having done so maybe 5 to 10k times over the last two decades. But I was totally unaware of the hoops a new account has to jump through, having predated it all. Definitelynotthatotherguy (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

How to add something to a tidy bio w/o messing it all up

Hi, newbie here! I noticed that the en.wiki bio about Herta Müller doesn't mention a fantastic 2015 documentary about her, The Alphabet of Fear [4]https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5671418/. I've looked at how such info is incorporated on similar pages and saw there are many different ways, but I cannot apply any of those solutions in this case. Thank you for your advice! Odoni my fren (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Odoni my fren, welcome to the Teahouse. Generally, IMDBis not a reliable source. Is there a better, more reliable source, to back up this claim? Thanks. Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 12:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand but where else are actors and music credits listed?

Where else could I show the person's nominations? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:4C13:46B3:DBE9:77D6 (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Odoni my fren If you know the title of a documentary, you should be capable of using basic browser searching skills to find better sources. It took me less than 45 seconds to find this. Will that meet your needs, as it's from a much more reliable source? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I meant a trusted website that lists documentaries. Of course, I could google it. Is a google search a reference? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:4C13:46B3:DBE9:77D6 (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

No, Odoni my fren, a Google search is never acceptable as a reference. But nick linked to a resource that he found by a google search. IN any case, I'm dubious whether actors and music credits for such a documentary belong in the article. ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ppl, you helped me solve a problem I didn't know I had :D I learned something useful, I appreciate it! So back to my original question, say I have a reliable source or two, what would be a slick way to add the fact there's a documentary about her into the existing Herta Müller wiki page? I looked at other similar situations and saw there can be a section called Legacy, or it is added to another section somehow, but I can't seem to apply any of it here without bigger changes, so I was just wondering what would an experienced Wikipedian do? Sorry if the question is bothersome! (btw i am not "2600:8802..." : ) Odoni my fren (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Odoni my fren I suggest you post your suggestion in a new section on the article's talk page: Talk:Herta Müller. An experienced editor watching the article should be able to help you determine the best way to add the information. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't think of that, such a noob. Will do, thanks a lot! Odoni my fren (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Copying templates from other language Wikipedias?

I don't know how to edit a templates and I don't want to mess anything up. What is the easiest way to get this French Wikipedia template to work on en.wikipedia? I guess making a new template in English?  Not A  Witty Fish 19:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Templates cannot be invoked among different wikis. That template looks self-contained (not relying on other templates or modules), so it could just be copied directly to a new Template: here on enwiki (and its accompanying documentation page (fr:Modèle:Tableau_spécifications_des_couleurs/Documentation). Be sure to cite that frwiki template as the source when you do so. DMacks (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Should I change the language for ease of use too? Or better to keep it simple and just put it straight in?  Not A  Witty Fish 23:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I would translate it, but up to you. The params are almost English already anyways. Once it's done, feel free to ping in WP:Village Pump (Technical) to get another set of eyes. The template should be something like Module:Color specification table and documentation at Module:Color specification table/doc. And once you're confident it's working, link it as a "translation" of the French version. The Meta:WikiFunction project is supposed to simplify cross-language templates in the future ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll give it a shot. Thanks so much.  Not A  Witty Fish 01:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarification

What's the difference between my user page, talk page, and sandbox? Hgh1985 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Your User page is the place you can say something about yourself relevant to your being a Wikipedia editor. You don't have to say anything, and many users choose to say little or nothing, or even not to create the page at all. (I go one further, and have deliberately never created a user account.) You can also use it to keep links to Policies, Essays and other useful Wikipedia data, notes to yourself about your future editing plans, copies of templates and other coding for re-use, copies of text (such as explanations) you anticipate wanting to re-use, etc. Some people like to list all the articles they've successfully created. There's probably an essay Wikipedia:User pages – oh, yes, so there is – not having one, I've never looked before.

Your Talk page is for dialogue or larger discussions with other editors that would not be best suited to article talk pages. Other editors wishing to say something to you may leave a message (as a New section) on your Talk page, where you can continue a discussion; or you can do the same on theirs. See WP:User talk page.

Your sandbox(es – you can have as many as you like within reason) are for practicing edits, using wikicoding etc., and is one place you can start drafting an article, without creating a formal Draft. (You should not create a draft article, or anything that looks like an article, on your User page, whether it's about yourself or someone/thing else.) See Wikipedia:User sandboxes.

As you may by now be realising, stuff about 'Thing x' on Wikipedia can often be found by searching or just attempting to create a link to "WP:Thing x".

Hope this helps {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Using one's own published material as a reference

I wrote my dissertation on "The Palace of the Porphyrogenitus." I successfully defended in 1981. My understanding of Wikipedia editing is that one should be careful to keep in check the temptation to incorporate the writer/editor's own work. I fully understand the reason for caution. However, I would like to see my dissertation included as a reference or further reading item. So far as I know, mine is the only study to have included exhaustive measurements of the fabric of the building, to have documented the fabric in hundreds of photographs and architectural drawings and to have included a reasonably exhaustive list of early traveler account titles as they pertain to the building, along with a bibliography of secondary materials on Tekfur Saray. The study also examined, not exhaustively but systematically, comparative architectural material on palace architecture outside of Istanbul. And so my Teahouse question comes down to this. Is the dissertation a likely appropriate addition to "further reading?" And, if so, would anybody else be willing to insert the item (so that I am not recorded as the contributor? If inclusion is inappropriate that is okay with me. If I decide to include supplemental material to the article, I will do so by reference to the primary or secondary publications where I offer additional or material. I do not have the same hesitancy about including visual resources in the Commons. I hope to hear from you with advice and suggestion.

Inclusion of the unpublished dissertation, available in microform, ALLEN, WILLIAM JULIUS. “TEKFUR SARAY IN ISTANBUL: AN ARCHITECTURAL STUDY.” ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1981. http://astate.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3NS8MwFH_M6UEUVFSmUwneq23SZokgUrdWx0aFfgjzMtqmPXZ-3vzjTbpmToWdPAfCS174va-83wMg-MI0fmECMTOcWU5pEWaK3M4pZTRjvLAKjqWPrnqVB1HPfeTeyHlqwYNujWnUrVGyhm4xy1XW_JIo5nVpzdnN84uhxkipcqueqZE2sxbENSOUrMG6GqutuPXvlt0jHc1v8x5nlGKJ1QTTP7Bc2xp_Bz61WPqTyYLR8ZuV4ieZ4z-eYRe2Bksl-j1oFdU-mLE38pMQRW7oTtAwQMModoPbZHyF3ACpgpNEwH6chO4YKR9zcgDnvhf37w0tz7R5tG_ThTDkENrVrCo6gJy0JKV0GgXOhJ2nQvWT5GlmlzL6zOw0P4Luio2OV652YdPizJonNE6g_f76UZzCxvwyz2pVfQH3Daw3. Will (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Woodpainter, I shan't (yet) answer your question; but I'll say in the meantime that the (extraordinarily long) URL that you provide takes me to a page that asks me to supply my log-in details for "Off-Campus E-Resource Access" to "Dean B. Ellis Library" (which I see is part of Arkansas State U). I have no reason to think that I'd be unusual in lacking an ID and password. You may wish to upload your dissertation somewhere that would be accessible to more people. -- Hoary (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Woodpainter: Here is a more stable URL with a PDF preview, albeit with the full work still paywalled. I see no reason why this dissertation should not be included in a prospective "Further reading" section (or simply cited in the article body) if it really is a useful source, though I don't have the expertise to judge that. There is a little more guidance available at WP:SELFCITE. Shells-shells (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Woodpainter: There are multiple questions in there, I will try to unpack all of them.

The first is about whether your dissertation is a source that can be used by Wikipedia. While we require sources to be "published", that means "accessible to a general person from the public", but not necessarily easily accessible. If the only way to access it is to physically travel to Arkansas State university, pay for the library access, and look at the microfilms, that counts as "published" for our purposes. Of course it’s better if there is a PDF available online somewhere (see the above answers).

The second is whether a PhD dissertation is a source that we want to use; that is, is it a WP:SECONDARY source, and is it a reliable source ? I would say, mostly, yes:

• We prefer secondary sources because they have some distance from the event, person, etc. we want to write about. A PhD dissertation in history would (usually) be a secondary or even tertiary source. That might be different in other domains. For instance, an experimental PhD would be a mix of a literature review (secondary/tertiary), and original research that is primary (whoever writes the thesis also performed the experiments).
• Whether a given source is considered reliable depends on the context. If the PhD is the only source to argue a relatively mundane / undisputed point, it is probably good enough. On the other hand, if the point is extremely controversial, one should carefully check all the available literature before taking a single source (no matter how good) as truth.

The third is how to proceed given that you are the author of the source you wish to use. Just adding the link in the article might indeed be improper citation spamming. I would say:

• If you do not wish to spend much time, you should head over to the talk page (Talk:Palace of the Porphyrogenitus) and:
  • either make an {{edit request}} to dump the dissertation in a "further reading" section (this will cause an uninvolved editor to look at your proposed addition and decide whether to add the link or not);
  • or drop the source on the talk page with a short explanation of what could be found inside. Hopefully someone will look at it and manage to include some material - but that might happen quickly, slowly, or not at all, depending on how many editors are watching the page and/or are willing to go fetch the dissertation.
• If you have more time, it would be nice of you to edit the article yourself. If you want to reuse content from your dissertation verbatim or with few modifications, you should follow the procedure outlined at WP:DCM, but that would usually not be needed (a dissertation is much longer than a Wikipedia article should be). The best practice would be to cite the secondary sources directly if that’s what you used (example), but cite primary sources through your dissertation per WP:SAYWHERE (example).

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Tigraan, I'm eager to catch up on Delft JTTSLDbA. My subscription hasn't run out but copies of the two most recent issues haven't yet reached me. (Are they perhaps in Suez?) If you could lob me a PDF, I'd be grateful. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@HoaryI have placed the dissertation in Google Drive for public read and download. It is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Dd1RWzgWhTqdcBnE78cWuqeCez_K9Ax7/view Will (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary@Shells-shells@TigraanAnd so I believe that my next task should begin at the article, Palace of the Porphyrogenitus," and proceed via Talk. Thank you for your assistance. Will (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tigraan, @Hoary, does placing the dissertation in Google Drive count as being "published"? Just wondering. David10244 (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

David10244, what's on Google Drive is available, at least in the short term, so that's a plus. I suspect that you're asking whether, with the matter of reliability in mind, we can treat it as we'd treat a PhD thesis that had interested, and then gone through the editorial scrutiny of, Brill or Harrassowitz or De Gruyter. As I understand it, UMI would indiscriminately microfilm and distribute whatever it got from universities that interested it. If I'm right about this, then no we cannot. (In saying this I don't mean to slight the particular dissertation in any way, and I don't mean to say that it shouldn't appear in a list of "further reading".) -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, a PhD thesis can be used as a source, but should be treated with care. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Hoary, I was thinking about notability. Your explanations are always so clear and useful. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with edits

So, I want to edit Wikipedia, but I'm worried my edits will be marked as vandalism. All I really plan to do is spelling, grammar, and punctuation corrections. Would this be marked as GAME attempts? TheBaboonQueen51 (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheBaboonQueen51 It is a principle here that we assume good faith with other editors, especially newcomers. WP:Vandalism is rather narrowly defined as something the editor knows will damage rather than improve Wikipedia. Hence I would advise you to be bold and only worry if you find that experienced editors are reverting your contributions. We welcome copy-editing as well as more substantive additions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. If you don't want your copy-edits reverted I suggest you familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling to understand and thus avoid making spelling changes that will be reverted. David notMD (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I've done many thousands of edits--the vast majority being reorganizing things on category pages, as well as grammar and spelling fixes (a tiny fraction of my edits have been substantive). I can remember one instance where someone took one of my edits as vandalism--and that was back when I was editing IP, and the misunderstanding was very quickly and graciously sorted out. (Someone misread the word "Pinus"--the genus of pine trees--in some of my edits, and thought it was a bit of adolescent mischief.) One small suggestion: do put down a particular edit summary--even if it's only "grammar fix" or "fixed typo." Uporządnicki (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ha! He said "Pinus"! David10244 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheBaboonQueen51: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1176. Aside from the helpful answers others have given you, you may be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors, a group of Wikipedia editors that focus on doing what you intend to do (plus a little bit more). We currently have a backlog drive underway for this month, and extra hands on deck are always appreciated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest.

I invented a new script acclaimed by all who came to know of it. It is free for all, including the font. It is a unique one with many advanced features. To avoid its extinction I started site: bharathibyramchand.wordpress.com Now I tried to write an article about it in Wikipedia, so that the world must not lose a good script. But, I being the inventor of the script there is conflict of interest. So, I am not in a position to publish the article. I would like someone else to take up the work. Bharathi, A New Script. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sreejit TK Ramchand Hello and welcome. You may make a request at Requested Articles, but that is severely backlogged. However, even if you did, I think it's highly unlikely your creation would merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Wikipedia is not free webspace for preserving your creations; to merit an article, independent reliable sources must on their own choose to write about your work and its significance or importance, which we call notability. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sreejit TK Ramchand, you had already asked about this matterhad already asked about this matter. -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You have a draft at User:Sreejit TK Ramchand/sandbox. It has a tremendous number of hyperlinks to content you have created at Commons, and lists as references the book you have written. HOWEVER, unless other people are publishing evaluations of Bharathi as a script, I sincerely doubt that this has the potential to become a Wikipedia article. As for that concern about conflict of interest, as you have declared that at the Sandbox, you can submit the draft, but again, in its current form it will not be accepted. David notMD (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sreejit TK Ramchand You say you "tried to write an article about it in Wikipedia, so that the world must not lose a good script." But I'm afraid Wikipedia is not a place to promote your invention--however vital to humankind your invention might be. You don't achieve notability by putting an article in Wikipedia; you get an article (written by someone unconnected with you, based on sources also unconnected with you) in Wikipedia AFTER AND BECAUSE you have already achieved notability. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Dear. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Citing PDF sources?

Hi everyone, I'm an editor active in the motorsports community. More and more events and championships are starting to use an App called "Sportity" to communicate entry lists, race results etc., with those documents then provided directly as a pdf file. How would one go about using those pdf files in a citation, as there is no source link provided with them, only the file itself? Cheers, H4MCHTR (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A source can still be cited in articles even if it's not available on the internet (see WP:OFFLINE) – but the source must still have been published in a manner that meets the reliable sources rule, and I'm not sure that these files will if they're being generated by an app and delivered directly to users on request. Is there any chance of the organisers (or similar official groups, or press firms or magazine publishers, etc) hosting the files on their website? XAM2175 ^(T) 11:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

XAM2175 I basically have the same question, although slightly different.

There's certain random links I'll stumble across (which I'm not even looking for) on Google occasionally from universities or organisations like the ONS/BARB/BFI etc which when you click on them, will either open themselves up automatically in my own Google Docs/Sheets/Drive or Microsoft Office which is becoming Microsoft 365 (whatever that is), and/or will automatically download.

I'm fairly sure the only way to get the link is by copying the link on Google, and manually removing all the Google related stuff just like this one which I found a few weeks ago [5]https://www.docs.is.ed.ac.uk/docs/Libraries/Main/E-Resources/Databases/BFI_InView_title_list.xlsx

If I wanted to use a link like this, would it be allowed on Wikipedia?

And are there any better ways to get a link for something like this? Danstarr69 (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, these are usually fine so long as they meet the reliable sources rules regarding authorship and publication status (the latter point meaning "be sure the files were genuinely made available to the public"). Removing the Google-related stuff is probably the easiest way to get a clean link; if you were accessing these files from the publisher's actual webpages you'd already have a clean link. Avoid linking if you think that the file is being hosted without permission, as this can create copyright problems for us. Finally, remember when citing them to fill out the format parameter so it looks like this |format=XLSX (or whatever other format the document might be). XAM2175 ^(T) 18:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@XAM2175, @H4MCHTR Are the results entered by users? I don't doubt that the information is usually correct, but if it's user or fan-entered and then posted as a PDF, how does that differ from IMDB? IMDB is not generally usable as a source because it's user-generated info. I might be missing something. David10244 (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

In my case, the results are published by championship officials, just not on a website (where I would just use the link to cite the pdf) but on an app. I've tried but there seems to be no way to extract the link to the file (or to where it is hosted) from the app, just the file itself. H4MCHTR (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding Dates

Hi, I want to add the birth date in article about Rama. The birth date of Lord Rama is known (10 Jan 5014 BCE). Is it allowed to add such dates? I am new to wikipedia and don't have any knowledge about this topic. 24february2022 (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This would be the traditional, religious or legendary date, and should be stated as such. Conventional scholarship holds that if such a figure existed at all, he was a good deal later, say after 1500 BCE, and we don't have an actual precise date. In fact Rama#Dating covers this well enough, though it is rather low down. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @Johnbod. I didn't notice that this topic is already covered in Rama#Dating. 24february2022 (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @24february2022! Welcome to the Teahouse. As long as you provide a reliable source, you can add it. Happy editing! Professor Penguino (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thylacine

There is a recent news article regarding the Thylacine. Titled "Stop calling the last thylacine Benjamin, Tasmanian tiger researcher says - ABC News" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-06/benjamin-thylacine-tasmanian-tiger-naming-myth-persists/101734442 The Wiki acknowledges the debate, but still mentions the debunked name 11 times. Should this have been corrected and the number of times the name is used reduced? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine Scaith (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Scaith: Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to discuss content of a particular article is on its associated talk page. It appears this topic is already being discussed at Talk:Thylacine, and you're welcome to join the discussion there. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Thank you.... Scaith (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Merging page

I think this page, Should be merged into the already existing disambiguation page, But the page is long dead, (Last edit 2012) So I doubt people would respond to be discussion for merge, should I? I'm Following The Username Policy (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've run into this problem a few times. I do think that you should bring it up on the talk page (you never know!). You could also reach out to an experienced editor for help. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Im Following The Username Policy Sibirsky (rural locality) doesn't have much more content than a standard disambiguation page and is already a component of Sibirsky, so if I were you I'd be WP:BOLD and incorporate all the information into a single DAB page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

about

why is this sight important to developers and or school teacher's. How would me learning about this sight and what there about benifit me ?

Bigdallen (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Bigdallen, if you are referring to "site" as in "website", then please read Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think Bigdallen answered his own question with those glaring errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse is helpful when its hosts are helpful, not snarky David notMD (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Bigdallen! Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia which allows everyone to get information on every topic imaginable. Wikipedia is 100% edited by volunteers, meaning that the information on it is created by its readers. Learning about the existence of wikipedia will allow for you to have more knowledge on a broader range of topics by reading articles, whereas you can gain more wisdom on interaction, and contribution by helping write articles, by editing them, or creating them.

Sincerely, Starchamelix <3

Starchamelix (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Run UserScripts before page loads

Like the title says, I was wondering if its possible to execute userscripts/gadgets before the page loads. I have tried window.onpaint and stuff, but it doesn't seem to work. Is this prevented as is isn't allowed to run scripts before the document loads? Ember314 (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, have you tried [onDOMContentLoaded]?

Starchamelix (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Addition to an existing article

Hi, I am not Wiki-adept, but would like to add to The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck .

Contents: Add hyperlink to a new section - In popular culture

In this new section add:

In early January 2023 Republicans in the US House of Representatives held 15 votes over four days to elect a new Speaker. This was the most ballots needed since 1859-1860. (citation List of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives elections#December 1859 – February 1860). According to POLITICO writing about the fourth and final day:

"Throughout the whole evening, Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) was reading the “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck” while waiting on votes." (citation [6] Two lawmakers nearly come to blows — and other crazy moments from McCarthy’s final speaker votes)

Is someone able to make this addition for me? Thanks ahead of time and please let me know when it's done.

Vrede420 Vrede420 (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Vrede420, and welcome to the Teahouse. The place to make such a suggestion is on the talk page, Talk:The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck. In my opinion that information is not encyclopaedic, but others may disagree. ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree not worthy. And also, if you want to otherwise contribute to Wikipedia, that's not how to reference. David notMD (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

New wiktionary page

So I have made a new wiktionary page [|Link here.], is it alright? (my editing skills aren’t great, but ok) thanks then! Kanjishowa21-4 (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Kanjishowa21-4, the page was deleted. Please ask at the wikt:WT:Tea room which will have editors more familiar with Wiktionary and its policies. Wikipedia and Wiktionary are somewhat independent of each other. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Arabic numbers

Why are the numbers in the Arabic Wikipedia version and other Arabic script Wikipedia versions using the universal 123 Arabic Hindu numberals and not the eastern Arabic numerals even though they clearly work on a computer, in fact I rarely see them being used anywhere on the Internet it seems. Hgh1985 (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hgh1985, I think you answered your own question. Other number [writing] systems are not widely used, so we use the 1 2 3 numerals. Wikipedia follows the majority, even if it is wrong: WP:Verifiability, not truth. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It is a decision of the community at ar-wiki what form of the script to use, and you should really ask there. I observe that the Farsi (fa:صفحهٔ_اصلی), Azerbaijani (azb:آنا_صفحه) and Mazanderani (mzn:گت_صفحه) Wikipedias, at least, do use conventional Arabic numerals. ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Questions about what is allowed on userpages

I'd like to put two things on my userpage, but I'm worried they may not be allowed:

1) I want to put a pear emoji, but I've never seen emojis on any userpages. Are they frowned upon or have I just not clicked on enough user page links?

2) Can I take this picture of pears from the Wikimedia Commons and put it on there, or is that frowned upon as well?

Thanks, Pear12345678 (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

My 2¢: this is a global encyclopaedia, where clear communication is very important. Emojis are a form of modern "slang", which may mean different things to different people in different cultures. I myself have no idea whatever what a 'pear' emoji would be intended to convey (beyond a needless allusion to your username), or what others might think (rightly or wrongly) it meant – amongst other things, it could refer to a torture implement, testicles, or breasts.

Although more latitude is allowed on User pages than elsewhere, they are still intended for encyclopaedic purposes (to tell other editors about yourself and your intentions as a Wikipedia editor). They are not, in any way, social media. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Pear12345678. Wikipedia:User pages has a section entitled "What may I have on my user page?" Which states:

"A number of users have Wikipedia and sister project content such as (free use) pictures from Wikimedia Commons, favorite Wikipedia articles, or quotations that they like."

The Wikipedia Commons photo of pears that you want to use should be acceptable. Best wishes on future Wikipedia projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for not going there, I will refer to the help page in the future. Thank you for taking the time to respond regardless! Pear12345678 (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Pear12345678 there's no need to be sorry for asking a question here. I've been a Wikipedia volunteer for many years and didn't know Wikipedia:User pages existed until yesterday, when I decided to check if there was such an article, in order to answer your question. The pear photo looks nice on your user page. Karenthewriter (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

RE: Nolan Davis draft. Before I created an article I was told that these were good resources. I asked. I was told to create the page. Now it's declined

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nolan_Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:3A12:E700:1487:DE05:C24B:FD5A (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I put multiple sources but they were removed so they can say there are no sources.

Newsweek

https://www.newspapers.com/image/7569120/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

Los ángeles times https://www.newspapers.com/image/385576226/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/99105353/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/438045088/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

Good Austin American Statesman https://www.newspapers.com/image/359907814/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

Miami Herald https://www.newspapers.com/image/625439292/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

Kansas City Star https://www.newspapers.com/image/675979185/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/853540502/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

Olathe News https://www.newspapers.com/image/816460432/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1 2600:8802:3A12:E700:1487:DE05:C24B:FD5A (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The various publications you list are mostly reliable sources, although Newsweek has gone downhill badly in the 21st century. See WP:NEWSWEEK. That does not mean that simply being mentioned in reliable sources means that a person is notable. Truly significant coverage is required. The way you have framed your question seems to imply that the draft should be accepted because a Wikipedia editor or two gave you encouraging words. That's not how things work. You need to write a solid draft that shows notability. You have presented a long list of bare URLs that are difficult to evaluate because you are not providing bibliographic information and the articles are all behind paywalls. It looks to me like this person wrote a single novel that received a few reviews over half a century ago, including a negative review in the New York Times, and had a routine career after that. I do not see any persuasive claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I was specifically told to use Newspaper.com. The person said "YOU PREFERRED IT !!!" and had free subscriptions!!!!!. Now you're complaining that it's behind a paywall. This is time-wasting, disrespectful, and probably other issues involved. There's no way to create a page when 5 sources were removed and then I was told there are no sources. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:1487:DE05:C24B:FD5A (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] OP, I think the problem is that you are confusing two concepts, both of which are important. One is the Notability of an article's subject, the other is the Verifiability of the article's information.

It may well be that the resources you have used are satisfactory for verifying the information/facts you have included in the article. (I haven't checked in detail, but the declining reviewer TheChunky did not complain about them not being Reliable sources.)

However, at least some (usually 3 or more) of the sources must also demonstrate the Notability of the subject. Briefly (see the link above for more detail) this means they must be all three of (i) independent from the subject or or anyone connected to them/it; (ii) from published reliable sources (as linked above); and (iii) of substantial length, not just brief mentions or inclusions in lists, etc.

Note also that "declined" means "not up to standard yet, but likely to reach it with further improvement." If TheChunky had thought that this subject had no chance of qualifying, they would have "rejected" the draft, which basically means "give up."

Writing acceptable Wikipedia articles is hard. I've been a regular editor here for approaching 20 years, and have never attempted it, despite being a former professional editor in Real Life. (I mean, I probably could, I'm just not sufficiently motivated.) Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I had 5 other sources that David removed. He said they were not needed. It's on the history. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:1487:DE05:C24B:FD5A (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

There were four refs in the Lead, all verifying the fact that he wrote a book. I removed three. That is not the reason the draft was subsequently Declined for not having sufficient references. Quality is the only issue. I refrained from deleted refs that are now 5-8, even though those are about Ms. Spotts' country-visiting, not Davis, nor his documentary about her. David notMD (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No!!!!!, they were Nolan's references. He clearly removed them and said it was not needed. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:1487:DE05:C24B:FD5A (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Nobody "tells" anybody to do anything here on Wikipedia, in the sense you are using the term. There are no bosses regarding content and every content editor should be considered equal to every other, although obviously some us are more experienced than others. So, do not think that you were "told" to do anything. Instead, think of it that some other editors gave you some suggestions or recommendations.

As for most of your references, they would probably be more useful in a draft about Woni Spotts, and contribute very little to the assertion that Nolan Davis is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Restore those if you wish. But four refs that he wrote one book is not more confirmatory of notability than one ref that he wrote the book. Same for all those URLs (above) that he wrote the book. David notMD (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

A belated thought. If most available good references are to a particular book rather than its author, it may be easier to show notability and create an article on the book. Naturally such an article would say a little about the author, but coatracking should be avoided. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Article Declined for lack of multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

I created the article Enayet Chowdhury, which after some time was moved to draftspace. And then a reviewer declined the draft stating: This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth.

In my opinion, it meets all of these. There are in depth, independent coverage from reliable and notable publications. Such as this from Dhaka Courier magazine, this from The Daily Ittefaq, this from The Business Standard (it contains interview in part, but isn't fully an interview and contains neutral, independent in-depth and factual reporting).

There is more coverage, maybe not as in depth or independent as the previous ones, but substantial coverage from reputable outlets, such as this from The Financial Express. Also, there are biographies from ORCID.org (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8476-0741), UPL (মোঃ এনায়েত চৌধুরী | The University Press Limited (uplbooks.com)), and others.

I admit there are some sources that are not in-depth coverage, but they are used to backup claims. All sources mustn't be in depth, some can be just brief mentions used to back up facts and claims, such as an award they won, etc. But all of them, combined (both in depth, and passing mentions, interviews, bios, etc), speaks for the notability of the subject, don't they?

(I do not have any Conflict of interest of any sorts with the subject. I'm familiar of him through YouTube and other social media, and found out he's notable, and thought he deserves an article, hence created one. If there are issues with promotional terms, one is requested to assist me with those.)

Please can anyone help me out with the draft being moved to mainspace, by independently making corrections if needed and moving to mainspace?

Thanks. It's Keya (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@It's Keya:, he's a bit of a difficult one because he doesn't look quite senior enough to satisfy the normal requirements of an academic at WP:NPROF, but he's got the added impact of someone who clearly tries to communicate with the public and is involved in public projects - but Wikipedia is very suspicious of anyone who looks to be promotional, which automatically hits anyone with a YouTube channel, or anyone who gets written about in business press releases. When you cite people's publications, it's good to cite the original document, not a Google Scholar hit, and don't include the academic titles of those with whom he's worked (the Prof. Dr. stuff) because these are never used in the English speaking academic world, and make it look like someone's trying to look bigger than they are. If his institution has a biography page about him, that will look better than a profile he's posted on a 3rd party site. But he might just be not-quite-there on notability, which is a pity as he's probably going to have a lot more global impact than yet another minor film. If it's any consolation, my last attempt sat at AfC for 4 months, when I moved it to main-space myself (on advice here), it got apparently accepted but tagged as benefiting from more citations, and then the same reviewer moved it back to draft-space a week later, so it's a weird and somewhat demotivating world out there. We move on, and keep trying... good luck! Elemimele (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele, Appreciate the response. But although he might not satisfy WP:NPROF, doesn't he meet general notability guideline? I mean there's in depth coverage of him and his online content in more than 3 reliable, independent, and notable media outlets. I noticed reviewers use WP:THREE, doesn't it apply here? I'd like your input on it. Thanks. It's Keya (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi It's Keya. Generally, it is more appropriate to ask for an explanation from the reviewer who declined the draft, than to throw it out to a random collection of editors. I've looked at the three sources you cite above (well, I've tried, but the Bengali one won't open for me). I agree that the Dhaka Courier looks like a good source, but the Business Standard is a close paraphrase of the Dhaka Courier, so it is cannot be counted as a separate source. ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, now I think about it, the fact that the two articles are close paraphrases of each other makes it very likely that they are both based on a press release, and so not independent. --ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. In my tenure on WP, I have pretty much avoided anything having to do with new articles, but I took a quick look at this draft, and my first impression was the mention of YouTube in the lede. What is wrong with this is that anybody can become a YouTuber, many people can even get lots of views. So this is just my quick impression (and certainly not enough to overcome the notability issue), but don't mention either YouTube or digital content creation in the lede. The one exception would be if there were "recognition" of this (e.g. some suitably notable award). Otherwise (IMO/FWIW), having that in the lede is going to make my dubious notability alarm go off. Fabrickator (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That's why I referred to NPROF, because I think it's too easy to jump to conclusions about someone based on only one part of their existence. For example, an academic who doesn't quite cut the mustard with their professorship (too minor a post) or their publications (run-of-the-mill in respectable journals, but not earth-shattering), might be nudged over the notability line by running a YouTube channel that's (by academic standards) got a very high viewership, because it contributes to criterion 7. This criterion also applies to scientists who don't have a big university position, but who get appointed to government or NGO advisorships etc., where those particular advisorships, taken alone, without the NPROF-link, wouldn't be notable because they don't meet the standards for politicians and rarely get written about (except when prompted by press-releases). It is important to look at the whole human.

On sources, and the three best: (1) anything that is blatantly an interview won't count (even though, obviously, all newspaper articles about academics are invariably based on an interview, that's how newspapers and TV do their work); (2) anything that's blatantly the result of a press-release won't count (this is a hurdle that's problematic for government/NGO advisors as nearly all press material about their work will result from a press-release by the NGO or government department); (3) where, exceptionally, material derived from a press-release is accepted, all versions of it in multiple news sources count as just one.

and finally, in small print, my feeling is that to be notable, an academic should not be on Forbes list, should scrupulously avoid being photographed in a smart suit, should avoid having external frivolous interests, should endeavour not to do anything of financial relevance, and should ideally be based in North America, the UK, or at a pinch, Europe and Australia. Elemimele (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

E - why not just say that in your opinion, to be notable, academics need to be White? Of if you did not mean that, retract the proposed exclusion of academics based in S. America, Asia and Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 21:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear - once again an attempt at tongue-in-cheek humour misfires. My small-print was what I feel the situation in Wikipedia is, not what it should be. We are biased. There is a big difference between skin-colour and geographical location, and I wrote "based in" quite deliberately. My casual observation is that when academics are discussed in the English Wikipedia, the people doing the discussing are very often based in the USA, UK etc., which creates a systematic bias against institutions and academics from India, Africa and numerous other parts of the world, who are working in a different environment, under different requirements. An African academic, for example, may have to spend a lot more time promoting his/her profile, and getting involved in money-raising efforts, interacting with NGO's, and project-building, and basically "blowing their own trumpet" in order to get funding and get anything done, because there's less grant money available than in the UK. African biological research tends to centre strongly on solving real-world African problems, with less money available for "fundamental" research that isn't obviously going to help anyone. Taken together, this means an African academic is quite likely to be an entrepreneur, YouTuber, also maybe with charitable interests in education and helping those less well-off. Unfortunately all these activities, like a mention in a Forbes list, or a big picture of the academic wearing a suit and discussing investment, sets off Wikipedia editors' notability-alarms and self-promotion-alarms, and as a result, the African academic may be judged more harshly than his or her European/North-American colleague. Elemimele (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPROF is one of the few notability policies that lowers the bar for inclusion as there work is less likely to be covered in traditional reliable sources. So skip the WP:SOAPBOX and focus on the content, as we are not here to right great wrongs. Slywriter (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This is so frustrating. My point wasn't to right a great wrong, it was to indicate that NPROF might apply to the guy as he's an academic, but as NPROF is tailored to Western-style academia, when using it to assess other academics, we have to do so with intelligence. The original poster was trying to work out whether his subject is notable. I was trying to answer. I shouldn't have written the first little small-print bit, but since I did, and someone responded with an accusation of blatant racism, I had to explain myself at more length. Elemimele (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Explanation accepted. David notMD (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Enayet Chowdhury needs refs. David notMD (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem and Draft:Palm Springs Fire Department

I need help finding sources for Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem and Draft:Palm Springs Fire Department most news articles are subscribers only and I cant get in I keep getting copyright on Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem and I don't understand why so can I get help please 2603:8001:2902:64F4:BCD5:307A:F616:A650 (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I very much doubt that any temporary chair of any organisation is NOTABLE in their own right. If you can't find sources that talk in detail and in depth about either topics, then I'm afraid no article can be allowed on Wikipedia. Our role here at the Teahouse is not to go in search of supportive materials - that's your job, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

As for your draft about the Palm Springs Fire Department, I do not see any claims of notability there. Palm Spings is a city of less than 50,000 people, and surely its fire department can be adequately covered in Palm Springs, California. Wikipedia is not a directory of every fire department and police department in the world. We have articles about fire departments that are truly notable, such as the New York City Fire Department, which lost 343 firefighters on September 11, 2001. Another example is the San Francisco Fire Department whose chief was killed by a falling chimney in the aftermath of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. In my opinion, 99% of small town and small city fire departments can be covered adequately in articles about the local municipality, unless there is something quite unusual and distinctive about the history of an individual fire department. Cullen328 (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Apparent Project COI rewritten entire page

Hello! A few days ago someone who delacred a COI on the edit summary deleted and rewrote the whole page of Apparent Project.

I haven't been able to undo it as edits have happened since the edit I'm trying to revert. Could someone have a quick look and revert if they think appropriate.

I have enabled twinkle but haven't been able to figure out how to use it for reverting. Is it possible on the mobile website? Thank you! Dontgiveupthedayjob (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I have restored to the last good version and warned the conflicted user. Theroadislong (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Rename draft article

Hi all, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and up to now I have only been editing existing pages. I created my first draft article just now and have sent it to be reviewed by an editor as I'm not sure everything I've done is 100% correct, but as I did it from my personal sandbox the title is showing wrong. I have pasted the following into the talk page associated with my sandbox, { { subst:Requested move|Draft:Destinology } } (with no spaces of course), Destinology being the actual name I want for the article. Is this correct? I might be getting mixed up. Thank you in advance for any help offered, much appreciated! Flamingorose (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Flamingorose: as it happens, I've just declined your draft (for lack of notability), and spotted your rename request on the talk page. The way the AfC review process works is, if/when a draft is accepted for publication, the reviewer will move it to the correct name, in this case Destinology (which currently has a redirect to Saga plc). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What constitutes far-right?

I noticed in Wikipedia articles about right-wing politicians, some (Paul Gosar, Doug Mastriano, Dan Cox) are labeled as “far-right” in the first sentence, while others (Don Bolduc, Lauren Boebert) simply include the phrase “has been described as far-right”. Bolduc’s article was originally in the former category before being changed to the latter. What is the criteria for labeling a politician as “far-right” versus just saying they’ve been described that way? Why was Bolduc’s article changed? 174.83.14.34 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. If sources use the term "far right" to describe someone, then we do too. I can't speak to the Don Bolduc article, but that is general practice. If someone is described that way without sources to support it, please discuss it on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that the difference in description may simply be a lack of consistency. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Apparently this chap isn't described as a "far-right" politician in his article's lede, even though the Nazi Party is.  Tewdar  13:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's face facts: if an editor protests and kicks up enough fuss, they are "described as far right". If no-one notices, they are Wikivoiced as "far-right". And apparently, nobody bothers to label dead dictators like this.  Tewdar  13:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok to link to your personal website on your user page?

I just made my first edit to wikipedia. I saw my name was red in the edit log, so clicked on it. Apparently it's cause I have no user page. Ok, I make one, just put a link to my homepage so as to not have to copy paste from there. My user page immediately gets flagged for deletion for spam without explanation (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomasFiers) Hence, this question TomasFiers (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey @TomasFiers, welcome to Wikipedia! It's okay to have this on the page, but you should ensure that it isn't the only thing on the page. As @User:TheManInTheBlackHat said, lots of spammers do a similar thing, and it can be hard to know. If you include other information, like a few sentences about yourself and your interests, and then add the link, it should be good. Just make sure it's clear to others that it is a personal page. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 13:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC).

Ok check, thanks TomasFiers (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Inserting image into Wikipedia page from Wikimedia Commons

This ought to be easy but clearly is not. I am currently trying to introduce an image which is in Wikimedia and can be found with the name "raflaa". I wish to introduce it into the Wikipedia page "RAF Locking" but cannot find a suitable method. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Thanks Stevepem (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Stevepem: see WP:EIS. At its simplest it's just [[File:filename.ext]]. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Stevepem: There is no image called "raflaa" in Wikimedia Commons. Can you give a link to the image you want? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Stevepem: Do you mean File:RAW Monument.jpg...? --CiaPan (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Stevepem, and welcome to the Teahouse. Is the file you want c:File:RAW Monument.jpg? You need to give the whole filename, including the extension, to link or use it. If you go to that page, there is a link at the top "Use this file (on a wiki)" ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for replying. the word raflaa was how I found the image. Its URL is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RAW_Monument.jpg.

The problem I have is when try to insert an image in Wikipedia I don't get the opportunity to select the file in Wikimedia, nor can I search for it. I do get the chance to upload from my own computer but that is not what I need. Thanks again Stevepem (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Stevepem The easiest way is probably to use the "Edit source" on the article, then place the link offered from Commons, which is [[File:RAW Monument.jpg|thumb|RAW Monument]] onto the page, using the "Preview" function to check that you have the image where you need it. You can re-caption it by editing the "RAW monument" part of the link. Full help for images is at HELP:Pictures. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Very many thanks for your guidance. Hey Presto I now have an image! Wrong placement but I can sort that.

Again, many thanks Stevepem (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(ec) @Stevepem: Just use the syntax given above by User:DoubleGrazing: [[File:RAW_Monument.jpg]] results in (I deleted a super-large image as not appropriate for Teahouse)

CiaPan (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Many hanks, problem now resolved. Stevepem (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Notability time BLP

I started writing a draft for one of the tallest living men. He's had significant coverage in a handful of national papers in ghana, his nationality. My main question is if theres a rough guideline for how long the coverage has to span for for a BLP. Most of his coverage was around the same.

I do know most of the other 8 footers both taller and shorter have their own articles.

My second queation is if I can presume ghana newspapers to be reliable despite not being listed at all in wikipedias list of reliable sources. Amthisguy (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Amthisguy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't speak to Ghana newspapers in general, but a newspaper is generally considered reliable if it has a reputation of fact checking and editorial control, in other words, they don't just publish what people write without someone else checking its accuracy. See reliable sources for more information.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how long the coverage has to span"; if you mean does this man have to have been written about many years ago, the answer is no- an article only needs to summarize the available independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is if having a lot of coverage in a short amount of time is enough, or if they need sustained coverage. Amthisguy (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Amthisguy Are you aware that an article on Sulemana Abdul Samed was recently created by Kelmaa via the WP:AFC process? It is adequately sourced, including some from newspapers in Ghana. Incidentally, Samed is probably not over 8' in height, despite what was initially reported. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware. I'm referring to Charles Sogli who is purportedly tied with Sulemana. Amthisguy (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Review of translated articles any different?

Hello, today I would like to ask if an article that is just translated from an already reviewed and approved article, e.g. in German language, will meet a procedure of review any different from that of articles created from the scratch? Bernhard.rulla (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Bernhard.rulla, the standards applied when reviewing an article for English Wikipedia do not depend on how the article was created, or on whether there are versions of it in other Wikipedias. Maproom (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC).

Remember to attribute the source, and English W has higher reference standards than some of the other languag W's. David notMD (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Composer notability

Hello-- I'd appreciate some quick feedback before I resubmit. I submitted an article on a living composer from Slovenia (Draft:Damijan Močnik) through AfC. It was declined due to some missing citations and insufficient evidence of notability. I've fixed the citations and added a bit of additional information, but the criteria for notability of composers is a bit opaque to me, especially when applied to composers of contemporary classical music. He has won the top composition awards in his home country, but they are for his whole body of work, not a particular composition as Wikipedia:COMPOSER implies should be the case. Is this sufficient for notability, or should I hold off? AnnaKGS (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, AnnaKGS, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that the special criteria in WP:COMPOSER and other notability guidelines do not of themselves guarantee that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense: if somebody meets one of the special criteria, then it is likely that the sources will exist that establish they are notable; but those sources must still be found and cited. This means that worrying about whether one of those criteria is precisely met or not is probably not worthwhile. If he has won the top composition awards in Slovenia, it would seem likely that independent people have written about him, though maybe only in Slovenian. Look for the sources, rather than worrying about the award. ColinFine (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, @ColinFine. There are a number of sources that discuss him and his work, but I'm finding them to be sort of borderline in terms of the depth of coverage. He certainly has better coverage than many composers and other figures who have articles! AnnaKGS (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@AnnaKGS: criteria like #4 of COMPOSER are admittedly a bit vague; however, on a scale where at one end you have the Grammys and the Gramophone Classical Music Awards of this world, it is debatable whether a national award, 'top' or otherwise, can really be considered "major". One simple test I sometimes use is: does the award etc. in question have its own Wikipedia page? If it does, that in itself won't necessarily mean it's "major" — but if it doesn't, that probably does mean it's not. BR, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this, @DoubleGrazing. I'm not sure if the Grammys or even Gramophone awards are great reference points, as the focus there is so much on recording artists rather than composers. I realize there have to be some guidelines, but this approach seems to very much favor popular music artists (where there are large numbers of awards given in various categories) over contemporary classical composers. Maybe unavoidable, but I think unfortunate. AnnaKGS (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I Go Make the Article of Richard DeMinacor (the ator from The Evil Dead)

Hello I'm new here well... Can anyone of you help me make this actor's article? LeronJomes (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@LeronJomes Hi Leron and welcome to the Teahouse. Hosts here don't usually assist in writing new articles: we tend to focus on helping newcomers with the technical aspects of what can be a steep learning curve. Please read carefully HELP:YFA and then decide whether there are enough sources available to show that DeMinacor is a notable actor in the sense that Wikipedia uses that word. Note that sources like IMDB are not considered reliable enough to be used. You need to read all the pages I've linked.... and then come back if you have further questions. Teahouse hosts often suggest that new editors start with simpler tasks, such as copy-editing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LeronJomesw, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. It sounds as if your purpose here is to use Wikipedia to make Minacor better known; in other words, to promote him. That is explicitly not part of the function of Wikipedia: see NOTPROMO. (You may or may not think that what you are trying to do is "promotion", but from Wikipedia's point of view, that is what you are doing). Only if he has already been significantly writen about is a Wikipedia article about him possible.

In addition, creating an encyclopaedia article is much more difficult than most people realize, especially if they do it backwards, as most new editors do. To avoid a lot of frustration and disappointment, I suggest you put that project aside for a few months, and edit elsewhere as you learn how Wikipedia works. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull But there are two things, first, I'm new here and second, I want to do this actor's article because he is an extremely unknown actor, he is an actor who is little known for playing Scotty. character of the evil dead since he was a small longtime Sam Raimi the director of the film DeMinacor also participated in a film by Raimi called Crimewave who played a character called Officer Garvey he sort of disappeared until he came back in a 2021 evil dead documentary and I want to do that article because people and evil dead fans got to know the actor better. LeronJomes (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@LeronJomes It is possible that other editors may see your suggestion and offer to help. No matter who drafts the article, it must show he is notable, which may be difficult if, as you say, he is "extremely unknown"! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Michael Turnbull where is the link to create the article? LeronJomes (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Mike wrote (above) that it is HELP:YFA, and that WP:ACTOR is a guideline. If there has not been a lot writen about DeMinacor, yoo won't have references; no refs, no article. David notMD (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@LeronJomes: You write "I want to do that article because people and evil dead fans got to know the actor better." Wikipedia isn't the place to increase exposure for a person. It isn't a publicity platform. If the actor is unknown and not notable yet, we cannot have an article on him. If there are sources about him that meet the requirements in WP:Golden rule, or he meets any criteria in WP:NACTOR, then it is possible. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

actually I give up I'm not going to do his article so or if you want you can do his article because I'm giving up on this article. LeronJomes (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Difficulty Switching From Source To Visual Editor

Sometimes when I'm in the source editor the button to switch to the visual editor is not visible or not apparent. I have observed this on different computers with different browsers. Is there something I'm missing? What's the simplest, most consistent and reliable way to switch from the source to the visual editor? Iguana0000 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Iguana0000, welcome to the Teahouse. There may be a bug, or you may simply be noticing that the Visual Editor is (by design) not available in some places on the site, such as talk pages. You can go into your personal preferences and check the box titled something like "Always use VE when available" - more detailed instructions are at top left of WP:VE, under the heading Enable VisualEditor. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious, after becoming comfortable with the source editor, why anybody would want to switch to the visual editor? I never use the visual editor myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I barely ever use visual editor, but there are some things it is useful for – if you want to swap columns about in a table, for instance, editing the wikitext directly is a giant pain. You can do it – if the wikitext is laid out nicely and your text editor supports column selection it might not be too bad – but for the everyday user it's no fun at all. And just parsing the wikitext for complicated tables, even to make simple edits, is pretty high-overhead unless you are very used to it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I primarily use the visual editor because I copyedit. I don't need to see every single template and citation expanded into code when I'm adjusting for grammar and flow. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think Teahouse Hosts could benefit from being familiar with both. Increasingly, new users are starting with Visual Editor, and we do need to know how things work so we can help them. I've been trying to force myself to use it more - especially as it's usually the de facto editor offered in formal training at many editathons. As well as working with tables, and avoiding all the code when copy editing, I also find it quite good for modifying existing references once I've used Source Editor to enter a 'ref name' (which WP:VE, frustratingly, still doesn't permit). Nick Moyes (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The visual editor allows citations to be reused, albeit with no option to choose a customised ref name. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The Source editor also permits re-use of a 'Named Reference', though it's less obvious in the tools menu. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that's only true if you have the 2017 editing toolbar enabled, which I think is still in beta? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It's only "in beta" because nobody's bothered to move it into regular preferences. You should assume that it's stable software in practice. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF),@Tenryuu: I have just tried editing an article with my alt-account (User:NM Demo 2) which has only the default settings that every new user sees. I can still see and use the 'Named References' dropdown in the Source Editor toolbar, just as I can with this user account. TBH: I really have little idea which version of what editor I am using - I just use them! But in checking both sets of Preferences, the editing toolbar known as the '2010 wikitext editor' is enabled, and nothing more. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If you need to figure out which editing environment you're using, then the screenshots in mw:Editor may be useful. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's more that I don't really know OR care! LOL. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(which is garbage) DS (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Do I have a COI

I've been working on many articles about Dubuque, Iowa for a while now because I have previously lived near the metropolitan. Also, I have contacted the city for pictures. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@✶Mitch Why not take a few pictures yourself? That way, you don't have to worry about Copyright. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I have, I needed a map and I couldn't find any on USGS. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 Welcome to the Teahouse! I haven't looked at your edits, but presuming your edits are neutral, you're probably OK. People who work for the city of Dubuque would have a conflict of interest, and someone who was editing to remove negative information or add promotional information might have a conflict. For the use of the city's photos on Wikipedia, they should read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! The reason I talked to the city worker was for pictures and I was worried that it would be considered as an out-of-wiki relationship. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 I don't actually agree with GoingBatty that you would automatically have a WP:COI if you worked for the city of Dubuque and edited articles about the city. Cities are vast employers, covering a huge array of services and subjects, from museums to sewage works. It would only be a conflict of interest (in my opinion) if you were to be writing content about the area you were specifically employed in. Following that logic, anyone employed by the US Government would have a COI if they wrote about anything to do with the United States of America, and I don't think that would be correct. OK, in theory, anyone living in any place might have a COI if writing about that place, but that'd be taking things to extremes. I live on Earth, so I have a COI about anything to do with planet Earth. I don't think so. Just an observation - no criticism of you or GB intended. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 and Nick Moyes: I understand and respect Nick's response. Things aren't always black and white. There's a spectrum of possibilities from a mayor editing an article about themselves to an intern editing something outside their line of work. There's also a spectrum of possibilities between whitewashing at one extreme to making neutral well-sourced improvements. Maybe it would have been better if I had written "People who work for the city of Dubuque may have the appearance of a conflict of interest, and could make an appropriate declaration on their user page to avoid any misunderstandings." Thanks for keeping me straight, Nick! GoingBatty (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I meant I emailed them twice. I have never worked there, even in the entire state of Iowa. ✶Mitch199811✶ 14:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 Yes, I understood that you were not a city employee. GoingBatty (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

City Nearest to Korean Demilitarized Zone

Hey, quick question, does anyone know what city is nearest to the Korean border on the South Korean side? Faithful15 (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Faithful15. This would be an appropriate question for one of the Reference desks - probably the Miscellaneous one, since none of the others seem to cover geography specifically. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Faithful15 - You are likely thinking Daeseong-dong, but if you want to be more restrictive with what is or isn't a city, Paju is pretty close. casualdejekyll 19:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Faithful15, is this for a Social Studies assessment? And in more particular, the history of Korea? Sarrail (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

No, @Sarrail. See, I'm working on my first novel, which is basically WWIII, but with added forces on both sides and futuristic tech. However, my map app won't show me the nearest city to the Korean border. Faithful15 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Faithful15 - In future, these sorts of questions should be directed to the Wikipedia:Reference desk. The Teahouse is designed for help editing Wikipedia. casualdejekyll 20:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, thank you @Casualdejekyll for that clarification! Faithful15 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Reference count

Quick question. I know it is a complex subject, but at the simplest level: how many references make an article pass Wikipedia:GNG. Assuming they are independent and verifiable. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Schminnte, welcome to the Teahouse. The rule of thumb is: three. If you can find three reliable, independent, secondary, published sources with significant coverage, you're golden. This is not a requirement, it's just a useful approximation used by reviewing types. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've been at the Teahouse before, just a while ago! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Schminnte: Hi. The misconception of three sources come from a user essay: User:RoySmith/Three best sources. Yes, it is a misconception. Notability is not quantifiable only in numbers. The coverage must be sustained, and over the time. See also WP:SENSATION, and WP:ONEEVENT. To repeat in short: the numbers don't matter, the reason, amount of coverage, and period of coverage matters. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Steps to remove "Close Connection" disclaimer

I am new to Wikipedia and hope someone can help.

The article "Mark Bly" which I submitted was first rejected, then extensively revised and resubmitted by me and finally (recently, Dec. 29, 2022) accepted with a "B" status, all of which is great. The article "Mark Bly" has, however, a "Close Connection" disclaimer and this note:

"Initial editor has declared a conflict of interest, prose of article includes some puffery of dubious dueness and should be tagged until copyedited by an uninvolved editor." (originally signed by User:Rosguill)

What does "copyedited by an uninvolved editor" mean in terms of process? Is this something I can encourage in one way or another or that Wikipedia can initiate. Thank you - GeoffProehl970 Geoffproehl970 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Geoffproehl970. If you're connected to Bly personally or professionally in a manner that goes beyond a mere casual connection, then you probably should take a look at WP:PSCOI and WP:COI and follow the advice given in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and WP:COIADVICE. Generally, you should avoid directly editing the article except under certain specific conditions, and instead make edit request on the article's talk page for any changes you feel are needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Geoffproehl970, you could flag the article for copy editing by adding a template to the top of the article. Here's an example of code you could use: {{Copy edit|reason=removing puffery and ensuring proper tone|date=January 2023}} That will get the attention of folks looking to do this sort of cleanup. We actually have a whole group dedicated to such matters, the WP:GOCE. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Geoffproehl970 (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Post-RfC issues

I'm having issues with another editor who either doesn't want to accept the results of a recent RfC or has a very, very different idea of what those results mean.

The RfC: Should ideas about biology be stated in Wikipedia's voice?

The page history: Male expendability

This person has been a non-jerk in a few concrete ways and I don't think they deserve a sanction, and I know from personal experience that that only escalates things. Do you guys know anything that's worked in the past? I already tried inviting them to the talk page to hash out a text we can both live with. We already had a noticeboard thread and then an RfC so 3O or something would feel like going backwards. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

If the RfC was completed then may I suggest WP:DRN? Might need a second opinion from another Teahouse contributor to see if that is the right place, but DRN is my suggestion if it is. Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 00:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

regarding editing main page

how i edit main page need a simple steps SELECTINSURE (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @SELECTINSURE, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm assuming you're talking about Main Page - that edit access is restricted to sysops (administrators). -- Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 00:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• user indeffed. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Interwiki linking

How do I link a already available page from other language page to English Wikipedia on the same topic?456legend(talk) 18:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@456legend: Hello 456! To link to another article on the English wikipedia you simply surround the title of the page (Or a title that redirect to it) in square brackets (that's these things -> [ ] ) like this: [[Foo]] which produced Foo. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Blaze Wolf I meant to ask about linking other language article in the translation bar of the article. 456legend(talk) 18:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@456legend: What do you mean by translation bar? Also, to link to an article on another language Wiki (and some non-WMF managed Wikis) it's the exact same as linking to an article here on Wikipedia, except you add the Wiki's prefix before the article name on that Wiki followed by a colon (you can find a list of all of them at the Interwiki Map on Meta), for example if I were to link to, say the article on Pokemon on the Japanese Wikipedia then I would type, [[jp:ポケットモンスター]] which produces jp:ポケットモンスター. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Let me explain my question with this example. Taking this article Pokémon, there is a translation bar present on the top left of the page where it provides list of articles on the same topic in other languages along with a bar mentioning missing languages. Let us take for example this article is missing in Spanish, now I can translate English article into Spanish using the translate tool and it will automatically get connected. But my question how do I connect a article that was not made through the translation tool.456legend(talk) 18:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@456legend: The languages list in the sidebar is managed at the Wikidata project. You should see an 'edit links' link at the bottom of the languages list which will take you to the correct place at Wikidata. MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie Sorry but I don't have permission to edit that or maybe I am not finding it. I actually want to link this en:Brahmanandam filmography and te:బ్రహ్మానందం నటించిన సినిమాలు since these both articles are same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 456legend (talk • contribs)

456legend, I have done this. It was not possible to add the Telugu article to the Wikidata item d:Q18110730 because it was already attached to another Wikidata item d:Q16314235. But the latter had nothing in it except the link to that te: article, so I simply merged it into the other Wikidata item, and now they are linked. (I am relying on your assurance that they are corresponding articles, as I don't read Telugu).

--ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@ColinFine Thank you very much. And yes both of them are linkable articles, I can assure you that.456legend(talk) 01:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI @Blaze Wolf: in circumstances where you're linking to a foreign-language article because there's no English one, but you think that the topic of the link could reasonably sustain an English-language article at some point in the future, it's better to use the {{interlanguage link}} template. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Translating articles

I'm looking for work in terms of translating articles. I am fluent in both English and Spanish and just below that level in Japanese and Swedish, and there are several other languages I have yet to get my footing in. Any suggestions for articles would be appreciated. Zaxalightning2 (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Zaxalightning2. Read WP:TRANSLATE and WP:TRANSLATEUS. The most important thing is that you have to attribute the source article. Cullen328 (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Also relevant is Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaxalightning2: Also, machine translations can be a good starting point, however due to the possibility of them being inaccurate in their translation they should not be used as the only thing (see WP:MACHINE for more info). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I figured. I often use google translate for Swedish, given it's plenty similar to English, but I'll insert my own knowledge of the language when necessary. Zaxalightning2 (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaxalightning2: That's good to hear. While some languages are probably more accurate than others (probably Spanish is the best) and some machine translation tools are better than others (deepL compared to Google Translate in my opinion) they still are a far cry from human translation from someone who knows both languages (the original language of the article and the language the article is being translated into) in terms of accuracy in the translation. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Be aware that English Wikipedia has referencing requirements that are more strict than for other languages, so a properly translated article may be declined for not having sufficient references. David notMD (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Family

So- there's something I've been debating about in my head. There are certain articles about, say, Ravi Shankar, and his son Shubhendra Shankar, and there are some parts talking about their family, but it doesn't mention all of them. If, someone were to wonder who Shubhendra's grandchildren were, how would you know? I need help figuring out if I should add those details or not. Zaxalightning2 (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Zaxalightning2. The best practice is to mention a relative by name only if the relative is notable and has their own Wikipedia biography. This is especially important in the case of minor children. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So I guess I don't count huh .w. Zaxalightning2 (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably not, @Zaxalightning2, and it might be useful for you to review our rules around COI. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Alrighty. May I ask what your name... means? Zaxalightning2 (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaxalightning2, I'm an IP editor, as opposed to someone who edits using an account. Opinions on IP editors vary - some say we're friendly, some say we're only human, some say we're not human at all... you'll have to make up your own mind. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I choose to view you as gods among men! Zaxalightning2 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaxalightning2, in general, grandchildren aren't mentioned unless they are notable themselves. If the children are notable enough to have their own articles, the non-notable grandchildren of Ravi Shankar may be briefly mentioned in the articles about their parents.-- Quisqualis (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Parents often mentioned by name in an "Early life and education" section, but not siblings or grandparents unless any of those are topics of existing articles. David notMD (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Continue archived Teahouse discussion

Hi, I have bought up an issue regarding the layout of a specific article, here on teahouse a few days ago. since then the discussion has been archived, and I have not got enough help for me to solve the issue. This is where I could find my topic (use ctrl+f or ⌘+f and find my username there). How do I get more help? Thanks. 3point1415 (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@3point1415 I think that you were concerned that in the article Temara the climate data in one table creates lots of white space in some browers/mobile apps owing to that table and the infobox together taking up too much horizontal space. In my browser, all is well but to fix the issue for everyone requires the use of the {{stack}} template, which can be a bit tricky to get right. Is that indeed what you are still need help for? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I've now added the templates stack begin and stack end where I think they are needed and on my browser it doesn't make any difference. Can you confirm it has fixed the problem you were seeing? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt! Sadly, it still looks the same to me... 3point1415 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@3point1415 I don't see excessive white space when viewing the article on my 9.7" tablet. It might be very hard to make this look perfect on all screen sizes, so I wouldn't spend days on this if I were you. My opinion. David10244 (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

joe keery music

can yall make a page for his albums? i think they have enough notability. thanks either way! Pxlpixx (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Pxlpixx. It'll take an editor with more interest in his albums than most of us have to get such an article written. Best you try it yourself. See Your first article.-- Quisqualis (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks! Pxlpixx (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

When does a user page violate WP:NOTWEBHOST ?

Hi everyone, I mainly edit Motorsport pages and lately noticed a user cluttering his Userpage with fantasy championship entry lists and championship tables. As I rarely interact with other users apart from warning IP vandals here and there, I'm not too familiar if this behavior violates Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST (because the user page I'm talking about is now almost 300k bytes large)?

And if it does, is there an automated system to notify admins of very large user pages, or does someone have to expicitly notify an admin of this? And at which noticeboard would one do this?

Thanks, and happy new year everyone! H4MCHTR (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

H4MCHTR the amount of storage is negligible. Any uploaded photo (such as on my User page) will instantly be more than that. If they have some decoration/personality on their profile, who cares as long as they are making constructive edits. Examples of blatant hosting violations include copyrighted content, treating user page as drafting space for articles, social media/blog posts unrelated to English Wikipedia etc… ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, thank you! How would you handle a user using his page as drafting space for articles? Maybe you could take a look at their page, the user is called RxxingAddict, and tell me your opinion? H4MCHTR (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@H4MCHTR I had a look and would not suggest any actions. I also re-read up on WP:User page and this line stood out to me Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future (usually on subpages) meaning that User page can also be used for work in progress, so what I previously said was not correct. Thank you for giving me chance to correct myself. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help on this matter! All the best, H4MCHTR (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@H4MCHTR, @Shushugah I would say that "fantasy championship entry lists" don't have any potential use in the encyclopedia and shouldn't be on a user page. But I don't feel too strongly either way. David10244 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@H4MCHTR I tend to agree with David10244 - they could simply be practising their table editing skills, or preparing content for future articles. I can't find any use of their userpage url on non-Wikipedia websites, so I don't think they're using us to host content they're promoting elsewhere. One of my criteria for WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTHERE is to look at the relevance to Wikipedia and at proportion of edits someone has made to mainspace and to their userspace. If they're playing around in their userspace all the time, and rarely ever edit any articles, they tend to get a nudge from me. In this instance they have made - and continue to make - very significant numbers of contributions to articles over the years, and relatively few (by comparison) to their userpage. I note they don't have any Wikipedia:Subpages, and it could simply be that they aren't aware that these are better places to work on. Someone could have a supportive word if they felt it might help - I don't think I'm going to as I don't understand what the tables are all about, and can't tell real data from made up stuff! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's all either made up or just plain copies of old, real stuff. How would you phrase a message to the user to let him know of Subpages? H4MCHTR (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@H4MCHTRI think I'd probably say something along these lines:

"Hello, User:XXXXX. Pardon me for dropping by, but I couldn't help noticing your main userpage, which seems to be choc-full of all sorts of unusual tables and not normally what expect to see on them. I don't know if you're aware, but normally we're expected to make subpages for experimenting with content like that. So, I wondered whether or not you were aware you are allowed to do that, or if you need any help creating one? Your personal WP:SANDBOX would be a good place to copy and save tables to work on, rather than your userpage. Or you could make a special subpage just for them, like User:XXXX/TableTesting. I don't know if you created those tables yourself but, if you haven't, you should really leave an WP:EDITSUMMARY linking to the page you've copied it from in order to give credit to the relevant editors who did. Do drop me a line if you need any help with that, or feel free to ask at the Teahouse." They're a friendly bunch over there.

How does that sound? (You can use or modify that wording if you wish without acknowledgement, or course). Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point, @Nick Moyes, practicing your editing skills is a great use of subpages, if not so much on user page. I hope they become a productive editor. David10244 (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@David10244 I felt they already were productive, hence why I wouldn't want to jump on them in the same way I might were they a newbie doing stuff on their userpage, but doing little to nothing elsewhere. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Yes, I think you are right. Sometimes it's a bit hard to tell, but this one looks good. David10244 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Citation

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I want to add the birthday of Løren but the only official citation I can find is from an unreliable site and from Google results. Tomorrow (10/01) is his birthday and already some stories have been uploaded about it on his personal account on Instagram but these cannot be citted as they dissappear (as already known to in the majority), although they can be found as screenshots on Pinterest or other social apps and Google. What should I do? Should I cite the Pinterest pics? Thanks in advance - fenia🖤^tellmehi 20:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fisforfenia:. Welcome, and thanks for asking. If you cannot find a reliable source with the date, do not add it to the article. RudolfRed (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fisforfenia and @RudolfRed, for the avoidance of doubt, the rules applying to self-published claims by article subjects are covered at WP:ABOUTSELF. I would clarify though, are those screenshots of the disappearing stories posted by Løren himself or by others? If it's the latter than it will be harder to assert that there is no reasonable doubt as to [the screenshot's] authenticity. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @XAM2175 and thanks a lot for your answer. If you check his Instagram account (@lorenisalone) you will see that those are reposts of other stories but, those are uploaded by accounts such as his label The Black Label so, undoubtedly, he answers to them while reposting but we can also see that are uploaded by major companies. So the screenshots are those exactly posts. fenia🖤^tellmehi 05:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fisforfenia I don't believe that social media posts by "major companies" will meet the requirements for "reliably published, independent" sources. David10244 (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fisforfenia: If it's not something posted by Løren himself, I would at least want to see a post from a verified account connected with him (like his record label, but I couldn't see anything relevant there when I looked). The WP:ABOUTSELF rules do give us some leeway, which I think other people responding to this question are overlooking, but we can't push the boundaries too far. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fisforfenia The guidance at WP:DOB says that we need dates "widely published by reliable sources" because birth dates are a privacy issue. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It also says "or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." So, if he states "I'm 25 today!!!" on a verified social media whatever, that would be acceptable for adding a DOB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

How to undo my all edits in a single step?

Today I did some edits on Salil Ankola and I want to revert all these edits, guide me how to do it. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rock Stone Gold Castle Go here:[7]. Find the edit just before your first edit. Click the linked date for that edit. Click "Edit source". Write an editsummary, something like "reverting all my edits" and publish changes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Where is 'edit source' there, i couldn't find, help to move forward. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: will you or any other editor here please undo my today's edit on this article, it'll be helpful, I don't want to edit that article.

 Done I've reverted all your edits, @Rock Stone Gold Castle. In case you need to do a similar revert in future, you have to start on the "View history" tab for the article and then find the edit date-stamped just before the earliest one you want to remove. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Social Media as a Source

Howdy!

I'm working on adding sources to Five Towns College, mostly its "Notable alumni" section, and when lookin' for a record of Doobie Duke Sims' attendance, all I could find was his personal Facebook page.

I read up on reliable sources n' checked the perennial sources table, and I got conflicting info from them. The discussion on reliable sources seems to say that social media profiles are good for sources on what subjects think n' say about themselves, but I also read that social media shouldn't be used as a source at all.

Any guidance would be mighty appreciated. Thanks in advance! ~Janitor Judy _{(job requests)} 15:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Janitor Judy, a subject's social media profile can be cited as evidence of what the subject has said or claimed; but not for any other purpose. I observe that the text part of Five Towns College cites no sources at all. While no-one fixes that, it is liable to be deleted. Maproom (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for yer timely response!

Just for clarification, does this mean that I cannot use Sims' Facebook profile, which lists Five Towns in the "Education" section, as evidence that he attended? And yeah, I'm aware of the citing issues within the text. Full disclosure, I was handed this article by the Newbie Homepage n' thought it'd be easy enough as a first article to fix up on account of it bein' so short. When I first saw it there were three sources total, so I've definitely been working at improving that number and am gonna work on the text proper once I get through with the alumni, which seemed like a good, simple enough place to start work on citations. ~Janitor Judy _{(job requests)} 16:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Janitor Judy: What somebody says in their Facebook page cannot be used as evidence of anything. All you can do is attribute the claim, as in "He states on his Facebook page that he attended Five Towns" or something like that. Such a source is good for attributions of claims made by the subject, not as evidence of the subject's history. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist, noting that I recently encountered a view [8] that education should fall under WP:ABOUTSELF, like WP:DOB etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång But people do embellish their educational credentials. Your link looks like editors discussing their thoughts on Aboutself, which doesn't sound like a WP policy... if I read all of that right. David10244 (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging @Janitor Judy for my comment above. (My Facebook page says I have three degrees from Harvard and two from Yale. Well, it really doesn't, but give me 5 minutes and it will!) David10244 (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that's a good point. Given that the page is about the college rather than Sims himself, would it be reasonable, then, to remove his list entry from their alumni section until a proper source is found? ~Janitor Judy _{(job requests)} 14:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Citing of Reference book page numbers

Yet again, I turn to the more experienced editors for help. I have been significantly editing the Wikipedia article "RAF Locking". Quite a proportion of my research came from the book Over&Out which has 138 pages I was happy to cite it multiple times and included page numbers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång says "merging references". Some of the cites have been edited. Surely having page numbers must be beneficial, but what is considered best practice. Maybe I shall have to go back and correct the individual cites. Note that I was unable to contact Gråbergs Gråa Sång myself for clarification. Stevepem (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Stevepem, references 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2d, 2e and 2f use a named ref with page numbers. I wonder why references 6, 7 and 8 don't refer to the same named ref. Maproom (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Because they where added by someone else after I made that named ref. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You will see that there is now a reply from Gråbergs Gråa Sång. When I first generated each reference I included the appropriate page number from the book and I believe that to be appropriate. Not knowing better, I also included the access date. That, I now know causes difficulties but the "help" does provide a potential solution. Merging references does not, in my opinion solve anything. I therefore propose to re-visit every reference to the book and add the page number. There will be 13 such references. Please tell me if this is inappropriate. Thanks for your interest. Stevepem (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Stevepem Yes it is inappropriate, since it will make the book appear under "References" multiple times, that's just messy. Like I said below, page number can be placed in the article text with a simple template. If you look in the article text, you'll see that all the book cites I changed earlier have pagenumbers next to them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Stevepem But I watch the Teahouse most days, and happened to see this. I don't know what the communication problem was, I have a talkpage, so does the article.

Anyway, there are more than one way to skin this particular cat, so I picked one I like. The book should appear once under "References", not once per page in the current WP:REFVAR, but any number of times as in-text citations.

I modified the ref to be named "Over&Out" for easy reuse, you'll find it under Cite > Named references if you edit wikitext, or Cite > Re-use in the visual editor.

Note that I kept the page numbers, but placed them in-text, next to the cite, with TEMPLATE:RP. Hope this helps.

Also, when you cite books, don't use access date, as you can see in the Reference section it messes things up a bit. A particular ISBN-version is considered to be the same version regardless when it was read. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I've merged all the refs to the same book into a single named ref. Maproom (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Very many thanks. You have saved me a lot of work. Stevepem (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where to go

So I'm new to working on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what to do in terms of scanning through articles and/or fixing some. I simply don't know whether my changes would hold merit, and I don't want to waste anyone's time. What should I do? Zaxalightning2 (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaxalightning2: See Wikipedia:Be bold. Find a topic that interests you. If you see a way to improve spelling or grammar, or rephrase a sentence so that it is clearer or makes for more compelling prose, then make the edit. Most edits to Wikipedia are small incremental improvements like this, and that's a great way to start. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

And don't be disheartened if somebody reverts your edits, Zaxalightning2: that's how we all learn. If somebody reverts one of your edits and you don't understand why, then ask them on their user talk page, or on the article's talk page (remember to ping them if you do the latter). You might learn about a policy you didn't know about - or you may be able to persuade them to support your edit. See WP:BRD. --81.187.193.215 (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaxalightning2, This [9] may have something you find helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaxalightning2 If you do find an article on a topic dear to your heart, and want to find similar ones, here's are two useful tips for you:

• Go to the bottom of the article and look for a box containing 'Categories' that the article falls into. Click one and you get a list of all the other articles in that same category. Thus you may find related things to work on.
• Better still, go to the 'Talk Page' of an article that interests you. There will usually be one or more projects listed there. These are projects that like to work to improve on related articles. Let's assume you are interested in the mountains of Europe. Go to a well known one, like Mont Blanc, and open the talk page. Talk:Mont Blanc is linked to three such projects 'France' 'Italy' and 'Alps'. Click on the latter and scroll down to the colourful 'Assessment Table'. It lists over 3,100 articles of interest to that WikiProject, and arranges them by level of importance and by quality. If you click on any number you'll get a list of articles fitting that range of importance and quality. To find worthwhile things in need of being improved, look for articles which are not very complete (Stubs or Start class) which are regarded as of greatest significance. There are 22 highly important mountains that are still 'stubs'. So click the hyperlinked number 22 and you'll get this list of all 22 of those highly important, short stubby articles. Click one, such as the Täschhorn and you'll see how little has been written about it so far. The list of languages that the article is also available in is often worth checking to see if you can get a head start in one of the other languages that you know.

I hope these hints might help you find good things to work on. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I started out because I'm a mildly Aspergery career-long proofreader and I couldn't tolerate the punctuation, syntax, spelling, and capitalization errors in the articles I was reading while I was recovering from surgery in 2014, and decided to start fixing them. (I'm not even talking about difficult questions: I'm talking about random capitalizations thrown into the middle of sentences for no discernible reason, which are all over the encyclopedia.) Now it's 2023 and I have 60,000 edits. I have not written an article or contributed more than at most a phrase of original content. I am not here to do that. This is a five-minute-at-a-time mini-break for me, mostly; if I'm eating out by myself, I read the articles about the food I'm waiting to eat and fix the low-hanging-fruit grammar/punctuation/capitalization/syntax errors. Over time, one learns about new varieties of errors and issues and starts correcting those, too, to the extent of one's capability. It's all good! You do not have to be a "content contributor" to be a trusted, satisfied volunteer on this project. Bon appetit! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean that urge to go and make it "bon appétit"

I also have Asperger's! I've always wanted to go in and just *capitalize that letter* and *remove that space* and a couple days ago I got the courage to make an account! I'm not sure I should create articles or make those small changes... I just want to be part of the community that makes this place run! Zenith (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaxalightning2: I recommend changing your signature to actually include your username. I would recommend making those small changes first. Creating a new article tends to be one of the hardest things to start with on Wikipedia. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

What is allowed

I wanted to do the article about Advanced Bionics since the company has a very long history and controversial history beyond Sonova and I think it is notable now even if wasn't notable in 2017 since there has been alots of press about the company in more recent years. I tried to work on the article and added information about a recent fine and FDA issue but now the whole article is gone and people are giving me very conflicting reasons why. I was told I could just add the info to the Sonova article but there is so much information about the company and it wasn't always part of Sonova so I'm not sure how much I can put in the section in the Sonova article and if any information about the company before Sonova bought it can be in Wikipedia and if the article can be brought back. Is it better for the Boston Scientific Sonova and Alfred Mann articles to each have sections about the company or won't it be easier to just have one article about the company and how and where can I discuss notability of the company now that there is no article or talkpage for it. Also can an article be deleted for other reasons if I edit it I don't want to cause other articles to get deleted because I edit them wrong because I want to write articles about the 108 World War II martyrs but I'm Catholic so does that mean I shouldnt edit those pages? Sorry this is written funny my arthritis is reely bad its hard to type----KentuckyPony (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Kentucky Pony, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you're having a difficult time here: unfortunately, Wikipedia is a big and complicated beast, and some parts are hard to understand.

The reason that the Liz deleted the article Advanced Bionics yesterday was nothing to do with you, or with the content: it was because it had been created by a banned user, and as a matter of policy, we do not allow articles by such users to stay, irrespective of their content: unfortunately you got caught in the crossfire. (It is possible - I'm not an admin, so I can't tell - that it was you working on the article that led Liz to notice that that was its origin, in which case I suppose its deletion was in a way because of you, because you caused the problem to be found; but it was deleted because it should have gone anyway, not because of anything you did)

Some deleted articles may be undeleted on request, so that they can be worked on: I can't see anything saying that articles deleted for that reason (G5) may not be undeleted, so you could ask at WP:REFUND.

If that request is not granted, since you think there are suitable sources available for a stand-alone article on Advanced Bionics, you are welcome to try creating it from scratch: see WP:YFA. But I would echo Tristario in pointing you to WP:RGW (on your user talk page): if your purpose is writing a neutral encyclopaedia article about a notable company, that's fine - and that should include whatever the sources talk about, good and bad; but if your purpose is exposing a company who damaged your relative then, understandable though that purpose is, it has no place in Wikipedia.

As for your martyrs: I don't think merely being Catholic would mean you have a COI ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Redirecting to an already existing Wikipedia page

Hello, I would like to make sure that whenever people type "Bruno Riva" on Google, the Wikipedia page for "Dr. Shiver" will appear. How can I do that? 77.220.86.82 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I have created a redirect Bruno Riva that goes to Dr. Shiver. (You would not have been able to do that yourself, as unregistered users cannot create pages in article space).

The redirect will not immediately be found by search engines, but once it has been patrolled by the New pages patrol, then Google etc should find it. ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done And it has been reviewed. So search engines may now index it. We have no control over how quickly they will do that. ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Move page

I'm not sure at what point disambiguation becomes necessary. However, I would propose that the page James Grier be moved to either Bishop James Grier or James Grier - Bishop. I searched his name online and found a few people using the same name. There are also a few articles on Wikipedia that mentions other people with the name James Grier. Kelmaa (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Usually when there is more than one other article in Wikipedia that could be confused with the existing article (i.e. someone might have bumped into the Bishop when they were looking for something else; how many something else's are there?). You don't have to worry about James Griers who are mentioned in passing, and obviously you can ignore James Griers who aren't in Wikipedia at all, but you have a valid concern about a James Grier who has been closely associated with something notable that is covered in Wikipedia. If there is only one other article, then hat-notes might be more appropriate. Elemimele (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to deal with the move. You could move to James Grier (Bishop) but usually whoever gets the first article is simply James Grier, and when someone writes a second article about another James Grier, if that second person is much more notable, we do some moving then, so that the bishop gets fitted with brackets, the new gentleman takes over the original space (and both have hat-notes attached to aid the reader). When a third James Grier joins the clan, we break out into a disambiguation page. Elemimele (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Your explanation is quite helpful in understating disambiguation. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to move published articles since I'm fairly new here. Kelmaa (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

If you think an article should be moved and you'd like a little more input, you can request a move and discuss it on the article talk page first. Otherwise, if you think it's a sensible move and there's unlikely to be any disagreement, go for it! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Moving article from sandbox to main article

HI. I have been working on an overhaul to the article on Giovanni Giustiniani, and have finally completed it. I am now ready to move it from my sandbox page to the main article, but am unsure about how to do this, as copy/pasting does not seem to be working. How should I go about doing this? Moostcho (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing restricting you from copy-pasting the new content onto Giovanni Giustiniani. Nice job on the article! Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Moostcho Sorry. Did not answer your question. Go into source editor (not visual) and copy all of the wikitext from User:Moostcho/sandbox. Then go te Giovanni Giustiniani and paste it. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

How do I make a 'style template'

On the Infobox station template, there's a section called style template. How do I create my own/edit existing ones. Stations like Bordertown railway station don't have a style template, and it would be good if I could be able to add them. Thank you for your help. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@HoHo3143, try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. I haven't run into this for infoboxes before; it may be something specific to train articles. Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains . StarryGrandma (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Rename Page

How can I rename my page. User:Dedication09is my page Dedication09 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your WP:USERPAGE, if you choose to have one, must be at your current username, in this case User:Dedication09. To request an account rename (and thus a userpage rename) see WP:RENAME. Spending too much time in userspace may lead to WP:U5 deletion. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Dedication09 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space. It is a place to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor or user. New accounts cannot directly create articles and must submit drafts via Articles for creation. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I have moved User:Dedication09 to Draft:Kate Graves. Please make further improvements to the draft at Draft:Kate Graves. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple I have removed the redirect from this userpage, as I don't think it's OK to automatically send any userpage to a draft article.

@Dedication09 you may now edit your userpage to tell us something about your interests in editing Wikipedia. For example, if you are Kate Graves, or if you know her, or if you are being paid to write about Kate Graves (which it seems to me that you may well be), you need to declare your Conflict of Interest. If you are being WP:PAID to promote her here, such a declaration is obligatory. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Dedication09, Draft:Kate Graves reads like an advertisement. And your photograph of her was clearly made with her willing participation. Do you perhaps have a conflict of interest? -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drjump!

May I ask why he is blocked for 9 years when I recently found out he quit? I recently talked to him, but no response. Sirhewlett (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Sirhewlett, welcome to the Teahouse. That account is not currently blocked. If you have questions about an administrator's actions, you can ask the admin about them on their talk page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Sirhelett, I have no idea where you get the idea that Drjump! has been blocked for nine years. The account was created last July, and has had three short blocks, all expired. The user has declared a couple of times on their user talk page that "I quit Wikipedia". Up to now they have apparently not done so, but maybe they mean it this time. But I don't see how asking them about a block (even if they had had it) would help in any way with the sole task we are all here for, that of creating an encyclopaedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw that he was. My apologies, why did he say that he's quit a couple times? Sirhewlett (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I just saw this, I attempted to quit a couple times to protect myself from being blocked again. Drjump! (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Although I do need Wikipedia. Drjump! (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I got it now. Thank you. Sirhewlett (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Search keywords within pages that belong to a specific category

I am trying to find a wayy to search for keywords, in this case numbers, within pages that belong to a certain category. I have tried to look up how to do this and the best I could come up with iis along these lines. When searching for the number 44 in pages that belong to "Aviation" I attempted this search" "44" incategory:"aviation" Unfortunately this does not work as I intended so I was hoping someone could show the correct way to carry out that type of search. Thanks! Dja969 (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Dja969, and welcome to the Teahouse! When I tried with an advanced search it looks as if the query is too broad a search, so if you also get a warning ('Deep category query returned too many categories'), you may want to narrow your search scope. Also, note that it's best to ask a question at only one noticeboard, at least at a time, so that discussion is not fragmented between different locations. Hope this helps! Perfect4th (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dja969: The search "44" incategory:"aviation" works fine and correctly reports there are no results. The similar search "50" incategory:"aviation" does give results. I guess you had wrong expectations. It would have helped if you gave an example of something you think should have been found. Longer strings like 1944 are not included in a search of 44. Automatically generated reference numbers like ^[44] are not found and not supposed to be found. Only Category:Aviation is searched and not its subcategories unless Help:Searching#deepcategory: is used. Only articles are searched by default. Portal:Aviation is not an article so the occurrence there is only found if you include the Portal namespace in the search. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox for an art collective?

I'm working on Leeds 13 an art collective with 11-15 members. Infobox artist works for an individual artist. They were militant but in an artistic way. Infobox militant organization captures some of what I need but seems more for terrorist/freedom fighter groups. Any suggestions on an Infobox for an artistic collective? Arnhemcr (talk)

@Arnhemcr: Not every article needs an infobox, but something like {{Infobox organization}} would probably be best. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Thanks. Arnhemcr (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

notability

I am trying to create a page for an artist. He has done some amazing work in the field of writing but he has only one mention on internet that is on IMDB. Other than IMDB he has nothing on Internet. How can I create a page for him? please suggest Yogirty (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:N. If, as you suggest, no independent sources discuss him, then he does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Yogirty, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. . Maproom is right that reliable sources are a non-negotiable requirement for an article. But they do not have to be online, as long as they are reliably published. Was the artist working long enough ago that there may be material about him from before the internet was widespread?

Incidentally, I suggest you reframe what you are doing as "writing an encyclopaedia article about..." rather than "creating a page for...". Have you read WP:YFA? I'd also suggest that you are likely to have a much less fraught experience (and add immeasurably more value to Wikipedia) if you spend a few months making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before trying to create a new article. ColinFine (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Artists want to get on Wikipedia because it's excellent publicity and could make them well knonw, but Wikipedia only wants articles about entities that are already well known. Your artist has to make the news without Wikipedia's help first. ColinFine makes a good point too. Wikipedia's inner culture can be very tricky. Hop in, maybe join a Wikiproject, learn your way around. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

AFC declined, need help understanding why

Hi everyone. A few months ago, I created Draft:Mercer County School District 404 and submitted it to AFC. Today, it was reviewed and declined; the reasoning is on the page, but in short, it states that it needs more secondary sources and that it isn't notable. I created this article because the school district that existed before it (Westmer School District, which was later merged with another) was requested at WikiProject Schools, so I assumed it was notable enough if it was being requested. With the sourcing, I believe I have a good amount of secondary sources for the information provided, most notably the National Center for Education Statistics and Illinois Report Card citations. Can someone help me improve this article? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, MyCatIsAChonk. Please note that the reviewer Mattdaviesfsic didn't say the subject isn't notable, but rather that the draft doesn't (yet) show that it's notable – better references to WP:Reliable sources might be able to do so: this is separate from the other function of sources, verifying the facts included. Also, the fact that Mattdaviesfsic 'declined' the draft means they think that demonstration of notability might be possible (i.e. "keep trying"): if they'd thought it definitely wasn't, they'd have 'rejected' the draft, meaning "no chance, don't waste any more time on this."

The fact that someone requested an article on the District's predecessor just means that one individual (a volunteer like you and me) wanted to see one: in order to confirm notability one has to find sources that do so. This is dependent on other people independent of the subject having published substantial passages about it in reliably edited media, which might or might not have happened.

Don't be discouraged! Why not take a break for few weeks (WP:There is no deadline) and then re-address the problem. The draft will remain until it hasn't been edited in any way for more than six months, after which it might be deleted. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your suggestions :) -MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Uploading an inage in terms of fair use

Hello! I have recently got Jolyne Cujoh into acceptance and the only thing left is to upload her image. I’m planning to one of her illustrations as her image in her infobox using https://jojowiki.com/Jolyne_Cujoh/Gallery as a source, preferably, https://jojowiki.com/File:JolyneParis.png as it not has both Jolyne and her Stand, but also that it is one of the few illustrations I find that has both of them that isn’t in landscape or has those white margins that the volume textless covers have. It’s alright that I could use it, as long as I say it’s under fair use and it is being properly sourced, right? Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lovelyquirks1! Yes, that is an acceptable instance of fair use. You'll want to go to the upload wizard, choose the non-free file option, and follow the prompts. Other editors may come along and help if you don't get it fully right.

What I often do in circumstances like this is look at similar situations. So I clicked on Category:Comics characters introduced in 2000 from your article, made my way to Green Goblin (Ultimate Marvel character), and found File:Ultimate Green Goblin.jpg from there. You'll want the licensing information on the illustration you upload to look similar to what's found there. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright! Thank you! Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The Booru Project

How imagebooru'es map sources ^.^ on the greater internet makes it a great interest docummenting influence these portals make through offline plus online spaces perhaps even overlapping . Thus far sources actually seem distracted with political uprisings and instability rather than how people stablize friendship or fandom or simply feeling at all exploring these more closed spaces online . If anybody likes , we could gather sources to document and actually hopefully start connecting open spaces of internet culture more than theoretically to these closed spaces . I feel concerned if more to say exists than to cite , neither that an academic grammar exists nor my own self-pwning awareness of any grammars that internet archeologists require for comfort . This little noob lives in quite the little bubble #^_^# Nira gliro (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nira gliro, I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It's probably related to Draft:The Booru Project, somehow. -- Hoary (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The one source cited in Draft:The Booru Project is incoherently written, but does state repeatedly that the subject is a search engine. The draft does not use the phrase "search engine". Maproom (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Creator

Any suggestions on a reliable company to use to create a personal wiki page? I’ve been scammed a few times. 2600:1700:72A3:860:74C5:EA9:2780:C514 (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, IP editor, and welcome. The Teahouse is a place to get help to edit yourself, not suggest companies to edit for you, so we can't really help out with that. With that being said, it's not a great idea – Wikipedia does not allow self-promotion, and articles have a lot of policies and guidelines that need to be followed. First and foremost is the concern of notability as Wikipedia defines it – it's a strict policy, and if you are not notable no editing or article creating company can make you so. If you are, someone will eventually come along and write about you independently, which is a good thing because it's easier to follow the other policies and guidelines (such as neutral point of view) that way. Anyone connected to you who writes about you has to follow more restrictive instructions outlined in conflict of interest, with stricter still restrictions for paid editors. Sorry to not have the kind of answer you were looking for, but it's designed to be difficult for people writing about themselves or someone they're connected with, because that's not the purpose of the encyclopedia. Best, Perfect4th (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You might be interested to read Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that a large majority of paid Wikipedia editing services are unethical and dishonest, and are little more than paid liars. There are a few exceptions, but they tend to be very expensive and cater to a corporate clientele. If you are indisputably notable, it would be an easy matter to write an acceptable article about you. If your notability is borderline, you are setting yourself up to be scammed over and over again. Cullen328 (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Page title is wrong

Page title of the following page is wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pearl_Qatar

The correct name of the island is "The Pearl Island" previously known as "The Pearl Qatar"

This need to be corrected on Wikipedia as well. Shamailaijaz (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

As long as the bulk of the sources call it "The Pearl Quatar", that should be the title of the Wikipedia article, by the policy WP:COMMONNAME. If you have independent sources that refer to it as "The Pearl Island", you can make a Requested move to the new title. ColinFine (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Users trend

hi , I want to know what users trending searches are from wikipedia ,how can i get this information? Meknoah (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

hi @Meknoah and welcome to the Teahouse! the top 25 pages read per week can be found at the Top 25 Report. if you'd like more, tool shows the top 100+. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Meknoah Wikipedia's in-house publication The Signpost includes a review of each week's top ten and you could search back numbers from the page I've linked if you were interested. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Do I remove unverifiable information?

I was just going through some the suggested stuff and was wondering if I remove the information that has no source or defunct sources. KaleFromp (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, KaleFromp. That depends on the specific circumstances. The information may be verified by a reference that is in another part of the article, and that reference can be re-used. See WP:NAMEDREF. You may be able to find a reliable source through Google or by visiting a library. You can tag the assertion using Template:Citation needed. If you are confident that the information is in error or simply does not belong in an encyclopedia article, then remove it, explaining why. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, KaleFromp. That's a very good question. As you are a very new editor here, I would urge a considerable degree of caution in that approach. It's fine to instantly remove unsupported statements that are clearly wrong, defamatory or libellous. But, until you have gained a little more experience and understanding, I think it would be better if you identified unsupported statements and did one of two things:

Either improve the article by using your browser search skills to go and find supporting sources (and then add them), or simply mark unsupported statements with the {{citation needed}} or {{cn}} templates. They do the same things, and they leave an inline flag like this. This alerts other users to the fact that a statement is currently not verified, and gives editors the chance to go look for such sources. You can discuss concerns about unsupported statements on any article's talk page as well, which gives users the chance to discuss and find refeences. We are a lot more fussy about current edits that add unsupported statements than we are about older, unreferenced content that has been here for many years unchallenged (i.e. added when the rules were laxer). Simply deleting all that content would weaken the encyclopaedia, which I am sure is not what you would want. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@KaleFromp Many older sources from websites suffer from WP:LINKROT so that the URL given in the citation no longer supports the text of the article. In that case, editors should search the upper-level domain to see if the item can be found elsewhere on the current website, or use the Wayback machine to find an archived copy. It is rarely correct to delete the information entirely. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Please notice my edit request

Hello to the contributors here in wikipedia! I am a paid contributor for a certain politician and have already settled and disclosed my employer on my userpage. Even though I am not allowed to make major edits for the article I have written and submitted for review, I have tediously followed the policies to avoid violating them and submitted an edit request on the talk page. However, the edit request that I have posted on the talk page of the article was really urgent and I would like to ask for help from the other editors to take notice of it and discuss the edit request with me. Here is the link to the article: Anthony Golez Madona Jace (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Madona Jace Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has no deadlines, so I'm not sure what the source of your urgency is. Your edit request is open and visible- there is no way to speed up the process as requests are fulfilled by volunteers. Please be patient. Note that content can't be based on private documents, and should be based on what independent reliable sources say. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only publish information from reliable published sources. Do you have such a source? Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a picture of an official court ruling that declared their marriage as void ab initio. And since I was not sure if I should post it on wikicommons, I was hoping that a contributor/editor would take notice of my edit request and contact me so that I could give or presenta picture of the said court ruling privately if they needed the source. Madona Jace (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

A photo of - no. Although I'm sure you're telling the truth, "here is a photo of a document which says that a politician's marriage is void!" is the sort of thing that unscrupulous people would abuse. Is the information published anywhere? DS (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Article declined

Hello, I had submitted my first article on Wikipedia but they declined it to review due to inadequate reliable sources but I had added several references in it but still they ask for more. Now what would be the solution? Here is the link to my article. Mian Arbab Ahmad (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:TIKTING Help Desk & Change Management Software. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mian Arbab, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It is not a place for companies to tell about their products, but an encyclopaedia, which contains neutrally written articles about notable subjects. 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.

Please read YFA, and then look for independent in-depth publications about Tikting: if you cannot find any, you will know that the subject does not currently meet the criteria for notability, and that all and any effort spent on this is wasted. ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mian Arbab Ahmad: Read Wikipedia:Golden rule carefully. You have zero sources in your draft that meet any of the three criteria in the Golden Rule. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Article declined

Hello, I have been writing this article about the biography of the artist I know since long and not got approved still. Could you figure out how should I move forward. I would be thankful.

Draft:Sabita Dangol - Wikipedia Artyisn (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Artyisn: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1176. By no means am I an AFC reviewer, but as of writing this, references 7 and 8 are cited to the same page on Wikipedia. While a wikilink to the article is acceptable, you cannot use it as a source (due to the encyclopedia's stance on circular sourcing). Removing those two references doesn't address the bulk of the problem, but it will look better for the draft.
Reviewers have also noted that much of the content isn't cited to any source, so please find reliable ones to support it; otherwise it is unverifiable and would contravene Wikipedia's verifiability policy.
There are external links (which have a at the end) in the body of the draft. They shouldn't be there.
Phrases like [...] her artworks are the reality of her inner intuitions and imaginations and [h]er paintings are the results of her inner imagination and her interpretation of the notions do not belong in the encyclopedia's tone, and are at best quoted and attributed to someone. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Tenryuu. I will look after according to your suggestions. Artyisn (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Artyisn The draft text also contains hyperlinks, which are not allowed. David notMD (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Use dmy dates

What is the meaning of use dmy dates template on every article and as a editor on Wikipedia do I have anything to do about it? (should I b updated those dates or something else I wanted to know about that) 456legend(talk) 06:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @456legend! The template you're asking about is {{use dmy dates}}. "DMY" stands for day-month-year, referring to the format more often used in Europe, e.g. "11 January 2023," compared to the American format, MDY, e.g. "January 11, 2023." When the template is applied to a page, it affects mainly how the dates are displayed in references. If you're writing about an American topic, you should generally add {{use mdy dates}}, and if not use the DMY template. Regardless, make sure any dates mentioned in the article body match the format you've chosen for consistency. You can read more at the template documentation if you're curious, but that's basically what you need to know. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much for that 456legend(talk) 16:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

time

how long it takes to publish the article Apadana1401 (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Brand:_Mahram

@Apadana1401 - You have not submitted the draft. This is how to do that. However, before you submit, please read other pages and guidelines, like the notability guide for companies. Please also disclose if you were paid by the company. I do not think your draft will be accepted if you submit it, because it has no references. Articles are based on references to reliable, independent sources. This is called verifiability. casualdejekyll 12:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@apadana1401:

you haven't even submitted your draft yet. but this would never get accepted.

the only reference it has is a primary source that contributes nothing to wikipedia's definition of notability. to show that this company is notable, gather two or three independent, reliable sources that cover the company significant coverage. also, the reference is not correctly formatted. see help:referencing for beginners for how to format references.

another issue: this draft looks like an advertisement. wikipedia is not for advertising your products. remove the product list. marketing language like a favorite with Iranians and Nationwide satisfaction is a testament to this, among many other examples, is not acceptable.

reword your draft to be neutral, fix the incorrect grammar, and add proper references. lettherebedarklight晚安 12:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

But if you write a neutral, well-balanced and well-supported article, the time it takes to get it reviewed at AfC is likely to be anything between 1 day and 4 months at the moment. AfC is operated entirely by volunteers who pick up whatever article they feel qualified and inclined to review, and there is no particular order. But the better-sourced and more obviously "good" your article is, the more likely it is to receive a speedy review. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Questions re. Proper use of citations

Greetings, I would be most grateful for any direction you can give me on the following: 1) When is it proper to cite a press release? 2) Can a review in a foreign language be cited? If so, must it be translated (it's in Mandarin) and how should that be done? I'm trying to find the best sources for an article on a contemporary American composer & musicologist who has given master classes and had his work performed in other countries. He's had some reviews in the NYT but more recent & thorough in foreign press. Also, is it ever proper to use an article by him on JSTOR or should it only be reviews/articles about him? I want to use references appropriately. Thanks for your assistance. Trouver (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Trouver. Press releases can never be used to establish notability, and have very limited use on Wikipedia. In my opinion, they can be used for non-contentious factual assertions, like the name of a newly appointed corporate CEO or a business moving its headquarters. That assumes that the company in question is already well-established as notable. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Trouver: Thanks for stopping by to ask this question. First of all, press releases are usually of limited utility. They are generally only suitable for information about the person or organization who wrote the release itself and not for information about third parties; and even then only if the information is not "unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". If you read the link, you'll see the Wikipedia guidance on when to (and more importantly when NOT to) cite self-published sources like press releases. 2) Sources in foreign languages are fine, so long as they meet the other hallmarks of reliable sources. If both English and non-English version of a source exists, it is of course preferable to cite the English one, but if no English source exists, so long as you faithfully represent what it says, you can use non-English sources. There's some more guidance at WP:NONENGLISH. Using sources by the subject of an article is fine for direct quotes, paraphrases, or simple biographical information (like the subject self-reporting their birthdate or something like that), but those sources while of some use for providing information, don't contribute to a subject's notability, which is primarily assessed by what other people have written about a person, not what they write about themselves. I hope this all helps! --Jayron32 19:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Cite press release may be of interest. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I might be able to use it since it comes from the US State Department and is about performances and talks the composer (Fulbright scholar) gave in Argentina, and I saw the link about citing press releases, but I will certainly not use it to establish notability, only to note those particular performances/classes, etc.Trouver (talk) Trouver (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

What's the largest block of text that a single citation can support?

See title. Does each sentence need a citation, or can you use just one for, say, three paragraphs? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 13:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grimmchild: It is best to use several independent sources, but if you use one source for several paragraphs, it is typically cited at the end of every paragraph. —Kusma (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There's more guidance regarding text-source integrity which is relevant. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• There is no "hard and fast rule" but the general expectation is that a minimum of one cite per paragraph is reasonable best practice, even if multiple paragraphs could be cited to the same source, then reproduce that footnote after each paragraph using the WP:REFNAME function. If a paragraph is culled from multiple different sources, some discretion is needed. Sometimes, it's fine to cite all of the sources merely at the end of the paragraph, though for particularly contentious or exceptional claims, you might want to cite at after each sentence. Do keep in mind the "text-source integrity" guidance by Michael; never add information in a way that misrepresents where it came from, or breaks existing sourcing. --Jayron32 19:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's say you a have a paragraph supported by three reliable sources. All you need to do is just put them at the end of a paragraph, and job well done. But ledes usually don't need too many citations, as per WP:LEADCITE, although it confused me when I first started editing. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Can I create more than one sandbox page?

I want to do some tests in a sandbox page, but I also don't want to erase nor mix some of the content that's already there, can i actually create a different sandbox via the urls? Such as User:Me/sandbox/2 or User:Me/sandbox/[title]? NotGuyFieri (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you have an unlimited number of sandboxes at User:NotGuyFieri/Sandbox 1, User:NotGuyFieri/Sandbox 2, User:NotGuyFieri/Sandbox 3, etc. Adding a second slash is not what you'd want to do because that makes it a subpage of your current sandbox. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, thank you, but i'm now facing a predicament. I tried making one of those extra sandbox pages and whenever i try to save the article in it, it gives me the "wikipedia Error contacting the Parsoid/RESTBase server" error, what do I do to fix it? It only happens in the other sandbox, the original one is still acting normal. NotGuyFieri (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@NotGuyFieri: Not sure what would cause that error, but I created a second sandbox for you at User:NotGuyFieri/sandbox 2. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude, I've done that (see User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox). — Qwerfjkltalk 22:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Trying to make an article about my own software

It's my own software, of course, so I don't have anything to cite (I can't cite the README file of my own software can I?). It is open-source, but can I just dump in my file and get the article accepted?

P.S. I actually don't have a README file. SolarFlare0601 (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SolarFlare, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the answer is almost certainly No. Please have a look at What Wikipedia is not: in particular it is not for promotion, and it is not a directory. Once several people, wholly unconnected with you, and not prompted or fed information by you, have chosen to write at length about your software in reliable sources, we could have an article about it. (The article would not belong to you, would not be controlled by you, and would not necessarily say what you wanted it to say: see WP:PROUD). Until those sources exist, your software will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article about it will be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

SolarFlare0601 Agreeing with No. Your draft User:SolarFlare0601/sandbox has been declined, and if you resubmit it without references to published content about the software, written by people other than you, expect the draft to be either Rejected or Speedy deleted, the latter leaving no trace of the draft ever having existed. David notMD (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

If you are talking about your own software, you have a WP:Conflict of interest. You should probably read WP:What Wikipedia is not. However, you can request that another editor with a WP:NPOV write the article neutrally, but it would depend on how WP:NOTABLE your software is. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

How to volunteer to a WikiProject

See title. I'm trying to join Wikiproject Disambiguation, and I looked at some online instructions,

(https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/wikidata-professional/wikidata-wikiprojects/joining-a-wikidata-wikiproject)

but I didn't see the "Add yourself to the list of participants," button, so I don't know if it was changed, or if it's different. Either way, I just want to know how to join it. AugustusAudax (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Try here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Participants Uporządnicki (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Article Declined

Hello, I wrote an article covering the biography of an architect whom I think deserves some recognition. I cited all sources I could find but it was not approved still. How can I move forward? I would be grateful for your help. Link to article: Draft:Effiong Essang Dragonkng007 (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dragonkng007: Unfortunately if no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Dragonkng007, and welcome to the Teahouse. Note that "recognition" is very definitely not part of what Wikipedia does. Articles are (only) about subjects which have already been "recognized" to the extent of having been written about multiple times in depth in independent reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources should be independent of the subject, i.e. other people who have no particular connection to him, writing about him because of the impact he's made. Interviews are very high-risk, so the source you've given to support his being "renowned" probably doesn't qualify. The draft also has an external link to his company in the text. External links can only be used in an explicit "external links" section, and not in the text, where they appear identical to Wiki-links, and thereby mislead the reader. It's really hard to write articles about modern architects! Elemimele (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dragonkng007: See WP:NOTPROMOTION. This is a non-negotiable rule. Wikipedia must never be used as a publicity platform. We don't have articles on subjects who are "up and coming" or "deserve recognition". Full stop. A subject must meet notability criteria first to merit an article here. That said, what you have so far looks like a good start. Keep looking for sources that meet the WP:Golden rule criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

New accounts cannot create articles directly?

I was repeatedly admonished for not making an account when I noted I could not make new articles directly. So I registered this account, and it cannot make new articles directly. Instead, I go to a page that tells me to use the sandbox, make a draft, or directs me to other editing topics. When I clicked draft, it asked me several additional questions before "forgetting" the article name I clicked on to start the process. It was confusing and repetitive.

In any event, how does one create an article without going through draft? Apparently, creating a new account is not all that is needed. Definitelynotthatotherguy (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

No, creating a new account, and then waiting four days, during which you make at least ten edits. Then you'll be able to create new articles.

That said, unless you have a solid track record of creating new articles which get accepted, I would advise you not to do this, as you'll be creating a lot of frustration and anguish for yourself and possibly others. ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It would have been nice to have that indicated at least at some point during the process of signing up or trying to create an article. This useful information appears nowhere in these workflows. Definitelynotthatotherguy (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It used to be the case that newly-registered editors could create articles immediately, but it was changed to require autoconfirmed permissions (four days plus 10 or more edits) because a very significant proportion of the articles that brand-new users created in the main article space (directly, as you put it) were, with the best will in the world, of very poor quality. You can read more about the consultation process for the change at WP:ACPERM, if you wish. XAM2175 ^(T) 01:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Definitelynotthatotherguy Do you have a "burning need" to create an article without going through the draft process? If you do wait four days, make ten edits, and then put an article directly into mainspace, it will still be reviewed by New Pages Patrol (NPP). NPP can mark the article as accepted, send it back to draft status, or delete it. David10244 (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It sounded like OP was saying that it wasn't allowing going through the draft process either, just going through various steps and then glitching out. Wombat140 (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct, although not "glitching out" completely, just getting to a point where everything I did earlier was lost and you have to start over. Not entirely deadly by any means, but not exactly noob friendly either. Definitelynotthatotherguy (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, now I know what you mean. Yeah. I ran into this same problem when I was a new editor. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to be auto confirmed first (which is fancy talk for being on Wikipedia for at least 4 days and making at least 10 edits). Also, no one can just make an article and add to the main space (except users with special privileges who review drafts). Almost all articles start as drafts before they are moved to the main space. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

When you are auto confirmed then yes. This happens after 4 days and you made 10 edits. Learn the basic of Wikipedia first.Cwater1 (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization request

Would someone please capitalize "constitution" in the title of Slavery and the United States constitution. Someone told me that I can do that by performing a page move (WP:MOVE), but I don't know what that means. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, "move" in this context means "retitle". Perhaps you're too new to English-language Wikipedia to have the "move" option. If so, you'll very soon have it. You presumably want to capitalize it in the title for consistency with capitalized "Constitution" within the article -- but it was you who capitalized the word within the text, and I'm not sure why. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Chunk struck through -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hoary The reason that I capitalized "constitution" within the text is that it should be capitalized. "United States Constitution" is always capitalized. I've been editing English-language Wikipedia for five years, and I've never seen the "move" option. Please elaborate. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus:. A string starting with "WP:" is usually a shortcut for a Wikipedia page. It's often made clickable like WP:MOVE but otherwise you can enter it in the search box to see what it refers to. We usually explain more for new editors at the Teahouse but you have 8300 edits so I think it's good if you learn how to look up shortcuts and make moves on your own. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, yes, you've been editing for five years. Sorry for my (odd) mistake above. -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, I removed some of your capitalization. "United States Constitution" is a proper noun because it refers to one specific document and should therefore be capitalized. The word "constitution" by itself, on the other hand, is not a proper noun and can refer to many such documents. It should not be capitalized.

A more important issue is that this is an exceptionally inadequate and poorly written article about a very important topic. Here is an entire book about the significance of slavery in the drafting and ratification of the constitution. Staughton Lynd published a book of ten essays about the topic. There is massive literature about the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments which were intended to end slavery. I would submit that expanding the article is a more important issue than capitalization of letters. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@talk I reverted your change and explained that "constitution" referred to "United States Constitution." It is in effect is an abbreviation for "United States Constitution."

The first sentence of your second paragraph is absolutely right. A recent book on the subject is The Crooked Path to Abolition: Abraham Lincoln and the Antislavery Constitution, by James Oakes. It shows that the Constitution of 1787 (that is, before the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments -- and "Amendment" should be capitalized when referring to a specific amendment) can be read as both pro-slavery and anti-slavery, which is something the Wikipedia article does not mention. I'll work on this when I have a chance. But correct capitalization is important, and it is not in competition with expanding the article. Maurice Magnus (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We capitalize proper nouns. We do not capitalize common nouns. The distinction is clear. Common nouns are not abbreviations. "USC" would be an abbreviation, but it is never used.Cullen328 (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

PrimeHunter and Hoary Thanks. I learned something today, and I made the edit. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

References disappearing from new page

Hi

I'm adding a new wikipedia page and when I put more the 2 references in, one of the already inserted references disappears. How can I include 3 references without this happening?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:John_%27Jack%27_O%27Dea&action=edit

Please reply to mobile view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annegabemerk (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Anne Annegabemerk (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Annegabemerk! I'm seeing three references at Draft:John O'Dea. I'm not aware of any bug that happens as you describe. I'd try again if needed, and if it persists, take note of exactly what you're doing so that you can describe it in miniscule detail. That way, someone else might be able to replicate the issue and work toward fixing it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I worked out what I was doing wrong (forgot to publish!) Cheers Annegabemerk (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Trying to edit name in reference, but don't know how

Hi I am trying to edit an incorrect name on a reference list, but when I select edit, it won't let me type the change. It looks like the reference list was added as a whole, rather than each individual entry. 98.11.130.155 (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to look at it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's suppose you notice something wrong in a reference from the section "Literary success" within the article "Louisa May Alcott". The reference of course appears under the header "References". However, you can't edit it there. Instead, you need to edit it within the section "Literary success". (If the reference is called from "Literary success" and also from one or more other sections, there's a complication -- but don't worry about this [not-so-great] obstacle until/unless you encounter it.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary (talk. As you no doubt know, the same reference in different sections can be repeated in different sections, with different footnote numbers. But I once asked at Teahouse how to repeat the same footnote number throughout the article for the same reference, and, on 8 August 2022, I received this reply: The procedure is called named references. The full reference is defined and named once, and then a very brief reference tag is used elsewhere. Please see WP:NAMEDREFS and try it yourself. Cullen328 (talk) Maurice Magnus (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Maurice Magnus, I'm aware of all this. (And of Template:Rp as well.) I presume that adding Cullen328 as coauthor was merely a slip; you may wish to strike out that signature. -- Hoary (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The editor was quoting (and attributing) an answer I gave at the Teahouse last August. I am not sure why that answer was repeated here, since I see no evidence that the OP was asking about named references. I could be wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Foreign Language Page => English

There's a person who has a page in Hebrew and but not English. I was thinking of making an English one for her. Is there a process for this? Some sort of guidelines or protocols? Or I start it from scratch as if the Hebrew page didn't exist? MaskedSinger (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

hi @MaskedSinger and welcome to the Teahouse! no, you don't need to start from scratch, you can translate the existing Hebrew article to English. you can find guidelines for this over at Translation. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! MaskedSinger (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger First, satisfy yourself that the person meets the requirements of WP:N. Then see guidance at Wikipedia:Translation. IMO, start it from scratch is a good idea, you can use the WP:RS you found at he-WP, if any. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

They do satisfy it. I will go there and see how to proceed. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

YouTube as a source

Hey guys, I'm just wondering if YouTube can ever be used to establish notability? For example, a musical artist that receives very little media fanfare but is "reviewed" by popular YouTube music reviewers in videos that receive hundreds of thousands of views. Are there any circumstances, even unrelated to my scenario, where YouTube can be used to establish notability? Secondarily, what makes a YouTube video a reliable source? Does it have to be an official organization, i.e CNN? I've looked through perennial sources and a few other pages but have come away still confused regarding this. 2600:4041:43F2:E500:D15:6B8E:8A29:5543 (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

hi ip user and welcome to the Teahouse! the short is that Youtube can only ever be used to establish notability if it's from the official channel of a news organization or anything that is a reliable source by itself, where the youtube channel would be considered the same as that organization. for example, the official channels of say, Reuters, the Associated Press, or even say, IGN and Rolling Stone (at least for cultural topics, not political ones) are typically acceptable as sources to prove notability.

while the opinions of professional YouTube music reviewers such as Anthony Fantano may be used, they cannot be used to establish notability - meaning you'll have to pack reliable sources first, usually from the media. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous contributor. Melecie is correct above. Let me see expand a bit. YouTube is not a source, so do not think of it that way. YouTube is a platform that hosts videos. Most of those videos are glaringly unreliable, but a relative few that are hosted on the official YouTube channels of reliable media organizations are considered reliable. So, asking whether YouTube is reliable is like asking whether The Internet is reliable or whether a Google search is reliable. You need to do a serious reliability assessment of the very specific narrow source you propose to use. Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess I was trying to push true (living truth) NPOV  :-)(-:

Why was my last thread archived ? and talk redlinked ? 203.87.76.150 (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I also note 203.221.94.192's contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.76.150 (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It was user talk page thread. This is the wrong place to ask about it. Users are allowed to delete or archive almost anything from their talk pages. I assume that user:FunIsOptional had no interest in continuing your thread, but you would have to ask that user. Meters (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your "talk" is redlinked because no one has started that page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

On 12 January 2023, your first day editing as an IP, three of your five edits were on FunIsOptional's Talk page, since archived. I strongly suggest you cease pestering that editor and find useful things to do for article improvement. David notMD (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

New Article

Hello.

I am new to this and have two articles ready which I would like to submit.

Both are fully referenced and pre-edited by myself with assistance from others close to the source subjects. However, one of these articles (Wandsworth School Boys' Choir) would be duplicating asingle paragraph section contained within an existing Wikipedia larger article (Wandsworth School). The new article has greater detail and citations. How do I go about submitting this 'replacement' as a new, separate article in its own right?

Many thanks,

Chris Chris Tingley (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Chris Tingley Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts may be submitted via Articles for Creationo. You may explain on the talk page of the draft that it is meant to expand on part of an existing article. Depending on how closely you worked with people associated with the subject, you could have a conflict of interest. Please review that policy(using AFC would be appropriate if you have a COI). 331dot (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, welcome and help, 331dot. This is greatly appreciated. I have sat on these articles for over a year as I have never quite had the time to study the complexities of submitting an article, until now!

I note your conflict of interest point. I was a member of The Wandsworth School Choir in the 1960s. The choir disbanded when the school closed in 1986, so it is difficult to see how there could be a 'conflict of interest' at this time, almost 40 years on. Further to this, I have been most careful to involve 'alumni' in order to substantiate elements of the article and this includes the only surviving Headteacher of the school. I have also been most careful to avoid anything of a subjective nature and have avoided citations from sources which I have been unable to substantiate from a reliable source. As these articles would be adding to 'the sum total of human knowledge' would any of what I have outlined be considered a conflict of interest? What would I need to do to show 'independence'?

Many thanks.

Chris Chris Tingley (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Chris, and welcome. Adding to what 331dot says: "with assistance from others close to the source subjects" is a red flag, even apart from the likely conflict of interest. If their assistance has been in helping you find independent published material about the subjects, that's fine. But essentially nothing from their knowledge or experience of the subjects is of any relevance at all in creating the articles. 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) 11:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine.

This is greatly appreciated. I have replied to 331dot (above) regarding the 'conflict of interest' part. I will go through both articles again but I am sure that anything which was subjective was removed at a very early stage. Similarly, the article was put to others for comment and authenticity and suggestions.

I consider that I have been objective throughout and any sycophantic elements avoided from the start. Both articles are well evidenced through sources which includes record company releases and discographies, publishing houses (mostly music), orchestra discographies, festival and broadcasting archives, and Awards websites such as the ' Grammys', etc.

Thank you again. Please do come back to me if you are able to help me further. This is so greatly appreciated.

Best wishes

Chris Chris Tingley (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Wandsworth School has a paragraph about the choir that uses five references. When you create your draft using AfC, your Edit summary should acknowledge that you are using content and references from that article (sourcing, even copying, within Wikipedia is allowed as long as acknowledged). There would be no harm in mentioning on your User page that you were a member of the choir in the 1960s. David notMD (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

My page is not alive yet?

I made a page named Amjad Sabri by Saleha. But its not showing on wikipedia main page? SalehaNaveedRoots (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Drafts are not visible in main space nor found by outside search engines such as Google. The next steps would be to improve your draft Draft:Amjad Sabri by Saleha and then submit it to WP:AFC for review. David notMD (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

See Qawwali for many examples of successful articles about Qawwali singers. These can be models for your effort. Note that all have references. David notMD (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@SalehaNaveedRoots - You have created a Draft. Drafts do not become Wikipedia articles until they are accepted by an AfC reviewer, so you'd have to submit your draft first. However, I believe that right now you should not submit your draft, because articles on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable, independent sources. Additionally, as part of our notability guidelines, we only accept articles supported by multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. This serves as a way to make sure that articles on Wikipedia are only about subjects that are widely-known and globally relevant. casualdejekyll 13:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

how i place an name

dear sir/mam,

I want to place an writer name in list of List of Indian writers page... how can i do this? Pulakit Sharma (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Pulakit, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is, by

1. Determining that the writer meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If the necessary sources do not exist, then give up the idea.
2. Writing an acceptable encyclopaedia article about the writer (or persuading somebody else to write it). See WP:YFA if you would like to try.

Unless both these steps are completed, their name cannot be added to the list.

If this is about Yash Tiwari, you should also read WP:BACKWARD. ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sir, I have a curiosity that it is not necessary that every person has a Wikipedia page already created. In this case, if a person does not have a Wikipedia page, can he not be listed? The second curiosity is that in the beginning even many big names would not have Wikipedia pages, so was there a need to create a page first to list them? And if so, how were they verified in Wikipedia, if they weren't their internal link. Pulakit Sharma (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

See Stand alone lists, and Write the article first.

In the early days of Wikipedia we were not so careful about following policy as we are today, so Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of articles which should be deleted, and thousands more which should be moved to Draft space to get improved before they are admitted to the main encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, since this is a volunteer project where people work on what they choose, this does not happen very much, so we continue to have thousands of seriously substandard articles that mislead people into thinking that our policies don't matter. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

i'm trying to make a wikipedia article about my school but there aren't enough sources.

i want to make a wikipedia article about my school, but there's just not enough information online to provide reliable independent sources! i'm trying to add information about my school to the internet mostly because there's not enough. Ninjaboii (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Ninjaboii Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you cannot find enough independent reliable sources with significant coverage to sustain an article, it is likely that your school does not merit an article at this time. Not every school does. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

i've found articles about far less noteworthy things. Ninjaboii (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Ninjaboii Yes, however, that is not a reason to add more inappropriate articles, please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate things by us; we can only address what we know about. If you would like to pitch in and help us out, you are welcome to help identify other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. With over six million articles, we could use the help. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

well i know this isn't particularly relevant, nor does it have reliable secondary sources. Ninjaboii (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:GEOLAND however states that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Theroadislong (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

oh. Ninjaboii (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

however it still has no secondary reliable sources. Ninjaboii (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You might be interested to read Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ninjaboii, It seems you want to make your school more notable on the web. That's a noble cause, but Wikipedia regards that as promotion, which is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia. Once notability has been achieved (and Wikipedia defines notability very narrowly), only then will Wikipedia be interested in a subject. It is backwards order to use Wikipedia for notabililty, since notability must come first, like a horse in front of a cart. Wikipedia does not put the cart before the horse, although we unintentionally did so in years past, and ,so far, many articles about non-notable subjects remain to be deleted by a careful process.-- Quisqualis (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Ninjaboii, there is no requirement that sources be available online. Perhaps your school library or local public library can provide access to off-line reliable sources about your school. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You can make the article redirect to the town that the school is in.Cwater1 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Mittens (chess engine)

Hello all. I'm back with a follow up question to one I posted yesterday. I'm working on writing a draft (Draft:Mittens (chess engine)) and was wondering if it would be ok to move to article space. As the topic is quite new, I was keeping it as a draft in case new sources come up. Would it be ok in its current form? Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte, the four sources you currently have are mostly from unfamiliar publications, and several may be questionable on reliability. For gaming sites, I'd check here to see if they're listed as reliable or not. The one source that is definitely reliable, The Financial Times, also only mentions Mittens briefly in a few paragraphs. Given this, I think there's a chance the article would be nominated for deletion if you launched it currently, and it might be better to wait for or seek out additional coverage first. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb, the research that I've done on the sources goes a bit like this. Esports.gg isn't listed on the sources list anywhere, dotesports is considered reliable and Joe Posnanski's website, while being a blog, is quite well respected and has been nominated for a National Magazine award. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte, in that case, it sounds like you'd have an argument should the article be nominated for deletion, but it's hard for me to predict how persuasive it'd be. If you expect there to be additional coverage soon, it might be prudent to wait a little. If not, you might as well publish, but just know there's a risk you'll have to defend the notability and that there's not a certain outcome. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'll wait. If no sources come I'll nominate the article for speedy deletion. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The draft claims "The engine is very strong and can beat almost all human players." This is a contradiction. Any respectable chess engine nowadays is stronger than all human players (unless it has been set to play below its full strength). Maproom (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Line has been removed. I was pretty tired while writing the lede :) Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte I think the key question to ask, for internet phenomena, is: How sure can I be that this will still be relevant in a year? Two years? Ten years? And if the answer is "I have no way of knowing" then you should probably wait a few months before checking back. Internet phenomena can last anywhere between two days and two million years and we never know which will be which until it's over. (Examples of "definitely and inarguably notable" internet phenomena would be stuff like Rickrolling, Trollface, etc. But obviously more current stuff can be notable, it just depends on how much it's been written about by secondary sources (cfe. Blue Whale Challenge, despite not having nearly as long-lasting of an impact on internet culture as my previous two examples, caused a pretty long lasting media storm).

I have to imagine that Mittens is some form of Komodo, though whether that's verifiable is entirely beyond me. So what would the article be about? The... character? I don't know.

In general: Wikipedia's been around for 20 years, we aren't going anywhere. One can wait. casualdejekyll 03:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the more in depth answer @Casualdejekyll. I've seen the policy you're referring to before, but your explanation is very helpful. I think the correct course of action for me just now is to wait to see if I can find more references and abandon the draft if I don't find any. No point making people endure an unnecessary AfD. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 08:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• While I doubt this is worth a standalone article yet, it may be acceptable as a section in chess.com. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's a good backup plan, thanks! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Per @Tigraan, it should be merged into the article for Chess.com. It does not seem notable enough on its own, but seems to be notable enough to be part of the aforementioned article, seeing the publicity rounds it has made on social media, particularly the online chess community. Explodicator7331 (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA is still a hurdle to pass, and "doing the rounds on social media" ain’t enough. That being said, I think the esport.gg source makes it over the line (not by much but still). (Disclaimer: I am part of the "online chess community", I have seen the hype, and I entirely agree with Carlsen’s assessment as a "transparent marketing trick", so I am personally biased toward non-inclusion.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I can see that point of view. I just thought that since it is currently a large thing in the community I might try to make a draft just in case. Are you meaning that you think that the article would be on for inclusion standalone or as part of the Chess.com article @Tigraan? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

(I play chess more casually, so the "hype" is probably the main reason I started a draft.) Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Standalone, almost certainly not, and not with the current sourcing. I give the draft less than a 20% chance to survive AfD.

Part of the chess.com article, I would say yes. I could see other people arguing no. I am rather deletionist myself, so if I am OK with some mention, I would expect most editors to be OK too. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Got it, just was a little confused. Might it be an idea to post a notice on the Chess.com talk page? If so, what template should I use? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Need help on new topic

Hello,

I try to write one topic but rejected, could you please help me how to write a topic in wiki, please find the below details of my topic (which is rejected). It would be good if you can give me a sample or create a sample draft based on my topic. [copyvio article content removed, see below] OrchidPlanet (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I've collapsed the above content.
@OrchidPlanet: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1176. The person who reverted you gave you the reason in their edit summary. Find a reliable source (wikis and other user-generated content sites do not count) and please learn to cite properly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tenryuu, @Lettherebedarklight I think the above collapsed section, and also the same stuff on their talk page, are copyvios just like their sandbox was. The source is https://greenplanetwiki.com/do-electric-cars-have-coolant/, which is also mentioned in their TP notice of copyvio. They copied awkward wording and typos verbatim, and the word "copious". I can't revdel myself. David10244 (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• @David10244: see WP:REVDELREQUEST for next time (I have done the request myself this time). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@orchidplanet: this goes against the purpose of wikipedia. wikipedia is not a q&a site. wikipedia is an encyclopedia. lettherebedarklight晚安 06:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@OrchidPlanet In addition to "no Q & A", encyclopedias don't write "let us discuss... " David10244 (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

How do we deal with verifiability of images?

Hi All, I'm wondering if there's an essay or something about this topic already. But I was just pondering this and couldn't come up with a good answer myself. When someone adds an image to an article, often just sourced as 'own work', how do we verify that the image is of the thing that it purports to be of? Taking the last 2 I uploaded: this image, of 'The Farcet Village Sign' [10] is self-captioning and easily verifiable just be looking at it. but this image of the 'Church of St Mary in Farcet' could be any c.12th Century church in the UK [11] (I'm pretty sure it's not, because I remember taking the photo, but it's just an example!) How would an independent editor confirm WP:V when it comes to 'own work' photos of this, or even more specialist or inaccessible things? JeffUK 09:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Basically, the/editor uploader is trusted (or at least unnoticed) until someone sees a reason to question, like [12][13]. I don't know of any essay etc on that, but WP:USERG applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an interesting one. Pictures are, indeed, exempt from any form of verification or citation, because it would clash with copyright. This is almost one for the Ideas Lab. Would it be possible to have citations in the form of "A similar image can be found at...", so the reader could verify that this is the Church of St Mary by comparing the picture to one in a (copyrighted) source?? Not sure... In practice, the answer is that so many people are looking at the images that one hopes errors will be noticed. Elemimele (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Its worth mentioning that Commons has several templates such as commons:Template:Fact disputed which can be used to point out that a file's description is believed by someone else to be wrong. For chemistry-specific issues we use {{Disputed chem}}. In essence, images are challenged via Talk Pages just as disputes over text would be. Nevertheless we have to start by assuming good faith. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion of a similar topic in relation to images of chemicals in bottles, now archived at WT:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive_2020#Images of samples: remove them all vs Assume good faith for those interested. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's an astonishing claim, it should be verified in text. If it it's not, what's the fundamental harm/misinformation propagating? There was a similar discussion about whether to use colorized images of Talk:Wright_Flyer/Archive_1#Colorized_photo Orville and Wilbur's first flight. Images by definition are merely projections/scans/original production. Interesting question for sure ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually the 'harm' question did partly prompt me to ask this. What if instead of a photo of a plane or a church, it's a photo of an 'Entirely edible mushroom' or 'non-venomous spider' for example. Maybe it really is something to consider on a subject-by-subject basis because how we verify an image (and whether we really need to) depends entirely on the subject matter. JeffUK 17:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

In principle, I guess someone could verify that your photo was of St. Mary's Church Farcet by going to Farcet and looking to see whether or not it checked out. A quick look at Google Street View suggests that St. Mary's does indeed look like that. WP:V doesn't require that something be easy for any arbitrary person to verify; if verification is possible by going to some particular public location that's acceptable, whether that be checking the British Library for the only publicly accessible copy of a particular rare book, or going to Farcet to look at their church.

This isn't the only case where this issue comes up – ancient art is a nightmare for this... Have fun verifying that this head is, as the caption claims, "probably from a statue of Sappho by Silanion"! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that either the "harm" nor the "go there and verify" approach really quite answers the problem. Firstly, a lot of our text doesn't exactly do any harm if it's wrong. No one is going to die because we claim the emperor X won a battle in 1200BCE when in fact he lost it in 1150BCE, and yet we are very firm that you must have a reliable source to write it. And yet there's no obligation to demonstrate that a picture of the emperor X's head is indeed him (Caeciliusinhorto is quite right, and I think most cases I've seen of faulty pictures were indeed historical figures depicted in art). And much of what we write about could be verified by someone going there, but we still insist on written verification rather than saying "you don't believe Venice has a lot of canals, just go and visit the place and have a look!". I think this is just an undesirable (hopefully fairly small) problem that's hard to circumvent. It'd be a real pity to introduce verifiability rules and end up losing half our pictures. Elemimele (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Another one: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2022_October_1#Constantine_or_Federico_II_Hohenstaufen? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

OP’s point (presumably) is that Wikipedia text is subject to WP:V which is a default-no policy. You shouldn’t write anything that is not sourced, and if you do, anyone can revert you without providing a counterexplanation. On the other hand, images (or any other kind of media on Commons, really) is default-yes: we assume by default that the uploader checked the accuracy, anyone challenging the image would need to provide some reason for it.

My understanding of it is that Wikipedia and Commons have different philosophies. Commons tries to make free (as in "free speech" / libre) images available to anyone for reuse; virtually every Commons contributor has some interest in copyright/license issues and wants to make the world a more open place. On the other hand, Wikipedia is about writing a free (as in "free beer" / gratis) encyclopedia of quality: contributors there want to make the world a more educated place.

Of course the communities have a lot of overlap both in members and philosophy. Many Commons editors care about the accuracy of the image descriptions, and a good fraction of Wikipedia editors (possibly a majority of active editors?) do care about the licensing of Wikipedia text. But still, verifiability is not a core of issue on Commons - many "artistic" pictures are unverifiable. Adding burdens on uploaders to document exactly when, where, etc. they took a picture would be an unnecessary hurdle to the goals of that project. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 18:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Quicker way to asses articles on wikiproject talk pages?

Most of my edits since 2 days ago have been assessing wikiprojects on talk pages. Is there a quicker way to do it like a tool? It takes a long time manual. Most of my assess are United States articles.Thanks.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 05:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld: Welcome to the Teahouse! Have you tried Rater? It's not perfect, so you can't blindly just accept its suggestions, but I find it helpful. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, I presume it's really mw:ORES that is inaccurate (sometimes), and Rater just uses that. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Approval of the draft

Please could you share the required format of the draft to be submitted for the Wikipedia for our page? 124.40.246.231 (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, hmmm, to the degree to which a format is required, it would depend on what your page is for. Is this perhaps a page for your company? Either way, please identify this page, so that people on this page can better answer your question. -- Hoary (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia hosts are not mindreaders. You need to mention the precise name of the draft in question, if you hope that we will offer any useful advice. Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I can third the inability to figure out what draft is being discussed, though that IPs contribution history is quite interesting otherwise. casualdejekyll 20:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant and baseless opinion

Some input on this would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, M.Bitton. This appears to be a content dispute. DR contains the suggested steps to follow, which do not include calling for input from whoever might happen to be visiting the Teahouse. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, DR doesn't really work when dealing with a passing IP. I'll try something else. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Previous discussion : WP:TEA#Draft:Edward Hayter

hi, my question is on the draft Draft:Edward Hayter. It says there are non reliable sources such as blogs and private company websites références. I'm not sure which ones are considered as non reliable as they don't appear on the list of reliable sources. I'd like to have examples from the ones I added. Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

SO MUCH of this needs work, mostly removing content and refs. The refs are almost all URLs rather than preferred format. Much of the content is describing details from work (plays, movies) that he was in, which is not ABOUT HIM, while the refs themselves are often just a confirmation he was in the cast. Can you identify at least three references that are to content - at length - that is about him? Not counting interviews, which Wikipedia does not count toward establishing notability. Basically, cut, cut, cut, and see if there is a kernal remaining of content that establishes his notability. David notMD (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, content such as this has no value: "In 2013, he appeared in Alexandria which is about queer representation in Alexandria. It was created by Peter Cant & Krzysztof Honowski, they were inspired from the words and life of the gay Greek poet Constantine Cavafy and the gay British poet of the cinema Derek Jarman. Through their words they (Krzysztof and Peter) thought forward to the present day and to the contemporary condition of intimacy through image and how it is not enough."

@Veganpurplefox - A common trap that new Wikipedians such as yourself fall into is relying on lists such as WP:RS/P to be their only determiner of reliability. While these lists are useful tools, ultimately, it's important to learn how to recognize a reliable source yourself. (The help pages aren't very good at explaining it, to be honest.) A reliable source must:

• Be published (i.e. publicly available)
• (If it's a newspaper/journal) Have an editorial policy / editorial board that issues corrections. (A reputation for accuracy is often an acceptable substitute, but use caution.)
• (If it's a book) Be published by a publisher with a significant editorial contribution, that fact-checked the book before publishing
• (In general) Not be self-published. Reliable sources must have or have had some sort of editor or quality control process.

It's honestly not easy for a beginner. The page at Wikipedia:Reliable sources describes this all in more detail. An easy rule of thumb, though - if you can't find evidence that more than one person was involved in the production of the source, then it is almost definitely unreliable. Additionally, sources that are associated with the subject of an article are not reliable for the purposes of that article. casualdejekyll 14:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, WP:ABOUTSELF can have some use, but it doesn't help with WP:N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I have made a lot of changes and looking for more notable sources to then improve more of the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 16:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If he appeared in magazines, how do I add it if its a physical source and not an online source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 16:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Like you should an online source, but without a weblink, see WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references as more than a bare link. In this case, Template:Cite magazine can be used. If you mean that he has written in magazines, it's not that interesting, but if they write about him, it can be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you for the advice, I was able to Cite the magazine! Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a problem with citing a second magazine, and yes i meant that he was both on covers and they talked about him. I added : cite magazine

| last        = Life

| first       = Sphere

| date        = October 2020

| title       = Fall Order

| url         = https://www.spherelife.com

| magazine    = Sphere Life Magazine

| location    = United Kingdom

| publisher   = Sphere

| access-date|= October 2020

But it ssays empty citations and even with the link you gave me I am not able to find what's wrong Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Veganpurplefox. "First" and "last" are for the author of the article: if there is no author credited, simply leave them blank, or leave them out entirely. Similarly, if there is no link, then simply leave out the "url" parameter. Leave out the access-date as well, as that is really for online resources (which can change over time, so it's important to know when the version being cited was current). Page number(s) would be a good addition. The publisher appears to be "Sphere Media", and their location is London.

However, I have some doubts as to whether what they publish is independent. Their media pack says on page 11 The SPHERE online team creates content according to your brief. Written by the SPHERE editorial team, your native article sits seamlessly within the editorial framework. Your campaign will include online & social amplification for maximum visibility and engagement with our users (emphasis added). This seems to say that at least some of the content is advertising dressed up as articles - I can't tell whether it is all of that sort, or whether there is genuinely independent material as well, but I would be suspicious of it as a source. ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you i will make the changes! Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Edward Hayter

Next discussion : WP:TEA#Reliable sources

FYI

 – Unlinking and changing the heading title, and leaving a courtesy link below due to technical issues with links. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Edward Hayter

Hi i would like to have some help to be able for the draft to be approved as it doesnt meet the criterias of reliable, independent,... Veganpurplefox (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Remove all hyperlinks from the text. If the content has value, then the URLs can be used as properly formatted references. I am not saying this makes the article meet notability criteria, as many of the hyperlinks are just in-name-only mentions of Hayter, or a sentence or two as part of the review of the work he appeared in. David notMD (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you copy paste one of the hyperlink or explain which are hyperlink, I'm not sure to know what these are?

There are currently four, Veganpurplefox, in the (short) lead alone. One of them appears right after the very first sentence. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hoary Are they the little [ ] ? Where it says <ref>? Not talking about the big [ ]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 02:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Markup error fixed -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1176. Hoary is referring to the links that are followed by a , which should not be in the body of a article or draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Tenryuu thank you, but do you have any advices on how to remove them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 03:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Veganpurplefox, I quote Cabrils: "the references are not formatted correctly; and still include many that are not considered reliable, including blogs, private company websites and social media, which all should be removed." References to blogs, private company websites, social media, and miscellaneous other junk: delete. References to reliable sources: surround each with <ref> .... </ref>. But before you do this, ask yourself if this man clears one of the criteria for notability. If he doesn't, you're just wasting your time. -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hoary hank you, u have made the changes for the  ! What are considered blogs and private company websites? I have removed the social medias link such as Instagram and imbd, but I'm so confused for the others as they don't appear on the list of what links are reliable or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Veganpurplefox-- please consider Hoary's very experienced advice: "But before you do this, ask yourself if this man clears one of the criteria for notability. If he doesn't, you're just wasting your time." No matter how reliable the sources are, if the subject (Hayter) doesn't satisfy the notability criteria, the draft will not be accepted. You ask "What are considered blogs and private company websites?": please see this definition of a blog; and a company website here means the website of a company like models1, or (relevantly) sites that are not mainstream news publications. We encourage new editors to jump in and participate on Wikipedia, but you do need to do some research and learning yourself too-- please see this helpful page WP:10SIMPLERULES. All the best with it! Cabrils (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils , thank you for the précisions. Us, fans, are starting to discover him with his role in the will series as his character was really close to Jamie Campbell Bower's character. He may not yet meet the criterias but I'm not giving up on him. It may take another few weeks or months to have more reliable sources and more known work but I want to improve the changes to make it better so when I have more content and good reliable sources when I'm sure he meets the criterias ill resubmit, weather its in a few months or years! I don't want to do the work fast, I want to take the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

References

How Can I Publish a Major Text Revision/Replacement with Additional References from The No.25 Squadron RAAF "Talk" Page to the Article Page on en.Wikipedia Webpage without 'damaging' any existing References or Notes

Hi, I request and would appreciate any help or advice as to how I can publish (ie transfer) a proposed major text Revision/Replacement and Additional References from The No.25 Squadron RAAF "Talk" Page to the Article Page on en.Wikipedia Webpage without 'damaging' any existing References or Notes. The proposed major text Revision/Replacement and Additional References have been on the "Talk" Page for several weeks/months now and there have been no adverse comments or corrections so I am hoping they are now ok to publish on the Article Page? Shellac41 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Shellac41, there's a wall of text on Talk:No. 25 Squadron RAAF. It has no header and no other explanation, although you have signed it (multiple times). I infer from your question here that it's your proposed replacement for the article.

I suggest that you add a header, add text saying what the whole thing is, and summarizing the major changes that you've made, and then post a message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history inviting people to take a look and to comment on Talk:No. 25 Squadron RAAF. (Avoid any question or request that would encourage people to comment in more than one place.)

But before you invite people to comment . . . here's a quotation from it (with markup intact):

Equipped with 6 Hawker Demon, 6 Avro Ansons and 3 Avro Trainers it was originally tasked with providing support for the Australian Army and Royal Australian Navy, as well as pilot training.[4] The squadron moved to RAAF Station Pearce near Perth, Western Australia, in 1938.[5]

I don't know what "[4]" and "[5]" are supposed to mean. Perhaps they correspond to the references that right now happen to be numbered 4 and 5 (but whose numbering might change at any time), and perhaps they don't. Please fix these and any other numbers you may have used similarly. -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary for your advice.

1. The "[4]" and "[5]" you refer to are existing reference numbers in the article's existing text and those references' details are already shown below the article.

One of my major concerns is that my new, added references should complement not delete or mix up the existing references such as "[4]" and "[5]" so I left those original numbers in my proposed revision. Is that the wrong thing to do?

2. For several weeks I did have a heading to my suggested changes on the article's "Talk" page which said "Proposed Major Text Revision with Additional References to the "No.25 Squadron - RAAF" Article Page" but I deleted it yesterday because I thought my heading might end up on the article page?

3. I think what you have suggested re posting a message about my proposed revision on the article's talk page is good but others have suggested different approaches (eg do the revision small bit by small bit).

I am now concerned that maybe other administrators will be upset (and maybe block me) because I didn't follow the approach they suggested them, or perhaps even yourself if I don't follow your suggestion?

All the advice and suggestions received are respected and appreciated but they can also have the effect of creating a feeling of risk in selecting just one over others?

It becomes a bit of a maybe 'dangerous' dilemma.

Thanks again and any further comment/advice re the above would be helpful. Shellac41 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

One of my major concerns is that my new, added references should complement not delete or mix up the existing references such as "[4]" and "[5]" so I left those original numbers in my proposed revision. Is that the wrong thing to do?
@Shellac41: Mediawiki software reorders footnote numbers when new citations are introduced (for example, adding a citation before 4 will turn the new citation into 4 and the old one into 5). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.Shellac41 (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

So, how can you add references without damaging existing references? By simply adding references and ignoring the existing references. Any needed numbering (or renumbering) will be done automatically. Very simply:

Assertion.<ref>Reference.</ref>

(I'm assuming, perhaps mistakenly, that you're using the "source" editor.) See Help:Referencing for beginners. This ends with a list of further reading; also digest any of these whose title suggests that it may be necessary/helpful.

If you're doing any numbering yourself, you're doing something wrong. -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Shellac41. I recommend against making massive changes to an article in a single edit, unless you are reasonably sure that the changes will not be controversial. The fact that you have asked at the Teahouse indicates that you realize that your changes may be controversial. So, I suggest breaking your changes down to paragraph sized chunks of two or three sentences, and making them gradually over several days. This method allows other editors to evaluate your additions gradually, instead of being forced to either accept or revert a massive change all at once. Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

See comments on your Talk page and article's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Shellac41, just as policemen can and do arrest people, Wikipedia administrators can and do block people from editing. But I don't remember ever seeing a policeman arrest anyone. Wikipedia administrators don't rush to block people. They (we) are amiable people, unless seriously provoked.

Now, if you want to reuse a particular reference, you first have to name it. Choose a name that's alphanumeric and starts with a letter of the alphabet. So if it's for a reference written by somebody called Morrison, you might choose the name "morrison". Find the existing reference, which might look something like

<ref>Myrtle Morrison, ''Colloquial Old Norse for Jocks" (Grimsby: Jocks and Dummies Press, 2018).</ref>

and change it to

<ref name="morrison">Shirley Morrison, ''Colloquial Old Norse for Jocks" (Grimsby: Jocks and Dummies Press, 2018).</ref>

Now that it's named, you can also use it elsewhere. Here's how:

<ref name="morrison" />

(Again, I'm assuming that you are editing the source.) Pay no attention to reference numbers. Do not attempt to number any reference, because numbering is automatic.

I hope that this makes sense. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary

After all the helpful advice received from yourself and others it might be best I just try to do the revision bit by bit. That way I might get it right but if not any mistake(s) will show up quickly in a small section.

I hope my revisions are not controversial - they are certainly not intended to be. I just wished to add more info about 25 SQN.

As an ex-member of the Squadron for 20+ years I respect the unit and its history and am genuinely just trying to add more historical info to Wiki's article as an 'anonymous' Wiki user.

As a result of doing so, on 6 Nov 22 I did inform the Australian War Memorial (AWM) of an apparent mis-statement of fact on their AWM 25 Squadron webpage. Sometime in the past the mis-statement had also been included on en.Wiki's 25 SQN article page.

On I Dec 22 the AWM Research Centre advised me by email that they had deleted the mis-statement from the AWM's 25 Squadron webpage.

I have "noted" and referenced AWM's deletion of their mis-statement in my proposed Revision of Wiki's article so I hope that will not be regarded by an administrator as being controversial or out of order? Shellac41 (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You should read "WP:Be Bold"! You don't need to ask permission to edit articles, edit away, as long as you follow the rest of the rules it's much easier and more efficient in most cases for you to make edits directly in the article itself. (Yes, you really are allowed to change the article, and the changes you make are instantly live on the internet for the world to see!) Or, if you think a specific change is likely to be contentious, discuss that specific change in the article's talk page first. JeffUK 01:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

independent sources?

Was trying to make a new article, it got declined because I didn't use independent sources. I think I understand what that means, but in this case I cited the website he had been hired at. The sources weren't in English, so I would get the misunderstanding, but I just wanted to ask if that was right..? Konorobi (talk) Konorobi (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Konorobi, you submitted Draft:Tõnis niinemets. Let me quote its text, in its entirety: Tõnis Niinemets (born October 10, 1987) is an Estonian actor and TV presenter. Niinemets is an actor at the Estonian Drama Theatre. That's it. That's all. There's no more.

As for "[getting] the misunderstanding", I quote your user page: you'll probably see me on Swedish and Estonian pop culture articles but i don't actually speak Swedish/Estonian so you may see some mistakes.

I suggest that you limit your activities here to subjects that wouldn't require an understanding of sources in Estonian. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello

I would like some tea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.109.128 (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP user, sorry the name misled you but this is not the correct use of the Teahouse. If you have a question about contributing to Wikipedia, feel free to ask it here. Thanks —Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 04:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Tea for you David notMD (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Uh sorry, Just wanted tea... 203.211.109.128 (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No need to shout 203.211.109.128 (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The tea is served for you! 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Me too, the tea is good for you and it tastes sweet and refreshing. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:CD9B:1D0E:A169:4C27 (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea...

Sometimes the waiters (hosts) here may be busy serving other customers, but I think ensuring those who seek a cup of tea from us are offered one is a really nice touch. I hope the IP editor enjoys theirs. BTW, Harobouri, we also have Teahouse welcome templates that can be left for individual users which provides them with a nice friendly cup of tea and some useful links. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Nick, This IP user was Me, I got locked out for the moment. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to tea anytime, my friend! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@BloxyColaSweet Always glad you enjoyed some tea! 204.129.232.191 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft Tips

Hello, all. I have been working on an article draft for quite a long time in my sandbox, and recently created a new draft for it. I didn't want to send it for admin review just yet, and wondered if anyone had some tips on how it could be improved -- I want it to be in good shape when I submit it for review! Professor Penguino (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

What about the expansion tags under "Overview" and "Further Reading"? Those sections could use some expansion. Tails Wx 00:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add to those in a little bit, I'm just sort of busy with some other things. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI, I put in those tags. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Professor Penguino, you should remove mention of Goodreads because it is not a reliable source. See WP:GOODREADS. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I yanked Goodreads. Wonder if there have been any reviews by academics anywhere (e.g. Britain, Kenya) Quisqualis (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thanks for the heads up! Professor Penguino (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Professor Penguino, not a response to any question you ask, but you're likely to find Template:Rp increasingly useful as you develop this draft. -- Hoary (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone failed to give credit

Hi, so a while ago I made a diagram for the Electron paramagnetic resonance article, which I hand drew and uploaded to the commons here. Later someone made a much better version of the diagram which they uploaded here but no credit was given to me at all for the original diagram which this was based on. Is that normal for Wikipedia or should they have included a reference to the original image? Thanks for your help! EvilxFish (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Any reuse of Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons requires attribution, by the terms of the re-use license. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. You may want to encourage that user to note the attribution on the new image page they created, although you could add the attribution to the new page yourself; ask that user if it's okay with them.-- Quisqualis (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, EvilxFish. I do not think that your drawing shows a level of creative originality that would require someone to credit you when drawing a better version. Both of you, after all, are illustrating a scientific concept with simple graphics, and presumably neither of you did the underlying scientific research. The proper place to pursue this further is Wikimedia Commons where both files are hosted. English Wikipedia has no control over files hosted on Commons. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. I agree it isn't much in the way of creative originality, I am grateful that someone came along and improved the diagram I made, it was kind of awful. I suppose it is just my inner academic that is annoyed by the lack of a clear flow from my original to the current, like you would see in an edit history (which I noticed recently with regards to these diagrams) as if I didn't contribute to it at all! EvilxFish (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

EvilxFish, the history of the use of both images is fully documented in the edit history of Electron paramagnetic resonance, which is a permanent record. Cullen328 (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

submission rejected but unclear why

Hello, my submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Or_Hen) was declined for not meeting any of the eight academic-specific criteria. However, the person I wrote about is an APS Fellow, has several international awards, and holds an academic chair at MIT, which meets more than one of the required criteria. There are also subjective achievements like impact on the field, but just these 'factual' achievements should allow the submission to go forward. What am I missing? 18.10.70.75 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Tagging @TheChunky, who declined that draft.

@18.10.70.75 - The draft says that Hen is an APS Fellow, yes, but it doesn't appear to have a citation for that statement. Verifiability. "Associate professor" doesn't sound like it would be a criterion-5 applicable chair, but I'm not knowledgable about the area, myself. casualdejekyll 20:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not unusual for professor articles to be turned down initially at AfC even when notablity is clearly in the article. The academic criteria are complicated and most reviewers are not as familiar with them as they should be to review such articles. There are reviewers who check such articles specifically and will see it. The awards section should be limited to the significant ones; leave out early career awards. Awards are better in prose than in a list, and use sources from the APS rather than press releases for the APS Fellowship and Friedman prize to include quotes of the citations that accompanied the awards. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts in contributing to Wikipedia 18.10.70.75. We understand that the subject of your draft article may be notable and may also pass WP:PROF, but unfortunately the "Early life and education" section had only one source at the beginning sentences and the whole section was unsourced. Additionally, the "Research and career" section also had many unsourced pieces of information. In order to have your draft accepted, it is important to include reliable sources for all of the information included in the article. We appreciate your understanding and look forward to seeing your improved draft in the future. Thank you.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

"Class of 1956 Career Development Associate Professor of Physics" is not an endowed chair. David notMD (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Anti Vandalism

How can I help to contribute anti-vandalism? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BloxyColaSweet. Please read Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcomings

I welcomed a few people, if thats okay. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BloxyColaSweet. I do not see the point of welcoming new accounts that have not edited. A majority of newly created accounts never edit, and therefore do not need to be welcomed. It is better to welcome active new accounts that have made at least one constructive edit. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, looking at the initial edits of new accounts often enough picks up vandalism. Posting a first-level vandalism warning on these editors' Talk pages may dissuade them from further harm to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

So I vandalised? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It does not appear that is what Cullen328 wrote - only that posting Welcome info on the Talk pages of newly created accounts may be a waste of your time, if the creators of the new accounts never go on to edit anything (more common than one might suppose) - was implied to be accusing you of vandalism. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

What went wrong?

Hello, I need some help regarding my article which was declined today, on January 13, 2023. It was declined due to the content that seems like an advertisement. Is there anyone who can guide me about what points I can work on in order to publish the article again. Thanks in advance. ArshaqArif (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, ArshaqArif, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem with Draft:Faizan Global Relief Foundation is that it is obviously saying what the Foundation says or wants to say 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) 11:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Curiously, Faizan Global Relief Foundation was declined, then edited by the declining reviewer, then accepted as an article by same, then tagged as needing improvements by same, all within 80 minutes. David notMD (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Azevedo

Hello! Would someone have the time to read the following draft [14] and let me know: 1) which sources are not acceptable (according to Horse Eye's Back) in Life and Work sections (ref. 1 to 10), and why they are not; 2) which parts of the article are promotional (according to Horse Eye's Back) and should be removed? Thank you very much, Manamaris (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: FYI. GoingBatty (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Manamaris. I recommend that you remove the mention of the USA Best Books 2011 Award. That is a vanity award with zero credibility. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

CLARITY: Manamaris created Draft:Mateus Soares de Azevedo in August. Horse Eye's Back deleted large amounts in September. Hamza Alaoui reverted those deletions in October. The draft has not been submitted to AfC. David notMD (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, David notMD. I did not create a draft for Azevedo but an article. In September Horse Eye's Back deleted a large amount of text and added 2 tags (notability + promotional). In October Onel5969 moved the article to Draft, where it is now. Hamza Alaoui then reverted HEBack's deletion, probably so that reviewers of the draft can base themselves on the original version. I regret that HEBack did not want to be more explicit [15], it would probably have allowed me to correct what needed to be corrected. Your User Page mentions that you are a "new editor Mentor": could you help me by answering my 2 questions above? Thank you,--Manamaris (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

David notMD, I didn't see that Quisqualis has worked on the draft just before I wrote to you. Sorry! --Manamaris (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Quisqualis, thank you very much for having taken the time to correct the draft, and for your suggestions. --Manamaris (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Changing Profile Picture

Hello Hello, i am trying to change the profile picture/logo for a company page as they have recently rebranded. I am struggling to do so and could use some help. The page I am trying to update is GTT Communications. I uploaded the Logo Wiki Commons but I am at a loss as to what to do next. Furston525 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Furston525. I am sorry for being blunt but your edits so far are highly promotional and you are therefore at a very high risk of being blocked unless you stop that behavior immediately. Advertising, promotion and marketing are all forbidden on Wikipedia. Corporate boilerplate has no place here. You need to fully disclose your obvious Conflict of interest, including the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure if applicable. Once you have fully disclosed, the updating of the logo can be discussed. Please read WP:LOGO. Cullen328 (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, Thanks for letting me know. Do you know where I can disclose my conflict of interest? I don't see where it says how to do that on the COI page or COI guide. I have looked over my personal page but not sure if I disclose that on the company page. I get not editing the main description for the company page, so I will not do that. But with the Logo, wouldn't Wikipedia want the accurate and current logo?

Furston525 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Furston525, click the red link to your currently non-existent userpage in your signature, and create your userpage, making your disclosures there. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Furston525, to upload a new logo, go here: Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, chose

• Upload a non-free file
• This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use.
• This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc.

Once you have managed to upload the new logo, you should be able to change it yourself by editing the article, unless the article is protected.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Furston525 The logo you have already uploaded to Commons at commons:File:Tw_GTT_logo_400x400_bl.png is such that it can be tagged as {{PD-textlogo}} on Commons and does not need to be handled in a non-free manner. See WP:Logos#Copyright-free_logos Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, one of those. I stand corrected. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

so how to i get the picture/logo to go from wiki commons to the actual wikapedia page? Thanks for your help I really appreciate it. If someone else knows how to do it I am happy for them to do it as i don't care if it is me or not. I just need the profile image on the page to be the actual company logo and not the outdated one. Furston525 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Furston525, I have updated the logo for you. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

oh my gosh! Thank you so much!!! I really appreciate it! Furston525 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair use photos of a person

If I want to edit a Wikipedia page about a person, is it allowable to upload a non-free photo of that person under fair use when ho other photos seem to be available? The non-free photos I have seen on other pages were all for deceased persons - is that a rule that you can't do it if the person is still living? I'm also wondering about the maximum allowed resolution. The photos I've seen on other pages all had maximum dimensions of 400 pixels or less is that a general rule? Fracton (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-free doesn't work for living people, unless they are imprisoned in North Korea or something like that. I know there is rule about resolution for non-free pics, but these days that is dealt with by bots, see [16] for example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It depends. Wikipedia has its own standards on the use of non-free media, which is actually more stringent than the legal limits. See WP:NFCC. In this case, NFCC #1 "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (bold mine) is relevant. Generally, we do allow limited use of non-free photographs of long-dead people, but for anyone currently alive, it is presumed that a photograph of them could be taken and appropriately licensed by the photographer for use in Wikipedia; given that we almost never use non-free photographs of living people. If we do use a non-free picture, it is expected to be low enough resolution to not infringe on the original, high-resolution picture. --Jayron32 19:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This was also answered at the help desk. please only ask in one place to avoid duplicating effort and splitting the discussion. RudolfRed (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

How can I request for an article to be semi-protected?

This article: Indonesia national football team is being vandalized a lot these days. I can I request for the page to be semi-protected? JoshuaInWiki (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RPP - X201 (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@JoshuaInWiki I don't see enough evidence of vandalism on that page to justify protection. It is not helped by your failure to leave informative edit summaries. Please address that in your future edits. Had you undone an edit and said 'reverting vandalism' there might be more reason to consider protection. None of the recent editors have had any edits left for them to warn about vandalism, so I'm afraid I need to point out that nobody WP:OWNS an article. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Error contacting the Parsoid/RESTBase server (HTTP 400): (no message)

Trying to publish an article and this error came up even after testing with Chrome and Firefox. Any clue what could be wrong? Danidamiobi (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Danidamiobi, welcome to the Teahouse. The experts are at WP:VPT, but I can tell you that this does happen sometimes (see two recent reports over at the Help Desk), and that it seems to be related to a server timeout, perhaps because you've had the editor open for an extended length of time. One tip: saving your data in a separate text editor of some sort helps to ensure that you don't end up losing all your hard work. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I also notice that you and the other editors whose reports I linked were using the Visual Editor. No guarantees, but switching to the source editor temporarily might be something to try. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks a lot for this. Sadly, I am on visual editor and can't switch to source edit because this same error keeps coming up. Further unfortunate in my case, I did not leave the tab open for so long. Danidamiobi (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Baldwyn, Mississippi

My hometown, Baldwyn, MS has a list of notable persons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwyn,_Mississippi We are small and like any town want to project a positive image. On notable persons list (what few we have only 4) is listed Laura Pendergest-Holt. Famous only for being arrested and jailed but she is really not famous to me. I attempted to remove her but it was promptly put back. However, if you look at other towns, or cities, all their notable persons are positive persons not criminals. That should be under a list of criminals. Note, the massive list of Memphis where I don't think they have a single criminal listed. Why do we have to suffer bad PR when other towns don't? 144.86.134.206 (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia is a neutrally written encyclopedia and it is not here to help towns "project a positive image". That is the job of your town government and/or chamber of commerce on their own websites. Laura Pendergest-Holt is a notable person who was born in your town, and her name should stay. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at Richmond, Utah and Lake Worth Beach, Florida. Both articles have mass murderers listed as "Notable people". Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You could be from Braunau am Inn, Gori, Georgia or numerous other places - we don't WP:Whitewash history, because you want to look good. - Arjayay (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The article for Laura Pendergest-Holt explicitly discusses her connection with Baldwyn. With that being the case, it really would be inappropriate to not mention her in the town's article. Every town has its negatives. Many celebrate them and turn them into tourist features in their own right. I would be wary of a place that claimed everything there was all sweetness and light. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk page help

Hello, I recently came across a very strange talk page. It doesn't start with a tmbox or other info "in yellow", as other talk pages do, but it instead starts with a misplaced section.

This is because an unexperienced user simply added text at the top of the page, without any header or signature.

I was wondering on how to handle this, since I'm not sure if I can just move other people's talk page posts, or add a signature for them (also, I'm afraid that a bot may add a missing signature with my username, since it thinks I was the one making the post, and didn't sign it). Do you have any advice? I tried searching on Help pages, but came across nothing.

The page I'm talking about is this: Talk:Visa policy of Mongolia.

Thanks in advance!

Lorenzo Diana (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lorenzo Diana, welcome to the Teahouse. General guidance is here, but to pick out the relevant points - yes, you're free to move misplaced comments like that one, and you can insert a signature using a template like {{unsigned}} (checking the page history for the information needed to fill it in). In this case, there's also a fair amount of inappropriate contact information (phone numbers and such) which could stand to be removed and possibly oversighted. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @199.208.172.35, I have now moved the comment, and tagged it with the {{unsigned}} template.

I will also look into oversight of the inappropriate information.

Thank you so much for your help!

Lorenzo Diana (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident those numbers are for the visa offices, and as such I wouldn't consider them as needing oversight. (We appreciate the concern, though.) DS (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding Pictures to an Article

I tend to stumble along trying to figure out how to do something. I can't figure out how to add a picture to an article. Please advise. 2nd Place Curse (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

2nd Place Curse, please see Help:Menu/Images and media and the pages that it links to. If something there doesn't make sense, ask about it here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 2nd Place Curse. Some questions here at the Teahouse have easy answers but yours does not, unfortunately. The copyright status of the picture needs to be analyzed. Which picture? What does the picture portray? What year was it taken or painted? What year was it first published, and where? What is the name of the photographer or artist? Where is the image hosted? What do you know about the picture's copyright status? Which article do you hope to add the picture to? Cullen328 (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

how can i unblocked games?

how can i unblocked games? 2603:8000:4E42:6624:4410:14D5:DBDA:51BE (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

hi ip user! the Teahouse is for Wikipedia-related questions (and other questions are best suited for the Reference desk, but since you're already here, I'm gonna answer it. if what you mean is pirating games or playing (paid) games for free, then apologies, we don't and can't give out links to those. however there's always actually free games you can check out: TV Tropes has a list of some of them here. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

How do you cite a YouTube video?

Hi! I want to cite a YouTube video and I checked the instructions in Template:YouTube. So when I applied it, an error occurs and I am now confused on how to do it. Can you give me instructions on how to do so? Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Lovelyquirks1 and welcome to the Teahouse! Generally, Youtube can't be used as a source, and on the template, it says "This is not a citation template." See reliable sources and WP:YOUTUBE for more information. Happy editing! Helloheart (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I already read the page. Thank you so much for the answer. Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I know that you shouldn't normally cite Youtube. However, there's this [official interview] of Giorno's dub actor, Phillip Reich, where around a minute and 3 seconds, he goes into the process of how he prepares of Giorno. I'm planning to make a draft for him, so I want to ask if this video is still alright to use, especially when I couldn't find any articles around the net that links to it. Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lovelyquirks1 So this video is Phillip Reich talking about himself and you intend to try to make an article about him? First, it doesn't help the case for WP:N. That said, it seems a reasonable WP:ABOUTSELF source. Template:Cite AV media can be used. Remember that you're not citing Youtube, you're citing anime impulse. Hope this helps! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I was making an article for Giorno Giovanna and he has enough WP:N for me to create a draft for him, and one of the things I want to add is to cite how his voice actors prepared themselves for the role. But thank you for the answer, this really helps a lot. Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lovelyquirks1. You can find some general information about the reliability of interviews as a source in WP:INTERVIEW. One thing to remember is to make sure you attribute any content you summarize from the interview in accordance with MOS:QUOTE, WP:INTEXT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; in other words, you should try and make it as clear as possible to clear to the reader that it's Reich talking about himself and his process by not to write too much in Wikipedia's voice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Greg Rothman

A user with the user name William G Rothman has been editing this article fairly heavily. No obvious declaration by the editor that they are the subject of the article or that they have a potential conflict of interest. I added the COI template notice on their talk page. Maybe a moderator should take a look at the article. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Article tagged for COI and noted on the talk page. If it continues it should be reported to WP:COIN. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

WGR has edited only this article, repeatedly since Dec 2021 removing text and refs that are negative about Rothman. As of 14 Jan, edits have been reverted. David notMD (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

My draft

hello!! I need help of my draft at Draft:List of Miss Earth editions like since my draft was declined, it said that submission should be merged to an existing article so this means that my current draft was declined, it should be merged to an existing article at Miss Earth page.. right??? Thanks in advance! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Cornerstone2.0, I imagine that the best thing would be to merge what's new in your table to the table that's already at Miss Earth#Venues. -- Hoary (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hoary you mean like replaced the table from my draft to the existing page table at Miss Earth#Venues or something or what? Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Look at both tables, Cornerstone2.0; decide if all the material within them is necessary; decide whether all the material worth retention can be put in a single, easily navigated table. If yes and yes, then put all the material in a single table. Or so I suppose, but I must admit to unfamiliarity with beauty pageants. (I also avoid tables where possible.) Perhaps somebody else here has a better idea. -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hoary yeah same.. I would wait if someone has a better idea before I'll edit it, I thought my draft would be the same as other beauty pageants edition page like separation from one page to another considering I did also left the Talk:Miss Earth. Hoping somebody have a better idea. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cornerstone2.0 Your draft table has more content and is better referenced, so I would be inclined to replace the one currently at Miss_Earth#Venues. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Mike Turnbull oh alright thanks!! I'll do it in a minute or so. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Wanted Help about completing an article.

Hello and hope you are fine to all the editors here. Is there anybody to help me complete an article my article got declined Draft:Mohammad Dawod Nabeel more than 4 time so there is anybody to help me? Famousme1 (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Famousme1 Unfortunately, it is very unlikely you will find others to help you work on your draft as I don't think that any well-sourced information independent of Nabeel exists that has given him significant coverage, as required to show he is notable in the specific way Wikipedia defines that word. Looking at the sparse sources you do have, I can't even access the daitoryo-movie.com website to assess or verify what it says (and I suspect is a blog written by him). This draft is all that you have worked on since you have created your account and I suggest you abandon trying to develop it further but instead add information to one of our very many existing articles that need expansion. That way you will gain experience of how Wikipedia works and may enjoy the experience of contributing. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

My submission is declined.

My submission Draft:Govt. Mizo Higher Secondary School is rejected because it seemed more like an ads to Greenman who declined it. Recognizing that certain elements in my article may have given the impression of it being more of an ads piece, I have removed some sentences which may have that impression. I am eager to receive feedback and guidance to ensure its acceptance. Thanks. H.Lallianmawia (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The second sentence in the draft reads "It has been serving the community for over two decades and has welcomed students from all over the state since its founding in 1996." This is blatant marketing speech. The draft contains words and phrases like "unfortunately", "the dream of high school education", "the hard work and determination of the missionaries", "generously donated", "a truly impressive sum", etc. I would say that it looks very much like an advert. Please see WP:NOTADVERT, MOS:FLOWERY, and Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 14:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

History section still has some promtional wording. Try to improve this before the next review. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Tools to check plagiarism

Hello, I had noticed many plagiarized text on this page directly from the citation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Nepal_relations I tried to correct it as much as I could. Is there any tool available on Wikipedia which I can use to see what else is plagirized text and copied directly from the citation? Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@ANLgrad: generally you can use Earwig's copyvio detector for this purpose, though it seems down at the moment. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. The link isn't opening. I will try again later. Maybe it will work after sometime. But, is there any tool within Wikipedia that can directly compare text of a page and the citations? ANLgrad (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@ANLgrad It's working for me now. You might also like to read Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations, where I have just added a paragraph on determining when specified text was inserted, and by whom. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Plant Use and usage project

Hello :)

There is this project http://uses.plantnet-project.org to categorize usage of plants. But it seems like a one man project and I would like to known if there is project like this one in wikipedia ? I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants but I don't see anything specialized in plants usages.

I can find disparate information like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicinal_botany which is deprecated or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_fixation. But I can't find a project that aims to centralized and organize this kind of information in wikipedia and link the information on the plant page.

So if someone know about such project in wikipedia I will be very interested to know o/

Thanks ! :) Haymillefolium (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Haymillefolium Wikipedia has nothing which equates to the website you refer to. Do you wish for the English Wikipedia to incorporate something similar as an article? If so, you may wish to ask at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants page.-- Quisqualis (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Quisqualis Okey thx ! I've done this :)

Haymillefolium (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Kpop group titles

I am a Kpop fan but the titles of articles seem weird. BTS is in all caps which is correct - but not Twice? Shouldn't it be TWICE, Ive should be IVE, and etc? Jishiboka1 (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jishiboka1. Twice and Ive (group) are in agreement with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#General rules. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jishibokai. BTS is an acronym, which we capitalize in article titles. TWICE and IVE are stylizations, which we don't capitalize in article titles. Both stylizations are noted at the beginning of their respective articles. Cullen328 (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Time code

What code do you have to type in next to a events date on an article for it to say "years ago"? I've seen some events have that, and other similar events not having that. Hgh1985 (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hgh1985, We have Years or months ago which is used in the format: {{Years or months ago|year|month}} but absolute dates are often better (consider the article may be printed, or found in an archive somewhere) JeffUK 22:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I knew I'd seen it somewhere MOS:RELTIME covers this. JeffUK 22:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)